There is a big push in the USA to develop high-speed rail.
One of the more idiotic endeavors ever -- these rail lines are heavily subsidized by the federal government and the operating costs are so high that in the USA, it would be cheaper to buy every regular rider a Prius than subsidize their train ticket.
Kris De Decker runs the Low-Tech magazine blog and although he doesn't post that often, when he does it is well worth reading.
Today's post is excellent -- Europe has about a 20 year head start on High Speed Rail and Kris writes about the glaring inefficiencies and unintended consequences of promoting this dead-end technology.
From Low-Tech Magazine:
High Speed Trains are Killing the European Railway Network
High speed rail is marketed as a sustainable alternative to air traffic. According to the International Union of Railways, the high speed train "plays a key role in a stage of sustainable development and combating climate change". As a regular long-distance train traveller in Europe, I have to say that the opposite is true. High speed rail is destroying the most valuable alternative to the airplane; the "low speed" rail network that has been in service for decades.
The introduction of a high speed train connection invariably accompanies the elimination of a slightly slower, but much more affordable, alternative route, forcing passengers to use the new and more expensive product, or abandon the train altogether. As a result, business people switch from full-service planes to high speed trains, while the majority of Europeans are pushed into cars, coaches and low-cost airplanes.
A look at European railway history shows that the choice for the elite high speed train is far from necessary. Earlier efforts to organize speedy international rail services in Europe accompanied affordable prices and different ways to increase the speed and comfort of a rail trip. Quite a few of these services were even faster than today's high speed trains.
The high-speed tickets cost about three times more than the regular trains and only save about 25% of the travel time. Commercial no-frills airline flights are about half the cost of the high-speed so rail ticket sales are plummeting.
Simply does not work. Here in the USA, there is an additional folly known as light urban rail. These moronic planners try to concentrate people into high-density zones and service them with this rail. Unfortunately, as the demographics shift, people will want to move to a different area so it is a simple matter to relocate the tracks?
Ummmm... Not so much.
Our brilliant masterminds forget about buses which can adapt to demographic changes and are very efficient in their own right (economies of scale).
As a Coda, this is from Low-Tech Magazine's ABOUT page:
What is Low-tech Magazine about?
Low-tech Magazine refuses to assume that every problem has a high-tech solution. A simple, sensible, but nevertheless controversial message; high-tech has become the idol of our society.
Instead, Low-tech Magazine talks about the potential of past and often forgotten knowledge and technologies when it comes to designing a sustainable society. Sometimes, these low-tech solutions could be copied without any changes. More often, interesting possibilities arise when you combine old technology with new knowledge and new materials, or when you apply old concepts and traditional knowledge to modern technology. We also keep an eye on what is happening in the developing world, where resource constraints often lead to inventive, low-tech solutions.
Underlying the common view of a high-tech sustainable society is the belief that we don't have to change our affluent lifestyle. This is not a realistic view, but it sells. However, changing our lifestyle does not mean that we have to go back to the middle ages and give up all modern comforts. A downsized, sustainable industrial civilization is very well possible - and more fun, too!
Like I said, not a frequent poster but when something new shows up, it is always thoughtful and worth reading.
