Impressive. Pity US HSR initiatives are so 19th century in design. If I were Emperor, I’d mandate HSR developments to use Maglev or other forward thinking designs.
On another subject, just finished reading an interesting article on “Vancouverism vs. Lower Manhattanism” which analyzes two different approaches to urban development and financing. Also, Vancouver is claiming to have for now, the highest density residential area in North America. Another nugget from the article is that projections from ridership on translink shows that ridership will trend towards going FROM downtown to suburbs for work.
No, don’t waste time and money by pursuing Alice in Wonderland gadget technologies like Maglev.
Electric rail is capable of 250 mph service. It is cheaper and uses less energy. And it can be built incrementally, making use of existing rail infrastructure. Look at how rail in Europe in countries like Germany and France has been incrementally improved.
Maglev has been a failure. The Chinese evaluated it with a line to Shanghai’s primary international airport. They decided rail was the way to go for their modernization.
Maglev is also proprietary.
No one has a patent on 1435mm*.
*1435mm=4’8.5″, i.e. “Standard Gauge”
p.s. 486.1 km/h is 302.something mph.
There was an article in Scientific American earlier this year that argued that Maglev is superior in the long-run due to the cheaper maintenance costs. I can seem to find the article at the moment, but if I’m remembering this correctly, the argument was that high speed rail on conventional tracks creates so much wear and tear that the cost of continual maintenance over several decades negates the advantage of lower capital costs for initial construction.
Whether this is true or not, I’m not claiming to know.
It’s interesting that they think they know what the maintenance regimen for maglev is, given that there is only one commercial installation of it. It makes sense to wait a few years and see if the claims meet up with reality. In any case, we have plenty of catching up to do with conventional speed rail, “emerging HSR” and “express HSR” that we should do our spending in the most capital efficient way. It probably makes sense to proceed with one of the maglev projects that USDOT has been funding, but purely as an experimental test-bed.
Why buy an off the shelf HSR system. Let’s put the research and development capabilities of our Defense related companies to work on this. I’m sure Boeing or Lockheed/Martin or Westinghouse, General Dynamics or a whole host of companies would chomp at the bit for R&D contracts for this.
It would be far better to spend bucks on a project like this than blowing things up in the desert.
We should use tried-and-true technology because it’s tried-and-true. Boeing has ventured into train technology before and failed at it. Once we have operating system and a will to build more, we can afford to do the R&D and manufacturing to improve what we have.
Boeing’s Vertol Helicopter Division ventured into Light Rail.
Not that I want aerospace engineers anywhere near a train, but I wanted to put that on the record.
Now, if only the FRA would allow US rail operators to use some of the light-weight-developed-from-aviation materials that their European counterparts get to take advantage of…
I’m all for high-speed rail, but something that I think doesn’t get said enough (if ever)—everyone points to countries like Japan and says things like “Why are we building such slow rail lines when we should be building another Shinkansen/TGV/Maglev!?” But to use Japan as an example, the country has, essentially, one single high-speed line, with most (like 95%+) of the country’s rail lines being comparatively low-speed local/regional rail. It seems to me that misrepresenting/misunderstanding how widespread high-speed rail technology is or should be only serves to make a usable rail system an unachievable goal.
The consequence is that we’re stuck with trains that go 70 miles an hour which is actually slower than average train speeds a 1/2 century ago. An incremental speed bump to 100-125 mph is not a whole lot of bang for the buck.
I was reading more about this project, and came across this statement, “This project cost $ 32.5 billion and is part of a massive government effort to link many Chinese cities with high-speed rail and also reduces the density of population in the path that is widely used.” So part of its purpose is to reduce density. Interesting.
What is the existing density? Is it higher than anything in North America? So bringing it down would create Chicago-like cities, not low-density Bellevues.
I love the idea of someone from this blog envying China for building this rail system, only to find out that its purpose is to reduce density and create sprawl. I simply love it!
The only two cities in China with what can be considered high density are Hong Kong and Macau. Hong Kong was built by the British and Macau was Portuguese. Bejing is losing urban density as it completes the transition for bicycle to auto domination (the Chinese are thinking about reducing the subsidy for private automobile purchase as they have exceeded the US in number of vehicles sold). The population density for Bejing at 937 per square kilometer (2005) is positively bucolic compared to Bellevue’s 1,524/km.
The high speed train is specifically targeted to compete with the airlines. I haven’t heard any transit activist claiming the airline industry has helped create density in any way.
Well, aren’t we supposed to believe that everything those eviiiil commies do is wrong?
Chinese Academy of Sciences: High-Speed Rail Construction Unsustainable
Nov 09, 2010 eChinacities.com
The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) reported to the State Council recently, urging the large-scale high-speed railway construction projects in China to be re-evaluated. The CAS worries that China may not be able to afford such a large-scale construction of high-speed rail, and such a large scale high-speed rail network may not be practical.
High-speed rail train runs at over 250 km per hour, about twice the normal speed of a regular train. Under the current plan, the central government has approved to build, by 2020, 16,000 km of high speed rail providing access to about 90% of the Chinese population. Some local media have reported recently that the recently enabled Wuhan – Guangzhou high-speed rail is currently running an average daily attendance of less than half capacity, while the newly opened Shanghai-Hangzhou high-speed rail attendance is even lower. The main reason for the high-speed rail low attendance is that fares are too high; the high-speed railway ticket prices are usually double or higher than normal train fares.
The report submitted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said China’s high-speed rail construction has caused debt that has already reached unsustainable levels; particularly since the end of 2008, the government introduced a stimulus plan to fight the global economic crisis and the size of local government borrowing is already very high
And Norman very predictably chimes in with “See rail sucks, if China would just deploy enough buses for 1.2 Billion people and build 50 lane freeways things would be wonderful”.
China will have more high speed rail in 10 years than all other nations combined and all we can come up with is “See, it’s costs a lot of money”.
Has it ever occurred to you you Norman that the Chinese are becoming the world dominant economic power and they’re building to the future? People will be able to take the train in time.
“People will be able to take the train in time.”
So what?
Norman! There you go again. You’re expecting a system like that to be operate at full capacity out of the gate. Obviously they will price the high speed system at a higher rate and people will opt to use which ever mode makes sense for them.
Such investments in rail infrastructure will pay dividends for their economy for decades and generations to come. By mitigating a roadway/fossil fuel intensive infrastructure to move people, they make significant savings in their balance of payments and allows their workforce to remain competitive. What is unsustainable for China is the rapid rise of the use of cars and road infrastructure. By contrast, the United States sends nearly $1 Trillion dollars out of our country to pay for petroleum.
Of course, instead of importing oil, China merely burns coal. So, is that what you are suggesting the U.S. should do — emulate China by using our vast reserves of coal to generate electricity, instead of burning oil? We could do that. The U.S. has the largest coal reserves in the world, I believe. So, are you saying the U.S. should so what China has done and build about 2 new huge coal-burning plants per week to generate electricity?
Norman, I agree that China is burning coal and that is a bad thing. But they do recognize the economic consequence of becoming dependent on oil imports and are moving their economy in directions to reduce such an occurrence.
I support a rapid move to sustainable energy for which the Pacific Northwest already has huge quantities of. I like wind farms, I like using wind farms with catchment to store energy for later use. Washington State even has solar potential. I like stream flow energy capture by placing turbines in rivers and streams. I like placing solar polymers on large buildings to capture energy. I like rekitting buildings to capture energy from pressure differentials and from waste energy. Even a dropping elevator can recapture energy.
