Posted on 06/11/2010 7:43:40 AM PDT by Willie Green
America has a “waiting problem.”
Think about the time you spend waiting in traffic jams… at the doctor/dentist’s office… at restaurants… at the gas station.
And how about the six months of your life spent waiting at traffic lights? Or the five years you’ll spend just waiting in lines at retail stores, the post office, DMV, etc. (Early buyers of Apple’s products likely spend far more.)
And according to Robert Poole, Director of Transportation Policy at the Reason Foundation, the average air traveler now spends two to three hours waiting at the airport. Granted, much of that is due to more rigorous security screening – time that is generally well spent – but air travel delays and traffic jams are only going to get worse, as more people take to the skies and roads.
In short, we wait an average of 45 to 62 minutes every single day. And that’s less time spent with family and friends, or doing other more productive, enjoyable activities.
Other countries have already recognized the problem and have addressed it for years. But the United States has failed miserably. So how can we improve our “waiting efficiency?” There’s a solution…
A Great Idea… Until Henry Ford Drove it Off the Rails
It’s called high-speed passenger rail.
I’ll get to the high-speed part in a moment. First, a quick overview of the U.S. rail service today.
Much of America’s freight still travels by rail. In fact, more than two billion tons plowed across the country in 2007 (the latest data available). It’s the transport mainstay for coal, lumber and other heavy industrial products and machinery.
Passenger rail service in the United States dates all the way back to 1830 when the “Best Friend of Charleston” – the first steam-powered train – traveled six miles with 141 passengers on board.
Boston, Baltimore and other major cities quickly established major railroads, due to the lack of river access to U.S. inland areas. And the idea of being able to travel, regardless of weather conditions – and at high speeds, too – was a big hit with most Americans.
As a result, passenger rail service soared…
But then Henry Ford came along and changed the playing field. When he introduced the mass-produced automobile in the following decade, rail travel fell by 18%.
And today?
700 Miles and a Tank of Gas Later…
Fast-forward to 2010…
You’d think that in today’s high-tech age, we could combine speed with efficiency and wouldn’t spend so long waiting. But that’s not the case. And with transportation, it’s an increasingly expensive wait for most Americans.
Take the average car, for instance. Fully loaded with five passengers, it gets about 100 passenger-miles-per-gallon (PMPG).
And according to the Department of Energy, the average passenger jet only gets about 36 PMPG. Of course, the trade-off there is speed.
But how about that speed/low-cost equation? Especially for regional travel? Europe and Asia already manage it. And we can here, too.
The answer lies in the method that squeezes out 700 PMPG.
You got it… high-speed trains. You can string their “cars” together and carry far more passengers than the average commercial jetliner. And these trains blast along at speeds of nearly 250 MPH.
So which company is behind this rapid rail transportation?
This Company Feels the Need… the Need for Speed
Take a quick jaunt around the globe and you’ll see this company’s trains in use all over the place…
The company we’re talking about is Siemens AG (NYSE: SI) – the largest manufacturer of high-speed trains in the world.
Its Valero high-speed train technology is the world’s most successful. Siemens currently has 160 trains in operation and hundreds more on order.
And for speed-hungry America, it’s the perfect fit…
“All Aboard!”
Siemens is pushing hard to get its Valero high-speed train technology widely adopted across the U.S. rail network. Interest is high, too. There are several high-speed rail projects in the works…
Critics argue that few people will ride the high-speed rails. But frankly, that’s a myopic view. They’re not counting on expensive gasoline, because cheap gas is a thing of the past.
As if further proof were needed, U.S. politicians simply need to look around the world to see what other countries are investing in transportation and energy infrastructure.
They need to roll up their sleeves and get the same things going here.
And while you wait, you might want to hop onboard the Siemens train and pick up a few shares.
Good investing,
David Fessler
If you are convinced they are a good idea, can we see the data?You're the one who lives in Florida, Mr. "ecologist".
Go out and count all the BP tarballs on the beach yourself.
Who do you think is behind this traindoggle? The unions make out real well on trains.
