What's Keeping The US From High-Speed Rail?

Mother Nature Network:

Yet President Barack Obama, intent on harnessing new technology to rebuild the devastated economy, made a last-minute allocation of $8 billion for high-speed rail in his mammoth stimulus plan.

It sounds good, but that amount isn't enough to build a single system, or to dramatically increase existing train speeds, transportation experts say.

California is the only state with an active project, and its proposed cost is more than five times the stimulus amount. The $42 billion plan is far from shovel ready -- it's still seeking local approvals -- but it's farther down the track than any other state with an outstretched hand for a slice of Obama's high-speed pie.

Read the whole story: Mother Nature Network

Comments

[MadAppraiser]

Normally major American transportation projects historically span 10 years from initial planning phase to project implementation. An interesting design phenomenon often occurs in public transportation projects. Transportation engineers calculate and design future transportation corridors 100% above the current levels of surface (carrying capacity). Often, soon after the transportation corridor project completion the level of surface exceeds engineering design capacity.

Effective high-speed rail transportation corridor planning is inexorability linked to integrated land-use planning. It is difficult to effectively design, and implement high-speed rail corridors in fully developed environments (often non-smart) separately from contemporary mass transportation systems. Foreign town planners after World War II integrated land-use, and transportation planning in concert ensuring effective planning outcomes.

[frantaylor]

I googled around and found a train schedule from the 1870's, the Boston-NYC run.

In 1870, with steam locomotives, the train took about exactly the same amount of time that it does now.

Think about that. 140 years with ZERO progress.

[frantaylor]

It is pretty straightforward to analyze traffic and housing locations and work locations and write computer simulations of what people would have to endure on a public transportation ride to work. We know what conditions people are willing to put up with. For example, nobody will ride 4 hours to work or change trains 6 times, so such riders are eliminated from the simulation.

We have you right-wingers out there to thank for this technology, your insistence on cost-benefit analysis has driven the development of some really sophisticated software.

You may laugh and say it's a fantasy, but there are plenty of existing train systems in the world that can be used to verify the model. When a model can accurately predict the operation of every existing train system, one can be fairly sure that its predictions of not-yet-existing trains will also be pretty accurate.

With this software we can calculate roughly how many people will go to the effort of taking the train, the best places to run trains based on costs, and the best way to stage the construction of the system so that it is maximally useful even before it is done.

The phone company has been using similar software since the 1960's to determine where to place central switching offices, and how to route trunk cables between CSOs. AT&T employees have won Nobel prizes in mathematics for their work on these systems.

[frantaylor]

What I'm saying i that instead of pointless "yes you can" versus "no you can't" debates, we can get some objective data and either move ahead or not with these projects, depending on the results. Sometimes the simulations will tell you to add a stop or move a stop for reasons that are not obvious until you see the computer's motivation.

[frantaylor]

Here's a link:

http://www.dna-evolutions.com/joptsdk.html

[markinaz]

The oil companies.

[NWBrunette]

We put massive - and mostly hidden - subsidies in to the auto industry and the airline industry. If we stopped that and moved those subsidies to passenger rail we'd all be amazed at what would be accomplished.

[Cowboylove]

I agree. And while we are at it, why do those rail lines terminate at odd points. Why is there not a line to Nashville - an major transportation and airport hub.

Hi Speed rail would be a great asset to America. Maybe with a little effort we could move into the twentieth century in rail travel. We are too far behind to hope to catch up to the twenty first century.

[StanlyManly]

Hey, now thats actually a good argument. Take those billions back from GM and put them into rail.

I could get behind that if there were some serious and balanced research done. We've got a light rail system here in Portland called MAX. I'm not fully informed about the pros and cons of it, but I've enjoyed using the MAX. Its fun,convenient, and inexpensive in certain situations. However, it can also be crowded, a bit uncomfortable, and when the ticket dispenser doesnt work, its an exercise in futility.

[KillTheMessenger]

No amount of subsidies can change the fact that the population density of the US is ten times smaller than that of countries like Germany and Japan where rail system actually work. If you are trying to argue with reality, you will always lose.

[Egalitare]

Now that' s just brilliant. Because great stretches of the Plains are hyper-sparsely-populated (and should remain so, but that's off topic), thus skewing the total population density, we are "doomed."

