High hopes for high speed
A $13 billion proposal could lay high-speed tracks in the midwest, California, and Florida.
By Mark Clayton | Staff writer/ May 18, 2009 edition
Enlarge This Graphic
Rich Clabaugh/Staff
Would the high-speed rail network proposed by President Obama boost the nation’s economy, cool the climate, and bring US transportation into the 21st century? Or is it a boondoggle waiting to happen?
Kyle Spolski has few doubts.
Preparing to board the gleaming steel Acela, the nation’s only high-speed train service, the business executive calculates his Boston-to-New York travel costs. Time: about 3-1/2 hours. Cost: $124. Taxi fare: $0. Airport hassle: none.
“I used to fly, but the Acela is faster getting downtown – and I can work in comfort and plug in my computer and cellphone,” he says. “It’s also about the same cost when you factor in an airport cab ride.”
Mr. Spolski’s bottom line: “We need more high-speed trains.”
And the US may get them. On April 16, Mr. Obama unveiled his vision for a high-speed rail system that would be the most radical shift in US travel infrastructure since President Dwight Eisenhower set the Interstate Highway System in motion.
The rail plan could cost tens of billions of dollars before it’s done. But to jump-start the process, the Obama administration proposes using $13 billion ($8 billion from the stimulus fund last fall and $1 billion a year for five years) to fund up to 10 high-speed-rail corridors.
The idea is not to lay tracks coast to coast, but to zero in on densely populated regions such as the Midwest, California, and Florida, where short distances between cities would let fast trains compete with planes and cars.
Two types of projects would get funding. One could create new dedicated corridors for high-speed trains like those in Europe and Japan that exceed 200 m.p.h. Another type would improve existing lines to make them “incrementally faster,” up to 110 m.p.h. Now, regional rail authorities are dusting off long-ignored plans or revving up already moving efforts. Federal funds could start flowing by this summer.
California, which is planning a 220-m.p.h. bullet-style service from Los Angeles to San Francisco, could receive billions, observers say.
“Obviously we’re elated with the president’s plan to bring the nation’s transportation infrastructure into the 21st century,” says Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High Speed Rail Authority. The US passenger rail system is “behind [that of] Turkey and even Iran. We need to move forward as fast as we can. If we don’t, we’re going to suffer economically.”
But most regional plans have different goals. Unlike California’s dedicated track, most plans involve upgrading crossings, signals, and elevated “flyovers” to cruise over roads and choke points.
Such “moderate speed” rails, like one planned for the Midwest, would top out at 110 m.p.h. with average speeds of 60 to 80 m.p.h. These speeds would lessen the load on highways and airports – even if they don’t match the speeds of Europe’s and Japan’s trains, proponents say.
“One thing’s clear, we’re not going to see bullet trains running all over the country,” says Ross Capon, president of the National Association of Railroad Passengers. “But this effort would lay the foundation so that those kinds of projects become more plausible.”
The critical thing from a rider’s point of view, he contends, is the amount of time it takes to travel. The Acela train from Boston to New York may hit 150 m.p.h., but only for perhaps 15 miles. The route averages less than 70 m.p.h., Mr. Capon says.
Even so, Acela’s operator, Amtrak, claims the next Northeast leg – New York to Washington – now draws 60 percent of potential air-rail passengers. That number rose markedly over the past few years, Capon says.
But there’s some doubt whether the Obama administration is providing enough funding to do the job. Unlike Europe and Japan with their dense populations and relatively short distances between population centers, America’s wide-open geography is ill-suited for high-speed trains.
Randal O’Toole, a transportation fellow at the Cato Institute, calculates that the entire US system – if built for a “moderate speed” of 110 m.p.h. would cost about $50 billion – and 10 times that amount if it was to be truly high-speed at 200 m.p.h.
“Obama thinks of himself as the next Dwight Eisenhower,” he says. “But the difference is that the highway system paid for itself through user fees [gas taxes].”
In the “ideal market” between New York and Washington, Mr. O’Toole says he thinks Amtrak’s estimated market share is inflated and probably closer to 25 percent if Baltimore commuters are not included. “They still can’t compete with the airlines,” O’Toole says.
Beside creating new choices for travel, high-speed rails would cut US dependence on oil and stop 3 million tons of carbon emissions annually, according to the president’s plan.
Scott Bernstein, director of the Center for Neighborhood Technology, has crunched the numbers for himself. Comparing a trip from Chicago to St. Louis, high-speed rails would be more than twice as energy-efficient as a small regional jet on an energy-used-per-passenger basis.
