1. Elliott H | 04.16.09

There is another option.

http://obamaformaglev.blogspot.com/

2. vivifiant | 04.16.09

A high speed train is competitive with flying for routes probably up to 3 hours. Example: the TGV get you from Paris to Marseille, 550 miles (880km) in just under 3 hours. This is about the same time it takes by plane if you include waiting times. The train is virtually always on schedule and weather delays are extremely rare. In addition the train takes you from city center to city center. Before moving to the US I lived in Germany and France so I can tell you that while trains were always an important means of transportation, the usage took really off when the trains were networked with airports and rental cars. Now you can take a train from Paris CDG airport directly to Marseille bypassing downtown. The train station is in the middle of the airport. I think if the US uses the same seamless networking, i.e. from JFK to Washington downtown etc. with rental cars at every train station it will work. However, if you make a slow 100mph too-too train going from awkward location to awkward location it will not work.

Vivifiant, Ohio

3. Ari | 04.16.09

I fully agree. The US geography does not really allow self-sustainable high-speed rail. Comparing US with Japan and Europe and saying “If they can do it, we can too” is meaningless because high-speed rail is meant for smaller more densely populated countries. Sure the US govt. can build one but it won’t make much business sense. US is far too big for it.

4. Sam Smith | 04.16.09

Why compare the Boston to Washington trip to the shorter distances in Europe. Boston to NYC would be well served by upgraded high speed rail as well as Philly. The high speed network is for the shorter trips. Fly Boston to DC and take the train Boston to NYC and NYC to DC. We need to compare apples to apples. Obviously a flight LA to NY is going to be faster but an LA to SF highspeed rail trip may compete for time and for delivering you to the center of the city. We need to support all forms of Transit (Trains, Planes, Cars, Bikes, Etc.)

5. Ray Shaheen | 04.16.09

The ideal markets for high speed rail are shorter distances, and markets that are less competitive than the Acela corridor.
Rather than cobbling together routes that span the country, it would be more responsible to act as private enterprise would… to choose markets with the greatest chance of success. This means tieing markets like Albany,Rochester and Montreal to New York; Linking California coastal cities between San Diego and San Francisco; or Chicago to Detroit.
Amtrak can never succeed if it tries to be everything to everywhere. Lets get real!

6. henri borius | 04.16.09

The distance between Boston and Washington is 440 miles. The distance covered by the TGV between paris and Marseilles is 489 miles . That trip takes 3 hours .

7. Alex | 04.16.09

Except that the the Acela is consistently sold-out, and that is with a system, that as you rightly pointed out, is mediocre compared with HSR in Europe and Asia. People just prefer to take the train if it is remotely competitive with the hell that is airline travel.

And look, there is a sweet spot for High Speed Rail: Sub-500 mile trips, that take less than 3 hours. Farther or longer than that and you are probably better off on the plane.

The population density differences between Europe and America is a bit misleading. California has a population density and area that is similar to Spain, which has a new, and very successful HSR system. The Northeast, and Chicago to St. Louis, are other areas that compare favorably to Europe. For example, Paris to Lyon, are of similar size, and distance as Chicago to St. Louis.

The problem is some of the other areas on the HSR map. HSR in Alabama for example probably doesn’t make a lot of sense. But I suppose for political reasons, as many States as possible need to get a slice of the pie in order to get anything passed.

And that is my big worry. Frankly, I think the Feds should concentrate the money and political capital on the couple of areas where it would do the most good. Right now that is the North-East, where some fairly quick and ready-to-go projects could improve the Acela service (the track slows to 30MPH in some places due to poor track!) and California where in the medium term,planning is under way for a real Japanese style 200 MPH system.

8. TimL | 04.16.09

Have you ever even been to Europe? They have a vast rail system through multiple countries. It is convenient, easy, relaxing travel and provides more energy efficient and cheaper options than air travel.

And to reflect on your Boston to DC did you manage to factor in the time it takes to go through the ridiculous rigmarole compared to the time it actually takes to get on a train and travel the same distance. Air travel has at least an hour if not multiple of wasted time.

Your can’t do it, won’t improve, pessimistic attitude is the type of thing that really holds this country back. Quit being lazy.

9. Matthias | 04.16.09

Trains are most efficient carrying weight - freight. The result of Billions of $ spend in Europe for high speed trains has been the destruction of freight train service. Just look at the Autobahn right lane, trucks after truck after truck. The result is pollution and congestion.
One condition for any public transportation system to work it must be in able to efficiently “collect” people on both ends on trip, i.e. it requires density on both ends. That exists in US only in a few places or involves cars. The second condition is competitive monetary efficiency. In Europe enormous amounts of money have gone into constructing special high speed track unsuitable for freight trains. That cost will make these trains uncompetitive over larger distances, i.e. in $ per passenger mile. Yes, improve passenger service where it fits, but leave the freight train capability and move to modern control systems.

10. B Sizemore | 04.16.09

I think though in the long run this will be an viable option. Given that gas prices last year gave us a glimpse into the future. While down now said prices will eventually hit those highwater marks again and become permament.
As the old commerical said ” Either you can pay a little now or a lot later.

