This animated map shows how radically a high-speed train system would improve travel

House Republicans heading to the United Nations climate conference in Egypt plan to argue that nuclear power and natural gas are essential to meeting global climate goals, the head of the delegation said Monday, even as some climate activists criticize the two technologies.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...blicans-push-nuclear-power-natural-gas-cop27/

 

Global warming alarmists are adamant about eliminating human CO2 emissions. And yet they do not promote nuclear power. There are many new nuclear technologies which are very economical. The large 1000 mw power stations are expensive due to over regulation and permit costs.

 

Air travel is definitely faster, however it most definitely isn’t cheaper. That’s why the countries that have high speed rails use them so frequently, and it’s not just locals that use them, but tourists as well. People who literally fly into the country use the high speed rail once in the country, because of the fact that it is so much cheaper.

 

the problem with this analogy is it assumes the other countries listed don’t also have air travel. In actually, all of those countries listed have the same air travel that the US has, the reason why those other countries use their high speed rail system so frequently isn’t became they don’t have air travel, but because the high speed rail is significantly cheaper to use.

 

It’s less expensive because ticket prices are subsidized. True economic analysis shows that it is more expensive. This is similar to solar and wind energy as well as electric cars.

 

Although I like the idea of high-speed rail, it will never work in the United States for three reasons. First, in the late 19th century, the railroads made the mistake of saying they are in the railroad industry and not the transportation industry. Second, today, all the major airlines will lobby to make sure this does not happen. They see high-speed rail as competition to their dominance on domestic travel, other than the use of conveyance, and they will make sure they are still dominant. Finally, there is no political willpower to make it so. GOP will want all of it private with no government funding, Democrats will want some government funding with Amtrak being the principle operator of high-speed rail. And that means gridlock, not to mention all the places that will want that rail to stop in their town/city for more economic improvement.

Texas high-speed rail is not going anywhere, nor has California high-speed rail, and so will this. Unless the public has a seismic shift of attitudes and demands this type of product, I'm afraid we will be dead last in this category forever.

On a side note, think about this. The best high-speed rail we have is at an amusement park, namely Walt Disney World. That's it.

 

They do, but their air travel tends to be international, rather than domestic especially in Europe, Japan, and a few other places, except in China. But China does have high-speed rail service. Took it from Shanghai to Beijing and was impressed. Also took it from Tianjin to Beijing too. Nice, comfortable, and relatively inexpensive, even for first class, as a westerner.. Got freed food and a drink, bread, and bottled water.

 

In the olden and golden days of railroads, they did both. the passenger cars were up front and the cargo cars were in back, all on the same line using the same steam locomototive to pull them to their final destination, wherever that was.

But with high-speed rail, you need a separate track than that of freight, generally, for this to work. And with 90% of rail lines not being used, it will be relatively inexpensive to convert the old rail lines to a grade that can handle a high-speed rail. thus they will not have to interact with each other at all and still keep the freight going.

 

So, why not a picture of American, Delta, United, Braniff, Eastern, Continental, etc?

Air travel has its blessings and curses. Air carriers use a spoke wheel format. If you live in a major city where the airport is a major hub for one of the airlines, such as American with DFW, you can fly anywhere you want. But if you live in Jackson, MS, then the chances are that you will need to fly to Altanta or some other major hub before you get to your final destination. And you might need to change planes, etc. the major drawback is going through TSA, whether or not you have that TSA frequent flyer pass or not. If you don't, then you have to almost literally strip while going through the checkpoint, etc. And that takes time. So, you add at least an hour, and generally two or three on high travel days such as major holiday travel, along with your flight time, and then the time to pick up your luggage if you have to check it in. Then deal with unruly passengers and all the other drama that can come while flying.

 

China builds bullet trains to clear the tracks for coal trains.

“More heavy-haul freight trains will be put into operation to step up the country's capacity to transport coal from north to south, the company said.

The adjustment will further enhance the country's thermal coal transport capacity and provide stronger support for the national economy, it said.