“A regional jet holds no more people than a bus,” he says. “You could say it is just an expensive flying bus.”
Others say that there are already signs that when rail is upgraded, even modestly, it becomes a real choice
for travelers. On the East Coast, train ridership is up and air-shuttle flights have flattened out, says Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a Midwest environmental group. Given a third travel option that is fast, comfortable, and convenient, people will often choose
trains, he says.
Rail speeds are up modestly, and more frequent trains between St. Louis and Chicago have prompted a doubling of rail passengers in the past two years, Mr. Learner says. But if trains traveled at 110 m.p.h., they could compete with airplanes.
For Dan Schechter, a Boston-based filmmaker traveling on the Acela to get back from a New York film festival, high-speed rail is the ticket.
“Building more high-speed rail is a great idea,” he says. “Sure, it will cost a lot, but it would be worth it if they do it as well as the Europeans and Japanese have done it. Whatever happens, it needs to run on time.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. Shinar Hussein | 05.18.09
This is a good article. One goal to consider, the overcrowding of the Coastal areas, and the neglect of development in the Midwest. After WWII, London was crowded, and the returning soldiers, who would be starting young families, would be a problem. So it was proposed to build New Towns. After the naysayers, the project took place, and these consciously designed new areas are now full, as I understand. Our population will also grow, and will they all try to crowd into the Coasts? Or will we make attractive alternatives, perhaps manufacturing hubs, included. The opening of Bart in San Francisco led to speculators raising the price of land to the east, and selling the idea, and now what was undeveloped is quite developed, because of the promise of an ability to commute.
I would like to read about France and Germany’s rail systems also.
3. Miles Letts | 05.18.09
We realize that the world-wide high quality rail transportation systems are not privately owned any more than our highway and airway infrastructure. There must be a rebalancing of Federal and local government funding priorities. In particular our public highway money must be shifted to public railways.
This is not me saying what should be but rather the personal vote of every participant every day in every single-occupant car in a traffic jam on a roadway they do not own stock in.
Now if I owned a lot of roadway stock it would be a different matter. So who are the roadway transportation stock holders? Figure that. Roadway fuel tax makes sense. Imported automobile tax makes sense. Railroad subsidy makes sense.
4. Miles Letts | 05.18.09
We realize that the world-wide high quality rail transportation systems are not privately owned any more than our highway and airway infrastructure. There must be a rebalancing of Federal and local government funding priorities. In particular our public highway money must be shifted to public railways.
This is not me saying what should be but rather the personal vote of every participant every day in every single-occupant car in a traffic jam on a roadway they do not own stock in.
Now if I owned a lot of roadway stock it would be a different matter. So who are the roadway transportation stock holders? Figure that. Roadway fuel tax makes sense. Imported automobile tax makes sense. Railroad subsidy makes sense.
5. jim harper | 05.18.09
High Speed Rail costs the same per mile as a divided highway. Outside of the coasts, thats about $30 million per mile, including condemnation and showpiece stations. A HSR trainset pulls 4.5 Megawatts per hour, about $300 of electricity per hour, or maybe $3 of electricity per passenger for a 600 passenger train moving for three hours.
I’m not arguing against the wars, but for the cost of the wars to the end of the year ($90 billion) we could build the entire 800 mile long California system, ($45 billion) “fix” the Acela system ($5 billion dollar Amtrak wish list) and have enough money left over to build Atlanta to Charlotte, Chicago to Minneapolis, San Antonio to Houston and Phoenix to either San Diego or Los Angeles.
Libertarian think tank opposes government spending for infrastructure? That’s a newsflash. That’s the kind of laissez-faire small-government genius that has brought us bridges falling into the Mississippi, wash-out pilots and $16,000 per year flunkies as co-pilots flying commuter jets. Atlas might shrug at all this, but I don’t.
6. dano rebar | 05.18.09
AN ABSOLUTE NECESSITY; ECONOMICALLY SPEAKING, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE BETWEEN GAS-GUZZLING ANTIQUITY AND FUTURE COMPETETIVENESS!!!
7. mSkehan | 05.18.09
YES to HSR
Improvements to freight tracks, grade crossings, signals and control, dramatically improves efficient movement of goods and people.
Rail is 2 to 3 times more fuel efficient than planes, trucks, and cars, while polluting our atmosphere half as much (EPA). This is a huge deal, when oil starts its upward climb again as supplies dwindle. Rail can be electrified in decades to come to use emerging energy sources, further reducing our need for foreign suppliers.
