So I'm looking at this pool report from a run-of-the-mill day in the Obama campaign. Barack and Michelle dropped by to have lunch with an Indiana couple, Mike and Cheryl Fischer. Mike works in Amtrak's Beech Grove shop, as his family has for generations.
Notes the report dryly: "No news."
But I scan down a bit to the middle, where Barack's talking to Mike about his impending layoff at Amtrak, and suddenly my mouth is hanging open.
Says Obama:
The irony is with the gas prices what they are, we should be expanding rail service. One of the things I have been talking bout for awhile is high speed rail connecting all of these Midwest cities -- Indianapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, St. Louis. They are not that far away from each other. Because of how big of a hassle airlines are now. There are a lot of people if they had the choice, it takes you just about as much time if you had high speed rail to go the airport, park, take your shoes off.
This is something that we should be talking about a lot more. We are going to be having a lot of conversations this summer about gas prices. And it is a perfect time to start talk about why we don't have better rail service. We are the only advanced country in the world that doesn't have high speed rail. We just don't have it. And it works on the Northeast corridor. They would rather go from New York to Washington by train than they would by plane. It is a lot more reliable and it is a good way for us to start reducing how much gas we are using. It is a good story to tell.
WTF? Finally something from one of the candidates on the obvious solution to crippling price of gas -- getting people out of cars -- and it comes in an informal lunch? Why isn't this part of the stump speech? Why doesn't transit have higher profile in this campaign?
Mystifying.
(thanks, CP!)
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
PermieWriter Posted 4:09 am
01 May 2008
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
inflector Posted 5:07 am
01 May 2008
A better approach is to merge the best of our automobile highway system with the best of public transport. We can build a new infrastructure that will save 90% of the energy we now use in transportation and still provide the suburbs and rural areas where train/public transport options are not practical.
We don't need trains we need replacements for cars that won't crash, that can go 200 to 300 mph in an energy efficient manner, that we can drive from our house, that don't require our attention for most of the trip so we can work or relax, that park themselves automatically, that allow a mix of privately owned vehicles and public vehicles, that can supplant much of our trucking traffic, that integrates metropolitan transit systems with long-distance systems without stations, that requires no waiting and no slowdowns as traffic nears capacity, that can be serviced easily without taking capacity offline, that uses far less land than the highways, that cannot derail or crash, and that can be implemented for lower costs than a modern two-lane highway, among other benefits.
If we do this right, it can also automate and replace much of our truck traffic as well.
The technology for this exists today. We could also design such a system so that it would be upgradeable to new technology as it comes out.
In short, we need to replace our highway system with a 21st century merging of trains and the automobile.
Finally, we need a standardized infrastructure so that many manufacturers can build the parts, track, systems, vehicles, etc. This will limit the fighting among manufacturers as to which is the "best" technology. These sorts of fights derail most efforts.
If we do this right we can revitalize our rust belt cities as we gear up to build this infrastructure.
Here is an animation that shows one advanced idea , Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) that solves many different problems, especially if it is extended to include high-speed intercity and interstate travel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9tAXdFOhzM&feature=re ...
There are quite a few things that need to be changed for energy efficiency but this video shows a radical departure from our current train orientation which is little changed from the mid-1980s. Trains weigh too much.
Permalink
Nick Berning Posted 5:13 am
01 May 2008
But we've got nothing on Europe.
If we could just get one quality high-speed rail line built in the U.S. I think demand would spread quickly.
Permalink
leander37 Posted 5:33 am
01 May 2008
Amtrak: 1.3Billion
Federal Transit Administration: 9.4Billion
Federal Aviation Admin: 14.6Billion
Federal Highway Admin: 31.4Billion
This does not include ancillary benefits to Aviation and Highway Transport. For more information, I encourage you to visit: http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:40 am
01 May 2008
O O
------
----/
nah....
