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.
Europe hasn't led to mass bankrupcty for the airlines, just a shifting of destinations.
The airlines in Europe were built around countries that were subsidizing rail systems. They never development in areas where they could not compete. The same can't be said of the US so the fact that this did not occur in Europe is totally irrelevant to this country.
But I don't think whether or not an airline or two goes bankrupt is an important consideration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Awesomo.2000
A maglev (which this isn't) is very efficient. It uses electrical current for the magnetism the propels the train. If you compared 300 people on a Maglev cruising from Pittsburgh to Phillly to 300 people driving in 100 cars from Pittsburgh to Philly that amount of power to transport them would be extremely significant.
The main reason why cars consume more energy is because on average people drive with around 1.5 people in the car. That is to say cars are typically under-utilized. But a train can be under-utilized too, so which uses less energy depends greatly on its ridership. Like buses trains usually run regardless of the number of riders. So it boils down to what you think the average ridership is going to be.
Regardless, a maglev can potentially reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. But it will not remove our dependence on fossil fuels as was suggested. But, a maglev is not being used so this is pretty pointless. The trains they are going to use far more fossil fuels. Also, I think comparing a maglev to traditional automobiles is a bit unfair. Why not compare it to some of the rather efficent electric cars that will be on the market shortly? For example:
[quote=user_id;8393937]The airlines in Europe were built around countries that were subsidizing rail systems. They never development in areas where they could not compete. The same can't be said of the US so the fact that this did not occur in Europe is totally irrelevant to this country. [/quote
actuallly, I think this may be incorrect. The Europeans have found that airline service falls about 70% between destinations served by HSR (real HSR, not the stuff from 60 years ago). That means airlines were indeed serving those points. There's really no reason why airlines here can't respond in kind, the buildingof HSR lines isn't even on the map yet so they'll have plenty of time to plan. Amtrak has slowly taken 50% of the NY-Boston market, up from 20%, there hasn't been any massive handwringing and bankruptcies, though some air shuttles were discontinued. the same goes for DC-NY.
[quote=user_id;8393937]
The main reason why cars consume more energy is because on average people drive with around 1.5 people in the car. That is to say cars are typically under-utilized. But a train can be under-utilized too, so which uses less energy depends greatly on its ridership. Like buses trains usually run regardless of the number of riders. So it boils down to what you think the average ridership is going to be.
[/qupte
both maglev and trains use less fuel than cars because of the extreme lack of friction. so it's not simply a matter of utilization, though that is a factor.
Of course ridership is a factor, but people will say ridership is whatever they want it to be, for or against. What we do know is that the few lines that have bee upgraded (NEC and KEystone) ridership is fairly strong despite the fact that Amtrak uses the NEC as a cash cow to subsidize other routes that help it appease congress.
both maglev and trains use less fuel than cars because of the extreme lack of friction. so it's not simply a matter of utilization, though that is a factor.
.
Utilization is the primary factor. Who cares whether the train can pull more mass with X amount of energy than a car! Its irrelevant. The important metric is how much energy is used per person being transported and that depends on the utilization of the rail system. A train uses almost the same about of energy regardless of the number of passengers. Where as less cars are used as less people travel.
I haven't seen anybody do the actual numbers, but my guess is that if you compared a traditional train near full capacity and a bunch of Aptera's with 2 passengers there would be little different in energy consumed.
Actually, there is something similar between the Tesla and High speed electric trains:
The Aptera is fair more energy efficient than Tesla Roadster though.
Also, note what a difference comparing max vs actual ridership makes. Ridership is a key issue in whether a rail would be more energy efficient. Also, considering their are electric cars coming on the market that are likely to match rails in terms of energy efficiency that will utilize existing infrastructure investing in a major rail product could be a rather big waste of money. Upgrading current rails may be worth it though.
Also, note what a difference comparing max vs actual ridership makes. Ridership is a key issue in whether a rail would be more energy efficient. Also, considering their are electric cars coming on the market that are likely to match rails in terms of energy efficiency that will utilize existing infrastructure investing in a major rail product could be a rather big waste of money. Upgrading current rails may be worth it though.
From the map that was posted earlier, it looks like the proposed corridors are all ones that have potential for high ridership. Even if we get fuel-efficient green cars, there are trips I'd prefer not to do by car, especially in winter. I'd much rather be on a train during a storm than on a plane or driving my car! Like air travel, I could always rent a car, use cabs, or public transit when I reach my destination.
From the map that was posted earlier, it looks like the proposed corridors are all ones that have potential for high ridership. Even if we get fuel-efficient green cars, there are trips I'd prefer not to do by car, especially in winter. I'd much rather be on a train during a storm than on a plane or driving my car! Like air travel, I could always rent a car, use cabs, or public transit when I reach my destination.
Just to note, "fuel efficient green cars" already exist. Its just a matter of them being more widely used.