WA and OR began deploying tilt trains, capable of 125 mph, between Eugene and Canada in 1999. To date, even being limited to just 79 for lack of improvements to freight tracks, our trains carry more people between Seattle and Portland than airliners. Travel times and ticket prices are competitive with planes and cars. We look forward to improvements that allow our fast trains to finally go fast.
Mike Skehan, Member, All Aboard Washington
8. James Toy | 05.19.09
As an advocate for better rail transportation I found this article to be generally accurate and fair. However, this one statement needs to be questioned: “Unlike Europe and Japan with their dense populations and relatively short distances between population centers, America’s wide-open geography is ill-suited for high-speed trains.”
This notion is often cited as conventional wisdom, even spread as gospel truth. However, in all my years of passenger rail research, I have never encountered any data to support it. Thus I am disappointed that the Monitor chose to state it as a fact. The underlying assumption behind it is that Europe and Japan are densely populated, and that both regions have high speed trains. However, it does not automatically follow that dense population is a prerequisite for high speed rail.
For example, a high speed line might be economically feasible between Chicago and Denver, across a sparsely populated area of the country. A high speed train averaging 150 MPH could cover the 1038 miles (the length of the existing Amtrak route between those cities) in just under 7 hours - with downtown to downtown service. Check-inn time would only add about 30 minutes to the total.
A flight takes a little over 2.5 hours, but one must factor in at about an hour at each end getting to and from the airport, plus 1.5 to 2 hours for check in and security, for a total of 5.5 to 6 hours. That would make a high speed train competitive with air travel across a large sparsely populated area. Add in the inherent energy savings of rail, and a train becomes even more attractive as energy costs rise.
9. Pat Lynch | 05.19.09
I am dismayed that Mr. O’Toole’s analysis of the northeast corridor ridership abolishes Baltimore.
To be fair and charitable (maybe I could start a cable news channel) this old chestnut about the enormous distance between American cities is greatly overstated.
Let us, please, consider some American city pairs.
Paris – Lyon to Chicago – St. Louis:
Paris: 12m
Lyon: 1.8m
Distance: 289 mi / 466 km
Chicago: 9.8m
St. Louis: 2.8m
Distance: 297 mi / 479 km
To which I add London – Paris and NYC – DC:
London: 14m
Paris: 12m
Distance: 289 mi / 465 km
New York City: 19m
Washington, DC: 5.3m
Distance: 227 mi / 366 km
Not all city pairs work perfectly for European style HSR. A glance at any map of the Midwest United States reveals several obvious connections.
Furthermore, most rail improvement projects rely on conventional trains on existing right-or-way, a much more cost effective route.
I would hope that readers might consult the Midwest High Speed Rail Association for a more constructive professional viewpoint. Sadly, Mr. O’Toole’s argument bears a powerful similarity to traditional objections raised by airlines and highway special interest groups.
10. Mark P. Rusnica | 05.19.09
Great article! I believe it succinctly summarizes the issues and challenges of implementing a high speed rail program in the United States. I do believe however, that we must strive for better constant travel speeds than 80 - 100 miles per hour(MPH). I recall traveling the Empire Corridor (New York to Albany) in the mid 1980’s when the Amtrak Turboliner trains exceeded 100 MPH along certain stretches. To only achieve that which we had twenty years ago would not be my vision of successful “high speed” train service.
The writer is Vice-Chair of Region 1 of the American Society of Civil Engineers and can be reached at mrusnica@members.asce.org
11. Jackson Strong | 05.19.09
hmmmm… we had trains that went over 100 mph over a century ago, trains that required no public subsidy. In addition, every city in this country was served by a comprehensive interurban train network. Of course the government is going to need to subsidize rail, because they over regulated the industry in the 20th century, taxed almost all of their profits, and subsidized automobile travel. Any wonder why we don’t have trains in the US? It’s because the government killed what once was the best train system in the world, and would be today even without any upgrades.
I say the federal government should subsidize neither trains or automobiles, and let people decide for themselves what transportation serves them best. More train routes would be profitable if the users of either highways or trains paid the true cost of utilizing the infrastructure.
But more importantly, they are about to spend billions on antiquated technology. If our transportation systems weren’t state-controlled, I’m almost positive newer technology would be utilized that would make train travel way more efficient, and faster. I urge anyone really interested in trains to take a look at the SPM Maglev system, which can be integrated with existing rail infrastructure and uses less energy than any other transportation method. And its a lot cheaper than what the government will be paying for inflated contracts to build conventional rail.
