High-Speed Rail in the US: why the hell not

[CountDeMoney]

An opinion piece:

Others leave U.S. in the dust on high-speed rail

Riding the MARC Camden Line to a conference on high-speed rail is a bit like taking a horse and buggy to an auto show.

But that's exactly what I did last Thursday. And by the end of the day's presentations, riding the pokey old train back from Union Station to Dorsey, the sense of being behind the times was overwhelming.

It came as no surprise that the United States is far behind Japan or Germany or France in high-speed rail. We've known for years that visitors from these highly developed industrial nations have been laughing behind our backs at our woefully antiquated rail system.

But it came as a shock to be confronted with the reality of how far behind we are in high-speed intercity rail compared with such countries as China, Turkey, South Korea and Brazil. Even Iran is planning a line from Tehran to Qom that will reach 200 mph - a speed that will make Amtrak's Acela (maximum 135 mph) look as if it were being pulled by Thomas the Tank Engine. At least we still have bigger bombs.

Perhaps no country in the world puts the American rail network to shame as much as Spain. Here is a former empire that the U.S.A. whipped in a war back in 1898, in which mosquitoes put up more resistance than the opposing army. Now the Spaniards have 988 miles of existing high-speed rail track and 1,386 under construction.

The service is so reliable that the operator will refund a passenger's full fare if the train is more than five minutes late. Riders also get their money back if the air conditioning or toilet malfunctions.

I'm not making this up, MARC riders. This is all information gleaned at the inaugural conference of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association in Washington last week.

Now this association has a definite point of view. It's advocating construction of a 17,000-mile high-speed rail network in the United States and parts of Canada - carrying trains at speeds up to 220 mph - by 2030. The conference drew participants from around the world, and it didn't take a detective to determine their motives. All over the globe, companies are slavering at the prospect of selling us equipment we don't make and expertise we don't have.

If you want an illustration of how the American obsession with roads at the expense of rails has cost this country, look to China. That country is building an extensive high-speed rail system to connect its cities. And who is supplying its billions of dollars' worth of locomotives and railcars? Siemens (Germany), Shinkansen (Japan), Bombardier (Canada) and Alstom (France).

This is a part of the equation that the folks at libertarian think tanks don't take into account when they pooh-pooh the idea of a national high-speed rail network. They dwell on the admittedly enormous cost of building - proponents estimated it at $600 billion over the next 20 years - but not at the costs of failing to get on board. Already, our reluctance to play in the high-speed rail market, which has been around since Japan took the lead in the 1960s, has cost the United States the opportunity to be a player in one of the world's leading heavy industries. Do we surrender that to other countries in perpetuity?

Much of the opposition to high-speed rail in this country stems from an ideological opposition to a government role in just about anything but fighting wars. But history shows that there has never been a significant advance in U.S. transportation without federal involvement on some level.

Many of the same arguments made against high-speed rail could be made about the Erie Canal, transcontinental rail and the interstate highway system.

Obviously, there is the small detail of how one would pay for such a national endeavor.

Norman Anderson, chief executive of CG/LA Infrastructure LLC, suggested a way to fund such big projects. He supports the creation of a National Infrastructure Bank - a concept President Barack Obama has embraced and for which he proposed $5 billion in the budget.

Anderson said that such a bank could be financed through the sale of federally backed bonds to private citizens, pension funds and other investors. The bank would finance the construction of rail lines - and other capital projects - that would be leased to operating companies. Without the burden of maintaining obsolete infrastructure like Amtrak's, he said, the operating companies could make a decent profit.

"No way would we go for new taxes at any level for anything," he said.

Would this work? I'm not sure. A robust debate is needed. But it's clear that the rest of the world is jumping on high-speed trains and getting around much faster than we can. Can the United States afford to be left at the platform?

Anyone who's taken the train from DC to NY knows this pain.

[Syt]

Well, something to consider is that the hubs and centers in Central and Western Europe are much closer together than in the U.S.

When looking at flight vs. train ride I often look at the travel times - a one hour flight may seem short, but you need to check in, pass security, check out, etc. so you can easily add two or three hours total travel time (not counting having ot get to the out of town airport in the first place).

What the Op Piece also doesn't mention on the other hand is that many railway companies over here have trouble competing with airlines in terms of fare. Buying a flight ticket to Hamburg is usually as cheap as, if not cheaper than taking a high speed train (I could also take the much cheaper night train that rumbles for 10, 12 hours through the night, but they're totally uncomfortable).

[Alatriste]

Some comments:

First and foremost, I must speak on behalf of mosquitoes. If you think they have ever been easier to defeat than enemy armies, you are sorely mistaken! Mosquito is the ultimate guerrilla warrior, agile, invisible, aggressive and resourceful... truly, when we attack they retreat, when we rest they attack, when we retreat they advance. And what can be more fit for a guerrilla than living on enemy blood?

