US to Follow in China's Train Tracks

[Stepbrow]

A good op-ed about Obama's program to build high speed rail here in the US. I hope that the US does follow in China's train tracks on high speed rail.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-...ent_9460954.htm

[Highlander 08 09 10 11]

Hi speed rail or not hi speed, this country needs to use more and more rail to move stuff. The Interstate highways are clogged with big trucks moving stuff which could be moved by rail alot cheaper, and less inpact on the world.

[GDBILL]

A good op-ed about Obama's program to build high speed rail here in the US. I hope that the US does follow in China's train tracks on high speed rail.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-...ent_9460954.htm

 

Right now the new Chinese high speed rail system -- as incomplete as it is -- is hurting the airline industry. In spite of regulations prohibiting airfare discounts, now even during Spring festival it's easy to score a 60% discount on any airline.

[Minister]

I notice that China says that we're following China, and not Japan, which has a much more in-depth high-speed rail system and has been using it since the 1960s.

 

Or Germany.

 

Or France.

 

Or Italy.

 

Or Spain.

 

But as much as I would love to have high-speed rail, I worry that the cost of maintaining it over the distances involved in the USA would still make Airplanes cheaper, I would think. China may find this to be so as the cost of labor increases. Still, as gas prices go up....

 

Anyway, here's hoping. I can't wait to ride an American bullet train.

[johnxiaoying]

The US can do it IF China provides the financing!

[Dan de mingzi]

I notice that China says that we're following China, and not Japan, which has a much more in-depth high-speed rail system and has been using it since the 1960s.

 

Or Germany.

 

Or France.

 

Or Italy.

 

Or Spain.

 

But as much as I would love to have high-speed rail, I worry that the cost of maintaining it over the distances involved in the USA would still make Airplanes cheaper, I would think. China may find this to be so as the cost of labor increases. Still, as gas prices go up....

 

Anyway, here's hoping. I can't wait to ride an American bullet train.

 

The problem is definitely one of Return On Investment. The huge costs of constructing/operating these bullet trains across long distances means it only makes sense if you have massive population groups that need to be moved around, and not enough of them are willing/able to drive their own cars. It might make sense in a country like China, with a huge population accustomed to train travel and a great population density in the large cities, combined with a relative lack of autos (per capita I mean; I know there are a LOT of autos).

 

In the US, where we are unused to train travel, where most of us have our own cars as an alternative to flying for medium distances, where population density is a fraction of China's, and where we already have a big air travel infrastructure built up, the value proposition is a lot more questionable.

[a2784]

I notice that China says that we're following China, and not Japan, which has a much more in-depth high-speed rail system and has been using it since the 1960s.

 

Or Germany.

 

Or France.

 

Or Italy.

 

Or Spain.

 

But as much as I would love to have high-speed rail, I worry that the cost of maintaining it over the distances involved in the USA would still make Airplanes cheaper, I would think. China may find this to be so as the cost of labor increases. Still, as gas prices go up....

 

Anyway, here's hoping. I can't wait to ride an American bullet train.

 

The problem is definitely one of Return On Investment. The huge costs of constructing/operating these bullet trains across long distances means it only makes sense if you have massive population groups that need to be moved around, and not enough of them are willing/able to drive their own cars. It might make sense in a country like China, with a huge population accustomed to train travel and a great population density in the large cities, combined with a relative lack of autos (per capita I mean; I know there are a LOT of autos).

 

In the US, where we are unused to train travel, where most of us have our own cars as an alternative to flying for medium distances, where population density is a fraction of China's, and where we already have a big air travel infrastructure built up, the value proposition is a lot more questionable.

Have we in the US thought about maybe having less dependence on our autos and using mass transportation in order to reduce our carbon footprint.

 

And yes the article was yet again another slap in the USA face and a chance to flex their newfound pride ... I've noticed a change in ChinaDaily op-ed and opinions articles since the summer 2008.