11. g. beat | 04.16.09

Ms. Belsie has nade some good points, but neither her critique or the adminsitration’s push for High Speed rail mentioned energy efficiency for such travel. Have we already forgotten ~ $150 barrel oil? It appears that answer is YES.
The high speed rail initative does fit the <200 mile distances for major population areas. At that distance it is practical, faster and economical compared to current air travel alternatives.
Small commuter planes travel these <350 air mile distances in the major markets — that are often weather dealyed — and higher crash rates recently (Buffalo, NY most recent).
Left out of the economic comparison equation are the millions of $$ spent for air traffic control, airport infrastructure, etc. to support that $350 air fare.
At a minimum, the federal government should acquire the corridors (former RR right of ways/trails; infrastructure) for high speed rail — while real estate costs are depressed and access in dense metropolitan area is still available.
An example is the former Rock Island corridor from Chicago to Omaha and PRR corridor from Ft. Wayne, IN to Chicago — little freight traffic and could be upgraded to an all-passenger/European style (French/German) design — with 150 - 200 mph design speeds. It could be “all-electric” (commercial electric power plants using variety of sources: wind, solar, nuclear, coal, gas) — eliminating usage of diesel engines in the trainset.

g. beat

12. Dido | 04.16.09

“A train trip as long as Boston-Washington in Europe would stretch from Paris to nearly the middle of Germany.”
But NOT all the way to Avignon in the south of France. There are many different ways to view a map. As well, I do not see our future high-speed rail service being run by AmTrack. Smug, supercilious articles like this are not worthy of this a great venture. The same country who put a man on the moon should be up to the challenge of creating a viable, high-speed rail system. YES WE CAN.

13. Chris | 04.16.09

This author is not very smart. The Acela is barely even a high speed train. The trains that Obama is proposing and that they are building here in California travel at speeds at or around 250mhp. I’d say that’s something that could cut some commute time. Probably best to do some research before writing an article.

14. Ryan | 04.16.09

Yet another completely unneeded thing for the government to spend tax money on. Why can’t the left get it through their heads that WE ARE NOT EUROPE! We are not a society built to support socialized medicine, banking, etc. We are not a country who wants or can drive around in tiny little one seater cars (We have crowded interstates where people travel 80 MPH. I want some car around me.). We are not a country that needs/wants/cares about a rail system. WHAT IS THE POINT!?!?

Keep it up Obama. I’d be happy to pay off your spending spree for the rest of my life!

15. Dom | 04.16.09

There is more to this then just the trains. Europe has had high speed trains for many years now, the United States needs to catch up with the times. Aside from having much more faster fuel saving public transportation, it will create many jobs which is something that people are in dire straits for. I think its a great idea, and frankly as a person who uses this form of transportation, its about time…

16. Mike | 04.16.09

The train service is entirely feasible and it should be done. Part of the “heave-ho” to the passenger rail system also came from auto makers who bought and subsequently dismantled railroad companies. As a result America became reliant on the automobile industry. Hmm How has that worked for us? I think that high-speed trains are a great idea! It adds to competition in the free market, potentially can be more environmentally friendly, and offers alternative to the aviation industry. It won’t happen overnight, but there is no quick fix.

17. marc | 04.16.09

No one has commented on the fact that all the current mag lev trains in Asia are expected to pay for themselves, as well as save fuel, cut carbon emissions, and assist the economy.

18. Jon Smith | 04.16.09

High-speed rail is an enchanting idea, but it would be enormously expensive. One obvious route would be Washington, D.C. to Chicago, via Pittsburgh, Youngstown, and Cleveland, but it would cost about $100 Billion and it’s hard to see the government making the investment - or the benefit it would derive from such an enormous outlay. Unless it’s seen as a make-work project to provide employment, I can’t imagine high-speed rail in our future.

19. Nou | 04.16.09

The point is not to replace travel between places like Boston and Washington, DC. Its to help ease commutes on shorter distance lines. This is where it would be the most effective. In the Pacific Northwest we have regular rail service on Sound Tranists Sounder Commuter Trains south from Tacoma to Seattle and north from Everett to Seattle everey weekday. We also have many daily trips from Amtraks Cascades line that runs from Vancouver, BC to Eugene, Oregon.

It costs $4 to ride the Sounder from Tacoma to Seattle, Granted it takes longer than driving, but its more productive. There is free wireless internet and power and makes commuting much easier than being stuck on Interstate 5.

If we could expand the service here even more it would be wonderful. Replacing it with high-speed dedicated lines would be even better.

20. super trip | 04.16.09

“But they serve smaller areas that are far more densely populated”

For comparison, Your Acela trip from Boston to say Philadelphia would take over 5 hours, by car it would take close to 6. The N.E. corridor is home to more than 50 million people.

The trip I make from Fukuoka to Osaka (which is about the same distance as the Boston to Philly trip) takes 2 and a half which makes it competitive with flying.

Japan and Europes bullet trains span much larger distances than you would expect, and China is practically the same size as the US. These are the exact distances and populations that are ideal for this type of transportaion. The goal should be Boston to DC in a little more than 3.5 hours.

21. John Mattson | 04.16.09

Laurent Belsie has set up a straw man with Boston to Washington. The route from Boston to Washington DC goes: Boston, Hartford, NYC, Philadelphia, and Washington DC. Going between these makes excellent economic sense by fast train. Millions of people do it by slow train every year. Fast trains will improve their lot. Go back and do your test flying from DC to Baltimore, Hartford to Boston or Hartford to Philadelphia. It will cost you more money and time.
The proper roll for long distance trains is cargo, not high speed passenger service. The mistake with the interstates was building it for cargo, ie trucks. With the cost of gas going up, trucking will no longer be economically viable, the trains will come back.

22. JM Penningsfeld | 04.16.09

The distance between Boston and Washington (approximately 630 kilometres point-to-point) is roughly equivalent to the point-to-point distance between Paris and Marseilles (660 kilometres). It so happens that the Paris-Marseilles link is among the most successful classic TGV routes : barely more than three hours from centre to centre. In fact the route poses such a threat to the TGV’s airborne competition that Air France is planning to launch, in co-operation with Veolia, the exploitation of a privatised TGV link between Paris and Marseilles, where France’s national railway system currently boasts a 63-% market share.