I think we can utilize some fossil fuels produced on this continent as a stop gap on the road towards petroleum independence. For example, natural gas coupled with fuel cells is a reasonable approach because it does not combust the fuel and the carbon release is considered neutral. Biofuels produced in such a manner that it doesn’t impact food supply for either humans or livestock could also be used in a stop gap manner.
Peak oil is going to mean very expensive gas for our cars and China’s economic engine based on wage arbitrage will come to a screeching halt. Expensive gas means outlying suburbs based on residents commuting long distances to a large city will become untenable and like we saw just 2 years ago, will be abandoned in large numbers. Like it or not, using gas powered cars will become very expensive to operate and the market will direct our behavior.
Given the reality of peak oil and given that global warming is occurring, we need to make strategic decisions that move us towards sustainability. It means that decisions like the recently awarded Alaska Way Tunnel are a complete boondoggle that fails to acknowledge peak oil nor global warming. You complain about a country with 1.5 billion people spending $36 billion on a train system well, Seattle is in a region of 4 million people that will spend 4 billion on this tunnel that will serve fewer cars than the structure it replaces and will increase congestion for the cars that it pushes out of the corridor thus increasing the waste of fuel for which we are all paying foreign exchange. And does nothing to get people to use less fossil fuels.
I think expansion of public transit both bus –especially electric buses — and rail is essential to sustainability. When people start paying $7/gal for gas, they will be clamoring for public transit.
The Chinese’ own study shows that the debt incurred from hi-speed rail construction is “unsustainable.” That is not my study.
What is it about many posters here, who, like little kids, cannot understand the principle that some things are so expensive that they do not make sense to purchase or build. Is that too complicated for you?
Or, what?
Actually, all we have is a news report about their report. We don’t know what the rationale used in the report and how it squares with the Government’s objectives let alone peer reviewed.
The $36.2billion spent on this line is less than what they spent on the Olympics.
You could have just as well said: ‘the Americans’ own study shows that the debt incurred from defense spending and overseas wars is “unsustainable.”‘
In other words, yes, it’s true that countries can get themselves into debt at “unsustainable levels,” but that really has little to do with high speed rail in particular.
That is exactly what this Chinese study said: it said the debt incurred by construction of HIGH-SPEED RAIL was unsustainable. That study has EVERYTHING “to do with high speed rail in particular.”
You’re missing my point. Note, I didn’t say “*the study* has nothing to do with high speed rail in particular” (as you misquoted), I said that “*governments incurring debt* has nothing to do with high speed rail in particular.”
Yes, that study certainly focused on high speed rail as being a source of unsustainable debt for China. However, there’s very little that separates government spending on high speed rail from government spending on defense, healthcare, roads, the olympics (as mentioned by Charles) or really any other social service. ALL of those are a source a debt.
The debate about whether we spend our money on rail or on war isn’t about whether or not they incur debt, it’s about whether we as a society value where that money is being spent (again, this is basically what Charles just said). Neither will (likely) directly turn a profit for our country, so we evaluate those decisions based on future economic benefit, safety, etc.
If you are basing that statement on the link in your comment then you don’t know anymore than the rest of us. Without access to the particulars of the study, we don’t know what they mean by “unsustainable” as it would be a subjective assessment. If they mean that it would bankrupt the country’s economy that is not particularly likely. If it means that it becomes a very visible long term obligation of the government, then that is possibly true, but you weigh that against the objectives of the government. For example, to encourage people to live outside the megalopolis’s of Shanghai and Beijing might be a reasonable government objective e.g. establish centers of economic activity outside of the country’s two largest cities. HSR, as stated in the comments to the article you linked to achieves those goals.
Perhaps the report indicates that there are other costs that need to be considered including maintaining the line and safety. But if they can move hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people daily between large cities efficiently, and without relying on large quantities of fossil fuels (or at least petroleum based fuels) for which they have to pay money to import, they are that much farther ahead of their competitors that have to pay real cash for oil to fuel their cars, and buses and conventional trains and airplanes.
I operate on the conclusion that peak oil in the world is a real phenomena and that global warming is occurring. Given those 2 factors it is imperative that we base our infrastructure decisions accordingly on rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, increasing density of housing and economic activity and efficiently moving people between cities. It means mandating products use less energy in their production and transport. It means making our housing much more energy efficient. It means moving away from petroleum as the basis for our economy.
Any decision that perpetuates the use of fossil fuels without proper environmental mitigation will be a not well factored decision. The continued construction of road infrastructure that encourages sprawl is not a well factored decision.
There are a few posters here that have a real problem with reading comprehension. Allow me to quote from the article again:
“Chinese Academy of Sciences: High-Speed Rail Construction Unsustainable”
See that? Right there: “HIGH-SPEED RAIL CONSTRUCTION UNSUSTAINABLE”. Now what is difficult about that? That does not say “military spending”. It clearly says “HIGH-SPEED RAIL”.
Another quote:
“The report submitted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said China’s high-speed rail construction has caused debt that has already reached unsustainable levels;”
See that? It says right there: “CHINA’S HIGH-SPEED RAIL CONSTRUCTION HAS CAUSED DEBT THAT HAS ALREADY REACHED UNSUSTAINABLE LEVELS”. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CONSTRUCTION has cuased the unsustainable debt. Not other things: HIGH-SPEED RAIL.
It’s not that difficult to comprehend if you bother to read the article.
China went overboard with their HSR construction. Some of those lines are still in the planning stages I believe. They could change course and take a more measured approach to it. In this country, we need to take a more aggressive approach.
As far as peak oil and all that nonsense about $7 gas, etc. You have no idea what you are writing about.
However, if you are really concerned about reducing consumption of petroleum in the U.S., then how can you support the diesel trains that Amtrak and ST are operating in our area? Inter-city buses are FAR more fuel-efficient than passenger trains. That is undeniable. Since intercity buses get far more passenger-miles per gallon than passenger trains, how can you support building more trains, instead of having people travel on the much more environmentally-friendly inter-city buses?
Inter-city buses use a lot less petroleum per passenger-mile than pasenger trains in our area.
Yes Norman, I agree that we should electrify our raillines.
We’re not in China, Norman.
“As far as peak oil and all that nonsense about $7 gas, etc. You have no idea what you are writing about.”
I’m sure ten years ago you were calling people idiots who predicted that gas would get to $4 per gallon.
Norman,
1) You’re quoting a NEWS REPORT. You’re not quoting the study itself. You don’t know the context of “unsustainable”. As has been said before, engaging in a decades long romp around a desert blowing things up to the tune of a trillion dollars is unsustainable. If the report becomes available for review, then we can have a conversation as to its veracity.
2) I am actually quite well versed in peak oil economics for a layman. I’ve commented on this before over the past few months but to not so briefly recap:
1 – While there are still significant oil reserves, their extraction is becoming much more expensive and dangerous
2 – Peak oil has already occurred in US oil fields and in several other land and sea based fields in the world
3 – Demand is rapidly increasing both in oil producing countries as well as the “BRICK” countries of Brasil, Russia, India, China and Korea.
4 – Total world production is not keeping pace with increasing demand
5 – Refining capacity is not increasing to meet demand
6 – Additional supply only becomes available as the price comes with in the range of the cost of its extraction. Shale oil, deep sea are all very expensive to procure.