In addition, a new batch of bullet trains will be added to optimize railway routes and provide more travel options for passengers in central and eastern parts of the country, according to the diagram.”

https://english.www.gov.cn/news/topnews/202203/24/content_WS623c1e2dc6d02e53353283a5.html

 

Well first off, air travel is also subsidized substantially, and second, no it is not cheaper to move a plane from point A to point B than it is to move a train. Air travel is only cheaper than high speed rail travel under specific circumstances, if you are traveling a very long distance, and plan ahead and get your flight ticket early, air travel can be cheaper, but under the vast majority of circumstances where high speed rail is used, traveling by train is a fraction of the cost of air travel. Also worth noting that when train travel is a viable alternative to traveling by plane, it actually relieves some of the demand for flight tickets, and in effect brings down the cost of air travel as well.

I should also note that in countries where high speed rails are used regularly, it is not uncommon for people to use the high speed rail to travel to and from their daily jobs. It is also a more viable option of transportation for tourists who are making various mid distance trips within a country. Having high speed rail as a viable option helps increase tourism and work participation

 

1. How do you derive such an assumption from a picture of a jet aircraft?

2. Our "third world" rail system is specialized for the transportation of freight, not people. Our rails move lots of cargo over large distances. Europe's rails move lots of people over short distances. We have twice the amount of railway infrastructure and we carry 3 times as much cargo per mile of track. Our rails are designed to carry large loads slowly. The conversion of this infrastructure would disable our ability to transport cargo, and the duplication of this infrastructure for the purpose of high speed railways would be enormously costly.

America, if you hadn't noticed, is big. It's much more efficient for us to move goods by rail than people.

 

How is air travel subsidized?

 

How would high speed rail solve this "spoke wheel" routing issue? Seems like the geographic limitations alone would make routing high speed rail even more difficult. Planes fly over towns. Trains have to pass through them...

 

Not to mention mountains.

 

I've followed your posts closely and I have not seen it.

 

I'd rather be charged with the logistics of figuring that out than being responsible for routing a missile through a suburb full of bored kids.

 

I'm glad to see Republicans getting involved in climate issue!! That's an amazing move from the point of trying to kill these conferences, then working successfully to block any kind of commitment by the US, to now actually supporting that direction!!

Maybe we're turning a corner!

However, let's remember that natural gas is better in terms of climate impact than other fossil fuel alternatives, but it still is not good enough. The move still has to be away from fossil fuel.

Also, it is very much the case that nuclear power takes a long time to develop and has a history of increasing the cost of electricity substantially. This can be measured, as UK is working to build new nuclear energy plants. It is not just hypothetical.

What that means is that we can not use nuclear possibilities as an excuse for solutions that are far more economic and have shorter development times.

 

Railroad in America was built to move freight, because that was what was needed. You can't blame them for that. It is exactly what good capitalists should have done.

ALL of our transportation infrastructure gets federal and state funding and is planned at the state and federal level. Like other infrastructure, the payoff comes in the greater economic activity that is promoted.

No corporation could decide on its own to build an airport or a new fast passenger rail line. The investment is prohibitive and the payoff in tickets would be far longer term than modern business principles allow. Republicans in their right mind don't suggest this direction.

 

There is no climate catastrophe issue.

 

Indeed. Airports get over 300 million bucks of federal aid through the EAS a year, while there are no taxes asked for burning kerosine.
I wouldn't rule out state governments also provide financial aid and that airports themselves also get handouts.

Bit weird to only eyeball trains.

 

Source?

 

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=eas+subsidy+wiki&l=1

 

High speed rail won't solve the spike wheel, but it will provide an alternative to car and air travel, thus, more competition means cheaper prices for all.

 

Railroads were the principal mode of transportation over long distances for human travel up to the 1950s. And it was a lot cheaper than air travel in those days. Nowadays, we are packed like sardines in an airplane with fuel, mail, passengers, luggage, and some freight, with an occasionally fallen hero returning home.

I am not arguing who has and who does not have federal funding. I am arguing that the GOP has historically wanted to eliminate any and all federal subsidies for railroads, whether it is the metro light rail, Amtrak, etc. It is all about the lobbying groups that pay for their campaigns, and they can include air transportation companies, oil companies, and any other business group that favors the GOP. Same for the Democratic party. But we simply do not have the political will to get this done, unlike the 1950s when huge amounts of federal funding helped create the interstate highway system.