Check out fastransitinc.com, you will see what I’m talking about. Such a system would require no subsidy and go far faster than any other train technology. They are simply looking for more investment to complete the full scale prototype. Of course Obama, Biden, and LaHood are not maglev specialists, but i sure hope they do their research before borrowing 12 billion to build a few miles of trains. Its kinda funny this investment isn’t even as much as they used to temporarily bail out GM.
12. Albert Perdon | 05.20.09
High speed trains offer a number of service and cost advantages in certain travel corridors, when planned in conjunction with transit-oriented land development. In most cities and regions throught the U.S., current land development patterns and government policies are predicated upon, and subsidize, travel by automobiles. Few inter-city high-speed and urban transit services are able to compete without substantial subsidies as well. But, there are some corridors where this is possible, as demonstrated by the Orangeline corridor development project in Southern California. This project will offer a privately-funded high speed service with cost-competitive door-to-door travel speeds above those offered by highway travel and air service. Each potential high-speed corridor needs to be evaluated on its own merits, and planned accordingly. Public funding support, “comparable” to that offered to competing highway and air services, should be provided, where necessary, to those corridors that offer a strong economic case for high-speed service. User revenues should cover net development and operating costs, taking into account required “comparable” public financial support. Current state-of-the art technology offers high-speed service even with closely-spaced stations in dense inner-city corridor segments, with top speeds in excess of 300 mph in less-densely populated corridor segments where stations are spaced further apart; this is more than enough speed to ovecome inherent advantages of door-to-door auto travel or even higher-speed air travel, when properly integrated into transit-oriented development along the high-speed corridor.
13. Dorothy Petrich | 05.20.09
Trains are invaluable for accomplishing any reading or writing necessities including a group whether work or play. Luggage hastles are at the minimum with safety measures included. Even to a design to include a wider train car (all rails should be wider) designated for personal cars — One lane to a higher level, center lane empty and one lane for exit vamp—and three lanes on lower level to transport individual car needs. By widening all train cars to the width of airliners is THINKING AHEAD. I should get paid for this idea. Yes Men It takes a woman sometimes to come up with a good idea.
14. Dave London | 05.21.09
In the UK we have started to use high speed trains there must be much provision for the health and safety aspects of using this form of transport. I simply cannot image what it would be like to travel at top speeds in excess of 300 mph. That would mean it would take me twenty minutes to get from lets say Birmingham to London. Do we need to travel at these speeds.
15. Mike | 05.21.09
““moderate speed” of 110 m.p.h. would cost about $50 billion – and 10 times that amount if it was to be truly high-speed at 200 m.p.h.”
So for about half of what we threw away to corrupt and greedy Wall Street bankers and other corporate pirates we could have a truly state of the art rail system.
When do we start?
“America’s wide-open geography is ill-suited for high-speed trains”
A common misconception that has been repeated over and over again as though it were gospel. The US has over 40 cities that have a population of 400,000 or greater and well over a hundred if you include cities of 100,000 and more. Plot them on a map and you will see that barely a handful are more than 500-600 miles apart and most much closer, a sweet set-up for high speed rail.
16. John from Austin | 05.21.09
First, my job requires I travel once or twice every week, so I’m more than familiar with air travel. I do think High Speed Rail could offer an attractive alternative, at least in some circumstances. For me, it would not be an issue of cost at all (my travel is client reimbursed), but door to door speed, schedule flexibility and an ability to make the travel time productive (or at least pleasurable).
Recently, I was working in North Dallas for 15 weeks — traveling from Austin every week (and occasionally twice a week). I experimented with alternate airports (Love Field vs DFW) and driving. Ultimately, I settled in on driving mostly. I certainly did not enjoy the drive, but the total elapsed time door-to-door was close to a wash… very slightly favoring air travel into Love Field. But Driving allowed me to choose arrival or departure times as I wanted/needed, and often allowed phone calls the entire +4 hour duration of the trip.
I still work with this client occasionally, making “same day” trips to Dallas (early am departure, evening return). For the one day trips, Air Travel wins out - it is simply too exhausting to drive.
So, how would have Rail fared in these situations? Well, guess I would depended on locations of the terminal stations, schedule/frequency of the trains, and door-to-door speed of travel. Speed becomes somewhat less of a concern, if for the duration of the trip I could work productively (WiFi would be a plus!). But a frequent schedule of service is critical.
