If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   Japan unveils new maglev train capable of speeds in excess of 300mph. America's only high speed train capable of 1/3 that speed, but hey America is going to build a true high speed train any day now.....any day   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 121
    More: Cool, magnetic levitation, Nagoya, high-speed trains, Japan  
•       •       •

2046 clicks; posted to Geek » on 27 Nov 2012 at 4:49 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



121 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 12:55:37 PM  

relcec: Fissile: Japan currently has a population density of 840 people per square mile. New Jersey has a population density of 1,190 per square mile. The population density on the Boston to DC corridor is at least as high, if not higher, than in Japan.

20% of the u.s. population doesn't live in newark. 85% of the u.s. population doesn't live in the northeast corridor.
the problem is you are using a train line in another country that serves the vast majority of an entire nation as an analogy because what you want this nation to subsidize your regional solution to a regional problem.


===============

You wanna talk subsidies? New Jersey only gets back 61 cents on every dollar paid in federal taxes. Almost all of the red states get more from DC than they pay in federal taxes. Almost all of the transportation, water, electric and communication infrastructure in red states was built in whole or in part with federal subsidies.

BTW, the rail alignments where the Acela runs in Jersey were laid out in the 1840's and paid for with private dollars.
 
2012-11-27 02:00:25 PM  

Fissile: relcec: Fissile: Japan currently has a population density of 840 people per square mile. New Jersey has a population density of 1,190 per square mile. The population density on the Boston to DC corridor is at least as high, if not higher, than in Japan.

20% of the u.s. population doesn't live in newark. 85% of the u.s. population doesn't live in the northeast corridor.
the problem is you are using a train line in another country that serves the vast majority of an entire nation as an analogy because what you want this nation to subsidize your regional solution to a regional problem.

===============

You wanna talk subsidies? New Jersey only gets back 61 cents on every dollar paid in federal taxes. Almost all of the red states get more from DC than they pay in federal taxes. Almost all of the transportation, water, electric and communication infrastructure in red states was built in whole or in part with federal subsidies.

BTW, the rail alignments where the Acela runs in Jersey were laid out in the 1840's and paid for with private dollars.


A lot more ground to cover in those red states. While other people can drive a couple of hours in be in different states, I am still pretty much in the same city.
 
2012-11-27 02:04:34 PM  
We aren't going to build high speed trains because nobody wants them.

Show me the use case that justifies their existence. It has to be a point-to-point need (Boston to NYC for example) that justifies the cost...not some general "lots of people would use it" justification that requires the entire country be outfitted with high speed trains, which will NEVER be cost-effective.

People far too often discount the argument of "America is a frickin huge place".
 
2012-11-27 02:39:35 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: We aren't going to build high speed trains because nobody wants them.

Show me the use case that justifies their existence. It has to be a point-to-point need (Boston to NYC for example) that justifies the cost...not some general "lots of people would use it"


Your reason not to build them is a general "nobody wants them" yet you refuse to accept the "lots of people would use it" argument for them. Lots of people use them to go from Detroit to Chicago. The train was almost full every time I've taken the trip. Since lots of people were on the train, your thesis that 'nobody wants them' can't be true.

The time it takes to use a train to go between the two cities is comparable to driving with far less aggravation (driving downtown Chicago) and cost (gas, parking, tolls). The train is the most efficient way to go between the two cities. I'd argue that rail, if properly implemented, is the most efficient way to go between any two large cities that are less than a 1.5 hour flight away.
 
2012-11-27 02:54:29 PM  

Triumph: Fark Me To Tears: The last thing I think we need right now is an overly expensive high-speed train that no one is going to use.

If the economics ever make sense, it will get built, but they don't make sense yet. If you could take a train from DC to central Manhattan in an hour, it's hard to see why anyone of means would opt for the airport or the roads. The problem is one of insufficient capacity in the system to get prices to a level that could recoup investment, not demand. My guess is you could sell maglev tickets at 1.5 times airfare and still handily win the demand war. But that price point is probably still way too low.


The economics are kinda skewed in that gas prices (which determine cost of travel by air or car) are subsidized by various levels of government.
 
2012-11-27 03:25:47 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: We aren't going to build high speed trains because nobody wants them.


www.mapsofworld.com

Draw a circle with a diameter equal to the "500KM" reference mark. Anyplace you can put that circle with two or more cities in it would benefit from high speed rail. Most of the Northeast, for example...
=Smidge=
 
2012-11-27 03:43:01 PM  
Also, people shouldn't think of high-speed rail as a replacement for cars; they should think of it as a replacement for flying.
 
