America is a democratic republic. All sorts of people influence our society, including lobbyists, some of whom have more clout than others. In an authoritarian society the outcomes are influenced by lobbyists who tend to look a lot like military thugs. I prefer the kind that we have in the U.S.
In a sense we are all lobbyists. Every time we vote or write to one of our elected representatives, we are trying to influence the government to promote our interests.
Under the worse case scenario, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, airplanes contribute about three per cent of the emissions thought to contribute to climate change. Moreover, the newer engines coming on-line are far more efficient and environmentally benign today's engines.
I have no argument against high speed rail. I have an argument against using taxpayer money for a commercial activity that is only used by a very small percentage of the population and does not have a prayer of standing on its own.
As I have argued in other posts, the best outcome for the U.S. would be to slowly stop subsidizing all forms of transport and allow the most competitive forms to emerge in the markets that they are best equipped to serve. This is not likely to happen. But taking taxpayer money to build HSR is akin to throwing gasoline on a fire. At the end of the day the subsidy matrix grows and becomes more complex, with the taxpayers holding the bag.
Imperfect as it is a smartly regulated competitive market, in the long run, will force a better use of scarce economic resources than any other economic model.
Phoebe Vet Sam1 If UPS or any other shipper had to wear the market cost of shipping by HSR, given its cost structure, they could not afford to do so. That's what Fred Smith's college professor told him about his idea for FedEx.
Sam1 If UPS or any other shipper had to wear the market cost of shipping by HSR, given its cost structure, they could not afford to do so.
If UPS or any other shipper had to wear the market cost of shipping by HSR, given its cost structure, they could not afford to do so.
That's what Fred Smith's college professor told him about his idea for FedEx.
Fred Smith started FedEx with a solid, self sustaining business model. Unlike every HSR project in the world, he received zero subsidies from the government.
The first FedEx airplanes were relatively low cost, small, used jets. They were what the start-up business could sustain.
I was a pilot for an outfit in Hartford, Connecticut. I remember seeing the inaugural flight into Hartford, which used Brainerd Field, which had lower landing fees than Bradley International, and being impressed with the soundness of his business plan.
Successful business people understand the need for a cost effective, sustainable business plan if they want to succeed, which is unlike most government sponsored programs, where the primary skills of the managers is to manipulate the politicians into giving them more taxpayer money irrespective of the viability of their project.
I would love to have the names of the HSR's anywhere in the world that function without massive government subsidies and are able to charge market rates for their services.
By the way, how do you know what Fred Smith's college professor told him? Where you there?
Those who believe the "free market" determines whether we use airplanes or trains probably also think we live in a "democracy." I believe that "corrupt lobbyist" describes our economic policy; and I know that we are vulnerable to this because our nation is in fact a "federal republic."
For example: I took a tour of one of the power plants on Maui several years ago. One of the very expensive fixtures associated with the combustion turbine was a distillery for making pure water to quench the flame and reduce pollution. Our tour guide (Maui Electric Co. President) said that if airplane turbines were held to the same pollution standards, the price of air travel would be much higher. This illustrates that decisions regarding our economic infrastructure are not ruled by equitable scientific logic.
Our economy desparately needs logical, scientific, and environmentally sound policies. Unwarranted use of the Black-Scholes options pricing model (which assumes that extreme price changes are unlikely) caused the 1987 stock market crash. Recently, erroneous assumptions that multiple borrowers would never default simultaneously resulted in a global crisis. It does not make sense to argue against high-speed rail for economic reasons, because our economy does not make sense.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Airbus may have learned a lesson or two from the SST, albeit how not to do it, but it is successful largely because it developed a business model that could compete with the American large commercial airplane manufacturers.
If the Soviets ever let market forces govern what they did, it would be interesting to know the answer.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
carnej1 Phoebe Vet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2O8V25Jmo UPS is a private corporation that also chooses the best way to move packages. Imagine how much better it would be on a HIGH SPEED train. Of course UPS moves quite a bit of traffic by rail (intermodal) currently...
