Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Putting money in high speed rail
Let’s all agree: America’s passenger rail system is feeble. Its lines are few, its trains are sparsely traveled, and the only “high speed” line in the U.S. is Amtrak’s Acela route, which goes between D.C. and Boston, where trains travel at around 80 mph. The high speed trains in France travel at about 135 mph.
Today President Obama – with the backing of his Republican Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood – introduced a plan to invest in high speed rail around the country.
Obama painted a picture:
Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city. No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination.
It’s not just a fanciful vision, he said. Places like France, Japan, Spain, and China already have heavily used high speed lines.
The president had already allocated $8 billion towards high speed rail in the $787 billion stimulus package, and he proposes $1 billion in the federal budget from this point forward to update current lines and build new ones. Already six high speed routes are in the works in the Chicago area, Texas, and the Southeast.
What do our readers think? Is an investment in passenger rail worthwhile? Does it work in the widespread American geography? Is it a good way to get us off oil?
back to top22 Comments to “Putting money in high speed rail”
It’s like I always say: if it’s so great an idea why havent private investor’s put up the money to do it for profit? A govt transit lines means transit workers’ unions and all that go with them.
Agree that mass transit suffers in the USA cuz it has to be built around existing developmt instead of developmt being done around the transit.
I cannot for the life of me figure out why Amtrak doesnt shut down the lines which perennially lose money. But cost containmt and profitability are alien concepts to gummint-run enterprises.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner, Amtrak is a government-owned business and therefore the standard business logic does not apply.
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner,
You could say the same thing in your first paragraph about the highway system.
Also, in many places, development was already there, near train stations which have since fallen into decay. My city, Buffalo, is a classic example where there was a once-thriving Central Terminal, and an extensive intra-regional rail network. In the ’80’s, they built a single “line-to-nowhere” subway.
The rail infrastructure was systmatically dismantled or left to rot in place beginning in the ’50’s with a misguided subsidization for interstates, expressways to avoid the city that cut through and destroyed neighborhoods. Contra what you say in your second paragraph, those expressways weren’t built around the neighborhoods, they removed the neighborhoods with emminent domain.
And development follows transportation infrastructure – this in large part accelarated flight to the suburbs.
The sooner we can bring back rail, and invest in things that will actually improve efficiency and reduce dependence on oil, the better!
Report comment to moderator
Thomas #3,
If you recall the film “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” the villain worked as an agent for carmakers and road building firms. It’s more or less historic fact that private bus lines and other mass transit were bought out by interests vested in American’s shifting away from buses and trains to privately-owned cars.
Seems no matter what we attempt to do which might lead to long-run LESS DEPENDENCE on imported oil, some faction arises to oppose it. ( Despite the fact that nuclear power can halt increase of greenhouse gases the old “no nukes” mob still has lotsa clout).
Report comment to moderator
Thomas #3, also I do believe the interstate highway system was heralded for bipartisan appeal: Cold Warriors saw it as vital for moving troops or war materiel, and old New Dealers saw it as a great job generating program.
Report comment to moderator
High speed rail development would be a fine program if operated by the private sector. The increasing size of government, and its continual overstepping of its boundaries, leads me to believe that it need not have another metaphoric iron in the fire.
Report comment to moderator
If the investment will make Americans more prosperous and improve their quality of life, just saying no seems penny wise and pound foolish. The fact that railroads haven’t introduced high speed rail doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Private investors failed to build the Panama Canal, too.
Of course, conservatives aren’t bound to agree, just because high-speed rail could turn out to be the biggest boon since interstate highways. Conservatives are smart enough to fear policy success far more than failure. (In power, they can’t tell governance from sabotage.) They oppose high speed rail because it seems improper to them. One can’t really argue over what seems proper or improper, however, so we’ll all have to go by what Congress decides and the courts allow. Fortunately, the founding fathers gave us the right and the power to do pretty much as we please.
Report comment to moderator
We all love public transportation. It’s great for the other guy.
Report comment to moderator
Places like France, Japan, Spain, and China already have heavily used high speed lines.
Argentine was going to start building the first in the Americas but suspended the 441-mile project due to the financial crisis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buenos_Aires-Rosario-C%C3%B3rdoba_high-speed_railway
Report comment to moderator
I spent 8 years living in Europe and the railroad system was excellent in the 80s. And efficient – you could set your watch by German trains. I always thought a decent passenger railway system would be a great idea in the US, but alas, Americans are too wedded to their cars, and the American auto industry with its lobby power enjoyed the corner they had on the transportation market. But the times, they are-a-changin’. Now, if we can keep the government from running it into the ground like they do to everything they get their hands on, it might work.
Report comment to moderator
The rail system in the US was built on a large number of governmental subsidies. It was one reason why the United States quickly surpassed the rest of the world in track laid. Likewise, our investment in airports and air control and the like are also the investment of government money. Transportation is often a mixed economic reality, because of the benefits society as a whole enjoys.
Specifically, there is a rationale for high speed rail for the distances of up to 500 miles. Rail can move more passengers in comparable time than air. There are some pretty substantial difficulties in achieving such a network. The discussion at Matthew Yglesias (a liberal blog) handles many of these aspects.