Pray for America
Willie, you're being ignorant. The reason for trains is social control. Witness the newest rail transit system in the US - the Seattle light rail line. A 14 mile line from downtown Seattle, through the Rainier valley communities, and to the Seatac airport. Thirteen stops.
Exactly ONE has a park-and-ride. None of the others have a park-and-ride. And you'll get ticketed if you park for more than 4 hours in any of the neighborhoods around the train. And if you park overnight at the park-and-ride? Car gets towed.
This isn't about offering an alternative to cars; this is about eliminating cars altogether. You cannot use your car to get to the park-and-ride. It's walk or use the bus only.
“Let the market place decide.
I do that every time I put gas in my truck.”
I like driving on the backroads too. The interstates today are jammed with long haul freight trucks. Besides I don’t have to ride on that socialist federally controlled pork project.
Great. Then the fare box on the train should cover at least 70% of the operational costs. Raise the prices of tickets by 200-300% and you'll get close to what happens with the highways.
And you'll see what few sales you have now simply go away.
“Well Amtrak trains riding rails in the Northeast make money.”
True, but the majority of the people in the northeast live and reside in a close environment. And that is fine; however, not all of us want, nor NEED to live in this type surrounding.
I live in a town where the closest convenience store is about two miles away. My grocery store is six miles - one way.
I live about an hour driving time from my house to my city office. I have land to farm and I don’t hear the road noise from my backyard - that’s the way I like it and want it.
There are things in which the government needs to be involved - public roads is one of them - IMO.
LOL you’re a clown.
Yeah lets get rid of those trucks so we can all do our shopping at the train station.
This is the problem you refuse to address, Willie: getting to/from the train takes about as long as just driving to the destination!I consider it to be a disingenous objection.
For instance, I live in a NW suburb of Houston.
It is much more convenient for me to drive to my local grocery store than to drive all the way downtown to hop on the Houston Metrorail, ride it back and forth for a while, then drive all the way back home, stopping in at the grocery store on my way back.
So what if I refuse to address your example?
I find it silly and intellectually dishonest...
and not very "clever" to boot...
Willie, someone is posting under your name. That is the only reason I can find for the irrelivant post putatively from you.
On the off chance that you are typing while sleepwalking, you switched from the alleged virtues of high speed rail to tar balls.
Is their some nexus I missed?
The train wins.
Unless there's a mudslide over the track. Then you stop the train, herd everyone on to buses, and send them the rest of the way. Like we do here in the Seattle area 3-4 times a year when a mudslide closes the Sounder commuter train.
The bus just takes a short detour around the block. A train stops altogether.
The train wins.
- - - - -
Only in your fantasy world.
When the tracks need repair, the train stops. The bus will detour around road repair.
When the travel demand changes, the bus route is easily modified.
Add cost and the bus clearly wins to everyone but you, train manufacturers and government.
Is this a commercial?
Rails are roads too.
My opinion is that the Federal government should not be in the intestate highway business only because I think a private company can build and maintain them cheaper and more efficiently.
I don’t care which mode of transportation is used.
If you support a federally controlled interstate highway system your argument against a federally controlled rail system is weak. They are both roads.
Yeah, we saw how "accurate" that Congressional research was, when passing Obamacare!
Seattle's Sound Transit spent $179 million per mile for light rail, and that was predominantly at-grade light-rail as well. Elevating or building dedicated heavy-rail rights-of-way is considerably more expensive.
My guess is we'll spend over $200 million per mile for any high speed rail systems installed. That $2 trillion estimate for a high speed rail network in the US will most likely be closer to $8 trillion, and the financing will go from $7.5 billion a month in interest to $30 billion a month.
Raise the prices of tickets by 200-300% and you'll get close to what happens with the highways.Only if you place toll booths on all the highways.
THEN you'll be much closer to an apples-to-apples comparison.
Although most of the country is too spread-out for passenger rail, there are certainly some high-density corridors where this would work.
Now it’s time for liberals to admit that if they want to run high-speed trains, we would need to go nuclear.
“According to the United States Department of Transportation’s Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized.[74”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak#Public_funding
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.