- increased throughput compared to highways due to lower volume per passenger (something the US is trying to achieve with carpooling lines),
- increased reliability (there are no train-jams),
- increased passenger convenience (no need to look for parking or do maintenance on the train you ride),
- increased passenger productivity (you can work or read on a train),
- ease of transition to green source of energy.
Advantages of the car over the train:
- greater flexibility (generally roads offer denser network than railways, even in Europe or Japan),
- car is much more convenient for families with children.
I love trains. I love driving. I find that the latter is much more fun and convenience in places where the former works well. San Francisco's 101 could be one of such places if Caltrain was more like SBB.
EDIT: one more important benefit of the train:
- increased safety (much fewer fatalities per passenger; also no need for a designated driver when you go to a party).
Remember the US is the nation of the helicopter parents, where it is common to drive the kids to school and everywhere else until they get their own driving license.
And cops are common to pick up younger kids which are around on their own because it is so unusual
Putting a kid on its own on a train would be absolutely unthinkable.
The only time I used Amtrak there was a child in the opposite seat. Staff put a sticker over his seat announcing that he was alone, which I thought was odd.
Meanwhile round here in London children get free bus travel, so it's very common to see them on local buses, and sometimes trains (tends to be wealthier kids on trains).
> -increased reliability (there are no train-jams),
``Ding dong Due to planned maintenance/a defective signal/ a computer error/ a tree on the tracks (or a leaf, or snow)/a collision with a person no connection is possible between Utrecht Central and Amsterdam Central.''
Generally you can take a detour, or busses will be employed to ferry people (after several hours usually), but it's not a very uncommon situation, I'd say we have a really major jam about 2-4 times a year, hard to judge. Still prefer the train over the car, but when I need to go to the airport to catch a plane I won't risk it.
Also, our main rail maintainer, train provider, and the Gov't officials involved are a special kind of screw-up. So it might be a whole lot better if you can get the right people in charge.
"Due to planned maintenance/a defective signal/ a computer error/ a tree on the tracks (or a leaf, or snow)/a collision with a person no connection is possible between Utrecht Central and Amsterdam Central"
Are you joking? Utrecht to Amsterdam is a local train. That's like saying that CalTrain is frequently delayed, therefore we shouldn't build any high-speed lines. Appels en Peren.
Oh don't get me wrong. I like rail-networks, I was just pointing out that while trains might not get jams there is still plenty of comparable ails they suffer from. I only picked Amsterdam and Utrecht because they popped into my head first.
Also of note is that you mention the Netherlands, which for routes like the one you mentioned still has the option for alternative routes with, in that particular case, at most a 30-60 minute delay from your original travel plan. At a larger scale / longer distances, that's no longer the case; if the track between Meppel and Zwolle has an issue, it'd be better comparable; that basically severs the north from the south. Compare NL with France, too: http://www.fairriqh.nl/stations/Spoorkaart/Spoorkaart%20Nede..., http://www.bonjourlafrance.com/france-trains/images/france-t..., NL looks more like a subway system.
> -increased reliability (there are no train-jams)
Exactly, and let's not forget the ongoing strikes in France, very common among SNCF employees (who are akin to civil servants and go on strike at least a dozen times a year). If you job depends on it, you are screwed.
That is a political problem. We had a considerably more reliable railway system before the whole faux privatisation nonsense.
We screwed it up exactly because the political obsession with creating a more Americanised version of capitalism, partially forced down our throats by the divide and conquer strategy of the EU.
Most of your train benefits are only relevant to local trains. The interstates outside of the big cities aren't really crowded at all (e.g. The 101 through central CA).
Some clear issues with long distance railway system:
- it costs TONS of money to built.
- you need to buy tons of land.
- to keep straight lines in a place like Europe, it often means you have to go through places where people live, and you need to have villages partly destroyed by it. Yay, democracy. You'll notice that high speed train systems are usually very much correlated with socialism (France and Japan are both well known socialistic countries - no surprise here at all).
- Above certain distances it makes no sense to take the train over the plane. I take the train in Japan every week for work between Kansai and Kantou, and it takes about 3 hours. A plane takes one hour, and it is 40% cheaper. Remind me why we need trains there?
- The maintenance of a railway is a huge ongoing cost.
- if there is one incident on the main railways, your subsequent trains are delayed or blocked. Yay for flexibility and "reliability".
- Try working in economy class in TGV in France. It's about as narrow as plane economy, and it sucks for working. In Japan the situation is much better but don't make a generalization there.
