79% of Travelers Would Use High Speed Rail
I know you’ll all be shocked to read this:
High speed rail is a very realistic alternative in Europe and Asia, but in the US there are very few routes that can currently be replaced by rail transport. When asked whether they would pick rail over air when available:
* 79% would choose train over plane if high-speed rail options existed.
* 61% would choose rail over air if the cost was the same or better.The hassles involved in air travel have also helped increase interest in rail alternatives:
* 86% of people would accept having the entire time from door-to-door be longer to avoid the process of checking in, security and boarding.
* 66% would willingly add an hour or more of total travel to their trips to avoid the hassles of long lines, airport security and baggage fees.
Even this survey, commissioned by SilverRail Technologies, probably understates the reasons why people would take trains. As an Economist blogger found, WiFi-enabled trains are a huge improvement over driving – in this case, between Seattle and Portland:
LAST weekend Babbage went to visit his newly born nephew in Portland, Oregon. Not by car, despite having a straight shot of 180 miles (290km) from his Seattle home. That should take a moderately law-abiding driver three hours, but in recent years getting below four proved impossible due to construction, accidents and the interminable congestion that inexorably follows both. On top of that, slow driving wears at attention, and there are only so many podcasts to consume. The dubious pleasure cost some $200 in wear, tear and petrol. Less than a flight, admittedly, but a pretty penny nonetheless.
Amtrak, America’s passenger rail service, offers a business-class return ticket for $96 (that is just $28 more than coach class), with $3 meal vouchers and electric sockets at each window seat. The trip is meant to last 3½ hours though it takes more one-third of the time. (The Obama administration has just allotted $600m for this route to bump up train speeds and remove causes of delay.) No matter. Babbage did not notice the slightly longer voyage—in both directions, as it happened—tapping away at this article and other tasks with occasional trips to the club car. As in most cities, the train stations in Seattle and Portland are located in the city centre so getting to and from them is a doddle. (Mrs Babbage obliged in Seattle and public transport had to do in Portland.)
Some might claim that a flights enabled with WiFi would even the playing field, but when you look at the factors cited in the survey above – as well as the fact that most HSR stations will be located in city centers whereas airports aren’t, and consider that you’ve got more room and comfort on a train rather than on a tightly-packed plane, and it would seem that a bullet train still makes more sense for most travelers on shorter routes than flights.
All the evidence indicates that if we build it, they will ride. HSR critics and opponents still try and get mileage out of the “nobody rides trains in America” canard. But that’s an increasingly absurd position to defend, as it becomes clear that Americans – and Californians in particular – are ready to ride the high speed trains.
Two points:
1) The comment someone left about elmo was right on. What a weird way to type.
2) It’s extremely easy to spot someone who lives in the exburbs when they say something like this:
“You now need to add the 60 minutes it will take from reaching the train station to your destination”.
It’s interesting how for this type of person, everything is so far away! Of course, if his commute to the center take 60 minutes, in his mind, everyone in the center is making a 60 minute commute out. But of course, thats not the case at all. Take Boston, thousands and thousands of people work across the street from South Station. It takes all of 60 SECONDS to cross the street to get to most destinations. And if you’re staying at a hotel, there’s Back Bay, which has 5 or 6 hotels that you can access without ever going outside.
Did you know that 40,000 people work in downtown Fresno?
Guess where the amtrak station and the future HSR stations are?
Thats right, where people want to go. (Although to be fair the commercial airport is a 15 minute drive, and there’s a private airport 5 minutes from downtown)
BruceMcF Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Not only that, but with true High Speed Rail, there is likely to be an outer suburban station that is less than 60 minutes from most origin households in the origin city, and a station substantially less than 60 minutes away from the major destinations in the destination city.
I don’t believe wi-fi would prove quite so useful on the short flights that HSR would be competing with thanks to the periods of time where you aren’t allowed to use electronics (while with trains, by contrast, you can use it all the time).
Are there any similar studies for replacing car travel? While LA-SF air travel is perhaps the most harped upon selling point, half the travel between those areas is still by car rather than air, and the largest ridership in the system is expected to be LA-SD, not LA-SF, and by a significant margin.
