The construction and development of high-speed rails brings great convenience to people’s life. The fast speed and efficient transportation not only save time and energy for the passengers, but also provide a comfortable transportation for the riders. So most people favored this transportation tools and they are willing to choose high speed rails for their traveling. The HSR also promotes the development of tourism and economy. The cities that have HSR are more easily to attract business, tourists, jobs and talented personnel. As a reliable transportation, HSR provides more chance for people. In the long term, HSR reduces environmental damage, so it is a trail system solves many environmental problems.
Environmental Benefits of High-Speed Rail
High speed rails reduce the cars on roads and reduce the flights between two cities, especially on holidays. Fewer cars on the road means improved air quality. People would rather to take high speed rails than cars to travel due to the safety factors.
A classic study shows that it produces 0.545 pounds of carbon dioxide for each passenger mile, that is, a 240-mile car trip produces 157 pounds of carbon dioxide. And a 240-mile plane trip produces 133.7 pounds of carbon dioxide. If one half of car passengers and one half of the air line passengers all take the high speed rails, it will eliminate 113 pounds of carbon dioxide on a 240-mile trip.
Economic Benefits of High-Speed Rail
High speed rail accelerate the mobility of people and create more chance for young people. HSR can links the cities together along the train route and fosters the economic development. It expands the labor market and offers more jobs for people. At the same time, it attributes the tourism and promotes the consumption of visitor.
More Jobs Provided by High-Speed Rail
Millions of jobs are created during the construction of the HSR projects or the whole HSR system. A large number of people will be employed in the planning, designing, and construction or the maintenance of the HSR projects. Jobs can also be created by a new industry boomed by the construction of high speed rail such as the rail fastening system manufacturer for high speed rail.
High speed rail reduces the road traffic and saves time, energy and money for the passengers. In addition, HSR can’t be influenced by weather conditions, so the journey can’t be delayed.
HSR is the most convenient and comfortable transportation tools in the world. High speed, no delay, security, few restrictions, and a fast, on-time ride to your destination – this is what high speed rail provides. You needn’t have to get to the station early, turn off your shoes, turn off your phone and pay extra for the luggage. You won’t worry about the The bad weather influencing your journey on schedule. All you need to do is enjoying yourself and waiting to arrive in you destination.
High speed rail is safe and secure and its performance can’t be separated from the reliable high speed rail fastening systems and the rail fasteners. As the symbol of modernization, HSR accelerates the pace of our life and improve the of high speed rail not benefit individuals personally, but also avail to whole region or the whole country.
Looks more like an ad to me...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Looks more like an ad to me...
Johnny
It reads like a political ad.
Euclid It reads like a political ad.
A corporate ad, by a Chinese rail supply company. However, it is telling that the responders can only attack the OP's credentials. And the anti-HSR tendency of posters seems linked to other attitudes held in common.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Schlimm,
Actually I like HSR. Just can't see the economics of it ever being viable. Would be cool Detroit to Chicago though.
Why must we always limit an analysis to direct costs and revenues? The economic benefits of an appropriately built HSR network* extend far beyond a narrow and thus unrealistic P&L perspective. Ditto with most infrastructure in any nation.
* HSR (125-175 mph) corridors in NE, Mid-Atlantic, SE, Midwest, TX and Pacific Coast. Most would be <500 miles, though some would interconnect. HSR is inappropriate at greater distances because it is not time-competitive with air total time.
AGICO rail fasteners In addition, HSR can’t be influenced by weather conditions, so the journey can’t be delayed.
In addition, HSR can’t be influenced by weather conditions, so the journey can’t be delayed.
This doesn't seem to be the case in other HSR setups, so what makes this one special?
http://en.rfi.fr/visiting-france/20120728-french-storms-subside-after-tgv-delay-paris-brittany-line
"About high-speed TGV 3,000 passengers arrived between 45 minutes and four hours late at Paris’s Montparnasse station between 11.15pm Friday and 00.30am Saturday due to two weather-related incidents."
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/timetables-and-travel/delays-explained/high-winds/
"Overhead power lines sway in high winds and can tangle around a train’s pantograph (the part connecting it to the overhead lines), pulling the lines down. When this occurs trains are unable to run and services may be re-routed"
http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-evacuates-50000-rail-passengers-amid-new-year-travel-delays-in-guangdong-02032016105945.html
"Authorities in the southern Chinese province of Guangdong were scrambling on Wednesday to evacuate hundreds of thousands of passengers stranded at the Guangzhou Railway Station after delays caused by snowy weather."
I guess the OP's high speed line comes with a dome built over the top of it, to keep the weather out. While I agree that trains in general are affected by weather less than planes, to claim the HSR "can't" be influenced by weather is ridiculous.
An "expensive model collector"
schlimmWhy must we always limit an analysis to direct costs and revenues?
Why don't we limit the scope of who will be expected to foot the bill to those who actually intend to ride on the thing. That way all other economic considerations become moot.
Convicted OneWhy don't we limit the scope of who will be expected to foot the bill to those who actually intend to ride on the thing. That way all other economic considerations become moot.