These observations have been made by a Canadian Energy Economist named Jeff Rubin. He correctly predicted triple digit pricing for oil and it occurred during the 2006/2007 time frame. He is again predicting a return to triple digit pricing within the next several months. You may have noticed the price of gas has risen rather suddenly in the last few weeks coinciding with significant rises in crude oil prices.
These are market forces driven by an set of circumstances more powerful than any one nation can control. Not even the obscene waste of money and life that has occurred in the past decade can change this equation. We will see the cost of oil rise because more and more people demand the benefits that an oil economy has brought. But the supply is not (and cannot) keeping pace.
The other economic consequences of this market equation are that the economic engine that China has enjoyed due to wage arbitrage will come to a screeching halt because the cost to transport all those cheap goods over seas will become prohibitive. Manufacturing of many commodity goods for our consumption will return to this continent if not this country. On the home front, the price of gas at $5-7/gal will cause most of us to make significant economic choices about how we live our lives. We will live closer to our work, we will rethink transportation and the demand for public transportation will skyrocket.
As you can clearly see, the great majority of years, including this year, the price of gasoline, IN 2010 DOLLARS, has been between $2.00 and $3.00 per gallon. There have been a couple of price spikes in the early 1980’s and the late 2000’s when the inflation-adjusted price was over $3.00/gal. But those spikes were short-lived.
If you believe that the inflation-adjusted price of gas in the U.S. is going to get to more than double what it is today, and stay there for any length of time, you are just utterly unsophisticated. At that price, many people will just cut way back on their consumption of gasoline — which is what happened the other couple of times gas had a price spike — which will cause demand to collapse, followed by collapsing prices.
The very obvious thing, which these people who cry wolf about rising gas prices don’t seem able to grasp, is that we are consuming a whole lot more gas than we really “need” to. There are a whole lot of people in the U.S., and other developed countrie, who can car-pool, van-pool, or telecommute, but they just don’t want to, because gas is cheap, and they prefer to drive alone. When the price of gas gets high enough, these people will, indeed, car-pool, van-pool, and telecommute to save money.
Really, this is so simple. Just supply and demand. Econ 101. I took that in my first year of college. Price goes up — consumption falls.
I really don’t think people are so dumb they don’t understand this. I suspect the “peak oil”, “doubling gas price” wolf-criers know this is nonsense. They just spout this nonsense to try to get naive voters to approve huge tax increases for stupid mistakes like high-speed rail, WHICH ARE LESS ENERGY-EFFICIENT THAN INTERCITY BUSES, ANYWAY!
Norman, you can throw up any chart you want but if the conditions are not ceteris paribus then such charts are not predictors of future trends. The actual prediction that Mr. Rubin has made includes a series of price spikes above $100/bbl and a likely sustained price in the $150 range as existing supplies dwindle. The spike in 2006-07 produced a cascading catastrophic failure of the financial markets on several continents that we are still digging out of. It dampened demand enough to lower prices.
But, as countries stabilize and demand resumes, the pattern will repeat itself. But the rub is, new supplies will depend on higher prices to make exploitation of those resources “worthwhile” (profitable). Prices not high enough e.g. > $90/bbl USD, then tar sands and shale oil stay in the ground, and BP continues just plugging up wells they drill in the deep sea.
As for your contention of consumption, we tried having a culture of civic responsibility and it still exists more or less in the Pacific Northwest but by and large in the USA, that culture gave way to the greed and everything for me in the 1980’s. You suggest car pooling which I find funny because that is as much form of social engineering as anything else. For myself I’d be more inclined to take a bus or train than share my car with someone.
“The spike in 2006-07 produced a cascading catastrophic failure of the financial markets on several continents that we are still digging out of.”
This statement alone confirms you are utterly ignorant of everything you attempt to write about. The financial problems we “are still digging out of” were due to the real estate bubble — they had nothing to do with the price of oil. Nice fantasy, though.
Lots of things happen when the price of oil goes up, and stays up for more than a year, or two. I already gave the examples of car-pooling, van-pooling and telecommuting. Those can happen virtually overnight.
But, if the price of gas stays up for a year or more, other things also happen: vehicles can easily be converted to run on compressed natural gas, which is in plentiful supply in the U.S.; people start buying smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, like Smart Cars, and Priuses, and stop buying and driving Hummers, etc (Hummers are not even made any more); people switch from heating oil to natural gas or electricity to heat their homes; the governments impose fuel-efficiency regulations on new vehicles which forces manufacturers to produce cars which get beter gas mileage. These, and many other things, cause the consumption of gasoline per capita to drop significantly over time. The longer the price of gas stays high, the more of these changes that occur. As the consumption per capita declines, the importance of the price of gas declines, as well. And the price eventually comes back down.
Your theories are really childish and amusing. People have been warning of this type of nonsense for decades.
Again, even if the price of gas does go up significantly and stays there, that will mean that buses will become by far the most intelligent form of public transportation. Why is it you refuse to discuss that point? Because you know it is true?
And, by the way, with a lot fewer vehicles on the roads because of high gas prices, there will be a lot less traffic to get in the way of those very energy-efficient buses. Right?
Norman, I’m still willing to engage with you even when you are the most insulting and rudest person around these parts. Perhaps against my better judgment. I’ve given you the sources for this information. They’re respected economists that have delivered correct analysis supported by data. You need to broaden your horizons on where you get your information so that you’ll have some inkling on what is really going on in this world. Calling me childish when the sources and data are available for investigating does not advance discourse.
As for the chicken or the egg thing with the financial crisis, you’re a pretty funny guy if you think for one moment that the blame for the financial crisis belongs strictly in the real estate sector. That’s the lie Fox news, CNBC and conservative PR firms want you to believe. The financial crisis was indeed precipitated by imbalances in the petrodollar market or as the Baker Institute (as in James Baker III) says:
The mechanism whereby the dramatic increase in oil prices in the late 2000s fueled the economic crisis is through petrodollar recycling, a term used to refer to sudden surges in oil-revenue inflows that cannot be absorbed in the smaller, shallow economies of the Middle East. In the case of the period from 2005 to mid-2008, unanticipated petrodollar flows flooded back into financial market instruments such as overly complex derivatives and commodity market index funds and thereby contributed to the acceleration of unsustainable bubbles throughout Western financial markets and even in Asia.
The disruption of markets caused both a change in human behavior including making economic choices about fuel versus food or other economic activities. The cascading of derivatives activations caused by the fraud that investment banks such as Merrill Lynch fomented, caused liquidity and equity crisis’s in the banking sector which then fueled a downward spiral of economic activity.
The casual factor in this case was the massive writing of derivatives instruments to satisfy the insatiable demand for people wanting to park their money on these shores. The fraud came in because Merrill Lynch and others took sub-prime and other sub-standard loan packages and contaminated the collateral and covered that up from the ratings agencies (often inhouse operations) and then bet against the very instruments they created. Sad part is, even with the Financial regulations passed recently, derivatives were largely untouched so this scenario could happen again. Simply another reason we need to get off the oil economy.
You need to get out more Norman. If you simply listen to Fox news, you won’t know much.
Charles, you are hilarious.
There is nobody who thinks the very short spike in gas prices to over $4 per gallon in the U.S. for a few months around 2008 had anything to do with the “great recession.” You can continue to delude yourself all you want. But, that is utter nonsense.