Furthermore, I seriously doubt that the coastal region spanning Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington DC is significantly less densely populated than central and southern France. And if it were, it would actually render a superfast-train project all the more viable, the key issue being that to achieve high speed, you need very rectilinear tracks over the longest possible distances.

23. Emily Lorraine | 04.16.09

If you can travel by train from San Francisco to LA in 2.5 hours than that competes with air travel and beats car travel. It currently takes over 12 hours on the train as is. I think a high speed rail corridor there is a vast improvement and future forward way to rebuild our notions of how we travel as a population whether it be for leisure, work, or adventure. The 10 corridors proposed connect more densely populated areas of the U.S. but they are certainly very different from those in France or Japan in terms of their distance. I support this very ambitious project and hope to find myself whisked away sometime soon.

24. Karen Henry | 04.16.09

Your article touched on part of our Nation’s problem. Our cities are less dense and farther apart then Europe’s. Eventually our cities will either become more dense or the sprawl will be incomprehensible. Hopefully, cities will choose the more dense route in which high-speed trains will be valuable. It is very difficult to purchase the land necessary to create train routes that are effective after the fact. Why not begin the process now? We will need light rail and high-speed trains to move the vast majority of American’s who live in suburbia to their destinations. It will not be an option to not have it. Too many cars will be on the road, that is if we can still find the fuel to fill them up with! Besides that. Amtrak is always late and can’t be counted on. How great would it be to be able to travel by train across the country? Most high-schoolers dream of the road-trip. Why couldn’t it be by train instead? To not need a car in America. That should be our goal.

25. pj | 04.16.09

That’s a ridiculous comparison. The northeast corrider trains are not high speed — I ride them all the time and they barely crack 50 mph for long stretches. The trains can do 140, but the outdated tracks don’t let them for most of the route. Boston to DC is less than 450 miles, or an hour-and-a-half ride in a next generation bullet train. You’d spend an hour and a half getting to the airport and getting through security, and by the time you’re boarding the plane, the train would be arriving in DC.

Plus, the real value isn’t Boston to DC, its Boston to NY, and NY to DC. Even in the semi-high speed Acela, you can get from Penn Station to Union Station in about two and a half hours. It can be cut to an hour with a real bullet train.

26. Dave | 04.16.09

Denser areas? Somewhat. Germany is as dense as Maryland, France stacks up against Ohio, Switzerland is Europe’s Delaware, and Spain compares to California or Illinois.
Smaller areas? Hardly. Paris to nearly the middle of Germany? Done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2008.gif
But why stop there? Portland ME to Miami FL - 1600 miles
Berlin, Germany to Seville, Spain - 1700 miles. Mostly done (at over 120mph).

27. oracle2world | 04.16.09

Nice article. I take it that Biden was being quoted accurately, “Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour …”.

I don’t know what era he is talking about, what with jet turbine aeroplanes averaging closer to 600 mph OVER towns.

Anyone here traveled via “high speed” rail? Unlike air travel, where you don’t really feel how fast you are going and the clouds look nice and fluffy, high speed rail sort of reinforces you are going fast and that immovable stuff a foot away (like bridge abutments) are not.

28. Laurence | 04.16.09

Except that what we already have between Washington and Boston isn’t high-speed either. In fact, the only part of it that is is a single stretch in MA where the train can really open it up. This is due to chronic underfunding — and as the old business adage goes: you have to spend money to make money.

All of our transportation is subsidized by government in one way or another. Since rail is possibly the most efficient motorized way to travel, why not further subsidize it?

29. crystal | 04.16.09

I think the point is you can’t do that now. It’s fly or take forever on a train. No one has that kind of time.

Also, your statement that the TGV or Bullet serves a smaller area is not quite accurate. In the scenario you give, Boston to D.C. the distance is 440 miles. That’s comparable to the Paris France to Avignon France TGV, 690 km (that’s 429 miles). In that case, at first comparison the train ride at 2:30 hrs is about the same as the plane at 2:40 hrs, but that doesn’t take into account getting to the airport an hour in advance, or time to get luggage after.

Incidentally, high speed trains are used for both travelers and freight.

30. CSSteve | 04.16.09

This is great news. High speed rail is the absolutely perfect way to inject stimulus into the economy and guarantee that we have something great to show for it. Hearing this makes me feel much better about all of the money that is being used for stimulus.

31. RJB Boston | 04.16.09

1) the airline lobby would prevent any such transportation format from becoming a reality 2) the Acela from Boston to DC is NOT a high speed train - it can theoretically go at high speeds, but the tracks are not constructed to allow that to happen 3) a true high speed train system is not necessarily bound by the constraints of distance and cost (think Chunnell and China) 4) a high speed train system is much better for the environment 5) the Acela from Boston to NYC is a highly successful venture and does not add meaningful time or cost to the trip compared to flying in spite of the fact the the train is not truly high speed.

32. JC | 04.16.09

Once again - something that isn’t vital enough to be driven by the market just HAS to be built with Federal money….”Oh, but JC, you don’t understand - this will drive the economy…”….so would putting a gun to people’s heads and making them spend $5 on a Starbucks coffee - but it doesn’t make it right…

this is getting out of control…and they call people who think that the Federal Government is careening out of control “extremists”?!?