You have to consider those who will otherwise be affected by HSR. F'rinstance, if 1000 people per week (just to pull a number out of the air) ride between endpoints A and Z, that means 1000 less people will be using the highways or airports. This may reduce congestion for both, which would then reduce the need to increase capacity for either. This can be a factor for enroute stops as well.
Thus, a benefit accrues to people not riding HSR, and it could be argued that said benefit might come at a cost as well.
I wonder if anybody has done a comparative cost analysis to building new regional airports at the main HSR stops and substituting regional air service instead of HSR.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
tree68Thus, a benefit accrues to people not riding HSR, and it could be argued that said benefit might come at a cost as well.
And don't forget all the nu-wave millenials who will want to relocate to all towns served by HSR, and bring their high paying careers with them. They'll buy tons of hotdogs from all the failing restaurants in town so everybody WINS!!! (yes, this is sarcasm)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDOI0cq6GZM
dehusmanI wonder if anybody has done a comparative cost analysis to building new regional airports at the main HSR stops and substituting regional air service instead of HSR
You wouldn't do it that way; you'd put the regional facilities at the best 'center points' for ground transportation (analogous to what Sanford and Lorton represent for the Auto-Train) and then use small aircraft for regional-to-major transport.*
At one time a few years ago, the FAA had a plan to expand the regional hub network to some 4000-odd facilities, with things like widespread access to GPS for short-final guidance and closer to all-weather operation. (I read about this in the AOPA "Pilot" magazine, where I suspect it was discussed more than once!)
Here is a link to the FAA 'airport system plan' for New England,
* ... and yes, connections to any corridors or actual HrSR/HSR that provided service quality better than air carriers in the same lanes. No need to be bigoted about aircraft-only.
Note that a set of comparatively small feeder planes can be scheduled between any two destination pairs of these airports, responsive to demand up to considerable 'regular' traffic, and this among other things gets around much of the problem with scheduling a 'reasonable' number of trains that serve all the interested communities at reasonable hours. Many of the arguments advanced by GM in the Fifties for substituting diesel buses for streetcars also apply fairly accurately to such a scheme on the larger distance scale.
Convicted One schlimm Why must we always limit an analysis to direct costs and revenues? Why don't we limit the scope of who will be expected to foot the bill to those who actually intend to ride on the thing. That way all other economic considerations become moot.
schlimm Why must we always limit an analysis to direct costs and revenues?
I suppose you would like to do the same with schools/higher ed? Fire departments? Police? Roads?
As usual, anti-government right wingers have made opposition to HSR a mantra, making a rational discussion another exercise in futility.
We have an instance in which a participant's first post is a PR piece obviously produced by a group effort with commercial motivations.
We have some (perhaps many) posters with whom I disagree. Nevertheless, I pay a good deal of attention to what they have to say; I try to understand their point of view.
However, the claims presented by this poster are just a rabbit I'm not going to bother to chase.
schlimmI suppose you would like to do the same with schools/higher ed? Fire departments? Police? Roads?
I believe that the roads ARE paid for by their end users, aren't they? I believe that is where my "wheel tax" goes to anyway.
"Pay to play" wouldn't bother me one bit with many of the other services you mention, but the Bernie supporter trapped inside this anti-government right wingnut makes me a staunch supporter of public education. It makes future tax payers more productive.
schlimmAs usual, anti-government right wingers have made opposition to HSR a mantra, making a rational discussion another exercise in futility.
What does this have to do with the point he was making, which is that the cost of HSR, in the United States largely a service for the rich who have a reason to shave a few hours off a ground-transportation trip, ought to be borne by the group or the interests that will likely benefit so disproportionately. (And yes, I think that should include at least some of the externalities.)
In Memphis we were considering a trolley extension to the airport. Now, most cities that have transit to airports presume the service will be rapid and convenient, an alternative to taxis and cars. Memphis turned it into public transit for people living in the areas between 'downtown' and the airport, winding up with something very little if any faster than existing bus service, with no luggage service or amenities to speak of ... for about a $4 billion (not a misprint) expected cost. This was justified in the planning-options discussion as a way for underprivileged airport employees to reach their jobs ... something. Less expensively? More expediently? Riding a big air-conditioned LRV instead of a big air-conditioned bus? At least if you built a minimum-time connection with less grand infrastructure, you might get a sizable number of air passengers to ride it ... but there again, if you get the rich to pay for their convenience it's likely to price itself out of interest, compared to the alternatives, and in my own opinion it just isn't fair to soak the taxpaying base here for the long-term cost of something that disproportionately benefits a relative small number of people... be they rich or poor.
I have to worry that soaking the entire Amtrak network to build out a faster NEC ... and at this point much of the cost is for just a couple of minutes of travel time, or getting around neglected key infrastructure as at the Hudson crossing, Portal Bridge, and the Baltimore undifferentiated disaster. Certainly I'd love to see a good network of high-speed trains, but can I justify providing the seats and the service at massive taxpayer expense when taxpayers have little use for the result?
