Brainstorming: How could we bring high speed trains to the US?

[donrhummy]

OK, in the spirit of "Living Car Free" I'm looking for ideas on actual solutions here.

The problem is this:

Currently there are no high speed trains in the united states. There are numerous "hurdles" to bringing it here (e.g. for boston-nyc-d.c. travel), ranging from politicians, financing, etc.

So the question is: what things do you think could be done to actually make it happen?

Not looking for the usual, "this will never happen, we're too corrupt/screwed-up, etc." Just ideas for solutions. They can be anything. Creating a website, calling/writing congressmen, calling the news station, looking to VC help, whatever.

[jamesdenver]

If any high speed rail happens outside of east coast urban routes (like Acela), it will be on rural routes that have heavy miserable mind numbing traffic from recreational use. And will will happen via privatization. That way people aren't taxed up the wazoo who aren't interested.

Provided a private company is monitored closely in regards to property rights and environmental compliance, I'd have no problem with a private company engaging in a high speed rail project. I don't think it will ever be funded via tax dollars.

LA/Vegas is a good example. I've driven this route many times Fridays and Sundays and it's hard to believe you're 200 miles in the desert miles from anywhere, yet bumper to bumper with thousand other cars.Here's an LA Times article (http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-trw-lvtrain19mar19) from last week about the Anaheim /Vegas train that's been in planning for a few years.

Another less rural corridor is the Denver-Summit County route, which is constantly congested on weekends both winter and summer. Some want highway widening, others want rail. The freeway passes through narrow winding canyons with no room to expand without sheering off cliff walls. The town of Idaho Springs is ready to defend their narrow town against 15 years of bulldozers.

A train from downtown Denver with a stop in Lakewood and Golden, then shooting up over Loveland Pass to a station in Summit County with frequent shuttle connections to resorts is 20-30 years off, but I'd use it.

[JeffS]

There's very little practical use for it. The biggest hurdle is our rediculous need to "save" the airline industry.

My feeling is that we just have too much land and the people are too dispersed.

[oneredstar]

I think James has it right, when he says it will happen via privatization. You can do all you want to make it happen, create a website, talk to politicians, find out how many people in your city are interested...

I think the main issue may be. Where is it gonna go. Trains need tracks, and that takes land. So it would be very hard to get into an urban center. You would also need to convince private land owners to allow it, and you would need to be able to pay a sizable amount of money to compensate them. There are many hurdles, and these are just a few.

Are there any high speed trains in countries that are not small? I live in Canada, and have been to Australia,China, and the U.S.A, and can't think of any. I do not think Russia has one. Land mass may be the biggest hurdle.

[jamesdenver]

There's very little practical use for it. The biggest hurdle is our rediculous need to "save" the airline industry.

My feeling is that we just have too much land and the people are too dispersed.

I don't think people are too dispersed. If someone's dream is to own a house on a few acres in country with there's nothing wrong with that. Not everyone wants to live downtown in dense housing and commute on a train full of other city dwellers (like i prefer to). The whole point of the U.S. is that you can do either one, if it's your dream. But I think suburbia is mismanaged, which leads to hours spent in traffic, road rage, and bland housing. But then again, people WANT their tiny parcel of land with a yard, even if surrounded by thousands of other identical houses. (I'll take the rustic cabin on the lake before that).

Even out west where millions of people have moved to over the past 20 years (Phoenix, Vegas, Denver), I STILL don't believe there's enough population to support high speed rail between large cities in the west. Denver and SLC for example. The interstates work fine for that, and even a car-free person can rent a car for the trip, or use bus service (that's another topic).

But for city pairs in distances of 300 miles or less, where it's a pain to drive, a hassle to fly, rail would work perfect. Chicago-St Louis, Chicago-Detroit, Dallas-Houston, and point to point in between. That would HELP airlines free up airspace and airport space for more logical service, i.e. Denver-Chicago, where high speed rail still would be a 4-5 hour trip, and flying would be the same.

I live in a big city, (Denver), but geographically isolated being 600 miles from another large population center. Airports in the Rocky Mountains are modern, and easy, and airspace isn't congested. Flying makes sense and is easy. But it doesn't make sense to go to LAX two hours in advance for a one hour (delayed) flight to San Fransisco, turning a quick trip into 5-6 hours, same as driving. Rail would make perfect sense between those cities.

To be succinct? Rail in large city pairs. Privatize it. Let them airlines help and profit. When able connect it TO an airport, allowing seamless service between air and rail.

i.e FLY from Seattle to Chicago, hop on the express train up to Milwaukee or Grand Rapids. Can you picture that? Oh wait, just go to Europe.

