High Speed Rail

Why is no one talking about high speed rail as an alternative to automobiles in the US? If we would invest in high speed rail (which much of the rail network is already in place), we could easily travel across the country more quickly, while reducing our need to expand expensive highways and airports. Someone once told me that it costs the same to build an on-ramp to a highway as it does to lay 100 miles of railroad track. Getting a country-wide high speed rail network seems so obvious to me, but why is no one talking about it? We're America...we should have the worlds best high speed train system!! Not to mention the jobs it would create in operating and building the system!!!

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Konrad Roeder on October 26, 2008 at 11:49am: I think people here in Seattle need to start building a High-Speed rail project from Vancouver, BC to Eugene, OR. on rails separate from BNSF and UP freight.

Currently it is possible to take the Cascade from Seattle to Vancouver, BC and down to Eugene, OR, but the BNSF rails which are shared with Amtrak are only single track, on wood ties and not electrified. Many major roads need bridges over the tracks and railroad crossings need to be eliminated. The route is often congested with freight and Amtrak gets use on a secondary basis only. The UP rails have the same problem and don't have passenger traffic running on them.

There are some other problems. Seattle-Portland by plane is $ 147 round trip and $56 and takes not much longer. But when you get to Portland or Seattle, there are no rental car facilities nearby. This means the business traveler has no place to pick up a car on the other side of the trip. In Portland, it's a *long* walk from the train station to the nearest light rail station. The two systems are not tied together, etc. In Seattle, the light rail system is still being built.

All these things need help. But if we start now, in 30 years, things will be much better.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Konrad Roeder on October 26, 2008 at 11:55am: Well, it is. The Republicans traditionally are against mass transportation. Republicans actively try to kill Amtrak.

This is Bush's proposal for Amtrak this year:
http://www.mgwashington.com/index.php/news/article/bush-would-cut-a...

At the same time Bush has doubled the national debt in 8 years.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Roman on September 3, 2008 at 2:41pm: Your idea is great, its one of the better ones that I have come across on this site. I feel that the reason that not nearly enough attention is being given to High Speed Rail systems is because the High Speed Railway System (HSRS) needs extensive modification, from what we have in place today. The railways that we do have require the use of locomotives which are self powered, while HSRS locomotives derive their energy from the tracks with complex sensors, power grids and modes of monitoring. The real goal here is to first change how people get around in a close proximity.
Going to work in the morning and coming back in the evening is where most American's burn their fuel. This is what needs to be changed first, HSRS can be deployed once the US starts using less oil and begins concentrating on our country more than on others.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike S on September 3, 2008 at 3:23pm: Roman, you're right. It makes absolutely no "energy" sense to drive to get your groceries from Wal-Mart when we used to be able to walk down the street and get it (plus we got exercise doing it, ran into our neighbors and friends in the process - all of which probably made for better knit and safer communities). Sure, the "cost" of Wal-Mart goods is cheaper, but it has cost us our local businesses that circulated our money in our local economy, rather than to the hands of a select few in some far off corporate town in Arkansas.

It's funny; it used to be that most people owned their own small local business in America, or at least worked under someone with the hopes of someday running that same business. Now it seems like everyone is working for a boss they don't even know, and have no expectations to one day run the business. How depressing. I really think Republicans (and Democrats) could lead us to a more localized economy, where our goods and services are produced more locally by small businesses. It would make for better communities and also reduce our need for unnecessary transportation and exploitation of others' resources. It would keep money inside our communities and probably call for local government enforcement (which Republican's would love), but demand some level of government control to enforce proper wages, living and working standards, and environmental controls (which Democrat's would love).

Not sure how I got on that tangent, but there are a lot of common sense solutions to our energy problem. We just have to stop being fat and lazy Americans! :-); ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by DubleDeuce on September 8, 2008 at 5:14pm: Okay Mike,

A lesson is BASIC economics.