The analogies to schools, services, and roads fall to the ground: those benefit citizens living in the area whether or not they use them explicitly. Making the claim that HSR 'lowers congestion' or provides a better alternative than, say, regional air that requires no expensive ROW construction or electrification, definitely requires some version of what Convicted One was saying: let the people who are going to have to pay for the thing decide whether or not to spend their money that way. There have certainly been examples where new rail construction or service have turned out to 'pay their way' more than expected, but almost all the ones I've seen are either massively underwritten by governments that can't engineer out of their own way (like the California HSR boondoggle) or have so much associated development (or subsidy from other firms or governments) to make them unrepresentative of future 'public' development ... when the opportunity cost to society for the expensive construction and operation and more frequent replacement is so markedly high.
Dakguy201 a PR piece obviously produced by a group effort with commercial motivations.
That's the thing with a great deal of these public works "landmark" projects. The supporters try to stuff you full of how wonderful things will be once their pet gets up and running. But the true beneficiaries seldom go beyond the contractors and special interests that profit directly from the building of said dream.
It is a nicely done piece. But to be honest with you, this was my first thought- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-H4LT-WZWE And that's not taking sides on the debate about HSR, that's feeling like someone only joined the forum to push a product.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
AGICO rail fasteners turn off your shoes
turn off your shoes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWhljf7tY_c
http://www.agicorailfastener.com/blog/welcome-to-agico-rail-fastener-manufacturer.html
Fire departments are under the gun in many communities. Something about this bunch of guys (and girls) sitting around all day waiting for the alarm to ring. Do we really need all of them (not until the alarm rings...). One nearby small city recently cut their fire department by about a third. Another is trying to do much the same.
Many fire departments have investigated billing - some actually do it. That's how emergency medical services works, but there's not a "9-1-1" ambulance service out there making much of a profit - they all provide other services as well (ambulettes, etc).
And several fairly large commercial ambulance services have folded in the recent past.
People don't seem to have a problem with the police - and the police are often a profit center (you think they're writing those tickets to try and change your behavior?).
And people drive on the roads - so the feedback on bad roads is virtually immediate. Many highway supervisors are elected...
What's amazing is the the railroad I run on (originally the Mohawk and Malone) was built for a paltry sum. Even adjusted for inflation, the amount wouldn't cover the cost of the environmental impact study today. Granted, it wasn't HSR (and only ran around 50 MPH in its heyday), but...
It looks like an ad to me too, so I flagged it to the moderator. Runing ads on these forums is inappropriate. Everyone should tell the moderator that this is a no no.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
JPS1It looks like an ad to me too, so I flagged it to the moderator. Runing ads on these forums is inappropriate. Everyone should tell the moderator that this is a no no.
Gotta admit, though, it's brought on some decent discussion!
JPS1 tree68 Looks more like an ad to me... It looks like an ad to me too, so I flagged it to the moderator. Runing ads on these forums is inappropriate. Everyone should tell the moderator that this is a no no.
It is an ad, as was pointed out long ago. One wonders if the topic were something else you'd go running to mommy?
RMEWhat does this have to do with the point he was making, which is that the cost of HSR, in the United States largely a service for the rich who have a reason to shave a few hours off a ground-transportation trip, ought to be borne by the group or the interests that will likely benefit so disproportionately.
You make many good posts, but here, instead of discussing the societal benefits of HSR, you retreat to a political argument coupled with error. Question. Have you frequently ridden HSR in other counties? Where? How many times? Not very much is my sense, because if you had, you would have seen the ridership represents a pretty wide socioeconomic range of the population in those countries. Or else you were not observing.
schlimmNot very much is my sense, because if you had, you would have seen the ridership represents a pretty wide socioeconomic range of the population in those countries.
This is true. On the other hand, little of the 'socioeconomic range' in those countries, or the demographics of their riders, or the structure of the governments financing the HSR, have any particular relevance to actual practice in the United States, so I suspect the 'coupling with error' may be considerably stronger on your part for advancing such an argument as if it were somehow authoritative.
I would like very much to be wrong on all these points. But there has been very little evidence since I started looking at 'technology transfer' from European to American practice in the 1960s that I will be.
On the other hand, I think much of your corridor argument (that reasonably-scheduled rail service will appeal to a wide demographic and produce useful social results) is accurate ... just not for much involving actual HSR instead of more modest (say, 110mph max) service.
RME has it. HIGHER-speed rail has proved sufficient in this country to draw riders in numbers that demonstrate social usefulness if not (always) the dollars to cover operating expenses.
More than that, HSR, is gilding the lily at a price we can't afford and postpones improvements into a future that is of little interest to either taxpayers or capitalists.
schlimm JPS1 tree68 Looks more like an ad to me... It looks like an ad to me too, so I flagged it to the moderator. Runing ads on these forums is inappropriate. Everyone should tell the moderator that this is a no no. It is an ad, as was pointed out long ago. One wonders if the topic were something else you'd go running to mommy?
The term is moderator! You are the only one who appears to wonder!
Your comment is inappropriate. If you don't think that the moderator should have been notified, you could have said so without the sarcastic put down.
Running an ad on these forums is inappropriate. Just who do you think I should have notified?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.