Phoebe Vet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2O8V25Jmo UPS is a private corporation that also chooses the best way to move packages. Imagine how much better it would be on a HIGH SPEED train.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im2O8V25Jmo
UPS is a private corporation that also chooses the best way to move packages.
Imagine how much better it would be on a HIGH SPEED train.
Of course UPS moves quite a bit of traffic by rail (intermodal) currently...
Asuming there are viable HSR corridors, why not start with well cars with TGV-type trucks and electronic brakes? Adding fiberglass covers to reduce drag around different size, boxy, and often outside-ribbed containers poses issues for overhead power and transfer operations that need to be resolved. And design the electrical system for longer trains of multiple coupled blocks.
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
The ButlerI fear the distances are too great here in the States.
Please allow me to rephrase.
Pretty much abandoned by the Railroads, who no longer needed a passenger station.
The current Charlotte Amtrak station is in a less than upscale neighborhood, in a NS yard. I believe it was their passenger station sometime in the past.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=35.230802~-80.847756&style=h&lvl=15&tilt=-89.999983711037&dir=0&alt=3978.73510291148&cam=35.230802~-80.847756&scene=21382234&phx=0.0975383791466375&phy=-0.601828297866265&phscl=4.89778819368446&encType=1
The big arrow in the drawing is already an NS active ROW. They plan to move some tracks around to eliminate conflicts.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=35.230802~-80.847756&style=h&lvl=18&tilt=-89.9999836886774&dir=251.495833853116&alt=571.115036007948&cam=35.230802~-80.847756&scene=-1&phx=0&phy=0&phscl=1&encType=1
The old Richmond Station is now a museum, that even includes some RR exhibits on the tracks.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&FORM=LMLTCP&cp=37.553684~-77.449604&style=h&lvl=17&tilt=-41.8540882861176&dir=353.969220015603&alt=825.828811148182&cam=37.554603~-77.466946&scene=20635422&phx=-0.131051654234365&phy=0.480823186833282&phscl=1&encType=1
Sam1 During the 1960s, if I remember correctly, proponents of the SST (Super Sonic Transport) argued that we had to build one, and the federal government had to put up most of the money. If we did not do so, the Europeans would become the dominate commercial airplanes builder, and the U.S. aircraft industry would be relegated to second class status. ... Given the cost of HSR, in particular, I believe the best passenger rail solution in the U.S., which is applicable only in high density corridors where the construction of addition highway and airway capacity is impracticable, is rapid rail, i.e. frequently scheduled trains running at an average speed of 80 to 85 mph.
During the 1960s, if I remember correctly, proponents of the SST (Super Sonic Transport) argued that we had to build one, and the federal government had to put up most of the money. If we did not do so, the Europeans would become the dominate commercial airplanes builder, and the U.S. aircraft industry would be relegated to second class status.
...
Given the cost of HSR, in particular, I believe the best passenger rail solution in the U.S., which is applicable only in high density corridors where the construction of addition highway and airway capacity is impracticable, is rapid rail, i.e. frequently scheduled trains running at an average speed of 80 to 85 mph.
despite the US dropping out and England-France going ahead with the SST, a French company, Airbus, still managed to take a good deal of business away from US plane manufacturers, so I have to assume there are many other factors involved in high speed supremacy and overall transportation supremacy.
Which then supports the argument in your closing paragraph, maybe supremacy, or even adequacy, doesn't come so much from making trains go super fast, but rather trying to keep them from going so agonizingly slow as they do so often now.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
Phoebe Vet THAT is what made the property too valuable to just sit there idle. The old stations were pretty much abandoned.
THAT is what made the property too valuable to just sit there idle. The old stations were pretty much abandoned.
Those 2 sentences don't make much sense together. If the property was too valuable to just sit there idle then the tendency would be for it not to be idle, but you say they were abandoned. If they were abandoned then the property must not have been all that valuable.
