New Yorkers greeted the Acela train at Penn Station on its first commercial run from Washington to Boston in 2000.
(ZUMA PRESS/NEWSCOM/FILE)Photos (1 of 1)
Earth Talk: Why are US rail options limited compared with Europe?
The US has the lowest rate of intercity rail usage, but Congress is taking steps to change this.
By The Editors of E Magazine | August 6, 2009 edition
Q: If train travel is so much less polluting than driving or flying, why are passenger rail options in the US so limited compared with Europe? And is anything being done to shift more travelers over to American rail lines from cars and planes?
– Jeffrey Orenstein, Bradenton, Fla.
A: It’s true that train travel is one of the lowest impact ways to get from point to point short of walking, jogging, or bicycling. In the early part of the 20th century, taking the train was really the only practical way for Americans to get from city to city. By 1929 the US boasted one of the largest and most used rail networks in the world.
The closing of rail lines and the improvement of highways, including development of the Interstate highway system, combined to shift Americans’ tastes away from rail travel and toward cars. As a result, while Europe focused on building rail networks, the US became the ultimate auto nation: By 1965 only 10,000 rail passenger cars were in operation across just 75,000 miles of track.
In response to the declining use of America’s rail network, the government created Amtrak in 1971 to provide intercity passenger train service, running mostly on preexisting track. Today Amtrak runs some 1,500 rail passenger cars on 21,000 miles of track connecting 500 destinations in 46 states. In 2008, more than 28 million passengers rode Amtrak trains, representing the sixth straight year of record ridership. Despite this, the US still has one of the lowest rates of intercity rail usage in the developed world.
But that may all change soon. This spring, President Obama allocated $8 billion of his stimulus package toward development of more high-speed rail lines across the country, citing the need to reduce both greenhouse-gas emissions and reliance on foreign oil. Currently only one high-speed rail line exists in the US, Amtrak’s Acela Express, which can reach speeds of 150 miles per hour on its Washington to Boston route. The success of high-speed, high-efficiency “bullet” trains in Asia and Europe has helped convince American transportation analysts that the US should also take the high-speed rail plunge.
The first round of federal funding will go toward upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines, but the majority of it will be used to jump-start construction of new high speed lines in 10 corridors across the country, including in northern New England, across New York State and Pennsylvania, in and around Chicago, throughout the Southeast, and up and down the West Coast.
A 2006 study by the Center for Clean Air Policy and the Center for Neighborhood Technology concluded that building a high-speed rail system across the US could result in 29 million fewer car trips and 500,000 fewer plane flights each year, saving 6 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions – the equivalent of removing a million cars from the road annually.
Questions about living green? Send to: EarthTalk, c/o E - The Environmental Magazine, Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com.
( More stories )
Comments
2. Mark Hobson | 08.06.09
There needs to be high-speed rail implemented between Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago.
3. Steve | 08.06.09
It’s a little known but shocking fact that General Motors (yes, the company our goverment’s now bailing out with our money) conspired together with other companies who stood to profit in buying up and destroying the light rail systems already in use in the US from the 1920s through the 1950s. Of course, they were then more than happy to supply GM buses to the cities who had lost their rail systems.
4. Richard Bruce | 08.06.09
Actually rail travel is not particularly green. American passenger trains are built very heavy to deal with possibility they might hit a freight train. They are more eco friendly than driving alone, but less eco friendly than almost everything else.
Even that ignores an eco cost of passenger trains, passenger trains discourage the use of freight trains and encourage trucks. Freight trains are much more green than trucks.
If we switched to lighter electric trains and nuclear, wind, geothermal or some other form of green power trains could be green, but presently they are not.
Warning, my info is possible that things have changed, but probably not.
5. David | 08.06.09
If Connecticut (and New England) could have a network of commuter rails similar to the Bay Area in North California it would stimulate economic growth immensely. Just image if people could easily commute to New York City or Boston from their rural home somewhere in New England. For starters, it would open the door for new construction of apartments and businesses located near station, i.e., transit villages, etc.
6. Steve Bohn | 08.06.09
It’s not only high-speed rail that makes trains attractive in Europe. It’s that coupled with the trams, subways, buses and other local transportation options that make a car unnecessary on both sides of your trip. You can get where you’re going, point-to-point, with a minimum of hassle. That works for older, east-coast cities like New York or Boston. But it is sadly lacking in most of America. Weaning America from the ubiquitous auto isn’t going to be easy. It would take a generation to affect that kind of change, but it would be well worth it.
7. Distorted article | 08.06.09
The US choose to invest in freight rail rather than passenger rail, and delivers a much greater percentage of our freight by rail than either Europe or Japan. Since passenger and freight often share tracks,operations are forced to be optimized for one or the other. It made sense for the US, with its large expanses to focus on freight.
