Suppose you just became the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic party, and suppose you really could use some of those Midwestern swing states in order to win the general election. Suppose, further, that you have mentioned how it would be a good thing to have high-speed rail coming out of Chicago, and that "the fight for American manufacturing is the fight for America's future." And further, suppose that there is a Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission that has plans in place to construct just such a network.
Well, whaddaya know, all of those things have actually happened! In fact, according to an excellent study I found called "High-speed Rail Projects in the United States," coming out of the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University, there are a whole basket full of such proposals, some further along than others, spread all over the United States -- and many plans are in swing states.
Consider the pathetic level of rail funding that the report highlights -- and transit isn't much better:
Between 1978 and 1999, federal transportation expenditures on rail totaled $18.3 billion (in constant 2002 dollars), roughly 3.6 percent of all transportation expenditures. This compares with $251.5 billion (49.9 percent) for highways; $58.3 billion (11.6 percent) for transit; $114.0 billion (22.6 percent) for air; and $58.0 billion (11.5 percent) for water transport. While all other modes experienced annual growth in expenditures of between 7.3 and 10 percent, rail actually experienced a decline during this period of 1.9 percent annually. According to Tim Lynch of Florida State University, this underinvestment in rail has resulted in the "serious erosion of potential ridership and high-end commodities shipments and resulting losses in user revenues and tax sources to support the mode."
But now, with the price of gasoline lurching past four dollars per gallon, with the airlines "desperate," and trucking in bad shape, perhaps Obama could use plans for a more positive vision of the future than taking a gas-tax holiday.
According to the International Herald Tribune, the global market for high-speed trains is booming -- although there are no companies in the United States that could build one. But what if many of the industrial firms in those Midwestern swing states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania helped to build a whole new generation of high-speed trains and rail systems? What if the industrial machinery industries that serve those train industries were revived at the same time? And can you picture a Midwest -- or a whole continent -- crisscrossed with a fast, reliable, inexpensive network of trains powered by wind and solar power? Yes, we can!
Photo: U.S. Department of Energy.
Americans save on fuel bills under ACES—see map
One man’s plan to re-create suburbia, sans cars
Feds get cozy for sustainable communities
Comments View as Flat
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:02 am
10 Jun 2008
Drake's proposal
See also the proposal by Alan Drake, What is Required to Displace Heavy Trucks (and Some Air Freight) in the USA? Drake proposes an incremental upgrade strategy that maximizes cost effectiveness, speed, reliability and practicality. He describes the proposal:
There are some similarities with the DOT map, but Drake's map is optimized for both passenger and freight traffic.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:12 am
10 Jun 2008
Google Maps makes this fun...
...if you want to come up with your own high-speed rail map.
Laurence, Drake's map is actually more filled in than the DOT map, which is a map of Federally-designated "corridors" -- which doesn't seem to have too much meaning, other than someone managed to get enough funding to look into the route. But there are quite a few proposals kicking around.
Where I would disagree with Drake is in not connecting the Midwest with the West, eventually, precisely because I think air travel will become prohibitive, and electrified rail will be the only reasonable alternative. Last year my wife took Amtrak from Chicago to LA, 2 days, she still enjoyed it, and I think it would be worthwhile to bring it down to one day.
But anyway, thanks for the Drake reference, there's also AP Smith's proposal that I should mention.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 8:32 am
10 Jun 2008
Not All High Speed Rail A Good Thing
Here in California, the favored alternative for high speed rail will destroy a relatively pristine natural area (Pacheco Pass). This alternative has been pushed by the Chamber of Commerce and other business pigs from the San Jose area, who insist that the route from San Francisco-Los Angeles run through their city instead of it being the end of the line on a spur route. The other alternative would build the line through Altamont Pass, which is already denuded by Interstate 580 and a major wind farm.
Sometimes it seems that people can't do anything right for the Earth. Even projects like high speed rail that should be no-brainers end up being needlessly environmentally destructive.
Permalink
bigTom Posted 9:04 am
10 Jun 2008
seems politically risky to me.
Us realists know that trucking, and airlines are goners, but the people in those industries are going to fight tooth and nails against that eventuality. I would expect they would see funding of alternatives as a direct threat to their business. I would expect intense lobbying, as well as campaigning against the champions of such a policy.
Permalink
randino Posted 9:56 am
10 Jun 2008
The Cunningham Maxim of American Public Policy
If it makes sense, it has no chance of being enacted in the United States. Universal health care makes sense. DOA. Doing something about global warming makes sense. LOL. Leaving Iraq and not getting into another such fiasco. ROFLOL.
My wife dreams of being able to get on a light rail in Cleveland, and being in Dayton in a few hours to see her sisters.
Not going to happen. Not in our life times.
Randy Cunningham
Cleveland, OH
Randy Cunningham
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 11:14 am
10 Jun 2008
Oh ye of little faith!
Don't worry! Oil's going up up up! And foreigners are still willing to loan us money -- the British financed our first wave of railroads, maybe they'll help with this one.