As a prelude, it is a GIVEN that all Americans (including you) want more and they want it for less, and they want it NOW. This a classic demand requiring the efficiency triangle conundrum. Pick any two from the efficiency triangle. Your choices are cheap, fast, and good. The conundrum is that you can only have TWO of the three offerings, not all three at the same time.
<<It's funny; it used to be that most people owned their own small local business in America>> It's NOT funny at ALL. The demand of the consumer for the cheap corner of the triangle demands that economy of scale be placed into play. Wal-Mart can buy MORE product and a cheaper cost than the corner Mom and Pop.

Secondly, the Big Box chain can warehouse and market ALL of that product under ONE roof where if all that crap was spread between ALL of the needed Mom Pops stores, (and the attendant cost to MAINTAIN a profitable Mom and Pop business in EACH of those small shops) there would be no ROOM on this planet for houses.

Since the Big Box has ALL that CRAP in it, and it needs to have a minimum of sales volume to maintain profitability, it stands to reason that there will NOT be one on EACH corner of every sub-division in this country. Otherwise, we go back to the Mom and Pop store. Couldn't you just see the hue and cry of the local neighborhood Housing associations fighting to keep out a LOCAL Mom and Pop Big Box on the corner??

Part of the BASIS for this sites popularity is the fact that MOST here think that energy independence it is a good idea. Many have STATED that they DON'T want THEIR hard earned money going out of this country to foreign governments.

Now YOU come along and say you don't want YOUR hard earned money going to a small hamlet in Northwest Arkansas <<rather than to the hands of a select few in some far off corporate town in Arkansas.>> Seems you want ALL of the money spent in YOUR community to go to YOUR community. The (Republicans would love....) it the operative phrase that tripped you up Mike.

And THEN comes the caveat phrase. The ONE point of view that shows that you have NO idea of what the fundamental nature of this country is ALL about, Freedom.
INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM. NOT <<but demand some level of government control to enforce proper wages, living and working standards, and environmental controls, government mandated control to enforce proper wages...blah...blah...blah....>>

Government controls (in the form of the EPA) has GOTTEN us INTO this mess of no local source fuel and no drilling to get any, and NO ability to inexpensively convert our cars to NG. ALL gifts from governmental control. NO MORE MIKE!!!

Maybe a stint (15-20 years ) in democratic Russia will cure you of this ignorance. Certainly, living HERE has not done the trick.

Be AWFULLY careful of what you ask for Mike, you JUST might get it.

The Deuceman; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on September 4, 2008 at 12:38pm: It always strikes me that the logical location for new high speed rail in the median strip of the Interstates. The land is there and available. Light rail is already installed in the medians in some cities like Chicago and St Louis. And the interstates already go where people want to go. There are 46,837 miles of Interstate in the US. I90 goes from Boston to Seattle; I80 from New York City to San Francisco; I05 from Miami into Maine; I35 from Laredo to Duluth; I5 from San Diego to Seattle. All of these look like good routes for high speed travel since people travel them anyway.

There would be no land acquisition costs. And no noise problems because people already know about the noisy Interstate and have learned to live with it. This would be a major public works program, putting a lot of people to work. If the trains etc are made in the USA, a great boost to our industrial base.

Plus by putting stations at major exits, the infrastructure for parking etc remains. If four rail line are used, there can be local and express trains. The locals would stop at each stop along the route. The express trains could then run long periods without stopping.

Trains can easily be electrified.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike S on September 4, 2008 at 1:00pm: Dale, you're right...that's the pure simplicity of rail...it can be electrified! So basically, you can move thousands of people with minimal amounts of energy (which can be generated from solar, wind, or whatever). And it would create thousands of jobs...just like the public works program for building the interstate highway system. Also, the neat thing with trains is that you can run Express trains and Local trains. So basically, if you wanted to go from St Louis to Columbus, Ohio, you could take the Express straight to Columbus, or take the Local, which might stop in Champaine, Indianapolis, Dayton, and just about every other city inbetween.