33. wtobias | 04.16.09

the reason they haven’t done this in the past 15 years because no one will ride the train. am track since it started has never made a profit. its another example of pork every year the tax payers pay for this and not a penny is returned. it works for France and japan because they use mass transit we use cars

34. Don Phillips | 04.16.09

I have never replied to anything like this and hope to never do so again. However, after 45 years in journalism, including 15 yeas as the transportation reporter for The Washington Post and two years doing the same with the International Herald Tribune in Paris, I must say something. France, the king of high speed rail, has just about the same population density as the United States including Montana, Nevada and West Virginia. Americans just don’t get that. Yet the TGV is the most successful high-speed operation in the world. Even as I write, France is building four (count ‘em, FOUR) new TGV lines as part of its economic stimulus plan. Everywhere a new TGV line goes, including lines as long as Boston-Washington, air traffic withers. The French postal service uses brightly colored TGV mail trains all over France, and Air France is now talking of buying its own TGV’s for Paris air connections. Then there’s the matter of peace of mind. Washington-New York-Boston Acela service is slow compared to the TGV, but I would much rather spend six hours 40 minutes aboard a smooth-running Washington-Boston Acela than fight traffic to the airport, put up with the ignorance of the TSA, sit on the runway forever and hope for a smooth flight to an outlying airport. I used to love to fly, but I would now gladly pay far more for a train trip, and with it a peace of mind that just isn’t possible in aviation any more. After decades of covering aviation, I haven’t flown in over a year, but I’ve traveled from Washington to the West Coast seven times in the same period, always in a sleeping car and always with a smile on my face (that the strange TSA people would see as suspicious). Your reporter can sacrifice whatever she wants for a couple of hours. That will be just more room for me and a big smile.

35. Jean | 04.16.09

Actually a train trip as long as Boston-Washington (440 miles) could be as short as a trip from Paris to the French southern city of Marseille (482 miles), which is completed in 3 hours and 2 minutes using the French TGV fast train at regular commercial speed.

I guess it’s just that Amtrack does not have the same idea of “high-speed trains” as the French

36. Hal Schiffman | 04.16.09

Okay, maybe the Boston to Washington trip wouldn’t be any
cheaper on high-speed rail than by air and taxi, but how about shorter distances? New York to Washington or NY to Boston ought to be–I flew from NY to DC once and it turned
out that after the bus to JFK, the taxi back from Dulles etc.
we could have done it faster by good old Amtrak, especially
after we were held up landing in Dulles and were sidetracked
to sit on the ground at BWI.

HS

37. CPF | 04.16.09

“in slightly half the time”

In a seat about half the size. Without any liquids over one ounce. In a recirculated, pressurized environment. After standing in line and answering a litany of accusatory questions. All the while burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate.

Maybe time shouldn’t be the only consideration?

38. Stephen Douglas | 04.16.09

Our country is made for automobiles. Endless miles of suburban sprawl. Granted, we need better train service, but Pres. Obama must know our cities need an almost total remake for rapid rail to make sense. Even public tansportation within the cities is not a remedy until cities reorganize all residential and employment structures around city transit. Highly unlikely with the current mindset of fast buck developers.

39. Samuel R. Ganczaruk | 04.16.09

From Paris to themiddle of Germany! Yes, that is done from Paris to Frankfurt am Main in a little over 3 hours. So much so the airlines have cut back their flights. We should be able to do that here too!

40. Billy Lee Kidd | 04.16.09

This misses the point. Americans are too undisciplined for high-speed trains. They’ll throw stones on the trains, drive cars into the tracks, or piles stones on the rails just for fun. We can’t even do slow-speed commuter trains without crashing them. Most any sociologist will confirm this.

41. mega | 04.17.09

its sad to see all the egg heads in washington get this so wrong. they left vegas and phoenix out completely, run overlapping lines in california and overlapping lines from chicago headed east(wasting money and material), denver and salt lake are also left out. but most importantly this does not connect east to west or north to south which wud maximize the benefit of a high speed rail system and ultimately change the way we travel and deliver goods and services. u dont need einstein for this guys!
pathetic as mortgage backed securities….

42. yojnas | 04.17.09

It is not only Europe, but also Canada and Australia that are well connected by an excellent railroad system. Rails are long overdue. Way to go Obama!

43. Thomas Hutchinson | 04.17.09

Dirt roads are a lot cheaper and sometime even faster than the highway. Why build highways?
Japan is building a train that can go over 320 MPH and we are not capable of serving the nation with a 110 MPH train system. NYC to Miami in less than four hours, NYC to Dallas in less than five hours
Electric trains using electricity from Solar, Wind or Nuclear generators will produce zero emission
I95 from NYC to Miami is mostly two lanes, outdated and congested. We cannot even update our highway systems

44. Brant | 04.17.09

I think Amtrak is expecting people to go from Boston to New York or New York to DC. Also, most airports are operating at near-capacity (in good times) and it would be interesting to see what a cap and trade system does to air travel (hint: train travel to nearby cities is less of an impact).

45. Stefan Werner | 04.17.09

Funny that you mention the trip from Paris to the middle of Germany as comparison. There are high-speed trains going from Paris to Germany, a trip from Cologne to Paris being less than 4 hours.
Don’t forget the convenience of train travel either. Compared to flying, there’s no humiliating security procedures, to luggage limits, enough legroom, room to walk and stretch your legs, an actual restaurant on board instead of pre-packaged hyperprocessed “food” and the stations where you board and leave are in the middle of the city instead of the middle of nowhere.

46. Jeff K. | 04.17.09

We would do well to ignore anyone who claims that passenger rail (high-speed or other) is the solution to ALL or to NONE of our transportation problems. There are routes for which high-speed rail is an optimal solution, and there are routes for which it is a sub-optimal or downright poor solution. And this equation will change with time, as population and infrastructure vary.