Maybe I picked a bad example with Richmond, I didn't know that the old station was still there, I just knew that Amtrak relocated, I assumed one reason was because somebody had sold the old station. I also thought another reason was either the Florida and New Orleans routes worked better if they diverged from the Newport News route before downtown.
In your Charlotte example, where's the current Amtrak station relative to this proposal? I'm assuming the proposed Amtrak location is the big arrow in the middle of your graphic that says "canopy" and "future air rights development".
oltmannd
I remember speaking with an Albanian at the Rensalier station about why the station wasn't in downtown. He said that he liked the Rensalier location better, that downtown Albany didn't work for most of the population. Of course there's a chicken and egg argument there, did downtown die because the train left, did the downtown train station die because downtown died? And vice versa for restoring downtown and the downtown station.
ns3010 We all know that, compared to the rest of the world, we are way behind in the race of high speed rail travel.
We all know that, compared to the rest of the world, we are way behind in the race of high speed rail travel.
During the 1960s, if I remember correctly, proponents of the SST (Super Sonic Transport) argued that we had to build one, and the federal government had to put up most of the money. If we did not do so, the Europeans would become the dominate commercial airplanes builder, and the U.S. aircraft industry would be relegated to second class status. Fortunately, it did not turn out that way. The Europeans built an SST, which from a commercial perspective was a dismal failure. They airlines that operated them never came close to breaking even on them let alone turning a profit. Eventually, as we know, the SST was retired.
The lesson to be learned from the SST debate is that the United States needs to adopt transport solutions that best fit its needs. What other countries are doing is irrelevant, other than the U.S. can sometimes develop insights from their best practices that might be applied here.
Maglev Two more points on subsidies: express freight can add significant revenue to rail service. By shipping US mail on airplanes, the government is subsidizing airlines and denying Amtrak revenue. Also, retail outlets in train stations can provide important funding for improvements and expansion. I recall that "Duty Free Shoppers" was a major source of revenue for Honolulu International Airport. Of course, there are limited benefits from passenger traffic if a station sees one train every other day -- but get that frequency up to several trains a day, and see how much interest there is in renting retail space.
Two more points on subsidies: express freight can add significant revenue to rail service. By shipping US mail on airplanes, the government is subsidizing airlines and denying Amtrak revenue.
Also, retail outlets in train stations can provide important funding for improvements and expansion. I recall that "Duty Free Shoppers" was a major source of revenue for Honolulu International Airport. Of course, there are limited benefits from passenger traffic if a station sees one train every other day -- but get that frequency up to several trains a day, and see how much interest there is in renting retail space.
The U.S. Postal Service, which is a quasi-governmental business, selects the best alternative for shipping mail. Most mail in the United States goes via surface. Only that going relatively long distances goes via air. For example, all first class mail between Dallas and Houston goes on trucks.
In the early days of commercial aviation, prior to 1960, the U.S. Postal Office wrote air mail contracts that covered more than the actual cost of transporting air mail. They were in part a subsidy for the commercial airlines. But this is no longer the case. The contracts are competitive and reflect the actual cost plus a return on equity to transport the mail. They are not a subsidy; they simply reflect what airplanes do best, which is to transport people and high margin goods (mail) over long distances.
I think you are both right. The decline of passenger service plus the need to sell real estate to keep the boat afloat led to the relocation of passenger stations. Often it was combined with some route rationalization - abandoning passenger-only routes through cities such as Jacksonville, Albany NY, Savannah, Charlston, and Cleveland.
I'd guess that route rationalization had more to do with it than auctioning off real estate. Most of this activity took place in the 1960s and the locations it took place were generally in decline w/o much new construction causing much demand for real estate. For example, land for the train platformsat the Atlanta Terminal Station remains vacant to this day. The Union Station bldg in Albany stood vacant for about 20 years before it was redevelped.
