The High Speed Passenger Rail Act, Draft 1
Posted by Jerome a Paris on March 17, 2007 - 1:00pm
This was written by Arthur Smith, who is a member of the Oil Drum under user name apsmith.
Energize America (as recently introduced to the Oil Drum) has been working on draft legislation to help America reach energy security in the face of peak oil and our over-dependence on the Middle East, and to address concerns about global warming through efficiency and energy alternative measures. This week saw the delivery of several legislative proposals to Congress. Among the commentary and responses there has been one issue that stood out to me: increasing support for rail, both passenger and freight.
The following is a first draft of a new "High Speed Passenger Rail Act", based on Act V - "The Passenger Rail Restoration Act" of Energize America version 5. The first portion consists of background information on the energy benefits and previous legislation, and the second is the actual proposed act. Your comments will help make this a more solid proposal that could make a real difference to the future of this nation!
Energy Implications
Passenger air travel in the US in 2005 got about 45 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel, emitting 140 million tons of CO2 in total (1). Passenger cars on highways traveled over 1.5 trillion miles with an average of 1.59 occupants, at about 44 passenger-mpg, emitting about 750 million tons of CO2. Both air and automobile are heavily dependent on liquid fuels whose future supply is uncertain.
Successful high-speed rail systems, implemented in Japan and Europe, particularly the French TGV system, run on electricity with an efficiency equivalent to 300 to 500 passenger-mpg. And electric power is the easiest form to generate from new energy sources such as wind and solar energy. High-passenger-load high-speed rail would dramatically reduce the impact of the passenger transportation sector on energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
Current US Passenger Rail Status
Mention passenger rail in the US and people think first of Amtrak and its perpetual funding crisis. Amtrak’s total ridership of 25 million per year is dwarfed by the 658 million for air travel and the billions for cars. But commuter rail is widely successful across the country, and “light” inter-city passenger rail has been making a comeback in recent years thanks to state funding to help offset pollution and congestion, for a combined total of 750 million annual trips in 2003 (2). Americans are at least as willing to travel by train as by airplane. The problems with Amtrak are simple to state: unreliability, coupled with high cost and low speed. On some routes, 96% of Amtrak trains arrive late (3). On all but a very few routes, taking the train takes longer than traveling by car because the trains are limited to 79 mph. Yet the cost can be comparable to or even higher than plane fare.
Train travel has one advantage over road or air: it’s much easier for business travelers to work on the way. But that doesn’t help if they arrive at their meetings hours late. States, seeing the importance for local development and pollution-prevention, have taken matters into their own hands and funded significant upgrades for inter-city passenger rail service in Washington state, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania, and other states appear eager to join (3).
But even the fastest “high speed” trains on US railroads rarely go much above 100 mph. By comparison, the French TGV reaches 200 mph in commercial service and over 300 mph in tests, thanks to dedicated passenger-only high-speed track. A successful US program needs to match or exceed the French example with average inter-city travel speeds of at least 150 mph, to provide any significant competition to automobile or air travel. This will require a significant capital investment in high speed rail on the order of tens of billions of dollars over a period of a decade or more. The interstate highway system provides a useful model, with its 80/20% federal/state funding approach, though with rail travel the passenger rail operators would constitute a third partner that should have some equity investment in the project.
Current Legislation and Activity
The US Department of Transportation includes the Federal Railroad Administration which for 2006 had a $1.5 billion budget, about $1 billion of which was for Amtrak support, with roughly half for infrastructure improvements and half to subsidize operating losses. The Bush administration budget proposals for 2007 and 2008 included significant decreases in the FRA budget, to just over $1 billion in 2008, but also included $100 million outside of Amtrak to support state-initiated projects for rail improvements. The FRA in a 1997 report highlighted 12 potential high-speed rail corridors around the country that could be developed at a cost of $50-75 billion over 20 years (4). To fully fund those corridors with the highway administration’s 80/20 funding level means a federal contribution of up to $3 billion/year, at least 5 times what the administration proposes in the near term.
Senate bill S.294, the “Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007” appears to have an important proposal in Title III, on competitive funding for inter-city rail (Title II covers Amtrak).
Previous US Legislation
- 2005 Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
- 1998 Transporation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
- 1994 Swift Rail Development Act
- 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
- 1980 Passenger Railroad Rebuilding Act
- 1976 Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act
- 1973 Amtrak Improvement Act
- 1970 Rail Passenger Service Act
- 1965 High Speed Ground Transportation Act
References:
(1) Numbers on fuel use and passenger miles from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics: www.bts.gov
(2) Bureau of Transportation Statistics Annual Report, 2005: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2005/html/chapter_02/figure_06_04.html
(3) “Revving up the Rails”, by Josh Goodman, Governing Magazine, March 2007 - http://www.governing.com/archive/2007/mar/trains.txt
(4) Department of Transportation Report to Congress, 1997: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/515
The High Speed Passenger Rail Act - Draft Text
Next Generation Transportation
Objective
To enable a transition from energy intensive medium-distance air and road transport of passengers to cost-effective, reliable, and safe rail transportation through creation of dedicated high-speed intercity passenger rail services.
Description
The High Speed Passenger Rail Act (HSPRA) of 2007 will provide up to $3 billion per year in federal matching funds under a 60/40 rule to build rail infrastructure improvements necessary to develop high-volume high-speed passenger rail services between major American cities. Both tourism and commerce rely on rapid, dependable transport between cities. This has increasingly been handled by air travel, but the dual pressures of increased security and rising fuel prices have made air travel both more cumbersome and more expensive. High-speed passenger rail is more fuel efficient, quicker and more environmentally responsible than regional air travel, and can serve a key role in a low-emissions future. European experience shows that high-speed trains are more convenient, faster and profitable on high-density or metro-to-metro lines, and can offer a compelling alternative to air travel on trips up to 500 miles, taking 90% of airline traffic for point-to-point trips of less than 2 hours (300 miles at 150 mph), and 50% of airline traffic for trips lasting 3 hours (500 miles).
American passenger rail service could rebound if a single modification were made - increased speed on dedicated infrastructure. The High Speed Passenger Rail Act proposes a federal-state-private partnership to build, equip and operate new high-speed electric rail lines using existing technology. The Department of Transportation would consider joint proposals from states and private operators or Amtrak, with the federal government to provide 60% of capital investment. These proposals would be judged and funded under the following metrics and preferred criteria:
1. Average inter-city speeds: at least 150 mph.
2. Time to high-volume operation: 3 years or less
3. Likely annual ridership
4. Level of CO2 emissions reductions and other environmental benefits
5. Reliability and safety of operations
Additionally, under this Act the Secretary of Transportation will annually prepare and submit to Congress an analysis of high-speed inter-city passenger rail showing current values and trends for these and other relevant metrics.
Benefits
The HSPRA will
1. begin to significantly reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the transportation sector by replacing energy-intensive passenger air and road travel
2. create new jobs through increased economic activity,
3. increase the resilience of US inter-city travel by providing a high-volume alternative to road and air travel,
4. leverage state and private funds in the transportation sector
5. establish and measure success in implementing high-speed rail.
Investment
The Federal Government will invest up to $3 billion per year in a 60/40 split with state and private partners on capital investments in high speed electric rail systems.
Key Messages
1. passenger rail transport can consume one tenth the energy of air and road travel, per passenger mile
2. the key barrier to development of high speed passenger rail service in the US has been lack of suitable track and unreliability of existing service due to conflicts with freight rail transport.
3. Americans already travel by commuter rail in large numbers. High speed inter-city rail is profitable in Europe and Japan; it can work here too.
Note: Energize America volunteers will read this thread and pick up ideas and suggestions, with a view to integrating them into a new draft, which will be re-submitted again to your readership. You can provide nitpicks, fully drafted alternatives, more numbers, other ideas, ... All improvements are welcome - and indeed we are aware that they are needed. If you are really motivated about this topic or any other, you're welcome to join the editing teams. Just email us.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GREAT!
Keep it up. Though mentioning France as an example for Americans to follow is not the sharpest of rhetorical tricks, as it usually make their heads go boom.
Note: I did not write this article, so decline all responsibility for this reference to France. Our experience with high speed trains is relevant, though (if not without its own issues).
An additional note: that same act was posted on dK and gave birth to a really interesting 360 comment thread well worth reading as well. Arthur Smith is already working on a draft 2 on the basis of the comments in that thread, and will additionally incorporate input from this thread.
And, there is already thought that really what we want to pursue is a packaging/framing of what might be called the "Rails to the Future" package:
* a High-Speed Interstate Rail act, to provide the infrastructure support for 2 and 3 hour high speed rail journeys to start replacing all or part of our air travel;
* a regional rail infrastructure improvement act, to improve the capacity of the regional system to handle high speed freight and intermediate speed passenger services;
and
* a local dedicated transport corridor improvement act, to improve the ability of local areas to provide alternative transport corridors to cars.
And, well, moving toward electrication as much as possible.
But, re electrification, if we accept -- quite roughly -- that rail (across the board) is roughly 10 times more efficient than car/truck transport (VERY ROUGH, I know, just for discussion), by moving from road to rail, we have a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use. Electrification, of course, enables moving into an even better situation.
The emphasis is mine. Any large projects that depend on centralized hierarchy are suspect for a number of reasons (Tainter, Homer-Dixon, Halliburton, FEMA). It would seem to me a plethora of small, local projects would be better place to start.
$3B is nothing. Not even one AEGIS destroyer. It would probably take twice that to make a first dent in a single state like Maine. A first dent meaning a meaningful number of people in some areas could give up automobiles entirely. There is no point in providing an alternative; one must provide a replacement. And that's assuming the construction of a system much more like the old green line in Boston than the modern gold plated welded rail version. A meaningful effort would be order of magnitude $100B/year and it could easily take a decade. [I'm only guessing at order of magnitude for the numbers.]
High speed is not necessary. 60mph in the open would be just fine. But it needs to handle mixed freight too.
There is no need to replace all of our air traffic. Much of it should be eliminated. [There goes my job.]
cfm in Gray, ME
Yes, commidities have gone up as oil has gone up, but don't assume a steady link between the two. One year ago nickel was trading at $23,000 per metric ton, now at $49,000 per ton according to Bloomberg's site: www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/cfutures.html
The main reason for these metal prices rising is demand from China and India, plus some speculator's money moving from oil and gas to metals. If oil goes high enough to cause a recession then you will see commidities demand fall off by a few percent and price drop to perhaps half of current values for copper, nickel, steel and zinc.
Now on the rail proposal that advocates new lines running trains at 150 mph average speed. The capital cost for building one such route of 300 miles could easily be 5 or 6 billion.
A better proposal would be to upgrade existing routes with additional tracks so new right of way is not required - savings no. 1.
Then eliminate bottlenecks where freight train congestion can slow passenger trains - savings no. 2.
Then build trains that are more energy efficient using electric propulsion (overhead wire) for highest density routes that freight can also use, while introducing diesel hybrid with regen braking on lessor used lines - savings no. 3.
Then run trains at 150 mph top speed for express runs and 110mph for local stop trains - increased revenue no. 1. Then tie this upgraded rail system to some big city airports (perhaps making a suburban station into the airport stop) with direct access to the air terminals - increased revenue no. 2
A program of $5 to 10 billion per year for 20 years is needed for converting a substantial portion of our intercity passenger transport to rail. Start now and people will still have mobility when the real energy crisus comes in 10 years when the world has only 70 or 80% of current oil production. Wait ten years to start and the federal and state governments will not have the cash (tax revenue) because the economy will be wrecked.
"High speed is not necessary. 60mph in the open would be just fine."
I totally disagree with that statement -- 60 mph is not high speed rail and will not attract nearly as many riders as a 150 mph system. If you don't believe me, check out what happened to rail ridership in Japan and Europe after real highpeed lines were built.
Remember that you are competing with both airplanes and automobiles, airplanes having much higher top speed than any rail system and automobiles with their point-to-point advantage.
Hi Frugal,
I think the point was - will there be the capital for high speed?
Still, just anecdotal, but personally I know many people who would love to take the train but don't due to things that seem within the realm of "doable" - better reliability, schedules, cost (depends on trip), connections, a little more attention to safety/health features.
I wonder if the "point-to-point" can be helped in some way. Planes often also involve "point-to-point", depends on how far. For many purposes, all three are options, and train is out of the question at present, which seems "fixable".
I think we should be looking beyond the next few years. For now it appears essential that you need a 150mph service, but I am sure the capital costs greatly increase for higher average speeds. Also there will be a time in the not too distant future where air travel costs will go up so much that a decent long-distance rail system will be very competitive
I think the aim should be "moderately high speed" i.e. from 75mph-100mph. This will put it way ahead of any bus service. Also consider the maintenance costs, I am sure that such costs will increase if you need to maintain 150mph speeds.
and remember a good rail service will start and finish in a city center, not at an airport which requires a longer car/taxi/bus/train journey to get to any destination.
My analysis is that diesel-electric locos are 8x as efficient as diesel heavy trucks.
Conversion to electric increases efficiency by x2.5 on the plains and x3 in the mountains or built-up areas (stop or slows frequent). Delta due mainly to regnerative braking. Industry "rule-of-thumb".
So trade 20 BTUs of diesel for 1 BTU of electricity :-)
Alan
Well, up to 90% reduction in the fossil fuel use of all those car journeys that can be replaced by a locomotive journey.
I use Switzerland as an example :-)
Best Hopes for Swiss neutrality,
Alan
Folks, this is an important debate, one of many pieces parts we will be having over this sort of thing at TOD. This is exactly the kind of piece that needs exposure, debunking, and discussion.
This is not about dKos, this is not about ideology. This is about finding appropriate and timely policy options that are technically and operationally feasible with as much alacrity as possible. Policy choices need to be as well-reasoned as possible, and the expertise here at TOD can be an invaluable asset to helping these pieces of legislation become the best they can be.
I would also ask that you continue to hit reddit, hit digg, and send these posts to your linkfarms. Let people see that a) there are reasons for these discussions to take place, and b) that smart people are discussing these problems.
Hi All,
Sad to say, but I find this type of article a waste of time.
I thought the idea of TOD was all about the world's energy crisis - how humanity will survive in a post-oil energy decline.
But this political nonsense about creating legislation to funnel vast amounts of money into conglomerate empires to do what small coimmunities should be doing for themselves - I just did not think this was the purpose of this forum. I see this debate is purely focussed on the next elections and finding out which party will support these legislations.
But most important - TOD has fallen for the old mantra - the energy crisis is all about the good old USA!
Let's debate rail 'in the USA'. Let's fix everything 'in the USA'. Let's make Congress 'in the USA' listen to the problem.
Apart from the fact that dear old USA looks like it is well into the opening stages of a 10 year or more recession to rebalance three decades of excess - so no money will be available for these pipe dreams - the US has stopped having the important driving role it once had. That has now moved to German-centric Europe.
Come on USians - think globally. Get out of your parochial pyjamas and get more global in viewpoint.
US has 4.5% of world's population and uses 26% (21.5 MB/D of world's oil output (84 MB/D).
US uses 75% of all oil, domestic & imported, for transportation.
So fixing the US transportation system will solve many of the world's future oil supply problems.
If the dam is leaking, fix the biggest hole first!
By the time the world spends additional giga-tonnes of the planet's dwindling resources fixing the world's biggest hole, there'll be precious few people anywhere else left to worry about.
Seems there's people who are more worried about saving the 'American Way of Life' than about finding real remedies to a world-wide problem.
This type of story on TOD would not be happening, I'm sure, if you USians weren't beginning another two-year round of insanity called 'presidential elections'.
Change lifestyle - don't try to reconstruct your country at the expense of the rest of the planet. Tell the politicians that the American way of life IS negotiable!
Hi Ian,
I support your wanting to address the energy situation in world terms.
How do you suggest we do this?
What problem would you like to address?
re: "...small communities should be doing for themselves..."
Qs: 1) How can a small community construct a workable rail system for both people and goods? I don't see how this would be possible. Do you?
2) OK. Let's assume the American way of life *"is"* negotiable. As you say.
How can it be negotiated, such as people can live? What does transportation look like in the "negotiated US"?
3) What do you think of this: The US puts in place some workable transportation plans for itself. For the "new , negotiated US", as part of an ideal, TOD-devised energy policy. ("Ian's Energy Policy for the world").
(By the way, what is your ideal energy policy for the world?)
What does the US component look like? With such a component in hand, the US can also say: Okay, look...not knowing about "peak", we did the following things. Now we know. Our support for the Oil Depletion Protocol and Alt. Energy Sharing agreement means: US does the following; We share the following tech; We make the following unilateral moves: 1)Sharing R&D on wind/solar/biomass, TOD development.
2) Change/support the following plan for agriculture.
3) Support water-sharing agreements as follows.
4) Stop further RD on nuclear weapons, putting in place bi-lateral agreements.
etc. etc.
Hi Aniya,
You didn't ask how I would:
a) Provide world peace
b) Grant immortality to everyone
c) Exceed the speed of light
d) Invent a portable fusion reactor...
I can't do any of the points you raised. I haven't the slightest idea how it will be done.
What I do know is that a bunch of wild-eyed idealists writing reams of new legislation to be presented to a self-indulgent government structure will achieve nothing except increase the Bureaucracy; waste time; make lucky companies richer; and provide absolutely no relief for the growing problems facing billions of people. It is designed to molify us overfed westerners.
The concept of bringing legislative debate that is essentially about how the US can keep its absurd level of consumption (and that includes my own bloated country) while ignoring the fact that we Westerners are a minority in this world is the exact opposite of what I imagined TOD to be about.
Maintaining the belief that TOD is about peak oil and seeking serious solutions to humanity's incredible dilemma is impossible while allowing political myopics to masquerade their agendas behind the real-world debate of energy depletion.
If this type of charade continues, I think TOD will be no more than a postscript in the next election campaign.
Hi Ian,
First, a smile (intention):
"Provide world peace". This one has not been done, yet. Unlike the other items on your list, it is not entirely outside the realm of physical possibility.
In any case, I'm definitely trying to support what you say here. (Did that come across?)
If you do not have any specific answers you'd like to share (and I'm being completely sincere), then, perhaps a way to
have *the kind of conversation you'd like to have*. I am 100% in favor of this. I'm trying to be helpful.
re:
"Maintaining the belief that TOD is about peak oil and seeking serious solutions to humanity's incredible dilemma is impossible."
Just to clarify...are you saying that seeking serious solutions to humanity's dilemma is impossible?
I am not saying this. I am saying that seeking serious solutions is why I'm here. (That and to learn). If this is what you would also like, then let us work together towards this goal.
Here is something someone who has done some successful environmental organizing told me:
1) Figure out what is it you want to see happen.
2) Figure out who it is that needs to make decisions or do something to bring this about, and exactly what it is he/she/they would need to do.
3) Figure out who he/she/they are influenced by.
Strategize to influence those people.
In other words, what do you want to see happen, in specifics, and strategizing about how to get it done?
This is just one suggestion.
I'm concerned, and I do believe there is much that we can do. Examples are available. Since I've said this three times today, here's a 4th http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=541
On the side of world solutions, there's Oil Depletion Protocol, there's World social forum, there are perhaps other things. It seems to me there are precedents.
http://www.pugwash.org/
What do you want to do? In a positive sense. Here.
Hi Aniya,
The positive side of your comment was clear - what I was replying is that I do not have answers - none - not one - except what I am able to achieve in my own life, in my small area of influence, for my immediate family.
What I find humourous is up higher a small debate goes on over whether we need high speed or would slower be sufficient.
The debate misses the point of what will happen soon. Speed of any quantity above self propulsion is just part of this non-negotiable 'lifestyle'.
Who really needs to travel for five hundred or a thousand kilometres in a day?
No-one. No-one on this planet needs to move that far in that short a time.
All the 'speed' debate is simply about maintaining the 'lifestyle' which is a charade.
The whole concept of making legislation for high speed getting-somewhere-devices is to maintain the 'lifestyle'.