Given this dynamic situation, I find the author’s comparison of a Boston->DC trip via Amtrak or air both naive and beside the point. Hopefully, the administration’s vision for high-speed train travel is more compelling than what we currently see on the Northeast Corridor, where trains spend most of their time on a 100+ year-old right-of-way. And hopefully no one is advocating a many billion dollar project to connect two small cities many hundreds of miles apart. Rather, we should be willing to spend (lots of) money to develop rail corridors when it makes economic, environmental, and political sense. i.e. on routes where high-speed rail will is (and more importantly, can become) competitive with air travel and other forms of transportation.

Finally, the author’s comparison of a Boston to DC trip with a trip from Paris to the middle of Germany is telling: currently, the French and German governments are spending billions of euros to build just this route…with the expectation that it will be the preferred mode of transportation.

47. Richard Clark | 04.17.09

I have long dreamed of and supported a fast, comfortable rail network, high speed, connecting to feeder lines, right across America. A great dream and worthy of this time and age. In the 1860’s the Union Pacific Railroad was a great construction project that inspired people all across America. It was also a great rort, an old fashioned version of todays bank bail out. This has been part and parcel of the American Business Model. Business as usual. We have seen that over and over with defense contractors, the rebuilding of Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. It will take a super duper rail czar to control this dream.So long as the Contractors are open and above board it could work but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

48. Andrew | 04.17.09

There are, in fact, TGV (and ICE) services from Paris to Germany!

49. Pork Buster | 04.17.09

Oh joy, more wasteful gov. spending on something else we DON’T NEED!!! Each of these train systems will only benefit a very small percentage of the population. Even if $13 billion could build one train system (and the article above stated it would not be enough) that would mean that EACH of our roughly 300 million citizens would pay roughly $43 PER TRAIN when many of them will never lay eyes on any given train let alone use it.

If people want a train, it should be paid for at the local level by the towns that will be getting them, not the entire country. And the economic stimulus claims are bogus. What it’s really about is providing kickbacks to contractors and corporate political contributors in the form of high-priced contracts related to this unnecessary project. How much stimulus will there be when new taxes are eventually created to pay for this thing?

If government REALLY wants to do this country a favor, stop wasting money on things the nation doesn’t need so that we and our children don’t have to spend years paying for it.

50. Eric Klieber | 04.17.09

High-speed rail, if pursued, will become the Obama administration’s version of the Iraqi war. It will absorb hundreds of billions of dollars even as the stated objectives are periodically lowered.

51. Dan Eustace | 04.17.09

As with many things, change comes slowly when it involves many steps.

The discussion in the note barely touches on the real pros and cons.

The places with the best chances for successful implementation are new and expanding metropolitan areas, rather than established areas. These are the places where high speed rail introduction can solve problems.

The straight cost comparison does not tell the whole story. If one can conduct business, have meals and do serious work it adds value. The second added value thing is how rested a person is when they arrive at the destination and how easy it is to get where one needs to go next.

Acela is limited to those who can afford the cost. It is not for the growing number of unemployed or underemployed in our communities.

52. Nikos | 04.17.09

“But here’s the deal, Mr. Vice President. I can do that now from Boston to Washington, using Amtrak’s Acela, at a cost of $323 and 12 hours, 26 minutes roundtrip”

That’s where you are mistaken. The Acela is far slower than the TGV or other high speed trains, which run on their own tracks. Acela runs between 125-150 mph, about HALF the speed of the European and Japanese counterparts. Six hours to Boston doesn’t sound so bad–you have more space to get work done or to take a nap. On the airport side, it takes me at least an hour to get to 2 out of 3 of the airports in the DC area on public transport, and at airports you have to arrive an hour earlier. In short, the decrease in train travel time should increase ridership and decrease costs. The devil is in the details, but suffice it to say: this is NOT a no-brainer as you claim.

53. John D. | 04.17.09

Holy Supertrain Batman, If we had been doing this from the time Japan started their bullitt trains, we could have had it in place, and given the airlines some competition long ago. As selfish as we can be sometimes in our relationship with the automobile, this is not something new with the rest of the world. Sure, Europe is more densely populated, but someday the good ol’ USA will be the same way. “If we build it, they will come.” New population, new business, a whole new way to see the growth of the USA as we saw it in the 1850-1900’s toward the west, the new frontier. It’s still there! Get on board and lets rebuild America.

54. ian | 04.17.09

Given a choice between train and plane, I would probably prefer the train in most situations. Right now I don’t even that choice. Adding another option for travelers is a good thing. Airplanes use a lot of fuel, and who knows for how much longer cheap oil can last? We shouldn’t wait until the poop hits the fan to get off our derriere and do something. We’re already late to the party!

55. Daniel Beaudoin | 04.17.09

A trip from Paris to Marseilles is arounf 470 miles and using the TGV it takes around 5.5 hours from town center to town center. If you take a plane, you would have to go to Orly, than arriving in Marseilles you are still far from the central part of town.
I agree that on longer distances the plane makes more sense but on the corridor Boston-New-York-Baltimore-Washington, or New-York-Chicago, etc. the train could beat the plane anytime. The other big difference between the countries with high spped trains and the US is that in most of these countries, they consider public transport a right for the population and profit is not the main driver. Most are, like the SNCF, government own. We also have to remember that they have a security record that is hard to beat.

56. BP | 04.17.09

I agree with the Acela reasoning. As is, even our high speed trains are too slow and clostly. I’d much rather take a train, but it’s just not worth it! To the first commenter, Trains may not be gas guzzlers like planes, but tearing up the land to build a train track isn’t too environmentally friendly, either. Using non-dedicated lines will slow down the fast trains and increase the possibility of a collision. Perhaps we just need more frieght trains to get some of those tractor trailers off the roads.