Second, it's true that in the longest trips trains lose many of their advantages (although any person that has spent 6, 7 or 8 hours sat in a plane will appreciate luxuries like getting on your feet and walking to the wagon-restaurant... not to mention things like metal cutlery and keeping your shoes on, because these days airline passengers are treated too much like cattle, and dangerous cattle at that) but this fact doesn't explain why there is no high speed trains at all in the US. There are lots of high density routes, like Washington DC - New York,  Boston - Philadelphia, or San Francisco - Los Angeles, at "european" distances.

But third, I think it's illusory to think traffic will suffice to finance the infrastructures, but why should things work like that? Does commercial traffic finance roads? Do Fed Exp or UPS finance new airports?   

[Grey Fox]

Quebec-Detroit! Build it!

[Neil]

America made the choice to go with the car over the train decades ago.

[Duque de Bragança]

Well, something to consider is that the hubs and centers in Central and Western Europe are much closer together than in the U.S.

When looking at flight vs. train ride I often look at the travel times - a one hour flight may seem short, but you need to check in, pass security, check out, etc. so you can easily add two or three hours total travel time (not counting having ot get to the out of town airport in the first place).

What the Op Piece also doesn't mention on the other hand is that many railway companies over here have trouble competing with airlines in terms of fare. Buying a flight ticket to Hamburg is usually as cheap as, if not cheaper than taking a high speed train (I could also take the much cheaper night train that rumbles for 10, 12 hours through the night, but they're totally uncomfortable).

Wimp 

Spain as a model is very recent since the non high-speed network is still crappy unlike France or Germany.

[Syt]

Wimp 

Spain as a model is very recent since the non high-speed network is still crappy unlike France or Germany.

I can't sleep in planes, trains and automobiles. Doesn't matter if I can lie down or not. So this is hell for me.

[PDH]

I can't sleep in planes, trains and automobiles. Doesn't matter if I can lie down or not. So this is hell for me.

They should make a movie about this.

[KRonn]

I'm all for it, the idea anyway. Though it would likely have to be cheaper or at least competitive with air fare. The problems I see would be the funding of it, how and who funds it. Then acquiring the rights of way could be very tough, to put rail lines in or to rebuild unused lines. In Massachusetts there was a lot of opposition to rebuilding and reusing rail lines in towns along the south coast to Boston. People were just against it, thought the rail traffic would ruin their towns, property, be noisy, etc. Even though rail passenger transport would be great, given the tough auto commuting on those highways/roads. The rail line did go in, has been running for a few or more years now. And then going through environmental process - I can't imagine that would be anything but a horror. We couldn't even get a wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts, even with all these enviro and "green"types. Some of them fought it too! That would be the same in many parts of the country. So this would be a great idea, I feel, but the political process would be a nightmare, I predict.

[Strix]

Amtrack is a non-profit organization in that they lose money every year. Last I had seen/heard they were requiring over a billion dollars each year from the government to continue operations. I cannot imagine that bill it would cost taxpayers to start running high speed trains.

[Eddie Teach]

Yeah, I don't think most of the country is densely populated enough for those to be profitable and most of us don't want the federal government to pump money into extensive lines for those parts that are potentially.

[Iormlund]

While high-speed lines are probably a bad idea on most of the US, I bet in certain areas (Cali, Northeast Coast) it would be a fairly good idea. The main advantage of these trains as far as I'm concerned is that you can get to the financial district of a big city much faster than in a plane. I can be in Atocha (downtown Madrid) in 90 min or so, including the time it takes me to get to the station here in Zaragoza.

[The Larch]

Yeah, I don't think most of the country is densely populated enough for those to be profitable

I don't think that anyone was planning a Topeka - Wichita Falls high speed connection either. 

[grumbler]

For the Spaniards:  what percentage of the Spanish own cars?  One would think high-speed rail would be far more valuable and thus profitable in a country where it is competing mostly with slow-speed rail.  It is inferior in many ways to the auto for short trips, and the airplane for long trips, and I am wondering if its success (or potential success) in Spain isn't due to the fact that the auto option is unavailable for a substantial portion of the population.

[DontSayBanana]

Amtrack is a non-profit organization in that they lose money every year. Last I had seen/heard they were requiring over a billion dollars each year from the government to continue operations. I cannot imagine that bill it would cost taxpayers to start running high speed trains.

The word you're looking for is subsidized, not nonprofit.

I believe the push for the high speed lines is between hubs that are only loosely connected now- for example, getting from Philadelphia to Chicago is a trip that takes a bare minimum of 20 1/2 hours.  If I remember correctly, the push was to connect the Northeast Corridor more tightly to the Chicago hub, and to connect the Chicago hub to the West Coast (train travel from coast to coast is absolutely asinine nowadays).