What do I want? People with political agendas out of this debate. Then real work can be done.
Hi Ian,
Thanks for responding. If I may continue, with your permission...?
re: "People with political agendas out of this debate. Then real work can be done."
Okay. Here I am. I do not have a political agenda. (I am wondering if politics can be useful, and I think, perhaps, yes, although I do not want to side-track my comment.)
I am here. Perhaps others are as well. I have no political agenda.
My Q: What *is* "...the real work that can be done?"
Can you please describe it?
Or give me a hint? Honestly, 100% sincere. We're here.
Q#2: So, even fixing up Amtrak is not a good thing to do? (Amtrak being what passes for passenger rail, here.)
Q#3: How far does your sphere of influence extend? And what are the things you are doing within this sphere?
HI Aniya:
Q#3: About 50cm - the diameter of my body - though it's more like a tube than a sphere. Re-Practising energy efficiency, self-sufficiency, and patience.
Q#2: Fixing any infrastructure is a good thing, but to do it to maintain an unnecessary lifestyle for a very small sector of humanity rather than change that lifestyle to aid the larger community??? No. The US chose the personal vehicle over the community vehicle, Amtrak upgrades will not change that - and certainly not in time.
Q#1: Hint: I did already: I do not know. All I know is that I can prepare my little area. What I am doing:
Working from home,
Installing (additional) solar water heating,
Re-discovering easy gardening techniques (the arthritis, you know): The Square Foot Garden is my current project,
Ensuring I have the means to ensure that my children (all adults)and only grandchild are safe and secure and nourished,
Contemplating whether solar energy is a viable option,
Reassuring myself that in this country (Aus) we have the best possible hope for the future.
For the USians I feel sorry that they may not be so fortunate.
Again, Aniya, Hi,
By coincidence, I am just reading Mick Winter's Peak Oil Prep, and I just turned over to page 180, where I read:
Amtrak, such as it is, is the United States' only national passenger railroad system. The network currently has 22,000 miles of routes serving 500 communities...in 46 states...In 2004, more than 25 million passengers used Amtrak. By comparison, in 1916 the United States had 245,000 miles of rail, and in 1920 passenger use peaked with 1.2 billion passengers
Where did all the rail-lines go...gone to freeways every one. When will they ever learn?
The point is to even get back to 1916 standard, you've got to build 223,000 kilometres of new track, plus infrastructure, plus train tens of thousands of personnel. Then, to cater for the growth in the country you've got to add an additional ... amount of track and infrastructure.
So, PO isn't for another half century and the whole country puts in an impossible effort for a system that just isn't wanted by the masses and if your pollies would just see reason...Nah. Won't happen.
After reading what Ian has written, and the responses up to this point, and after, I feel as if Ian's point is not being understood.
Bear with me as what I write may be repetitive.
What I take him as saying is this: your 'lifestyle' is going to have to contract.
Part of this contraction includes not traveling hundreds and hundreds of miles every year ... by train, or by any other means.
If, as Kunstler and others have written, as the cost of oil increases in the face of decreasing supply and increasing demand, with consequent contractions in many aspects of world, national, and local economies, our lives will converge to points closer to where we live. This is likely to mean traveling great distances less frequently, or not at all. If the economy isn't there to support or require traveling long distances, it won't happen. The need for any kind of expanded long-distance modes of travel will dwindle. And long-distance travel will likely become very expensive, esp. air travel.
So I see Ian as talking about reducing demand, reducing demand for energy-intensive activities. The contracting economy is liable to mean more people out of work, or having work which doesn't pay as much as before. This is liable to mean less travel, and probably less of many other things as well.
I see Ian as saying, stop trying to perpetuate a 'lifestyle' that doesn't make sense on a global scale. Six and a half billion people living at the consumption level of Americans, Australians, and citizens of other countries with highly industrialized economies, is impossible. So start thinking about contraction, reducing your consumption, and then reducing your consumption some more. It's tough; we don't want to do it; we don't even want to think about it.
So we think about the supply sides instead.
India has a massive rail transportation netwoork that they are steadily electrifying. Semi-HSR should get close to 2,000 pax-mpg equilavent using new renewable electrical energy.
Given these facts, why give up travel ?
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hello Alan,
Is there any chance you might comment on this part of Ian's comment and quote (below) - at some point, when you have time? I'm interested in your take on it, and your ideas wrt feasiblity. Also my question that follows.
Thanks.
"Amtrak, such as it is, is the United States' only national passenger railroad system. The network currently has 22,000 miles of routes serving 500 communities...in 46 states...In 2004, more than 25 million passengers used Amtrak. By comparison, in 1916 the United States had 245,000 miles of rail, and in 1920 passenger use peaked with 1.2 billion passengers..."
Where did all the rail-lines go...gone to freeways every one. When will they ever learn?
"The point is to even get back to 1916 standard, you've got to build 223,000 kilometres of new track, plus infrastructure, plus train tens of thousands of personnel. Then, to cater for the growth in the country you've got to add an additional ... amount of track and infrastructure."
-------- Also, I'm wondering, in regard to my question about about the "upstream" (electrical-source) aspect of this and similar proposals: Has anyone looked at the question of:
1) how much solar and/or wind capacity would need to be installed to run how much elec. train?
2) and the feasibility of doing on-going maintenance and upgrade w. an electric-only energy supply? (i.e., no oil).
Just wondering.
Ina is one of my "Do not bother to read" psoters. But in response to your question, in 2002 the US had 142,268 miles of freight railroad (plus some pax only miles) and moved FAR more freight by rail in 2002 that we did in 1916. Just not the pax.
The US is the premier success story for rail freight in the world !
http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html
Bets Hopes,
Alan
Thanks, Alan.
I really appreciate your getting back to me, esp. w. the reference.
Hmmm, I never got that impression. Indeed, the reason there are various TOD sites (NYC, Europe) is because there is plenty of regional interests as well as global commonalities. I've always thought the orginal TOD (this one) was North American biased simply because of origin.
You've also skipped over the idea that as the world's largest user and importer of oil, what the US does to modify its oil use will affect everyone else.
Also, the issue the US has with size/density/rail tractability is true of Canada and somewhat Australia too. Note that on a per capita basis those two countries have energy use very close to that of the US, but at 1/10 the population their totals just don't add up as much.
Finally, as I mentioned below the SYSTEM needs support by the manufacturers and maintenance contractors, which does affect European economies. E.g., light rail components manufactured in Germany. Any truly significant re-engineering of American transport will have plenty of companies from Europe, Japan, and China bidding for business.
Postscript: Although Stuart has done some analysis showing the limited returns (economically) of current mass transit systems, wrt dealing with US automobile use, there really is no other way to move masses of people if you want to live a non-agrarian lifestyle. Without breakthroughs in areas such as very high temperature superconductors (for electric automobiles), or genetically enhanced algal bio-diesel (and the subsequent massive investment in production facilities), the concept of current US (and Canadian) lifestyle will change when oil production has dropped noticeably. In my mind it is not a question of whether the US will need to do a significant rail investment, but only of how (public/private) and when.
So this topic will not go away.
No.
The only question is, Can the US expect the rest of the world continue to subsidise the US so it can 'do a significant rail investment'?
Ian,
"what they all said above" is too trite, but it's kind of what I want to say. The US, in a lot of the ways, is the problem and the solution, and is the most likely to suffer going backwards unless the policy chosen is to secure as much oil as possible around the world...
oh...hmm. I guess that doesn't affect anything or anyone. Yeah, you're right, I'm sorry Jerome posted this. It obviously doesn't matter.
Hi PG,
Thanks for understanding the spirit of my post.
The question is, of course, which direction is backwards?
Ian,
This seems to be the way Americans think. Most Americans really have no idea what happens outside the US, even people posting at TOD. They have heard about it, they read about it, but it seems to be very difficult to understand, even with the best intentions. That is a real pity, because the US is by far the richest country in the world and if anybody could help here, it would be the Americans.
The simple fact is that PO is not very difficult to solve. Just raise tax on gasoline a bit and keep raising it every year. And while you're at it, also raise tax on NG, electricity and a few other energy sources. That should do it. You would end the war in Iraq, cool down the nuclear standoff with Iran or end the genocide in Darfur along the way, just as a by-product. Even have a good shot at global warming.
You don't need new technology, no new scientific breaktroughs or 'Manhattan Projects' like this one (another favorite daydream). You can buy a car that runs 50 mpg for less than 10.000 US$. Where is the problem?
The whole world is addicted to oil, but the US seems to have caught a particulary naughty strain of it. It has to do with the 'Non-negotiable' part of the way the US is currently organized.
However, before we start explaining to Americans how to run their own country, we also should look at ourselves. Your name indicates you're from Australia, and Australians have a lifestile which looks very much like the Americans, if not worse. Remember, the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty, but also Australia didn't either. How's that for a good example?
Maybe it's also the other way around. Maybe people outside the US really do not get the way Americans think.
So instead of explaining to eachother what to do, lets fix our own issues first.
Hi Richard,
No argument from me:
It wasn't 'Australia' that didn't sign - it was our politicians. The same type of people who will supposedly use the high speed rail act to solve the world's problems...Hah!
Ian, it's pretty simple. If you don't like what we do here, don't come back or start your own site. Have a lovely day.
Sorry PG,
I hadn't realised yours was a political agenda - I was fooled by the peak oil debates on this site.
Bye.
Thank you for this post.
This kind of doomer trolling is reasonably easy to recognise, and I'm sick and tired of it going unchallenged (which, here, means reasonable attempts to counter their arguments).
>"The boat is leaking here, here, and here. If it keeps leaking, eventually we might even sink. How do you think we should fix it?"
>>"I think we should patch it with silicone sealant"
>>>T: Why are you still boating? Can't you see that by displacing the water, we deserve it? I've got some water wings for myself... I don't think many of us will survive the ocean.
>>I think we should cement fabric over it from the outside
>>>T: But that means swimming outside the boat! Few of us know how to swim. Not worth it. This thread is a waste of time.
>>>>Well what do you suggest?
>>>>>T: I don't have any big solutions. None. I just have these here waterwings.
>>This is gonna be difficult... How about we lean over to one side, and patch that side of the boat while it's out of the water?
>>>T: We'll never have the weight. I don't understand why you're trying to save the boat - Tainter says that as your boat gets bigger, there's more chance for a leak. Jevon says that you keep getting fatter until the boat reaches the waterline. Can't you see that we should grow gills?
>>>> Gills are going to be a bit difficult. Only amphibians and fish have gills.
>>>>>T: classist. You're just too lazy to make functioning gills - and with these other animals learning to walk on land, you'll need them. But no, you won't have them... and by the time anyone's figured out how to fix the boat, you'll all have drowned. You should never have tried displacing water in the first place.
It's really quite cliché after several years of PO discussions.
:)
I thought about that all afternoon shovelling snow. I think ideology - the theory of beliefs held by groups - matters enormously. All that heavy wet snow, it turned into a post too long and off-topic for TOD so I stuck it on my own blog.
Because it is fundamentally based on growth, liberalism does not and can not have a real answer to peak oil or a declining economic pie in general. more
I guess my main point is that, if we can stay with the science to find the best options and avoid ideological polemics, we'll be a lot better off. That's all.
Ideology shouldn't matter in the sense of liberalism and conservatism as they exist (in as you mention their many forms, socialism, fascism, libertarianism, populism, etc., etc., ad infinitum) today, once the poo hits the propeller...well, let's just say that those circumstances will construct their own new paradigms and ideologies... :|
But still, the main component of any ideology is the role of government in the social and/or economic spheres. If you look at 1930-31, you'll see a very good exemplar of how things are likely to go with a quick crash. With a secular one...? It's an interesting thought experiment.
Ideology matters indeed short-term, and with the knowledge that a) the US is a conservative-leaning country in its ideological distribution, and b) right-left ideological distributions do not change overnight, well, I am guessing that it will prevent us from doing much about this in the short term though.
Even if we were at $5/gal, there are too many crosscutting interests, too many pluralized interests, to get anything done quickly in the institutions we have in the US. The rules matter. I did a post on that long ago--I should dig that up.
the only solutions I see are some combination of either the development of new community/tribal norms (bottom up) or central control (top down)...getting back to the governance of the commons/tragedy of the commons argument.
Prof. Goose,
Your logic is dead on in this case, and I once heard a Russian aircraft designer give a perfect example:
The Russians, back in the 1970's, had introduced a new airplane. The Americans said it was a copycat Western plane because it looked so similiar, wing and shape was the same, aspect ratio, etc. They had "stolen" an American design, said Western commentators.
To which the Russian aircraft designer said wryly, "Do the Americans think the laws of aerodynamics only apply in the U.S.?"
Ya' gotta' love it! :-) If one form of locomotive propulsion is efficient under a Socialist regime, does it become somehow thermodynamically and aerodynamically less efficient under a Capitalist regime.....or vice virsa?
Hey, if a Socialist is a good designer, let's look at his/her ideas, I don't care where he/she is from! :-)
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
It seems to me that if we divert the billions we're pouring down the toilet in Iraq we can build a light rail system in the U.S. within a decade.
Yes, but if our "success" in rebuilding Iraq is transferred to the U.S., we will never build anything worthwhile in the U.S. Under this administration, government has become completely dysfunctional even, and especially when, it just turns everything over to the private sector. Oh, and we've done a great job, also, of rebuilding Katrina and providing for its citizens. We seemed to have arrived at a level of incompetence where nothing of significance or value for the world can be accomplished in this country.
On the bright side, however, Denver, for example did their latest expansion of light rail under budget and in less time than planned. They may have a lower level of corruption that some or much of the rest of the country.
One thing that wasn't entirely clear to me was how the investments (and profits) will be shared between the government and the private sector. E.g.
1) The government builds and owns the infrastructure, and private operators own and operate the trains, paying e.g. the marginal cost for track access. E.g. a bit like trucks on public highways, or the way the EU is moving with open access rail.
2) Everything is owned and operated by private companies or states (well, can of course be different companies or states for different projects), with the federal government providing initial financing support for building the track and buying rolling stock. I.e. a vertically integrated model.
Good question - I don't have a good idea which is better actually. On the plus side of government ownership, there's no incentive for destruction of unused capital because of property taxes, which has definitely happened with our privately owned railroads. On the other hand, having the funds for railroad maintenance in public hands makes them subject to political games that could make things worse.
I think the best solution is federal or state ownership but with operators given long-term leases and responsible for maintenance. Does that make sense?
Oh boy, I wish I had a simple answer. As with most things dealing with potentially privatization and regulation, it's hard to find objective data. Here are some academic articles discussing the issue:
http://www.coleurop.be/content/studyprogrammes/eco/publications/BEEPs/BE...
http://www.istiee.org/te/papers/N29/03%20(pg%201-21)%20cantos%20campos%20I.pdf
http://www.mit.edu/~uic/OpenAccess.032602.pdf
In the general it seems that the battle lines are drawn as follows:
*) railway execs prefer the vertically integrated model. I have to admit that I don't know enough about railroads to determine whether this is because these people know more about railroading than most of us or whether they are saying "Yes please, we'd like to retain our captive shippers that prevent cutthroat competition",
*) EU is going full bore at open access. Although perhaps this can also be seen as a mean to achieve some kind of sensible pan-European rail transport, which currently is pretty difficult with the national monopolies.
*) Academics see benefits and drawbacks with both methods.
And yes, concessions/franchising can be a good method if one wants to retain ultimate ownership in public hands.
Hi jbl,
I like your bringing this up.
The "responsibility for maintenance" seems tricky. Would there be a way to build-in the "responsibility" part, or would standards be somewhat lost in cost-cutting moves? Not to mention the decisions about maintenance schedules, methods, and ways to integrate suggestions and complaints from workers (now there's a thought - isn't that the Toyota model? I don't know...someone just told me about this.)
In any case, it seems like you could easily get to a point where the maintenance is done only in response to injuries and disasters, i.e., after the fact. Is this something you've thought about? Since it seems you have some expertise and experience in these kinds of areas.
I haven't thought that much about it, but a few quick ones:
It's generally accepted that in a franchising scenario with short franchises, there is a clear disincentive to invest.
But in general, I don't think that safety should be a problem. Rail accidents, especially passenger rail, tend to be pretty high profile events both in terms of publicity and expense. So there is a big incentive to prevent these. Of course, if profits or subsidies are not enough to cover operating costs, sooner or later safety will suffer. But that is true regardless of how the system is financed.
I don't know whether vertical integration vs. open access is in principle more or less likely to have problems with too little investment in maintenance, although the UK experience does seem to suggest open access is more accident prone? But perhaps that is more an effect of public sector investments (track infrastructure and maintenance) not keeping up with increasing traffic volumes generated by the private train operators.
But I'm not really a rail expert; the closest I've come to running a railroad is playing railroad tycoon on my pc a long time ago! :) I work in one of the "natural sciences", and although it's not my day job, I have a long time interest in matters related to energy, such as energy efficient transport like rail. Throw in industrial organization which I find a fascinating mix of "pure" economics, and game theory.
Hi jbl,
Thanks - don't know if you're still reading, but...a couple of qs
re: "short franchises" - Could you please explain what this means?
re: "I work in one of the "natural sciences", and although it's not my day job, I have a long time interest in matters related to energy, such as energy efficient transport like rail. Throw in industrial organization which I find a fascinating mix of "pure" economics, and game theory."
It sounds like you have the perfect background for "peak oil" mitigation!
I just wanted to tell you about this paper (see below), if you haven't seen it. The author uses a game theory approach to talk about mitigation in the broadest terms.
It seems to me there's a lot more we could do along the lines of "strategic thinking". (Perhaps people are - there's lots of news to keep up with!)
http://www.energybulletin.net/24805.html
To the layman, all railroads look alike (well this one has one set of tracks, this one over here has two sets of tracks, this one has kind of rotten wooden ties, this one has cool concrete ties, the rails on this one look smaller than this one over here; and this one has gaps in between the rails and this one looks like a weld, ...).
Operations and ROW design & maintenance (including signalling) are hand & glove; one needs to fit the other. Best quality signals allow two-way bi-directional operations on all tracks (NEC owned by Amtrak does this). The US uses the heaviest rail and loadings (except an isolated ore RR in Australia) which would not have happened w/o vertical intergration.
Now Amtrak uses "other peoples" ROW and they did not build or maintain their ROW for pax service, and Amtrak suffers as a result.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Alan and Arthur,
I meant to put this somewhere else, but lost my place when I went to look for the reference.
Are you familiar w.
http://www.railtrails.org/index.html - ?
If a non-profit is buying up these abandoned sites and right-of-ways, would it not be possible to go ahead and do this (returning them to rail use)? Without a great deal of trouble as the post mentioned (that I was originally trying to respond to) - ?
The spandex crowd fights tooth & nail against putting any rail use co-existing with their hike & bike trails (it works in the EU & Switzerland).
The "word' is to N E V E R let any ROW owned by a transit agency have ANY recreational use (and keep the trees down to saplings. else public outcry will rpevent the future use for transit.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Alan,
Just to be clear...you know about this org? It looks like they buy up abandoned routes and convert them.
So, yeah...I could see that once this is done, it might be hard to get them back. Still, there must be a ton of projects they have in the works or in their ideal future- for purchase. ie., or do you know? Are there a lot of abandoned ROWs around?
I'm wondering if a "peak oil" presentation to them might not be a good idea? (part of a larger idea for PO outreach to specific orgs)...and then coming up w. a way to work *with* them?
I mean, I can see not wanting the two side-by-side (sounds dangerous, anyway). Just that...they do have an org and have done some work. They already have a constituency...not sure "spandex" is all that fair (if you look at their blurbs). Probably some family rec and bike commuter use, if we look more closely.
I can see not wanting the two side-by-side (sounds dangerous, anyway)
In New Orleans we jog between the St. Charles streetcar rails. Streetcar coming along rings bell, jogger jumps over, streetcar passes, jogger jumps back :-) Expericened joggers jog in same direction as streetcar, fewer jumps off.
