With all the talk of high-speed rail in America, I was wondering which gets more cars off the road/reduces more CO2/gives me more open space on the interstates—
$10 billion to create a high-speed rail network (say the northeast) or $10 billion for freight trains (for whatever freight trains need money for–switches, more tracks, whatever).
What say y’all? Thanks.
This is just a WAG but I don’t think 10 billion is going to be nearly enough to make a dent in high speed rail service throughout the Northeast. There are already high speed Accela trains that go from Boston to New York City to Washington D.C. but they only carrier the tiniest fraction of people that the Interstate highways do. I am not sure how you much you could improve that for ony 10 billion. A series of tunnels in Boston alone (The Big Dig) cost much more than that.
Freight train improvements may be a better bet to get some of the heavy trucks off the road.
Probably neither one, say I. People can’t be bothered to park somewhere, get out of their cars, walk to a ticket counter, pay some money, sit in a waiting area, walk to the train, board it, find a decent seat (without spilled juice or stuck gum), ride for a long time, having to read a book or do puzzles or smack the kids around to shut them up, get off the train, find a taxi or rental car, go to their destination, and then reverse the process.
It’s hard to say how throwing money at the freight rail system would really improve it. As it is, it provides a very competitive per-mile rate versus road freight. The trouble is that it has to be a longer haul for the savings to make up for the cost and hassle of having to move the freight to and from the terminal at either end.
Maybe someone out there has some innovative solution to the terminal issues that’s just screaming for money, but otherwise all you can really do is just subsidize the rail freight and make it a little more economical for shorter loads. Honestly, if you wanted to shift freight from the roads to rails, it would make more sense to make trucking companies pay more for use of the interstates.
The freight train system is for profit and upgrades itself as needed they don’t need to be subsidized to continue improving. Major over road shippers already incorporate rail systems in their logistics as it is cheaper to ship via rail where available. I feel the only aspect they might need help in is in the form of emanate domain for new lines if needed. If the freight companies have a good argument for it the money I’d certainly listen.
Hi speed rails in the US fail miserably we’ve invested ridiculous amounts of money into the Accella and its half the speed of Japans trains and the tickets cost more then airline tickets for a similar trip. I’d be very hesitant to hand over more money to the same people managing our rails as it is now. If we would consider contracting one of the Japan rail companies in to make a working system I’d consider it.
And did I mention standing in line?
Neither will work well, but that doesn’t mean it can’t work in sections.
For example, even in the 1800s railroads were very costly. So you are probably asking, “Well Mark, they got built?”
So how did this happen? Railroads were given large amounts of easments on land that was unoccupied. That means if they got a hundred mile “east-west” stretch they were also give miles of land on either side of this “east-west” easement.
They could use this land for whatever they wanted. The railroads were huge importers of migrant labour. Look at magazines from the mid 1800s till the depression. “Come to America, work for the railroads.” This was very cheap labour and people desperate to come. Not only that these immigrants would settle “less than desireable areas.”
Look at immigration patterns today. Los Angeles and New York City comprise most of the immigrants. With Chicago, Miami, and Texas bringing up the rear. Immigrants don’t want to live in North Dakota or Montana.
You can see as railroads always had trouble. Interurbans heyday stopped around 1910 then they started to go bankrupt year after year till the depression.
But this doesn’t mean rail can’t work.
High speed rail is very viable in areas of dense population. That would be NE Corridor from Washington to Boston. Other areas like Milwaukee-Chicago-Detroit and Los Angeles-San Diego and Dallas-Houston are on their way to being dense enough to supporting high speed but still aren’t dense enough.
So I think the OP ideas is workable but you need to locate these high speed and freights in very limited areas that can support that.
Some interesting facts as presented in the July 2009 issue of Trains magazine:
Miles per gallon of fuel carrying one ton of cargo:
Inland towing: 576
Rail: 413
Truck: 155
Tons of freight carried in 2006:
Truck: 10.7billion
Rail: 2billion
Pipeline: 1.5billion
Air: 15.5 million
Ton-miles carried in 2006:
Rail: 1855.2billion
Truck: 1298.4billion
Pipeline: 927.6billion
Water: 556billion
It’s also worth noting that the rail freight network is not comparably subsidized like the national highway network is. Although the rail companies did benefit from early land grants, they have been “on their own” for some time. The trend towards rail freight is steadily gaining ground.
The railroads would benefit greatly from government handouts. I can guarantee that money spent on the freight system will be much better money spent than on passenger rail.
Also-- let me perfectly clear about something. No major passenger railroad in the US will ever make money. A handful of talking heads have been suggesting that these new rail lines will be “profitable.” Like effing hell they will. No railroad has made money carrying passengers en masse since right after World War 2 (and just before the jet age).
I fully agree with that. The population density and city distribution simply isn’t favorable for it. This isn’t Western Europe. The airlines have problems as it is.
Perhaps it is their civilian/government relationship and the willingness of Japanese families and individuals (by and large) to sacrifice and/or change their behaviors for the benefit of their society as a whole that is the factor that allows for their fast, clean, safe and efficient high-speed rail. Perhaps there actually exist engineers, (not train engineers!) manufacturers, and contractors in the United States fully capable of producing high-speed rail every bit as good as Japan’s.
I think it is more a question of political will, and beyond that, a public acceptance that some sacrifice is necessary to have the job done right (read: money). This holds true whether we are talking about high-speed trains or any other hugely expensive, but ultimately necessary and therefore inevitable project such as universal healthcare, workable alternative-energy development and its implementation (i.e. eliminating our foreign energy dependence), or greatly reducing or eliminating our foreign debt and trade imbalance.
However, because of our geographic vastness, high-speed rail --done right–would be a tremendous expense. Ultimately at least several trillion 2009 dollars (my WAG). Of course, it will have to be built sooner or later (unless someone figures out a way to run airplanes and autos on sewage or sea-water). But hey, “I got mine, let my grand-kids pay for it!”
That’s what makes America great!
We do it all the time in the Bay area. There’s little standing in line, and regular commuters get a monthly pass.
*having to read a book or do puzzles *- is part of the best parts about train travle. Or napping.
or smack the kids around to shut them up*- is whaaaaaay worse in a car.
IAmNotSpartacus- freight trains need no subsidies. They can carry as much freight as is needed, there’d be little or nothing to spend it on. They also got billions in subsidies early on in right of ways and land grants.
Railroads won’t make money. We need to invest in our money-making roads. If we build enough of them we may have a budget surplus.
Sometimes ot becomes obvious how different the areas of our country are. There is no comparison between driving from Boston and NYC vs taking the train. The parking costs, the congestion, and the tolls make it a nightmare to drive. On the other hand I can hop onthe MBTA to South Station, grab a Dunkin Donut, get on the train where I can do a crossword sitting in a comfortable seat, hop off the train, and then be in downtown Manhattan where I can take the subway or grab a taxi.
Of course driving in North Dakota is easier than taking a train, but then you had all us liberals in the city subsidize your roads for you.
Yeah, see, roads don’t make money, either. What leads you to believe otherwise? I’m sure you’ve heard the national highway trust fund is (was?) just about bankrupt. Surely you know 18.4 cents on every gallon of gasoline sold goes into this trust fund.
I was being sarcastic.
My bad? This being GQ and all.