Other than that very short-lived spike in prices, the real price of gas in the U.S. has been within a fairly narrow price range for decades.
I have never listened to Fox News. Just google “great recession” + cause. You will find articles by many different people, and none of them cites as a cause of the Great Recession an increase in the price of gasoline. In fact, the Great Recession began in 2007, and the spike in gas prices to $4/gallon occurred in 2008.
Well, at least you’re entertained. But how can “nobody” believe when I have already presented you with bona fides. You can dismiss them summarily as you have but you can’t say nobody believes it.
And as we discussed before, you can present a chart of “stable” oil prices but when the factors of supply and demand change fundamentally then the control mechanism that oil conglomerates have used is upended, then the nearly 100 year price history is no longer a valid predictor of what comes next.
Again, even if the price of gas does go up significantly and stays there, that will mean that buses will become by far the most intelligent form of public transportation. Why is it you refuse to discuss that point? Because you know it is true?
I admit that I’m not very sympathetic to the price of oil arguments. But still, I think that this quote indicates a serious disagreement about the purpose and goals of transit.
There are many different motivations for providing transit service. There’s the social service justification: especially in small towns and exurbs, bus service runs very infrequently and primarily exists for the very poor and the elderly/disabled, i.e. people who either can’t afford a car or can’t drive one. There’s the environmental justification, both on pollution and on energy-consumption grounds. There’s the congestion justification; expanding transit service is often a more cost-effective way to improve freeway traffic than building more freeways.
All of those are legitimate reasons to have transit service, some more than others. But what makes me passionate about transit? Why do I spend so much time reading and commenting on STB? In a word, freedom. To me, a car seems like a big, fat burden. You have to pay for it, and pay for maintenance/gas/upkeep/parking. You have to spend the last 10 minutes of every journey circling around the block looking for an open space. You have to insure it and worry it might get stolen.
In contrast, fast, frequent transit is freeing. You can sit on a nice, comfortable seat, and stretch your legs, and read or do the crossword or play a game or anything you want. You can go underground, and within minutes, a train will come speeding in that will take you to your destination. And when you get there, you’re *there*. (And you can stay as long as you like, and go wherever else, and not have to worry about minding the car.)
In cities with world-class transit systems, the picture I just painted is true. New York’s subway really works like that.
But there are two things that make this picture work. The first is super-duper frequent service. During rush hour, the Lexington Ave line in NYC and the Green Line in Boston run trains with headways so short they need to be counted in seconds, rather than minutes. Even outside that, when I’ve waited more than 5 minutes for a train, it’s a long time (or I’m going to a destination on an infrequent branch line). In Seattle, waiting 15 minutes for a bus is routine.
And the second is super-duper high quality. This means full grade separation, since traffic (specifically, unplanned stops/slowness) is stressful and a time sink. This means well-lit, sheltered stations. And it probably means rail, because rubber-tired transit just can’t be as smooth as steel.
All this is to say that I don’t *care* if buses are more economical or better for the environment or use less energy than trains. (*) What I care about is that high-quality transit systems make cities better places to live. Street-running local buses simply aren’t good enough.
(*) In Seattle, our abundance of cheap hydro power means that electric buses and trains are almost certainly more environmentally friendly and cost-efficient with respect to electricity than they would be if they used gas, but in other cities I could believe that the equation is different.
One more thing. Why do people drive cars instead of taking the bus? There are lots of reasons, but one major one is that the quality of service on buses just isn’t up to par. I’ve met many people who refuse to ride the bus because “buses are dirty/smelly, and it takes so long to get places, and I hate waiting in the cold, and it’s so confusing”, and lots of other reasons.
Nicer service is better. Make transit as nice as cars, and more people will use it, and the city will be better for it.
Anything can be framed to be too costly or “unsustainable”. The question is, what is interest for the long term health of the country and it’s populace? That is the discussion that is never debated or given merit. It’s all short term thinking.
When are the CT double talls going into service? At least a few of them have been delivered, right? Cause those things are awesome.
I read somewhere that they are currently modifying them for use at the base. They should enter service about the first of the new year.
What are the modifications that are being done?
Adding fare boxes, paint jobs etc. Basically, making it a CT bus. I will try to find the source of my info. I am fairly certain it was on the CT Facebook page.
I don’t see anything (relevant) on their Facebook page.
Anyone think that if this happened on LINK, the other passengers would react in the same way?
Hate to break it to you Fredrick but this happens all the time on trains, buses, streetcars, ferries, etc.
Now the question is, would SEATTLITES react in the same way? Um, no, they would be in a dire panic, sue for emotional and physical damages…among other things.
The Communists are building high speed rail at probally billions of dollars, yet we cant even get the FRA to release millions of dollars in “Higher speed rail funds” to Washington so we can build the few projects we have ready and waiting… America is dieing a slow death, one day at a time…
After watching that video, now I know what the future looks like and sounds like.
HSR is a complete waste of money. This is akin to building a state of the art medical facility with all the latest gagdets in a small poor mtn. town, when what they need is a simple effective clinic to treat their basic needs.
Until this country gets regular train service at approx 100 mph, we’re doomed by high expectations of a rail network we cannot afford, and will not build w/o surely putting something else into even more debt.
Get regular passenger rail back up first, like it was earlier in the mid-20th century. Quit having pipe dreams and fairy tales about transportation, get back to the basics first.
Don’t forget cutting subsidies to the airline industry…
Agreed, Groan. I’m not singling HSR out, only that the physical plant conditions and monetary woes of the passenger rail portion of America are needing attention first before we even think about true HSR.
The arguments over subsidies for roads, air, etc. are all quite valid in the fact I am perturbed that these aren’t getting the necessary attention they should.
Unfortunately the trains in China go at kilometers per hour and we use miles per hour in the US.
They are the same thing, expressed differently.
John, ours go at km/h too. But the speed restrictions are in mph.
China spent 23 billion RMB (about $3.4 billion USD) to deploy this stretch of track. With ridership of 35 million per year, and operating costs of 32 RMB per passenger, China expects to recover its investment in about 10 years, when the tracks need to be reworked (every 8-15 years you need to rebed and replace the tracks, to account for settling and shifting of the line).
In other words, China’s doing this not because they have billions of people to move (which they do), but because it will not be an economic drain on the economy. It will cover its own costs, including maintenance.
Additionally, the construction costs are amazingly low – only $45 million per mile. Thanks to the cheap labor costs in China, and the incredibly flat terrain (Hong Qiao is at 3 meters elevation above sea level; Suzhou is at 5 meters – less than 7 feet difference, and it’s completely flat between the two locations) China can build the rail for a low cost.
Consider the recent London-to-Edinburgh high speed rail line – $55 billion for 534 kilometers (note: the distance from London to Edinburgh is 331 miles, but the plan requires 1500 miles of line to make that distance a reality; you need to deploy more than just the lineal distance between locations). That’s $166 million per mile, about 4 times the cost of that in China. Deploying high speed rail in the US will be much closer to the prices seen in the UK as compared to those in China, especially when you start to factor in the montainous and varied terrain in the US, as compared to most of Eastern China (and as a point of reference, Seattle’s recent Link Light Rail had a cost of $179 million per mile, in line with the UK costs of deployment).
Given the plan for a 17,000 mile (27,000 kilometer) network in the US, we would see costs of $2.8 TRILLION to deploy this network (at UK line prices). A massive outlay of cash, orders of magnitude larger than that planned by China for its entire network (which already is the largest in the world, and growing rapidly).