[goldener]

they already exist- check out amtrak's boston-nyc-wash acela train.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Route/Vertical_Route_Page&cid=1080772074490&c=am2Route&ssid=134

they aint as fast as the trains in yurop and such, but that is an infrastructure problem- the rails are antiquated and owned by the freight companies, not amtrak/acela/etc

and the bos-wash corridor is the most densly populated area in the us.. fitting for a highspeed train..don't know how viable it would be across other areas, like the midwest or west...

I could see a potential for a pacfic coast highspeed train..

[donrhummy]

they already exist- check out amtrak's boston-nyc-wash acela train.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Route/Vertical_Route_Page&cid=1080772074490&c=am2Route&ssid=134

they aint as fast as the trains in yurop and such, but that is an infrastructure problem- the rails are antiquated and owned by the freight companies, not amtrak/acela/etc

and the bos-wash corridor is the most densly populated area in the us.. fitting for a highspeed train..don't know how viable it would be across other areas, like the midwest or west...

I could see a potential for a pacfic coast highspeed train..

The Acela's not a high speed train. The whole thing was a farce. When they first proposed it, they claimed that it would go between boston and nyc in 2hrs 45 min. Of course, they're nowhere near that speed (and that speed would still be less than 1/2 the speed of french/japanese high speed trains). The top speed the acela can go is 142 mph and it does that on about 15-20% of the track between NYC/Boston. That's it. The Acela has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (except maybe as something to take over and do differently)

[donrhummy]

the rails are antiquated and owned by the freight companies, not amtrak/acela/etc.

If this is true then you bring up a good point. I think part of the solution (whether through a private company or not) is that they need to make it worth it to the freight companies to allow delays for an overhaul of the system and for requiring diff. trains when it's done.

[goldener]

The Acela's not a high speed train. The whole thing was a farce. When they first proposed it, they claimed that it would go between boston and nyc in 2hrs 45 min. Of course, they're nowhere near that speed (and that speed would still be less than 1/2 the speed of french/japanese high speed trains). The top speed the acela can go is 142 mph and it does that on about 15-20% of the track between NYC/Boston. That's it. The Acela has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (except maybe as something to take over and do differently)
the acela is a high speed train compared to the regular amtrak or commuter trains...

but you are right.. it is just chump change compared to the stuff they gots in yurop or over in the orient.. but that would require a whole new rail system/infrastucture- the freight compainies currently own the current rails, and have prioritoy over use... so unles you are cutting new rail right of ways through the most populated section of the county... ya gots to use what's there already... and so it goes.. we a re back to where we are today.

the acela train is also spensive- you can get a chinatown bus from boston- nyc for $15 each way, and probably $10-15 from nyc-philly.. amtrak acela is over $100 from nyc-boston.. if the price drops on acela or someother rail service to ~30 I could see demand going up..

[goldener]

but if all this peak oil and globo warming biznatch is legit [please no debates here]..then i see a real possiblilty for new, clean[er] mass transit (hi speed trains,etc) in the future.

[Dahon.Steve]

From the article:

>>>>The plan, pitched by Thomas Stone of the Las Vegas-based DesertXpress Enterprises, calls for electric-diesel hybrid trains to make the 190-mile trip every 20 minutes. The construction wouldn't use federal or state funding; the hope is that investor funds, which have yet to be raised, will cover the estimated $3-billion cost. The train would top out at 125 mph, making the one-way trip in about 1 hour and 45 minutes.<<<<<

Construction won't use Federal or state funding? LOL.

The 3 billion dollar figure to construct this rail line is a low ball figure because a project of this nature will require tens of billions of dollars. It costs 1 billion dollars to build 10 miles of electrified lightrail in this country. A high speed rail line extending 190 miles will easily set you back 200 billion dollars since this is the most expensive form of rail construction. In addition, the cost of operating this rail line will be so astronomical, the fare box won't cover the cost thus each ticket will have to sell at a loss!. This will ensure private investment funds will never materalize. Even the Monorail in Vegas is in dire financial straits!

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see a high speed rail line in this nation but you're going to need federal funds or it won't happen. I don't know why people here believe rail lines need to operate without federal funds? Do our highways or airports operate without federal subsidization?

The reason you don't have a high speed rail line IS because you're waiting for private investment which is folly.

You want rail service from Los Angeles to Vegas? Support Amtrak.

[Dahon.Steve]

My feeling is that we just have too much land and the people are too dispersed.

Agreed.

The motorcar dispersed millions of Americans all over the nation. They moved out of the cities and into states to live in affordable homes. Now they find themselves stuck with traffic jams.

Today, these dispersed Americans are looking for the same transit systems developed at the turn of the century in cities like Boston, New York and Chicago. Unfortunately, the cost of building such a rail system is in the tens billions of dollars (TAXES!) and requires high density populations which is exactly what they don't want.