It's amazing how politicians can enter the minds of the people they happen to be talking to, and become that person for a few minutes. But I believe Obama, I guess, that he has been at least talking about high-speed trains from Chicago. That would be a no-brainer, because Chicago was and is the national hub for rail; and there are no mountains in the way of the cities he was talking about.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:43 am
01 May 2008
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 7:58 am
01 May 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:12 am
01 May 2008
If you want to blame Americans in general for something, I'm starting to think that it is a reluctance to increase the public space, to be abstract, or to be more concrete, a reluctance to let the government do what it does in most countries -- for instance, health care, often the electric system, even the communications system, and as relates here, the transportation system. But maybe the tide is turning -- light rail projects have been very popular, even in conservative states. But McCain, so I've read, is very anti-rail.
Permalink
dissociated Posted 8:41 am
01 May 2008
I suspect that higher gas prices will eventually take care of long distance travel by car, but it's really in the cities where it makes the least sense to drive and fuel mileage is the worst. Unfortunately, as everybody green-tinged knows, we (North Americans) built ourselves into this mess.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 9:06 am
01 May 2008
There was a pretty good crowd to see Jackson, as he was running for president then and already had a certain degree of fame. There were 200-300 people in the room. The crowd was attentive.
At one point, Jackson stated that small towns like Roseburg needed to be "reconnected" with a revitalized nationwide system of passenger rail routes. That excited me, so I stood up and applauded. I was the only one to make any response to that line. Jackson glanced at me, and continued on with his other topics as if nothing had happened.
I'd guess if Obama said the same thing in Roseburg today, he'd be lucky if one person applauded.
I think it has to be about more than gas prices and gasoline dependency. It also has to be about development. Rail can be a powerful catalyst for development, like highways can, but in a more concentrated pattern around stations. Also, rail for business and tourist travel is becoming more popular throughout the world, and tapping those markets can spur economic development. Creative class businesses/workers are relocating in the walkable cities and towns that are supported by rail service.
And not least, rail can reduce air pollution and can be part of a climate change strategy, as well as a Green Collar jobs strategy.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
GonzoDon Posted 9:40 am
01 May 2008
But given how many dollars we throw at airports, airport parking, airport fees, Homeland Security, Chap 11 airline bankruptcies, and all the hours squandered getting to, through, around, and from airports, trains are one logical part of the solution in many areas.
It staggers reason that there is not fast, regular train service between Fort Collins - Denver - Colorado Springs, to cite a local example, or any other densely-populated corridor that is already choking on traffic. If this were Europe, 5 trains a day between the aforementioned destinations would be a no-brainer.
But this is the U.S., where if you don't own your own car then you are, well, SOL. We've barely started TALKING about efficient train service along populated corridors, much less have it ready to roll. Even if only 1% of today's drivers used the service, it would be a phenomenally popular alternative.
Permalink
socialscientist Posted 3:26 am
02 May 2008
.
Only thing that can stop the complete dominance of the auto and sprawl: Streetcars, buses, inter-city rail.
.
Obama MUST NOT talk more about it. They will instantly trash him until they turn him into a non-person.
.
Obama MUST observe the gag-order on transit.
.
http://frepubtra.blogspot.com
Permalink
RossBleakney Posted 4:36 am
02 May 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 4:51 am
02 May 2008
Chicago was always the rail hub of the country, and my observations have been that all the daily trains from Chicago are pretty much full, so I think the demand is there, particularly with the airlines falling from the sky, metaphorically speaking.
socialscientist, not that Obama would get too outside-the-box on this anyway, but I don't think I agree that he'd get slammed by bringing it up more -- at least, not now. It would also be a better solution than just saying no to a gas tax -- he needs a good alternative, and if you can't go for biofuels, what else is he going to push as a possible way out of voters' rising gas bills?