The US spend $2.6 Trillion dollars on the so-called “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative that yielded very little tangible products or benefit other than perhaps indirectly the demise of the Soviet Union. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost us upwards of $1 Trillion so far and yet, on the home front it’s cut this and cut that, bridges fall, roads crumble, people fall farther down the economic ladder.
Infrastructure that actually does something like move people or support the movement of goods is what is needed. If we’re going to mortgage our grand-children’s future, let it be on a High Speed Rail future rather than on a whole lot of nothing that gets blown up in the desert or worse, never even gets built.
Impressive. Pity US HSR initiatives are so 19th century in design. If I were Emperor, I’d mandate HSR developments to use Maglev or other forward thinking designs.
On another subject, just finished reading an interesting article on “Vancouverism vs. Lower Manhattanism” which analyzes two different approaches to urban development and financing. Also, Vancouver is claiming to have for now, the highest density residential area in North America. Another nugget from the article is that projections from ridership on translink shows that ridership will trend towards going FROM downtown to suburbs for work.
http://bit.ly/e0cxkr
No, don’t waste time and money by pursuing Alice in Wonderland gadget technologies like Maglev.
Electric rail is capable of 250 mph service. It is cheaper and uses less energy. And it can be built incrementally, making use of existing rail infrastructure. Look at how rail in Europe in countries like Germany and France has been incrementally improved.
Maglev has been a failure. The Chinese evaluated it with a line to Shanghai’s primary international airport. They decided rail was the way to go for their modernization.
Maglev is also proprietary.
No one has a patent on 1435mm*.
*1435mm=4’8.5″, i.e. “Standard Gauge”
p.s. 486.1 km/h is 302.something mph.
There was an article in Scientific American earlier this year that argued that Maglev is superior in the long-run due to the cheaper maintenance costs. I can seem to find the article at the moment, but if I’m remembering this correctly, the argument was that high speed rail on conventional tracks creates so much wear and tear that the cost of continual maintenance over several decades negates the advantage of lower capital costs for initial construction.
Whether this is true or not, I’m not claiming to know.
It’s interesting that they think they know what the maintenance regimen for maglev is, given that there is only one commercial installation of it. It makes sense to wait a few years and see if the claims meet up with reality. In any case, we have plenty of catching up to do with conventional speed rail, “emerging HSR” and “express HSR” that we should do our spending in the most capital efficient way. It probably makes sense to proceed with one of the maglev projects that USDOT has been funding, but purely as an experimental test-bed.
Why buy an off the shelf HSR system. Let’s put the research and development capabilities of our Defense related companies to work on this. I’m sure Boeing or Lockheed/Martin or Westinghouse, General Dynamics or a whole host of companies would chomp at the bit for R&D contracts for this.
It would be far better to spend bucks on a project like this than blowing things up in the desert.
We should use tried-and-true technology because it’s tried-and-true. Boeing has ventured into train technology before and failed at it. Once we have operating system and a will to build more, we can afford to do the R&D and manufacturing to improve what we have.
Boeing’s Vertol Helicopter Division ventured into Light Rail.
Not that I want aerospace engineers anywhere near a train, but I wanted to put that on the record.
Now, if only the FRA would allow US rail operators to use some of the light-weight-developed-from-aviation materials that their European counterparts get to take advantage of…
Yes Eric G., that’s the one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standard_Light_Rail_Vehicle
I’m all for high-speed rail, but something that I think doesn’t get said enough (if ever)—everyone points to countries like Japan and says things like “Why are we building such slow rail lines when we should be building another Shinkansen/TGV/Maglev!?” But to use Japan as an example, the country has, essentially, one single high-speed line, with most (like 95%+) of the country’s rail lines being comparatively low-speed local/regional rail. It seems to me that misrepresenting/misunderstanding how widespread high-speed rail technology is or should be only serves to make a usable rail system an unachievable goal.
The consequence is that we’re stuck with trains that go 70 miles an hour which is actually slower than average train speeds a 1/2 century ago. An incremental speed bump to 100-125 mph is not a whole lot of bang for the buck.
I was reading more about this project, and came across this statement, “This project cost $ 32.5 billion and is part of a massive government effort to link many Chinese cities with high-speed rail and also reduces the density of population in the path that is widely used.” So part of its purpose is to reduce density. Interesting.
http://worldmustbecrazy.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-fastest-train-in-china-crh380a.html
What is the existing density? Is it higher than anything in North America? So bringing it down would create Chicago-like cities, not low-density Bellevues.
I love the idea of someone from this blog envying China for building this rail system, only to find out that its purpose is to reduce density and create sprawl. I simply love it!
The only two cities in China with what can be considered high density are Hong Kong and Macau. Hong Kong was built by the British and Macau was Portuguese. Bejing is losing urban density as it completes the transition for bicycle to auto domination (the Chinese are thinking about reducing the subsidy for private automobile purchase as they have exceeded the US in number of vehicles sold). The population density for Bejing at 937 per square kilometer (2005) is positively bucolic compared to Bellevue’s 1,524/km.
The high speed train is specifically targeted to compete with the airlines. I haven’t heard any transit activist claiming the airline industry has helped create density in any way.
Well, aren’t we supposed to believe that everything those eviiiil commies do is wrong?
http://www.echinacities.com/biz-china/business-topics/chinese-academy-of-sciences-high-speed-rail-construction-201.html
Chinese Academy of Sciences: High-Speed Rail Construction Unsustainable
Nov 09, 2010 eChinacities.com
The Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) reported to the State Council recently, urging the large-scale high-speed railway construction projects in China to be re-evaluated. The CAS worries that China may not be able to afford such a large-scale construction of high-speed rail, and such a large scale high-speed rail network may not be practical.
High-speed rail train runs at over 250 km per hour, about twice the normal speed of a regular train. Under the current plan, the central government has approved to build, by 2020, 16,000 km of high speed rail providing access to about 90% of the Chinese population. Some local media have reported recently that the recently enabled Wuhan – Guangzhou high-speed rail is currently running an average daily attendance of less than half capacity, while the newly opened Shanghai-Hangzhou high-speed rail attendance is even lower. The main reason for the high-speed rail low attendance is that fares are too high; the high-speed railway ticket prices are usually double or higher than normal train fares.
The report submitted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said China’s high-speed rail construction has caused debt that has already reached unsustainable levels; particularly since the end of 2008, the government introduced a stimulus plan to fight the global economic crisis and the size of local government borrowing is already very high
And Norman very predictably chimes in with “See rail sucks, if China would just deploy enough buses for 1.2 Billion people and build 50 lane freeways things would be wonderful”.
China will have more high speed rail in 10 years than all other nations combined and all we can come up with is “See, it’s costs a lot of money”.
Has it ever occurred to you you Norman that the Chinese are becoming the world dominant economic power and they’re building to the future? People will be able to take the train in time.
“People will be able to take the train in time.”
So what?
Norman! There you go again. You’re expecting a system like that to be operate at full capacity out of the gate. Obviously they will price the high speed system at a higher rate and people will opt to use which ever mode makes sense for them.
Such investments in rail infrastructure will pay dividends for their economy for decades and generations to come. By mitigating a roadway/fossil fuel intensive infrastructure to move people, they make significant savings in their balance of payments and allows their workforce to remain competitive. What is unsustainable for China is the rapid rise of the use of cars and road infrastructure. By contrast, the United States sends nearly $1 Trillion dollars out of our country to pay for petroleum.