The 60% of us who actually live in or within 20 miles of major population centers face a different set of circumstances than our fellow citizens in Fargo, ND or Buffalo, WY. The fact is we DO heavily subsidize the infrastructure that caters to the automobiles and the suburban/exurban sprawl it enables. We DO subsidize the airline industry to the detriment of rail that would be just as effective for a great deal of intercity travel. Said subsidies are POLITICAL decisions that do not hold up to most reasonable green lampshade analysis - unless one's bias is to continue to underwrite the "financial-developer complex."

I'm not advocating that we impose a Bismark, ND to Helena, MT high speed connection. But there are places in our vast expanse that DO make sense. Boston to DC is the very first line that should be established, but there are several other stretches that would make good sense fiscally, socially and environmentally.

[Tom95134]

I agree with you that the size of the country argues against a massive high-speed passenger rail system. However, there are population corridors that would benefit from an infusion of money into high-speed rail systems. Washington-Boston is one that has needed this for a long, long time but until the ownership of the right-of-way is wrest from the hands of CSX it just will never happen. It would cost way to much to acquire new right-of-way and bring high-speed rail to center cities. Another route could easily be the San Francisco-San Jose-LA-San Diego corridor. There are issues but none that can't be surmounted. In addition, once you have a core of high-speed rail to build around the service can be expanded to meet or city centers.

Regional high-speed rail is much easier to justify. However, the companies that runs regional rail passenger service just don't understand how to make money with their facilities. Why isn't there more commercial development in and around the trains stations. Why drive out of my way to get take home food for dinner when a rail system should be leasing space in their facilities to retail merchants, e.g., fresh produce, take out food, eat in restaurants, and other department store type retailers. Look at the train stations in Japan to get some idea of what can be done to offset the costs on running a train system.

[frantaylor]

China has over 1000 miles of high-speed rail currently in operation, and 6000 miles either under construction or planned for completion in the next 10 years.

We have 1/3 the population density of China, so we should have 300 miles of high speed rail operating and 2000 miles under construction if we are keeping up with them.

We currently have NO high speed rail lines in this country. The Northeast Corridor does not count. The Acela trains are high speed, but the tracks are in terrible condition, esp. between New Haven and NYC, where the tracks are 100 years old.

But hey, they are just a poor third-world country, their people make a small fraction of what we do, so what does it say when we are just keeping up with them?

[Portnoy]

US Automakers and the American addiction to oil and single rider SUV owners.

Eliminate all three and you will see high speed mass transportation.

[ruchild]

Out here in Iowa, we would love to have a rail system to get around. Yes even in Iowa we have traffic jams, but unlike other cities, out here evidently turn signals and good driving etiquette is out the window, like getting over and NOT DRIVING IN THE LEFT LANE the whole time.... Rail service would cut commute times, parking hassels (as in, not enough) and insane people putting on mascara while driving down the interstate, drinking coffee/eating breakfast, reading the paper and working on the laptop all at the same time (yes, really did see that from one of our fairer SUV drivers). Also, getting to anywhere from here would be lovely and not having to hassel with the idiots on the road, even better. If we get rail, I would be on it, it is the one thing I miss about living in an urban center, is the convenience of rail travel.

[StanlyManly]

While I don't disagree with your observations, sometimes we tend to look at a situation and judge it at face value.

Personally, I think its disheartening to see someone using a laptop during the time they are not at their place of employment. Having to work at home, at the office, and even on the road says a lot more about the economy and our incomes, than it does about the percieved "rudeness" of such events.

Perhaps even the woman putting on the mascara in her car is because she works 2 jobs to support her children after her husband died and barely has the time to do it anyplace else.

Again, that is just speculation, but all I'm trying to do is show that there can be two sides to every coin.

[ObjectiveRealist]

I hope they'll focus the money on one or a few areas where it can make a great impact. What the country needs first is a dramatic example of effective high-speed rail. Then, more support will come out of the woodwork. Don't spread these funds too thin or they will just be wasted.

[sueinmn]

No reason why the money can't be used for commuter trains where their presently are not any. Why pay for tracks that arn't owned by Amtrak! The freights own all the tracks and Amtrak pay by the mile for usage and is presently government subsidised.

[RudyV]

Too little, too late.

Might as well start work on underground tube lines instead. With the air pumped out, creating a dragless vacuum, a sealed railcar could easily travel from NY to LA in under 90 minutes.

[frantaylor]

Simple math will tell you that human beings cannot withstand the acceleration and deceleration forces necessary to achieve this goal.

[RudyV]

And simple math will tell you that you can't fly to the moon, either, fight?

[KillTheMessenger]

Look who failed their physics classes!