If he actually pursued a pro-rail policy as President, then you might see a huge carbon-auto pushback -- although I'm not even sure about that right now, they are all in a weird position, rail might take some pressure off of them.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:18 am
02 May 2008
People won't vote for you if you are going to tell them they'll eventually have to get out of their cars.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:37 am
02 May 2008
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:42 am
02 May 2008
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
hardiho Posted 12:21 am
03 May 2008
First, according to Edition 26, the latest edition of the Transportation Energy Data Book from Oak Ridge National Laboratory's website:
in 2005, domestic airlines on average consumed 20.5% more energy per passenger-mile than Amtrak, while cars consumed 27.2% more than Amtrak. Looked at the other way round, Amtrak consumes 17.0% and 21.4% less energy per passenger-mile than airlines and cars, respectively. [One passenger-mile is one passenger traveling one mile.]
Those percentages are derived from these Oak Ridge figures (British Thermal Units or BTUs per passenger-mile, 2005 data), organized here most to least efficient:
Amtrak: 2,709
Commuter rail: 2,743
Rail transit: 2,784
Certificated air carriers: 3,264 (excludes international services)
Cars: 3,445
notes of interest:
Amtrak consumed 14.6 trillion BTUs in 2005, which was 8.2% less than 15.9 trillion in 2003 and 19.3% below Amtrak's peak year of energy use (2001, with 18.1 trillion BTUs).
Amtrak in 2005 consumed 65,477,000 gallons of diesel fuel and used 531,377,000 kilowatt hours. [Both figures exclude consumption by commuter railroads for which Amtrak provides services.]
This indicates that 62.3% of Amtrak energy is diesel fuel vs. 37.7% electricity.
The tables you may find most useful are:
Table 2.12 Passenger travel and energy use, 2004
Table 2.13 Energy intensities of highway passenger modes, 1970-2005
Table 2.14 Energy intensities of nonhighway passenger modes, 1970-2005
Table 9.10 Historical Amtrak figures including car-miles, train-miles, etc.
Table 9.11 Summary statistics for commuter rail operations, 1984-2005
Table 9.12 Summary statistics for rail transit operations, 1970-2005
Table A.15 Intercity Rail Fuel Use
[Note: Table 2.12 has 2004 data because 2005 data is not yet available for some modes. As the relevant footnotes explain, the airline statistics in Table 2.12 include "1/2 of international scheduled services" whereas those in Table 2.14 do not include any international services. This report also has considerable freight data.]
The "What's New" page for Edition 26 reports that, "The transportation share of U.S. energy use reached 28.4% in 2006 which is the highest share recorded since 1970." The page also reflects a disturbing trend towards less information:
"Due to more stringent data restrictions imposed by R.L. Polk, the latest number of vehicles by age that we are allowed to publish is 2001." (Tables 3.5 & 3.6)
The American Metals Market discontinued the survey which collected information on the average materials in a domestic car; therefore, the 2003 data are the latest available. (Table 4.14)
The Census Bureau has discontinued the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey; the 2002 data are therefore the latest data available. (Tables 5.4-5.9)
The Department of Transportation has discontinued the National Household Travel Survey; therefore, the 2001 data are the latest data available. (Tables 8.5-8.13 & 8.17)
The EPA has not published new data from the National Emissions Inventory since the 2002 data; thus, Tables 12.1-12.11 remain unchanged.
Comments on other dubious responses will follow.
J. Howard Harding
Rail Transportation Advocate
Permalink
hardiho Posted 1:00 am
03 May 2008
Currently efforts are under way to vastly expand U.S. rail passenger service, in part via targeted federal capital investment in rail infrastructure. S. 294, passed by the U.S. Senate several months ago, would begin that process by providing a federal/state capital investment partnership program similar to the federal/state highway program. Companion legislation will soon be introduced in the U.S. House.