This NEVER fails to blow the minds of visiting transit activists on their first visit to New Orleans >:-)
The CBD section of Canal Street is now a dual use bikeway & Streetcar & public vehicle way. Traffic is blocked but not streetcars when drunken Krewe du Vieux parade passes.
We have learned to live with (and love) our streetcars :-))
(Another reason to preserve New Orleans ? Lessons till to be learned about fine, low energy urban living).
I have seen photos of inter-city trains (single track) and hikers/bikers sharing a 3 m wide ROW in a narrow Swiss mountain valley. Since we have 30 m wide ROWs, what is the problem ?
Best Hopes,
Alan
I am familar with the organization. Years ago transit activists thought that they were allies (and they talked about preserving ROW for future dual use, ...). Now they are seen as an enemy "Trails without Rails". AFAIK not ONE trail has ever gone back to rail use, even with dual use.
See story where suburbs tried to block Light Rail years ago by this means and have now changed their mind outside Minneapolis.
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1061295.html
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Alan,
Thanks for taking the time to answer. This is too bad about the "Rails to Trails" org. It's interesting about your streetcars...I've heard stories about streetcars in the 1920's in Oklahoma City - in those days, even little kids took them (alone), apparently.
My guess is - isn't the streetcar speed somewhat lower than say, a regular train?
Anyway, I don't know where to put this...but in case you do read this thread again...
I realize, mulling it over, that my first and second-hand (some second-hand w. people I really loved) experience w. Amtrak is just so negative.
To me, there's a public confidence issue.
I'd like to see Amtrak made reliable and safe (as I mentioned the "indoor air" issue, not being able to disembark even when stuck on the tracks for hours, etc.).
I have the idea that perhaps if this was done first, in a comprehensive way, then it would be possible to do a whole lot more.
Amtrak management (except for the stellar David Gunn, recently fired and one early OK president) has been poor to terrible (Warrington) and Amtrak has been underfunded.
It may be worthwhile to reorganize and even use a different name *IF* this nation decides that they want a decent inter-city rail system. Certainly good management is a priority.
One split might be for gov't owned ROW operations (Boston to DC NEC & Harrisburg-Philly so far) in one company and everything else in another. Just add to this gov't owned ROW with semi-HSR.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Alan,
Thanks. Who chooses Amtrak management? Do you have any insights about why the management has been so lacking in quality? Is it something about the process? The candidates? Or what...?
re: "It may be worthwhile to reorganize and even use a different name *IF* this nation decides that they want a decent inter-city rail system. Certainly good management is a priority."
This is a great idea. "We" could sponsor a national naming and logo contest. And give the winner a year's family pass, or something. It's amazing what talent you get w. contests.
re: "If this nation decides..."
Well, everyone I have ever spoken to about this issue wants a new and improved Amtrak. In fact, personally, given the experiences I've mentioned (but not described in detail) I'm more or less boycotting them. (Not that I've gone anywhere much.)
My Q is: What goes into "the national deciding"? How can this come about?
Would a stand-alone state effort work?
Just so we do the ridership studies. If the trains are only one tenth full most of the time, then the 8 or 10 times efficiency gain will not be so. Nothing would worse than to build a couple of lines and having them running mostly empty trains most of the time. If fuel stays reasonably cheap, it is hard to get folks on trains, sad but true.
This again is where being wrong in timing is just as bad as being wrong in principle, if the Saudi's still have fuel to dump, or if Africa starts pouring out crude oil, despite Saudi Arabia's strong arming? Who knows.....but I love the idea of nice modern and fast electric trains connecting our cities....anybody look at a Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee line.....well, I know it's been done, it was called the L&N, but maybe back to the future will work....:-)
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
(maybe we can go by train!)
Well of course you do the ridership studies. But any results to the study wd haveta be interpreted.
Train travel is just completely different. For those doing discretionary travel, for some on business travel, air has become so horrific any alternative wd be welcome. I sure don't look forward to the plane anymore. And since you're likely to have to deal with some security goon or a lost luggage hassle taking a sedative is not a good option.
On the train you relax. You meet people. Look out the window. It's delightful. Just slow and doesn't go many places and often expensive.
A couple things cd be done for essentially no cost. Right now you risk travelling in a car that's dirty, has windows so scratched you can't see anything, and if those issues have been addressed recently you are still most likely sitting in Government Grim Decor, feeling like you're in a waiting room at the Post Office. That often enough a party starts anyway is tribute both to the sort of people who take the train and to something about the clickety clack that's just fun.
Design costs almost nothing. I remember way back in the 60's and 70's travelling on throwback coaches from the 40's or even earlier that were so beautiful the coach itself was a destination who cares where we're going. No reason that can't happen again, design talent is always there. Bear in mind that for many passengers the best designed best appointed best maintained most comfortable space they visit frequently is the interior of their personal motor vehicle. Airplane interiors don't compete, I'd rather be packed in ice and travel in the cargo hold. It would be easy, easy, to compete on basic amenity again.
And can we have a club car on every trip over two hours? With a full bar and a real bartender? A club car that stays open? Hmmmmn? If the train could figure out that much I've got at least ten pianists who will play that club car for free. And bring their own piano. Please allow them to hawk CDs and hustle tips. Alan has another twenty pianists I'm sure. The train they call The City of New Orleans should always ride with some triplets and syncopation.
Call me a dreamer, you can dream these dreams with rail. I dream a dream of not fighting traffic and not submitting my shoes to inspection.
Seems the dkos contingent learns fast. And didn't quit. Took some lumps and came back. Technical guys, feed them some posts.
Passenger train use has the same barrier that I saw in my bus driving days, the fare box. I once looked into traveling from Grand Rapids to Chicago by Amtrak. The fare was ridiculously high and I never did it. For one round trip ticket I could drive both ways with my whole family plus eats and lodging. A trip of 200 miles must not cost more than a tank of gas if you expect people to use it plus a substantial discount for kids.
Hi Roger,
Thanks. Good points...(to counter! :))(or try to, anyway...)
re: "If the trains are only one tenth full most of the time, then the 8 or 10 times efficiency gain will not be so."
I'm not sure a study can answer this. In my little world, I know people who would take the train if it ran even near on time.
Also, the idea is to have these in place, isn't it?
Also, if done together with, say a 55 mph speed limit or carbon tax, or gasoline tax or any one of other proposals, then this might effect the ridership numbers, wouldn't you say?
re: "Nothing would worse than to build a couple of lines and having them running mostly empty trains most of the time."
Actually, I think not having them ready will be worse. In fact, the route I'm thinking of I know could use them today, instead of the freeway-widening they plan to do.
re: "If fuel stays reasonably cheap, it is hard to get folks on trains, sad but true."
Well, do you have any reason to believe this will be the case? It sure seems like what we've seen between the very artistic Stuart graphs, and the WT/RR dialog, (other than wild swings due to "demand destruction" or some such thing), would you not say you think we're headed for un-cheap fuel?
Just a quick comment as I pack to go help my parents in that polluted cultural desert of Phoenix (terribel timing for this article for me :-(
The US does not have the population density to support HSR except in the NorthEast Corridor & San Francisco south (marginal there). South Florida is "getting there".
A much better solution is semi-HSR that carries both freight (high value @ 100 mph, taking cargoes from air & truck) and pax at about 110 mph (beats driving). Less than half the energy @ 110 mph/177 kph than at 300 kph.
This is the Swiss approach; let freight pay for the infrastructure (they plan 100 mph/160 kph speciality freight trains) and run pax as fast as you can on the same tracks. If their case, 200 & 250 kph. France, Germany, Japan et al have speciality pax only tracks. But they have the pax to justify this approach, the US does not.
I had a series of posts on the Energyize America thread earlier if someone can post a link.
Thanks,
Alan
I will return before I leave if I have time.
Also, I have studied London-Brussels traffic; air vs. rail (a ditch inhibits auto travel between thses two cities).
200 miles apart straight-line. About 50%/50% split. On to Amsterdam is planned but only 2 trains/day (perhaps 10% market share ??)
NO PLANS for a London-Frankfort one seat train ride. Too far to connect these two major financial capitals with many milliosn in population directly by rail !
390 miles is too far to attract many pax at all !
Moral, even HSR loses out to air much past 200 miles straight line in the EU, with superb Urban Rail, a generations long train riding habit, high quality service, etc. France is "special" in a dirigistic way; they give all airlines but Air France "problems" in order to steer pax towards their TGV system.
The US should build a network of semi-HSR serving both pax & freight. 110 mph pax service is for illustration; if the pax trains can be run @ 125 mph; GREAT ! Just so long as they can also run medium density high value freight (packages, fish, fruit & veggies, JIT inventory. mail, electronics, clothing, etc. NOT coal, gravel, lumber).
Best Hopes,
Alan
One political/economic problem with your combined pax/high speed freight proposal is how it would affect the current private freight railways. I can imagine they would be extremely unhappy to have government owned/subsidized competition. Of course, I guess regional airlines will have similar objections to any (semi)-high speed intercity pax rail service, so perhaps somebody needs to be steamrolled in the name of progress anyway.
But if the introduction of (semi)-HSR would result in the bankruptcy of some of the current class I freight railways and a shift of freight from rail to trucks, you'd have something of a Pyrrhic victory.
They could have trackage rights on the new track (some of which could be on their ROW). Many RR run trains on other RRs track via trackage rights. N-S runs freight to the Mittel steel plant on the Amtrak owned Harrisburg-Philly line via trackage rights. Given past management of Amtrak, Amfreight would be a mistake IMO.
Question, could UPS also run their own brown trains on these tracks via trackage rights ? Sure. But if a Class I would provide the locos, crews, etc. at a reasonable price, they might use them.
They have a duopoly in most of the nation (2 Class 1 RRs in most states) and they might welcome this (extra feeder traffic onto their own tracks for delivery) or might not. BUT few cargoes would be stolen from today's RR. Most would come from truck & air.
Quick, more to do,
Alan
Phoenix/Scottsdale is also a culinary, social and musical desert as well :-(
And you're in Phoenix at the best possible time. Check the schedule at jazzinaz.org. My pal Judy at Johnny's Gaslight tomorrow. It's not New Orleans but at this moment you don't have to starve.
Wrong. Johnny's Uptown.
A few comments:
There is some truth to this, but as you probably know, TGV is to a large extent built on linking two cities: Paris-Lyons first, then Paris-Brussels, Paris-London, etc... Lyons and Brussels are only 1 million people cities, so direct links between big cities like Dallas-Houston could also make sense, if you have two big enough cities within 3-400 miles of one another.
Paris-Brussels (200 miles - 1h20 by train): plane travel totally eliminated
Paris-London (300 miles - currently 2h30 by train): 60/40 train/plane
Paris-Marseilles (450 miles - 3 hours): 50/50
Amsterdam will soon be 3 hours, so will be above 50%
Note that on both Paris and Amsterdam, the high speed trains have dedicated stations at the main airport and you can register for longhaul flights from Paris at the Brussels train station (and at a number of provincial French towns) - so high speed train explicitly replaces short haul feeder airline traffic.
The problem is not so much distance as the need to cross 2 or 3 countries along the way, with the complex negotiations this entails. Distance is no more than Paris-Marseilles, but the p^roject is a lot more challenging.
Don't forget that the TGV was built when domestic traffic was actually run by another airline - several, in fact. Plus you still - always - have the competition of cars/highways. So both rail and airlines had to compete for real.
My point remains that France is not a good model for modal split (due the difficulties in other airlines getting landing slots etc and the charming flight attendents, etc. that AF is noted for. Airbus salesman, based in Toulouse, said he would take any other airline over AF (they had to fly AB of course) and would take the train to avoid them if company policy allowed).
Observations by others report little cross-platform transfer in Brussels from Eurostar (>London) to Frankfort bound HSR (ICE I think). It is more than national boundaries. Going to Amsterdam involves as many national boundaries and just 2 daily trains are planned. Not much demand expected.
Also, many medium size cities line these routes in France, FAR fewer in most US potential routes. These intermediate stops add many pax.
Wish I had more time :-(( to prove you wrong.
Alan
The high speed link from Amsterdam will indeed serve a number of cities, but note that the Paris-Lyon service is a direct one that serves, for the most part, traffic between the two cities with no stops anywhere.
London to Francfort via a platform change is never going to be convenient (business travellers hate transfers if they can avoid them). A direct, high speed line is tough to set up. Paris to Amsterdam is essentially the Paris-Brussels link (mostly French side line, high traffic), plus the Amsterdam-Brussels (mostly Dutch, similary high traffic, easy motivation when the other link is already in place). London to Francfort would require support from France or Belgium for traffic they care little about.
As to AF, not that domestic flights don't give rights to miles, thus the sour grapes...
In Japan, the HSR/air modal share break is at 400 km/250 miles (from several sources) and rail ridership drops off significantly past that (density is so high in Japan that even 8% modal share can still support decent service, and 8% describes some of their longest routes, some with sleepers).
Only support from Belgium would be required for not stopping every Eurostar in Brussels (as it is today). They ARE co-operating to extend service to Amsterdam (IMPORTANT NOTE: only 2 trains/day AFAIK; Amsterdam will have such limited demand since it is so far from London that only two trains are needed). However, no interest or push for a London-Frankfurt direct connection via Eurostar.
I stand by my conclusion that it is too far by even high speed train for signicant market share. I avoid statistics using French cities (London-Paris for example) because of the unique factors in France which do not apply to the US. There are enough other useful examples elsewhere.
Hosuton-Dallas are not candidates for several reasons; too far, one trivial Urban Rail line in Houstion, Dallas is working on an Urban Rail system but it will be at least 2030 before something close to a comphrensive system will be in place.
Best Hopes for semi-High Speed rail,
Alan
These metrics will change as jet fuel prices increase. Aircraft are very sensitive to high fuel prices and electrified trains much less so.
So I expect the utility vs time choice to change very rapidly in favour of trains as fuel prices increase; and this is the situation we are planning for. Is there any data for what happened in Europe and Japan during the 2006 fuel price spike?
One other aspect, not directly related to trains is video/data/voice network bandwidth. Many passenger miles could be replaced, especially for business travel, with high quality video links. This is a field that is improving all the time, but the rapidly increasing use of video over the 'net is worrying a few people who are concerned that video could actually cause major disruption on the net in the near future. Maybe this topic is worthy of its own discussion on TOD sometime.
Alan, as one who used to make 25 to 50 intercity trips a year in the US, some 200 miles & some 2000 miles, I don't think comparing European situation to US is justified. From talking to many of my business customers (have over 100) and freinds that also travel a lot, most airline trips less than 300 miles are not even considered. You can drive faster than time the plane and airport hassles require. This is where the train beats the plane, 300 miles or less. And considering the road traffic in many areas of the US, a train that takes the same time as driving is competitive.
Example: I used to drive every other week from St Louis to Kansas City (250 miles), but did not often take the train because the five hour trip often took 7 or 8 hours. Plane took more than 4 hours considering parking at airport, security, arrive 1 hour ahead, etc. which was the same duration as driving, so why even consider the plane unless one does not have a car. The same holds true in dozens of markets all over the US. Train trips up to 300 miles could capture much of the air/car travel market if trip time was faster than driving (train 3 hours, car 5 hours) and trains offer some on board ammenities.
I have forgone serving some customers now only because I don't like the bothers of air travel. I know other consults in this business that feel the same way. Having medium to high speed trains as a travel option would make my business and personal travel much simpler and enjoyable.
Twenty eight years ago during the energy crunch and gas shortages of 1979 the US secretary of transportation, Brock Adams, made this statement: "buses are not going to solve the energy problem, airlines are not going to solve the energy problem, and Amtrak is not going to solve the energy problem. Americans will just have to learn to stay home". Do we want to hear these words from our government leaders again?
It seems to me there's no good way to determine what the unmet demand for rail service might be. If the option to travel by train does not exist, if no one thinks about it (except the rail fans who wish it was there) how the heck would you know?
One of those things that is obviously a good idea but still requires a leap of faith. Build the trains and they will come.
Another perspective about London/Frankfurt than 'merely' the number of countries involved in rail - which is not trivial.
Both London and Frankfurt are major air hubs - very, very major air hubs. The amount of what can be considered spare air passenger capacity between those two points makes rail competition very, very difficult. Essentially, Frankfurt can be seen as a European hub, and London as a global one. Obviously, Paris and Amsterdam are also major air hubs, but geography has pretty much handed London and Frankfurt a noticeable edge - Paris doesn't quite make as much sense for Eastern Europe as Frankfurt, and Amsterdam doesn't make as quite make as much sense for trans-Atlantic as London. And when taking the ICE from Frankfurt airport to reach major German destinations, the hour or two gained by flying is not trivial - unlike the U.S., flying from Frankfurt remains fairly uncomplicated and civilized. (As of August, the police have stopped carrying machine guns - according to one officer I asked, he said that their assessment of the threat level meant that for the first time in my experience since 1982, Frankfurt Airport no longer has police armed with machine guns simply walking around - almost makes one nostalgic for those old, safer times - as a very, very sarcastic note.)
As another note - just saw a TGV on the German side of the Rhine, heading towards Karlsruhe. Apparently, the Paris/Strasbourg stretch is open (at least that is what I heard over a couple of days on the radio news), and I do believe there were plans to stretch the connection to tie into the German ICE system - likely in Mannheim, a major ICE node, though I haven't read anything concrete about it in a while (which I also recall would then link back to Saarbrücken, creating a loop essentially). Europe is slow, compared to the U.S., but then, Europeans seem to feel they have much more time than Americans anyways.
As yet another note - it is true that there are dedicated ICE stretches, and it is certainly true that DB has a very strong attachment to separating passenger and freight routes, but in reality, there is no technical difference between the routes - except for some straightening, tunnels, and generally improved sound reduction, along with new and high quality track, of course. As DB is generally more interested in its toys than its business of moving people and freight, this is not really a surprise.
I don't really understand why we can't (and shouldn't) do both? HSR lines in certain areas where it is viable, and the faster mixed freight/passenger lines elsewhere. I would extend viability to even borderline areas. In a really energy constrained world, these lines would not end up being borderline at all (think of how much travel occurs on the interstate highway system today).
I think we can afford to take the calculated risk that these lines will not pay off, because there is a larger chance that they will. Populations will automatically rebalance themselves to account for the new realities, just as it changed after the construction of the interstate highway system (with areas far from the highways shrinking and those closer by growing).
I do think it's a good idea to also upgrade the existing infrastructure, not just to allow for greater speed but also for electrification.
I don't really understand why we can't (and shouldn't) do both?
Money.
Since rail transportation will have limited funding for the foreseeable future, the "biggest bang for the buck" should get priority in funding.
In my informed opinion, #1 is Urban Rail and #2 is semi-HSR pax & freight rail (with the freight being of at least equal value).
Even on the NEC, speeding up the slow sections (see new tunnels under Baltimore) is more bang for the buck than making the fast sections even faster.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Alan,
just to be sure:
How did you have taken into account the traffic by car over Eurotunnel between London and Brussels?
Statistics are probably difficult to find (Eurotunnel and the ferries are deserving the whole continent, not only Belgium), but it is a probably a big component of the PAX trafic between london and Brussels.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the new Paris Frankfurt connection does play out, 4h04 for the fastest in june 2007 and later 3h35.
Paris-Frankfurt are 575km, it is definitely over your 200 miles limit. It will also be interesting to see how the 1/2h final improvement works out. Just one note: SNCF and Deutsche Bahn seem to work together on this project like dog and cat, and I would be very cautious to consider the output as the best result possible. It is really a pity for me as a potential user, and a boon for Lufthansa and Air France.
The launching offers are tempting: 15€ one-way ticket (normal fares 50€ in Ecomomic class) for Paris Luxembourg, 200 miles in 1h30.
Actually, the two are competitors in terms of selling their own national products. In this case, it isn't really a case of working together, it is a case of neither wanting the other to get an advantage in the marketplace.
