Unraveling The Puzzle Of Rage At The Very IDEA Of High-Speed Passenger Rail

[hatrack]

EDIT

Third, most opponents to high speed rail simply have no experience on which to base their opposition. Those wishing to "Take America back" frequently glorify America between the Eisenhower and Reagan administrations, the peak of automobile enthusiasm in the United States.

A typical middle-aged voter knows of passenger trains only from movies like "Silver Streak" or "North by Northwest." In my youth, I had the privilege of traveling extensively on traditional long distance passenger trains in North America, and abroad on modern high speed trains in England, France and Italy.

Whenever I discuss passenger rail with opponents, it quickly becomes apparent that they are visualizing Cary Grant or Gene Wilder in a sleeping car, and not the modern efficiency of a cup of coffee at 150 mph.

Finally, particularly in the case of Florida, the tax-saving arguments against these projects ring hollow. You see, none of these governors actually wishes to turn away the federal money. Each of these governors seeks to redirect those federal funds to highway projects. They are not opposed to government funding of transportation, they are opposed to funding of rail transportation.

EDIT

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/04/21/harrod.high.speed.rail.trains/index.html

[polichick]

1. K&R - good piece!

[Drale]

2. They want to go back to the 1950's

Why don't they want to travel on trains?

[lob1]

3. Oil companies prefer people to use cars.

[nichomachus]

7. 1950s???

Right now, the US rail system would have to make dramatic improvements just to come up to 1870 standards.

[mimitabby]

10. in the 1950's there were lots of normal adults who didn't drive

they took trains and buses!

[nykym]

4. While this is an Asia report

I am sure the numbers are very similar,

The carbon dioxide emission for road vehicles is 111 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger per kilometre. For air travel it is 180 grams per passenger per kilometre. For high speed rail it is just 2.7 gram per passengers per kilometre.

And the fuel savings are just as impressive. Papazoff puts road transport at 3.3 litres of diesel fuel per 100 kilometres per passenger on average; air transport at 7.1 litres; and high speed rail at just 0.7 litres.

Link:

http://ica.roofandfacade.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108%3Athe-new-jubilee-bridge-innovative-design-by-3d-modelling&catid=46%3Asurface-roadrail-transport&Itemid=13&showall=1

[mimitabby]

11. I'm glad MY state is benefiting from the states that gave their $$ back!

[frebrd]

13. +1!

[DirkGently]

5. Makes sense. One report posited that Rick Scott has ties to asphalt / roadway companies.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. I am fascinated by the rightwing FEAR OF TRAINS

they break out in hives at the mere mention of them.

[DirkGently]

9. A poor person might get on one, & travel to where wealthy people are!

[mimitabby]

8. but in the 1950's

you could take a train to any state in the Union ! we have LESS train service now than they did in 1950!

[frebrd]

14. I spent the second half of the fifties.....

in the Army. Anytime you traveled between stations you had the choice between flying or taking the train.

I always chose the train; not only was it a nicer trip, but you had a day or two longer in travel time to enjoy it. They even gave you meal tickets to use in the Dining Car.

[patrice]

12. K&R

[OutNow]

15. I just don't get it

Last week I rode the Eurostar from Venice to Florence Italy. It was my much anticipated first time to use high speed rail. It was awesome. It was quiet. It was fast.

I remember when Italy was viewed as a poor country and many Italians migrated to the USA to escape the grinding poverty of their native land. Times change.

I just don't get it why people are afraid of high speed trains and other obvious benefits like access to health care that most Europeans take for granted. I really just don't understand.

BTW - I saw quite a few electric stations on streets and car parks for electric car plug-ins in Florence. And they were being used.

Nothing like a short trip to Europe to see how much we are falling behind.

[freethought]

19. Did some travelling on Eurostar myself a few years ago

And I totally agree!! Quiet, fast, comfortable, you get the see the countryside at eye level. It doesn't feel that your traveling on rail at 100+ mph. And your not packed in like cattle headed to the slaughter house. Leg room! What a concept!!

I even took a slower train from Venice to Vienna that went across the Italian Alps and into Austria. You could stretch out and relax and you were able to witness some of the most spectacular mountain scenery you could imagine at eye level and at a speed where you could really take it in. Not look down on it from 35,000 feet up.

In Vienna I was able to take advantage of the local public trans. You could go just about anywhere you wanted, give or take a little bit of walking. I am from the Boston, MA area which has one of the best public trans systems in the U.S. and I would rate the Vienna system as good, probably better as the Boston system.

In France, the trains are even faster

Most people in this country have not done much traveling outside of it, so when it comes to high-speed passenger rail much of the average American's opinion of it is based totally on ignorance. I see it as "don't knock it till you try it" situation. I am convinced that if perhaps they tried a ride to high speed rail, they may like it.

[Ship of Fools]

16. its also depressing

watching the ad on msnbc:

Q: Where you think the world's fastest train is ... A: China ... followed by: "China is Evolving" ... ending with: Invest Here sloganeering.

man there is so much crap making me want to cry these days ...

[PavePusher]

17. I'd love even a low-speed train....

from Tucson to Salt Lake.

Instead, it's a 4-5 day trip to L.A. or Chicago, then double back, and costs three times as much as flying SouthWest.

If I have to take anything larger than a suitcase, I drive.

[XemaSab]

18. Word

I think the route that makes the most sense in California is high speed from Redding to Bakersfield, with stops in Sacramento and Fresno and spurs going towards the Bay Area from Sacramento and Fresno. This would make the most sense if you could take your car on the train, so people going from Portland to LA or SF could drive on in Redding and drive off when they get to where they're going.

I think rail will only become more popular when it's cheaper and more convenient than flying or driving. :(

[freethought]

20. I think you have it partly correct.

Some time ago, my sister and I wanted to plan a trip to Washington D.C.. One thing we wanted to to do was take the Acela Express to D.C.. Once we started looking into ticket prices we were dismayed to see that price of tickets on Acela was nearly twice the price of taking a flight out of Logan International in Boston.

One could see it in the same way as when gas starts hitting $4/gallon, people start cutting back on driving and take public trans where they can.

[XemaSab]

21. Just for chuckles I looked up Redding to LA on Amtrak

Coach one way is $113, leaves at 2:21 in the morning, and takes 18 hours and 39 minutes.

Driving takes 8 hours and 20 minutes. Completely coincidentally, I plugged in 20 miles per gallon (which is less than my car gets) and 4.19 per gallon for price (which is sadly the going rate here) and I came up with $113.

The advantages to driving are that it's much, much faster, you don't leave in the middle of the night, you can take as much stuff as you can fit in the car, you have your car in LA when you get there, and since the trip is shorter you don't have to pay train prices for three meals. The obvious disadvantage is that you have to actually drive instead of being able to wander around the train and look at the scenery.

(Flying is $239 and takes 3 hours. It looks like they cancelled the direct flight in the last month, which IIRC was about $180 and took about an hour. The airport is small, so wait time is negligible.)

I love the idea of the train, but in practice it's not a good way to get around. I would say that one takes the train for the joy of the experience, but I've had enough train problems in the trips I've taken that I can't recommend it as a fun time. :(

[BrightKnight]

22. I would be thrilled if light rail lines went to the airport and near my home.

Bullet trains are okay but they are not near the top of my list.