Why Does The U.S. Lag Behind On High-Speed Rail?
There are good reasons why the U.S. hasn't built a high-speed rail network. But there are just as many, if not more, good reasons why it should.
"In April, a train built by the French engineering firm Alstom screamed along the Ligne à Grande Vitesse, the Paris-to-Strasbourg high-speed rail system, at a record- breaking 357 miles per hour. The whizzing run past Vendôme provided a glimpse of next-gen railway travel, and Alstom execs hope, set the company up for future contracts in emerging high-speed rail markets like China and India.
Conspicuously absent among those emerging markets: the US. Of course, news of the achievement sparked yet another round of well-worn rants, often delivered by globe-trotters who return home after rides on slick Japanese or French trains wondering, "Where the hell is my high-speed rail?" It's a question that betrays a certain naiveté about transit policy — but it's still a good one. If the country has a prayer of solving its traffic woes and creating a more efficient, environmentally sound infrastructure, we'll need some first-rate, wicked-fast trains."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Related News Stories
Despite Lower Gas Prices, Americans Driving Less - Nov 21, 2008
Infrastructure Funding Boosts Likely in 2009 - Nov 18, 2008
GM Killed Mass Transit: Now it Must Help Repair it - Nov 17, 2008
U.S. Rail Renaissance - Nov 14, 2008
Has SF Opened the Door for Tax-Free Transit Benefits? - Nov 13, 2008
High-Speed Rail And Global Warming
I have to disagree with the comments opposing high-speed rail. Air travel is a major source of greenhouse gases, which is growing more rapidly than automobile vmt. Planes are expected to emit more CO2 than automobiles by 2020.
High-speed rail is the only alternative that will lure people away from air travel on routes such as San Francisco to LA. High-speed rail emits only about one-sixth as much CO2 per passenger mile as air travel.
I am in favor of the more modest improvements that the other comments suggest, because they are an important alternative to the automobile. But we also need high-speed rail as an alternative to the airplane.
Charles Siegel
High-Speed Rail And Global Warming
I have to disagree with the comments opposing high-speed rail. Air travel is a major source of greenhouse gases and is growing more rapidly than automobile vmt. Planes are expected to emit more CO2 than automobiles by 2020.
High-speed rail is the only alternative that will lure people away from air travel on routes such as San Francisco to LA. High-speed rail emits only about one-sixth as much CO2 per passenger mile as air travel.
I am in favor of the more modest improvements that the other comments suggest, because they are an important alternative to the automobile. But we also need high-speed rail as an alternative to the airplane.
Given the current threat to the world's environment, we should not be pitting one form of rail transportation against another. We should be backing both.
Charles Siegel
High-speed transit is bunk...
Wired magazine always jumps for the glitzy technofix. Of course, the article mentions the recent record-breaking high-speed train, followed by 'ooohs' and 'aaahs' and 'I want its', and then cries for support of California's San Diego-to-Sacramento high-speed train system, a proposal so expensive that Californians are likely to object at the ballot box. It's a recipe for failure.
High-speed transit is bunk, at least for US concerns, where virtually all cities are abusively underdeveloped. Bypassing smaller cities at high speed in deference to the perceived need to serve megacities, whose real transportation needs are local, not intercity, is akin to 20th Century planning philosophy in all its obsolescence.
California should build an LA-to-San Jose high-speed line, non-electrified, that can achieve top speed of 150mph. That should cut the cost and construction schedule time IN HALF and leave open future electrification when ridership demand warrents. And, it allows freight rail to use the tracks on a limited basis where practical. However, California legislators have stipulated electrified, 200mph design. When voters reject the funding, remember I told you so.
2 to 4+ hour jams are also bunk
Title says it all. 2 to 4 hour jams in highway traffic are bunk too. So is the long-line, rights depriving protocol at the airport.
One main reason for the high speed rail is another choice in transit. One that looks better than sitting hours in traffic every morning and afternoon and one that might beat the mind-numbing experiences at the airport. I will agree there are plenty of obstacles for rail (voters, lobbyists groups, even distance and development issues) but the US should seriously consider rail options instead of the roads-only approach.
Modest proposals would be better
I agree that California should focus on modest proposals rather than the flashy, 200-mph, multi-billion $$ idea.
The fact is that there are many, many people in California who would take trains if it were simply *not so awful* rather than the level of "ultimately great" the high-speed proposal is going for. I talk to people all the time who say, "Oh, I'm thinking of taking the train for that trip, it sounds nice... wait, it takes HOW long?? It costs HOW much?? You have to transfer HOW many times??"
For example, Santa Barbara to L.A. takes 2:50, vs 1:30-2:00 depending on traffic. With driving/getting driven to the station and then getting picked up on the other end, it pretty much doubles your trip.
Traveling between two of the most important cities in the state, L.A. and Sacramento, usually requires two bus connections, hardly a train trip worth looking forward to.
Therefore I give these modest proposals that would cost a fraction of the high-speed proposal, and attract massive amounts of riders who would eventually vote that type of system into effect.
1. Improve tracks and trains so that the average speed (with stops) is above 80 mph, therefore faster than driving.
2. Subsidize ticket sales to the point that a train ticket always costs less than gas (right now it costs about twice as much).
3. Build additional tracks to close some of the most absurd, glaring holes in service, such as the fact that the two most populous cities in the state (SF and LA) do not have direct train service and require a bus connection. Other glaring holes: only two trains per day to Sac from the Central Valley (otherwise it's a bus connection), and no service to Las Vegas.
4. Either buy back the train tracks from Union Pacific, broker a deal with them (perhaps paying an annual fee?) or else build a new set of tracks, so that Amtrak trains can always run on time. Give full refunds when trains are more than one hour late.
Modest Proposals better options
I agree with the previous posts. While investment in high speed rail is severely lacking, it's not wise to promise 300+ kph bullet trains in the US. Not now anyway.
My organization, All Aboard Ohio, conducted a poll a while back and the most attractive passenger rail proposal to the citizens of Ohio was a modest 110 mph "high-speed" system linking major Ohio cities and smaller cities with oneanother. The Ohio Hub Plan does just that without creating new right of ways. Slowly but surely, we are building the base necessary to implement this plan.
While many rail plans have come and gone over the years, this time around is different simply because we advocates understand better than ever what is necessary to accomplish our goals.