As it is now, neither side feels any compelling reason to lose thousands of jobs, not to mention personal empires within corporations, to further a spirit of cooperation.
I agree, the problem is that they are in bed respectively with their national champions Alsthom and Siemens.
After all this year and speech of privatization, it is silly that they don't try to improve together the traffic, which slowly becomes less bound inside the national border, and prefer to see themselves as part of the competition for the technology.
I could not find a source for auto/ferry travel between London & Brussels. However, as I noted, a ditch "inhibits" auto travel between the two capitals which is one reason that I concentrated on it, to get a clearer air/HSR comparision.
The UK is spending several billion to speed up the English end of the route (also creating HSR commuter service; go to work everyday @ 300 kph! ) and it will be interesting to see the effect of saving a dozen minutes on modal split (multi-stage opening and each stage shaves some minutes off).
I suspect that auto traffic gets a small % of market share. I will comment more elsewhere in this thread about distance, riderhsip and Urban Rail.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I didn´t find either specifically for London Brussels,
but I found those numbers for 2003:
- Passengers with cars through the chunnel (Shuttle): 8,5 Mio
- Passengers with train only : 6,3 Mio
- Ferries : 22,7 Mio (for the french ports only, 20% more or less going to brittany so not really in competition with the chunnel).
So the market share of the sea over the ditch is not so insignificant.
Other interesting fact:
In 2006 the train only passengers grew to 7,8Mio, probably taken to the planes after the improvement of the english side; almaost no changes for the passengers with cars on the shuttle.
I have no datas for the evolution of the sea traffic after 2003
Hello Alan and A,
Thanks again for working on this.
re: "Less than half the energy @ 110 mph/177 kph than at 300 kph."
And (I still don't know how to get links without losing my page - no time right now)...
One thing I don't see (perhaps I just miss it?) in the lead article is his kind of analysis Alan does in this sentence quoted above. Is it possible to add this?
Also, I don't see (yet) in the discussion, more specific attention paid to what we might call the "upstream" - i.e, the sources of this electricity -?
What actual quantities, amounts and from where?
Yes, switch to renewables. But do we have analysis and specific examples? How much solar to power what length of track under what plan/(w. details)?
Does this make sense?
It seems to be a piece missing from the analysis. It might be an important piece to add. Major sources, what percentage, say from what region, would be used if electric rail were introduced (or upgraded, etc.). (Does this make sense?)
(Perhaps others can do this better...but, for eg. , if we're talking coal gasification as a source of electricity - ? All I can think of is that Nat'l Geo. photo of the coal train.)
Also, it seems to me this "less than half the energy" is huge. Really huge....(again), given the context of our discussions here and the prospect of the immediacy and unprecedented nature of "peak".
The large majority of drag for HSR is aerodynamic with some rail friction. Aerodynamic increasing with square of the speed, rail friction is directly proportional to speed (not the square). Just do a little algebra and assume 90+% of the drag @ 300 kph is aero (probably more than 95%, I vaguely remember old paper). "Less than half is a fudge factor; really >1/3rd as much at top speed. But add acceleration & braking times etc. when both semi-HSR & HSR use the same power"
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Alan,
More anecdotes...but I really (really) think there's a "pent-up demand" for rail, even for longer distances. Especially, if the ticket might allow for on and off - one or two-might stays, or something. (Don't know how this works out - do you have any ideas on this? Does it undercut the feasibility?)
Some people - (especially a single mom, say)- w. kids like the relative room to move about - a single person driving w. kids can be a real problem; ability to work (sort of); a lot of people actually are afraid to fly (despite the fact they do it); w. an aging population, this means more people who don't drive anyway...
Just trying to add up more reasons.
Also, if you have time at some point, could you address my "crash question" (I think is below somewhere)?
I disagree with your evaluation of aerodynamics. A train that runs at 100mph will consume twice the energy per distance due to air resistance at 200mph, yes. However, when you want to speed your trains up to 200mph, you hire a few aircraft engineers and turbulence specialists. You do wind tunnel testing. You streamline + seal your bogies, you seal the gaps between cars, you put big parabolic noses on your front and back cars. You eliminate projections wherever possible.
These are considered not worth the effort on a train going 30mph, but they become worth it at higher speeds.
----------------------
The issues of national and interurban scale do count against the EU model somewhat. Whereas in Europe you can operate on two basic tiers: urban and interurban; in the US you need to split up interurban into two tiers.
I'd like to see two levels:
Path A is enough to compete favorably with driving - it has to be combined with last mile solutions, but it's a good option for a widespread passenger rail network with a base quality level. Amtrak is lacking a base quality level - it basically has to subsist on the crumbs that the freight networks drop, and they can get pretty meager.
Path A makes use of our existing RoW to its fullest extent. That means the federal government makes standards for track, and offers significant matching funds for track owners on important corridors if they choose to achieve and maintain them. On the stick side, emminent domain can be applied if their refusal to do so becomes a barrier to forming a network.
As durable electrified track as modern technology allows. 2000's era electronic signaling and scheduling. One track each way with a maintenance/emergency/air-buffer track in the middle (omitted when bridges don't allow for it). Freight and passenger trains move on the main tracks at 100mph, and only at 100mph. Acceleration and braking takes place on outer tracks constructed for each station/depot.
Freight trains are not designed to run at 100mph currently. This could change.
-------------------
Path B is more specialized, and is a reasonable replacement for air travel in the US. True HSR requires a lot of new things, the most inescapable being new right of way, and comes in two flavors: maglev and steel wheel.
Both require new labor-intensive track, new rights of way, heavy banking, tunnels and bridges, new vehicles... the list goes on. You're right that there are only a few individual corridors feasable for HSR. Air travel doesn't work on corridors, it works on hub and spoke: you need a national network, not a corridor. The scale of a meaningful interstate HSR undertaking from scratch in the US is astounding. Think 5000-10000 miles to hook up most of the biggest cities, at 50-100million per mile. A decade of construction, bare minimum.
Given all this overhead, my vote is that we actually innovate, rather than trying to adopt a '70's era European system based on track standards two centuries old. We design a system around 8'x40'x8' and 16'x40'x8' pods, the basic unit of international shipping. We put people, freight, and cars in them. We make an 18' wide, 20' tall bogie-less Inductrack maglev system designed for 300mph (rather than the 200mph that the next gen of wheeled HSR aims to achieve). We enclose the whole train (4 pods per cross section) in an outer aerodynamic superstructure, and at each stop (1-2 per metropolitan area) flip it up to allow fast horizontal roll-on roll-off loading for transfer. Stops are airport-terminal-sized affairs built to take advantage of as many local transit choices as possible, while allowing half-mile long trains with multimodal freightyards alongside. If this means tunnelling under an airport and stealing its parking, so be it. We give the trains human amounts of space, privacy, luggagespace(indeed, car space for a price), and entertainment.
----------------------
A 300mph, quiet(at low speeds), interconnected system like this could compete favorably with planes, long-haul buses, and long-haul trucking if combined with path A for more localized routes and spurs. Call it 12-15 hours from Boston to San Diego. Give people enough comfort, privacy, and space, and a few extra hours will be accepted in a heartbeat - they can use it as a hotel. Squash them into a subway that moves 200mph between stops every 15 miles, for more than a few stops, and you'll get very few passengers over what Path A would have given you.
Hi Squalish,
Thanks. This is very interesting.
re: "...in the US you need to split up interurban into two tiers."
This is probably obvious to everyone else, but could you possibly explain why? Is it for "express" v. "multiple stops"? Or what? Also, what do you mean by "tiers"?
One of the things that irk me the most about this debate is that AMericans complain about the subsidy for rail, yet fail to recognize the huge subsidy for the automobile and its infrastructure.
Also I'm wondering about the quoted efficiecny for high speed rail - 300 to 500 passenger mpg. Is this true even at 15 to 200 mph?
There's a worldwide subsidy on aviation fuel in that there is no duty charged on it anywhere, as far as I know. If a government had the guts to levy a duty on this stuff, it would send a strong price signal, no?
Hi B,
This seems like an interesting idea. I wonder if one or two "high-value" destinations could pull it off? Then others might follow.
You can check out the examples in the table at
http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html
I actually compute a slightly higher range for all-seats-filled efficiency, from 412 passenger-mpg on the Spanish AVE to 632 passenger-mpg on the TGV Duplex, both at 300 km/h (188 mph). The latter runs at an 80% average load, believe it or not, so the actual in-service efficiency works out to 506 passenger-mpg. I'm quoting in terms of gasoline-energy equivalent using U.S. gallons, for the benefit of USians.
I took a look at the TGV Atlantique travelling at a slower 220 km/h (138 mph): 767 passenger-mpg if all seats filled.
All the details and links can be seen in the table. Feel free to double check my calculations. These are real world calculations, i.e. actual trains operating over actual routes. For example, the TGV Duplex figure is for Paris-Lyon with 3 intermediate stops; the EC study concluded consumption was 18 kWh/train-km over the whole route. I'm pretty sure that includes all "hotel" power (lights, air conditioning, etc) as the power all comes from the same source and you'd have to explicitly calculate the amount to subtract. (It was a while ago that I looked at the sources). You can do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation to be sure that these figures are in the right ballpark, simply by considering the rated power figure of the power cars. I did a calculation in this regard for the original TGV PSE trainsets and found the quoted energy usage to be 74% of the theoretical maximum, which sounds to me to be in the right ballpark.
Now, think about that consumption figure for a second: 18 kWh/train-km. I pay 6 cents per kWh here. So, moving a train with 545 seats (plus restaurant/bar car, office, public telephones, family cubicles, washrooms, baby-changing stations) would cost on average $1.08/km. ($1.73 per mile)
In other words, the energy cost in operation is 0.32 cents per seat-mile.
(Or would be, at that electricity rate, I have no idea what SNCF pays EdF for power. A quick web search turned up a claim that nuclear-generated electricity from EdF cost 3 Euro cents/kWh).
Hi Phin,
Good point.
re: "One of the things that irk me the most about this debate is that AMericans complain about the subsidy for rail, yet fail to recognize the huge subsidy for the automobile and its infrastructure."
I have a suggestion. (Always happy to suggest work I can't possibly do!)
I wonder if you (or someone) compiled some basic figures about the subsidies for auto over a certain period of time, v. rail, and compared them...this might give some substance to the point, and be useful for future 1) education and 2) proposals.
It seems to me a few comparisons might go a long way.
The HSR idea seems to me to be sexy and glitzy, which makes it an easier sell politically.
I think we did need to switch from roads and air to rails and water.
The problem is that we need to share a common vision for redesigning human settlement for the future.
We do not yet share a common vision of the present or of what our future environment will be.
I would prefer an emphasis on developing passenger and frieght rail building from what we have now.
We could make air and road-based transport less attractive by making it more expensive.
Because we do not share a common vision about present or future the political "solutions" are likely to give a bunch of various special interests bits and pieces that may not connect well with each other or with reality.
Additionally, motivating people may be difficult. More older folks that I talk to figure that they have done their bit, and refuse to worry about or contribute to a long-term future. Many middle-age and young people simply live for whatever benefits them now, so resist contributing money or effort to a long-term future as well.
To summarize: we need radical change in transportation; we do not share a common vision of ourselves that acknowledges this reality or that envisions future sustainable human settlement; many people are interested in short terms benefits to themselves over all other consideration.
My own vision of what is possible does not include heavy investment in technologies that would have been effective decades ago, but which are no longer assured of completion or of being useful in two or three decades.
Go for it though -- the discussion of diverting resources from resource war to an effort at building more sustainable, peaceful infrastructure is a good thing, IMHO.
Given the premise that rail systems will be useful where they are put down for decades, I still think the emphasis might best be put on somewhat slower systems capable of handling both freight and people.
HI beggar,
Thanks. You know, first time through, I just couldn't get myself to read past "common vision", because it's abstract in a way. Although it's true...I mean, there's a strong sense in which I agree with you. :)
Perhaps it's when you say "the future", because we're really looking at the near future, and, as you say, we need radical change (and I'd say, soon.) And, at the same time, the "human settlement" is already in place - is it not? Okay, so how is it that "redesigning" fits in with the issue of rail transport?
re: "The problem is that we need to share a common vision for redesigning human settlement for the future."
So, I'm wondering if you might take a stab at trying to articulate this "vision" - ? How do you see it?
Example:
Right now the US uses X gals gas for X passengers X miles...(an overview). This results in greenhouse emissions and fuel use of ...
Given that we will soon be entering an era of a conservative 2% decline in oil supply (or whatever) let's posit an X percent decline in gasoline, leading to a price rise, initially, to say, $12/gal. Plus, Oldhippie's studies have shown...(just kidding)...
We want to be able to move goods and people...
Here's what we can do first...
Or, to put it another way...When you use words like "vision" what are you thinking? Could you possibly explain and give some examples?
I think this is a great idea, but just to play Devil's Advocate...
Many trains are late/delayed today because of conflicts between passenger and freight rail. Perhaps their are cheaper ways to at least parly solve this part of the problem then building dedictated infrastructure? E.g., suppose we:
* Require freight trains to share schedules w/ Amtrak (I understand this doesn't happen now, remarkably)
* Drastically improve signaling, for example by putting a GPS on every train, and connecting it (via radio, cell or whatever) to a centralized site. Every plane in the air routinely reports its position, altitutde, etc. Every train on the track should report its location, velocity, expected arrival time, etc
* Insitutate some sort of automated or semi-automated remote-braking, which could stop trains at least as fast as a human in an emergency. This might allow trains to be more closely spaced.
I would (naively) imagine that all these would cost a lot less than building new track (especially since we'd probably do many of them anyway if we were to build new track). Perhaps it would be worthwhile going for relatively low-hanging fruit before building dedicated infrastructure?
But, as I said, above, just playing Devil's Advocate. I think this is a very well thought-out plan.
An excellent beginning.
I see a couple of issues of concern that will need to be addressed:
1) Building high speed rail infrastructure will require enormous purchases of real estate and rights-of-way. Ultimately that means eminent domain issues along the tracks somewhere, which can be litigated for years and cause serious delays. There must be provisions in the HSPR Act that will fast-track both purchases and any litigation. One possible alternative is the right of way already owned for the interstate highway system. There is a large median along most of its routes which could be utilized for rail -- with the understanding that hundreds or thousands of bridge and overpass structures might require a redesign.
2) The faster the better. Why limit the act to speeds that were attained elsewhere as much as 45 years ago? I suggest the Act increase the average intercity speed benchmark to 200mph -- this will allow some lower speed lines in certain regions and some very high speed lines in others. A French train holds the speed record this year. Maglev goes even faster. Let's promote some technological innovation into the act while we're at it.
3) Freight and passenger rail can not share the same track. The biggest problem is the mass and inertia that freight trains must control. You can't accelerate or brake a heavy, 200-car freight train at the same rates you can passenger trains. Alternatively, limited small package shipments and mail could possibly be handled by passenger rail utilizing "pod" technology to load and offload quickly.
4) Passenger trains must provide superior comfort and convenience over air or car travel and a "coolness factor" to secure high levels of ridership. That means useful and inexpensive entertainment and TV/movies at every seat, broadband wireless internet access throughout the train, lounge and dining cars, perhaps even a business center onboard.
5) For intercity rail to survive, convenient and comfortable mass transit must be available, efficient, and seamlessly connected at the HSPR destination city. A two hour connection wait for a bus to take you to your final destination is too long. And those busses will need to be upgraded in comfort levels.
And a final note: It appears that the "people" will ultimately be the only folks really working to get legislation passed to mitigate our risks of energy depletion. Sadly we can't count on our elected representatives to do it. Good job on starting this proposal.
We also need one started for river barge traffic and extending the navigable portions of our nations waterways.
I ride long-distance Amtrak a LOT, and in light of my experiences, I have to agree with Alan from Big Easy on this one. We need Amtrak to be much more reliable and somewhat faster, but we do not need a 150+ MPH train.
One thing that needs to be understood, is that even if a train is capable of going at 200 MPH, it still will not be able to attain this speed much of the time. This will be possible in places where the tracks are relatively flat and straight, but as soon as the train needs to climb or proceed on curvy, twisty tracks, it will need to dramatically slow down. Also, unless passenger and freight each have their own dedicated tracks, passenger trains will constantly end up chugging along slowpoke freighters, as frequently happens now. In addition, the freighters are so heavy that eventually they deform the tracks to the point that it is unsafe to go at full speed, even at Amtrak’s 79 MPH limit.
Another thing that slows trains down is extremely hot weather. On one trip about ten or so years ago, when the train still went to Las Vegas, we were going along at perhaps 35-40 MPH. Yet the track was straight and level and there seemed to be no reason that we should not be hitting Amtrak’s 79 MPH speed limit, so I asked the Conductor, and was informed that when it gets hot, the metal rails expand to the point that running too fast creates a risk of derailment.
Finally, I was told by a Conductor on one trip that Amtrak and the freights are aware of each other’s schedules, and while the freights take priority since, outside of the Northeast Corridor they own the tracks, (another HUGE problem with undedicated tracks) they are required to pay a fine to Amtrak if the passenger train is delayed beyond a certain point. The problem here is that the fine is so paltry that the freights simply pay it, a minimal cost of doing business.
What needs to be done, is, as soon as possible, lay new and dedicated track for Amtrak. Until this happens, Congress should pass legislation giving Amtrak precedence over the freighters. And this could be designed for 100 MPH trains much more economically; this would be plenty fast if only the train could get up to this speed when weather and terrain conditions permit. The most frustrating thing about Amtrak is plugging along at 30 MPH when the tracks are straight and level and there is no apparent reason it couldn’t be going at the speed limit.
Antoinetta III
Hi Antoinetta,
Re: "I have to agree with Alan from Big Easy on this one. We need Amtrak to be much more reliable and somewhat faster, but we do not need a 150+ MPH train."
I personally know many people who would prefer train to anything else, but Amtrak is so unreliable, they do "anything else".
And also other problems I've heard about: no air circulation when the train is motionless on the tracks waiting for a freight train to be "fixed". (Perhaps Alan can explain this?) This can be very problematic for those w. compromised health. No ability to open windows or doors. A policy that will not allow passengers to disembark, even when delays are many hours.
Agreed to fix Amtrak, and no on a super-speedy train.
re: "What needs to be done, is, as soon as possible, lay new and dedicated track for Amtrak. Until this happens, Congress should pass legislation giving Amtrak precedence over the freighters."
Alan, how would you work this out?
Hi Aniya & Antoinetta and, of course TOD
From experience over here in the UK, may I suggest you pitch the maximum speed at 125 mile/h.
There are several reasons for this
..125 mile/h is, in general, the highest speed at which it is safe to use lineside signalling, cheapening the rebuilding costs of an existing railroad and allowing other trains to use it at the same time.
..UK experience has been that speeds in excess of 125 mile/h have not been attainable cheaply enough on existing railroads, although that doesn't stop people trying!
..The technology involved is well proven, having been used in Europe for a number of years now.
There are a few comments that I would add as well:
A fleet of new trains tends to be built with a maximum speed in mind. Use of trains so designed tends to be more expensive per mile in fuel costs if that maximum speed is varied over a long period. For example, the UK High Speed Train (HST), consisting of 8 or 9 trailer cars sandwiched between two 125 mile/h locomotives, is less economical at 110 mile/h than at 125 mile/h because of its design! The point is that once you have built your railroad or adapted an existing one, you are stuck with the efficiencies of the new trains for their lifespan, and railway vehicle lifespans are measured in decades rather than years.
I suggest that the US might consider using tilting trains as well for sharply-curved lines. Mostly the constraints on curves are due to passenger comfort rather than mechanics of the train, and tilt solves the problem. The Pendolinos on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) in the UK are an example. The technology is therefore available and proven.
