Amtrak has announced it's purchasing the next generation in energy efficient passenger trains that use approximately 2,134 BTUs per mile (which compares to 3,578 per mile for a passenger car and 3,942 per mile for domestic airplane flights). The 70 new locomotives will come on line between 2013 and 2019 and replace 64 locomotives, some dating back to 1980. These new trains will mostly be manufactured domestically in Sacramento by Siemens AG. And the manufacturing facility will have 2 megawatts of solar cells on its roof. These new trains will feature regenerative braking--much like that in hybrid automobiles--which will also generate electricity. Their top speed will be 125 miles per hour.
All in all, a pretty good step in terms of energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gases.
However, there is a larger issue at hand: consider where we are in comparison of the rest of the world. China has just introduced the world's fastest train, averaging speeds of 217 miles per hour. Last year, China announced its massive rail development program that is set to expand the high-speed rail service to 42 additional lines by 2012. This is quite a contrast to Amtrak's current plans that use these new trains on its Northeast Corridor lines between Washington, DC and Boston and on the Keystone Corridor between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
More importantly and more impotently, Amtrak released a report for next generation high-speed rail for the Northeast corridor. The new concept for rail travel suggests trains running at 220 miles per hour between Washington, DC and Boston as well a few other northeast cities. However, this project isn't expected to be completed until 2040! That's 30 years from now. Can you imagine where China and other developing nations are going to be by that time?
Rail service began in this country more than 150 years ago and was one of the most important forces in our economic development. And now it's roaring back as an important step in low-carbon transportation and an economic necessity. Just ask Warren Buffet about Berkshire Hathaway's $39 billion acquisition of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. earlier this year.
In order to grow we need to build and build faster. A plan that indicates a completed high-speed rail service three decades from now while other nations are building them now and at a much faster pace truly shows that we are on the wrong track.
Jonathan A. Schein is CEO/ScheinMedia and publisher of MetroGreenBusiness.com
Follow Jonathan A. Schein on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaschein
Maybe they are smarter than we give them credit for.
They don't spend money on NIMBY lawsuits, multi-year environmental impact studies/lawsuits, emminent domain issues, worker safety/health concerns, union/labor/worker's comp issues, suspect material and construction standards, etc.
They just push people, animals, plants aside, seize the land build it, other issues be damn. You protest, you go to jail or worse.
That's how they roll........
-----------------------------------
125MPH? That is somewhat passe, isn't it? What I would ask here is are you sure you are not talking about assembling the parts that will be made elsewhere. Siemens AG is a German company that indeed manufactures the locomotives from scratch in Germany. My suspicions are that the locomotives will be actually made in Germany, taken apart, and shipped to the U,S. and reassembled here. In my book that is not manufactured here, that is assembled here. I have a bit of a far more restricted definition of manufacturing than Schein. This actually does little for our balance of payments in international trad. Further, why use Siemens when GE makes locomotives here that are quite capable of hitting 125MPH and also have regenerative braking (most diesel electric locomotives have this function right now).
High speed rail will call for far better tracks, even the current corridor between Washington DC and Boston has long stretches where the HS train can hit its maximum due to old fashioned tracks suitable for freight trains. These newer trains will be far more expensive than existing trains and the cost of high speed rail corridors are just going to be prohibitive. Do not use Europe for comparison, there distances are much shorter between major business hubs and most of those cities have developed infrastructure to support rail system. Keep in mind that these are subsidized systems.
The real question that needs to be applied here is what exactly do you want rail to compete against. For better or worse, automobiles are already here and so is their infrastructure, same goes for the airline industry. Rail just cannot compete against airlines in terms of speed and time to destination, except for very short corridors.
High speed trains are gloriously energy efficient. To move the same man miles, it uses 1/50th the energy a plane does, and perhaps 1/30th individual cars do. It takes an awful lot of aviation fuel to keep those flying tubs afloat in midair, and lots of gas to move all the dead weight of all those cars.
One modern train can carry MANY times the passengers of a plane, in spacious comfort, without fear of falling out from the sky. Trains can carry much more luggage on board.
Security is not as much of a concern. A train can stop on the tracks. A plane cannot stop in midair.
Counting security clearance waits, train rides are time competitive with air travel for anything but the longest trips. Also, train stations can be located a lot closer to downtown (they typically are) without fear of noise pollution. Train stations are often regional or local ground transportation hubs. Airports are not.
A train track is a line, and the real estate prices go up along the route. This is amply proven in China and elsewhere. Airports are points. The locomotives can pull a big segment of the economy. Planes cannot.
Want the new train lines built right, built on time and under budget, hire the Chinese to build them.
While some kinds of business spring up along rail lines, this is not universal. I don't really know many people who love living next to a rail line, in fact this is not a selling point for home real estate. The cost of rail lines is going to be real estate, land is very expensive.
Yup no matter if it's rail, air, road ship, there are larger issues besides $ to be considered. If we don't spend it on transporation (which is vital to our economy) what to spend it on-corporate CEO compenstation, corporate lobbying, uneeded wars? Yes society has choices to make but I find this repeated reasoning over and over a red herring.
My argument is to use the form of transportation that is most economical, trains and ships are best used for freight. Sure you can have luxury cruise liners, but of all the people traveling in this country only a very small percentage do that, yet alone afford to do it. I am afraid that HSrail is nothing more than more subsidies for the upper income people, not for us masses that just plain cannot afford such superb travel. Again, if passenger rail was truly economic, the railroads would surely be doing it.
China has approved plans for a 70.8 billion yuan ($10.6 billion) link to connect its inland cities of Chengdu and Xi'an just days after inaugurating what it says is the world's fastest intercity high-speed rail line (Shanghai to Hangzhou).
The National Development and Reform Commission okayed the Xi'an-Chengdu high speed rail plan last week and construction is due to begin later this 2010, the China Railway First Survey and Design Institute said in a notice seen on its website.
The 510-kilometer (320 mile) railway, one-quarter of which will run through tunnels, will cut travel time between the two cities to about two hours from the current 13, it said.
Running through the rugged Qinling mountains, it is expected to carry some 70 million passengers a year once it is finished in four years.
The Xi'an-Chengdu high-speed railway will run at 250 kilometers per hour (156 miles per hour), slower than the super rapid Shanghai-Hangzhou link, which operates at a maximum 350 kph (220 mph) and opened for business last week.
China already has the world's longest high-speed rail network and aims to more than double its length to 10,000 miles (16,000 kilometers) by 2020.
We should not commit to a national rail policy based on patriotic flag waving that somehow we are falling behind--somewhat reminiscent of the space race. A national rail policy should be based on economic sense. While I love railroads, I think they are best suited for hauling freight and not passengers.
At the end of the day, if indeed passenger service was a profitable business, don't you think that the existing rail line would offer it? The economics of passenger service were just not there in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, the railroads phased it out for basic economic reasons. Amtrak exists only because the government subsidizes it. Even Amtrak's most scenic train rides (mostly here in the West) during high tourist season lose money. And all of this with existing long depreciated rolling stock.
Hmm sounds like talking points from the Ayn Rand Oil & Auto Company.
I do have a concern that (unfortunately) I feel needs to be raised.
I would think that high speed rail would be a prime target for a terrorist attack. How do you monitor effectively every inch of track from point A to point B.
A train leaving the tracks at 60 MPH is bad enough, imagine the carnage at 200MPH.
Something to think about. (though I sincerely wish we didn't have to).