Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do people keep thinking HSR is about commuting? Is this like a meme on the Rush show or something? Cause its almost totally incorrect, and yet its widespread.
I know, it's annoying, and I wish the President or Amtrak's President or some public official would set this straight to the general public.
Can HSR be used for commuting purposes? Depends on details...
The grand case of the "HSR Commuter" is around Tokyo where many people working downtown ride the Shinkansen from the suburbs into town instead of paying a high rent for a small apartment downtown (Gee, sounds like Americans, right?). However, The Shinkansen has much greater frequencies, usually in a certain number of trains per hour. The busiest route, running from Tokyo to Osaka, runs trains at frequencies of 20 trains per hour per direction, or every 3 minutes, during rush hour. The ones commuters take are probably local trains that stop at most HSR stations. In addition, the ticketing system for the Shinkansen is probably a bit different than Acela (Amtrak), the TGV (SNCF), or ICE (DB). The latter ones require a reservation, sometimes up to months in advance.
Acela, TGV, Eurostar, ICE, CAHSR, Thalys, and probably most proposed HSR systems in the US focus on business trips between cities, not commuting.
Oh, and little note about sprawl...
Amtrak's Pacific Surfliner, in Southern California, is the busiest service outside the Northeast Corridor. And I think we know about Sprawl in Socal...
(Of course, The Pacific Surfliner is helped by LA's congested freeways and higher than average gas prices...)
But most other countries don't have as much suburbia as the U.S. The U.S. is unique in that numerous people live in sprawling suburbia. Because of this, highways are more practical than rail of any kind. The issue is not about speed and getting people into the city for work. Why does everyone have to go work in the city? It's very common these days for people to work in suburbs. In fact, I and many others work in a suburb about 10 miles away from the principal city in my metro area. No need to work in the city. No need for HSR.
Whether or not a country has suburbs has little to do with the industrial capacity and competitiveness of a nation. How quickly you can move goods around - raw materials to processing plants, finished goods to port - does. For decades America did this faster than anyone else. The time from design of a machine to factory to market sped along American highways. Soon those designs and engineers will be speeding along Chinese and European HSR four times faster than America can do it. China/Eurpoe: Order it today, custom-fabbed and delivered tomorrow. America: Order it today, custom-fabbed and delivered in six to eight weeks.
I was discussing this topic with my father over the weekend, and we both came to the conclusion that high speed rail (HSR) would only be practical for certain areas, such as the Bos-Wash corridoor. It boils down to this...
The U.S. is unique from most other countries in that we placed our bets on the automobile in the mid 20th century, and built our country around the automobile, and hence suburban sprawl. Critics say that the U.S. has the best Interstate Highway system in the world. It goes through every single state and does not neglect massive regions, such as the Chinese system.
Relocating people and families to inner cities is simply not feasible, and is physically impossible. We need suburbs. The country is extremely suburban built, and therefore needs a suburban transportation solution. This is where HSR is not practical and is extremely costly.
Therefore, I think the problem we need to tackle is energy and fuel. We need to stick with the automible, but make it cheaper to fuel. We need to focus on improving our highway system and build new highways if necessary. This is cheaper than HSR and roads can reach many more places than HSR could ever hope for. No matter how many HSR tracks are built, people will still need a car to drive to the HSR station.
With that said, I do believe that HSR would work well for high density interconnected cities, such as the BosWash corridoor. Just not the rest of the U.S.
What are your thoughts on the future of America's transportation?
Have you ever lived anywhere other than the NE? And by that, I mean the small town you're from? HSR has nothing to do with "relocating" people - it's transportation, not migration. HSR is cheaper to maintain in the long run, far less expensive than roads and infrastructure on that scale. And yes, roads do reach more places than HSR could ever hope - but HSR isn't aiming to turn into public transit in major cities - it's aimed at connecting the country. Not to mention, not everyone needs a car. You may think you do, but that will change if you live in a place fully accustomed to getting people from place to place without an automobile. Dependency on cars is the problem with transport, energy and costs in America. Not the solution.
Have you ever lived anywhere other than the NE? And by that, I mean the small town you're from? HSR has nothing to do with "relocating" people - it's transportation, not migration. HSR is cheaper to maintain in the long run, far less expensive than roads and infrastructure on that scale. And yes, roads do reach more places than HSR could ever hope - but HSR isn't aiming to turn into public transit in major cities - it's aimed at connecting the country. Not to mention, not everyone needs a car. You may think you do, but that will change if you live in a place fully accustomed to getting people from place to place without an automobile. Dependency on cars is the problem with transport, energy and costs in America. Not the solution.
The only type of place that this is possible is an extremely urban environment such as NYC or any other inner city. Most people do not like to live this type of lifestyle. I have lived in both a rural town and midtown Manhattan. I consider myself spoiled with rural/suburban living and would NEVER go back to urban living with no car. It sucks, plain and simple. Quality of life is horrendous and life is unreasonably more difficult by the day. People suck. Traffic sucks. Congestion sucks. Some people may not mind it, but it certainly takes a special type of person to want to live in such an environment. I need privacy, quiet and space. Back in 2008 when I moved out of Manhattan and back to rural CT, I felt like a person who received a glass of ice water in Hell.