I disagree. I believe the train stations were moved because of the decline of passenger service. THAT is what made the property too valuable to just sit there idle. The old stations were pretty much abandoned. I have stood in that beautiful station in Richmond, after arriving in town at the Staples Mills Amtrak station that looks more like a Greyound facility. The original station is on a main road, the tracks are still there, and Amtrak runs a few hundred yards behind it. If passenger service improved, it would be very easy to put that station back into service.
This is the new Multimodal Station being designed in Charlotte. It will be served by Amtrak, CATS Purple Line commuter rail, Greyhound, CATS Trolley and CATS Buses.
It is in city center, fronting on one of the two main streets that cross at the center of the city, and is just a couple of blocks from Bank of America Stadium where the Carolina Panthers play.
There's a yin and yang to the valuable retail space angle, related to a rising tide lifts all boats. If the train station and necessary nearby yard facilities, especially for terminals, are in a location that draws lots of passengers, and has a demand for retail space, then the train station's real estate price probably also goes up.
If the demand for that real estate for non-rail purposes gets too high then there's a temptation to get rid of the train station, or reduce the amount devoted to trains, increase the amount devoted to retail or non-rail purposes, or relocate it somewhere else. We've got lots of examples, Miami comes rather quickly to mind. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Richmond Va, St Lois, Atlanta, except in those cases detour and backup moves might also have contributed or at least made excuses for the relocation.
These people all ASSUME that fuel will be infinitely available, and costs will be the same as now, forever. WRONG!! Ever heard of Peak Oil? We're on the high plateau now, folks--it gets worse from here, and fast; gasoline will be $6/gallon next summer, and will get higher from then on (maybe a blip or two, like now--gas is always cheap around elections, or have you never noticed? Oil companies are very political, so are the oil producing countries...
These people all ASSUME that fuel will be infinitely available, and costs will be the same as now, forever. WRONG!!
Ever heard of Peak Oil? We're on the high plateau now, folks--it gets worse from here, and fast; gasoline will be $6/gallon next summer, and will get higher from then on (maybe a blip or two, like now--gas is always cheap around elections, or have you never noticed? Oil companies are very political, so are the oil producing countries...
I too am concerned about next summer's gas prices and Peak Oil. That is especially why I have become discouraged about the prospects for trains.
The Vision Report proposed spending half a trillion dollars spread out over 40 years to increase trains from .1 percent of passenger miles to 1 percent of passenger miles. Were trains to be virtually liquid-fuel free (electrification), a 1 percent saving on auto fuel use is almost of no consequence in staving off Peak Oil.
President-Elect Obama has proposed a $7000 tax credit for next-generation hybrid cars, I presume plug-in hybrids. Assuming a nominal 100,000 mile lifetime for a car, that amounts to a 7 cents/mile subsidy. Amtrak is subsidized at 20 cents/mile. Furthermore, as the hybrid car industry grows, it can be assumed that the subsidy would be tapered off. There is no evidence that growth in Amtrak would result in reduced rates of subsidy -- in fact, such "Amtrak Reform" or "glidepaths to profitibility" are frequently ridiculed in train advocacy circles. "Don't ya' know that passenger trains require (high) levels of subsidy in all parts of the world?"
A recent WisARP newletter pointed out that the high price of gas resulted in something like a 5 percent decline in automobile travel. There was this implication that if 5 percent of the auto trips were forgone, this represented, perhaps, a market for a 50-fold increase in Amtrak, currently carrying .1 percent of passenger miles.
If one-in-twenty auto trips was not made, it was largely because people said, "gas is expensive, I will wait for my friend and share the ride", or "gas is expensive, we can put off seeing Grandma until next week", or "gas is expensive, I will skip today's trip to the mall just to look around." It did not mean, "darn, gas is too expensive to see Grandma this week, if we only had a train I would have gone to see her." There is this implication that if people have to forgo car trips that they are potential customers of the train, rather than that high gas is causing people to think about ways that they can simply drive around less.