Of course, instead of importing oil, China merely burns coal. So, is that what you are suggesting the U.S. should do — emulate China by using our vast reserves of coal to generate electricity, instead of burning oil? We could do that. The U.S. has the largest coal reserves in the world, I believe. So, are you saying the U.S. should so what China has done and build about 2 new huge coal-burning plants per week to generate electricity?
Norman, I agree that China is burning coal and that is a bad thing. But they do recognize the economic consequence of becoming dependent on oil imports and are moving their economy in directions to reduce such an occurrence.
I support a rapid move to sustainable energy for which the Pacific Northwest already has huge quantities of. I like wind farms, I like using wind farms with catchment to store energy for later use. Washington State even has solar potential. I like stream flow energy capture by placing turbines in rivers and streams. I like placing solar polymers on large buildings to capture energy. I like rekitting buildings to capture energy from pressure differentials and from waste energy. Even a dropping elevator can recapture energy.
I think we can utilize some fossil fuels produced on this continent as a stop gap on the road towards petroleum independence. For example, natural gas coupled with fuel cells is a reasonable approach because it does not combust the fuel and the carbon release is considered neutral. Biofuels produced in such a manner that it doesn’t impact food supply for either humans or livestock could also be used in a stop gap manner.
Peak oil is going to mean very expensive gas for our cars and China’s economic engine based on wage arbitrage will come to a screeching halt. Expensive gas means outlying suburbs based on residents commuting long distances to a large city will become untenable and like we saw just 2 years ago, will be abandoned in large numbers. Like it or not, using gas powered cars will become very expensive to operate and the market will direct our behavior.
Given the reality of peak oil and given that global warming is occurring, we need to make strategic decisions that move us towards sustainability. It means that decisions like the recently awarded Alaska Way Tunnel are a complete boondoggle that fails to acknowledge peak oil nor global warming. You complain about a country with 1.5 billion people spending $36 billion on a train system well, Seattle is in a region of 4 million people that will spend 4 billion on this tunnel that will serve fewer cars than the structure it replaces and will increase congestion for the cars that it pushes out of the corridor thus increasing the waste of fuel for which we are all paying foreign exchange. And does nothing to get people to use less fossil fuels.
I think expansion of public transit both bus –especially electric buses — and rail is essential to sustainability. When people start paying $7/gal for gas, they will be clamoring for public transit.
The Chinese’ own study shows that the debt incurred from hi-speed rail construction is “unsustainable.” That is not my study.
What is it about many posters here, who, like little kids, cannot understand the principle that some things are so expensive that they do not make sense to purchase or build. Is that too complicated for you?
Or, what?
Actually, all we have is a news report about their report. We don’t know what the rationale used in the report and how it squares with the Government’s objectives let alone peer reviewed.
The $36.2billion spent on this line is less than what they spent on the Olympics.
You could have just as well said: ‘the Americans’ own study shows that the debt incurred from defense spending and overseas wars is “unsustainable.”‘
In other words, yes, it’s true that countries can get themselves into debt at “unsustainable levels,” but that really has little to do with high speed rail in particular.
That is exactly what this Chinese study said: it said the debt incurred by construction of HIGH-SPEED RAIL was unsustainable. That study has EVERYTHING “to do with high speed rail in particular.”
You’re missing my point. Note, I didn’t say “*the study* has nothing to do with high speed rail in particular” (as you misquoted), I said that “*governments incurring debt* has nothing to do with high speed rail in particular.”
Yes, that study certainly focused on high speed rail as being a source of unsustainable debt for China. However, there’s very little that separates government spending on high speed rail from government spending on defense, healthcare, roads, the olympics (as mentioned by Charles) or really any other social service. ALL of those are a source a debt.
The debate about whether we spend our money on rail or on war isn’t about whether or not they incur debt, it’s about whether we as a society value where that money is being spent (again, this is basically what Charles just said). Neither will (likely) directly turn a profit for our country, so we evaluate those decisions based on future economic benefit, safety, etc.
If you are basing that statement on the link in your comment then you don’t know anymore than the rest of us. Without access to the particulars of the study, we don’t know what they mean by “unsustainable” as it would be a subjective assessment. If they mean that it would bankrupt the country’s economy that is not particularly likely. If it means that it becomes a very visible long term obligation of the government, then that is possibly true, but you weigh that against the objectives of the government. For example, to encourage people to live outside the megalopolis’s of Shanghai and Beijing might be a reasonable government objective e.g. establish centers of economic activity outside of the country’s two largest cities. HSR, as stated in the comments to the article you linked to achieves those goals.
Perhaps the report indicates that there are other costs that need to be considered including maintaining the line and safety. But if they can move hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people daily between large cities efficiently, and without relying on large quantities of fossil fuels (or at least petroleum based fuels) for which they have to pay money to import, they are that much farther ahead of their competitors that have to pay real cash for oil to fuel their cars, and buses and conventional trains and airplanes.
I operate on the conclusion that peak oil in the world is a real phenomena and that global warming is occurring. Given those 2 factors it is imperative that we base our infrastructure decisions accordingly on rapidly reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, increasing density of housing and economic activity and efficiently moving people between cities. It means mandating products use less energy in their production and transport. It means making our housing much more energy efficient. It means moving away from petroleum as the basis for our economy.
Any decision that perpetuates the use of fossil fuels without proper environmental mitigation will be a not well factored decision. The continued construction of road infrastructure that encourages sprawl is not a well factored decision.
There are a few posters here that have a real problem with reading comprehension. Allow me to quote from the article again:
“Chinese Academy of Sciences: High-Speed Rail Construction Unsustainable”
See that? Right there: “HIGH-SPEED RAIL CONSTRUCTION UNSUSTAINABLE”. Now what is difficult about that? That does not say “military spending”. It clearly says “HIGH-SPEED RAIL”.
Another quote:
“The report submitted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences said China’s high-speed rail construction has caused debt that has already reached unsustainable levels;”
See that? It says right there: “CHINA’S HIGH-SPEED RAIL CONSTRUCTION HAS CAUSED DEBT THAT HAS ALREADY REACHED UNSUSTAINABLE LEVELS”. HIGH-SPEED RAIL CONSTRUCTION has cuased the unsustainable debt. Not other things: HIGH-SPEED RAIL.
It’s not that difficult to comprehend if you bother to read the article.
China went overboard with their HSR construction. Some of those lines are still in the planning stages I believe. They could change course and take a more measured approach to it. In this country, we need to take a more aggressive approach.
As far as peak oil and all that nonsense about $7 gas, etc. You have no idea what you are writing about.
However, if you are really concerned about reducing consumption of petroleum in the U.S., then how can you support the diesel trains that Amtrak and ST are operating in our area? Inter-city buses are FAR more fuel-efficient than passenger trains. That is undeniable. Since intercity buses get far more passenger-miles per gallon than passenger trains, how can you support building more trains, instead of having people travel on the much more environmentally-friendly inter-city buses?
Inter-city buses use a lot less petroleum per passenger-mile than pasenger trains in our area.
Yes Norman, I agree that we should electrify our raillines.
We’re not in China, Norman.
“As far as peak oil and all that nonsense about $7 gas, etc. You have no idea what you are writing about.”
I’m sure ten years ago you were calling people idiots who predicted that gas would get to $4 per gallon.