[donrhummy]

From the article:

>>>>The plan, pitched by Thomas Stone of the Las Vegas-based DesertXpress Enterprises, calls for electric-diesel hybrid trains to make the 190-mile trip every 20 minutes. The construction wouldn't use federal or state funding; the hope is that investor funds, which have yet to be raised, will cover the estimated $3-billion cost. The train would top out at 125 mph, making the one-way trip in about 1 hour and 45 minutes.<<<<<

Construction won't use Federal or state funding? LOL.

The 3 billion dollar figure to construct this rail line is a low ball figure because a project of this nature will require tens of billions of dollars. It costs 1 billion dollars to build 10 miles of electrified lightrail in this country. A high speed rail line extending 190 miles will easily set you back 200 billion dollars since this is the most expensive form of rail construction. In addition, the cost of operating this rail line will be so astronomical, the fare box won't cover the cost thus each ticket will have to sell at a loss!. This will ensure private investment funds will never materalize. Even the Monorail in Vegas is in dire financial straits!

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see a high speed rail line in this nation but you're going to need federal funds or it won't happen. I don't know why people here believe rail lines need to operate without federal funds? Do our highways or airports operate without federal subsidization?

The reason you don't have a high speed rail line IS because you're waiting for private investment which is folly.

You want rail service from Los Angeles to Vegas? Support Amtrak.

What i don't understand is why all the proposed projects for this in the US always have sub-200 mph trains?! The trains in Europe are actually quite safe so that can't be the issue. Why is no one saying, "hey let's use the Japanese or French technology that's been working well for years?"

[HardyWeinberg]

they already exist- check out amtrak's boston-nyc-wash acela train.
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Route/Vertical_Route_Page&cid=1080772074490&c=am2Route&ssid=134

they aint as fast as the trains in yurop and such, but that is an infrastructure problem- the rails are antiquated and owned by the freight companies, not amtrak/acela/etc

and the bos-wash corridor is the most densly populated area in the us.. fitting for a highspeed train..don't know how viable it would be across other areas, like the midwest or west...

I could see a potential for a pacfic coast highspeed train..

My understanding is that Amtrak does own the (outdated) rails between Boston and DC, which is why their trains up/down that one line are the most consistently timely. Amtrak doesn't own the (outdated) rails in most of the rest of the country, but most especially on the west coast, so in addition to not being amenable to new trains, the amtrak trains have to wait for every freight train that missed it's coffee stop in wherever, and the N/S Pacific coast amtraks are the most consistently untimely (by a lot, run time increased by 50-100%). Rail ownership = supreme right of way in train land.

Anyway, updating the rails in the NE, where the trains actually are, seems like the most logical first step. In other areas, updating rails has to be worked out along w/ giving the fast trains right of way. That could be a massive issue, I assume the freight lines would happily hand over right of way if Amtrak were offering to buy out all the real estate and replace the rails. And put luxury boxes in all the train stations along the way... It seems likely they'd have to meet in the middle somewhere.

[wahoonc]

but if all this peak oil and globo warming biznatch is legit [please no debates here]..then i see a real possiblilty for new, clean[er] mass transit (hi speed trains,etc) in the future.
Convert the interstates! In reality I don't believe that any of the train systems in the world are privately owned they are all quasi government agencies, and are funded thru various means. Including Amtrak. Until it becomes too expensive for the upper middle class to drive or fly you aren't going to see much in the line of changes to the status quo in this country.

Aaron:)

[ryanparrish]

It may have been stated already but I will state it again. It would cost billions of dollars for new track why? becuase freight trains chew up the track and make it unusable for high speeds. It would cost a lot of money to keep those tracks maintained properly. Furthermore that does not address that Amtrak leases the lines causing delay. What is needed is a concrete maglev track exclusive to Amtrak. Which would cost billions of dollar and people would be screaming about the enviroment is being torn up by track

[manual_overide]

So, people would complain about dropping 3 or 4 billion on a high speed train that would help eliminate long drives, and stupid airport delays when they travel, but they say nothing about the 800 billion spent in Iraq? A billion dollars just isn't that much money these days....

[manual_overide]

HSR is coming... slowly. At least here in Ohio. There is a lot of talk about the 3C corridor (Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland) and some talk about integrating with a regional rail network

http://www.dot.state.oh.us/OHIORAIL/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/index.html

[cerewa]

I think it would help to change the country's mindset to a more "free market" approach to transportation - public roads shouldn't be privatized, but cars and trucks should pay gas taxes that cover a "rent" cost for land use, plus road construction and maintenance costs, plus an amount to discourage cars' air pollution. Air passengers' tickets should also have to cover land use, airport costs, and an air pollution tax. If all of those cost burdens were put fully on the airline industry and the auto/auto-fuel industry, I suspect trains would become more popular by themselves.