High speed passenger rail can be considered competitive against air travel for trips less than 400 to 600 miles, thus the focus on rail corridors. For short distances the plane spends a relatively high proportion of the flight reaching flying altitude, which requires lots of fuel. For longer flights, planes efficiency increases and surpasses that of high speed rail.
The big surprise is that all electric cars are as energy efficient as rail travel. (Empty or partially loaded trains must be moved too and this cuts energy efficiency.) Rail has many ancillary benefits including reducing road congestion, and it is more efficient than current cars. However,it is high speed rails ability to compete with air travel that is most important.
8. Michael | 08.06.09
This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. I applaud the administration’s committment to increasing passenger rail use. However, the concrete, auto, oil, airline lobby must be weaned from its position of government subsidies by reducing the amount of funding going to the interstate highway system. I suggest that the US could build European style rail system within 10 years by committing just 20% of existing interstate highway funds to passenger rail infastructure development. And not by throwing money at another government/quasi private system like Amtrak. The U.S. should consider getting off the “private enterprise” soap box and let the rail system operate in a truely national public transporation system.
It is also crucial that any new public transit system have it’s own tracks. Amtrak would be safer and more reliable if it did not share (lease) tracks with freight railroads. Most railroads (UP, SP, etc.) were granted easements by the United States for development rail lines or other purposes. The U.S. Attorney should review these original easement contracts and use available transporation easements or re-appropriate original rail easements if they are not being utilized for the purposes originally granted by the Congress. This approach may open the way for greater cooperation from railroads and provide some funding for these needed mass transit infastructure projects like the Pioneer Route through Idaho and Oregon.
Thank you,
Michael
9. Russ Rose | 08.06.09
The high speed trains must be electric and run on seperate tract from freight trains. Over a period of time all trains and buses should operate on electric overhead wire as the did in Baltimore back in the 1940s or by use of a third rail. The electric power must be provided by nucular power plants.
11. John Indy | 08.06.09
US is a very large with low density of population. People are scattered everywhere compared to EU. Plus who will take train from NY to Dallas, where you will need car as soon as you get off. Got a be composite solution to the problem..Train, EVs and Hybrids, Nuke Power etc…It has to be gradual can’t just change overnight.
12. Bob | 08.06.09
It is very true that there needs to be a composite solution between long-distance rail travel and local rail travel. I am able to take a communter train from the suburbs of Philadelphia and travel from Philly to Portland, ME on Amtrak (for a huge sum of money) but then I am stuck from there. A rental car is then necessary to be mobile at most end-destinations unless a person sticks only to the city. Perhaps an enhanced rental car / car share program can step in where local train travel cannot?
13. Mike | 08.06.09
It seems to me that the central part of the U.S. has been forgotten. Some of the fastest growing cities in America are here. While we may not has the population of some of the northeastern cities we have far greater commutes from city to city. High speed rail might be the answer but with local commuter traffic being the greatest polluter, such as bumper to bumper traffic a network of interstate rail seems out dated. Money proportioned to states with the highest growth rates seems a little more thoughtful, instead of another over priced Amtrak.
14. Julie Compton | 08.06.09
High speed rail is for regional, state, and national transportation. It is no different going to an airport by car to board a flight to another city, than driving to a train station to board a high speed train. With the coming oil crisis that many do not understand, we will need a national electric transportation that can survive past the oil age. Airplanes will not survive past that. Check out this article for the real picture of world oil supplies:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html
Also check out this website and its national high speed rail plan:
http://www.ushsr.com/hsrnetwork.html
15. Lisa | 08.06.09
As a lifelong resident of mesa AZ, I can tell you why this project won’t work where I live: Its gets much to HOT
16. Joshua Cranmer | 08.06.09
@Jack: You need to get your facts straight. Acela Express is Amtrak’s single most profitable line, as well as its only high-speed rail line. And the federal gas tax goes to the highway trust fund, of which only 16.9% goes to mass transit.
@John: There is one region with a very high density of population, namely the Northeastern Corridor and, indeed, much of the east coast.
17. Jim | 08.06.09
In the 1940s, we had the fastest trains in the world, reaching speeds of 90-110 MPH as a matter of routine. Then in the early 1950s the federal government mandated upgraded signaling systems on any route where trains ran 80 MPH or faster. The railroads, all privately owned, didn’t have sufficient capital to make the upgrades, so they said screw it, and limited all passenger trains to 79 MPH, a limit which exists to this day almost everywhere. That was the government’s first salvo against the passenger train.
In late 1950s, new transportation technologies were coming on line for every mode. Interstate freeways were being designed. The jet airliner started replacing piston engined airliners. And the first high speed trains were on the drawing boards. The government poured billions of dollars into public airports and highways, and they taxed train tickets to pay for them! Another shot against the passenger train.