Ben Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Correct– Kevin Neels from the Brattle Group quantified the value of time for passengers flying in the coach section of a 737/A320 for various segments of the trip, including at the airport and onboard the aircraft. The time between doors closing on the aircraft and when passengers are able to use electronics is valued much less.
http://www.nextor.org/Conferences/201001_NEXTOR_Symposium/Neels.pdf
Two years ago, I was skeptical of the argument that WiFi brings to the table. Today, I am a convert. Further, I believe that when 4G is more widespread, the argument will be even stronger. I point to my very own experience and observations of others around me.
Recently, I got an iPad with the AT&T connection. It was a gift, otherwise, I would not have bothered as I thought it was a toy and not very useful. Prior to that, my Blackberry provided internet connection, but it was small and slow.
I surf on my commute to work aboard a light-rail train. The iPad helps makes the trip, which was already easy to begin with, a real treat. It is a 25 minute ride. It now feels like a 10 minute ride. I get by reading online news content. Sometimes this visit this site.
From time to time I observe my fellow riders. Mostly on the way home, about half of other riders are also on some type of electronic device. Mostly Readers like the Amazon Kindle. Blackberry’s and iPods are in hands too. I think many are also just listening to music or playing Angry Birds or Tetris or Suduku.
My opinion today, I concur with the blog post and the influence that WiFi willhave…. But, WiFi may not be the lure to bring first-riders aboard a train, it will be the device that keeps them coming back.
joe Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 3:52 am
Today’s HS graduates expect wi-fi 24/7.
Check out the Firefox video about their new release and Sync feature. A user syncs from the work desktop to his mobile and is shown boarding Caltrain while surfing. HSR will be embraced by the younger generation.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/video/?video=fx4-whatsnew
It doesn’t even have to have anything to do with wi-fi. The train environment is just so much more civilised than either car or plane. I hope they get some good designers on the job to enhance the train’s interior to the maximum. I find the ICE to be so much more welcoming than the TGV in terms of interiors, but even a poorly designed train still beats the competition.
“61% would choose rail over air if the cost was the same or better”
When people have a chance to try HSR, this percentage is likely to be higher.
Airlines like Easyjet and Ryanair are cheaper than the TGV and yet they can’t compete.
Example of Paris-Marseille, 470 miles, 3h00.
Lowest fares (online, non-refundable), TGV: €23, Ryanair: €19.95.
TGV market share in 2008: 66%.
And Paris-Marseille is a worst-case example. It is nearly 500 miles, the limit over which rail supposedly ceases to be competitive with air.
People clearly don’t mind paying 3 more euros to escape airport hassle. Paying more for a better product seems logical. Why would this logic be reversed in America? Unless people consider standing in line, emptying their pockets, taking off their shoes in public (and other niceties) to be privileges worth the extra money.
If more people had HSR experience, the quoted line would be:
“66% would choose rail over air if the cost was the same or slightly higher”.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:15 am
66 percent choose rail over air in the US right now – Washington DC to New York. I speculate that nearly 100% of the NY-Philadelphia air/rail market is rail…. once you eliminate the people who are flying between NY and Philadelphia so they can change planes.
Ken Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 11:11 am
Also one needs to consider all the hassle we now face when making such short hop flights. Add in the time you need to get to the airport, going through security, waiting for push back, waiting on the tarmac (i.e.: we’re number #10 for take off = 3 min per plane = 30 minutes of doing nothing but just sitting there since we’re not allowed to turn on our cell phones or laptops), all for what, an hour of time in the air?
It’s not worth it.
JJJ Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Yup, Ive been on various 35 minute flights that are scheduled for 60 minutes due to all the damn taxiing. In fact, look up the flight times between Boston and JFK. Youll see a lot of flights listed at around an hour and 20 minutes…for 36 minutes in the air! They actually leave the gate and park the plane for 20 minutes because the gate is needed by another plane but all the takeoff slots are taken.
Joe Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Once the airline shuts the door, the flight has departed. That metric factors into the airline’s on- time performance.
Ben Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Correct– with the US DOT’s tarmac delay rule which can lead to large fines in a plan is on the runway for more than three hours, aircraft try to stay at the gates as long as possible.
