The NS (Nederlandse Spoorwegen or Dutch Railways) had a profit of 211 million euros in 2011, which is over all of their assets. So high speed and normal transport by rail. They did even better than last year. The rail part is a bit different tough. The rail net in the Netherlands is not owned by the NS (it was when the NS was still state owned), instead it is owned by ProRail, which is owned by the state. So, ProRail, and by extension the state, is responsible for the rail network in the Netherlands. Some rail projects are seen as really bad expenses of the taxpayers money, like the Betuwelijn (budget 2,53 billion euro, cost 4,7 billion euro), but high speed lines are generally seen as a commodity. I'd rather get on a train and get where I want to be in 3 hours (say from Amsterdam to Paris) for a less than a plane ticket and not having to be on the airport 1 hour before the flight in order to go through all the checks. (Oh, and trains generally depart on time) I read the article, but it is a bit messy. From what I know and heard, rails is more efficient than buses on longer distances. Also, currently running high speed trains in Europe and Japan have speed limits set at 320 km/h (or 198,8 mph) and can go faster than that. One of the advantages over air travel is that you can board without people sniffing all you luggage and beaming you with EM-waves, the eco-footprint is smaller and instead of having point-to-point connections, you can make multiple stops (so more of a line connection). Advantages all around and most certainly worth a second look. You can't solve all the current transportation problems just by building more roads and getting more planes in the air.
Thank you for the reply. I would far prefer to take a train rather than fly if given the option for high-speed rail for precisely the reasons you mention. Less faux security, more affordable, more comfortable and more flexibility in travel arrangements -stops along the way. Plus, nothing like pulling out a deck of cards and playing a hand with the guy sitting across from you.
No problem. I do have one question tough. How is public transportation in the US? How do you get to your work or to school? Do Americans all own a car or is public transportation a viable way to get where you want? I guess it would be state dependant, but I am still curious.
It depends on where you live. Owning a car in a city, i.e. New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle is less common than owning a car in a more rural community. Where I live Raleigh/Durham North Carolina, almost every family owns at least 1 car. I would say the majority of households own two cars. In the US you begin driving when you are 16 and it is not uncommon for a 16 year old to get their own car too. This is all dependent on where you fall on the household income spectrum. If you have less money you are less likely (for obvious reasons) to own a car. The strange thing is that it often costs more to insure a car than it does to purchase one. We have public school bussing systems for kids in most places for primary - high school. Most cities have some sort of bussing system. To your question "Do all Americans own cars" -outside of large cities where it's impractical, yeah...pretty much. From wikipediaIn 2001, 70% of Americans drove to work in cars.[4] New York City is the only locality in the country where more than half of all households do not own a car (the figure is even higher in Manhattan, over 75%; nationally, the rate is 8%).
I know that since I am from the Netherlands, I have a certain love for bicycles, but why not take the bike to work, school or even shopping? I think this is a viable alternative to driving your car everywhere, even in rural areas (except hilly areas, hilly areas are no fun when you ride a bike).
I think it's important to note the difference in size between the Netherlands and the United States. Take a look at the above map, the state called New Jersey in the North East part of the map is a little over 1/2 the size of the Netherlands. The United States is a big country and in many parts of it, the towns are small and the populations are spread out. Sometimes for agricultural reasons and others by poor design, I suppose. Some people have to drive many miles for "shopping" and a bicycle wouldn't be convenient. All this said, many people do commute by bicycle in the cities and even in smaller towns where it is permissible. However, some US cities are more bicycle friendly than others. In some cities there are bicycle lanes on the streets that make riding safer and more practical. The town where I live has created a trail that connects prominent areas, making bicycle travel more convenient. We are definitely behind Europe when it comes to fully embracing the bicycle as a means for practical transportation and not just recreation, but we are getting better imo. There are just some parts of the country where it's not feasible.... and not just because of "hills".
why not take the bike to work, school or even shopping?
-There are plenty of people that do. My father lives about 7 miles from his work and during the spring, summer and fall he will often ride his bike to and from work.
Distance is indeed a problem. Bikes are nice when the distances are 10 to 15km, assuming an average speed of 15km/h. Biking many miles is most certainly no fun just to get some groceries. Add to that that you'll probably need to make multiple trips because a bike doesn't have a trunk, so no large carrying capacity and I can get why many people take the car. I need to imprint in my mind that "rural" doesn't mean "polder", like it does here. Thanks for the explanation. I don't have any questions remaining (I think).
Yes, rural in America can mean you're living 20-30 miles from anything. I have a friend in Wyoming who lives 60 miles (100km) down a dirt road. The nearest neighbor is a 20 minute drive.
mk, check out the above comment. Curious why the image doesn't render in the comment? Thanks.