57. Josh | 04.17.09

I am currently living in Japan and have found it interesting how radically different the relationship to transportation is compared to my hometown of Omaha, Nebraska. I don’t often use the famous bullet-trains, but there are many positive side-effects for normal commuters as well. For one, it leads to useful and convenient normal rail infrastructure (necessary to get you from the big station at point B to the small, local station at point C) that facilitates economic and social activities. Also, public transportation systems can be made much more friendly to the environment and decrease the amount of fossil fuels made necessary by a nation connected mainly through highways. Not to mention, even if the East coast is nice and connected, the current condition of nation-wide transportation (from say Nebraska to D.C.) is quite terrible and largely relies on a several day car-trip or an expensive plane ticket. A more highly developed nation-wide transportation system could help bridge some of the social and economic gaps that are weakening the nation.

58. Marty Wilkinson | 04.17.09

I question our president’s motivation in following suit to other celebrities such as Mike Tyson, who squandered $300mm for a lot of “cool stuff” people would admire him for, leaving no thought for the possibility of bankrupting a generation. Unlike Mike Tyson, ignorance of basic economics is no excuse for lack of financial accountability in his position.

59. Harry Kuheim | 04.17.09

Trains are too big, too slowwww, too expensive, stuck on a fixed route, and just the silly utopian solution that Obama and the fools on the left think is brilliant.

60. Jeff | 04.17.09

Please - the Acela goes barely half as fast as Japanese, Chinese and French/Eurotunnel high-speed trains. And local politics (and sharing the rails with other slower trains) also mean it makes more stops than it ideally should.

Not sure where you’re getting your mileage info either — Osaka to Tokyo is 511 km; Boston to Washington is 700. Trains in Japan make the trip in 3 1/2 hours, which implies a Washington/Boston rail travel time of less than 5 hours if our rail system matched theirs.

Finally, with rail you’re traveling city center to city center, *and* avoiding the security hassles and nightmares of the TSA. All in all, high-speed rail sounds like a godsend to me.

61. chris sewell | 04.17.09

You forgot to say that the same trip in Europe would be cost more then our airfare by a lot. I took a TVG trip from Geneva to Paris and it was 200 buck one way!

62. Bill Vosteen | 04.17.09

I agree with Lauren Belsie’s commentary on high speed trains in America. There are so few corridores where it even has a chance of working. The Washington to Boston is about the only one that makes any sense. There’s been talk about a high speed train across upstate NY and connecting to NY City. Have the politicians considered if there truly is a market for such an investment? Is there any hope that it could even start to compete with the commuter airlines that service the small Upstate NY cities with NYC? I rather doubt it.

I view this as political wishful thinking squandering the taxpayers money.

63. cesca | 04.17.09

I think this is definitely an idea whose time has come! If we are moving towards less use of oil, less congestion, less pollution, etc. what could be abetter part of the solution than fast, comfortable and affordable train travel.
If Europe can have a cross continent rail system that is all these things, why can’t the U.S.? The hell with Mobil Oil, let’s do what’s good for America.

Thank you again President Obama.

Cesca

64. John Borah | 04.17.09

Laurent: Your comments are useless. City and transportation planners, I am one who is retired, have studied this and methods of financing for decades.

65. Tim | 04.17.09

But here’s the deal, Mr. Vice President. I can do that now from Boston to Washington, using Amtrak’s Acela, at a cost of $323 and 12 hours, 26 minutes roundtrip. Or I can fly to Baltimore, catch a van or cab to my destination, for about $350 (including $100 for van/cab fare) in slightly half the time (including an hour-plus layover in New York on the return).

Yes, you can, today,and that is a function of the collapse of the credit system, our economy, so oil is only $40 a barrel.

What more need I say, except you are lucky to have government officials doing their job and thinking ahead for you.

Did you like IKE, when he said he was going to do exactly what socalist Hilter did, build a highway system with deficit spending, for National Defense ?

How do you like the results, now ?

66. Guy Baehr | 04.17.09

Of course any high speed rail lines we build will have to be a lot faster and cheaper than the Acela. And of course they will be. The Acela trains run on the Northeast Corridor, which was laid out more than 100 years ago and has never been upgraded to the level it needs to be. (The French, Japanese and German high speed lines were all built new specifically for high-speed trains. We can do that too.)

Europe and Japan have highway and airport systems that are at least as good as ours and they still find high speed trains to be a valuable part of their intercity transportation systems. There’s nothing inherent in the United States that makes high speed trains impractical. We can do it. Yes we can.

67. James Jankowiak | 04.17.09

Long haul, high speed passenger rail service may not be the most efficient deployment of either government or private funds. Bullet trains for the short runs would be a wonderful improvement over the current Amtrak offerings and the suburban routes in all sectors of the nation from San Diego to Santa Rosa, Eugene to Vancouver Canada, Chicago to any number of places like St. Louis, Detroit, Milwaukee, almost any where on the Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic seaboards, Jacksonville to Miami, etc. Key considerations would be efficiency, cost and convenience.

68. Shmessy | 04.17.09

Ummmm, Laurent, that IS the reason for the upgrades. The tracks between Boston-Washington are old with lots of twists and turns. Spending the money to straighten the track is what will allow the trains to go 150 mph, instead of rarely exceeding 80mph.

Your article is severely lacking. It compares what is NOW, versus what it will be AFTER the investment is made. That’s like denigrating the future of the electric car because of TODAY’S tech limitations for battery range.

69. Tom Prouty | 04.17.09

High speed rail depends on highly accurate track alignment. How do you propose to maintain the track in earthquake zones?