[jamesdenver]

Agreed.

The motorcar dispersed millions of Americans all over the nation. They moved out of the cities and into states to live in affordable homes. Now they find themselves stuck with traffic jams.



Respectfully disagree. Lewis and Clark didn't have cars. Nor did young people riding the rails during the depression looking for work. Opportunity (like the gold rush), and innovation (like air conditioning in Phoenix) is what spurred and still spurs people to spread out.

I don't think the traffic issue became a problem until the 1970s. Before that our now inner ring suburbs only branched out from a managable circumference of downtown. Then the inner ring suburbs became dumpy with the advent of the far exurbs and the McMansion, and companies moved into sprawling suburban "campus" office parks, rather than the skycrapers downtown.

My opinion is that the armpit of America, and the most hellish place on earth is the never ending exurbs. Most downtowns are either dumps (like Detroit), or gentrified and extremely high priced (like Denver). Throw in that people will only send their kids to the most reputable schools, and some refuse to live in a 1,300 sq foot house with 1-2 baths (near the city), and insist on an enormous home in the exurbs accepting a two hour commute to another exurb for work. And the funny thing is their homes aren't even affordable. People are upside down in their mortgage paying for a 3 car garage filled with boats and jet skiis.

Anyway that's off topic for regional rail, and more a discussion for suburban design. But far flung American towns were created long before the auto age.

[wahoonc]

I think it would help to change the country's mindset to a more "free market" approach to transportation - public roads shouldn't be privatized, but cars and trucks should pay gas taxes that cover a "rent" cost for land use, plus road construction and maintenance costs, plus an amount to discourage cars' air pollution. Air passengers' tickets should also have to cover land use, airport costs, and an air pollution tax. If all of those cost burdens were put fully on the airline industry and the auto/auto-fuel industry, I suspect trains would become more popular by themselves.
It would help, but I doubt you will ever see it as long as the oil and automotive lobbies have Washington under their control. Then you would also get into the argument over who pays for which road and how much. There was a big stink a couple of years ago when some areas on the west coast were noticing a pinch in how much fuel tax revenue they were losing to the decrease in driven miles as well as the increased use of higher mileage vehicles. I don't recall the exact numbers but the per gallon fuel tax was not enough when too many people started driving hybrids and economy cars versus Hummers and pickups. They were trying to come up with a proposal to tax people on the number of miles driven. Last I heard it failed.

Aaron:)

[I-Like-To-Bike]

The Acela has nothing to do with what I'm talking about
So what ARE you talking about? Anything that's not found only in your science fiction magazines but maybe even tentatively related to economic reality for the US.

[Robert C]

...And put luxury boxes in all the train stations along the way...

I am a big fan of light rail (although I would like to see servicable rail that services most people before throwing Billions as showcase lines); however, living here in China has shown me the problem with luxury boxes (By this I assume that you mean first class cars and waiting rooms). Having established seperate facilities for the people that matter, the conditions that the peasants endure no longer matter. So, it is a case of nice first class treatment contrasted to conditions that resemble cattle pens and cars that have not been updated since the 50's.

If there is a desire to encourage people to use rail instead of private cars then creating a condition that allows the facilities, that people use, to be less attractive is the oposite dirrection from where we need to go.

[Roody]

Why does everybody assume that rail is so great? Wouldn't a major switch to rail require not only the enormous investments already mentioned, but also a major disruption in our economy and infrastructure? Wouldn't millions of Americans lose jobs in manufacturing and energy? Wouldn't millions also lose equity in their investments in those sectors? And wouldn't we end up with a transit system that's less convenient and less efficient for the average person?

You're going to have to answer questions like that if you want to sway people to back high speed rail.

[goldener]

Why does everybody assume that rail is so great? Wouldn't a major switch to rail require not only the enormous investments already mentioned, but also a major disruption in our economy and infrastructure? Wouldn't millions of Americans lose jobs in manufacturing and energy? Wouldn't millions also lose equity in their investments in those sectors? And wouldn't we end up with a transit system that's less convenient and less efficient for the average person?

You're going to have to answer questions like that if you want to sway people to back high speed rail.
and such a switch to a huge rail infrastucture would require tons and tons of $$$ investment, lots of fossil fuel inputs, lots of displaced people, lots of "environemnt damage" if you are cutting new rail lines, etc.

[wahoonc]

Why does everybody assume that rail is so great? Wouldn't a major switch to rail require not only the enormous investments already mentioned, but also a major disruption in our economy and infrastructure? Wouldn't millions of Americans lose jobs in manufacturing and energy? Wouldn't millions also lose equity in their investments in those sectors? And wouldn't we end up with a transit system that's less convenient and less efficient for the average person?

You're going to have to answer questions like that if you want to sway people to back high speed rail.

