Should the U.S. Embrace High-Speed Rail?

I've always loved the idea of high-speed rail. I was thrilled to have a chance to ride the Shinkansen a few years ago*. Sadly, I've learned to face the economic realities that make high-speed rail a bad idea.

As it turns out, only two high-speed rail lines -- between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France -- consistently show a profit:

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006256.html

Even in China, which has regions of high population density, high-speed rail does not make sense:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-04/19/content_9745174_2.htm

So unless someone develops a new technology to make building a high-speed rail line cheaper, or a new economic model for how to make high-speed rail economically viable, I don't think it should be 'embraced'.

_{*I thought it was a hoot that a plinky piano version of "I've been working on the railroad" was played on the loudspeakers just before the train arrived in the station.}

All transportation systems today exist only through public funding in one way or another. None of the bridges, tunnels and roads built and maintained today make a profit. The airlines do not pay for airport construction or air traffic controllers. The closest to a completely independent for profit transportation system today is ocean freight and they do not pay for NOAA weather information, Naval protection, dock construction and of course the roadway infrastructure that brings things to and from the dock. So why must high speed rail exist only where profit is guaranteed.

Certainly high speed rail should be used judiciously. But to dismiss it because it won't be profitable seems to me to be a specious argument.

You are correct in the facts, but a bit off on the analysis.

The goverment does pay for airports and TSA agents, for roads and bridges. In fact every form of transport has its own govt subsidy. (In a slightly more aggregious example, every form of energy generation, from coal to nuclear to wind to hydro gets subsidies so they can compete with each other.)

I would say that a) the government should get out of the business of running airports and many of the other activities it does, and b) should stop subsidizing businesses and let the markets level. After all, why should we subsidize rail so that it can compete with air traffic, which we also subsidize? Why should the government run the airports when it could be done so much safer and more efficient by private enterprise?

Finally, there is one thing you have missed about high speed rail. It is not an economic driver. It only carries passengers. It is not a solution for freight. We already have cheap, efficient freight trains & planes available. The reason nobody cares that roads and bridges don't turn a profit is that we depend on them to transport both people and goods to our homes and places of buisiness. HSR will not change that.

Most mass transit systems are not profitable. Then most are not to make a profit but to provide a service. We also have to look at the other benefits that they may provide. Reduction in the congestion of our crowded highways. Reduction in cost in improving those highways to handle the ever increasing traffic. Reduction in cost in maintain the highways if rail will reduce usage.

The one proposed in Florida would reduce traffic on interstate 4 if people use it. Problem I see is what is at the end to the line. What plans are there to get me to my final destination. Do we get high speed rail just to be left standing at the station?

Personally I think the money would be better spent on commuter rail in those cities that don't have them. Or improvement to those that do to provided more coverage.

first off why? when we can't even get our current rail system to turn a profit

That's because the government is running it! The government does very little effectively or efficiently.

This so-called Stimulus Package is one of the worst contrived plans that has ever been come up with. Let me see if I get this right;

we are going to print money that isn't backed by anything valuable (gold/silver), and devalue our dollar even more

we will give the money to a bunch of fatcats and union organizations as payback for their contributions and support for helping unethical people get into office

we are going to interject mindless guidelines and beauacracy administered by even more mindless and inept government administrators

we will keep capable people out, the entrepreneurs and proven business capable people from building, operating and maintaining the infrastructure.

And then we will expect it to work right?

Pardon me for being skeptical.

I was looking for a good reason why.... :(

Our new governor of wisconsin just shot down/canceled the new proposed rail from milwaukee to the twin cities in minnesota. Because he said he wants to be fiscally responsible..... What's he doing in office. The unions are crying look how many jobs that would create building it. His response...after it's built....then what? I like him, wonder what he's doing as a poitician, he has common sense

thats not skeptical.. that just realistic. you aren't getting into the real dark side.

Bottom line. As long as we have gasoline and can afford it, we'll drive our cars.

The other option is flying, which can be cheaper than driving, and it's really fast.

Americans like fast. If I can fly from coast to coast in seven hours, give or take, for four or five hundred bucks round trip. There is no way I'm going to think about spending two days on a train each way.

Short distances, we'll drive. Long distances, we'll fly. We don't have time to even think about something somewhere in the middle. Forget it. Bad idea.