- green energy ? Oh, like in Japan where most of the electricity is produced by gas, petrol, imported at high costs from overseas since they have no such natural resources? Yay for efficiency! (truth is, Fukushima did not help, and electricity bills have been doubling since then (even home bills)).
- Anything that does not depend on railways can be upgraded, transformed, improved. We will have self driving cars at some point, and we will be stuck with high cost trains running on linear tracks forever, because there's no improvement to be made there. It's a 18th century concept pushed to the max.
There are cases for high speed trains, but even in Japan what they are doing is stretching it - nobody takes a train from north Japan to south Japan even if it's possible. It is just too expensive and takes too much time to be actually worth it.
I take the train in Japan every week for work between Kansai and Kantou, and it takes about 3 hours. A plane takes one hour, and it is 40% cheaper. Remind me why we need trains there?
So, you take the train despite having a cheaper and faster option, and you're asking us why the trains are needed? We should ask you why do you use the train, if the planes are so much better.
"it costs TONS of money to built. - you need to buy tons of land. - to keep straight lines in a place like Europe, it often means you have to go through places where people live, and you need to have villages partly destroyed by it. Yay, democracy.... if there is one incident on the main railways, your subsequent trains are delayed or blocked. Yay for flexibility and 'reliability'"
Yes, because highways are free, require no land, never go through places where people live (/self warily eyes the massive elevated freeway overpass system lurking near my home...), and never have congestion.
With the exception of "trains aren't good for all distances", none of your arguments make much sense. They apply equally to all forms of mass transit.
> Yes, because highways are free, require no land, never go through places where people live (/self warily eyes the massive elevated freeway overpass system lurking near my home...), and never have congestion.
A single car accident does not block the whole highway usually. For trains, it's very much likely it would or seriously delay the following trains.
As for the land part, sure, highways take lands too, but they don't have to be only in straight lines and they usually have to accommodate with the local populace. Numerous highways make detours around mid-size cities, which is simply impractical with trains designed to be on linear tracks as much as possible.
> With the exception of "trains aren't good for all distances", none of your arguments make much sense. They apply equally to all forms of mass transit.
Take this one then. In France all TGV lines converge to Paris. Try going from Lyon to Bordeau, and you are fucked, you need to go up to Paris and then down to Bordeau, which is utterly stupid. Either a car or a plane trip is faster. Japan is slightly better in that regard simply because all cities are on the coast. For large surface the amount of lines you need build is just not worth the investment.
> In France all TGV lines converge to Paris. Try going from Lyon to Bordeau, and you are fucked, you need to go up to Paris and then down to Bordeau, which is utterly stupid. Either a car or a plane trip is faster.
Isn't that just because traveling from Lyon to Paris or Bordeau to Paris is far more common than traveling from Lyon to Bordeau. No one is saying that trains should replace all other modes of travel, just that they are useful for high traffic routes.
I agree that planes are faster over longer distances, and cheaper too. The amount of hassle involved in planes is definitely more though, more waiting, you're supposed to be there earlier, more transit time to and from the airport. I think a 3h train and 1h flight are pretty comparable in the end.
Couldn't agree more. Short haul airlines are only profitable because they treat passengers' wasted time as free (and for some reason passengers agree).
Clearly trolling. Calling Japan a "well known socialist country" ignores most of late 20th century Japanese politics: the fact that Japan was generally ruled by the LDP, often described in Japan as "neither liberal, nor democratic, nor a real party." The only socialist prime minister was Tomiichi Murayama, who managed to stay in power for all of 1.5 years.
You know, the Culture of Socialism does not always need the parties to be called Socialist. Look at the spending of Japan governments and please tell me with a straight face that this is not the spending of a Socialist state. Have fun.
You'll notice that high speed train systems are usually very much correlated with socialism
My god, socialism. Building high speed rail are they? The fiends. I bet they spend all night twirling their extensive mustachios wondering how to destroy the economy with high speed rail projects.
- increased throughput compared to highways due to lower volume per passenger (something the US is trying to achieve with carpooling lines),
- increased reliability (there are no train-jams),
- increased passenger convenience (no need to look for parking or do maintenance on the train you ride),
- increased passenger productivity (you can work or read on a train),
- ease of transition to green source of energy.
Advantages of the car over the train:
- greater flexibility (generally roads offer denser network than railways, even in Europe or Japan),
- car is much more convenient for families with children.
I love trains. I love driving. I find that the latter is much more fun and convenience in places where the former works well. San Francisco's 101 could be one of such places if Caltrain was more like SBB.
EDIT: one more important benefit of the train:
- increased safety (much fewer fatalities per passenger; also no need for a designated driver when you go to a party).