I think we are going to see the economy and infrastructure go to hell in a hand basket as oil prices continue to increase, in many places it already is. Too many of our industries are tied to cheap energy. We don't have too many manufacturing jobs left in this country they have primarily been replaced by low paying service sector jobs. I think we may even come back to a modern version of the CCC that built many things during the depression. Whatever is done will not be done with the intent of using much fossil fuel it is going to be too expensive. I suppose the loss of jobs in some fields would be made up for in the building of the system. As far as the investment there fortunes made and lost everyday. Look at the Vanderbuilts and some of the others that invested heavily in railroads and where are those infrastructures today? Basically in ruins.

Aaron:)

[cooker]

Why does everybody assume that rail is so great? Wouldn't a major switch to rail require not only the enormous investments already mentioned, but also a major disruption in our economy and infrastructure?

I'm not sure about that. The infrastructure always needs to be maintained, upgraded and/or replaced and that requires huge ongoing investment. The entire auto and airline fleet are replaced every what...couple of decades? Or less? Replacing some of them with trains and some of the roads with rails can't be much more expensive than restocking and rebuilding what we have. Auto and airline jobs would morph into rail jobs.

[Roody]

I think we are going to see the economy and infrastructure go to hell in a hand basket as oil prices continue to increase, in many places it already is. Too many of our industries are tied to cheap energy. We don't have too many manufacturing jobs left in this country they have primarily been replaced by low paying service sector jobs. I think we may even come back to a modern version of the CCC that built many things during the depression.

You don't have to tell me we're losing manufacturing jobs -- I live in Michigan. But I don't think the reason for those job losses has much to with energy prices. A more important reason is that we're exporting those jobs to other countries as a result of changing labor markets and international trading agreements. If we decided to go with trains, those would probably be built in other countries too. So how is this argument going to convince people that we should build more railways?

Whatever is done will not be done with the intent of using much fossil fuel it is going to be too expensive. I suppose the loss of jobs in some fields would be made up for in the building of the system. As far as the investment there fortunes made and lost everyday. Look at the Vanderbuilts and some of the others that invested heavily in railroads and where are those infrastructures today? Basically in ruins.

One difference between now and the Vanderbilt days is that now millions of middle class people invest in the stock market and a lot of their money is in energy, autos and related companies. You probably don't want to tell them that their fortunes are going to be lost but, oh well, it's all in the name of progress. How can you convince these average people that it's better for them to sell their current stocks and invest in rails? Keep in mind that if a lot of people did this, the value of auto-related stocks would tumble, just as rail stocks were going up. Roughly half of the investors would lose, while the rest would stand to gain. As opposed to everybody gaining as it stands now. So there's a lot of risk here for investors, and that's one reason it's going to be hard to raise money to build more RRs.

Or can you convince the Big 3 auto companies to switch to building locomotives and cars? That sounds pretty good to a Michigander!

[donrhummy]

So what ARE you talking about? Anything that's not found only in your science fiction magazines but maybe even tentatively related to economic reality for the US.

Science fiction?! These trains not only already exist but have been in use for years. Just not in the U.S.

[Platy]

I have a question about those high speed trains that are in other countries. Are they entirely grade separated from motor traffic? Are they vulnerable to derailment by crazy people putting stuff like crossties on the track?

[Elkhound]

Science fiction?! These trains not only already exist but have been in use for years. Just not in the U.S.

Exactly. Look at the Bullet Trains of Japan, or the TGR Paris-Lyon Express in France.

These are ordinary passenger trains, but it goes to show that trains can work:

When I lived in Charlotte, NC, I took the train to Raleigh more than once. It took about the same time as driving, and I arrived there rested and refreshed, rather than tense and tired as I would have had I driven.

Here in Charleston, WV, we have three trains/week to DC, and the station manager tells me that there is enogh demand for more if Amtrack had the rolling stock.

[Roody]

So what ARE you talking about? Anything that's not found only in your science fiction magazines but maybe even tentatively related to economic reality for the US.
You do know we're talking about choo-choos? Not teleportation or time travel?

[robertkat]

Our government is way too pro-highway. And as long as they keep giving the airlines and Detroit subsidies, mass transit will always take a backseat. Before anything can really happen, totally new rail lines need to be constructed. With all the freight and passenger traffic, the railroads have traffic problems of their own.

[makeinu]

A technical question:
Does high speed passenger rail actually have a lower environmental impact than, for example, air travel? Obviously a train can carry a lot more passengers than a plane, but wind resistence is much lower at high altitudes, which is especially important at high speeds.

In any case, given the current social and economic condition of the US I think that dedicated busways would be a better use of our resources. Even in the long term people, quite frankly, don't need to get from NYC to Boston in 1 hour. However, we need to somehow entice the American public away from their automobiles and high speed rail just might do the trick.