It's not dependency on cars that's the direct problem in America. It's the dependency on OIL.
The only type of place that this is possible is an extremely urban environment such as NYC or any other inner city. Most people do not like to live this type of lifestyle. I have lived in both a rural town and midtown Manhattan. I consider myself spoiled with rural/suburban living and would NEVER go back to urban living with no car. It sucks, plain and simple. Quality of life is horrendous and life is unreasonably more difficult by the day. People suck. Traffic sucks. Congestion sucks. Some people may not mind it, but it certainly takes a special type of person to want to live in such an environment. I need privacy, quiet and space. Back in 2008 when I moved out of Manhattan and back to rural CT, I felt like a person who received a glass of ice water in Hell.
It's not dependency on cars that's the direct problem in America. It's the dependency on OIL.
I don't understand why you're still set on this idea of it only being "possible" in an urban environment like it's going to function as public transportation. It is not going to function as public transportation in city. A high speed rail would allow for more convenient transit from city to city, especially for people who are already without cars living in major cities with good public transportation. Urban living with no car is the point of urban living for many people. The idea of a car payment, maintenance, fuel and insurance alone is enough to convince me of why owning a car is pointless. Not only that, but yes - traffic sucks, congestion sucks - which is why you use the public transport and get where you're going faster. That is the point of in city public transport - which is still an entirely separate issue from high speed rail networks. Public transit is more efficient. If it takes a special kind of person to enjoy an urban environment then it takes a highly specialized person to prefer suburban living as there is a reason more people live in a city than they do in its immediate suburbs. I personally would love to be able to go from Chicago to New York in ten or so hours (or L.A. overnight) without spending money on a plane ticket, not to mention the countless other connections around the country where airfare is not so inexpensive.
And the dependency on oil is because we are dependent on cars. That use oil.
I don't understand why you're still set on this idea of it only being "possible" in an urban environment like it's going to function as public transportation. It is not going to function as public transportation in city. A high speed rail would allow for more convenient transit from city to city, especially for people who are already without cars living in major cities with good public transportation. Urban living with no car is the point of urban living for many people. The idea of a car payment, maintenance, fuel and insurance alone is enough to convince me of why owning a car is pointless. Not only that, but yes - traffic sucks, congestion sucks - which is why you use the public transport and get where you're going faster. That is the point of in city public transport - which is still an entirely separate issue from high speed rail networks. Public transit is more efficient. If it takes a special kind of person to enjoy an urban environment then it takes a highly specialized person to prefer suburban living as there is a reason more people live in a city than they do in its immediate suburbs. I personally would love to be able to go from Chicago to New York in ten or so hours (or L.A. overnight) without spending money on a plane ticket, not to mention the countless other connections around the country where airfare is not so inexpensive.
And the dependency on oil is because we are dependent on cars. That use oil.
In other words, the people that don't use public transportation have to pay their tax dollars to go toward spending on public transportation for those who can't afford a car. SOCIALISM!
In other words, the people that don't use public transportation have to pay their tax dollars to go toward spending on public transportation for those who can't afford a car. SOCIALISM!
Kind of like the people who don't use cars have to pay taxes for road and highway construction, repairs and re-structuring - which costs far more. Not being able to "afford" a car and choosing to not waste time and money where it isn't needed in a city are two different ideas entirely. That isn't even what's being discussed, nor is it the issue at hand. If you'd really want to get into this discussion, why don't I talk about how much cheaper public transit would be for me if everyone utilized it to capacity vs. owning six cars and feeling the need to spend hours in traffic when one could be to his destination and beyond already.
Here's an Article , backing up the population shift in NJ to along Rail and Transit corridors and away form Auto-sprawl. Its not Just NJ , MA , NY , PA , MD , VA , DE , RI , CT, ME all are seeing similar movements and along future corridors aswell...
In other words, the people that don't use public transportation have to pay their tax dollars to go toward spending on public transportation for those who can't afford a car. SOCIALISM!
Are folks living on a different planet than me? Right now, on the northeast corridor, an amtrak ticket on conventional trains is like double or triple a bus ticket, and Acela is more expensive than that.
Folks who can't afford cars will NOT be the target market for HSR.
Kind of like the people who don't use cars have to pay taxes for road and highway construction, repairs and re-structuring - which costs far more. Not being able to "afford" a car and choosing to not waste time and money where it isn't needed in a city are two different ideas entirely. That isn't even what's being discussed, nor is it the issue at hand. If you'd really want to get into this discussion, why don't I talk about how much cheaper public transit would be for me if everyone utilized it to capacity vs. owning six cars and feeling the need to spend hours in traffic when one could be to his destination and beyond already.
But 90% of people in most states use a car instead of public transit. So the socialism is more balanced if the funds are going to roads and highways. It's better than having 100% of the population pay for 10% of the population's transportation needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