Ben Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:39 pm
The Port Authority of NY/NJ, in collaboration with FAA, implemented a runway metering program at JFK this past year during construction of their runway and taxiway improvements that helps reduce runway delays. Aircraft get a reservation to enter the taxiway.
At JFK, More Flying, Less Waiting on the Tarmac
Wall Street Journal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895004575395233025066228.html
Peter Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Not only would that reduce runway delays, but it also reduces the amount of fuel the planes burn while idling and waiting in line for takeoff by a LOT. Europe has been doing things that way for years.
Ken Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:40 pm
JJJ,
What you described would be a great way to “sell” HSR on TV. :D
Start with all the hassles of the airport to get to nearby cities (could be LA to San Francisco, Seattle to Portland, or Houston to Dallas depending on the region), the radiation machines and gropings by the TSA, cramped in the middle seat with seatmates from hell, the wasted time at the tarmac where you can’t do anything constructive, to finally taking off where the business man turns on his laptop only to have to turn it back off 30 min later because it’s on landing approach, then another wait of not being able to do anything for another ten minutes for the gate to clear.
Versus, hop on high speed train, get to work immediately, relax and enjoy the view. Ahh, the way travel was meant to be.
We need ads like these to start turning heads that there is an alternative.
Ken Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Having a direct intercity rail station at major airports would also alleviate long-haul to short-hop connections.
I’d yearn for a day where I can do LAX to JFK by air and onwards to Montreal via train if there was a direct intercity rail station at JFK instead of schleping all the way to Manhattan. It’d also ease congestion at JFK too by eliminating the need for flying such commuter flights which only exist as feeders from long-haul flights.
I actually don’t think anybody denies the benefits of HSR on this blog (there’s one noticeable exception though). Almost all the complaints I see involve concerns over cost overruns, proposed routes, impact on existing communities, and design flaws.
VBobier Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:22 am
From what I’ve read the same complaints and such, Like nobody rides, etc happened in Europe, Some just don’t like change and HSR isn’t just change, It’s exposure to other people, To be free of a falsely protective steel & glass cocoon. Or even just a change in their view, Which they don’t want disturbed.
StevieB Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:30 am
Denial about HSR benefits are widespread in the press. Today an opinion piece by Michael M. Rosen, an attorney and writer in San Diego, in THE AMERICAN made a denial.
Opinion pieces in California cities which are not part of stage 1 rail construction are the most frequent in their denial of public benefits. San Diego is a frequent example which is absurd considering the proposed traffic conjestion allieviation is an enormous multi-billion dollar widening of Interstate 5.
egk Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 11:16 am
Do people think that this kind of denial is a rhetorical ploy or that the (many) people who write such things simply can’t imagine trips where you are 1) visiting friends with cars 2) making a very specific trip to a place relatively the rail station (or available transit) 3) not able to drive 4) don’t have a car at your disposal. Sure you might not take the train if you were going to need your car a bunch – but that doesn’t mean you will always need your car – and a fraction of a gigantic number (say, intercity Californian trips) is still a large number (say – potential HSR ridership).
Emma Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 11:24 am
I think he makes a good point. We’re attempting something others haven’t done yet. Usually the infrastructure works its way from the bottom up:
Buses -> Light rail -> Commuter rail -> Regional rail -> Inter-city rail -> Inter city express rail (HSR)
In that system, HSR benefits because its customers arrive and leave th esation through other forms of public transportation. They have a way to move in the city without the need of a car.
Now we i nCalifornia are hoping that HSR will boost commuter rail, light-rail and bus ridership, thus causing an expansion due to higher demand. But that would mena that the first customers would have to live with the lousy network we have today.
This is why I think it’s very important that all HSR cities expand their public transit system.
Risenmessiah Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I’m not sure that everyone thinks that HSR will boost all forms of public transportation ridership. For example, I think there’s plenty of debate of how HSR will cohabitate with Metrolink in L.A., what will happen to CalTrain and Amtrak’s San Joaquin. I’m betting BART is excited about it.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:11 pm
The Wikipedia entry for the San Joaquin service will read “Once the HSR system was completed to Sacramento ridership fell so dramatically that the service was canceled”
Peter Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:18 pm
No, they’ll just switch to running DMUs instead of locomotive-hauled.