2012-11-27 03:57:00 PM  
The big thing I think everyone is overlooking is that Americans are very, VERY individualistic. We like having our cars, which are more than any other country an extension of us. Where other countries, particularly Europe, enjoy their cars it is more just a mode of convenience. We treat it like a second home.

We like to have our space, be able to get htere when we want to, stay as long as we want and leave when we want to. We like to control our own music, how the surrounding area smells, and not rely on anyone for anything. For these reasons, we can't even get a real good carpool system set up half the time. Look at your average restricted carpool lanes and it's vast open spaces.

We are too introverted as a nation to ever want to share our personal space and time during our commute to anywhere to ever support a high speed rail. And we are poorer for it.
 
2012-11-27 04:41:26 PM  

Shadowknight: The big thing I think everyone is overlooking is that Americans are very, VERY individualistic. We like having our cars, which are more than any other country an extension of us. Where other countries, particularly Europe, enjoy their cars it is more just a mode of convenience. We treat it like a second home.

We like to have our space, be able to get htere when we want to, stay as long as we want and leave when we want to. We like to control our own music, how the surrounding area smells, and not rely on anyone for anything. For these reasons, we can't even get a real good carpool system set up half the time. Look at your average restricted carpool lanes and it's vast open spaces.

We are too introverted as a nation to ever want to share our personal space and time during our commute to anywhere to ever support a high speed rail. And we are poorer for it.


===============

Here we go again, the old Mush Limpblow American "exceptionism" story. In a word, bullshiat. The reason we don't have high speed rail is because vested business interests don't want it. BTW, almost all of those businesses are suckling at the public teat.
 
2012-11-27 05:20:01 PM  

Lunaville: digistil: To follow up on my own post, it looks like European high speed rail operates with a very slight profit (~$35M last year), if the UK's service is anything to go by.

Source

i truly think that is irrelevant. I will argue over whether a mass transit system is profitable when our highway system turns a profit.


Know how I know you've never tried to explain something to a Reaganite?
 
2012-11-27 05:22:34 PM  

Smidge204: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: We aren't going to build high speed trains because nobody wants them.

[www.mapsofworld.com image 800x542]

Draw a circle with a diameter equal to the "500KM" reference mark. Anyplace you can put that circle with two or more cities in it would benefit from high speed rail. Most of the Northeast, for example...
=Smidge=


"benefit from" does not equal "pay for"

Let's say you drive 30 minutes to work each day
Will you pay $1 a day to get there in 5 minutes? (I'm guessing you would)
Will you pay $20 a day to get there in 5 minutes? (I'm guessing at that point you say: "That's not worth it.")

What I'm saying is that the cost of going between two cities (any two cities) in the U.S. would be so high that the riders would say "That's not worth it." - just to get to their destination a faster. And good luck trying to get ALL the inhabitants of a city to pay for the rail line most will never use (or all of the U.S. to pay for some people in two cities to travel between them faster). That's what "nobody wants them" means.
 
2012-11-27 05:28:09 PM  

imgod2u: Also, people shouldn't think of high-speed rail as a replacement for cars; they should think of it as a replacement for flying.


If people don't understand this, they really shouldn't be in the discussion.
 
2012-11-27 05:40:18 PM  

Fark Me To Tears: Lsherm: Americans: is this a good use of our money?

I would be thrilled if they would fix the damned potholes and bumps on the roads, so that my 15 year-old car can last a little bit longer. The last thing I think we need right now is an overly expensive high-speed train that no one is going to use.

But that's just me.


Just use a 3D printer to make plugs that fir the potholes exactly.
 
2012-11-27 05:47:06 PM  

Lsherm: So someone tell me what program we should cut to support a 300 mph line.


the $500 bn Pentagon budget
 
2012-11-27 06:03:10 PM  

relcec: 20% of the u.s. population doesn't live in newark. 85% of the u.s. population doesn't live in the northeast corridor.


Well, OK. Maybe you're under the impression the Shinkansen is the be-all end-all of Japan public transportation. FYI, that "85% of the population" in Japan that would be apparently required (in your mind) to support a SINGLE high-speed railway actually rides this, overlaid on this, NOT including private lines/subways or special lines (such as tour lines, overnight trains and the Narita Express). They also have tons of buses and two major airports.