Recently I drove to Chicago from Austin… I drove straight through. It took about 15.5 hours with minimum stops. Now, I could see taking a train verses air travel for a Chicago trip if a HSR trip would take 10 hours or less. Especially If I could either get an evening departure, with a sleeper berth, or a morning departure in a similar “cabin class” arrangement allowing an office like experience. I could imagine leaving home Sunday evening… enjoying a light dinner and maybe a drink or two with fellow travelers or business associates… and arriving fresh and rested Monday AM. I could see working four days at a client’s location, and then taking a working trip back to Austin on Friday, with an 6pm arrival. If I was delayed at the client’s and needed to work half a day, I could still grab a 1pm departure and still arrive home by bedtime.
But, The government is incapable of making this happen as Obama has offered. America needs less nationalized businesses. I believe we’d be better served with a “Open Infrastructure” model.
Much better to offer development grants to private concerns, and allow them to sell national bonds to purchase ROW and build out physical infrastructures. In exchange for grants, rail owners would agree to offer access to rail operating companies’ trains for a set fee (access would cost so much per passenger mile). If necessary, say to add a route to a military base or a targeted development area, the Feds could fully fund, and own a rail segments and lease it to an operating company.
I believe we are best served if regulations are kept at a minimum, similar to today’s airlines (federal safety and fairness rules).
Train Terminals, destination switch yards other terminus infrastructure could be built and owned by cities with Federal contributions much as is done with Airports today. The much lower cost, and lighter impact allows multiple terminals to be within city centers and at a cities edges. In Austin maybe three terminals… one downtown, one at the Austin-Round Rock boundary and one at the southern boundary. Since Austin is pushing light rail they could add feeder lines between the eastern and western edges of the city.
Talk about getting America back to work… this could create lots of new jobs while slowly moving airlines’ focus to the longer haul routes. It could also result in a more mobile America if HSR fares were lower than air travel or auto travel.
17. emsmitty | 05.22.09
Your kidding right? Only Amtrak could find a way to run late consisently with a few hundred billion dollars of taxpayer funds, between two cities 50 miles apart.
Approve it only if the Japanese own it and run it!
Trust me, I’ve seen Amtrak’s abilities for decades - and you thought the post office and/or the military-industrial complex was ineffecient.
18. Spokker | 05.23.09
“Trust me, I’ve seen Amtrak’s abilities for decades - and you thought the post office and/or the military-industrial complex was ineffecient.”
If you count only long-distance trains, then yes, you are correct. However, routes with state partners tend to do well. I point to the Pacific Surfliner as the busiest route outside of the Northwest Corridor. Delays aren’t too bad and ridership is very strong. The six round-trips between Santa Barbara and San Diego are well-patronized and recover 70% of their operational costs.
The Capital Corridor, San Joaquins, and the Cascades are also doing well. The key is to focus on corridors and not long-distance trains, and you will see big gains in rail ridership in this country.
That’s not to say I don’t support the continued operation of long distance trains to provide both a unique American experience and transport to rural towns. It’s a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.
19. Ron Scheurer | 05.26.09
Now let’s build, maintain, and supply the parts for repairs for these trains in the United States of America instead of farming out those jobs to some other country.
20. FrRoe | 05.27.09
In the 80’s I drove a Greayhound bus from Chicago to St. Louis. Even that was faster downtown to downtown on the air plain. Just think how much more time you could save with a train running as slow as 110 miles an hour.
21. Jennifer Reininger | 06.04.09
I love the idea of high speed rail. But I’m not looking at it from the business traveler perspective, and in my opinion, that is where the whole high speed rail falls flat. For example, no one seems to think about or plan for what a passenger should do when he gets to downtown Houston with his wife, three kids and luggage and needs to then travel 10 miles to his hotel near the wedding he is attending. Where is the transportation now? He won’t be hopping on the subway in these cities. I guess it’s either hail a cab, find a bus or rent a car. And, if he has to hassle with renting a car, then he might as well drive his own if the downtown destination is under 300 miles from his starting downtown.
All of this to say, I think that we need MUCH better public transportation within the cities before high speed rail from city to city will work. Why isn’t someone planning that?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
4. In cash-strapped California, plans for a high-speed rail line are rebuked | csmonitor.com | 07.07.09
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. Larry Jerden | 05.18.09
Of course in Texas, where there are airline executives helping make high-speed rail decisions, they’ve come up with a plan where you will have to go to the airport to catchy your train, thus nullifying the traditional “downtown-to-downtown” rail advantage.