James Fujita Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:43 pm
I could see the tracks being reused locally for DMU or commuter rail rather than Amtrak.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:15 pm
It would be kinda pointless to run empty trains, locomotive hauled or MU’d
Peter Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:13 pm
Right, because people going from Hanford to Fresno are going to get on at the nonexistent HSR station? Amtrak San Joaquins will not be “empty”, and will continue running after HSR operates. Given that the CV is where most of CA’s future growth will be going, there will be a lot of regional travel demand, and people will unlikely want to pay the surcharge for HSR or have to drive all the way to get to the nearest HSR station.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:45 pm
Look at Amtrak’s station traffic numbers. Add up the numbers of passengers at stations that won’t have HSR service. Just because you can’t use Prop 1A money to build a station in Hanford/Visalila doesn’t doesn’t mean one can’t be built, just that you can’t use Prop 1A money to do it. ( or finagle the stations. Pick the same platform height etc for Caltrain and HSR and just call the Mid Peninsula station Caltrain only. Voila you have an “extra” station to build in Hanford. Once the last of the Prop 1A funds are spent, install some ticker vending machines in the Mid Peninsula station and hang some shingles. Voila, a Mid Peninsula HSR station )
Take the number you come up with for the stations that won’t have HSR. Multilply by ten. How many two car DMUs have to shuttle between those stations everyday? I see a fleet of four cars. Service would be so infrequent that people will drive to the nearest HSR station. Or get on the bus that comes once an hour and picks up ten people. Conventional intercity service is going to disappear.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:19 pm
“The San Jaoquin had originally extended all the way to Bakersfield, and included both Bay Area and Sacramento services. With the completion of HSR Stage 1, it terminated at Fresno with the opening of HSR Stage 1, though at a substantially increased frequency due to the demand for connecting services.”
“The upgraded express electric rail on the Capital and Altamont corridors had rendered the service largely redundant, even before completion of the Sacramento HSR corridor, and the the locomotives and passengers cars used to provide the San Jaoquin was urgently needed to meet the growing need for complementary rail services in parts of the state not yet equipped with express electric rail corridors.”
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. …but there ain’t gonna be anyone riding a DMU from Wasco to Fresno. It will be faster to take the bus to the nearest HSR station. It like arguing that once the NEC has something closer to HSR they should continue to run the Royal Blue because there’s a train station in Plainfield or Jenkintown..
…oh wait the Royal Blue stopped running in the 50s and the last Crusader ran in the 80s…
thatbruce Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 3:45 pm
@Emma:
This is why I think it’s very important that all HSR cities expand their public transit system.
As long as expanding local public transport is not considered to be a prerequisite to the HSR project as outlined in Prop 1A.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:46 pm
I see FUD. People fly into airports all the time without bringing their cars with them. Bus stations too for that matter. They will use the same solutions they use at airports and bus stops at HSR stations.
joe Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:30 pm
Fly into DCA airport in WA DC and take the blue/yellow Metro into DC.
Fly into Dulles and take a $12 bus to the orange line Metro stop.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:12 pm
DCA is in Virginia. :-) Or BWI and take MARC or Amtrak to Union Station
….where train service is available the majority of the people, in the air/rail market, don’t bother with the schlep to downtown, they take the train
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 12:45 pm
“how many Californians will opt to abandon their cars to travel from one car-dependent megalopolis to another?”
This is the situation now, but remedies can be imagined. Something like the Velib system in Paris where you can ride a bike from any bicycle station to any other bicycle station and pay with your credit card (or a special card if you are a frequent user). Just replace “bicycle” by “car”. These “carlib” don’t have to be big since they will just be used locally. They can even be electric. Traffic congestion will be reduced because of the smaller size of the cars and the absence of those who are looking for a parking place, slowing everybody else.
It’s also a much rational use of cars. They are now idle most of the time and occupy parking spaces which could be put to better uses. It will demand an evolution in mentalities because it separates the notions of car ownership and car use. Thinking “a” car instead of “my” car will demand some effort at first.
Joe Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:08 pm
Who says SF is car friendly?
Or that LA isn’t heavily invested into a comprehensive rapid transit?