Just my 2p worth :))
sf
Hello sunfixer,
Thanks for responding. It sure seems we need many people w. your expertise. I hope you'll continue to provide comments.
re: "The point is that once you have built your railroad or adapted an existing one, you are stuck with the efficiencies of the new trains for their lifespan, and railway vehicle lifespans are measured in decades rather than years."
1) This is very interesting. So, operating at less than the max speed is inefficient (relatively speaking)? This is not the same for cars, though, is it? So, then, it seems you've got several engineering/energy(fuel) variables: efficiency conversion from source to vehicle (say locomotive), then variations in actual use conditions of vehicle...and
As I mentioned above...I'd like to see more inclusion of discussion on the source side of it. Somehow it's hard for me to picture just what the quantity of wind/solar might be for this.
2) "...and railway vehicle lifespans are measured in decades..." I guess, compared to cars, this is good. OTOH, this actually scares me, if we're looking at a cessation, for all practical purposes, in availability of oil at some point (30 years to practical zero? whatever). Just my point being...the train replacement and other replacement "costs" (feasibility - i.e., cost so high it's not possible?)
Good grief.
I debated on whether to posit semi-HSR at 110 mph or 125 mph. Top speed of 125 mph works out to average speed of about 110-115 mph for express service.
I am not wedded to 110 mph and gladly accept 125 mph as a viable alternative (the slowest TGV, the Atlantic is 138 mph (memory)). Basically look at the terrain and population density and do what is cost-effective.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I basically agree with Alan, but let me expand...
A couple of years ago an acquaintance of mine (here in Japan) had an engineer friend who wanted to propose a high speed rail line for California (specifically SoCal, e.g., connect LA to Vegas.) I told him it wouldn't work.
Here in Japan I ride rail all the time, as I have no auto. Took the Shinkansen just last month up to Tokyo - wonderful as always. Leave my house with suitcase in tow (on wheels of course), walk (10 minutes) to subway, exit at the Shinkansen station, walk up buy ticket, board, 2 hours later in Tokyo, ride another local train, etc. Elevators and escalators at each station to help me with the luggage.
Without the established infrastructure of the local trains, the Shinkansen would never had been built!
Building a stand alone HSR system (that is large enough to make a dent in imported energy) in the US will fail because at both ends an automobile will still be needed!
IMO the priorities should be, in this order:
#1 Build local rail infrastructure (preferably heavy duty and elevated, but light rail is the minimum.)
#2 Optimize the existing ROW usage nationwide (probably means sharing freight and passenger, as Alan outlined.)
#3 Extend/expand freight lines (especially for coal but also for the reindustrialization of the US.)
#4 Build conveniences such as dedicated HSR lines.
I wanted to post on the importance of Urban Rail SYSTEMS to feeding inter-city rail, but he did a better job of it :-)
BTW, most US ROW are 100' wide (30 m). Wide enough for 4 tracks BUT the curves will not handle HSR. Semi-HSR will fit these curves most of the time (occasionaly need to either slow down or grab a narrow sliver of land for a wider curve for semi-HSR). There is a dramatic delta in curve radius required as speed increases.
Alan
The urban rail "SYSTEM" really does deserve more of a comment too...
There are two foundational elements (to an effective rail system) that come into play, that many conceptualizers miss if they don't have first hand experience with life by rail-only:
1) the STATION - the role of the station will play a more important element in daily life, e.g. shopping. To make rail in the US a successful amelioration strategy (for Peak Oil) there has to be a large investment in stations and the urban planning around them. The trolley concept somewhat gets around the large station requirement but still, to be highly effective, requires the urban planning to match the commerce and residential requirements to the trolley line.
2) MANUFACTURERS - somebody has to build the trains, and maintain them. Currently US cities can exploit foreign companies to be their suppliers, but a nation-wide revival of rail, especially on the scale needed to offset the drop in gasoline availability, will call for the restructuring of American industry. The talk of one of the big 3 US auto companies going out of business is getting quite old... reality will dictate one may exit business, but a better national strategy would be take whatever resources (facilities, people) that will result in the tragic end to a company, and re-engineer those resources towards rail.
So.... HSR, while being the sexiest of the rail topics, really is the caboose when it comes to what needs to be done.
One final thought - tokenism is the most common flaw when it comes to politics and public policy. What the US needs, to mitigate Peak Oil effects, is a dedicated effort at redesigning life in a mere couple of decades. This is a multi-trillion dollar effort spread over at least 3 decades. A large portion of that capital will be for transportation needs.
The US is not Japan, nor can it be, nor should it be. But there is something profound to be learnt from the Japanese on this matter: One should design the systems of modern living (in this case transportation) to fit the human requirements of life.
Hi In,
Thanks. You've put into categories some of my comments.
For example, another "foundational element" might be idea of passenger use, for example, the ability to plan a trip with multiple destinations, and some reasonable "off/on" options...overnight here, week there, etc.
This might go a long way towards user-friendly.
I also really like your idea of manufacturing.
Also, combine w. my question/idea about the primary electric sources for different regions of the country.
I also like your "caboose" analogy, because I agree that HSR is the least important.
Also, it seems we run into a difference of "class", in the sense of "wealth/income split" in the US. If you saw that NYT photo some months ago of private planes lined up for take off...the idea of what there is a market for, (in the sense that *someone* can pay, to wit, private jet flights), v. some policies that cover the bases for most people...Anyway, the idea being, the "redesigning" should (it seems) cover the needs of the majority of the populace.
Also, I like your idea of the
"This is a multi-trillion dollar effort spread over at least 3 decades. A large portion of that capital will be for transportation needs."
I would question the "three decades" (do we have it)? But, in any case, this also fits in with what beggar was saying about "common vision".
I like your list and am wondering if you can expand on this - the "...dedicated effort at redesigning life..."
An articulation of these and other of your ideas on this redesign effort (even as a starting point), might make a good guest article.
You hit upon my biggest complaint of rail, ie Amtrack in the US. What do you do at the end? You're stuck!
I've traveled cross country by rail several times, and tho the trip is relaxing to me, at the end, you need someone to meet you. All airports have rental agencies, bus and limo services, not so with even large populated coast rail destinations. Try to get off in Bofunk, Mt. or any of the little towns along the way.
We missed the HSR train long ago. The only place its even close is the Northeast. And the only time I ever used that our "slow" train to Philly was delayed because the high-speed Acela broke down and we were not allowed to pass it.
We should concentrate on our inter-urbans(here in Chicago the CTA is down to 5mph on too many sections)ala London. Light-rail running on existing commuter rail, connecting a half-dozen stations so bigger, faster commuter trains dont have to stop at every puny station would help.
In my area, I dont see the need to have HSR lines to Detroit, St.Louis, Milwaukee, or Indy. Although an extension to Madison with a connection at Ohare may make sense.
Bottom line is the bottom line. Where would the funding from this broke, penny-pinching(hoarding)country come from?
An HSR line from Minneapolis-Madison-Milwaukee(Billy Mitchell)-Chicago(O'Hare)-Chicago(Midway) has been on and off the planning board since the oldhippie was a little boy. At times there has even been appropriated funding. Minneapolis & Minnesota were willing to pick up the bulk of the tab to relieve the short-flight traffic at their unexpandable airport. Always the problem is the Mayor of Chicago and the Governor of Illinois don't want a big successful project that isn't their own baby. Financing or ridership never an issue. Parochialism and not one other thing prevents progress.
For that matter O'Hare was built on the premise there would be a high speed nonstop connector to Midway. The ROW for that connector still exists. The plan was never executed because Richard The First was getting nice wads of cash from the cab companies who were opposed. In practice there are damn few cab trips from one airport to the other. At most hours of the day the short trip is interminable by road. But it remains a given of Chicago politics-Cabs-graft-no connector.
The original plan was a very good plan. Regional flights from Midway, long flights from O'Hare. Often one airport is shut by weather and the other is fine. Should be ten minutes from one to the other, not 90.
For anyone who uses O'Hare -- Most do not know there is fast convenient light rail from O'Hare to downtown. Ask employees over and over until you find someone who knows, down the hidden stairs, through the blank doors and you get downtown quick for $2. Again, the cabs and cash.
Oh, yes, by all means, get your knickers in a twist about how awful the U.S. is ("penny-pinching, hoarding"). Great way to get people to listen to your message that a) energy is about to get a lot more dear; and b) you want our cash-strapped government to pony up ten billion or so to provide 250mph rail service (think Amtrak on speed).
Surely the Left has a few good ideas, but TOD is beginning to look more like DKos every day--and for most folks, that isn't exactly a compliment.
The expense of building high speed rail lines would be astronomical; Denver is building a light rail system, 119 miles of new rail lines for a price of 4.7 billion. That’s not for anything resembling high speed rail (top speed is 55mph for light rail)
I think aircraft would look much better in the fuel usage department if we were to slow them down a bit. A typical passenger jet at its 500mph plus cruise speed only uses about 10% of its energy to maintain flight; the other 90% is to overcome drag. If we just slow down, the fuel per passenger mile would improve. It would be interesting to compare the fuel costs per passenger mile of a 300mph train with that of a 300mph turboprop airliner. I would think the difference is not that great
Full disclosure here, I pent 20 years in the aircraft maintenance business, but now work for Denver’s light rail system! I’ve seen both ends of the debate
We don't need to pass laws to "slow down" airplanes. When costs get high enough, the airlines will do that themselves. Alternative ways to save fuel are nice, but we need to keep in mind what can be done automatically by the private sector and those that need government assistance.
Thanks, Roger,
re: "Denver is building a light rail system, 119 miles of new rail lines for a price of 4.7 billion."
Alan - ?
Denver is econd only to Miami for APPROVED AND FUNDED long range funds to transfrom their cities with Urban Rail. That cozy home for Kossaks and well known liberal center Salt Lake City is a close #3 IMO with Phoenix #4.
http://world.nycsubway.org/us/miami/miamiextmap.html
SLC is talking about tripling the tax dedicated to new Urban Rail in order to build out their 30 year plan faster. A major copper company is planning to build a new suburb centered around rail and New Urbanism concepts.
I have been involved in efforts to reduce the costs of building new Urban Rail lines. It CAN be done and NEEDS to be done.
But cutting the costs for. say, Denver by 20% would be a worthwhile accomplishment. Reduced gov't bureaucracy & reduced consulting fees are the #1 sources of savings (the two are related, much of consulting is to take care of FTA).
New Orleans does things different & better in many ways (we built 31 new streetcars in house for just $1.5 milion each, streetcars with an expected service life of 500 years).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thanks for answering, Alan.
re: "New Orleans does things different & better in many ways (we built 31 new streetcars in house for just $1.5 milion each, streetcars with an expected service life of 500 years)."
I believe this.
My Q is: how to spread the "different and better"?
Or, could you build the entire nation's streetcars there?
Why not convert 2 lanes of all existing interstate highways for use as the roadbed for the proposed national high speed passenger rail system? The interstate highway system will become obsolete if fuel prices rise sufficiently, or if shortages of diesel fuel and gasoline become a frequent occurrence. Based on information posted elsewhere on this site, that is fairly likely at some future point, whether in 2 years or 30. Highway utilization will also decrease sooner if we develop reasonable transportation alternatives, or with imposition of carbon emission restrictions in some form.
What would we do with huge areas of unused interstate highway pavement? Weathering takes its toll, and roads must be maintained or become unusable. Rising asphalt prices and other costs will become an increasing burden for financially strapped governments. Removal of pavement and base material, to allow reversion to woodland or farmland, would be difficult and costly.
If fuel prices increase, airline travel will also become increasingly expensive. At some level, many US airline travelers will begin to seek more efficient alternatives, even for long distances. HS rail service should therefore be planned and designed to serve not only the 100 - 300 mile inter-city traveler, but also to provide a realistic option for longer distances, even from coast to coast.
The interstate highway system connects virtually all major and medium-sized cities. Shifting all traffic to one side of an interstate highway would leave an entire side open for HS rail construction, without need to acquire any great amount of land for right of way. Any alternative involving purchase of all new right of way would be a task of monumental proportions and expense, or would severely diminish the extent of the system.
In my non-expert opinion, most interstate highways are designed with large-radius curves which would permit much greater speeds than current highway speed limits, especially for vehicles on rails. Two lanes of interstate highway should provide plenty of room for two tracks. Current interstate highway roadbed design might be adequate to support loads imposed by HS passenger and light freight service, with relatively little modification aside from track installation.
Use of interstate highway medians for HS rail has been previously proposed. Use of median space would create substantial risk of interaction with errant cars and trucks, with tragic consequences for a 200 mph train. Sturdy barriers would be needed on each side, or the tracks would need to be elevated above roadway level, either way a huge project. Replacement of numerous expensive overpasses, and construction of a new roadbed in the median, on which to lay track would also be required.
Could usefulness of interstate highways be maintained for current needs, with adoption of this proposal? Many interstate highways are wide enough, or nearly so, to allow 2 traffic lanes in each direction on a single side. In that case, existing overpasses might not require modification. One lane in each direction could also be made wider, with heavy trucks restricted to that lane. A physical barrier would be required, to divide vehicles traveling in opposite directions. Highway entrance and exit ramps would require redesign and reconstruction, which would often be problematic. Highway traffic would undoubtedly be somewhat disrupted during construction. Capacity of some highways might be permanently decreased.
An effective high speed passenger system for medium and longer distance transportation would also require coordination with slower light rail and other public transportation systems designed to make its use convenient, and to meet local travel needs. Long distance truck traffic can be diverted to the freight rail system.
A high speed passenger rail network to replace part of our current interstate highway system might be a good trade-off, and should be carefully studied. It might allow creation of a very efficient and comprehensive system, designed to meet longer-distance travel needs, to be built in far less time, and at less expense, than would be required for any other nationwide model. We may no longer need the extra highway lanes in the future anyway.
Converting Interstate highways to rail will only happen DEEP into post-Peak Oil. And freight (think food & jobs) will be the priority with passenger service as a nice extra IMHO.
Let us build much more rail in the near future, before we get to that extremity.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Depending on the topography, new high speed rail lines require huge amounts of earthwork and many tunnels. Minimum radius for horizontal alignments is 7,000 m. Once diesel supplies after peak oil shrink, where will the fuel come from to drive all the construction machinery? We would need to scrap or scale down other (unnecessary) projects to accumulate fuel savings to do that. Or reduce operational fuel consumption elsewhere. Legislation would be needed to redirect fuel supplies to rail projects.
Short haul flights, which will have to be replaced by rail - whether high speed or not - are doomed anyway, due to peak oil or CO2 reduction measures. So may be that area would be the best where to take the savings from.
The more you look into the practicalities of being forced by nature to reduce fuel consumption and at the same time INVEST more energy in rail projects, renewable energy systems, geo-sequestration of CO2 etc. the more you would have to agree with Richard Heinberg's Power Down, at least temporarily.
So we are in a real dilemma here, even if political will were there. National planning would have to be done to identify which rail projects:
(1) would justify a VFT service (reasonable travel times connecting million plus cities)
(2) alternatively just be an upgrade (electrification, straightening of alignments, duplication or quadruplication of track, removal of dangerous crossings, new bridges)
(3) will generate the highest energy savings per economically necessary passenger Km
(4) for longer distances would best be an electric night train service
(5) make sense in a stage wise long term program
(6) and can still be completed in time before fuel shortages will stall or slow down their implementation
The same applies to new metro tunnel projects in urban areas. There, it is better to start right away with building less energy intensive light rail systems, which can be implemented faster and cheaper, opened section by section and immediately put into operation. We can use car lanes on freeways and major roads which will become vacant after peak oil anyway. Look at what Transperth is doing in Western Australia: they are building rail lines on freeways:
http://www.answers.com/topic/transperth
Another option would be that OECD governments with domestic oil supplies now enact legislation to set aside oil fields for future use in rail and other CO2 reduction projects. Crude oil has already peaked in 2005 or is on a bumpy production plateau. Reserving oil fields would be equivalent to artificially induce peak oil prematurely, at a time when production is still flat or geological decline rates are still modest and can be accommodated by the economy. A "planned peak oil" would be better for managing the future than waiting for events to unfold.
France is a unique example even in Europe due its centralized planning powers. There are no States and the 100 odd districts have almost no say. Paris decides and the VFT line is built. They are lucky they have the system in place when peak oil hits. But whether the high speeds can be maintained when energy consumption will have to be reduced, even when power comes from nuclear as in France, is another question.
I really don't know what to think about this whole Energize America business.
On the one hand, I would like to live in the bright shiny kumbaya future it strives for.
I would like to believe that a little federally mandated initiative, coupled with some technical innovations, will produce a world were Ipods, laptops and the Internet will still be around.
On the other hand, I remember the seventies, I followed the alternate energy boom and bust. I watched all the widely touted technical developments fade to pipe dreams. I also work for the federal government, and have personally experienced it's politically driving insanity.
I understand the need for people to feel in control of their destiny by pursuing an agenda, but the reality is that fossil fuel is a highly concentrated source of energy, with no comparable replacement available.
The real future will probably look like post soviet Cuba and North Korea, where draft animals are reintroduced on farms and hunger is present on a daily basis. This all seems like a society working its way through the five stages of grief, and is now in stage 3, “BARGAINING”.
Bitteroldcoot, I think about the stages of grief related to Peak Oil awareness almost every day.
I think that you are on to something here.
Many people are still inexplicably unaware, and so do not understand the present or future in terms which include the significance of Peak Oil. This seems to be a kind of intentional ignorance or coping mechanism when faced with the unthinkable -- life without cheap, reliable, abundant, and growing supplies of energy. (I guess that's Denial.)
Some people are Angry and looking for someone to blame. War seems like a good idea to many of these people.
Some people are depressed and sad -- what can be done, after all? The difference between the way the world is and the way we suppose it could be is so great that there is no getting from "As It Is" to "As It Could/Should Be."
The Bargaining phase is the worst for me in that every politician is looking for quick easy fixes and a program to hand out money to potentially large donors in the next election. And every corporation around wants in on the action.
Furthermore, the "Iron Triangle" wants to keep the pyramid scheme of more debt, more McMansions, more and bigger cars and SUVs, and more stuff, more consumption in general. So the system is rigged to find glitzy solutions which "fix" our problem without changing our personal comfort bubbles as we know and love them.
As E. O. Wilson wrote recently, we have designed for ourselves an artificial environment which prevents us from seeing our relationship with the real environment, and within which we are so comfortable that we will cling to it even as we destroy the planet to sustain this artificial cocoon.
dKos and the Democrats are every bit as much a part of "The Establishment" as the Republicans and NeoCons are. The plans made are political plans to capture political control. This may be well-motivated -- just as many NeoCons think that the Plan for a New American Century is well-motivated.
Local changes to live within the real environment may be more effective than the high-tech stuff, given that today's political Establishment is thoroughly committed to a Resource War.
Increasingly, we see the USA political Establishment is bound to the "Last Man Standing" approach to killing anyone necessary to maintain the artificial environment we have made for our own comfort.
As I've reflected on this thread today, I believe that people in political circles are clueless about the ecological tsunami that is about to hit.
The "technomagic" fixes reflect a strong committment to the idea that the status quo will continue in our country, if only we build enough high-tech stuff. An attractive idea.
This commitment to "Technomagic" in politics reflects our combination of "Stone Age emotions, a Medieval self image, and godlike technology."
We insist on excluding from discussion key issues related to our survival: overpopulation, overconsumption, resource depletion, global climate change, massive anthropogenic species die off, and other impacts of our "successful" species on our environment.
I also think that we must all "Bloom where we are planted."
So if you really believe in HSR, who am I to rain on your parade? Simply note that I think we must get our priorities straight: radical reduction in consumption is not optional. Radical redesign of loacal human settlement patterns may be more needed than high-speed transport to keep the status quo going for a bit longer.
Who knows what mix of efforts will bring about great positive changes? I tend to think that many tiny local changes are crucial, while these big fixes perpetuate the over-consumption paradigm we are familiar with.
I'd be interested in knowing how those who propose the HSR project feel about the notion that this project is a part of our bargaining to keep things the same when we really need to move on to focus on accepting the need for radical and personal and local change.
