Sunday, July 05, 2009
The high speed rail debate
I saw an article about this on cnn.com today. Apparently, President Obama has pledged $13bn to the cause and there is a split between those who say it will be financial self-supporting, those who say it can never be so and those who say that talk of financial viability is beside the point.
Of course, the last of the three is the right answer, and those who oppose it on financial grounds are the type of dinosaurs who should just hurry up and turn into oil already, like their far more interesting ancestors. But I digress.
The talk seems to be of trains in excess of 110mph. England had the ‘Inter-City 125’ over 30 years ago. In 2007, France broke the world record for a train, at 357.2 kph, which translates to a little under 225mph. So I would seriously question why the country which prides itself as being the greatest in the world is looking to upgrade to 30+ year old, and obviously inferior trains.
My vision is of 300mph trains on all new tracks, built through a combination of corporate and government financing with bond issues allowing the public to also invest. And I want to see these trains run from East to West and North to South. Yes, the cost will be hugs, but the cost of not doing it would be considerably greater in so very many ways.
First, a couple of reasons why this would be a good idea: If you could get from New York to Miami in under 4 hours, would you bother driving to the airport, leaving your car in the long term parking lot, checking in an hour or more before the flight time, waiting for the almost inevitably delayed take off, and then taking a cab from the airport to your destination, when the stations these trains will run between will be in City centres?
You can walk on these trains. They have proper refreshment cars. People who are very long legged or very overweight will not need to choose between travelling first class in order to fit into the seat or upset those sitting in front of them (that person being unable to recline their seat – I know this, because I was that person once) or next to them.
Would you consider a 10-hour train ride between California and New York when the plane supposedly takes about 5 ½ hours? But how long before your flight do you leave home? What is the actual door-to-door journey time? I suspect the actual difference in journey time would be closer to 2 hours than 4 ½. But how much more comfortable and hassle free would those hours be?
Are you perhaps an environmentalist? Think of the savings in gasoline and aviation fuel!
But the recent talk has been about intra-State rail links, connecting major cities in California and Florida to each other. For these routes, perhaps 300mph trains would be overkill, even though a mere 110 seems pointless and redundant even while being planned. But if you could get from LA to San Francisco in 2 ½ hours, or Jacksonville to Miami in 2 hours, might it keep you out of your car or be a far more attractive alternative to flying? Traffic on roads would improve, meaning better air quality, less traffic, less stress and less road works. There would be less delays in air travel, which would also become safer.
And the cost, while undoubtedly high, will be mitigated by a few factors that the status quo people are too blinkered to think of. Many people would work on these projects. A proportion of the jobs would actually pay decently. These people would put money back into the economy by spending. They would pay taxes. They would have health insurance!
And here’s another way this should and probably will be partly paid for: tax on air tickets and higher tolls on roads where these routes coincide with the new high-speed rail lines. True, people would scream that they are subsidising others against their wish. And true, the airlines would scream that their business was being strangled. But times must change.
We are killing our planet and clogging our roads, airports and airways. The cost of gasoline will only go one way in the future, and this plan would relieve the upward pressure. And ultimately, apart from the cost of fuel in dollars and cents at the pump, there is the very real, if less easily discernable cost of dealing with increased asthma and cancer rates and other health issue directly related poor air quality, as well as the cost of attempting to clean the air. Yes, whatever the dinosaurs say, times must change. And the sooner we get real and accept these changes, the healthier we, our children and grandchildren will be.
Viagra Online
Of course, the last of the three is the right answer, and those who oppose it on financial grounds are the type of dinosaurs who should just hurry up and turn into oil already, like their far more interesting ancestors. But I digress.
The talk seems to be of trains in excess of 110mph. England had the ‘Inter-City 125’ over 30 years ago. In 2007, France broke the world record for a train, at 357.2 kph, which translates to a little under 225mph. So I would seriously question why the country which prides itself as being the greatest in the world is looking to upgrade to 30+ year old, and obviously inferior trains.
My vision is of 300mph trains on all new tracks, built through a combination of corporate and government financing with bond issues allowing the public to also invest. And I want to see these trains run from East to West and North to South. Yes, the cost will be hugs, but the cost of not doing it would be considerably greater in so very many ways.
First, a couple of reasons why this would be a good idea: If you could get from New York to Miami in under 4 hours, would you bother driving to the airport, leaving your car in the long term parking lot, checking in an hour or more before the flight time, waiting for the almost inevitably delayed take off, and then taking a cab from the airport to your destination, when the stations these trains will run between will be in City centres?
You can walk on these trains. They have proper refreshment cars. People who are very long legged or very overweight will not need to choose between travelling first class in order to fit into the seat or upset those sitting in front of them (that person being unable to recline their seat – I know this, because I was that person once) or next to them.
Would you consider a 10-hour train ride between California and New York when the plane supposedly takes about 5 ½ hours? But how long before your flight do you leave home? What is the actual door-to-door journey time? I suspect the actual difference in journey time would be closer to 2 hours than 4 ½. But how much more comfortable and hassle free would those hours be?
Are you perhaps an environmentalist? Think of the savings in gasoline and aviation fuel!
But the recent talk has been about intra-State rail links, connecting major cities in California and Florida to each other. For these routes, perhaps 300mph trains would be overkill, even though a mere 110 seems pointless and redundant even while being planned. But if you could get from LA to San Francisco in 2 ½ hours, or Jacksonville to Miami in 2 hours, might it keep you out of your car or be a far more attractive alternative to flying? Traffic on roads would improve, meaning better air quality, less traffic, less stress and less road works. There would be less delays in air travel, which would also become safer.
And the cost, while undoubtedly high, will be mitigated by a few factors that the status quo people are too blinkered to think of. Many people would work on these projects. A proportion of the jobs would actually pay decently. These people would put money back into the economy by spending. They would pay taxes. They would have health insurance!
And here’s another way this should and probably will be partly paid for: tax on air tickets and higher tolls on roads where these routes coincide with the new high-speed rail lines. True, people would scream that they are subsidising others against their wish. And true, the airlines would scream that their business was being strangled. But times must change.
We are killing our planet and clogging our roads, airports and airways. The cost of gasoline will only go one way in the future, and this plan would relieve the upward pressure. And ultimately, apart from the cost of fuel in dollars and cents at the pump, there is the very real, if less easily discernable cost of dealing with increased asthma and cancer rates and other health issue directly related poor air quality, as well as the cost of attempting to clean the air. Yes, whatever the dinosaurs say, times must change. And the sooner we get real and accept these changes, the healthier we, our children and grandchildren will be.
Comments:
<< Home
You have to understand that anything this ambitious in the US takes 20-30 years to fully implement and it always begins with baby-steps like a paltry $13 billion for 110mph rail service. I would favor a plan that creates 220mph corridors between Boston and Washington via New York, between Chicago and St Louis via Kankakee and Champaign, and 220mph service between Los Angeles and San Diego via the Inland Empire. These three seed routes could be expanded and grown year-by-year until a nationwide HSR network is realized. To throw a ton of money at 11 corridors all at once is madness.
I agree with you, lexslamman. There will be baby steps and the longer distance links are for the future and not now, both because of cost and practicality and because the technology to make it an option people would choose (300 mph speeds) is not yet available.
So for now, let there be intra-State links. But please let them be 150mph or better. 110 is just not good enough for the USA. If itt isn't good enough for most European countries, why should it be here?
Post a Comment
So for now, let there be intra-State links. But please let them be 150mph or better. 110 is just not good enough for the USA. If itt isn't good enough for most European countries, why should it be here?
<< Home