[Dahon.Steve]

There was a big stink a couple of years ago when some areas on the west coast were noticing a pinch in how much fuel tax revenue they were losing to the decrease in driven miles as well as the increased use of higher mileage vehicles. I don't recall the exact numbers but the per gallon fuel tax was not enough when too many people started driving hybrids and economy cars versus Hummers and pickups. They were trying to come up with a proposal to tax people on the number of miles driven. Last I heard it failed.

Aaron:)

The government will have to change to another revenue source to fund our highways. The cost of these superstructures is going to break Washington and we will see the last days of the freeway. The word "Gas Tax" has a bad taste but "Tolls" has appeal from both Republicans and Democrates so that is where we are going.

Here in New Jersey, a study is being conducted to toll several freeways which includes selling off the New Jersey Turnpike to private investors. I can assure you, once in private hands, those tolls will go way up because the Turnpike does not make a profit like most state run tolls roads today.

[Roody]

A technical question:
Does high speed passenger rail actually have a lower environmental impact than, for example, air travel? Obviously a train can carry a lot more passengers than a plane, but wind resistence is much lower at high altitudes, which is especially important at high speeds.


I think jets are blamed for a lot of pollution because they leave emissions so high in the atmosphere, where they evidently do even more damage. Modern trains and jets are both much cleaner than they used to be, but maybe there's still some room for improvement.

As for your second question, I'm not an engineer (of either type :)) so I might screw this up. I think the advantage of a train is from its length. Only the front or leading surface of the locomotive has to push through the air. The rest of the cars are kind of pulled along in a free ride. It's really very much like bicycles drafting in a pace line, as I understand it. The front rider does most of the work of pushing the air aside, providing an easier ride for others in the peloton.

Also, the advantage of a plane being in thinner air is offset by it's much higher speed and it's need to fight against gravity.

[makeinu]

I think jets are blamed for a lot of pollution because they leave emissions so high in the atmosphere, where they evidently do even more damage. Modern trains and jets are both much cleaner than they used to be, but maybe there's still some room for improvement.

As for your second question, I'm not an engineer (of either type :)) so I might screw this up. I think the advantage of a train is from its length. Only the front or leading surface of the locomotive has to push through the air. The rest of the cars are kind of pulled along in a free ride. It's really very much like bicycles drafting in a pace line, as I understand it. The front rider does most of the work of pushing the air aside, providing an easier ride for others in the peloton.

Also, the advantage of a plane being in thinner air is offset by it's much higher speed and it's need to fight against gravity.
Yeah, I could see all the factors you mentioned, but without having hard numbers it still seems like it could be a close call. For example, the very high speed trains seem to have a top speed of around 300 mph while jets are around 500 mph. Also, most high speed trains don't seem to carry more passengers than a 747. So it really boils down to how much difference in air drag there is between the two and whether the fight against gravity really does offset the advantage of the thinner atmosphere. After all, trains aren't that narrow in front and jets aren't that wide. Without realistic numbers it seems plausible that it could be close.

Of course, the high speed rail would provide better service with faster loading/unloading, more resilience to adverse weather, and more efficient traffic control, but I'm just wondering about energy usage and the subsequent environmental impact.

Normal rail is a different story, but I'm not convinced that normal rail is necessarily superior to dedicated busways anyway (in my experience the main ingredient that makes good normal rail service better than road traffic is centralized traffic planning and control, which could just as well be achieved with dedicated busways). In any case, it takes a lot of energy to maintain 300mph at sea level.

[Dahon.Steve]

Normal rail is a different story, but I'm not convinced that normal rail is necessarily superior to dedicated busways anyway (in my experience the main ingredient that makes good normal rail service better than road traffic is centralized traffic planning and control, which could just as well be achieved with dedicated busways). In any case, it takes a lot of energy to maintain 300mph at sea level.

Here's an idea.

Instead of spending billions on high speed rail, why not build an extra lane of road and make it rapid bus transit. You'll block it off with a concrete so the other cars can't use it and since it's a private lane for bus only, they can zoom past the traffic jams. I suspect such a lane will set you back several hundred million but that's better than a couple of hundred billions.

[wahoonc]

You don't have to tell me we're losing manufacturing jobs -- I live in Michigan. But I don't think the reason for those job losses has much to with energy prices. A more important reason is that we're exporting those jobs to other countries as a result of changing labor markets and international trading agreements. If we decided to go with trains, those would probably be built in other countries too. So how is this argument going to convince people that we should build more railways?

I live in the textile belt which has lost over a quarter of million jobs (250,000) in the last 10 years. The single biggest loss being the Pillowtex debacle when 6,450 people lost their jobs in one day with no warning. And not only did they loose their jobs, they lost insurance, and whatever retirement benefits they may have worked their lives for. And of course the executives walked away with their typical golden parachutes.

