Let’s not forget that 747’s and all passenger planes last a damned long time as well and the maintenance is known. The airframes themselves have an indefinite lifespan and the scheduled maintenance means the planes themselves do as well. There are still DC-3’s, 707’s, and 727’s flying in plenty of places around the world and they were built from the 1930’s - the early 1960’s. That $200 million price tag on Boeings largest jet is going to rack up an incredible amount of passenger miles especially since the airlines are great at keeping their planes in the air the most possible hours in the day 365 days a year unless they need to be taken out for maintenance in which the turnaround is as tight as possible.
That brings us to our two other major flaws with high-speed trains:
They can’t readily change routes as passenger and economic conditions dictate.
The trains themselves are very difficult to keep in service as long as planes. All those moving parts and inferior structural integrity to begin with mean that 40 years of routine service are going to cost more in maintenance. Plus, they are broken down by car so the maintenance repeats itself. 747’s (or more commonly are much more cheaply 737’s) are expensive to work on but they only have a few jet engines and three sets of wheels and major moving parts. The world-wide fleet is much larger and there are plenty of mechanics and parts to go around. A high-speed train might need dedicated mechanics to fly wherever the train breaks down and the parts are much more proprietary.
Again, can anyone articulate a point for high-speed train travel outside of a few highly populated U.S. corridors? It seems like the PowerPoint presentation for this might consists of two slides with the contingency for infinite money.
I dare anyone to say what it is supposed to accomplish given the (airline and car) competition and the drawbacks acknowledged.
I wouldn’t dream of justifying superfast trains anywhere besides the Boston-Washington corridor.
But there, ISTM it should make a certain amount of sense. Especially in an era where you’re supposed to get to the airport 2 hours before flight time, it makes sense timewise. Right there, that’s most of the time you’re going to spend on the train, even on a Bos-DC trip.
And in terms of cost…if the costs are so bloody infinite, why do other countries keep building them? Are trains magically cheaper to run in Japan? Do they lack decent sites for airports? Are they willing to subsidize train travel beyond all economic reason? What’s the deal?
Easy. Reduction of fossil-fuel dependence. HSR trains run on electric power – which can be generated by nuclear or hydroelectric or geothermal power plants. Airplanes and automobiles run on petroleum derivatives – and, I am sure, will still be running on petroleum derivatives (not electric batteries or hydrogen fuel cells) after you and I are gone.
From previous discussions on this topic, both here and elsewhere, I’ve started to wonder if it’s a cultural/ideological thing, with Americans being far more reluctant to accept overt subsidising of infrastructure, and more accepting of hidden subsidies (as in road transport etc.)
I won’t say it is every reason but the U.S. is just too big. Japan is tiny and Western Europe is merely small in comparison. Our population density is much lower than either. It would be too hard to build routes that people want to travel between. Our excellent interstate highway system is another factor and usually beats trains at their own game High speed trains are already done in the places that make sense (Bos-Wash) and that surely isn’t profitable.
To be fair, the airline industry is subsidized as well in terms of airports, regulatory agencies, and air traffic control. I have no idea how that stacks up to train costs but planes don’t need infrasture built for every inch of their path and they can go where they are needed.
Reducing reliance on fossil fuels is an admiral (? ) goal but what is the point. We literally will not ever, ever run out of jet fuel (kerosene) because we can make it from lots of virtually infinite resources. The only issue is the ticket cost and rising fuel prices will maybe push enough people to alternate forms of transportation to make something like this worthwhile on a very small scale expanded over what we have already.
Actually, Europe (not counting Russia) has roughly the same land area as the U.S. (not counting Alaska). But you’re right about the population density – Europe (not counting Russia) has three times the population of the U.S. (and it makes no difference whether you count Alaska).
There’s a mix of a serious point (the car-oriented infrastructure of so much of residential America) and a historical one (the equivalence of the establishment of the interstate system with the post-war creation of major rail networks in Europe).expanded over what we have already.