Ben Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 4:25 am
“This is the situation now, but remedies can be imagined. Something like the Velib system in Paris where you can ride a bike from any bicycle station to any other bicycle station and pay with your credit card (or a special card if you are a frequent user). Just replace “bicycle” by “car”. These “carlib” don’t have to be big since they will just be used locally. They can even be electric. Traffic congestion will be reduced because of the smaller size of the cars and the absence of those who are looking for a parking place, slowing everybody else.”
DC and Arlington, VA, already have a bikeshare program (http://www.capitalbikeshare.com/) with 100 stations and over 1,000 bikes. It has already proven tremendously successful. There are approximately 45,000 – 50,000 trips per month and plans to expand by 30 more stations in the District.
Peter Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:46 pm
“how would passengers get around the Bay Area or the L.A. Basin without wheels?”
Why do they fly from LA to SF if they don’t have wheels when they get there? If they need to, they can rent a car at the train station the same way they do at the airport. Ignoring that fact is faulty logic, and totally destroys his argument.
Peter Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 3:20 pm
If people traveling actually thought that way, they wouldn’t fly anywhere, either.
Ken Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:26 pm
“how many Californians will opt to abandon their cars to travel from one car-dependent megalopolis to another?”
When gas prices reaches $5/gal. Scoffed at for years, but now fast becoming a reality.
Then you’ll have people screaming why we don’t have better public transportation. :rollseyes:
J. Wong Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Even though most discussion (I’m being generous here) is purportedly over “cost overruns, proposed routes, impact on existing communities, and design flaws”, eventually it always seems to devolve down to position A over position B or visa-versa because no one will ride if one is chose over the other.
The reality is that people will choose to ride HSR for most options. For ex., HSR will be successful whether Pacheco or Altamont is chosen, or Tehachapi or Tejon; whether the station is downtown or in a green field location. Would it be “more” successful if one option were chose over another? I don’t think anyone can answer that.
This is truly a “build it and they will ride” scenario.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 2:04 pm
Who needs alignment studies, then?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:08 pm
People who write alignment studies. People who then say the alignment study is flawed. People who sue the people who wrote the alignment study claiming it was flawed. The lawyers employed by both. It’s a jobs program!
J. Wong Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:54 pm
“Who needs alignment studies, then?”
:=) That’s not my point at all.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:06 pm
The downtown versus green field location is fairly easy to answer in terms of the benefit side alone. It only gets tricky when the green field location has substantially lower capital costs and a benefit/cost comparison is being made.
I find this assertion VERY strange: “High speed rail is a very realistic alternative in Europe and Asia, but in the US there are very few routes that can currently be replaced by rail transport.”
Where do they get that from? All one has to do is compare city-pair populations and distances, and one finds *lots* of comparable pairs.
Peter Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:18 am
Possibly just poorly worded? I’m guessing they meant to say “in the US there are very few routes where rail transport is currently available”?
Ken Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 11:08 am
In the US, they think in macro terms like linking up LA to New York with high speed rail.
They never consider nearby cities like Vancouver-Seattle-Portland, San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego, Houston-Dallas/Dallas-Austin-San Antonio, or Boston-New York-Philly-DC.
Wad Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 4:38 pm
The other line of thinking to watch out for: Mention the two endpoints of a line (L.A. to San Francisco, say), and some people think that the train will make only those two stops.
The opposition likes to say that no one will take the train L.A S.F. because planes already fly the route. They don’t figure out that it’s the plane, not the train, that is reliant upon those markets. There’s no plans for a L.A. – Bakersfield – Fresno – San Jose – San Francisco plane. Plus, the train allows for more trip permutations and thus higher ridership.
synonymouse Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:50 pm
Because there isn’t that much business. Horizon just killed some backwoods flights.
James Fujita Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:17 pm
they killed flights to places like Eureka and Redding, the combined populations of which would be less than 1/4th the size of Fresno.
Loren Petrich Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 5:29 pm
That’s what I had in mind, pairs of cities separated by 200 – 300 mi / 300 – 500 km.
There are some longer HSR lines, but they have several cities along the way. China has several, and outside of China, there are some:
Japan: Aomori – Kagoshima: 2100 km / 1300 mi
Italy: Turin – Naples: 950 km / 590 mi
Stitching together some nations’ high-speed lines yields this one:
Sevilla – Amsterdam: 2800 km / 1700 mi
with a few gaps
Doing that with various proposals for the US east coast gives
Portland ME – Miami: 1900 mi
For a NYC – LA line, this approach would justify NYC – Omaha or Kansas City, and LA – Las Vegas, about half of the route. The other half is thinly populated and has lots of mountains.