An accelerating system with constant acceleration covers a distance of s=a*t^2/2 in a given time t. If T is the total travel time, we then have t=T/2 and total travel distance of s=2*a*(T/2)^2/2 or s=a*T^2/4. Therefor a = 4*s/T^2

With

s=4e6m and T=90min=5400s we get

a = 16*10^6/(5400^2)=0.549m/s^2

That's a modest acceleration of 0.056g!

Let's check: s=0.55*(5400/2)^2/2=2004km

Indeed... that's half the way traveled in half the time.

You wouldn't even spill your coffee.

There is an easier way to see this, by the way. At an acceleration of a=1g a satellite travels around the Earth in low Earth orbit in 90 minutes. So with 1g one can get anywhere on the surface of the Earth... even going the wrong way round. ICBMs, traveling mostly on ballistic (free falling) trajectories, reach their targets in 45 minutes or less.

[ObjectiveRealist]

Myth: People have little or no desire to use passenger trains.
Fact: Environmentalists desire strongly to use passenger trains, but we all have schedules.

Myth: Passenger rail is too expensive.
Fact: Mass transit reduces per capita transit costs exactly the same way that mass production reduces per unit production costs, reducing waste by consolidating effort.

Myth: Distances in the USA are more suited to flying.
Fact: Like the distance from Paris to Bucharest, some distances in the USA are more suited to flying than to even the fastest trains. But, like the distance from Paris to Amsterdam, the actual routes most often traveled by goods and citizens of the United States are better suited to fast trains.

Myth: US citizens are more prosperous and can afford to travel by car or plane.
Fact: Europeans have a higher standard of living because they have fewer billionaires, better socialized medicine and education, and as much healthy distrust of corporations as of government.

Myth: European passenger rail is highly subsidized so the public is stuck paying.
Fact: European passenger rail is highly subsidized so the public is not stuck driving, or staying home.

[KillTheMessenger]

Sorry, but none of this matters. The one and only criterion that changes rail systems from a winner to a loser (or vica versa) is population density. Unless you can find enough people along the rail corridor (and even if it is only on the two endpoints) who need to travel, rail is a waste. Please note that while this is the killer for US passenger rail, by the very same token it makes the killer app for US freight rail. The truth is that our "stuff" travels a lot more than we do.

[freedomitchy]

People have little or no desire to use passenger trains. Passenger rail is too expensive. Distances in the USA are more suited to flying. US citizens are more prosperous and can afford to travel by car or plane. European passenger rail is highly subsidized so the public is stuck paying.

[frantaylor]

India is bigger than the US and the people are poorer, yet they have an excellent passenger rail system.

"US citizens are more prosperous"

So now you are using sloth and greed as excuses.

[freedomitchy]

India's huge poor population are unable to afford other transportation. And I will not assume your claim of excellent passenger rail, is correct either.

[freedomitchy]

BTW India is not larger than the USA.

[IdocNC]

You dont think oil or gasoline is subsidized here?

[RJII]

if you build it they will ride. look at the northeast corridor. people prefer to ride the cheaper, faster than driving trains any and every day. they are full capacity holidays, work days, sundays...

[LitDr2B]

Just because we -can- do it doesn't mean we -should- do it.

[KillTheMessenger]

You can do what? High speed rail? You can't even do low speed rail. Don't kid yourself.

[ObjectiveRealist]

Any of those statements would serve by themselves to explain the disparity in high-speed trains in the United States compared to other industrial nations. But since none of them are true, we must look for other explanations. I suspect political sabotage, bankrolled by Exxon, Saudi Arabia, Carlyle, Vanguard, Halliburton and other profiteers on the scarcity economics of petroleum and the resulting violence.

[KillTheMessenger]

The only sabotage that happened here was the vote of the people. You can't get a majority for anything in this country that does not promise quick returns for some LOCAL community. Rail, especially high speed rail, is not local by design, and needs a political consensus ability that goes far beyond what the US system can achieve. The reason Europeans and Japanese have high speed rail is because they also have high taxes and can implement even punitive taxes like the gas tax. The collective political system in those countries can do things that are painful for the individual but are good for the collective.

[Tom95134]

You have to go back a lot further than that. Try Standard Oil, GM, Ford, etc. GM and Ford saw the benefit of letting passenger rail service deteriorate until nobody wanted to use it. Standard Oil had a product that they needed people to buy, and buy, and buy so they all leveraged themselves into urban and state transit systems where they sold buses that were expensive to maintain but with the low price of gas or diesel caused urban and inter-urban transit systems to die. To help it along the government provided massive amounts of money to build the air transport infrastructure which, even today, is still massively underwritten by the government and your tax dollars.

