I took the train from Boston to D.C. yesterday.  Sure beats the hassle of dealing with the airport and cramped seats.

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.

Is there a cute keyboard combo for this?

                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.

the html apparently kicked out the first part of the upturned mouth.  How about : (  )

Americans are far more self-centered than people in other developed countries, so they insist on driving their cars, the Earth be damned.  Western Europeans and others pay much higher gasoline taxes, which in turn fund their excellent rail systems, including high speed rail.  With spoiled Americans crying about gas prices under $4/gallon, how in the world would the U.S. ever get the money to greatly increase the gasoline tax and build a decent rail system?

...it could come from general revenues, as I believe the original construction of the Interstate Highway System was paid for.  In fact, the Bush Administration changed the Federal portion of funding of light rail projects from 80%, which is at least close to the highway percentage of 90%, down to 50%, so that could be pretty easily changed.

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.

Europe has better rail because it's more densely populated too, which means there's more taxpayers. Despite that, they still have a lot of drivers. In Switzerland where divided highways are the norm, they frequently have traffic jams on the highway in some areas. You can drive from end to end of the country in 2-3 hours (depending on whether it's east-west or south-north) and yet people still have ridiculously long commutes. Germans too, some of them commuting across the border into Switzerland where the pay is better. It's true that Europeans have better transit systems, but there are lots of "selfish" drivers with ridiculous commutes for such a densely populated area of the world. Plus, their speed limits are higher in both Switzerland and of course Germany, though I don't know about other nations.

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.

Trains are no panacea, of course.  There's plenty of places where they are NOT a good idea, like between widely-spaced cities of the sparsely-populated west.  

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.

There are a number of areas in the United States where high speed rail (or passenger rail in general) makes a lot of sense. There are also a lot of areas where it doesn't. One of the problems with the current system is that we don't adequately support the areas where it makes sense while we waste money on areas where it doesn't. L.A. to Las Vegas makes a lot of sense; Seattle to Chicago does not. Unfortunately, our political system favors a lot of areas that don't have a lot of people (Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota have three times the Senators but less than a tenth the combined population of California). Working out some sort of compromise between heavily and sparsely populated areas will be where the hard work needs to be done. Perhaps some program that involves improvements in freight rail (a subsidy if needed) combined with improvements in passenger rail might work.

How am I supposed to get to Grist headquarters and hector the people there?

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.

A wise civil engineer once told me that you should never talk about people giving up their cars in support of public transit, but that you are simply trying to provide more choices, a very mainstream sentiment, it seems to me.  That's all proponents of rail are trying to say, just expand the choices.

Senator Obama's support of expanded rail passenger service is encouraging. Many of the comments in response to his pro-rail remarks are seriously disappointing especially considering this is an environmentally-supportive site.
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

Seattle to Chicago is the most heavily-used, least subsidized route Amtrak operates with only one train per day. It is also one of the few remaining full-service routes operated by Amtrak -- including full dining car and lounge car service with multiple sleeping cars. Routes with reduced amenities generally have lower ridership, lower revenues but disproportionately reduced costs (that is the per passenger mile subsidy tends to be higher on reduced amenity trains).

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

Several comments regarding what is the most energy-efficient way to travel . . .

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.

The connection between population density and availability of intercity rail passenger service is tenuous at best. According to the CIA World Factbook and the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the U.S. state of Ohio and the European nation of France have nearly identical population density -- 108.10 (Ohio) vs. 108.09 (France) people per square kilometer. California, Illinois, North Carolina., Michigan, Wisconsin, Washington, Missouri, Vermont and Alaska all have lower population density than Ohio but each listed state financially supports intercity rail passenger service while Ohio does not. Spain, with a population density of only 78.43 people per square kilometer, has perhaps the most ambitious high speed rail development program in all of Europe. When completed, it will have by far the most miles of newly built dedicated hsr trackage in all of Europe. It would appear that public policy decisions, rather than population density, play a substantial role in determining which places have viable intercit rail passenger service. It would also appear that U.S. public policy decision makers have a rather curious perspective on what factors should most strongly influence their decisions regarding transportation alternatives.

J. Howard Harding Rail Transportation Advocate

I think you need to look by nation and continent. The U.S. ranks near the bottom for population density. Europe has just under 70 people per square km and North America has around 20. I also wasn't talking about high speed rail in particular. Some places it doesn't make sense to even bother with it because the nation is so small and there are so many towns (stops) between major cities. I know most about Switzerland (and still not a lot, just from casual observation). It's a tiny country and it's between city transit is really like an extension of its in-city transit. You can buy a universal pass for the country for less around 3,000 swiss francs. The population density of the country is 176 per square km. A low income worker in Switzerland might make 3,000 swiss francs in a month there.

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.

To build for rail or run a bus system, the operators (government or private) must pay for the buses or trains, their maintenance and fuel or power, as well as administration, station and stop construction and maintenance costs. Whereas with cars, the individual owners at least cover those things (while needing parking spots and polluting, etc. which are some of the externalities). There's probably information on the costs somewhere online, but it seems the more people available to even choose to take mass forms of transit, the more financial sense it makes.

Just to be clear, I'm all the way behind rail for long term transportation of goods and people. I just think it's important to realize the barriers to it. And of course density is not on its own so important if you have major population centers that it makes sense to link. If you have high population cities and a lot of commuting and travel between them, it doesn't matter so much if there's virtually no one in between. One of the reasons some European countries have better transit is because they probably have more tax money to spend because of their density. If Canada or the United States can implement a system anywhere near to what Europe's got, and keep fares down and people using the service up, it'll be a greater accomplishment because of the obstacles.

That should be long distance, not long term.

>Much of the environmental impact of driving comes when building the car in the first place.

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.

An interstate rail system would provide non-stop rail service between major cities using existing tracks - one tract going one way and the other going the opposite way like the highway system functions. The result would be faster and energy conserving movement of people and freight and less wear and tear and fatal accidents on our highways. The railroad companies would receive a toll for the use of the rails and anyone could provide rolling stock. Instead of using our rails less than 10% at any one time, we would be utilizing them up to 60%. This would also create jobs nationwide.

Well well. When you are looking in one place for a break through it pops up in another.

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.