J. Wong Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Hmm, I might be wrong, but I believe that none of these “long-distance” HSR are “one seat” journeys; they all involve changing trains. Not that that’s necessarily a problem, just not as convenient nor probably competitive with air.
James Fujita Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:48 pm
connecting trains should be every bit as convenient as connecting flights. a LOT of the traffic at O’Hare, or DFW is connecting flights.
Joey Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:55 pm
They should be more convenient. That is – cross platform where possible, at least convenient and well-timed when not.
joe Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 8:27 pm
And with HSR Fresno becomes centrally located between Sac, SF/SJ and SD/LA. A short hop from each point, possibly a convient day trip meeting place – like Chicago is for the US.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:47 pm
Changing trains in Penn Station, one of the world’s worst train stations, is much easier than changing planes.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:16 pm
There is no track connection between the Shinkansen lines north of Tokyo and the lines south of Tokyo.
Loren Petrich Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 10:41 am
So Tokyo has more than one Shinkansen station. That would make it like several other big cities. In my Sevilla – Amsterdam example, one will either have to go from Gare de Lyon to Gare du Nord in Paris, or else change trains to one that uses the Paris Interconnexion.
I used raileurope.com to plan a Sevilla – Amsterdam trip, and I had to split it in Barcelona and Paris.
Sevilla – Barcelona (Sants): 5h 25m
Barcelona (Sants) – Figueres – Paris (Lyon): 7h 41m (1h 40m + 22m + 5h 39m)
Paris (Nord) – Amsterdam: 3h 18m
Air travel is faster, but it requires a change of planes in Madrid. When Barcelona – Figueres is done next year or so, it’ll enable one-seat rides between Paris and Barcelona, with a time of about 6h 30m. Nimes – Montpellier – Perpignan are further down the construction and planning pipeline, and will speed up that leg even further.
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 11:09 am
Tokyo and Paris are not really the same. Tokyo has one central Shinkansen station – Tokyo – from which trains pull north and south, stopping at adjacent platforms without connection. There were plans for a track connection and through-service, but they never went anywhere.
Andre Peretti Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 4:00 am
Going from Gare de Lyon to Gare du Nord at rush hour with children and baggage is no piece of cake.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 4:21 am
It would also justify LA / Phoenix and NYC / Dallas, which gives one normal HSR link but a smaller metro area at Phoenix / Albuquerque, and then a gap Dallas / Albuquerque.
Kinda off-topic, but here is a Time-lapse video of the Hihg-line Park in Manhattan. The park on top of the Bay Transit Center is based on a similar concept. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video/player#/?titleID=ny-high-line
That was a very good idea which can only boost tourism and ridership. Airports and even stations in Europe don’t have that kind of area where you can simply sit and relax while you’re waiting for your train.
Regarding HSR. That one was obvious. If it was there, I think people would prefer it over planes big time, even if it takes a bit longer. It’s far less stressful, no TSA, no G-forces. Acela Express ridership has been going up since it began service.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 1:14 pm
I can remember when the airport at Pittsburgh, Pa. had an open upper level from which to watch the airplanes start and taxi away; of course, I have to mention that this was when I was a kid. Among the things I remember was watching people boarding by walking out to a set of stairs on rollers to get onto the airplane, and the great clouds of blue and grey smoke those old radial engines would blow out as they were started, one at a time. I still think that’s the way an airplane should sound! Jets were still very new; I think they may have been in service for perhaps five years at the time. I do recall thinking a jet’s starting sequence should have been more impressive, with flames coming out the rear of the engines like a rocket, but all they did was whine and whistle. Disappointing to a boy who was perhaps five or six then.