Other countries are putting in HSR, but a lot of other countries are doing a lot of strange things, now, aren't they. Cloudy Germany has a massive program to put up solar panels on account of their Green Party. Solar panels are a Good Thing, but there are probably a lot of other places where you would want to put them up first on account of more sunshine. The same could be said about the putative San Francisco-New York HSR line.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
In answer to Juniper House, HSR comes in two forms: one with on-line stations, and the other with a trunkline devoid of stations with connections to parallel low-speed lines for access to city and town stations. The Japanese Shinkansen/Bullet Train was of the first type with platform sidings at intermediate stations. Non-stop Super Expresses would overtake and pass stopping trains at these points. Costly new constuction and significant dislocation resulted from building the Shinkansen into the hearts of cities. However, existing lines already were near capacity and most were narrow guage. Expansion of the HSR network brought conversion of parts of some narrow guage lines. The French TGVs employed the second strategy and avoided much of the cost reaching city center stations.
The average distance between stations is dependent on the size of market that can be served, the distance between markets, and the impact of stops on overall travel time or need for secondary trains for local services. For conurbations, access time may be a factor in determining station location and choosing between community centers for a station site. The average distance between stations for HSR has no meaning.
Just one more note against a coast to coast HSR line.
How did the 16 hour Broadway and 20th Century do against an unreliable, bumpy, cramped 4 hr DC3 flight?
JuniperhouseThis is the essence of it. The rest is quibbles and details. Wake up and smell the coffee--the rest of the developed world has already done so. More than 25 countries already have and/or are developing HSR. JJS
This is the essence of it. The rest is quibbles and details. Wake up and smell the coffee--the rest of the developed world has already done so. More than 25 countries already have and/or are developing HSR.
JJS
James
Maglev oltmannd At 40 or 50 cents per mile - typical Acela fare, coast to coast would cost you $1000-- for a coach seat. Add another $300 or so if you want to sleep. I can fly coast to coast in 6 hours for $150. I don't think you'd get many takers... Of course, your costs don't include subsidies our government gives to support air traffic control, airports, and highways to the airport (which are generally farther from your departure point than a train station). And at 16 hours, the time factor is almost insignificant when you include all the extra time involved in air travel. But most significant are the aesthetic aspects of trains versus planes. You can't see our beautiful landscape from an airplane, can't move around when you please (one can barely squirm to maintain circulation in a coach seat) , and railroads have the capability to offer much better food service. Oh, but it's easy to sleep on a plane -- especially if the pilot custs off the air supply. I was on a a delayed flight once in another country where everyone aboard passed out for five hours. No complaints from the passengers!
oltmannd At 40 or 50 cents per mile - typical Acela fare, coast to coast would cost you $1000-- for a coach seat. Add another $300 or so if you want to sleep. I can fly coast to coast in 6 hours for $150. I don't think you'd get many takers...
At 40 or 50 cents per mile - typical Acela fare, coast to coast would cost you $1000-- for a coach seat. Add another $300 or so if you want to sleep.
I can fly coast to coast in 6 hours for $150.
I don't think you'd get many takers...
But most significant are the aesthetic aspects of trains versus planes. You can't see our beautiful landscape from an airplane, can't move around when you please (one can barely squirm to maintain circulation in a coach seat) , and railroads have the capability to offer much better food service.
Oh, but it's easy to sleep on a plane -- especially if the pilot custs off the air supply. I was on a a delayed flight once in another country where everyone aboard passed out for five hours. No complaints from the passengers!
A lot of those airline subsidies come from the ticket taxes, no? Samantha figured airlines get 1/2 cent per pass. mile in subsidy. OK, lets assume, all indirect stuff rolled in, that it's 5 cents per pass. mile. So, add another $130 to that plane ticket for a total of $280. Also, lets add 2 hours on the front end and one on the back end for airport time over and above train station time. That give us $1000 and 16 hours for rail vs. $280 and 9 hours for air (of which only 4 hours or so is actually on the plane).