The passenger railroads knew they needed to upgrade to high speed technologies in order to compete, but because the tracks were privately owned, not publicly owned like airports and roads, they were not eligible for federal funding. In effect, the railroads were not competing against airliners and freeways so much as they were competing against the government for capital and infrastructure. Another blow against the passenger train.
Then in 1967, the passenger railroads lost their contracts to haul mail, without which the trains could no longer make money. Four years later the government took over passenger rail through Amtrak, and overnight eliminated half of the trains in the country. There have been further cutbacks since then, under the guise of cutting costs, but each time routes were cut, Amtrak lost more money than they saved. Congress’s response was to cut more routes to save more money, and the downward spiral continues…..
I don’t see this as a conspiracy, but the government made a lot of stupid mistakes that led to the current situation.
18. Jim Brewer | 08.06.09
Its as expensive as a new divided highway. Darned expensive, but manageable. $35 million per mile on average except for ultra-high expense areas on the coasts. Its not a network, really, but a point to point system which substitutes for short-haul air. A trainset burns 10MW per hour, maybe $500 of electricity per hour pulling perhaps 600 or so passengers in a moderately loaded train. Much more efficient than an airplane, or a car with one or two passengers. Maybe the minivan with the family,….not so much.
It absolutely kills competing air traffic up to about 350 miles. Then they grow traffic in the high single digits for the indefinite future. That means in 25 years we’ll wish we had double tracked the line.
It means that our airports start to do what they were designed to do–carry people quickly over long distances. They have better all-weather capability than aircraft, so they are particularly useful in the upper-midwest. A Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis line is a no-brainer.
19. Scott from Brooklyn | 08.06.09
Hey Jack, You’re numbers are all wrong; According to the Heritage Foundation, of the $41 billion from gas tax revenue, $23 billion is allocated toward constructing, repairing or improving general purpose roads. The rest of the money is diverted into mass transit, trails, and other unrelated projects such as museums… Meaning 56% goes toward roads. Thats a far cry from your 80% for Mass Transit Lie. Also note that Federal gas tax is generally smaller than State gas tax which is more likely to go to roads.
Also Mass Transit Ridership has been growing recently, as mass transit projects have been being built. USA today claims that only 20% of households have access to Mass Transit, so your 6% of US population ridership number is also bit misleading.
According to the APTA from 1995 through 2008, public transportation ridership increased by 38%—a growth rate higher than the 14% increase in U.S. population and higher than the 21% growth in the use of the nation’s highways over the same period. Also Americans living in areas served by public transportation save 646 million hours in travel time and 398 million gallons of fuel annually in congestion reduction alone. So there are benefits to those paying at the pump too.
20. Tony | 08.06.09
There is an easy answer to this question…
US rail options are limited because we spent the period from 1945 to around 1990 actively tearing out our railroad infrastructure. Much of it now will cost an immense amount to replace, and a great deal more is permanently gone. In its place, we built more and more roads and for an ever-increasing number of personal automobiles. Now, this has reached a breaking point and we are finally starting to realize that WELL-PLANNED railroads are far more efficient than private automobiles and highways (emphasis on WELL PLANNED, because there are quite a few poorly-planned rail services that our government has championed).
Yes, it is true that GM and other companies did give incentives to cities in the 1940s and 50s to tear out trolley service. Not only this help with the sale of buses, it forced a great number of people to buy cars out of necessity. Back then, they did not imagine we would ever run out of space for more roads, or run out of oil. However, here we are…the future isn’t pretty.
21. Fred Lamb | 08.07.09
Thanks for an excellent and thought provoking article. Points in response/ expansion:
1. There IS no more efficient form of transportation on land than the steel wheel on steel rail [read: The railroad model].
2. And just what do you do when you fly from New York to Dallas on American/
whatever other airline? Is a car normally waiting for you at the exit gate? Heavens, no. You rent a car. Can’t the same be done at the railroad station?
3. It was not only General Motors that spelled to doom of the intercity railroad passenger train, immediately after World War II. Say, if you will, the survivors of the break-up of Standard Oil–Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, etc. It was a consortium of lobbying efforts that effected the combination of the auto industry and the airlines that eventually ensured this demise.
4. Land grants to the railroads, from about 1855 through around 1890 or so, were provided to foster their development, and to encourage settlement, development, and the shipment of food products to the East, etc. And passenger service was an important component of this process, too. There were even price wars among competing rail passenger travel providers. And by the way, Abe Lincoln, as an attorney for the Illinois Central Railroad, was an important early initiator of this benefit to the railroad companies.
5 National governmental assistance to transportation endeavors goes back to as early as prior to 1825, when the Erie Canal was completed across upstate New York, and no doubt to the dawning of the nineteenth century, with the ‘turnpikes’ that were constructed through many areas in the south-eastern part of the United States.