Fairly short runs between cities, maybe. But I want to see the math showing those trains at least 3/4 full all day long, both ways, otherwise forget it.

The main reason it's a bad idea...........WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY!!!!!!!!!

WE WOULD HAVE TO BORROW IT FROM THE CHINESE, and they are getting real worried about our credit.

Hope I didn't offend anyone by yelling, the days of the never ending government spending spree need to stop..............about 10 years ago.

We already have the Acela in the only places where it might make sense. It would be a waste of money. They might be able to make a case for San Francisco to LA but who knows? The way I figure it, if private investors want to give it a go, that's fine. If there isn't money to be made, the government should not tax the majority for the benefit of the few.

High-speed rail is great for big population centers separated by vast expanses of nothingness. Trains operating that fast take a long time to accelerate and decelerate, and cannot negotiate sharp turns or inclines such as overpasses. The rail line must have priority and everything is routed around it.

Many older countries fit this description and for centuries rail was the only mode of transportation. As the country grew everything was built around the rail. America is a much younger country, and transportation was built around roads for the automobile. The car allowed urban sprawl and spread out the population centers.

Additionally America has a very well developed airline infrastructure, and planes are much faster than trains. It will be very difficult for rail to compete with both cars and airplanes.

Interestingly, the Tokyo/Osaka distance is roughly the same as the Paris/Lyon distance- roughly 400 km. Shinkansen runs at a maximum of 260 km/hr, while in Europe, high speed rail runs 200 to 250 km/hr. The best in China runs 268 km/hr, with the world record held by an experimental train at 361 km/hr.

Based on the "profitable" lines, the ideal would seem to be two end points separated by about 1.5 hours, more or less, offering appropriate follow-on transportation (Shinkansen terminates in railway stations that offer connections to other local destinations, and very good taxi service; I suspect Paris and Lyon offer similar options for end-point transportation).

One of the phenomena that used to puzzle me, back in my days of driving in the US, your actual instantaneous speed was not all that important- long haul driving generally results in an average speed over time (accounting for time required to stop and fuel up, etc.) would be close to 30 mph (probably higher for a shorter haul). But let us say that one could do a trip by car over a 400 km distance (gassing up only at the end points) at 55 mph (~88 km/hr). So, considering the private auto takes you to your final destination more quickly (no need to waste time changing carriers, etc.), driving and high speed rail are pretty much the same from the standpoint of time investment, with the private auto have a slight edge on convenience (especially important if the trip is relatively rare). Flying the same distance? About the same actual travel time, but add a couple of hours to the overall trip for check-in and baggage claim/renting a car, etc. and the time investment in traveling by air loses big time.

One way trip by car would cost you about $35.00 (highly dependent, of course, on fuel prices and gas mileage- $35 is based on $3.50/ gallon, 25 mpg). What does one pay these days for an airline ticket on a 400 km trip (New York/Washington, Houston/Dallas, etc.). If one pays, say, $10 for the train ticket, but then has to pay another $25 for a taxi to the final destination, the car wins hands down...

Now, a major factor with successful high speed rail is going to be the follow-on transportation on either end- and about the only place in the US where one might have adequate taxi/subway alternatives already in place would be Washington, DC/New York.

Now, we must factor in the apparent premium most Americans are willing to pay for perceived convenience and a sense of personal control, and it is hard to believe that it will be an easy sale to convince most Americans to chose to go by train rather than personal auto.

High speed rail does not appear to be a viable option for most American markets...

Average road speeds are much higher than 30 mph. When we pull our travel trailer (we are the Slowskies ) with stops for fuel, rest room, and meals (prepared in our own kitchen), we easily average 50 mph even on all day trips.

It's been a while since I've done any driving, but, back in the day, cross-country driving, I could never get the average above about 30 mph- even with normal "instantaneous" speeds in the 65-70 mph. Maybe my rest stops were longer than yours?

Much as I love riding the TGV when I'm in France, I am as certain as I can be that nothing like it could succeed in the USA. The strongest opposing factor is low population density, which guarantees a low fill rate. But the USA has another problem, which is far worse: all our rail infrastructure is owned by freight railways, and is built and maintained to carry relatively slow freight trains. High-speed rail à la TGV or Shinkansen must have dedicated track with welded rails and concrete crossties. Ordinary gravel ballast is sometimes not sufficient, particularly at curves, and the way has to be concreted. I see no way that the rights-of-way we now have could accomodate fast rail in addition to existing track, especially in the cities where real estate is all spoken for. Almost no American trackage is electrified, so gas turbines would have to be used for propulsion instead of the relatively lightweight and highly efficient electric motors used elsewhere.