If we go trains, you are going to need people to build up the infrastructure and maintain the trains and tracks. And if the friggin' government would stop letting companies outsource jobs and protect US interests instead of profits we would be better off. Energy plays a role in the profit margins of companies. We have had to change the way we do business on a day to day basis, strictly due to the increasing cost of fuel. I know of at least 2 plants that have been shut down due to the increased cost of energy. There were other factors involved but the power costs were a major reason.



One difference between now and the Vanderbilt days is that now millions of middle class people invest in the stock market and a lot of their money is in energy, autos and related companies. You probably don't want to tell them that their fortunes are going to be lost but, oh well, it's all in the name of progress. How can you convince these average people that it's better for them to sell their current stocks and invest in rails? Keep in mind that if a lot of people did this, the value of auto-related stocks would tumble, just as rail stocks were going up. Roughly half of the investors would lose, while the rest would stand to gain. As opposed to everybody gaining as it stands now. So there's a lot of risk here for investors, and that's one reason it's going to be hard to raise money to build more RRs.

The stock market is nothing but legalized gambling, if you put money in there you had better be prepared to lose it. You have to assess the risks and make your choices. Very little of my money is in the stock market. My wife is a 24 year veteran of the airline industry. In the past 5 years she has seen her salary decline 35%, insurance costs double and her retirement/401k disappear. Until upper level management is held accountable and made to pay for their mistakes there will be no stability in any job in this country. There also has been a lack of morality (for lack of a better word) in most of the industries in this country for years. It is ALL about profits. Workers are treated like a commodity instead of an asset.

From roughly 1840-1946 railroad was king, America moved on rails. It had it's heyday and then it was supplanted by the automobile era, the automobile era is coming to an end. People will have to learn to live with it and look to the future.


Or can you convince the Big 3 auto companies to switch to building locomotives and cars? That sounds pretty good to a Michigander!

Well they are going to have to build something besides cars...they can't seem to make any money doing that!;)

I have faith in Americans, as a group they are resourceful and resilient, but unfortunately our leadership at most levels sucks. It is hard to work your way out when the leadership keeps making the hole deeper with poor management. And that is all levels of management from government, to boardrooms to individuals. The only recent bright spot I have seen was the CEO of Delta taking his $10 million in bonus money and using it to set up scholarships and assistance programs for his employees in need. I didn't see that at US Airways, in fact they upper level management there has pocketed over $40million in stock options sell offs in the just the past year while retirees have not gotten back anything they lost in the bankruptcies. The PBGC is looking into making US Airways reinstate the funding of the retirement plan. I hope for the retired workers it happens.

Aaron:)

[Juha]

For a comparison between high-speed rail and air travel, this Wikipedia article is a good place to start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail

They state that as a rule of thumb, train is usually faster than plane if the journey takes less than 3 hours by train. With the current commercial TGVs that means up to 900 kms.

--J

[I-Like-To-Bike]

You do know we're talking about choo-choos? Not teleportation or time travel?
You may be talking about choo-choos; ain't no tellin' what the SciFi afficianado OP is talking about.

[pedex]

Why does everybody assume that rail is so great? Wouldn't a major switch to rail require not only the enormous investments already mentioned, but also a major disruption in our economy and infrastructure? Wouldn't millions of Americans lose jobs in manufacturing and energy? Wouldn't millions also lose equity in their investments in those sectors? And wouldn't we end up with a transit system that's less convenient and less efficient for the average person?

You're going to have to answer questions like that if you want to sway people to back high speed rail.

because per seat mile and capital investment needed it is the most efficient way to move people and freight over land, and it can run on electricity or direct hydrocarbon burning

of course by giving up the convenience of personal transportation it is a tough sell

[JeffS]

You're going to have to answer questions like that if you want to sway people to back high speed rail.

Thanks for again playing the part of Joe and Sally Suburbanite.

*****ing and moaning until they can no longer afford to drive themselves to their jobs. By the time they realize it may be time to move to a more central location, every house in their suburb is for sale and noone is buying. By this time the economy is tanking and people start losing their jobs. Houses are forclosed on, people are living on the streets, and then things really start to get bad.

If we wait for the dimwitted and shortsighted to voluntarily give up their cars the entire country goes down the tubes. It's a pointless argument anyway, for we certainly can't fix a problem that public leaders will not admit exists.

I would be truly shocked to see any kind of national attempt at a solution. The best we can hope for is a few towns and counties, and possibly a state or two to organize some infrastructure.

[robertkat]

A technical question:
Does high speed passenger rail actually have a lower environmental impact than, for example, air travel? Obviously a train can carry a lot more passengers than a plane, but wind resistence is much lower at high altitudes, which is especially important at high speeds.