I think that what you're all describing is the manifestaion of what the economist Mancur Olson called "the sclerotic society", in his book about the rise and fall of nations. Now, I usually don't like economists' theories, but he had some good points. The idea, basically, is that as a society ages, it builds up interest groups, like plaque building up in your arteries. Sometimes, an area like Europe gets "lucky", as in WWII, and these interest groups get wiped away. But the US has had several hundred years to build them up.
So, we have the "highway" lobby, the oil/gas/coal lobbies, the health insurance/pharma lobbies, the military-industrial complex, the utilities, etc. etc., and the effect is that nothing fundamental changes...unless the laws of econmics and ecology override the sclerosis.
This usually leads to collapse, although Thomas Homer-Dixon wrote about the "upside of down". So let's hope there is an upside of the coming downs-- if there is any hope of forces being dislodged, I think it is now.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 2:07 pm
10 Jun 2008
Look out Bulgaria!
Jon, I like the veiled reference to Bob the Builder in your last line, a dead giveaway that you have boys!
I also like the idea of a transcontinental high-speed electrified rail line! That could really excite and unite the populace once airlines start charging for bathroom use!
Anyway last time they tried to build a rail line from Chicago to Seattle, the natives got restless and put an end to General Custer, whose task it was to defend the new railroad. I hope you mid-Westerners have better motives next time!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:42 pm
10 Jun 2008
Who needs Jay Leno?
...and don't tell anyone Obama has the same slogan as Bob!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:54 pm
10 Jun 2008
Tubes
The passenger and air freight business could go to really fast, aircraft-like electric trains in tubes placed in the freeway median. 200 mph plus to compete with air travel.
Freight ought to go on upgraded already existing track. That would avoid passenger accidents on crowded, antiquated feight rail systems.
A stump was dumped on a track today and caused a major rail accident. High speed commuter rail needs the safety of tubes, easily electrified, weather proof, and allowing much higher speeds than trains on exposed tracks.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Kenny B Posted 4:08 am
11 Jun 2008
Where's the down side?
I think something like this is essential to progress. It's ludicrous that the nation that built the trans-continental railroad has such an anemic rail system. I think the market is there, but somebody has to grow a pair and fund the infrastructure. High speed, trans-continental rail combined with effective, well-funded local mass transit systems can take cars off the road and planes out of the sky, while increasing competition in all transport sectors, thereby reducing the cost of all modes of transportation and ensuring higher-quality service. Personally, I really cannot see the downside. I bet even the initial cost could be largely taken up by private investors.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 2:53 am
12 Jun 2008
Kenny B --
There seems to need to be some kind of grassroots push here. The big enviro groups are not stressing rail; Amtrak is too small, even if they were all brilliant politicians there, which I assume their not; even the contractors that would benefit are not large and organized enough, and the trains would have to come from European and Japanese companies. The politicians aren't paying much attention at the moment, even on the Democratic side. The history of private efforts for high-speed rail in Florida aren't good, partially because people like Jeb Bush were fighting it -- airlines feel threatened. But maybe with airlines imploding, a critical mass could develop.
Permalink
tompw Posted 6:35 pm
24 Jun 2008
Map oddities
Instead of Chicago-Detroit and Chicago-Toldedo, it would be much better to have Chicago-Detroit-Toldedo. Simirlay, link Louisville to Cincinnati, not Indianapolis.
Looking at the DoE map, why isn't Jacksonville linked to Orlando? Or Houston to any other Texas city? Why the gaps between the NE network and the Chicago hub?
The map should only be used as starting point. Remember trains don't go point-point like planes, they serve a group of places along a line.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 12:52 am
25 Jun 2008
tompw
Who knows how they came up with the lines that they did. These are the ones that are Federally designated, which I think means that states spent some money researching it. Ideally, there would be several transcontinental links, the Chicago Hub would be linked to Texas, etc (you can actually construct your own plan using Google Maps)
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:19 am
25 Jun 2008
trains in the news
NPR had two stories in the last 2 days on trains: the first more relevant here:
Amtrak Ridership Swells in Rural and Urban Areas
Morning Edition, June 25, 2008 · As gas prices soar, so does ridership on Amtrak. The long-struggling passenger railroad had its biggest May ever, with a 12 percent spike in travelers. Amtrak officials predict the rest of the year will be just as good. While the railroad is seeing heavy jumps in populated areas, travelers in rural parts of the country are also getting on board.
Listen here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9186 ...
also:
All Things Considered, June 24, 2008 · Despite skyrocketing oil prices, freight railroads are thriving. They are taking advantage of their greater fuel efficiency to haul more goods across the country. And they've mounted an aggressive marketing campaign to take even more.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9185 ...
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
John former Marine Posted 1:39 am
25 Jun 2008
Amazing, I'm not sure if tubes would be good
Would someone ride from Chicago to Seattle if all they saw was the inside of a concrete tube the whole way? In that case, the rail cars may not even need windows. It would be like being on a submarine, a very very small submarine.
I think part of selling the concept of rail, in addition to safety and speed, should be the quality of the ride and the beautiful landscapes.
But tubes really would be more efficient, for sure. I'd ride anyway, but I'm not sure everyone else would.
Shu pas a vende.
Permalink