You have it EXACTLY backwards. 20% of a country's population living in one metro area isn't a minimum requirement for a high-speed rail; the single high-speed rail we're talking about is nowhere near enough. There are actually no less than FOUR high-speed rail lines originating from or passing through Tokyo, each with multiple parallel lines for smooth operation, and that's NOT including countless "local" express lines that travel as fast as 60-80mph to handle midrange traffic.

For the love of god, stop being intimidated by what is by no means an innovative or grand idea in the 21st century. One thing going for the U.S. is that high-speed rail shouldn't incur much R&D costs because all the technology is already invented. This isn't a goddamn suborbital; it's a type of train that's quite common in developed nations these days.
 
2012-11-27 06:04:08 PM  

dragonchild: FYI, that "85% of the population" in Japan


Actually, only the 20%. Derp.
 
2012-11-27 06:36:24 PM  

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: Let's say you drive 30 minutes to work each day


Let's not, because it's farking retarded to compare a 30 minute commute (which is, at best, 40 miles or so) to any trip requiring a commute between cities.

Let's instead say you live in Philadelphia and commute to Washington DC. That's about three hours by car, give or take. Probably closer to four. You can take a commuter plane which takes about an hour (not counting absurd boarding times and security lines) and will set you back roughly $300 or so.

Or you can take Amtrak which takes about 2 hours and costs roughly $80.

Remarkably some 75% of people who commute from NYC to DC take the train. That costs about $100 for a 3-hour trip. Faster than the same trip by car and since you aren't driving you can get in a decent nap or catch up on leftover paperwork or whatever. By the time you're done with tolls and gas it might be cheaper, too.

Now imagine if you could cut Amtrak's travel time in half. Think you could charge an extra $50 a ticket out of that? Bet ya could, easily. You'd likely attract more customers, too, since it's now closer to flying at still a fraction of the cost and hassle.
=Smidge=
 
2012-11-27 09:17:36 PM  
One thing that would also make an investment in high speed transport an overall good idea,
would be to include stops at or very near the major National Parks/Forests/Historic Sites.
For example, A spur to the northwest from Denver to Cheyenne would stop at/near the entry to
Yellowstone then go on to Boise, Portland,Seattle. The same could be done in California.
On a line from San Diego to San Francisco to Sacramento to Seattle there could easily be included stops near or at Big Sur / Monterrey ,Humbolt Redwood / Trinity National Forest. Obviously stops would need
to be limited. But those example put stops about half way along routes of large cities. Improving
access and also limiting car traffic into the National Parks would be a huge boost. Giving the public
fast access from across the country to the great western parks and eastern historic sights would be
a real selling point IMHO..No more flying/anal probes, no more rental car BS..
 
2012-11-27 10:32:00 PM  
how about we get rid of crappy local monopolies for transport and infrastructure- and make it so it's economically reasonable to telecommute? I mean, ffs- there are few positions outside of manufacturing, health, and hard research that could not take place via telecommute. The benefits to the environment would be much greater than a HSR.

Co-op Internet Service Providers- get rid of the corporations that refuse to expand, upgrade, let alone MAINTAIN data infrastructure because "the next big thing" or "I can't do it because the stockholders wouldn't like it"
 
2012-11-28 12:18:40 AM  

dragonchild: dragonchild: FYI, that "85% of the population" in Japan

Actually, only the 20%. Derp.


You have rocked in this thread. Thank-you.
 
2012-11-28 09:00:10 AM  

Fissile: Shadowknight: The big thing I think everyone is overlooking is that Americans are very, VERY individualistic. We like having our cars, which are more than any other country an extension of us. Where other countries, particularly Europe, enjoy their cars it is more just a mode of convenience. We treat it like a second home.

We like to have our space, be able to get htere when we want to, stay as long as we want and leave when we want to. We like to control our own music, how the surrounding area smells, and not rely on anyone for anything. For these reasons, we can't even get a real good carpool system set up half the time. Look at your average restricted carpool lanes and it's vast open spaces.

We are too introverted as a nation to ever want to share our personal space and time during our commute to anywhere to ever support a high speed rail. And we are poorer for it.

===============

Here we go again, the old Mush Limpblow American "exceptionism" story. In a word, bullshiat. The reason we don't have high speed rail is because vested business interests don't want it. BTW, almost all of those businesses are suckling at the public teat.


Um, I think you're confusing my argument. I think we should have high speed rail, and would be willing to pay the tax for it. And I agree, it's vested business interests that have convinced Americans to be this way.

Regardless of ow we got there, though, we ARE there. We Ned to break that mindset before we can convince people to pay.
 
Displayed 21 of 121 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report