That's a pretty big gap. I find it hard to believe the sightseeing benefits of the HSR would be worth 7 hours and $720 a person. You'd have to close the gap on the fare. The only way to do that is increase the seat pitch, go to 3&2 seating and dump as much non revenue space as possible. What you'd have is pretty much an airline interior! Airlines don't HAVE to jamb you in like they do, they do it because people value a low fare more than some extra space. American tried the "extra room" pitch a while back and it got them zilch. How few people will even spring for the extra $50-$100 upgrade for business class? It's mostly frequent flier points being spent.
HSR in a hub and spoke out of Chicago, or "connect the dots" in the near midwest or southeast, and you have my attention. Coast to coast? Here's your lance, there's the windmill!
Maglev The subsidy figures Sam cites appear incomplete to me. It is probably easy to figure the Amtrak per-mile subsidy, but what factors are included in determining air and highway figures? More importantly, what non-economic costs are being ignored? For example, automobiles have dramatically altered our social architecture. Before traffic laws, streets were a safe place to play. After too many people were killed by cars, laws were enacted restricting movement in neighborhoods and children learned to obey guards at school crossings. There are many other ways that automobiles have contributed to a host of social ills. Social impacts of air travel include non-economic costs such as people having no idea how vast and beautiful our nation is. And we have accepted that long-distance travel means indignity and discomfort. Pollution is another issue where it is easy to overlook non-economic costs. Examples: Scientists have only a poor understading of what happens to tires as they wear down. Do we breathe those particles? Power plant turbines have more stringent emissions requirements than airplane turbines; and the effects of contrails are unknown. Therefore, a fuel-efficiency comparison of electric trains versus airplanes ignores some important or unknown non-economic costs. Simply put, because we have no transportation policy, we do not analyze costs in a rational and consistent manner.
The subsidy figures Sam cites appear incomplete to me. It is probably easy to figure the Amtrak per-mile subsidy, but what factors are included in determining air and highway figures? More importantly, what non-economic costs are being ignored?
For example, automobiles have dramatically altered our social architecture. Before traffic laws, streets were a safe place to play. After too many people were killed by cars, laws were enacted restricting movement in neighborhoods and children learned to obey guards at school crossings. There are many other ways that automobiles have contributed to a host of social ills. Social impacts of air travel include non-economic costs such as people having no idea how vast and beautiful our nation is. And we have accepted that long-distance travel means indignity and discomfort.
Pollution is another issue where it is easy to overlook non-economic costs. Examples: Scientists have only a poor understading of what happens to tires as they wear down. Do we breathe those particles? Power plant turbines have more stringent emissions requirements than airplane turbines; and the effects of contrails are unknown. Therefore, a fuel-efficiency comparison of electric trains versus airplanes ignores some important or unknown non-economic costs.
Simply put, because we have no transportation policy, we do not analyze costs in a rational and consistent manner.
The figures that I presented to show that passenger rail is much more dependant on federal handouts than air or motor transport can be found at Amtrak, DOT, FAA, and Homeland Security. They are verifable.
As I have pointed out in other postings, the federal, state, and local subsidies received by airline passengers and motorists are largely paid by them, although wealthier users pay a larger share of the subsidy than lower income users. On the other hand, the subsidies received by rail users depend on a large transfer from non-users because only a very small percentage of the population uses passenger rail.
All forms of transport, including railroads, as well as power production facilities, generate some pollution. Attributing the cost of the pollution depends on estimates that can vary widely. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, someone pays for them.
My estimate of the cost to build one HSR line from New York to San Francisco overlooked two important numbers. I did not account for the cost of the train sets. I don't know how much they would cost, but I suspect they are not cheap. The other item that I overlooked, which is unforgivable for an accountant, is the cost to finance the project.
Assuming all estimated $100 billion to build the project is borrowed at the U.S. Treasury long bond rate, the total cost of the line would be $384.8 billion over the estimated service life of the debt. Again, this is just the cost of one line.