Shared track can be upgraded somewhat, and specialized lightweight rolling stock can raise speeds somewhat, but not to the level of a bullet train. And there's still the imperative of letting those freights through.

Yes, these are critical reasons that high speed rail in the US will likely never happen. (I just found the earlier argument against public funding of public transportation hollow.) I do think that we maybe overlooking one additional common factor where high speed rail does work. Certainly at the Asian rails and probably in Europe the population density in these hub cities is high enough that local public transit already works. I suspect that usable land between these urban centers is much more valuable than most land in the US. So for these locations to grow but not consume more valuable land between cities for additional major highway and feeder infrastructure high speed rail becomes a viable option.

well... there is can't, and then there is can't but will anyway.

most people (not you) have no idea how monumentally difficult it was to build the original rail lines. (both freight and passenger) It had a staggering cost... but men were men... and the rest were slaves.

but these days, the machines can take the place of the slaves.

Even though the existing surface rail system is owned by freight, as you say, there is always the 'third dimension'.. go up.. aka a monorail or two or three.

Even though the value of the dollar is grossly inflated since 130 years ago, the value of labour and materials remains the same. It is just a decision.

Chris

We should use what available money that the Fed is earmarking (or proposing) to rebuild what infrastructure we already have such as: highways and bridges, water systems, sewers, treatment plants and dams. Throwing good tax money into passenger rail improvements is a waste of money. If federal monies are to be spent on rail lines, then that money should be instead spent of the freight lines because they are the life blood of this nation. Without them we are doomed economically.

A far majority of the above-mentioned are in deplorable state and operating well beyond their intended design lifespan, especially the bridges and water systems. Most of the worse is underground.....and out of site, out of mind. Quite unfortunate; legislatures (and all forms of government) have let things slide for way to long. Band-Aid fixes of the past have done us a great disservice....

Visit the ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) website and read the White Paper studies made by that association and you'll get an eyeful and new appreciation of how decrepit our infrastructure has become nationwide.....and fixing it properly can only aid in the recovery of our economy, foster new manufacturing base, and create jobs across the entire spectrum.

http://www.asce.org look in the "Issues & Advocacy" tab, or:

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Adding my 2 Bits to the pile....

In Japan, public transportaton is practically door-to-door. A person almost in any part of Japan is only a few blocks away from public transportation. That means he doesn't have to rely on a personal auto to get where he's going.

If we had hi-speed rail, we would have to drive to the station; take the train; get off at our destination and still not be there yet. We would have to find another means of transport to get us to the final destination. The Northeast corridor is about the only area where the infrastructure is in place. Population density thruout the country doesn't lend itself to hi-speed rail.

One must also consider, in Japan, people who take hi-speed rail, live in one place and travel to their job on a daily basis. People here, don't travel more than 50 miles to their job. Private autos are the most direct means of transport for the average American who commutes less than 50 miles one way. Most commute distances are probably around 15-20 miles round trip. In a large city, the trip can be made by public transport, but in the suburbs, the auto is the prefered means of transport.

it may work in japan, but japan has a high density population and a culture that accepts rail.

Rail, either high, medium or low speed is unattractive at present. Determine WHY it is an unattractive option, and the answers will jump right out at you. Let me count the ways.

1. It is a nineteenth century answer to a twenty first century problem. There may be other, more futuristic, better solutions.

2. Rail is not owned by anybody, and is therefore not owned by anybody. Nobody will take pride in it. Like, when was the last time you saw a passenger grab a broom to sweep out a subway car? Result...a steady rate of deterioration which results in unpleasant surroundings. Ever see anybody stop some yob from spray painting gang tags on a train? And you won't ever see it either. Note the contrasting lack of gang tags spray painted on private autos.

3. Busses have to work with rail in order for public transit to work. Busses are VERY expensive, and have very nearly risen to their natural efficiency limits. They are smokey, jerky, and full of strangers.

4. Our Beaver Cleaver lifestyles, the 2.5 children with the special attachment to clean the dog hairs out of the station wagon white picket fence and suburban front and back yards is the problem. It can only work when you have a car, and it is not compatible with public transit.