[ShaQuaNew]

Trains will never be used as a primary mode of transportation in the US; and there are reasons for that; here are a few:

 

1. The US allowed urban sprawl to occur in virtually every city from coast to coast. For this reason, there is no way to build a system that will be useful to the masses.

2. The "not in my backyard" thinking prevails.

3. US citizens are too attached to their automobiles and their personal space.

4. Where are you going to put the train stations? No matter where you put it, most people can't get to it because they live in the suburbs.

5. Who's gonna pay for it? Those who report more than 250,000 a year in income; otherwise known as small business owners.

Edited February 18, 2010 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)

[a2784]

Trains will never be used as a primary mode of transportation in the US; and there are reasons for that; here are a few:

 

1. The US allowed urban sprawl to occur in virtually every city from coast to coast. For this reason, there is no way to build a system that will be useful to the masses.

2. The "not in my backyard" thinking prevails.

3. US citizens are too attached to their automobiles and their personal space.

4. Where are you going to put the train stations? No matter where you put it, most people can't get to it because they live in the suburbs.

5. Who's gonna pay for it? Those who report more than 250,000 a year in income; otherwise known as small business owners.

All good points but I am not sure we will be able to sustain point 3 regarding the love affair with autos.

[Dennis143]

From the car capital of America, Los Angeles:

 

Metrolink is a commuter rail system that serves Southern California.

 

It was established in 1991 as the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and service began the following year.

 

Metrolink includes lines to Ventura County, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County, Orange County, and San Diego County. It connects with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Metro Rail lines at Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles, and with the San Diego Coaster and Sprinter at Oceanside. It also connects with Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner, Coast Starlight, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited trains. As of early 2007, it served a total of 54 stations on 388 route miles (excluding shared miles) throughout Southern California.

 

The average weekday ridership for the period from October 2007 through June 2008 was 46,056 boardings.[2] Ridership has grown at 3-4% per year since opening; Orange County ridership grew 30% from 2002 to 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolink_%28...n_California%29

 

It's a start and ever expanding. Ridership is slowly increasing. Years ago Standard Oil bought up all the Red Car Lines which forced commuters to use automobiles. Metrolink brings rail transportation back to LA and gives commuters another alternative.

[Minister]

 

5. Who's gonna pay for it? Those who report more than 250,000 a year in income; otherwise known as small business owners.

 

I'm a small business owner and I definitely don't fit into that category.

[ShaQuaNew]

From the car capital of America, Los Angeles:

 

Metrolink is a commuter rail system that serves Southern California.

 

It was established in 1991 as the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) and service began the following year.

 

Metrolink includes lines to Ventura County, Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County, Orange County, and San Diego County. It connects with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority's Metro Rail lines at Union Station in Downtown Los Angeles, and with the San Diego Coaster and Sprinter at Oceanside. It also connects with Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner, Coast Starlight, Southwest Chief, and Sunset Limited trains. As of early 2007, it served a total of 54 stations on 388 route miles (excluding shared miles) throughout Southern California.

 

The average weekday ridership for the period from October 2007 through June 2008 was 46,056 boardings.[2] Ridership has grown at 3-4% per year since opening; Orange County ridership grew 30% from 2002 to 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrolink_%28...n_California%29

 

It's a start and ever expanding. Ridership is slowly increasing. Years ago Standard Oil bought up all the Red Car Lines which forced commuters to use automobiles. Metrolink brings rail transportation back to LA and gives commuters another alternative.

 

There are a few, and very select few cities in the US where a metro-type light rail system would be free of a logistic entanglement of spaghetti. Cities like New York, are contained in a very small area of land mass and had systems in place during the early stages of growth.

 

No one wants to give up their property for the sake of a system that will not be used in this generation. We will have to wait until driving a car in America becomes so prohibitively expensive, there will be no other option but for public transportation. Even after that happens, it would be near impossible to deal with the wide distribution of the population.

Edited February 18, 2010 by ShaQuaNew (see edit history)