It’s not just a question of running out of fossil fuels. We now have a lot of good reasons to believe that it would be best for the human race if the reserves of fossil fuels remaining in the ground should never be burned.
C’mon, you know what I mean. CO2? Greenhouse gases? Anthropogenic climate change? Any of that ring a bell?
It does ring a bell but the most logical conclusion isn’t:
Fossil fuels bad
Planes burn fossil fuel
Planes = bad
Trains = good
Like most environmental talk (and I am an environmentalist in a way), the analysis is enormously more complex than looking at the end product (the train, plane, or car) and basing an analysis based on that. You have to take the whole system into account and that is much harder. Environmental tend to be monumentally stupid when it comes to what has the least environmental impact.
We are still going to burn fossil fuels especially coal at power plants that will drive the trains. The trains are also a consumer of fossil fuels.
Cars used to be a much greater polluter than they are now because of technology. What if I said that we could take $1 billion that it would cost to build a single rail line and used that to make jet engines more efficient than an equivalent train would be? People tend to get single-minded about this stuff and there is no need to be. I am at the moment because the costs and benefits are so hideously against widespread rail lines.
In Europe it’s reckoned that using a high-speed rail network any journey of under three hours is quicker going by train than flying. This is because of trains being city centre to city-centre, and not having to have the long check-in times you have at airports.
Both the Spanish and French networks are planning to raise their speeds, resulting in the “break-even” point increasing to four hours.
I don’t think that’s quite right, but you’re part of the way there. Europe was pretty well blanketed with railway lines by the early part of the 1900s, and didn’t get swamped with vehicles and roads until quite late. So most of the populated areas are relatively train-friendly (due to having grown up around the railway stations). The US had a huge railway boom during the late 1800s as well, but had much more territory to cover and a lot more growth occurring after Mr Ford made cheap cars readily available (earlier than in any other country). Europe and Japan grew up with trains and the US grew up with cars.
Still, all we need is another major middle eastern war that will kick oil prices up by another $20-$30 per barrel for a decade or so, and I’m sure Yankee ingenuity will start to find a way around all these issues.
I’ve heard this argument before, and I’ve never understood it. I mean, so what? Metros average daily ridership is 700,000 trips. Assuming that everyone rides round-trip, that means Metro carries 350,000 passengers every day. Are you seriously telling me you think it would be a better use of money to put 350,000 more cars onto the beltway and DC streets?
Taking japan as an example, remember that the whole country is the size of california, and the HSR runs on only one central island, along the most heavily traveled line in the nation, between its two most important regions.
OK, but remember I’m talking just about the Bos-Wash corridor; I’ve already conceded that high-speed rail makes little sense anywhere else in the U.S. that I can think of.
But the Bos-Wash corridor has quite high population densities, which have to approach or surpass those of most of Europe. Seems that the economics of high-speed rail should work there, if they work in Europe and Japan.
You’re more likely to get paying customers and cheap land by building one from Barstow to Las Vegas. Extend the MetroRail service to Barstow from LA, run a lot of trains, and then a maglev between Barstow and Vegas. Flat desert and lots of sunsine means solar could provide a substantial amount of the power for the system. The ability to get from Union Station to the Strip in 2 hours with no airports would take off like a rocket.
I think there would be a definite market for a midwest system, centered on Chicago, extending to Minn/St. P, Milwaukee, Detroit, Indy, St Louis.
I’m always a little surprised when folks carp about gov’t subsidies to rail, or the costs of laying/maintaining track. The FAA, airports, and roads aren’t free.
From a ridership standpoint, the Bos-Wash corridor is the only rough that makes sense for high-speed rail. But if you limit high-speed to that route, good luck getting the Senators and Reps from the other 44 states to vote for any federal funding for the project.
) goal but what is the point. We literally will not ever, ever run out of jet fuel (kerosene) because we can make it from lots of virtually infinite resources. The only issue is the ticket cost and rising fuel prices will maybe push enough people to alternate forms of transportation to make something like this worthwhile on a very small scale expanded over what we have already.