70. Peter Myers | 04.17.09

The appalling waste of gov’t wouldn’t be so knee-slapping funny if it didn’t have some ridiculous scheme like say, a bridge to nowhere, a high-speed rail line, or John Edwards to demonstrate their utter incompetence. So I say “Bravo”! In the meantime, let’s conveniently forget that the gov’t sponsored rail will be in direct competition with airlines, helping to put them out of business. Kudos again!

71. Pat | 04.17.09

Sigh… the same tired arguments about “smaller areas that are far more densely populated”. Somehow America is always different. Newsflash: On a localized basis the U.S. is just as densely populated. California will have 30+ million people in a few years. The eastern seaboard is very dense.

Mexico, Argentina, Morocco are just the latest entries into the growing list of countries planning and building a HSR system. Spain’s HSR train ( AVE ) has destroyed the air competition. http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-mccleskey_12edi.State.Edition1.2e615d1.html :

“Just 17 years ago, Spain didn’t have much of a rail system, let alone a high-speed one. Trains were slow, late and unreliable. And much like Texas today, the only real options for getting between Spain’s spread-out cities were car or plane.

But now trains are all the rage here as Spain positions itself to be the world’s leader in high-speed rail.

For years, the Madrid-Barcelona route was one of the world’s busiest air corridors. But now after just one year of operation, the passenger split between trains and planes is already 48-52. On the original Madrid-Seville route, the AVE now carries 89 percent of passengers between the two cities.”

72. Tom Boyles | 04.17.09

Laurent assumes there is a ticket available at that price, that there isn’t a delay to be checked out and frisked at the air port, layover isn’t longer than an hour, and on and on and on. Air travel is the most Byzantine system ever created. Maybe rail will become more complex too, but it isn’t in Japan or Europe.

73. Betsy Robertson | 04.17.09

Dear Sir, You are speaking only for those who live on the Eastern seaboard.(Yourself) The rest of the country needs this service. Here in New Mexico we’re building a train system It runs from Santa Fe south to Belen A LOT of people are using it. I can’t wait until it gets as far South as our town .I’m a Senior with no car, Taxis only offer local service and there is no airport service within a 175 miles. I’d LOVE train service.

74. Mike Preston | 04.17.09

I think a more fair way to look at it Laurent, is one way. Amtrak’s scheduled time from Boston to Union Station, DC, is about 6:30 on Acela. Most flights are scheduled at about 1:30-1:45, if you are on a nonstop. Add in showing up at least an hour early at the airport, or god forbid, the recommended 2 hours early, and then the drive in from Dulles your more likely in the close to 5 hour range…sure the train is a little slower, but it sure beats “the crammed in coach with no service amenities anymore and and the Coke will cost you a dollar” flight!

75. Wanda Ballentine | 04.17.09

George Monbiot found in his research for Heat. “How to Stop the Planet Burning” that high-speed trains emit only about 30% less CO2 than planes, while slow-moving trains emit a lot less. He recommended using trains mainly for freight, making buses more comfortable and putting the bus stations at junctions rather than in city centers as much of the length of bus trips is from going in and out of town centers.

76. John Long | 04.17.09

Once again the “efficiency experts” cast cold water on a really GOOD idea because it is different from their concepts of what should work best. The same “experts” say that recycling is uneconomical, that stimulating development of alternative fuels and energy sources is stupid when petroleum remains largely plentiful and cheap, and that building houses according to costly codes deprives poor people of shelter - and raises the cost for housing to everyone else.

This is why anyone who uses economics as the basis for public policy decisions should be left out of the debate.

First of all, the Amtrak high-speed rail system mentioned runs at less than half the speed of European systems on long hauls - and the Boston-DC train does not make that run at a consistently high speed, either. The track system wasn’t designed for it, the routes are through slow-down urban areas, and gee, there are a few stops along the way. The cost, by the way, would drop considerably if more people used this system.

Second, the system Obama proposes will actually work best on long-haul routes using American-developed magnetic levitation designs. Mag-lev has been proven in use in Japan, but the patents belong to American interests. These systems are very, very high-speed, energy efficient, and smooth. The transit routes will be operable at far lower cost than air travel, with a much greater degree of comfort and safety.

Also, Obama’s proposal ties in with advanced, high-efficiency urban rail transit development. Well beyond light rail or other established, older transit designs, the new concepts are about as flexible as driving a car, cheaper, and safer. Just check CyberTran for one of many availble designs.

So much for “efficiency” seen through the eyes of economists.

77. RobertM | 04.17.09

Maybe the problem is that the country is too big. We should think about making it smaller. Lets face it, global warming is going to be doing a lot of that for us once the glaciers melt and flood the coasts. The center of the continent will probably be an arid desert due to climate change. That means we’ll need to put our population centers in a long narrow row at either end of the country in order to preserve what arable land we might still have.

With the cities all lined up and people crowded together, high speed electric trains will then be just what we need. Of course, if we would step back and look at the whole picture now, high speed electric trains are an important part. They may not take the place of flying for long distance travelers in a hurry. But, most of those people could often take care of their business buy tele-presence instead of flying. High speed electric trains may eventually replace diesel-electric trains and diesel trucks for cross country transportation of goods. It’s cleaner and more energy efficient.

Change has to start somewhere and reducing the amount of commuter traffic on the roads is where high speed trains will work best at first. I know, the Vice President remains clueless. At least it gives to Republicans something to point at.

78. Glenn Lego | 04.17.09

There are hundreds of smaller cities and towns that haven’t had passenger rail service in nearly 50 years. What about them?