This clip from the 1952 British film, “The Net,” suggests something of what a jet takeoff should be like, although I’m not certain most of was would want to be on this test flight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qk90pbUzM8
YesonHSR Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:08 pm
TWA Connie…lovely bird
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 4:41 am
Indeed, perhaps the loveliest of all the prop airliners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Constellation
http://www.historynet.com/the-legendary-lockheed-constellation.htm
http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=lockheed+con&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=lockheed+constellation
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 4:46 am
I never saw one, but Boeing’s B-29-based Stratocruiser looks fascinating as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_377
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stratocruiser&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=stratocr
Even allowing for the likely bias in the survey (which was sponsored by what amounts to a rail-oriented travel agency), I am pleasantly surprised at the high level of support rail gets, and at the very high level of disapproval of current security arrangements.
It’s also interesting to see that people, while going through all that garbage, look longingly at the past, which is what trains are supposed to be–even when they are really not!
A recent article recalling a proposal that called for a 1000 mph jet train from LA to New York: http://gas2.org/2011/03/23/the-1000-mph-trans-continental-jet-train-that-never-was/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Some ideas are like a bad penny, they keep turning up. . .
The following is a comment on American HSR from the Infrastructurist:
D.W. Major Says:
March 21st, 2011 at 7:03 am
Dear People
This is about the future of Transportation.
HSR could be so much better.
Just how much better you can see on our website.
People want to travel and they have a right to do so.
But environmental Issues can and must not be ignored.
Saying that the Aviation industry is by far the biggest polluter in the world
counting 1t+ of CO2 emissions per person per year.
This is why we invented a HSR System that is faster then Airplanes yet produces ZERO Emissions.
Implementing this Solution would save billions of Pound and also eliminate pollution by giving people the freedom to travel anywhere at low costs High speeds and no pollution.
http://WWW.ZEROEMISSIONTRANSPORTATION.WEBS.COM
“The HS2 rail project is expensive, environmentally damaging, and badly thought through.” – quote.
We agree completely and it is a waste of time work and Taxpayers money.
If we ought to put a new HSR line in place we should make it snappy and think it through to the smallest details possible.
And because thinking is our work and people don’t like to do this kind of thing anymore we just did that.
This fact and that the Aviation Industry is by far the biggest polluter on this planet brought us to sit down and try to create the best possible transport system ever.
And that we did.
A Train that is faster then an Airplane yet produces absolute no emissions whatsoever.
But it did not stop there.
We included into the Train Track an Infrastructure housing facility so that everywhere where this Train goes so does Internet electricity telephone water in fact anything that uses cables can be connected with this system.
That means that we can travel faster from A to B then dialing up with AOL.
Our Idea is no more radical as to connect every city every country and every continent with this Train and to replace ALL existing methods of Transportation with this non polluting solution and bring education energy and communication directly to the home of everyone in every village and every town no one excluded.
This concept is possible within one year of work and there is much more to it.
No tunnels need to be built for this solution and the environmental impact of this ZET HSR system is 1/10 of others maybe even better then that.
The amount of money spend into similar technology that proves everything exceeds $20.000.000 and the technology and concept is proven since the 1930’s in one way or the other.
Franz Kruckenbergs Shienenzeppelin – 1930’s
The Hovercraft – 1950’s
Jean Bertin’s Aerotrain – 1970’s
The Scramjet engine – 1910’s – 2005
All this technology combined is the result of our work.
Hypersonic Zero Emission High Speed Rail.
Now the Government knows about this technology for quite some time since we told them a long time ago and offered them our assistance.
Yet if one reads the consultation papers of the HS2 project there is not a single word mentioned about our work.
It only considers old and expensive technologies that are already outdated and have no possibility of future growth.
That leads us to the question: For whom does our Government work?
For the people or for other Interests?
Is the corruption in this Government gone so far that the people of Britain are denied the best possible technology because of self serving interests of politicians and Banksters?
You decide!
D.W. Major
CEO
Zero Emission Transportation Ltd
http://WWW.ZEROEMISSIONTRANSPORTATION.WEBS.COM
London
UK
Some of the stuff on his own site has to be seen to be believed,
I wonder how these proposals for running at speeds well in excess of Mach 1 would deal with shock waves and resulting sonic booms. I also wonder about the high power requirement for running at such speed; that was part of what killed the Concorde.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 7:23 pm
They’d deal with the problems the same way they were going to deal with it back in the 60s with SSTs. Violate the laws of physics.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 9:21 pm
No, just elect new physicists to get the laws of physics rewritten.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 23rd, 2011 at 10:03 pm
You just have the resurrect the esteemed solons who decided that Pi was too irrational and passed legislation that henceforth Pi would be a nice whole number, 3….