[research]

Having gotten around by rail in Europe and the USA,

the biggest problem is unregulated free enterprise.

Without standards and regulation, the competing bus and rail lines in the USA, don't synchronize their schedules, and don't even co locate terminals, so you have to lug you stuff miles, or take a cab, or you just can't do it.

[frantaylor]

In Nashua, NH, the bus doesn't go to the bus station.

[ObjectiveRealist]

Because inferior/obsolete/slower freight trains are in the way, even where engines are in use which have the capability to go faster. In turn, those inferior freight trains are still in the way because they are allowed to "lobby" Congress (bribe politicians with campaign donations, really) to maintain the inferior status quo.

quote:
The trains are built to reach speeds up to 150 mph, but only average about 80 mph because of curving tracks and slower-moving freight and passenger trains that share the route. On the densely traveled line from New York City to the nation's capital, the Acela arrives just about 20 minutes earlier than standard service, at more than twice the cost during peak travel times.

For instance, a one-way Acela fare leaving New York at 11 a.m. is $155. The same departure on a regular train costs $72.
/quote

So clear, so simple...

[frantaylor]

There are no freight trains on the Northeast corridor. It's the only Amtrak line that can say that.

[DMEEPhD]

Really?!? Better get some corrective eyewear.

Freight service is provided on the Northeast Corridor by trackage rights. The Norfolk Southern Railway operates over the line south of Philadelphia, and CSX Transportation has rights from New York to New Haven and in Massachusetts. Between Philadelphia and New York, Conrail, which formerly provided service on the whole line, still operates over the line, as a local switching and terminal company for both CSX and Norfolk Southern. The Providence and Worcester Railroad operates local freight service from New Haven into Rhode Island and has incidental trackage rights from New Haven to New York.

I have been on Amtrak and NJ Transit trains too many times to count that were delayed and even stopped while freight trains took the right of way. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[RJII]

use to ride from dc to west virginia by train on ocassion. the train would be hours late and at many times during the ride, I could have jumped off the train and jogged along side.

freight trains and passenger trains don't go well together.

luv the acela, wish it were much cheaper

[ObjectiveRealist]

In Portland, OR we have a commuter train system with many routes that bypass some of the city's worst traffic, but it's now over-filled each weekday morning and evening even though they arrive at each station frequently and depart promptly, and the stations are built (out of concrete) such that adding more cars is not possible. It was a very good idea, but with a design flaw built-in, ironically based on the premise that commuter trains would have a "limited" appeal.

[frantaylor]

What is the obsession? Why is it that EVERY aspect of modern society MUST be profit-making?

Every businessman knows that not EVERY part of their company is profit-making. The janitorial staff is a pure loss on the balance sheet. Office furniture depreciates like mad and generates no revenue. Of course no business can function without either of these things.

A solid transportation system is essential to a functioning economy. By itself it contributes little, but every other part of the economy depends on it.

Just because you can't figure out how to stick a number in your silly little spreadsheet, that doesn't mean that something is a financial drain.

The Harvard MBA spreadsheet mentality is a convenient crutch when you have run out of real answers.

[StanlyManly]

What brand of glue do you sniff?

[frantaylor]

This response is proof. You have no ability to answer coherently, so you resort to this.

[Snuffleupagus]

Good logic fran. Standard accounting practices have their limitations, especially where more abstract ideas like 'the public good' are concerned.

Funny how the suits always preach accounting, cost effectiveness and restraint when it comes to health care, public transit, public schools etc.
National security and our war machine always somehow end up 'above' this discussion or beyond the realm of profit and loss.

Guns or butter debates don't even happen anymore, but they should.
Not that the chaoticdigitizer would be capable of participating, but it would be good for the rest of us.

[frantaylor]

Thanks for filling in some of the holes in my argument.

I'd like to see how the vhickenhawks squirm if we insisted on the same financial performance standards for weapons systems that we do for our own infrastructure.

[ObjectiveRealist]

quote:

The Harvard MBA spreadsheet mentality is a convenient crutch when you have run out of real answers.
/quote

... or lack the talent or diligence to compete in a changing world. I think that's more what's behind the resistance to spending on infrastructure, clean sources of energy, universal / single-payer health care and uniformly funded public education.

[AN2009]

Well said.