6. So, all in all, there is ample opportunity and precedent for national governmental participation in the national transportation initiative and, hopefully, to correct some of the errors committed during the second half of the twentieth century. Perhaps we can do better during the first half of the twenty-first century, even with a blooming, budding socialist for presi-dent.
22. bruce oldemeyer | 08.07.09
We borrowed tens of millions to buy a rail system that produced hundreds of millions in new wealth. The new thinking is that we should go deeply into debt to the Chinese to purchase a debt stream instead of an income stream. You know how this works, right? User pays a small ticket price, taxpayer picks up the larger tab for the ride. Not a tool, this is a toy to please the progressive base.
23. bruce oldemeyer | 08.07.09
Back in the day, we borrowed money to create an income stream that could be used to pay back the loan. Bonds sold to build the rail system were just that kind of idea. New thinking is that we should borrow money to create a debt stream. You know how this works, right? User pays a small ticket price, taxpayer picks up the rest of the tab. A debt stream purchased w/ borrowed money. This is a toy, not a tool. The President’s political base gets a new toy for which the rest of us pay, forever; ready, begin.
24. Jeff | 08.07.09
For any significant increase in passenger rail use to occur, there must be a shift in the public perception of what constitutes a public service, and what should “pay for itself”. Amtrak is often referred to as a money-losing government program…implying that it should (under an ideal set of circumstances) be financially self-sufficient.
In contrast, decent highways are a public expectation. So are airports and flood-control infrastructure and military services, etc. Some people realize that much of the funding for highways comes from gas taxes. But even here, there’s no expectation that roads will somehow pay for themselves in a direct way.
I’m all for fiscal responsibility, but the standard has to be applied evenly.
25. CR | 08.07.09
To all those who keep calling nuclear power “green”… I take it you’re willing to offer your own back yards as storage dumps for several thousand years’ worth of highly toxic radioactive waste.
26. Don | 08.07.09
Nations with thriving rail systems typically have far higher population density than the US. For example: United Kingdom 640/sq mi, Netherlands 1020, Belgium 880, Germany 600, Japan 870. Only a handful of NE states have comparable population densities - New Jersey 1130, Rhode Island 1000, Massachusetts 810, Connecticut 700, Maryland 540. Low population density/large geographic distances make it hard to make passenger rail a paying proposition.
27. Mike Moxcey | 08.07.09
The essential problem was we thought the trains had a monopoly when they actually didn’t so we formed the I.C.C. to set fares to market levels. Of course, there is no way to figure out the fair price with the the existence of a market so the I.C.C. was simply a way of guaranteeing the railroads made a certain amount of profits each year.
Thus they stagnated.
They had a monopoly on rails, but they did not have a monopoly on transportation. When trucking companies started transporting goods cheaper, the I.C.C. (which was originally created to prevent monopoly tactics in order to keep prices lower) started regulating truckers in order to ensure the continued profits of the railroad companies.
That’s why they are still stagnating.
28. Bob Schmidt | 08.07.09
Steve Bohn (No. 6) Focuses on the real problem of making rail travel practical in the US. If you can only get to the rqil station by auto, try to get a parking space. In our area there is a multi-year waiting list for permits.
29. A Müller | 08.09.09
As long as the Federal Railroad Administration is asking for heavy passenger tanks on rails (japanese trains do weight less than an average american street car), fast passenger trains that need to be light weight are impossibe to construct.
Am in-depth analysis of the past and future of the american passenger trains can be found at http://zierke.com/shasta_route/sidenotes/safetyconcept-2005-10-23.html
30. R. van Wormer | 08.10.09
Several of the the comments to this article try to say that the US lacks sufficient population density to justify the operation of passenger trains. Actually France does not have density too much greater than that of the American Midwest and it has an extensive and very successful fast train network, the TGV system. Scandinavia has even less density but runs a fairly good train network, including some fast trains as with the X-2000 in Sweden. Together Norway and Sweden are about the size and population of Wisconsin and Minnesota. The cities of the Midwest are not that far apart, often less than 200 miles. It would be a very good thing also to consider including train stations within the major regional airports to add useful intermodal connectivity.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Jack | 08.06.09
Maybe you should address the small issue of cost when you talk about alaternative transportation. The only existing high speed rail line in the US is massive annual money loser for Amtrak and the entire Amtrak system is also a massive financial drain every year on the US taxpayer. And 80% of all federal gas tax revenue already goes to public transportation which is used by 6% of the population. Like so many “green” initiatives, rail reliance in a luxury that its users are unwilling to pay for so its cost gets dropped on the rest of us and our kids (massive debts). But who cares about fiscal responsibility. Oh wait, that’s how we got our counrty in the current financial mess. Oh well, just keep squeezing your eyes shut and thinking happy green thoughts.