I think too many people throw labels around here, and spend time discussing philosophical questions, when what we need is concrete action. Things change, that is how life works. A hundred years ago there was no interstate highway system, and there very well may not be one in another hundred years.
American culture of today is nothing like American culture of 100 years ago, and also quite removed from the America of 50 years ago. Things will be different in 50 years too. These things will occur regardless of government legislation.
I say let's not waste time dwelling on concerns about the "establishment" and instead concentrate on a vision of the future. That vision need not be constrained by the limitations of our current culture, but should rather focus on our best estimation of what will work.
We actually have a lot of time to deal with Peak Oil. Even after oil peaks, we've got a couple of decades of slow declines post peak to make adaptations. As big oil loves to remind us, oil is in no danger of running out any time soon (even using the most aggressive decline rates oil doesn't "run out" for quite some time). Over this period, people will naturally adapt to the changes, including such things as reducing consumption. We don't need to legislate that stuff.
Could things end up being worse than that? I suppose so. Between global warming, peak oil, antibiotic resistant bacteria and the avian flu, 99% of the human population could be wiped out. But we gain nothing by assuming the worst scenario and then sitting around worrying about it. There is no advantage to knowing about Peak Oil (or any other problem) if it means you end up being paralyzed by pessimism. It's also more constructive to devote time to thinking about what we can do, rather than focusing on what we can't do.
I pretty much agree with what both of you have said, but the political reality is that America wants a “palatable plan”. Something that will not rattle their world view to much, while acknowledging that there is a problem. Kos/EA is trying to fill that void, partially for political reasons and partially for sincere reasons. Just as Iraq is the right wing response to the problem (steal the oil).
I feel I should make some kind of positive suggestion rather than just point out how silly and futile the current efforts are.
So here is a half formed thought, how about taking the “Community Continuity of Power Act (CCPA)”and make it more of a “Doomer” act?
If you take the cold, hard reality, of what is the worst case scenario, what would be a realistic thing for the country and federal government to do at this point in time? Maintain diverse supply of seeds for urban gardening, along with pamphlets on organic gardening? Require all landscaping plants be edible or food producing? Promote the 100 miles diet? Something dealing with solar stills/pasteurizers for water supply? Solar cookers for food preparation? Teach people how to make small sail boats for fishing? Much of this could be sold as a way for people to deal with natural disasters without waiting for FEMA to shuffle its paperwork.
The ironic thing is, that much of this is being promoted by first world charity organizations, as solutions for some the third worlds current problems.
To have a plan in place (when things go to hell), so that the politicians can just say, “activate plan Z”. Would probably be useful.
Now it would have to be phrased in politically palatable way, but with a tie in to Katrina, it may be possible to do something.
Hi Bitter,
Thanks for your post.
re: "Much of this could be sold as a way for people to deal with natural disasters without waiting for FEMA to shuffle its paperwork."
I've posted this a few times (went for 4 yesterday)...just to say...if you read through the newsletters, and look at some of the details, including how other organizations build on this work, you may see why I think it's some of the best "post-peak" organizing going on...however inadvertently. It is exactly as you say - "...sold as a way for people to deal with natural disasters...". Funny thing is - there's no selling required with this model.
http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=541
What the US needs, to mitigate Peak Oil effects, is a dedicated effort at redesigning life in a mere couple of decades. -- InJapan
This is a great thread, thanks to all.
High Speed Rail (HSR) entirely misses the point of peak oil, IMO. We are about to be coerced into slowing down, to go about our lives at the enforced moderate pace of most of the rest of the world, to survive some years of negative economic growth as the energy subsidy subsides, and all this while the weather is turning from clement to unmerciful. Our “non-negotiable Way of Life,” everything from traveling to copying, will slow. And we will come to chew our food longer, to get the benefit.
Fast trains are nonsense pork for the elites.
How about improving the "slow trains" and "300 mile" and under routes? the "slow trains" (Amtrak) improved would be a gargantuan improvement, even today. And gain riders, I believe.
Is this slow enough for you?:
http://home.att.net/~s9anyarchive/7041DPP_P.JPG
That is a recent image of an old trolley line in one of Japan's major cities. That street is much quieter these days compared to its heyday, though that image was taken on an off day so it was quieter than usual. That line has been operating since before WWII, and indeed some of the cars are still wooden!!!! Japan loves its automobiles and streetcars have faded, though I can see in a few decades where that quiet street may find a second life.
For all the glories of the Shinkansen, the above image illustrates the underlying truth to rail in Japan - it is needed because it is practical, not sexy.
Unfortunately, probably due to Hollywood, Miss America Pageant, and blue jeans billboards, the world thinks something is good only if it is sexy (in the current discussion HSR.) But life demands more than sexiness.
"Is this slow enough for you?": (photo of trolley)
Yes, exactly.
This way of movement is more interesting and civilized, as opposed to the air-killing anonymous motorized wheelchair. Driving a car-box is rapidly becoming an uncivil act. (Disclosure: I own one. Also a three-wheeled recumbent bicycle; happily today is a warm sunny day).
IIRC, the max speed for a highball freight on the old Great Northern and Northern Pacific railways used to be 88 mph. That’s fast enough.
Milan still runs exquisite many-windowed trolley cars, made mostly of varnished wood and built eighty years ago. There’s even one in Santa Clara:
http://www.ctrc.org/projects/trolleys-and-trolleybarn/1928-milan-trolley...
I live 2.5 blocks from the world's oldest urban rail line (St. Charles, operating since 1834/35) and hope that it has reopened by my return and I can once again ride the 1923/24 Perley Thomas streetcars (the world's oldest operating fleet).
http://www.inetours.com/New_Orleans/images/StChrls/Streetcar_ext.jpg
Best Hopes for their return to St. Charles,
Alan
The Canal & Riverfront streetcars drowned, but not the St. Charles. so we are operating the old St. Charles streetcars on Canal & Riverfront Lines whilst the St. Charles Line is repaired. Power comes from an old DC rectifier we borrowed from Boston until new ones can replace the drowned ones.
Just looking at that picture I'd say that car is loved and cherished rather than maintained. A destination in itself.
Train buffs all seem to have the spirit that photo shows. Let train buffs run Amtrak.
While I have no specialized expertise in this area I do have some personal experience. There is no good way to travel the NE corridor (Boston-NY-DC). By car is crowded and can turn into a nightmare of traffic and delays if one encounters an accident or construction. Rail is expensive, often crowded, often delayed and with little emphasis on comfort. Air is, well it doesn't even deserve comment. The NE corridor is crying out for HSR and it has been talked about numerous times in the past. The half-hearted Acela is hardly an improvement. I suspect there are other corridors with similar problems, but the NE corridor would make certainly make a big bang for the buck. People don't want to fly and they don't want to drive but rail service stinks, its a shame.
There is little political will at the moment to improve rail travel, however, rail is more efficient and will be more resilient to oil price increases. If oil goes up demand for rail will increase and so it is good to be out in front of this issue. As regards getting this done, I don't think it would be a huge sacrifice to have dedicated passenger lines between major cities. In the middle of the Great Depression, in the middle of a dessert we built what was at the time the largest dam in the world, i.e. Hoover. Now with the world's largest, and currently expanding economy, we can't spring for a decent rail service? As we are addicted to oil and concerned about CO2 emissions rail travel can be seen as both patriotic and globally and environmentally responsible (i.e selling points).
That said, with notable exceptions, the US, usually doesn't do as well as Europe in large government initiatives, take, oh say, Amtrack for example. Whether, because of a simple lack of funding or politicalization or some other reason, Amtrack has a bad reputation which might initially hinder rider uptake. Now here, I'm possibly a bit out of my depth, but I would wonder if the government owned the tracks could they sell rights of way to private companies for providing the services. Put another way, which would you likely prefer to travel on the Amtrack Acela or the the Virgin Atlantic New Yorker?
Probably more important than the precise date of PO is the slope of the downslope. There are far more variables to consider then predicting the timing of PO and I'm not sure anyone has a clear picture of it; the decisions we make will affect the shape of this slope. Displacing a significant portion of air/car travel between major metropolitan cities doesn't strike me as insignificant. Just be sure to lay the tracks about 15 miles inland of the cities -- joking, joking.
I would strongly recommend including language noting that the airports in many of the targetted regions (California for one) are running near capacity and are expected to not be able to meet future capacity needs. High speed rail could serve as an alternative to attempting to increase airport capacity, which requires expensive expansion projects.
Don't promote HSR only based on the merits of CO2 reduction and energy independence, also cite other factors like the one I just mentioned. This will make it easier to generate support even from peak oil skeptics.
Similarly, promotion of light rail should also be done with references to traffic congestion and the difficulty of constantly expanding high way systems. We can be more effective if we make arguments beyond merely the energy facet (not withstanding whether or not we believe that those arguments are irrelevant due to peak oil, others don't believe that and those are the ones we need to convince).
I had to register to comment on this article. I agree completely with the spirit, but the practicality of the matter is quite different.
First, if you want a dependable train system, you will have to make significant structural changes. I can't believe no one commented on this yet, but trains in the United States are designed to sustain collisions at much higher speeds than in Europe or Japan. As a result, they weigh a lot more - which is one of the reasons why Acela always breaks down (my understanding is that Bombardier could not properly compensate for the extreme weight of the cars - the technology being more or less the same as in the TGV). "Safety at any cost" is the culprit here; can you honestly tell me there is any way to sell Americans on something less "safe"?
Second, the track (as mentioned previously) is not owned by Amtrak. Even if they want to make upgrades to parts of the track, they cannot - and this leads to a lot of wrangling and other stupidity. These sorts of inefficiencies generally require billions of dollars to overcome (or state-sponsored intimidation).
Finally, train travel is a communal form of transport. I've traveled far and wide by train, and consider it the best form of transport by far. However, try telling that to Suburban Joe Blow, who never talks to his neighbour and lives his life pretending other people don't exist. It is one thing for him to take the subway here and there - that is a 10-15 minute trip. Try making him spend 3-4 hours in a train (or God forbid, a whole day) and he will be too far out of his "comfort zone" to cope.
Until you confront the practical physical limitations of high speed rail, and the resulting changes to the culture of your great nation, I do not foresee it ever catching on in congress.
American trains are not heavier because of safety considerations only. The main difference is that in the US the axle load limit of the track is usually 30 metric tons/axle, vs. typically 22.5 tons/axle in the EU. That allows heavier cargoes, and heavier locomotives able to produce more tractive effort.
The archaic 800,000 lb buff strength required by the FRA does add significantly to rail car weight vs. EU & Japanese standards. The EU & Japanese use crumple zones (like modern automobiles) and sacrifice those seated close to the bulkhead; but overall fatalities would be arguably lower. Certainly lighter & cheaper, a difference in safety design philosophy.
Acela is an engineering abortion. The inventor of the tilting trains withdrew from the competition once the implications of the extra weight became clear. David Gunn, the best President Amtrak ever had, did not like the Acela at all.
Alan
I agree completely the 800,000 lb buff strength requirement is archaic and holding us back.
Isn't the answer then to create dedicated passenger tracks (like this proposed act calls for) that need not be FRA-compliant. check out what Caltrain is proposing the their 2025 plan www.caltrain.com to go FRA non-compliant. This is part of the process of getting ready to become part of the CA HSR system.
Brian
I have followed the non-FRA try by CalTrain and ALL transit will benefit if you succeed. Informed observers are pessimistic though (FRA is an entrenched & hidebound bureaucracy).
Does CA HSR have FRA agreement to go non-FRA ? Or it that still pending on a hope ?
Best Hopes for enlightened bureaucracy,
Alan
Thanks for the correction; I didn't know about the buff strength thing.
As an aside, it does seems that modern European trains are quite sturdy. See e.g. the recent crash in the UK when a Pendolino derailed at 95 mph, with only one person dying.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6391633.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6392935.stm
The extra weight issue is one very big reason that separate tracks for passenger trains are needed. Just like the bill advocates.
As for the idea that Americans are willing to be jammed into assigned economy air seats for hours at a time unwilling to ride a train for 2-4 hours is ridiculous. According to such logic "communal" air travel could not exist, but it does. The train seats are bigger, and you can switch seats, or go to the bar car and drink up, if than is what one needs.
If it takes all day to go less than 400 miles, it's not High speed rail.
Semi-HSR with just a few stops will take just over 4 hours to go 400 miles. This will get a decent % of the modal split. Especially if pax can step onto an Urban Rails system once there.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi drifter,
Thanks for your comments.
re: " Finally, train travel is a communal form of transport. I've traveled far and wide by train, and consider it the best form of transport by far. However, try telling that to Suburban Joe Blow, who never talks to his neighbour and lives his life pretending other people don't exist. It is one thing for him to take the subway here and there - that is a 10-15 minute trip. Try making him spend 3-4 hours in a train (or God forbid, a whole day) and he will be too far out of his "comfort zone" to cope."
You know, it's interesting...the bus ridership, for example. Who takes buses?
My categories of persons for whom the train would be a welcome option:
1) Older persons who can no longer drive. (Or, who don't want to.) It's comfortable, they can move about, etc. This is a growing segment of the population.
2) Parents w. children, esp. if only one parent and multiple children. Same movement issue. The demographic of single parents (usually Moms) is quite high, isn't it?
3) Students.
4) People who do not own cars. (Look at the car rental business - it's interesting to look at very small,local companies, who mostly cater to those w/out cars wishing to do all their shopping in one day).
5) People who hate to fly.
6) People who used to like to fly but no longer enjoy it.
In fact, perhaps train discounts could be part of a bus ridership promotion.
Among the people who typically do not own cars are recent immigrants.
You know...in a drumbeat thread a while back (I need a notebook if I want to keep track of things)...someone mentioned watching the number of times people leave their McMansions in SUVs from (I must add "boring") suburban neighborhoods - just for a quick trip to the store, etc.
Between that and the amount of time people (esp. young people) spend yakking on their cell phones...my view is the desire for "commununal" engagement is high. People don't know how to fill it, perhaps. Still, the need is basic.
$3 Billion a year is not enough. The current California system proposal (to be on the ballot in 2008 if Gov. Schwarzenegger doesn't kill it) will cost at least $42 billion to build out. Even at a 60/40 split that would suck up the entire amount for some eight+ years.
A more realistic amount is $5 billion a year with a 75/25 split or 80/20 split. Add to that an extra $3 billion a year in transit "New Start" money to build all the connecting light rail, commuter rail and BRT transit projects that are still waiting in line for federal funds. If we properly funds connecting transit the whole "but you need a car" question goes away.
For those that question the economics of HSR just study the numbers coming from the CA High Speed Rail Authority at http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ Their ridership projections just increased around 70%+ and revenue 100%+.
Also over ten countries have implemented HSR, with success in every country, not just Japan and France. Mexico and Argentine are putting out bids in HSR projects now and will build lines before the US under the best of circumstances.
The greatest thing about HSR is that it will be such an economic attraction it will create its own transit-oriented development around it, and the political will among local elites to build a transit system THEY would ride to access it conveniently.
I quite agree that $3 billion/year will do nothing for HSR in the US. Absurbly low ! (It could pay for the highest priority single project on the NEC, a new tunnel underneath Baltimore, saving minutes, in a year +).
How did EA come up with such #s !?!
OTOH, the already electrified Harrisburg-Philadelphia line (104 miles) was speeded up from 2 hours to 90 minutes (express, 105 minutes local) by rebuilding 25 miles to 110 mph and about 20 miles to 75 to 90 mph for $145 million (a couple of weeks funding @ $3 billion/year).
California HSR, per my understanding, is expected to cost over $60 billion. And that is before expected cost overruns (the agency is "low balling" cost estimates is what I have heard).
Their ridership projections just increased around 70%+ and revenue 100%+
Sounds like revised & improved paperwork to impress the voters. I question this revisions relationship with reality. What has changed in California to justify such increases ?
The greatest thing about HSR is that it will be such an economic attraction it will create its own transit-oriented development around it
I REALLY question the TOD effects for long distance travel !
Urban Rail TOD is well proven and happens in most but not all cases (lack of TOD around VERY busy LA Blue Line is puzzling).
Several CA based transit advocates & experts that I know are dubious of CA HSR. NONE are enthusiastic about it, and some are quite critical (these are people that spend enourmous time & energy promoting mass transit BTW, one spent decades to get the Expo Line half built, etc.)
CA HSR will absorb public transit funding that would be FAR better spent on things like LA's Red Line to the Sea (or at least UCLA), BART to San Jose, innumerable other rail projects in LA (downtown connector at the top of the list), more rail in Sacramento, San Jose (despite their poor operations), San Diego, CalTrain (including electrification), eBart and maybe Orange County even.
California is in DESPERATE need for more freight rail capacity and CA HSR will do nothing for freight except take up ROW that could have gone to freight later.
California is an ideal place to build semi-HSR (110 to 125 mph from SF to LA to San Diego with spurs from LA to Phoenix and to Sacramento). Shipping out fruits & veggies alone at 100 mph could pay for a much cheaper system.
I would advise all to vote against CA HSR (as will many transit advocates)
Best Hopes,
Alan
Alan with all due respect your arguments are misguided
1. There is no competition between HSR and local transit for funds. Right now, in Sacramento Gov. Schwarzenegger is trying to steal $1.1 Billion from transit. $1 Billion form local transit and $100 million from HSR. The enemies of transit see that both are part of the same system. Why not fund more of both? The U.S. Federal government currently spends over $30 billion a year on highway widening. $5 billion for rail is nothing. It can be funded along with MORE for local transit, that is what I proposed.
Or should we start arguing intercity rail, vs. intracity rail, vs. bus while the highway lobby laughs at us all the way to the bank?
2. The current estimate is between $42-$47 billion. It may go up as the state delays taking action but that is expected. The authority warned years ago that every year of delay costs $2 billion. Stop using anti-transit talking-point nonsense about transit projects ALWAYS being over budget (versus the implited no problems with freeway projects).
3. Caltrain electrification is being jointly planned with HSR. I am a board member of BayRail Alliance, a group that has been lobbying for electrification for years. Without HSR I doubt it would be happening at the same pace, if at all.
4. Roger from Friends for Expo is a BIG supporter of HSR and we may be working together soon on a joint campaign for HSR funding. Talk to him if you are involved with Friends for Expo.
5. No train system can connect Northern and Southern California without a new tunnel across the Tehachapi Mountains. That is a multi billion dollar investment. The HSR system will run light express freight trains at night too. So it will help with light weight express freight.
6. The only way to beat airlines from SF Bay to LA is at 200 mph + otherwise travel times go beyond 3 hours and you never get the ridership.
1. Wrong, the $60 billion or so of bonds issued for CA HSR will severely inhibit CA from funding BADLY needed Urban rail projects in CA, and these bonds will exist for 30 years. This is a long term and MAJOR hurdle to other projects for the next half dozen governers for a project of marginal value. You appeal to solidarity is misplaced, because CA HSR will absorb state funding for transit for decades and be worse than the road lobby.
And yes, CA needs to build Urban rail FIRST ! And the Urban Rail projects that you could build for $42 or $60 billion would be of MUCH more value Post-Peak Oil as In Japan clearly showed, HSR with auto only feeders is at a major disadvantage.
2. The word I get is that CA HSR cost estimates are being low balled. And New Orleans built the 5 mile Canal Streetcar Line (30 K pax) for $150 milliom; $10 million under budget. I just completed a budgetary cost estimate for the Desire and Elysian Fields Streetcar Lines (almost 8 miles total) for $201 million before contingency.
3. My information is that two are not linked except on planned ROW for CA HSR but you are closer to the ground than I. After CA HSR breaks ground, there will be no $ for any more.
4. I hosted in New Orleans the "Father of Expo" and his wife, but I have no other connection. (I am hosting the Father of Baltimore's Light Rail for Jazz Fest :-)
Roger Christensen ?
