High Speed Rail in the U.S.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-01-04/high-speed-rail-us
The Obama administration is trying to jump start the development of high speed passenger trains in the U.S. Diane and guests discuss the controversy over projects planned in California and Florida.
Guests
Roy Kienitz
under secretary for policy at the U.S. Department of Transportation.
Robert Puentes
senior fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, The Brookings Institution.
Kevin Coates
executive director, North American Maglev Transport Institute.
Patricia Reilly
vice president, communications, Association of American Railroads.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Where are the independent economic studies that show any of these projects make sense? I can't imagine too many do given Amtrak's economic failure; in the sense that it cannot cover its costs, much less make a profit.
How does europe make it work and the US cannot?
The debate about high speed trains reflects a profound lack of will in this country.
My husband and I recently took Amtrak from Vermont to DC. It was a great experience, and we now prefer it to all other forms of travel. Yes, it took us an hour and a half longer than if we drove ourselves, but it was far less stressful. The train was clean, on time, the conductors were polite and helpful. If we could put enough money into Amtrak to make the trip shorter than driving, I imagine a lot more people would use the service, getting many more cars off the road, reducing gridlock, accidents, pollution....a win win win situation.
Can we please catch up to Europe and Asia??
Who wouldn't like "goodies" like a high sped rail? Sounds wonderful. But I'll bet Diane's discussion today will take place without noticing the "elephant in the room" -- that our national debt is 14 trillion and growing (not to mention the states' and citizens' bankruptcies).
As lovely and desirable as high speed rail sounds -- WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD IT!!
While I have long been and remain an advocate for high speed rail in the U.S., the comments already posted demonstrate a failure of our leaders and of advocates like myself to educate the public that high speed rail is not a profitable venture. Rather, it's a public service that does indeed cost a lot of money. Other societies around the world have determined it is worth the cost. What troubles me more now, however, is not merely the U.S. failure to make the necessary commitment and expenditure to develop the most basic of high speed rail systems, but the fact that the U.S. truly does not appear to have any transportation alternatives in development. While we do nothing and remain beholden to lobbyists for the auto, oil, and airline inndustries, the rest of the world is developing and leaving us behind on a very slow track.
Chip
Washington, DC
Without effective public transportation in the connected communities, high speed rail will not work. Getting to the city is only half the problem, getting around the city is the other half. People won't use it if they can't get around once they arrive at their destination and will still drive instead.
How can we afford it when Petraeus is building water parks in Iraq and we're blowing up trillions in Afghanistan?
No one is talking about the special interests who would not like to see high speed rail, ie, the domestic airlines and car makers. Also why not go "up" as in a modern monorail type transportation train?
No one is talking about the special interests who would not like to see high speed rail in the US, ie domestic airlines and automakers. Also why not go "up" as in a highspeed monorail type train? I think this could be done but as in other issues the political will is not there.
Carol
cincinnati
100 years ago we had lots of passenger rail service in this country. After WWII GM decided it was better for us and them if we all used automobiles to get where we were going. They bought up interurban and trolley systems and tore them up. Now we have to play catch-up because of corporate greed.
Right now AMTRAK is much longer and more expensive than flying. How can any US based train system ever compete with air travel?
We already have a interstate road system. I know it would be more expensive, but would it not make more sense to attempt to build an elevated system over these interstates? Don't they already go to major urban centers, relatively strait, and have less property issues?
It seems to me that upgrading freight to a medium speed passenger rail is just going to be a distraction from the overall policy. Part of the problem here i think is one of communication. Its hard to communicate to the american people that you want to upgrade seemingly random freight lines, while building high speed rail starting on 2 opposite sides of the country.
I think a narrative of upgrading our interstate road system to double as a high speed rail system would be a easier sell, even if it proves to be vastly more expensive.
I cannot believe the USA does not have a better train system. I love traveling by train and in Europe I hop on a train every time I have a chance.
I live in Florida and I was appalled when I had to vote a few years ago for a fast train project. The wording in the ballot was completely misleading and many people that thought had voted for it realized had vote against it. I doubt this project will ever start until powerful lobbyists from the gas and auto industry will support American politicians.
As mentioned below, the only way the United States will have high speed rail across the country is if we are willing to subsidize the entreprise. The big financial fight in the seventies was all about subsidizing AmTrack. The neigh sayers kept pressing that it was un-american to "throw money" at the "private" train industry. Of course this was while we were subsidizing transportation systems to earth orbit 100%.
Diane
A critical issue for high speed rail is how to ensure that freight and passenger rail share the rail equitably. Particularly in the northeast, rail right of way is finite, and often it is owned by freight lines. Large freight railroads almost always refuse to share any responsibility for damage or injury caused by accidents between their trains and passenger trains, even when the freight train is at fault. This issue of risk allocation must be resolved equitably if we are going to increase passenger rail in any meaningful way. Building new rail lines is, in most places, either not financially viable or not practical given the hurdles of limitied land, environmental laws, etc. So we need to make use of what we have, especially in the northeast, and that requires an equitable relationship between freight and passenger that currently does not exist.