I've heard a lot of people suggest putting rail along highways, but the single problem is that highways are too "hilly" for trains. Next time you're driving next to some railroad tracks, look at them and notice how flat they are. Train tracks typically run at the ridge of water sheds. The water shed ridge is typically the flattest land, and easiest to run trains on. Fortunately, the rail infrastructure already exists (except for a few rail lines that we've converted to bike paths!! whoops!!). Our existing rail just needs some upgrades to "smooth" and bank the curves to allow for the high speed trains.

Also, the problem with putting trains along interstate highways, is that you have to drive to the interstate to ride the train...which sort of defeats the whole purpose. Unfortunately, we've spread our cities out in America, which makes it difficult to get enough density to make the trains work for everyone. Most existing tracks in America go straight into the core of downtowns, where it makes a lot of sense because the density is typically good enough for proper ridership. We can start with serving the downtown areas again, and eventually that will spur intercity trolleys, buses, bikes, etc.

I've talked several times with a large railroad R&D team member. He tells me that high speed rail will be available within 5 years (as long as the support continues to increase), with high-speed rail being very common just about everywhere in America by 2025. However, the quicker we built it, the better.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on September 5, 2008 at 11:08pm: Thanks Mike. My suggestion is to put the trains not alongside the highway, but in the median of the highway. Chicago does this, so it is not impossible. Maybe it is only feasible for densely populated areas. OTOH, once a rail line is installed, it could be that the area will quickly become densely populated. This is happening here in Los Angeles, of all places, around the Red Line subway system: loads of apartments going up around the stations.

The European Tribune has a story on high speed rail in China:

http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/9/3/174412/0350

The technology is in place for high speed rail: in the 180 mph range. Seems to be used everywhere in the world except the US.

Greater Los Angeles is a series of smaller cities spread all over the place in valleys and mountains. The train system here is Metrolink for heavy rail and Metro for light rail and buses. Ridership is soaring. It seems to be widely realized that we have literally reached the end of the road. Our freeways are crowded at all hours with frequent gridlock. People are accepting the trains. The Red Line from North Hollywood to downtown takes between 20 and 30 minutes. Driving can take hours.

One feature here is that office jobs frequently do not come with parking. Workers have to pay up to $25 per day. Really makes mass transit an attractive alternative.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on September 5, 2008 at 11:14pm: A great source of information on rail services is:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/

which covers what is going on now in North American efforts to expand light rail.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SJC on September 6, 2008 at 8:39pm: Light rail is seen by some as taking money from roads. People like their personal transportation and see light rail as providing transport to people that use buses...and that is not them.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dale Nelson on September 7, 2008 at 11:56am: Well, each person on public transportation means one less car on the road. In congested areas, this is worthwhile. Think of the money that goes to rail and buses as a bribe that clears up space to drive. And maybe if the full cost of gas were paid by drivers, they might change their mind. Let the war in Iraq be fully paid by a tax on gas. Then see what happens. If the full costs of gas were paid by those who use gas, I suspect the world would look different.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/business/economy/17view.html

"For instance, although the United States doesn’t have direct fuel subsidies, existing fuel taxes significantly understate the pollution and congestion costs associated with additional fuel use."

In some places people do see public riders as 'not them'. In others, everybody rides (NYC, Chicago, ST, Boston) so there is not this problem.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dana Hopkins on September 7, 2008 at 6:34am: I like that idea. A couple of minor points:

There are places where the rail would not be able to follow the median, since the turns an interstate are able to take are tighter than those a rail line is capable of, and the higher the speed of the rail, the wider the turning radius, but overall it would be a good option, IMHO.

I wonder - just thinking out loud - would it be feasible to add a couple of rail cars that would be able to carry passenger cars? This way, a passenger would drive onto the rail in Boston, ride to Chicago, and drive his car from Chicago to KC. (for example); ▶ Reply to This