5. One tunnel is not enough. I am unaware that CA HSR will share almost all of it's ROW with light and medium express freight trains. If so, let me know.
6. This is the crux of the matter, the Holy Grail of CA HSR support. Logically, not worth the added cost to do.
Most of your traffic will NOT be LA to SF, but a wide mixture of other city pairs. Bakersfield to SF, San Bernadindo to San Diego.
JUST GIVE UP THIS HOLY GRAIL (you will still get about 10% to 15% of the modal share @ 110 mph). This market is NOT worth the additional cost AND giving up freight rail service.
Also, no provision is made for a link to Phoenix (unused UP ROW begging for use). Worth doing just to feed fruit & veggies into Phoenix Metro area (and containers from LA/LB Port), with pax service as a VERY nice bonus.
Today, most containers and food are trucked into Phoenix.
Again, I would advise voting against CA HSR. TOO much money for a marginal project.
Best Hopes for Urban Rail First,
Alan
1. Its $9 billion for HSR and $1 billion for local connecting transit in the bond. Those are the numbers and the have been that way since 2002.
We are spending $3 billion a week in Iraq and you don't know where the Feds can get $30 billion to help build HSR in California? If not, reread the first part of the previous sentence.
The Governator just got a bond a bond passed that would give transit $4 billion over 30 years. So his budget guts $1 billion from transit this year, and $1 billion every year into the future. Do you like that trade? You think HSR is transit's enemy instead of the Governator?
2. You are comparing apples and oranges. Show me numbers for tracks between cities, not inner city middle of the street construction. I believe its $2 million a mile in the countryside.
3. They are completely linked. If only Metrolink would get its head out of its bu-- and realize how HSR could help it as much, even more the Caltrain. Imagine an electrified Metrolink rapid transit rail system with EMUs.
4. It's Roger Rudick
5. The tunnels will be double track (or two single track tunnels). The entire system is designed to allow express package cars as part of the passenger trains and light axle weight express freights at night.
6. The same high speed are necessary for all the trip times Bakersfield to LA (1 hour), San Bernardino to San Diego (less than 1 hour) the high speeds across the Central Valley are not the cost driver, the tunneling and grade-separations is. Since those tunnels and grade separations cost as much for a slower train you are not magically saving a huge amount of money anywhere.
You want HSR to Phoenix? Let get started planning for that! The night time express freight economics would probably be great.
Hi again, East,
Just a quick comment:
re; "We are spending $3 billion a week in Iraq and you don't know where the Feds can get $30 billion to help build HSR in California?"
Okay, how do we divert funds from Iraq to something that saves oil and lives? Really.
Do you suppose the two (less on Iraq, more on US transit) can be tied? If so, how?
And...is that $3 Billion in Iraq a *real* $3 Billion - or is it debt?
Start calling your congress people. If they don't agree with you get active to replace them in the primary or general election next year. If they still want to drag the Iraq occupation on forever that will be a rather easy task in '08. :)
Brian
Hi East,
Thanks for posting.
re: "6. The only way to beat airlines from SF Bay to LA is at 200 mph + otherwise travel times go beyond 3 hours and you never get the ridership."
It's the time between points that gets ridership? I'd say, it's the getting to/from the airport, etc. I see a whole lot of "pent-up demand" for rail along the CA coast. Just taking travel between the major UC schools as an example.
A good test would be to "fix AMTRAK first", and see what happens.
Re: travel time it is the door-to-door time but since aircraft ca do SFO-LAX or OAK-LAX in 40-60 minutes a train needs to do downtown to downtown in under 3hrs. to be competitive. The CA HSR plan that have beeen studied for 10+ years and will be on the ballot can do SF-LA in 2:30 which is a stretch time wise but competitive. Alan's semi-HSR (for which he has given no numbers) would not be.
SF-LA is not important for the number of riders (shorter trips and commute service on the line will carry more people) it is important for profits. The train operator can pay for the trains and operations and make money carrying higher priced business travelers on that trip.
As for "fix Amtrak first" we did that already in California. There are Oakland to LA trip throughout the day with a regular train it takes 6 hours to Bakersfield and 2 hours by bus to LA. Almost no one uses it compared to I-5 and route 99. We need great speed and frequency.
Brian
Being competitive with SFO-LAX (or OAK-BUR or ...) is an Idea Fixe of the CA HSR plan. It is the central concept that all else revolves around. And they may get 1/2 of this market (I think less tha 50%, since Urban Rail in LA is so minimal)
No other alternatives were seriously considered. ONLY "how can we compete with SFO-LAX" !
IMHO, this market (50% instead of, say, 15%) is not worth the additional marginal cost (capital + operating) of higher speeds AND IGNORING THE MEDIUM DENSITY FREIGHT MARKET !
None of the California transit activists I know are keen on CA HSR and are deeply torn on whether to vote for it or not.
A better profit center (more social utility & energy savings. especially post-Peak Oil) is the medium density market of central California fruits & veggies which CA HSR ignores but that semi-HSR could focus on.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Brian, (and again, thanks...)
As far as the West Coast...I've heard Amtrak has recently improved some. The thing is...I don't know details and will it last?
Highway 101 is filled w. cars going LA to SF and points in between. The Amtrak coming south used to be (perhaps still is - I don't know, as people I know who used to take it are doing "anything else") between 3 and 12 hours late, etc.
I'd say the SF-SLO-SB-Ventura -TO-Valley-LA route - LA-San Diego ... What about all the 101 traffic? Plus, there are commuters.
One of my "example cases" (in one of the categories I posted about potential ridership), will not take Amtrak only to be put on a bus! (They say: If they wanted a bus, they'd take a bus in the first place. Said person cannot work on a bus, but can work on a train.)
So, just to say, I'm not at all convinced Amtrak is "fixed" , even in part. For it to be convincingly fixed, and get riders, I'm more in favor of a "national make-over" w. management, perhaps even name-change (contests!), etc.
(That's my opinion...but talk is "cheap" :)) Ifyou have any comments or observations, I'd welcome hearing them.
Also, who's the "we"? as in "we already did that..."?
1) How did you do it?
2) What do you think about the Amtrak reputation/i.e., public confidence and management issues?
Hi EastBay,
Thanks for your comments and for having a back-and-forth w. Alan. A couple more qs:
re: "1. There is no competition between HSR and local transit for funds. Right now, in Sacramento Gov. Schwarzenegger is trying to steal $1.1 Billion from transit. $1 Billion form local transit and $100 million from HSR. The enemies of transit see that both are part of the same system."
I'm wondering, (though not having the experience you have w. lobbyists, etc)...
Still, it seems to me that a bill to "Fix CA Amtrak" would gain public support. It also seems to me something of a contradiction - to be seen the way "enemies of transit" see "us". (Because meshing HSR and local transit is what "enemies" do - we must do the same?)
It seems to me a step-wise, separated approach might work.
I also wonder if anything will work absent some education about the "big picture" - we're up against PO, GCC, a shrinking economy...What do you think?
re: "3. Caltrain electrification is being jointly planned with HSR. I am a board member of BayRail Alliance, a group that has been lobbying for electrification for years. Without HSR I doubt it would be happening at the same pace, if at all."
1) Re: "I doubt it would be happening at the same pace, if at all."
Why is this, do you suppose?
2) Re: I've mentioned electrification. I like that your doing joint planning, though I wonder about doing it in conjunction w. HSR, as opposed to something less costly, to start.
Is there a reason you are choosing to tie it to HSR in particular?
3) Re: Electrification. This seems to be such a crux of the issue, from the PO perspective. It sounds great you've given some thought to this.
A) So...What about, though (as I tried to state elsewhere), the production source?
I believe a tie-in to strict renewables would be voter-friendly (I don't know about lobbyists.) What do you think?
B)) Have you read much (you probably have) about North American natural gas peaking? And the relationship of this to electricity generation in CA?
Does this concern you?
It concerns me.
I'm also concerned about inadvertently creating a solution that may or may not exacerbate the problem, in terms of electricity production and demand. Does my concern make sense to you?
The below data is based on the 2000 ridership projections from the CA High Speed Rail Authority. This month they released updated projections with a 70%+ increase in projected ridership. http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ All of the ridership related benefits should be increased by the same amounts. If anyone has questions please email me at brian.stankievich AT the domain gmail.com.
Benefits of High Speed Rail
The proposed California High Speed Rail (CAHSR) system has been developed through over ten years of study. It has been evaluated by state and federal government agencies and a number of non-governmental research institutions. The benefits of the CAHSR fall into three broad categories: transportation, safety, air pollution, economic development, and land use.
Transportation:
The proposed CAHSR system will have the capacity to carry approximately 116 million passengers annually.1 By 2020 the system is projected to carry between 32 and 58 million inter-regional travelers yearly, reducing congestion on I-5 and 99 and at airports.2 Commute services provided by the system are projected to carry over 10 million commuters yearly, reducing regional congestion in key corridors in the greater Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, and San Diego metropolitan areas.3
Safety:
The high levels of safety provided by high speed rail systems will potentially save hundreds of lives a year by shifting millions of trips a year off highways and local roads, reducing traffic fatalities.4
Air Pollution:
Government agencies and independent researchers have projected the the CAHSR system will reduce greenhouse gas emissions between 1.45 – 2.25 million tons a year as travelers switch from driving or flying to High Speed Rail.6
Economic Development:
Construction of the CAHSR system is projected to cost between 33 and 37 billion dollars. Compared to equivalent highway & airport expansions needed to meet projected 2020 demand at $82 billion dollars, it will save he the state approximately 45 billion dollars.7 Further the construction and operation of the CAHSR system will increase employment in the state by 450,000 by 2035.8
Land Use:
Because of the land efficient nature of high speed rail systems and its diversion of trips from highways and airports the construction of the California is projected to save 2,600 acres from being paved over for highway and airport expansions.9 Substantial additional saving of undeveloped land are likely as most the proposed stations are located in existing downtowns. This will assist local efforts at smart growth and economic development by promoting economic revitalization and transit-oriented development around downtown stations throughout the state.
1 “Highlights of the Final Program California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS” p. 1, California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration
2 “Building a High-Speed Train System for California” 3.0 Ridership and Revenue p. 30, California High-Speed Rail Authority
3 “Building a High-Speed Train System for California” 3.0 Ridership and Revenue p. 29, California High-Speed Rail Authority
4 “California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS” Page S-12, California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration
5 “California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS” Page 3.3-25, California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration
6 High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S., p. B-4, Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology
7 “California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS” Page S-4–S-5 , California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration
8 “Highlights of the Final Program California High-Speed Train Program EIR/EIS” p. 4, California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration
9 ibid.
Please advise source of the passenger-mile data in this posting. According to Table 2.10 in the 25th edition of Transportation Energy Data Book, energy intensities in Btu per passenger-mile for various travel modes were as follows (2003 data):
Cars = 3,549
Personal trucks = 4,008
Certified route air = 3,587
Intercity rail = 2,935
Transit rail = 3,228
Commuter rail = 2,751
Obviously these differences are far smaller than the tenfold differences cited in "Background" for the "High Speed Passenger Rail Act" - i.e. cars = 45 passenger-miles per gallon versus 300-500 for trains.
Am I missing something? Or are all forms of travel that entail moving at high speeds in climate-controlled metal exoskeltons inherently energy intensive?
I know this much is true: walking and bicycling take far less.
Hans Noeldner
"Civilization is the presence of enlightened self-restraint"
The 300-500 mpg for trains are for high-volume high-speed systems implemented in Europe - see the above discussion.
The BTS numbers for intercity rail are Amtrak numbers which are made worse by (a) low ridership on most lines and (b) excessive weight of Amtrak passenger cars, compared with the European high-speed models.
These #s have been widely critisized (some Admin influence ?) Too many people in cars, LIRR, the largest commuter rail line in the US, was excluded since they were electrified are two critiques have I read.
Alan
Hi Arthur,
Another point, wondering how this might fit in:
re: "1. Average inter-city speeds: at least 150 mph."
(As mentioned below, I'm opposed to high speed (at least this high speed) for other reasons.)
In any case, my question is: I'm wondering how the speed intersects with safety figures. Do people study this in much detail? Of course, you would get injuries/fatalities at any speed in event of "accident"...but surely there must be an increase at very high speeds? I wonder about a derailment at 60mph v. 110mph, for example. Also, what kinds of hazards might increase at these speeds? It seems the reaction time is necessarily decreased as well.
Just wondering.
The world's oldest HSR system in Japan is now over forty years in operation. There has been one fatality involved with a "bullet train." This was a girl by a malfunctioning door. No derailment or collision deaths in 40+ years. Some of their commuter and slower trains have had deadly accidents.
The trick with very high speed rail is that it needs to be completely grade-separated and fenced, which dramatically increases safety. Sharing tracks with the freights at lower speeds and with all the street crossings, is probably 100x more dangerous.
Brian
The secret is the Japanese obsession with safety NOT with not mixing with freights.
Japan probably has the best rail safety ethic in the world (the Swiss are excellent as well).
I would not expect comparable results anywhere in the US.
Grade seperation is a key to safety as well. Amtrak kills more people in Louisiana than New York, despite MANY more trains in New York State. Grade seperation is the reason why.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Well, before answering your question - the main purpose of suggesting a minimum speed is to ensure adequate competition with air - for 2-hour trips, rail beats air for 90% of passengers, for 3-hour trips, about 50%. Assuming air is bad for all the usually argued reasons, you want to maximize that 2-hour radius - 150 mpg makes it 300 miles, which covers many high-volume air routes.
The safety record for European and Japanese high speed rail systems has been excellent - no fatalities from collisions or derailments on the most popular services at all (Shinkansen and TGV). This seems to be in large part due to very high quality track maintenance and care in operations; whether a US operator would exercise the same caution is obviously a good question.
Didn't a TGV wheel come apart ? And ICE (at least the = of TGV) have a fatal accident with a derailment ?
Alan
Rail supporters shouldn’t feel that rail needs to compete with the aircraft. Amtrak’s current locomotives can haul a train at 100+ MPH; they are constrained by an imposed 79 MPH speed-limit due to the abominable condition most of the tracks are in. Give Amtrak decent, dedicated tracks and you will have a 100+ MPH train, plenty fast enough. If this doesn’t immediately entice people out of the airlines, we do not need to be concerned, as over the next 20-25 years, as oil for jet fuel becomes, at first increasingly expensive then simply less and less available, flights will also become more expensive and less frequent. And as flying fades away, the trains will be there, the only alternative. In 25 years, if you want to fly, you’ll have to join the Air Force, and it will probably be an Air Force more like the one we had back in World War II rather than the current supersonic, hi tech stuff.
Antoinetta III
2-hour radius - 150 mpg makes it 300 miles
Um, wrong. Time to accelerate and decelerate plus "go slow" areas (built up urban areas as one example, lower speed tunnels are cheaper to build (smaller diameter) so they are another potential "go slow". Top speed 150 mph @ 2 hour radius = 275 miles at best for express service, minimum in most cases of at least 250 miles.
Best Hopes,
Alan
BTW, the time penalty for semi-HSR is NOT the ratio of the top speeds. In-between stops, "Go Slow" and acceleration to 110 (or 125) mph will take the same time for both alternatives. 3 hours 35 minutes to 3 hours, 55 minutes might be a realistic estimate for LA-SF express (1 stop @ Bakersfield) via semi-HSR (at half the cost; lower speed tunnels can be narrower & cheaper, narrower ROW due to less sound buffers required, shorter track length due to smaller curve radius, etc.). *IF* LA had a good Urban Rail network feeding the LA UPT, these slightly slower speeds would attract at least as many pax as CA HSR with today's LA Urban Rail !
Ok Alan, three final questions for you:
1. Please show me some numbers about the saving obtained by going from a 220+mph(350kph) electrified HSR system like Spain has now to a 150 mph electrified HSR system. Please try and use official study numbers or comparable projects from outside the U.S. (no US examples unfortunately) from the same country/region.
2. Please explain why a 150 mph system is worth the huge fight again the fuel and airline lobby to build, but a more expensive (2x? 3x?) system is a total waste of money you would vote against because building nothing is better that building it. (Then explain to the Bus partisans why subway to the sea in LA (which I support) is worth 20x the cost of a Wilshire dedicated-lane BRT system.)
I me it seems you would prefer we walk before we run, but why attack running so vigorously? Either both semi-high speed and very high speed are both worth it, or neither are.
3. Finally, would you support an increase of Federal "New Starts" money for local transit by $3 billion a year linked with a $5 billion a year federal program for HSR? Why or why not?
Hi East Bay,
Thanks for all your comments.
re: "I me it seems you would prefer we walk before we run, but why attack running so vigorously? Either both semi-high speed and very high speed are both worth it, or neither are."
1) If you had to prioritize, what would you pick?
2) It seems, given the context of "peak oil", the idea of priorities is very relevant. Or, do you disagree?
3) Because, if we get sufficient economic downturn soon enough, we'd have two half-finished projects, instead of one finished project (just to take a generic example). Or, do you see it differently?
4) Is there a way to "fix Amtrak"? (If so, where do I sign?)
Honestly, though, there is such a confidence issue re: Amtrak, as I mentioned above. It seems to me that linking a "fix Amtrak" to some other conservation measures is a good idea. Linking "fix Amtrak" (my current vote of first priority) to some other very large, very expensive project like HSR (esp. on a large scale), would not gain votes. (Just using a "focus group" of one.)
Or, do you see it differently?
5) What about the topic, (either no one has addressed, or I've missed it) on how to analyze and plan for a realistic use of wind/solar as the "upstream" energy source?
6) Do you see it as A) necessary and/or B) feasible, either politically or practically - to either link or implement other fuel conservation measures to any of these proposals?
Most HSR rail projects are ego/status driven. Mine is bigger that yours/mine is faster than yours. So no analysis is done (CA HSR SHOULD have looked very seriously at semi-HSR and slower speeds that would lose aome percent of one medium size market. Did they ? Or were they driven by the "faster is better" mentality).
You ask for #s and I ask for the specific cost savings for construction and operation of a 125 mph CA semi-HSR. WHERE ARE THEY ? You ask for something that California SHOULD HAVE DONE.
The UK has decided that 125 mph is best for them; the best cost-benefit point (except for linking to the Chunnel). This could well apply to the US.
The only explicit speed alternative analysis that I am aware of was for Tenerife, Canary Islands, Spain. 160 kph vs. 220 kph.
Tren del Sur
http://www.tranviatenerife.com/
One detail missed by most. Regular rail trains cannot run on TGV (need to confirm for other HSR). Railroads around the world (except some Urban Rail lines) have a 1:20 slope on top of the rail. TGV lines have a 1:40 slope. TGV equipement run on improved existing lines (old curve radius, old rail slope since freight still runs on it) is AFAIK, limited to 220 kph. Change the wheels and run these same trains on TGV rails and they can do 300 kph.
I wonder if CA HSR will build some thing where regular rail cars can NEVER run on ?
2) Semi-HSR is not only cheaper to build & operate (in both $ and energy) but it has higher social & economic value as well. So Semi-HSR is worth doing (after building out a decent Urban Rail system in LA), HSR is not.
There is a "gold mine" in transporting fruits & veggies from Central CA (medium density, not low density freight). Yes, the SFO-LAX "silver mine" shrinks (it does not disappear though).
A new rail line that can interface with rest of America's rail system should be more valuable than one that can only operate in isolation. A rail line that cna carry both low & medium denisty cargo is more valuable than one that can only carry low density frieght.
Subway to the Sea in LA has more long term value, especially post-Peak Oil, than CA HSR for less money.
The current governor will be gone in a couple of years, but CA HSR bonds will remain for 30 years and construction will take close to a decade. Let us suppose that the pro-Urban Rail mayor of LA gets elected governor. His ability to build more badly needed Urban Rail will be significantly inhibited by CA HSR bonds and cost overruns.