D. P. Lubic Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 4:36 am
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho!
Alon Levy Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 11:09 am
4.
BruceMcF Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
No, not four. Four is square, man. Everyone knows that pi aren’t square.
D.W. Major Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 10:37 am
To reply to your questions:
The Sonic Boom actually is generated by the wings as they move forward they create a vacuum bubble behind the wings that when crossing the SoS barrier dispatches itself from the wings and the Air collides behind the jet and that creates a sonic boom.
So no wings no sonic Boom or have do rockets create sonic booms? No. Same physics apply.
And what killed the Concorde or the TU-144 in that respect was its incapability to maneuver at low speeds and the Heat generation on the Surface of the Wings.
Again no wings none of that.
And then if any of those wanna be physicians here ever had a close look at a Scramjet or Air Breathing engine then you see that the intelligent use of given physical Laws is what we do.
Breaking Laws is not in our interest.
What we try to do is simply offer the best possible method of Transportation the safest fastest cheapest and cleanest way and if you can find any flaw in it then you are better then Professors
at UCL and other Institutions that failed to find any flaw in this.
D.W. Major
CEO
Zero Emission Transportation Ltd
http://WWW.ZEROEMISSIONTRANSPORTATION.WEBS.COM
London
UK
Paulus Magnus Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
And what material science, pray tell, do you intend on using to handle hypersonic air travel at surface level? Mach 10 at sea level is about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit. We’ve handled high temperatures with ablatives for brief periods of time (Apollo 10 was about twice that when it reentered), sustained speeds would be lulz. I’d also love to see the basis of your claim on your website that “The passengers will even survive a head on collission at a speed of Mach 10.” Of course, given your inability to spell proof any of your websites, I do have to question whether you or anyone else involved with this has graduated secondary school.
As for sonic booms, yes rockets do create sonic booms. Do bullwhips have wings? Not the last time I checked. Do they create sonic booms? Yes. You tend not to hear the sonic boom of a rocket because the propagate perpendicular to the direction of travel which is vertical with rockets, but horizontal with aircraft.
thatbruce Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
@Paulus:
This is one troll you don’t want to feed. Our other trolls at least adhere to the laws of physics, at least those able to be empirically observed or simply extrapolated.
Peter Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 10:50 am
“You tend not to hear the sonic boom of a rocket because the propagate perpendicular to the direction of travel which is vertical with rockets, but horizontal with aircraft.”
Not to mention the fact that the rockets are normally 100 miles out to sea when they go supersonic.
Peter Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
“The Sonic Boom actually is generated by the wings as they move forward they create a vacuum bubble behind the wings that when crossing the SoS barrier dispatches itself from the wings and the Air collides behind the jet and that creates a sonic boom.”
Oh, wow. High speed aerodynamics FAIL.
Isn’t the heading for this piece misleading? 79% of travelers? Don;t you mean 79% of a specific group of travelers? Let’s hope that the TSA doesn’t get its finger into HSR or you’ll lose the reason a lot of these people want to change modes. You can be sure the security “industry” will want to expand into this new “market”.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
They gave it a shot on the NEC and abandoned it.
Oh before I forget…
Train and Track never touch and the creation of supersonic vibration in the Track will be swallowed by the Dampeners that are installed in the Track.
D.W. Major
CEO
Zero Emission Transportation Ltd
http://WWW.ZEROEMISSIONTRANSPORTATION.WEBS.COM
London
UK
I like to ride train.
Here is a picture of a train I like.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/8579276@N05/5547783782/
Thank you for viewing my favorite train.
AndyDuncan Reply:
March 24th, 2011 at 9:34 pm
Your pictures just make me sad that HSR is going to the SD Airport, not Santa Fe station.
Because, as we all know, people love to take the train from LA to San Diego so that they can fly to Sacramento.
Ken Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 9:54 am
I never understood why it’s so darn hard to extend the track just a wee bit more (1.7 mi) to Santa Fe Depot so it can connect both the airport and the train station.
Wad Reply:
March 25th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Tight quarters.