Juniperhouse Thanks (I think) to the various responders to my recent message. I've heard all these tired objections ad nauseam for 40 years. All (and many more) miss the key point: These people all ASSUME that fuel will be infinitely available, and costs will be the same as now, forever. WRONG!! Ever heard of Peak Oil? We're on the high plateau now, folks--it gets worse from here, and fast; gasoline will be $6/gallon next summer, and will get higher from then on (maybe a blip or two, like now--gas is always cheap around elections, or have you never noticed? Oil companies are very political, so are the oil producing countries... Air service will be more expensive, and less available. Don't babble about 'business persons' and that tripe. If you want to be able to travel intercity in the future, it will be on high-speed trains, period. Fast ships will replace air service and air freight over the oceans (see website FAST SHIP). This is the essence of it. The rest is quibbles and details. Wake up and smell the coffee--the rest of the developed world has already done so. More than 25 countries already have and/or are developing HSR. Sitting on our hands and wishing for miracles is not a realistic option. JJS
Thanks (I think) to the various responders to my recent message. I've heard all these tired objections ad nauseam for 40 years. All (and many more) miss the key point:
Air service will be more expensive, and less available. Don't babble about 'business persons' and that tripe. If you want to be able to travel intercity in the future, it will be on high-speed trains, period. Fast ships will replace air service and air freight over the oceans (see website FAST SHIP).
Sitting on our hands and wishing for miracles is not a realistic option.
Nobody is going to be sitting on their hands. I suggest your view of the future is off the mark.
HSR is not more energy efficient by any significant amount than air travel or driving.
Liquid hyrdocarbons will be relatively cheap an plentiful for many, many years. You can get all you need from coal as long as oil stays dependably north of $60/bbl or so. Carbon sequestration may add to the cost a bit and it doesn't have the 100 year history of coal gassification, so that is a bit of a hurdle but not an unreasonable one. We're a long way from "peak coal" or "peak nat'l gas"...
Don't like that? How about liquid hydrocarbon fuels by reforming nat'l gas. Not as cheap as doing coal gassification, but certainly not unreasonable.
The limits for growth of air travel are more airport size and capacity than any fuel issue. So, there won't be any LESS flying, it's just that HSR might be a better alternative for shorter hauls, leaving the airport capacity for the long haul and international stuff.
FASTSHIP is about a decade on now, and they still are nothing but paper. Not even earnest money for a prototype. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to get built.
The Butler Sam1 Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so. Sadly, it's not just the business person. I know too many people who fly out of Chicago for a weekend golf trip in North Carolina or two days and one night in Las Vegas for a bachelor party, or to Orlando to spend five days at the "Mouse House", etc. With this attitude, I do not see long distance rail travel as anything more than a novelty in most American's eyes. If the high speed train trip adds no more than an hour to an equal flight, then there is a chance for success. I knew a man who traveled from St. Louis to Chicago and back again once a week for medical treatment. With early purchase and his senior discount, the ticket was less than twenty dollars. This was significantly cheaper than driving and he hated flying. A major price advantage would help sell high speed rail to the public. I fear the distances are too great here in the States.
Sam1 Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so.
Assuming an average TGV speed of 158 mph, it would take 17 hours to go from New York to San Francisco. It takes less than six hours to fly. Why would a business person spend 17 hours on a train from New York to San Francisco when she could fly there in less than six hours? I know very few business persons who would do so or could afford to take the time to do so.
I knew a man who traveled from St. Louis to Chicago and back again once a week for medical treatment. With early purchase and his senior discount, the ticket was less than twenty dollars. This was significantly cheaper than driving and he hated flying. A major price advantage would help sell high speed rail to the public.
I fear the distances are too great here in the States.
You can only offer a price advantage when you have a cost advantage. Does HSR have a cost advantage over flying? I don't know where it would be....
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.