Gov. Dukakais of Massachusetts (later fervent Amtrak supporter & board member) killed the critical North Station-South Station rail link in Boston (needed also by Amtrak to extend the NEC) as cost over-runs on the Big Dig began to mount. I fear the same from the starry eyed planners of CA HSR (where are the detailed slower speed alternative studies ?)
3) I could not support the mis-allocation of 5/8ths of the funding for new rail projects. Urban Rail is ESSENTIAL, especially post-Peak Oil; HSR is "nice to have" (see other comments here).
If all the feds can invest is $8 billion/year, the best use is for subways (NYC 2nd Avenue, LA Red Line to the Sea, Miami 103 mile system, DC Tysons Corner-Dulles, BART to San Jose), light rail, streetcars and commuter rail.
That and tax breaks for freight RRs that electrify.
After 25 years of inflation adjusted $8 billion ($200 billion in 2007 $), we make be at a point where selected HSR projects "make sense" (there will be a decent Urban Rail feeder system in LA for example).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Alan,
Thanks. I don't know if anyone is still reading...I just want to say that I hope you can find a way to get your comments where they will be heard. The planning aspects, such as 1) interface w. existing rail 2) carry both low and medium density freight sound sensible.
re: "That and tax breaks for freight RRs that electrify."
I like this, because it addresses a direction I wanted to go in, namely "upstream" fuel/power sources.
One thing I'm concerned about is the actual source of electricity. If taken in isolation, we could get sources we don't want. As opposed to looking at "true" (close to true) renewables.
It seems to me without tying in sources, we're subject to, for example, a sudden crash in NA NG supply or something. It seems like this needs to be addressed in a way that links source production w. incentives for electrification.
What do you think?
I have been working on, conceptually, what a non-GHG North American grid might look like.
Today, every railroad loco burns diesel to make electricity that, in turn, operates on-board electric motors to turn the wheels.
Burning diesel/av fuel in a larger, former NG grid generator would be SLIGHTLY more efficient (hopefull only in an emergency) than an on-board ICE once grid losses are considered.
Coal fired grid generation would have slightly less GHG than on-board diesel ICE generation.
So I do not see a major downside to electrification. If wind, hydro or geothermal electricity is used, a MAJOR upside in all respects.
I could see a situation where the local grid on State X is renewable some of the time (strong winds late at night) and nasty coal & wind mix at other times.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hi Alan,
Thanks.
re: "I have been working on, conceptually, what a non-GHG North American grid might look like."
I'm so glad. - really.
Q: Is anyone else doing this? Do you have help? Can you recruit help?
This seems like an extremely important thing to be doing. I just wonder if anyone else is also thinking along these lines.
Really hope you can find time to do this. And share. I'm very interested. Also, in organizing to get more people working on this.
re: "So I do not see a major downside to electrification"
I may not have stated my question carefully enough. I agree, it seems there's no downside.
I just wonder - it seems like proceeding with "business as usual" - no public PO announcements, no radical conservation , such as gasoline tax or - my favorite 55mph auto speed limit. - without these things...I wonder...if anything will be built in time, and if anything can actually be made to function in any case, given the range of peak predictions and the NG situation.
The act referred to average speed, which by definition would make 2 hours at 150 mph equal to 300 miles distance. The top speed would of course be higher, but as you pointed out earlier, the biggest bang for the buck comes from speeding up the slow sections, rather than increasing top speed.
But the 150 mph is only a guideline/goalpost, and certainly open for discussion as to what the real criterion should be.
Hi Alan, since you are monopolizing this thread I’d like to point that in your comments you seem to take easy cheap flying as a certainty in the future.
Not only will oil supply constraints make that hard to continue, one of these days air flight subsidies will end as well. In Europe the first ever tax on internal air travel will be effective soon.
I’ve nothing against semi-HSR, it is a good option for freight and mid-range pax, but you have to consider long-range also. In 10 years from now, how do you think people will travel from Houston to Boston?
As for the Act itself, I’ve nothing much to add to it, it seems pondered and realistic. But for long-range HSR to be successful in the near-term in the US, this kind of initiative has to be complemented with end of air travel subsidies and to some extent of motor travel too.
In 10 years from now, how do you think people will travel from Houston to Boston?
In ten (or twenty) years most pax will fly a Southwest Airlines 797 (smaller and even more fuel efficient version of the 787, replacing the 737) and make a choice between the 1 per day HOU-BOS non-stop or the 4/day HOU-New York City flight and then take the train to Boston. Many pax traveling from Corpus Christi to Providence RI (people travel in all sorts of odd city-pairs) will take a slow train to San Antonio or Houston and NEC from either NYC or Boston to Providence.
Overnight trains have the energy penalty of a sleeper. (24 people/car instead of ~88 (this # varies) plus a diner car is REQUIRED for very long distance travel. Figure maybe 6x the energy for long distance rail travel/mile vs. 5 hour or less trips). Rolling hotels are not as energy efficient as their stationary counterparts. Add that time still has value post-Peak Oil, and medium and longer distance travel will still be mainly by air. Higher energy costs could well double and triple average air fares (thereby reducing demand), but air can outbid suburban commuters for oil IMO.
Air service may be eliminated from smaller cities and into hubs served by regional pax rail (both Houston & Boston should survive as regional hubs).
Best Hopes,
Alan
In a seriously constrained peak oil environment, air travel will be very limited even with the highest efficiency designs. Hence, 90% of people who fly today will not be flying if fuel costs quintuple or more. There is no way to get an aircraft better than about 120 - 130 pmpg though doable for any surface mode, even the automobile. I mean throw 4 persons in a Prius and we are at 200 Pmpg. For long distance travel, people will simply ride the "uncomfortable" Coach class and buy food in a cafe car, maybe with an ocassional shower if they are on for days at a time. Many people ride AMTRAK like that even today. Think Greyhound style travel across the country.
At $20-$25/barrel, fuel was about 10% of airline costs (it varied). Assume 30% improvement in airline fuel economy (new tech + operations (flying a bit slower); that make 7% of total costs @ $20-$25/barrel.
At $300/barrel (reasonable IMHO), a 15x increase, 7% expands to 105% of 200%. Airline costs have doubled, ticket prices will double (perhaps more due to reduced volume meaning more overhead/pax), so ticket prices may go up 2.5x. Other oil uses (home heating ?) will fall out before people will switch modes for 1,500+ mile flights en masse (Hou-Bos is 1,609 miles straight line, almost 2,000 miles by rail).
Some will save money and travel overnight in coach, yes. Many more will stay home. But most of those that still travel long distances will do so by air.
You will note that I suggested much reduced volume for air travel (4 small a/c flights/day Houston-NYC and 1/day Houston-Boston is down significantly from today) and "connecting flights" will be much rarer than today. Air to regional rail hub, rail the last 100 miles will be more common (see Germany today).
Best Hopes,
Alan
I guess we are more in agreement than disagreement Alan. I just see air travel being slashed to a much larger extent than you do. I cannot see any but the business/wealthy elite using air en masse if a ticket from IAH to JFK costs $800 - 1,000 in 2007 dollars when the equivalent coach fare via rail is $300 - $400, albeit with a travel time of well over 24 hours. They will either not travel or if they must, they will use the train or any cheaper surface transport option. Remember, it is likely that they will simultaneously be faced with high costs in all their other activities of endeavour and will thus be hard pressed to save money in any way possible. Remember as well that air travel today is highly discretionary. (I would guess 70 -80% for leisure/family related travel) Remember also that a lot of business can be conducted electronically.
ANY increase in fuel costs effect the airlines negatively. Even $100/bbl oil will cause bankruptcies and many routes to be dropped. In most cases there will not be existing rail capacity to pick up the slack
So passengers will get in their cars. A few will get on the bus. Some will figure out video-conferencing and some will stay home.
The alternatives discussed on this thread will be just that - alternatives that get discussed. Action will begin on a serious scale rather late in the day. It would be oh so nice to have the (relatively) low energy rail infrastructure in place before oil runs out.
Overall, I think Daily Kos should be teaming up with the Apollo Alliance rather than coming up with another energy plan. The Apollo Alliance proposals include intercity and commuter rail as well as more efficient land use which is extremely important.
I have more comments on their passenger rail act. I'll post them once I finish compiling them.
Apollo Alliance had some great ideas - however, I haven't heard anything new from that group for a couple of years now. Are they still active? Can you put me in contact with somebody there? Post here or email me at apsmith AT aps.org
Ill stick with the previous "where would this penny-pinching/hoarding nation get the funding" for even a small portion of the pipe-dreams suggested here? We have a problem with grade-crossings(ie bridges) and LowSR, dont we? In the rail-hub of our country, the 5th state and some still think the "Second City" our El train between Ohare & downtown is down to 6mph in spots...granted our "Mayor for Life", governor & legislature are total ASsets...but it gives a clue what we are up against.
France, Japan, Germany? Well be lucky to get to Sweden in twenty years.
It's interesting to note to put things in context: the $600 billion we've spent on Iraq would have built (at $25 million per mile) 24,000 miles of TGV rail in the US and done more for our energy security than the "military solution" we've been attempting.
*I appreciate what Daily Kos is trying to do with Energize America and their proposed High Speed Passenger Rail Act. I have embedded comments below, italicized and bolded.
I should add that they should consult with state transportation officials and state/regional advocacy groups before finalizing their high speed passenger rail act. I would suggest officials in California (such as Gene Skoropowski), Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and with rail advocacy groups like the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, All Aboard Ohio, the Midwest High Speed Rail Association, Indiana High Speed Rail Association, Train Rider’s Association of California, etc. Because there is a strong and extensive advocacy base already out there they should be working in conjunction with them first and foremost to come up with a proposal that has ready-made support. It is apparent that they have not, as yet, done so.
The High Speed Passenger Rail Act - Background
Energy Implications
Passenger air travel in the US in 2005 got about 45 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel, emitting 140 million tons of CO2 in total (1). Passenger cars on highways traveled over 1.5 trillion miles with an average of 1.59 occupants, at about 44 passenger-mpg, emitting about 750 million tons of CO2. Both air and automobile are heavily dependent on liquid fuels whose future supply is uncertain.
Successful high-speed rail systems, implemented in Japan and Europe, particularly the French TGV system, run on electricity with an efficiency equivalent to 300 to 500 passenger-mpg. And electric power is the easiest form to generate from new energy sources such as wind and solar energy. High-passenger-load high-speed rail would dramatically reduce the impact of the passenger transportation sector on energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
Current US Passenger Rail Status
Mention passenger rail in the US and people think first of Amtrak and its perpetual funding crisis. Amtrak’s total ridership of 25 million per year is dwarfed by the 658 million for air travel and the billions for cars. But commuter rail is widely successful across the country, and “light” inter-city passenger rail has been making a comeback in recent years thanks to state funding to help offset pollution and congestion, for a combined total of 750 million annual trips in 2003 (2). Americans are at least as willing to travel by train as by airplane. The problems with Amtrak are simple to state: unreliability, coupled with high cost and low speed. On some routes, 96% of Amtrak trains arrive late (3). On all but a very few routes, taking the train takes longer than traveling by car because the trains are limited to 79 mph. Yet the cost can be comparable to or even higher than plane fare.
*The description of Amtrak is over-simplified. Yes, it’s plagued by low speeds, but that’s because the federal government has always refused to invest in passenger rail infrastructure at the same levels it does highways and aviation. This lack of investment in infrastructure is the root cause of Amtrak’s unreliability. It would be far easier to increase federal funding enough to incrementally improve existing rail infrastructure than to persuade Congress to quickly fund an all-new TGV-type system. In fact, such an effort is already underway and achieving success via HR 1300 and SB 294
Furthermore, AND THIS IS KEY: America does not even have a formal transportation policy. It deals with each mode separately with no comprehensive policy to achieve any broader goals for the country– such as greater energy efficiency, containing auto-centric sprawl, farmland preservation, maximizing the effective use of public tax dollars, etc.
But even the fastest “high speed” trains on US railroads rarely go much above 100 mph. By comparison, the French TGV reaches 200 mph in commercial service and over 300 mph in tests, thanks to dedicated passenger-only high-speed track. A successful US program needs to match or exceed the French example with average inter-city travel speeds of at least 150 mph, to provide any significant competition to automobile or air travel. This will require a significant capital investment in high speed rail on the order of tens of billions of dollars over a period of a decade or more.
*This emphasis on top speed is misplaced. You do not need European speeds to compete with automobiles and airlines. For example, the proposed Ohio Hub and Midwest Regional Rail Initiative plans currently in the works (conventional rail at 110 mph max speeds) will offer travel times that are competitive with both driving and flying between many midwest cities. For example, it will result in a 4-hour travel time between Cleveland, Ohio and Chicago, Illinois. The fastest I have ever been able to get from Cleveland Hopkins airport to Chicago--from the time I walk in the airport entrance to stepping off the El in downtown Chicago-- is 3 ½ hours. That was pre-9/11 and when everything went smoothly without a minute of delay. I would have been happy to sit on a train for an extra 30 minutes for a one-seat ride as would a majority of passengers. 4 hours is also considerably faster than one can drive between these two cities.
The key is reducing total travel time by raising average speed. This does not require all new dedicated track, but does require elimination of traffic bottlenecks. An incremental approach has the added advantage of improving the freight rail network, thereby enlisting the cooperation of the freight railroads, as has been done by the state of California.
The High Speed Passenger Rail Act - Draft Text
Next Generation Transportation
Objective
To enable a transition from energy intensive medium-distance air and road transport of passengers to cost-effective, reliable, and safe rail transportation through creation of dedicated high-speed intercity passenger rail services.
Description
The High Speed Passenger Rail Act (HSPRA) of 2007 will provide up to $3 billion per year in federal matching funds under a 60/40 rule to build rail infrastructure improvements necessary to develop high-volume high-speed passenger rail services between major American cities.
*If it is to be successful, any federal passenger rail program has to have an 80/20 match just like highways and aviation do. The states are, and understandably and rightly so, unwilling to proceed with any passenger rail program that does not have a funding split of 80% federal/20% non-federal. Although states should be encouraged to find non-state sources for some of the 20%, particularly including freight railroads where they clearly benefit.
Both tourism and commerce rely on rapid, dependable transport between cities. This has increasingly been handled by air travel, but the dual pressures of increased security and rising fuel prices have made air travel both more cumbersome and more expensive. High-speed passenger rail is more fuel efficient, quicker and more environmentally responsible than regional air travel, and can serve a key role in a low-emissions future. European experience shows that high-speed trains are more convenient, faster and profitable on high-density or metro-to-metro lines, and can offer a compelling alternative to air travel on trips up to 500 miles, taking 90% of airline traffic for point-to-point trips of less than 2 hours (300 miles at 150 mph), and 50% of airline traffic for trips lasting 3 hours (500 miles).
American passenger rail service could rebound if a single modification were made - increased speed on dedicated infrastructure. The High Speed Passenger Rail Act proposes a federal-state-private partnership to build, equip and operate new high-speed electric rail lines using existing technology. The Department of Transportation would consider joint proposals from states and private operators or Amtrak, with the federal government to provide 60% of capital investment. These proposals would be judged and funded under the following metrics and preferred criteria:
1. Average inter-city speeds: at least 150 mph.
2. Time to high-volume operation: 3 years or less
*Once again, the emphasis on high speed is misplaced. Emphasis instead should be on reduced overall travel time. Acela trains between Boston and New Haven reach 150 mph but elapsed Boston-New Haven travel time is little different from what the New Haven Railroad achieved in its heyday. The huge investment in electrification of the eastern Connecticut portion of the NEC was largely wasted because the TGV example of building new segments of HSR where needed was not followed.
It is not possible to build even a single TGV-style line in 3 years or less. The exact route has to be chosen (which always gets political), property has to be acquired, construction plans drafted, there’s the federal NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process, supply contracts have to be secured for both infrastructure and rolling stock, etc. If the US were to get seriously into the HSR game, it would require expanding the global production capacity of the HSR supply industry which in and of itself would take a few years.
3. Likely annual ridership
4. Level of CO2 emissions reductions and other environmental benefits
5. Reliability and safety of operations
Additionally, under this Act the Secretary of Transportation will annually prepare and submit to Congress an analysis of high-speed inter-city passenger rail showing current values and trends for these and other relevant metrics.
Benefits
The HSPRA will 1. begin to significantly reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the transportation sector by replacing energy-intensive passenger air and road travel
2. create new jobs through increased economic activity,
3. increase the resilience of US inter-city travel by providing a high-volume alternative to road and air travel,
4. leverage state and private funds in the transportation sector
5. establish and measure success in implementing high-speed rail.
Investment
The Federal Government will invest up to $3 billion per year in a 60/40 split with state and private partners on capital investments in high speed electric rail systems.
*TGV-style rail costs an average of $25 million per mile, more in mountainous terrain. $3 billion per year isn’t enough money, and again, the 60/40 match isn’t going to interest the states, the split must be 80/20.
Key Messages
1. passenger rail transport can consume one tenth the energy of air and road travel, per passenger mile
2. the key barrier to development of high speed passenger rail service in the US has been lack of suitable track and unreliability of existing service due to conflicts with freight rail transport.
3. Americans already travel by commuter rail in large numbers. High speed inter-city rail is profitable in Europe and Japan; it can work here too.
*While it is true that many high-speed lines in Europe earn an above-the-rail profit, they depend on an extensive network of money-losing conventional lines to feed passenger into the high speed lines. As a whole, no country’s passenger rail system earns a profit.
Passenger rail does not need to be profitable to be successful. For example: look at California’s state funded intrastate rail network, state-supported conventional services in Illinois, the Hiawatha Corridor (Milwaukee-Chicago), and the Keystone Corridor (Harrisburg-Philly). None of these services are profitable, but they are very much successful. Furthermore, we do not demand profitability of our highway and aviation systems (the aggregate lifetime net profit of the commercial, common-carrier airline industry in the US has been ZERO), therefore, we should not apply this double standard to passenger rail.
Most importantly, it is impractical to go from zero to TGV– which is what you are proposing for the entire nation outside of the Northeast Corridor. This is not how Europeans built their HSR systems. They built TGV segment by segment on top of their conventional systems (which they did not let die in the first place like the US did-- a BIG difference right from the start). They are still building their system segment by segment. We need a similar approach here.
The fastest and most practical way to achieve widespread use of our passenger rail system in the US is to proceed with existing state initiatives for 110 mph, conventional services– e.g. the Ohio Hub, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, Keystone Corridor extension to Pittsburgh, the Empire Corridor in NY, the corridor proposals in the southeast, etc.
As we expand the conventional system as currently proposed, you will bring rail service, and the energy savings that go with it, to the traveling public much faster than trying to build TGV right out of the box. The investments in the conventional corridors will simultaneously expand our nation’s freight rail capacity so you get double the bang for the buck-- and at $3.5-$4 million per mile- instead of $25 million per mile on a TGV-only system which will do nothing to expand freight rail capacity.
It is important to add that our domestic passenger rail supply industry was decimated more than 30 years ago. There is almost nothing left of it. Building conventional first will also allow this industry to grow again and develop the expertise that will be needed to get the nation moving on TGV-style rail without us having to depend so heavily on foreign suppliers and expertise--which will expand our trade deficit-- by trying to build TGV right out of the box.
Once the conventional corridors are in place and we have re-built a ridership constituency for passenger rail, then you start building TGV-style rail segment by segment as the Europeans have done.
The US desperately needs an expanded, modernized passenger rail system. We need the energy savings and the anti-sprawl benefits of it 20 years ago. The fastest and most efficient way to get there is by not going from zero to TGV– but build the conventional corridors that have already been proposed and incrementally move to TGV from there.
Finally, the most important thing we can do to make our transportation system more energy efficient is to promote more efficient connections between modes of transportation. This is an extremely important area where the US is sorely lacking. Air, rail, waterway, urban transit, intercity bus need to interconnect with one another efficiently and seamlessly. The same goes for our freight system. High speed rail is extremely important to the equation, but developing seamless, efficient intermodal connections are even more important, and whatever we try to do with passenger rail will be diminished without them.