On Tuesday, January 15, 2008, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission released Transportation for Tomorrow, a report on the status and future of America's highways, bridges, and transit systems, before a crowd of reporters and transportation insiders at the National Press Club. NARP Executive Director, Ross Capon, a member of the Commission's Passenger Rail Working Group (PRWG), was present. In NARP's release regarding the report, Capon noted that "this long-awaited report takes a hard look at the quality-of-life, economic, environmental, and energy consequences of our current transportation policy and maps out a realistic strategy to address current and upcoming needs." Focusing on the passenger rail aspect of the report, Capon said "Transportation for Tomorrow" builds upon NARP's proposed "Grid and Gateway" train network which we unveiled this past summer. In particular, many of the routes included in the report were originally a part of NARP's plan, as well as the idea of using rail to increase the level of connectedness between rural and metropolitan areas. NARP's release concluded, "Capon thanked the Commission, especially Wisconsin Secretary of Transportation Frank Busalacchi," who chaired the PRWG.
J. Howard Harding
Rail Transportation Advocate
Permalink
conductorchris Posted 3:05 am
03 May 2008
First, the decisions are different if you are an INDIVIDUAL or a society. For us individuals, if we travel on something that's already going there, we are using NO fuel and causing NO pollution - unless we displace someone else who then has to drive.
Figures on energy efficiency are different, depending on if you measure seat-miles or people-miles. Airlines do better than Amtrak at cramming every last seat full of people. Automobiles are typically occupied by one person - so they get twice as efficient if two people are in them.
Much of the environmental impact of driving comes when building the car in the first place. There is a lot of value in going car-free, and for society, in enabling people to be car-free. Thus renting a car every weekend is preferable to owning one.
Another measure, not often talked about, is the amount of land required. On this railroads are much superior to roads. I'm not sure if airports (which are very big) have enough footprint to cancel not needing any land at all once you are in the air.
Permalink
hardiho Posted 5:48 am
03 May 2008
J. Howard Harding
Rail Transportation Advocate
Permalink
dissociated Posted 6:08 am
03 May 2008
My "theory" is maybe complete garbage. I don't know enough about relative costs of building for cars vs. rail and other public transit systems. But I wouldn't want to imagine densely populated areas like that more filled with single occupant cars than they already are.
Permalink
dissociated Posted 6:18 am
03 May 2008
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:46 am
03 May 2008
Also, the lack of statistical information gathering that you allude to has also affected our most basic economic statistics -- the input-output tables for 2002 still have not been published, for instance, by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis.
I think we can all agree that the American rail network needs to be given top priority, and as Obama pointed out -- who knew he knew? -- Chicago would make a natural starting point for the renaissance of the rail network. I think that, more important than average statistics on density, is the question of which cities are located at what distances from each other -- the classic case being Ohio, which has several large cities.
In fact, the case of Ohio is very instructive. Here we have a state that has been devastated by the decline of manufacturing, with presidential candidates appealing to blue collar workers, and we have a set of cities that would be perfect for high-speed interconnections -- what better place to build a train-manufacturing industry to supply the trains? It's a no-brainer!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:51 am
03 May 2008
Permalink
dissociated Posted 8:53 am
03 May 2008
Permalink
dissociated Posted 8:54 am
03 May 2008
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 9:18 am
03 May 2008
Please document this. Please don't use the infamous "dust to dust" study, made by a PR firm that publishes conclusions only, but refuses to share data.
Permalink
rod Posted 10:03 am
03 May 2008
Permalink
FlyCalifornia Posted 11:54 am
11 Nov 2008
On November 4th the Voters of California approved a 10 Billion Dollar Bond Measure to finance the first leg of a High Speed Rail System that will connect San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, Los Angeles and Anaheim. Other stops on this route will include Gilroy, Visalia, Bakersfield and Burbank.
When in operation the train will attain a top speed of 220 MPH and will complete the 410 Mile run from San Francisco to LA in just under 2.25 hours. The run from SF to Anaheim in 2.5 hours.
Under the current proposal Ground Breaking would not occur until the 4th quarter of 2011. This could pose a first test for President Elect Obama's commitment to High Speed Rail. Given the crisis nature of the economy and the willingness of the voters to float bonds one would expect a Pro-HSR President to find a way to advance Federal Monies to speed up construction ASAP.
The entire project is scheduled for completion in 2030 and will encompass 800 miles of track from San Diego to Sacramento.
Permalink