Rail Confusion
Posted by Fred Jandt
Mass Transit magazine editor
It’s interesting how for some people certain concepts just go in one ear and out the other. Take the President’s recent high-speed rail plan. I am amazed by the number of people who seem to think this is a national rail network. You couldn’t get the concept of regional networks through their heads if you had a map to show them. Oh, there is a map?
Since the blog last week I’ve read numerous comments to articles about this “national†network and how the United States is way too big to sustain a high-speed rail system like this. And didn’t they learn anything from Amtrak? How is that doing? (Pretty good, actually.)
As part of my blog I posted the map of the proposed high-speed rail corridors and the one thing that sticks out to me is the fact that the West Coast really isn’t connected to the rest of the country. In fact, the two proposed corridors on the West Coast aren’t even connected to each other as part of a single high-speed network.
High-speed rail is a regional concept. It is planned on a regional scale and would be implemented as such. And, you know what, on a regional scale it would thrive. Check that, it will thrive. High-speed rail is coming because frankly it’s not just a vision from the President anymore, each day it becomes clearer and clearer it is becoming a necessity.
This past Wednesday was Earth Day. As I wandered through my house after my kids grumbling and turning off lights, I thought again about the high-speed rail network. About how much of a benefit it will be to not just the economy, but the environment. People will say that it won’t take cars off the road, but what they really mean is that it won’t take enough cars off the road for them in their specific area so they can have an empty lane to go as fast as they want in whenever they need it. That’s congestion relief to most of the grumblers out there — relief for the congestion affecting them, not anyone else.
And think about the benefits to the environment. APTA announced this week that Americans using public transportation reduce the United States’ carbon footprint by more than 35 million metric tons each year. And right now the majority of public transit’s systems are collected in our major metropolitan areas. Think about what it would mean to our nation’s carbon footprint if everyone traveling to and from those areas, as well as the people living there, could ride public transit!
The President’s high-speed rail network plan brings public transit outside of the urban metros and out to everyone living around them. It allows transit to fight sprawl on its own terms by giving the people living in those areas a real taste of public transit, and the public transit systems connected to the network a real chance to promote what their local users already know — transit works.
Check out Mass Transit’s new Top 40 Under 40 promotion on our Web site. We’re looking to recognize transit’s best and brightest under the age of 40 in an upcoming issue. Click on the link and you can read more about it and nominate yourself or any of your colleagues.
Thanks for reading the MT Position updated every Friday,
Fred
fred.jandt@cygnusb2b.com
Check out our LinkedIn page!
April 24th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Well put, Fred. One can only hope that understanding of the “incremental development” plan for HSR will become more widely understood and appreciated as projects are implemented.
Re “the West Coast really isn’t connected to the rest of the country. In fact, the two proposed corridors on the West Coast aren’t even connected to each other as part of a single high-speed network.” These are the longer trip lengths where air has the advantage, with Amtrak’s long distance trains serving those who can’t or won’t fly, just want to see the country, and/or use the intermediate stations served either poorly or not at all by air. These trains – the Coast Starlight along the Pacific, and the east-wests Empire Builder, CA Zephyr, Southwest Chief, Sunset – ought to run twice daily to offer more choices and so that as many communities as possible are served outside the wee hours of the night.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Between this week’s and last week’s HSR focus, I still wonder if we are comparing apples to oranges with the rail rider compared to the automobile commuter. Isn’t the more likely shift to HSR going to be from the short distance (regional) air traveler? And in terms of cost of operations, shouldn’t we be asking how do the airlines do it? Think how much government spends on airlines in terms of employee business travel, all unsubsidized (if you don’t count air traffic control, FAA airport improvements, etc). Will high speed trains be able to compete, and if so, what will be the impact on the airlines?
The assumption from the social engineers seems to be that people will leave their cars to ride high-speed rail. While that may be true to some extent, it seems to me the more likely switch is from air travel to intercity rail travel. We will still need robust highways for truck freight. And our costs haven’t gone down. We’ve just added another layer of choice on the hope that the market is there to sustain it. But even if it does, the next question is: what existing level of service won’t the market sustain as a result?
Flush with the infusion of ARRA funding, we are tempted to forget that it is all borrowed, and sooner or later we need to start paying for what we use in some form or another.
So the market for high speed rail may be indeed be there, but let’s recognize that it will be gained from both the highway and aviation modes at a significant cost to them. If we are asking for operations subsidy to boot, we need to look seriously at how they cover their operations costs, and explain where the funding for HSR rail will come from. We cannot simply expect it to come from the Highway Trust Fund anymore.
April 24th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Hi Fred,
Still lacking in your commentary is the money issue. Rail is very expensive to operate, and unions only make this issue worse.
I’m also a little confused by your Amtrak analysis…when you dig into the numbers, Amtrak is still evry heavily subsidized, with high and higher employee costs.
I don’t see this national rail plan going as far as you do. People want personal freedom to go anywahere they want at any time. Alternative fuels and electric cars will still provide this freedom. Secondly, Obama and the democrats in Congress will not be running the show forever. Sorry to say, but once the republicans are back in power, I see the axe falling on this initative.
While there may be a need for alternative methods of travel, the solutions go beyond an expensive rail vision.
April 27th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
As one who has taken the Cascades/Amtrak/WSDOT train between Seattle and Vancouver, Canada a dozen times in the past few years, I can report that this very scenic (when not in winter darkness), very slow, very bumpy ride is a long, long way from being “high speed rail.”
I can also report that when it comes to public transit between that international city pair, the three inter-city bus companies in the same market with 16 round trips per day on Interstate 5 have a lead in convenient times, speed, price, and market share over the one daily train, soon perhaps to become twice daily.
According to Homeland Security counts at the U.S. border southbound, the train is carry 0.6% of travelers, and the buses 5.8%.