James Aloisi
Former Secretary of Transportation, Massachusetts
You can't run any sort of passenger service (high speed or other) over the same rails as freight trains unless the rails are straight, because you have to bank the curves in the rail to match the speed and weight of the fastest train that uses it — inevitably the passenger train. If you bank the curve for the freight trains (approx. 50mph), the passenger trains will fall off the outside of the curve. If you bank for the passenger trains (70-80mph), the MUCH heavier, slower freight trains will deform the tops of the rail, beveling the outside surface and moving the entire top surface of the rail to the inside of the curve. This happens within two years of installation of the rail, and when it gets to a certain point the freight train slides off the rail toward the inside of the curve. My father, who worked for the IC railroad for 38 years, showed me this phenomenon many years ago, yet I've never heard a passenger rail advocate address it.
With other nations rapidly developing modern transportation systems that are energy efficient and climate friendly, America’s reliance on an out-dated and oil dependent transportation network represents a serious competitive disadvantage in today’s global economy. Prioritizing our investments in a complete and modernized system would significantly increase connectivity and productivity while mitigating the costs of congestion.
Our existing transportation system employs millions of Americans and is an essential component in our national economy. Jobs created by investing infrastructure affect all occupations and industries especially those affected by the economic downturn. Investment in infrastructure provides both short-term economic stimulus and long-term competitive advantage.
While yes the US has a significant debt that should be a major priority of our spending policies, there are alternative methods to financing HSR including utilizing Public/ Private partnerships (PPPs) and Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) as new sources for high speed rail funding.
The American High Speed Rail Alliance (www.Americanhsra.org) advocates for a robust national high speed rail network financed through a broad range of grants, loans, public/private partnerships and other innovative investment strategies
I'm a big fan of passenger rail. I've used Amtrak to travel between DC and NYC and I find it to be a better alternative to Airline travel. I've also used rail in Europe and Japan. As a voting citizen and taxpayer I would *love* to see a high speed network across America. I suggest we stop subsidizing corporate airlines and focus that same money on building a rail network based on the latest technologies such a maglev. We should do this *now* - let it be done as a public jobs program on the same scale as the Tennessee Valley Authority.
While high-speed rail seems desirable, our transportation infrastructure is centered around the automobile.
Rest assured there will be plenty of lobbying in DC by the automotive industry to stall any high-speed endeavors.
The roads are already paved. Our cultural heritage is defined by the automobile.
Especially in these tight fiscal times, high-speed is a really tough sell.
The newly elected governors in Wisconsin & Ohio campaigned on "killing" the high speed rail projects in their states. Gas will eventually get much more expensive and rail travel much more feasible - it is just a matter of time. Why can't we make the investment now and plan for the future?
I lived in France and I love their TGV system.
The differences between France (and Europe in general) and America, however are many.
1) We tend to live in suburbs whereas the Europeans still live largely in cities (although, that's changing). Trains work best by going from city center to city center, but for many Americans, getting to the train station at the city center is difficult.
2) Each country in Europe is relatively small. France is laced with TGV lines that connects the entire country with a combination of normal trains and high speed. But, France is roughly the size of Texas (I think). A national high speed rail system would be enormous by comparison to the individual European countries.
3) Europe has milder weather. It is not so cold in the winters, so there's less ice damage to tracks in the winter and not so hot in the summer, so less warping of tracks in the summer. I can't imagine what a Wisconsin or Minnesota winter would do to precision rails.
4) The European mindset tends more to social interconnection. The idea that big, government-run systems are good for society is not a popular idea in America, even at the most left of times. We have a rising, conservative, budget-cutting movement in America today. Unless private interests can make high speed rail into a for-profit concern, it is unlikely that we will have a decent, efficient, high-speed rail system.
As a resident of NH, I have taken the train from Boston to DC. To me, any upgrades on that line are futile. An entirely new route is necessary. We should be able to think big enough to stop wasting our money on patches.
Personally, I would love to see a maglev line - at least partly over water, of course completely elevated - connecting Boston, NYC, and DC. Three stops only. There is money left in one of the stimulus budgets to make a real dent in the cost of such a plan.
As a resident of NH, I have taken the train from Boston to DC. To me, any upgrades on that line are futile. An entirely new route is necessary. We should be able to think big enough to stop wasting our money on patches.
Personally, I would love to see a maglev line - at least partly over water, of course completely elevated - connecting Boston, NYC, and DC. Three stops only. There is money left in one of the stimulus budgets to make a real dent in the cost of such a plan.
everyone seems to agree on the advantages (for passengers and goods) of train travel on the medium distance. Yet this Country does not manage to put together the will to achieve the greatest public good, why? Because there is no immediate (measurable) profit! Doesn't this show once again the inedaquacy of a pure capitalistic system to take care of the majority of its citizens? As far as I know the Countries who have a good, modern rail system operate it publicly...
I have ridden high speed systems in China, Japan and Europe. I don't think it can work here until there is a good, economical system of public transport at each end of the system. It doesn't do much good to get to your destination station quickly if you don't have an easy to use, dependable way to get to your final destination.
America must start building the infrastructure for the 21st century before it is too late and while we can still afford to do so. The age of oil will be over during the life time of many alive today. We must prepare to transport goods (standard rail) and people (high speed rail) in the future by starting to build the infrastructure now.
Local governments are a big factor - they do not want to close roads and build underpasses so (like in Conn - for NE corridor - it slows down there to 35 - 40 mph) how do we deal with that obstruction to fast rail?
Both airline and highway travel are highly dependent on petroleum fuels. They are going soon to be out of reach price wise. High-speed rail or by other means, our economic survival depends on putting petroleum behind us.
Hard to conceive oil lobbyists and other special interests not blocking high speed rail.