Norman,
1) You’re quoting a NEWS REPORT. You’re not quoting the study itself. You don’t know the context of “unsustainable”. As has been said before, engaging in a decades long romp around a desert blowing things up to the tune of a trillion dollars is unsustainable. If the report becomes available for review, then we can have a conversation as to its veracity.
2) I am actually quite well versed in peak oil economics for a layman. I’ve commented on this before over the past few months but to not so briefly recap:
1 – While there are still significant oil reserves, their extraction is becoming much more expensive and dangerous
2 – Peak oil has already occurred in US oil fields and in several other land and sea based fields in the world
3 – Demand is rapidly increasing both in oil producing countries as well as the “BRICK” countries of Brasil, Russia, India, China and Korea.
4 – Total world production is not keeping pace with increasing demand
5 – Refining capacity is not increasing to meet demand
6 – Additional supply only becomes available as the price comes with in the range of the cost of its extraction. Shale oil, deep sea are all very expensive to procure.
These observations have been made by a Canadian Energy Economist named Jeff Rubin. He correctly predicted triple digit pricing for oil and it occurred during the 2006/2007 time frame. He is again predicting a return to triple digit pricing within the next several months. You may have noticed the price of gas has risen rather suddenly in the last few weeks coinciding with significant rises in crude oil prices.
These are market forces driven by an set of circumstances more powerful than any one nation can control. Not even the obscene waste of money and life that has occurred in the past decade can change this equation. We will see the cost of oil rise because more and more people demand the benefits that an oil economy has brought. But the supply is not (and cannot) keeping pace.
The other economic consequences of this market equation are that the economic engine that China has enjoyed due to wage arbitrage will come to a screeching halt because the cost to transport all those cheap goods over seas will become prohibitive. Manufacturing of many commodity goods for our consumption will return to this continent if not this country. On the home front, the price of gas at $5-7/gal will cause most of us to make significant economic choices about how we live our lives. We will live closer to our work, we will rethink transportation and the demand for public transportation will skyrocket.
You can review Jeff Rubin’s assertions in his book: “Why Your World Is About To Get A Whole Lot Smaller: Oil And The End Of Globalization”
And for good measure, also check out: The Hydrogen Economy by Jeremy Rifkin.
This contains a very interesting chapter about Thermodynamics and the fall of the Roman Empire. Very relevant to our current circumstances.
Here is a chart showing INFLATION-ADJUSTED gasoline prices in the U.S. from 1918 to 2010.
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Gasoline_inflation_chart.htm
As you can clearly see, the great majority of years, including this year, the price of gasoline, IN 2010 DOLLARS, has been between $2.00 and $3.00 per gallon. There have been a couple of price spikes in the early 1980’s and the late 2000’s when the inflation-adjusted price was over $3.00/gal. But those spikes were short-lived.
If you believe that the inflation-adjusted price of gas in the U.S. is going to get to more than double what it is today, and stay there for any length of time, you are just utterly unsophisticated. At that price, many people will just cut way back on their consumption of gasoline — which is what happened the other couple of times gas had a price spike — which will cause demand to collapse, followed by collapsing prices.
The very obvious thing, which these people who cry wolf about rising gas prices don’t seem able to grasp, is that we are consuming a whole lot more gas than we really “need” to. There are a whole lot of people in the U.S., and other developed countrie, who can car-pool, van-pool, or telecommute, but they just don’t want to, because gas is cheap, and they prefer to drive alone. When the price of gas gets high enough, these people will, indeed, car-pool, van-pool, and telecommute to save money.
Really, this is so simple. Just supply and demand. Econ 101. I took that in my first year of college. Price goes up — consumption falls.
I really don’t think people are so dumb they don’t understand this. I suspect the “peak oil”, “doubling gas price” wolf-criers know this is nonsense. They just spout this nonsense to try to get naive voters to approve huge tax increases for stupid mistakes like high-speed rail, WHICH ARE LESS ENERGY-EFFICIENT THAN INTERCITY BUSES, ANYWAY!
Norman, you can throw up any chart you want but if the conditions are not ceteris paribus then such charts are not predictors of future trends. The actual prediction that Mr. Rubin has made includes a series of price spikes above $100/bbl and a likely sustained price in the $150 range as existing supplies dwindle. The spike in 2006-07 produced a cascading catastrophic failure of the financial markets on several continents that we are still digging out of. It dampened demand enough to lower prices.
But, as countries stabilize and demand resumes, the pattern will repeat itself. But the rub is, new supplies will depend on higher prices to make exploitation of those resources “worthwhile” (profitable). Prices not high enough e.g. > $90/bbl USD, then tar sands and shale oil stay in the ground, and BP continues just plugging up wells they drill in the deep sea.
As for your contention of consumption, we tried having a culture of civic responsibility and it still exists more or less in the Pacific Northwest but by and large in the USA, that culture gave way to the greed and everything for me in the 1980’s. You suggest car pooling which I find funny because that is as much form of social engineering as anything else. For myself I’d be more inclined to take a bus or train than share my car with someone.
“The spike in 2006-07 produced a cascading catastrophic failure of the financial markets on several continents that we are still digging out of.”
This statement alone confirms you are utterly ignorant of everything you attempt to write about. The financial problems we “are still digging out of” were due to the real estate bubble — they had nothing to do with the price of oil. Nice fantasy, though.
Lots of things happen when the price of oil goes up, and stays up for more than a year, or two. I already gave the examples of car-pooling, van-pooling and telecommuting. Those can happen virtually overnight.
But, if the price of gas stays up for a year or more, other things also happen: vehicles can easily be converted to run on compressed natural gas, which is in plentiful supply in the U.S.; people start buying smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, like Smart Cars, and Priuses, and stop buying and driving Hummers, etc (Hummers are not even made any more); people switch from heating oil to natural gas or electricity to heat their homes; the governments impose fuel-efficiency regulations on new vehicles which forces manufacturers to produce cars which get beter gas mileage. These, and many other things, cause the consumption of gasoline per capita to drop significantly over time. The longer the price of gas stays high, the more of these changes that occur. As the consumption per capita declines, the importance of the price of gas declines, as well. And the price eventually comes back down.
Your theories are really childish and amusing. People have been warning of this type of nonsense for decades.
Again, even if the price of gas does go up significantly and stays there, that will mean that buses will become by far the most intelligent form of public transportation. Why is it you refuse to discuss that point? Because you know it is true?
And, by the way, with a lot fewer vehicles on the roads because of high gas prices, there will be a lot less traffic to get in the way of those very energy-efficient buses. Right?
Norman, I’m still willing to engage with you even when you are the most insulting and rudest person around these parts. Perhaps against my better judgment. I’ve given you the sources for this information. They’re respected economists that have delivered correct analysis supported by data. You need to broaden your horizons on where you get your information so that you’ll have some inkling on what is really going on in this world. Calling me childish when the sources and data are available for investigating does not advance discourse.
As for the chicken or the egg thing with the financial crisis, you’re a pretty funny guy if you think for one moment that the blame for the financial crisis belongs strictly in the real estate sector. That’s the lie Fox news, CNBC and conservative PR firms want you to believe. The financial crisis was indeed precipitated by imbalances in the petrodollar market or as the Baker Institute (as in James Baker III) says:
The disruption of markets caused both a change in human behavior including making economic choices about fuel versus food or other economic activities. The cascading of derivatives activations caused by the fraud that investment banks such as Merrill Lynch fomented, caused liquidity and equity crisis’s in the banking sector which then fueled a downward spiral of economic activity.