In any case, given the current social and economic condition of the US I think that dedicated busways would be a better use of our resources. Even in the long term people, quite frankly, don't need to get from NYC to Boston in 1 hour. However, we need to somehow entice the American public away from their automobiles and high speed rail just might do the trick.

As someone said before, rail is cheaper and lower impact all across the board. Being the safest amd most efficient from of travel, high speed or low. As for busways, they are a joke. You still have fuel costs, tires, and ongoing maintenance of both the road and the vehicle. Plus, it offers no speed advantage at all. Many cities have replaced light rail routes with busways, only to find it's a money pit. And hey, some people actually do need to get from NYC to Boston in an hour.

[HardyWeinberg]

The Acela's not a high speed train. The whole thing was a farce. When they first proposed it, they claimed that it would go between boston and nyc in 2hrs 45 min. Of course, they're nowhere near that speed (and that speed would still be less than 1/2 the speed of french/japanese high speed trains). The top speed the acela can go is 142 mph and it does that on about 15-20% of the track between NYC/Boston. That's it. The Acela has nothing to do with what I'm talking about (except maybe as something to take over and do differently)

That's all branding. The original Acela could get 150 mph if they had good tracks. They don't, so they can only go as fast as regular trains. What the heck were they thinking? Also, they were apparently built off specifications so they can't bank as hard on turns as they were supposed to. I don't think that's an issue at the speeds the rails limit them to though. (if they ever do get new rails, they might not be able to get 150 mph because of that, so would need new trains too).

Meantime, the non-fast, regular trains, they have since rebranded as 'Acela', and 'upgraded' the original Acela to 'Acela Express' so they are still faster from Boston to DC 'cause they don't make all the stops in rural Connecticut and wherever that the locals make.

[HardyWeinberg]

A person could get really angry w/ freight trains when seeing how they obstruct passenger rail. I find that something to watch out for... I don't know if roads would be more messed up than ever if freight trains were summarily banned and all that cargo dispersed among tractor trailers.

[Fonk]

Why does everybody assume that rail is so great? Wouldn't a major switch to rail require not only the enormous investments already mentioned, but also a major disruption in our economy and infrastructure? Wouldn't millions of Americans lose jobs in manufacturing and energy? Wouldn't millions also lose equity in their investments in those sectors? And wouldn't we end up with a transit system that's less convenient and less efficient for the average person?

You're going to have to answer questions like that if you want to sway people to back high speed rail.

Have you ever travelled in a rail society? When my wife and I travelled in Europe, we did so solely by train (and trolley/bus w/in cities), and loved it. I actually found it much more convenient than car travel. The rides were short/fast, you can just sit back and enjoy the scenery (or sleep, read, drink a beer, etc.), and you don't have to worry about wasting time parking, filling up your tank, etc. We remarked to each other several times that we wish we had that kind of opportunity here. Of course, there society has grown up around the trains, and their infrastructure is so solid, that it really is the easist way to travel. It would be a while before we could achieve that leve here, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try...

As far as the financial aspect. Some others have already responded well regarding the investments, so I won't cover that, but consider this - how might your standard of living improve if you didn't have to make a car payment and insurance payment everymonth, as well as ongoing costs of gas, regular maintenance (tires, oil changes, fluids, hoses, etc.) and repairs for a car? That alone would give you much more money to invest in other industries (like the growing rail industry)....

[jeff-o]

It used to be that travelling by rail was the most cost-effective and fastes mode of transport. With cheaper cars and air travel, that ceased to be the case for a long time. When it becomes cheaper to run a high speed rail line than it is to run an airline (aren't we there already?), and when it's easier/cheaper for the average joe to take a train than it is to drive or fly, then we'll see trains make a comeback.

[donrhummy]

It used to be that travelling by rail was the most cost-effective and fastes mode of transport. With cheaper cars and air travel, that ceased to be the case for a long time. When it becomes cheaper to run a high speed rail line than it is to run an airline (aren't we there already?), and when it's easier/cheaper for the average joe to take a train than it is to drive or fly, then we'll see trains make a comeback.

I disagree with this. I think the cheaper, better/more viable option is chosen maybe 50% of the time. Just because it'd be better for us or cheaper to implement in no way means it'll be adopted.

[Tom Stormcrowe]

What i don't understand is why all the proposed projects for this in the US always have sub-200 mph trains?! The trains in Europe are actually quite safe so that can't be the issue. Why is no one saying, "hey let's use the Japanese or French technology that's been working well for years?"
The biggest issue we'd face in this right now is the fact that there isn't a single track in the US that is designed for that kind of speed. We'd be talking a complete redesign and rebuild of the rail system.:(