5 ms·
i am about as pro-green as it gets. However, I am really uncertain about whether passenger trains are a good idea. In most countries they are subsidized. the u
by asdf333 18y ago
i am about as pro-green as it gets.
However, I am really uncertain about whether passenger trains are a good idea. In most countries they are subsidized. the upkeep costs are high...the US is a very geographically sparse place...
I'd much rather have them spend money on alternative energy, electric cars and funding startups at an arms length by investing in VC firms. (or running an independent VC arm)
- chadmalik 18y agoDoesn't it seem like having a high speed train network that connects the major metro areas is at least somewhat of a good idea? This is a good hedge against peak oil since trains can be powered by electricity. Also, arguably if the trains are used to move goods they can get trucks off the road and really decrease road maintenance costs. If you look into the wear and tear vehicles make on pavement, each extra pound is exponentially more damage. Trucking companies actually are heavily subsidized by the road infrastructure but nobody notices it ;) I do wonder if we need high speed trains. Regular trains might be a better long term bet.
- thingie 18y agoActually, railways in USA already has much higher portion in freight transport than in EU (40% to 10%). It is not that big surprise, as big parts of the rail system are almost freight-only. High speed rail might work to connect nearby metro areas, but almost certainly, trains across half or whole US will not work. It's simply too far away, and it wouldn't be any competition to airplanes. Even EU high speed rail are mostly, in their current state, few scattered islands connecting large cities within a single country.
- joeyo 18y ago> ... big parts of the rail system are almost freight-only. Rail can be a very cheap way to move freight. Slower than truck, sure. But quite inexpensive. I'd love to see more rail freight. The problem however is that in many parts of the country the same lines are shared by both passengers and freight. This means that for starters those lines are not going to be suitable for high speed passenger rail anyway. But beyond that, Amtrak gets second priority on those lines. This is one of the reasons for the frustrating delays that rail travel in the US always seems to have.
- thingie 18y agoGerman high speed rail lines are also shared by passengers and freight, it is not problem. Old rail lines can almost never be used for high speeds, all high speed rail lines are built completely new. Original constructors never thought about speeds around 300 km/h. For example, HS line can afford slopes with steeper grades, because high speed train units have more powered axles and have less problems with them than one or two engines with 20 cars. On the other hand, you need curves with much higher diameters. So HS lines are different from the ordinary ones.
- CWuestefeld 18y agoWell, if we base a decision on historical performance of Amtrak, then it's not a good idea. Amtrak is a huge loser. If we're really worried about "green" efforts these days, we should consider strongly what modes will move people most efficiently. This is one of the areas where common knowledge differs badly from reality. See, e.g., http://eapblog.worldbank.org/content/comparing-the-fuel-efficiency-of-planes-trains-automobiles-%E2%80%93-and-cheeseburgers http://eapblog.worldbank.org/content/comparing-the-fuel-effi... Trains are much less efficient than, say, buses, due largely to problems in filling the trains fully. And since this is all so political, you can expect this train to be worse thanks to the political wrangling that will force the decisions about stations and schedules to overwhelm efficient routing plans.
- briansmith 18y agoAmtrak's Acela is sometimes (regularly?) profitable. It is all the low-speed routes where it loses money.
- omouse 18y agoCompared to Canada, the US is more densely populated and high-speed trains could connect many more cities than in Canada. The airlines are also subsidized and use a lot of fuel and the upkeep costs are high. I think every year there's one airline somewhere in the world that's declaring bankruptcy.
- mnemonicsloth 18y agoCheck your facts. The UN has data here: http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=30&country=CA#rowCA http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=30&... The urban population in the US is 80% of the total. In Canada, it's 81%. Interestingly, Australia is near the top of the list (92%).
- amanfredi 18y agoI didn't check if his facts are correct, but you haven't disproven them. Population density is people divided by land area, not percentage living in urban areas.
- potatolicious 18y agoBut for the purpose of rail what you are concerned with are people in urban areas...
- rjurney 18y agohttp://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/hsr_corridors_2009.pdf http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Research/hsr_corridors_2009... Look at the corridors. They only exist where people are dense.
- natrius2 18y agoNo one is proposing high speed rail for the sparse parts of the country. http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203 http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203
- briansmith 18y agoThe best way to do it is to have regional train networks, and use planes for inter-region travel. For example you would have train networks like L.A.- S.F., Chicago-Minneapolis, Chicago-St. Louis, Austin-Houston-Dallas-San Antonio, N.Y.C.-Boston-D.C., etc. Unfortunately, that won't work politically. It basically treats red states like oceans that should be flown over, and puts all the high-speed rail in blue states (except the Texas network). It is probably more fiscally responsible to finance these networks at the state level than at the federal level.
- joeyo 18y ago> In most countries they are subsidized. As if highways are not!
- anamax 18y agoActually, they're not, at least not in the US. Some places they're close to break-even, but that's often because they're subsidizing other forms of transit. As I mention above, we've had this discussion.