The casual factor in this case was the massive writing of derivatives instruments to satisfy the insatiable demand for people wanting to park their money on these shores. The fraud came in because Merrill Lynch and others took sub-prime and other sub-standard loan packages and contaminated the collateral and covered that up from the ratings agencies (often inhouse operations) and then bet against the very instruments they created. Sad part is, even with the Financial regulations passed recently, derivatives were largely untouched so this scenario could happen again. Simply another reason we need to get off the oil economy.
You need to get out more Norman. If you simply listen to Fox news, you won’t know much.
Charles, you are hilarious.
There is nobody who thinks the very short spike in gas prices to over $4 per gallon in the U.S. for a few months around 2008 had anything to do with the “great recession.” You can continue to delude yourself all you want. But, that is utter nonsense.
Other than that very short-lived spike in prices, the real price of gas in the U.S. has been within a fairly narrow price range for decades.
I have never listened to Fox News. Just google “great recession” + cause. You will find articles by many different people, and none of them cites as a cause of the Great Recession an increase in the price of gasoline. In fact, the Great Recession began in 2007, and the spike in gas prices to $4/gallon occurred in 2008.
Well, at least you’re entertained. But how can “nobody” believe when I have already presented you with bona fides. You can dismiss them summarily as you have but you can’t say nobody believes it.
And as we discussed before, you can present a chart of “stable” oil prices but when the factors of supply and demand change fundamentally then the control mechanism that oil conglomerates have used is upended, then the nearly 100 year price history is no longer a valid predictor of what comes next.
I admit that I’m not very sympathetic to the price of oil arguments. But still, I think that this quote indicates a serious disagreement about the purpose and goals of transit.
There are many different motivations for providing transit service. There’s the social service justification: especially in small towns and exurbs, bus service runs very infrequently and primarily exists for the very poor and the elderly/disabled, i.e. people who either can’t afford a car or can’t drive one. There’s the environmental justification, both on pollution and on energy-consumption grounds. There’s the congestion justification; expanding transit service is often a more cost-effective way to improve freeway traffic than building more freeways.
All of those are legitimate reasons to have transit service, some more than others. But what makes me passionate about transit? Why do I spend so much time reading and commenting on STB? In a word, freedom. To me, a car seems like a big, fat burden. You have to pay for it, and pay for maintenance/gas/upkeep/parking. You have to spend the last 10 minutes of every journey circling around the block looking for an open space. You have to insure it and worry it might get stolen.
In contrast, fast, frequent transit is freeing. You can sit on a nice, comfortable seat, and stretch your legs, and read or do the crossword or play a game or anything you want. You can go underground, and within minutes, a train will come speeding in that will take you to your destination. And when you get there, you’re *there*. (And you can stay as long as you like, and go wherever else, and not have to worry about minding the car.)
In cities with world-class transit systems, the picture I just painted is true. New York’s subway really works like that.
But there are two things that make this picture work. The first is super-duper frequent service. During rush hour, the Lexington Ave line in NYC and the Green Line in Boston run trains with headways so short they need to be counted in seconds, rather than minutes. Even outside that, when I’ve waited more than 5 minutes for a train, it’s a long time (or I’m going to a destination on an infrequent branch line). In Seattle, waiting 15 minutes for a bus is routine.
And the second is super-duper high quality. This means full grade separation, since traffic (specifically, unplanned stops/slowness) is stressful and a time sink. This means well-lit, sheltered stations. And it probably means rail, because rubber-tired transit just can’t be as smooth as steel.
All this is to say that I don’t *care* if buses are more economical or better for the environment or use less energy than trains. (*) What I care about is that high-quality transit systems make cities better places to live. Street-running local buses simply aren’t good enough.
(*) In Seattle, our abundance of cheap hydro power means that electric buses and trains are almost certainly more environmentally friendly and cost-efficient with respect to electricity than they would be if they used gas, but in other cities I could believe that the equation is different.
One more thing. Why do people drive cars instead of taking the bus? There are lots of reasons, but one major one is that the quality of service on buses just isn’t up to par. I’ve met many people who refuse to ride the bus because “buses are dirty/smelly, and it takes so long to get places, and I hate waiting in the cold, and it’s so confusing”, and lots of other reasons.
Nicer service is better. Make transit as nice as cars, and more people will use it, and the city will be better for it.
Anything can be framed to be too costly or “unsustainable”. The question is, what is interest for the long term health of the country and it’s populace? That is the discussion that is never debated or given merit. It’s all short term thinking.
When are the CT double talls going into service? At least a few of them have been delivered, right? Cause those things are awesome.
I read somewhere that they are currently modifying them for use at the base. They should enter service about the first of the new year.
What are the modifications that are being done?
Adding fare boxes, paint jobs etc. Basically, making it a CT bus. I will try to find the source of my info. I am fairly certain it was on the CT Facebook page.
I don’t see anything (relevant) on their Facebook page.
Anyone think that if this happened on LINK, the other passengers would react in the same way?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/gavon/subway-sex-nsfw (NSFW)
Hate to break it to you Fredrick but this happens all the time on trains, buses, streetcars, ferries, etc.
Now the question is, would SEATTLITES react in the same way? Um, no, they would be in a dire panic, sue for emotional and physical damages…among other things.
The Communists are building high speed rail at probally billions of dollars, yet we cant even get the FRA to release millions of dollars in “Higher speed rail funds” to Washington so we can build the few projects we have ready and waiting… America is dieing a slow death, one day at a time…
After watching that video, now I know what the future looks like and sounds like.
HSR is a complete waste of money. This is akin to building a state of the art medical facility with all the latest gagdets in a small poor mtn. town, when what they need is a simple effective clinic to treat their basic needs.
Until this country gets regular train service at approx 100 mph, we’re doomed by high expectations of a rail network we cannot afford, and will not build w/o surely putting something else into even more debt.
Get regular passenger rail back up first, like it was earlier in the mid-20th century. Quit having pipe dreams and fairy tales about transportation, get back to the basics first.
Don’t forget cutting subsidies to the airline industry…
Agreed, Groan. I’m not singling HSR out, only that the physical plant conditions and monetary woes of the passenger rail portion of America are needing attention first before we even think about true HSR.
The arguments over subsidies for roads, air, etc. are all quite valid in the fact I am perturbed that these aren’t getting the necessary attention they should.
Unfortunately the trains in China go at kilometers per hour and we use miles per hour in the US.
They are the same thing, expressed differently.
John, ours go at km/h too. But the speed restrictions are in mph.
The Myth of High Speed Rail in the US
http://simplyshrug.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74:the-myth-of-high-speed-rail-in-the-us&catid=31:general&Itemid=50
The US spend $2.6 Trillion dollars on the so-called “Star Wars” Strategic Defense Initiative that yielded very little tangible products or benefit other than perhaps indirectly the demise of the Soviet Union. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost us upwards of $1 Trillion so far and yet, on the home front it’s cut this and cut that, bridges fall, roads crumble, people fall farther down the economic ladder.
Infrastructure that actually does something like move people or support the movement of goods is what is needed. If we’re going to mortgage our grand-children’s future, let it be on a High Speed Rail future rather than on a whole lot of nothing that gets blown up in the desert or worse, never even gets built.