79. Jake Earl | 04.17.09

I agree with Belsie that for a high-speed rail system to be feasible the costs have to be cut significantly. I think the assertion that the United States is too large or sparsely populated for such a system to make sense, however, is wrong. The comparison of the length of the Acela line to a high-speed train line that starts in Paris and ends in Nuernberg supports my position: There is no need for a commute that long. The Acela line now makes 16 stops between Washington and Boston, and were the fares cheaper it would provide a sensible commuting option between, say, Baltimore and Philadelphia, or Providence and Stamford. I think it’s also worth noting that light rail lines in the United States and high-speed rail lines abroad have often spurred development along their routes. Those areas of the country that might be a little more dispersed (the Midwest, for instance) could very well see a consolidation of economic development and population around an efficient, cost-effective high-speed rail system. It’s a bit premature to say that the administration’s plan won’t work because of geographic/demographic circumstances when enacting the plan would fundamentally alter those circumstances.

80. Melanie | 04.18.09

Dear Mr. Belsie,
I’m sure it will work in the USA!
It’s very convenient just to enter a train instead driving to an airport and beeing security-checked.
And if you get a good offer, you can take the train from Paris to Munich at about 50 Euros one way and it will take about 6 hours. You couldn’t do this by car.

81. from Texas | 04.18.09

This was a good start, but showing both sides journalism now is not working for you. Go back to trashing Bush about his work habits, economics, or whatever. At this stage we do not need nay-sayers, hard to get away from after 8+ years of Bush bashing, we do need expanded ideas with converting box containers, to tunneling techiques, and noise suppression ideas. This is not the time to revert to college level papers showing both sides, this is a time for intelligence, optimism, and grand ideas to nurtured and allowed to grow without your childish both sides argument, ending on a sour, depressing out look. Elevated trains between service road and interstate, use over passes as train stations, this takes min cost and does enormous public and resource good.

good day,
Form Texas
P.S. WELCOME BACK to professional journalism, sorry about 8 year recess.

82. Norbert B. Nolte | 04.19.09

Easy to be “negative”.The first step should be taken. Is this individual in the pay of the “Oil Interests”?

83. jj mollo | 04.19.09

Passenger trains have, because of the slowness and the efficiency concerns you indicate, been neglected for 50 years. They do represent one path away from fossil fuels, however. Another argument for trains was made apparent by Katrina in New Orleans. Neither highways nor airplanes can reasonably be expected to evacuate a city during an emergency. Only trains have that kind of capacity. Trains are vital to national security. If we make them go a little faster, passengers will come back, and, if Europe is any measure, tourist trade will boom as well.

84. jim | 04.19.09

First off right off the bat will be the high cost of riding it for the consumer..

Second the nasty noise these trains make going through neighbors.. A high rate of accidents because are present rail system can’t effective run these trains at those high speeds..Imagine being in a train accident traveling 180 miles an hour, or hitting a car stuck on the tracks at that speed… Won’t be much left of those on board…He will be a key target for terrorist to hit..

13 billion dollars might get a kiddie car train that goes around Disney World and thats about it..It won’t even cover the designing side of it..

85. Jeff Sander | 04.19.09

Biden had someone pick him up at the train tation each day…unlike the average joe that needs to take a cab, or bus to get to where they need to go..

86. Roger D-W | 04.19.09

Biben’s vision is wonderful, it’s also part of the problem. Everyone wants high-speed travel to their door, which means stopping at least once in every state the train goes through. If Acela stopped only in Boston, Providence, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington (or perhaps just Boston, New York and Washington), with coordinated commuter service to cities in between (including Wilmington, Trenton and Newark) what would the time be? Biben is right that that kind of service is what people want, but it’s going to take more sophisticated scheduling (and more rolling stock) to get there. The NEC should also be viewed as 3 high-speed lines: Boston-New York; New York-Philadelphia; Philadelphia-Washington with connected service. New thinking is needed and the administration seems to be doing it. I’m looking forward to what they come up with.

87. Steve | 04.20.09

I love the idea, being from St. Louis I see on a daily basis the need for a local rail system; but they present it in such a “perfect” manner that I have to wonder what the downfalls are. What are detractors saying?

88. Jeremy McGuire | 04.20.09

When the Interstate Highway system was being built, it also was less efficient than it eventually became as it slowly replaced the blue highways we all travelled in the 1950’s. The high speed railway should be allowed to grow in the same way because it is far more energy efficient than either road or air travel and will eventually grow into a network that is the future of transportation. This will not be completed in a decade, but it should be begun. We can’t put it off just because it won’t reach everyone or even (as yet) unite the coasts. It will.

89. cole | 06.02.09

this sounds like something i am writing a editorial about for homework in ELA. I think the president should try to do this I have never been on a bullet train or maglev. :-):-)

90. alan | 06.20.09

…the comment section has some very intelligent responses to a dumb article. Of course the high speed rail would be adream in the northeast, at least. But we can only look to europe and asia, and sigh. The US is no longer the leader in these things.

91. jimmyrocks | 06.23.09

The “regional” train from Philadelphia to DC seems to have a speed limit of 200 mph (I’ve clocked it with my GPS). And it stays near that speed for most of its route. I don’t know about Aberdeen, but the rest of the intermediate stops (New Carrollton, Wilmington, and even Baltimore are served by local trains as well.. Same goes for Trenton and Newark (NJ, but Newark DE is on SEPTA’s R2 line with very light service), and Metro Park, etc.. The train from Philly to DC is way faster than driving, and less hassle than flying. The biggest problem is all the towns in Connecticut that enforce a 25 mph speed limit on the trains.

1. Horizon highlights – Day at the races edition | csmonitor.com | 04.17.09

2. the nutshell paragraph » Blog Archive » Sri Lanka on the brink | 04.21.09