
High-speed trains are coming to America - kqr2
http://www.onearth.org/article/on-the-fast-track
======
ojbyrne
Seems like the big advantage of "no waiting in line for check-in, security, or
boarding." can't last.

~~~
jrockway
It has lasted everywhere where there are high-speed trains. Check-in, security
checkpoints, and boarding 300 people through one tiny door are all exclusive
to air travel. When you take the train, you buy your ticket from a machine,
put it in a turnstile to access the platform, and then wait until your train
pulls in. Then you board through one of the 20-or-so doors that is closest to
your seat. It's really that simple, and it has been that way for years.

Remember, America is almost 45 years behind the rest of the world here. The
first Shinkansen in Japan went 130mph and started carrying passengers in 1964.
We still don't have anything like that (except Acella), in 2009.

~~~
davidw
Actually, in Spain, we had to go through a metal detector to get on train from
Sevilla to Madrid. Security wasn't as tight as for airplane boarding, and was
very quick, but I was very surprised to find it there at all.

~~~
ews
mmm, AFAIK , there are no metal detectors in AVE (Alta Velocidad - High Speed)
trains in any of the 5 or so routes we have in Spain (just took a couple of
them a week ago). They do we have a small x ray machine for carry on baggage,
but the process is ridiculously fast (about 5 - 10 seconds total).

This is really important if you think that we do have an in active terrorist
(or political liberation, according to some) group in Spain, which targeted
those trains in the past.

~~~
ojbyrne
Interesting point, especially since trains (or at least train stations) have
been targets in Spain.

------
anamax
Things that are actually more efficient don't require subsidies....

I like trains, but as passenger transport, they're not competitive.

Yes, I know about the energy efficiency of a full train. However, you can't
have both decent utilization (reasonably full trains) and reasonable
ridership. And, if you don't shoot for reasonable ridership, the fixed and
labor costs will kill you. At reasonable ridership, lower utilization kills
the realized efficiency and you're still having trouble with fixed and labor
costs.

Note that govt involvement makes things worse. If a congress critter comes
from a particular town, that town will get a stop, regardless of whether that
makes sense. (Stops have a huge impact on average speed.)

~~~
Xichekolas
Not competitive compared to what?

Combined spending by federal, state, and local governments on roads and
airports amounts to _hundreds of billions of dollars a year_. Not exactly a
profitable enterprise. Throw in the billions spent by end users of these roads
on their own vehicles, and it's hard to see why there is such a fuss over the
funding of trains.

I'm not saying they are always the best solution in every situation. Planes
will continue to win for long distances, and roads will continue to win for
short ones, but there is a definite middle ground where trains shine.

Having some double standard about profitability and competitiveness when we
subsidize airports and highways to the tune of hundreds of billions a year
seems rather disingenuous.

And I wholeheartedly agree with your statement about government involvement
leading to perverse decisions, but remember that this is the case whether we
are talking about trains or highways or any other big spending project.

~~~
anamax
> Combined spending by federal, state, and local governments on roads and
> airports amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a year. Not exactly a
> profitable enterprise.

Profit is not measured by spending, but by the relationship between spending
and revenue.

> it's hard to see why there is such a fuss over the funding of trains.

Because they lose public money - they cost more to build and run than folks
will pay to use them. I've no objection to you spending your money on them,
but I'd rather not spend my money on them.

> Having some double standard about profitability and competitiveness when we
> subsidize airports and highways to the tune of hundreds of billions a year
> seems rather disingenuous.

We don't subsidize highways; the total taxes collected more than cover the
costs. That's why the rail folks try to get a piece of it.

~~~
Xichekolas
> _We don't subsidize highways; the total taxes collected more than cover the
> costs._

Sorry, but this is a commonly held misconception. From this article:
<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274113,00.html>

_"Close to two-thirds of the trust fund's $40 billion in receipts last year
came from the gasoline tax."_

So the trust fund, which is made up of gas and diesel taxes, amounts to about
$40 billion a year.

As I have pointed out before here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=260824>

Total federal outlays were about $67 billion that same year, and states and
local governments usually throw in billions more.

And besides, I never claimed you can't fund rail via use taxes. But
subsidizing roads to the tune of billions a year and expecting rail
infrastructure to compete without such subsidies is just silly.

~~~
anamax
Gas taxes aren't the only taxes that come from autombile use.

------
coconutrandom
Wow! I'm all for trains. This made me sad:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scanda...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal)

------
chasingsparks
Taggart Transcontinental...?

------
thepanister
This is very interesting... I hope it will be much faster than Amtrak. If you
take Amtrak from NYC to San Francisco for example, it would take around 50
hours with stops!

I know some people who don't really like to fly, and still prefer train or car
in travelling.