Report comment to moderator
If there were a high speed, dependable-on time rail service, I would use it for vacations. I like to see the land as it goes by at 70MPH. Riding the rail would mean I wouldn’t have to pay attention to the road, too.
Report comment to moderator
I think long distance high speed rail is very unlikely to be close to being able to compete with air travel, at least outside a couple of corridors.
But I do think that extensive commuter and regional rail lines with thoughtful planning, plentiful service and reasonably high speeds would be a great boon to big and small cities and exurbs.
For those lines I suspect that whatever subsidies and construction costs are incurred are quite likely to be surpassed by economic benefits that are somewhat more difficult to measure. And yes, the environmental benefits seem to me to worth pursuing.
About 15 years ago Baltimore ran a 15 or so mile corridor out to its northwest. They learned from some prior unfortunate experiences running highways through neigborhoods and put a lot of the rail line in the median of an interstate. There was relatively little fuss, and I think the effects on the city and the area served have been dramatic and mostly very positive.
Report comment to moderator
I, too, love rail travel, but the problem is that places like France, Japan, Spain, and China have a much higher population density than we do. The number of travelers wishing to go between mid-sized cities justifies the investment in rail. But building a passenger line between, say, Indianapolis and Columbus makes no sense because the few hundred individuals who travel between those points each day do not justify the billions required to lay track. The current freight line tracks can’t be used because a lot of them are limited to 30 MPH, and nobody wants to spend ten hours between relatively close cities.
I’ve been to China, and the tolerable passenger rail network is largely confined to the high-density areas around the coast. Yes, they have trains into the hinterlands but it takes days to get where you’re going and you have to sleep on the floor.
The only way the US will be able to effectively use rail for most interstate passenger travel is to move the whole population east of Indiana. Maybe we’ve gotten addicted to unlimited land but there is is.
I’m pretty sure Obama is not too ignorant to understand this, so it’s puzzling why he is taking this tack.
Report comment to moderator
I took the Acela train from Boston to NY. It was great! But then, it was a business trip and we were in first class. All the Perier you could drink and pretty good food. It travels along the ocean and has marvelous views.
So it’s great for businesses near the railway and for connecting large cities. The down side is that it is too expensive and too restrictive for me to take and pay for on my own. If my destination isn’t near a train station then forget it.
The Acela travels 100 mph slower than Japan’s Shinkansen and much bumpier. It is a major eyesore and source of noise when you are trying to enjoy the Connecticut coast line.
Obama gave Harry Reid a gift (with our money) by paying for a bullet train to Vegas. Oh goody, now people can lose their life savings in several ways, i.e. through gambling and taxation.
Report comment to moderator
A great idea.
The interstate highways system facilated the growth of suburbs and the movement of industry to highway access points and not rail lands. Similar to subways, rapid transt lines, etc you build and people will come.
Report comment to moderator
We are way behind the rest of the world in this area. I say go for it. I will use it if it is priced similarly to airline tickets and serves major cities with connections to regional services.
Report comment to moderator
It would be cheaper for Uncle Sam to pay every passenger’s cab fare. And that would have far less impact on the environment than building the entirely new infrastructure such a system would require.
Report comment to moderator
I can’t agree that Amtrak is sparsely traveled. The system IS feeble, but the trains are heavily traveled in most places. Amtrak needs more and better equipment to be competitive.
I don’t know what Obama proposes. There was some rumor that they wanted to spend a billion or so for a high speed line from LA to Las Vegas. What a waste.
Will the emphasis be on commuter rail (doesn’t need to be high speed)? On city to city corridors (Chicago to St. Louis or DFW to Houston) – that sounds worthwhile. Or long distance routes, like coast to coast? Too expensive. I think they should concentrate on incremental improvements, upgrading track speeds by 10 or 20 mph for instance, double tracking where it would help. Adding more frequent service on heavily traveled lines is needed.
Riding Amtrak on a vacation can be very pleasant and relaxing, but it’s definitely slow. Amtrak needs to be able to better compete with airlines for shorter trips, 300 or 400 miles, both in time and cost. Very long distance trips can best be left to the airlines. French trains may be great, but the don’t have to make 1000 mile journeys!
Keep in mind, train travel is very fuel efficient. Airplanes, especially jets, aren’t. They’re probably worse than cars!
Report comment to moderator
Amtrak should be broken up. The only profitable portion in the northeast, and the only track they own in Pennsylvania, should be spun off as a completely independent company. The non-profitable western routes should be given to the states, or combinations of states, to administer and fund locally like a port authority would be.
Rail transit looks good because it is heavily subsidized. True high-speed rail would be incredibly expensive. It will not happen, just like 90% of the other things Obama says.
Report comment to moderator
Xion, have you ridden the Shinkansen?
I’ve ridden high-speed rail in both Japan and Spain, and I think the Japanese trains are nicer but the Spanish have awesome stations.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Invernadero_de_Atocha%2C_Madrid_-_view_3.JPG
I also rode that maglev thing to the airport in Shanghai, and it was certainly way fast and smooth, but very short.
Report comment to moderator
Rail transit looks good because it is heavily subsidized
Highway traffic is not “highly subsidized?”
Airline traffic is not “highly subsidized?”
I don’t know the answer off hand and why do a Google search when I have all the resources of worldmagblog at hand.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!