In terms of ridership, well upgrading current lines is much less problematic than building new ones. But the point I was making is that ridership is a key component and in many cases its very much an unknown. What you, or me or any other individual prefers is not that relevant. Plus, you don't even live where it snows!
This is idiotic. Just because Europe does it doesn't mean we have to as well. It may work linking southern and northern CA. It may work linking boston, nyc, philly, and dc. but come on, an Alabama to houston link?!?! What?!?! Yeah, i'm sure a million people a day will ride that thing. A pittsburgh to philly link? What?!?! Why would someone take the train when it would be cheaper and quicker to fly? Why would someone take the train from pitt to philly when it would be cheaper and about the same amount of time as driving? I'm not getting the point of this. People can argue otherwise, but it's not as if there was a huge consumer demand for this. If you think otherwise, check out Amtrak. That's right folks, we already have a nationalized railroad and it isn't exactly doing well. But forget about Amtrak. This is different. But I guess it makes sense to spend billions and billions on this rather than infrastructure that we already have. It's not like we need the money for anything, since we already got that new fancy mon-fayette expressway going from DC to Morgantown to Uniontown to Downtown Pittsburgh going on lol. Yeah, what a pathetic joke. And everyone that got all excited for this foolish idea...you're just as gullible as the morons that voted for Obama. We deserve this fool.
Just to note, "fuel efficient green cars" already exist. Its just a matter of them being more widely used.
That's what I meant, just didn't say it as well as you did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
In terms of ridership, well upgrading current lines is much less problematic than building new ones. But the point I was making is that ridership is a key component and in many cases its very much an unknown. What you, or me or any other individual prefers is not that relevant. Plus, you don't even live where it snows!
Yeah, I know, but driving in a rainstorm on I-5, especially on a holiday weekend is more than a little nerve-wracking. Summer can be bad too. We had a radiator go out on the grapevine on our way to Disneyland.
I didn't mean to say that my personal preferences meant that it's a good idea. I do believe that many in CA feel as I do - that's why the proposition passed in the last election. And, many of the proposed corridors on the map seem to be in areas well-suited for rail.
CA info:
"5 November 2008 - 11:00am
A $10 billion high speed rail bond is winning with 52.2% voting 'Yes' with 95% of the precincts reporting. This would be the first state bond measure supporting high speed rail to be supported by voters in U.S., though it only funds 1/3 of costs."
"Proposition 1A would start funding construction of a high-speed rail line between the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco and Los Angeles Union Station. The trip would take about 2 1/2 hours, according to the High Speed Rail Authority, and would cost $55 one way.
The system would be the largest public works project in California history - bigger than the California Aqueduct - and would cost $32 billion for the main line between San Francisco and Los Angeles and another $10 billion to $12 billion to complete the network with extensions to San Diego, Sacramento and Riverside County. The state is banking on getting about a third of the construction budget from state taxpayers, a third from the federal government and a third from private investors."
Yeah, I know, but driving in a rainstorm on I-5, especially on a holiday weekend is more than a little nerve-wracking. Summer can be bad too. We had a radiator go out on the grapevine on our way to Disneyland.
Haha, California does not have rainstorms, it has drizzle. Personally, I think driving in light rain is relaxing. But, maybe that's just me. Regardless, you are free to have your preferences. But this begs a question. Why didn't you take the train in the past?
Quote:
Originally Posted by juliegt
I do believe that many in CA feel as I do - that's why the proposition passed in the last election.
Prop IA did not pass by a large margin and the reason it did pass was bay area liberals. I honestly don't see how California will be able to build it regardless of the passing of the prop. California is bankrupt, so the only way its likely to get built is with substantial support from the federal government.
A pittsburgh to philly link? What?!?! Why would someone take the train when it would be cheaper and quicker to fly? Why would someone take the train from pitt to philly when it would be cheaper and about the same amount of time as driving?
A HSR link between Pittsburgh and Philly could take three hours or less. It could then be considerably faster than both driving and flying (factoring in for flying all the time spent in security, waiting to board, average delays, and so on).
Quote:
If you think otherwise, check out Amtrak. That's right folks, we already have a nationalized railroad and it isn't exactly doing well.
The closest thing we have to HSR in the U.S. is Acela, and despite many (hopefully temporary) flaws it has taken major market share along its prime routes and operates at a profit.
Quote:
But I guess it makes sense to spend billions and billions on this rather than infrastructure that we already have.
The problem is that several key interstates and airports are already operating at or above capacity, and transporation demand is still growing. Accordingly, we are going to have to spend money on some form of new transportation capacity, and this is actually the cheapest way to go (versus adding more interstate and airport capacity).
.... It could then be considerably faster than both driving and flying (factoring in for flying all the time spent in security, waiting to board, average delays, and so on).
"Could" is the key word here. It all depends where you live and are going in the respective metros. Its only going to be "considerably faster" for someone that is close to the train station on each side.
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.