There are more....however, how would we solve these problems?

1. Modernize. It might mean getting away from nineteenth century rails entirely. That might even leaving mag levs behind, though honestly, it would be hard to find a better support and drive system, especially for a monorail. But there are other possibilities. I know I have a secret love for Heinlein and Asimov's moving roads, for instance. But there may be other concepts which might be useful. Mini-van taxi's for instance would give door to door service, and carry more than the standard one person per car we see on the roads today. Think about it...that is do-able even now!

2. personalized rail cars. Little ones, single family sized. I rather like the idea of a car which you would drive up to the "rail" line, and hitch it up to a hundred others in a string. Then turn the engine off, and get towed to the next city, or the next county, or whatever on the mag lev. When you get to where you are going, you unhook from the "train", and drive it to your destination. Give you that extra hour sleep we are all missing in the morning!

3. Busses can be made less efficient and more interesting to ride in. Why make them all the same? Some can look like the inside of a nineteenth century rail car, others can look like space ship cabins. All will have a refreshment bar, wi-fi, and a way to walk around to stretch your legs.

4. Lots of people believe in "peak oil" and for good reason. (google it, it is a shorthand way of saying "the end of our oil lifestyle") The suburbs which are so attractive now will become the unattractive slums, and the down town properties with easy communications will become much more attractive. This change WILL occur, and a good idea would be to gentrify your downtowns now while you still can afford to buy there. (Take a page out of Donald Trump's book and see how he revitalized the downtown of New York) Put the suburbs back under farmland where it belongs.

Personally I was excited to discover that Universities are issuing year long bus passes, and some places are even issuing taxi vouchers in a reasonably successful attempt to keep their kids from getting killed on their way home from the taverns. The logic of course, being that cleaning up after a deadly pile up, policing the streets and providing more and more down town parking for partying college kids is more expensive than simply giving them a ride home in a taxi. Not to mention the human cost of so many deaths who make up such a large part of the twenty eight thousand a year in Canada! Why should it stop with kids?

Anyway, I digress a bit. The answer to the question is "should we fund high speed rail". My answer is hell no, we can do a LOT better.

Cross country mach ten pneumatic tubes.

roads that roll under the existing roads, so that the first twenty mph is taken by the road. Even in bumper to bumper traffic, you would still be moving, instead of just idling nose to tail during rush hour!

taxi services in the down town run entirely by robots.

More telecommuting.

The 10 hour work day, four day work week.

There you go. Can't say I am not making a positive post here!!!

Your comments gentlemen?

Twenty eight thousand ( road? deaths) a year in Canada! The answer to the question is "should we fund high speed rail". My comment is - at that rate you HAVE to!

In Australia -our annual road (death) toll is about 1000-1200-1500 people. Say it quietly and the numbers don't hit you. Think about it though..4-5 747's crashing each year with a total loss of life!!

Passenger rail numbers will rise due to economics. Subsequently there WILL be a demand for faster travel across the land. To quote the movie..'if you build it, they will come'...

My mistake...that should have been twenty eight hundred, not twenty eight thousand. Good call! Good that you spotted that! (Hangs head in shame for making such an order of magnitude error.) I believe the USA has about 28 thousand per year. No sorry, just checked...its nearly twice that forty two thousand six hundred and thirty six deaths in 2004. How much is that in twin towers? Hmmm...that would be 42 thou divided by 3 thousand. That would be 14. So America's highways account for fourteen twin towers every year. Seems like a good reason to try something less, um...fatal. Like rails!!!

stats here....world.....Canada....bar graph of world weighted by deaths per 100,000.

A very large portion of these deaths are young people. Clearly we don't give a flying fxxx about our young people. Gosh, you could pay for moving sidewalks from New York to Boston with the funeral expenses alone! But hey....what do I know.

It would be good as an alternative to air transport, if passengers did not have to be 'strip-searched'. Myself, I have quit flying commercial lines because I wish to keep my Swiss Army knife in my pocket.

This wasn't surprising... to some anyways...

The government hung some bait (grants to states the was pushed by lobbyists) to build a High Speed Rail... and when the state gets committed, it then becomes a money pit for them

Wisconsin turned it down,... California on the other hand,... loves spending money....