Home / Blogs / Business / Smart Takes
Follow this blog:
RSS

Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?

By | August 4, 2009, 6:10 AM PDT

Is the Obama administration’s proposed high-speed rail project a much-needed infrastructure project or an optimistic waste of financial resources?

According to Harvard economics professor Edward Glaser, it’s a bit of both.

While high-speed rail is certainly a feasible solution for the United States, it comes at a much higher cost than rhetoric would lead taxpayers to believe, Glaser writes in the New York Times‘ Economix blog.

Citing data from the Government Accountability Office (.pdf), Glaser writes that $50 million per mile is “a reasonable construction cost figure,” but must be converted into a more realistic annual cost that includes interest. That brings the cost to $2.5 million per mile per year, or $600 million for a 240-mile line, he writes.

[Read the Federal Railroad Administration's high-speed rail briefing]

Similarly, Glaser cites a recent European estimate puts the cost of track maintenance at $140,000 a mile per year for a two-track system. Include that and the fixed costs of the track are now up to $648 million per year.

Finally, add in the costs of rolling stock purchase, maintenance and personnel. To compare, Amtrak’s operating expenses run at about 45 cents a passenger mile. Even at 30 cents per passenger mile in operating costs, that translates to $72 for a 240-mile trip, Glaser estimates.

Comparing trains to planes, rail turns out to be less time and money (I urge you to read how Glaser calculates this in the original article.)

“If these numbers were right (and I think that they are very kind to rail), then the system should be able to run a healthy operating surplus,” Glaser writes.

The only snag? Some of the suggested railway corridors (as shown in the above graphic) aren’t exactly “a few steps” away, as President Obama has publicly stated.

Glaser uses Texas as an example:

“Driving will continue to be extremely attractive for travelers who want to save parking fees and need cars once they arrive….the new rail line [would be] about as popular as all airplane flights [in that area].”

A rough estimate to be sure, but you’re the taxpayer in this situation. Do you support a high-speed rail network in the U.S.?

And at what cost point would you give up your support for high-speed rail: would you rescind your support at the break-even point, or would you risk a deficit?

Check out SmartPlanet’s own John Dodge on why high-speed rail is worth it.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
27
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
Yes, it is!

Next question.
Posted by acabal
4th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
The French TGV is an electric high-speed train. No one has come up with an electric jet engine yet so the idea of electric air transport seems unlikely. A train can carry as many, if not more passengers than a plane, and do so usually in more luxury. Planes need energy to move forward and to stay in the air. Trains only need energy to move forward.

In other words, if people are serious about going green, then a high-speed train makes sense and planes do not.
Posted by mheartwood
4th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
As the article alludes, success will depend on business and residential density. High speed rail will be cost effective when serving high density areas, but lose money in lower densities.
Posted by nthused
5th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
If we ever get to critical mass on a high-speed passenger rail system, we'll
find a ton of other cost savings, such as less money that we need to
spend on roads, increased attractiveness of solutions like ZipCars, and a
whole bunch of other things. I haven't done the research, but I suspec that
these savings will more than outweigh the (admittedly very expensive)
initial infrastructure cost. We just need to get the rail system to critical
mass, so that it becomes the default way to travel, say, from Seattle to
Portland.
Posted by smithkl42
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
yes and no
I think there's some value to a more modern rail system, but with two reservations...

1) I don't think it addresses the real commute problems, that being within the cities. Trains are better for city to city transportation.

2) Has anyone considered what an obvious terrorism target these high speed trains make? If one idiot can drop a steel beam on the tracks and take out a thousand people traveling at 200+ mph, I think we will be rethinking high speed rail.

gary
www.prtproject.com
Posted by gdstark13
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Bullet Trains
A high speed passenger rail system connecting, say, Mankato, Minnesota, with Fargo, North Dakota, is obviously not feasible.
The best system would link travel hub to population center to another travel hub. Say, suburban San Diego to the airport, then to northern San Diego County and on to the LA airport. Thereafter on to Santa Barbara Airport, then Oakland Airport, to Davis, California and then to the Sacramento airport. I offer this West Coast route to overcome the East Coast bias that means that all passenger rail must somehow be connected to New York City.
I have traveled from Tokyo to Kyoto and back on the "bullet train" and found it to be a highly enjoyable experience. Portland, Oregon, to Seattle, Washington, on the Targa is also a nice train trip, though track conditions and competing freight trains keep the speeds well below their potential.
The key factors are trains that are genuinely high speed (and thus require passenger train priority over freight on all rail lines that have both types of traffic), reasonable fares, clean and comfortable train cars, and on time reliability.
Our problem is that our elected officials are only interested in being re-elected, and uninterested in any other topic.
Posted by Legal_Beagle
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Mass Transit first then High Speed Rail
We live in a seriously backward nation that first needs good mass transit before venturing into high speed rail.

Our bridges are shot, roads fully of pot holes, and most communities are without bus, train or other forms of transit. I too have ridden the fine TGV on several occassions, but the likes of France, Japan are light years ahead of America in providing basic mass transit.

We were just saved from spending $339 Million PER F-22 Raptor, so there is money available if we finally decide that the people of America are more important than the Military Industrial Complex.
Posted by MFox1948
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
America is being left behind both technologically and environmentally.
These trains are a good idea to relieve the congestion (both road and air)
and as a viable stimulus for infrastructure upgrades. Sure it costs, and not
everybody will have ready access, but look ahead. There is nothing that is
good for everyone. Just look back to Tesla vs Edison.
Posted by 16Tons
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
It's still fairly cheap to drive your car a few hundred miles - cheaper than taking the train. That equation changes when the price of gas goes up, as it surely will. For the sake of the environment, let's hope it goes up sooner rather than later.
Posted by Simon Peter Alciere
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
One size does not fit all.

Texas may not be a prime candidate for high-speed rail, but congested regions like much of the northeast and west coast may prove much more feasible.

The fact that rail traffic in the Boston-NY-DC corridor is growing demonstrates that it is a viable alternative to flying and merits this attention.

It's not realistic to envision a nationwide web-like network of high-speed rail in all 50 states, but deployment in key target areas should be pursued.

Oh, and the states that would benefit economically from improved rail service must be prepared to shoulder some of the expense. There's no such thing as a free ride... (pun intended)
Posted by SmartMike
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
Of course its worth it. Just don't expect it to get to every city.

A much better comparison though would be to compare it to
superhighways. If you make that comparison rail looks even better. The
only problem with high speed rail is it will only work where there is heavy
traffic. But in those corridors it will not only be worthwhile but it will also
dramatically reduce highway traffic. Reduce that traffic and you will not
only save highway construction costs but save lives.
Posted by shanedr
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Yes and No
Yes, if the fees that are paid by those that ride it support its day to day operating expenses, leasing it from the state that built it. No if it always operates in the red and requires tax dollars to operate daily.

That said, California and Nevada are looking to build a rail line for a high speed train - but at this time, CA can't pay for it. So, unless the LV, NV casinos are going to pay for it, now is not the time.

Put it in a bond issue, then you'll see what people really think.
Posted by GuntherGump
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
We're forgetting what happened after WWII, most of Europe was descimated and started to rebuild well railroads were the primary means of transportation between cities and air travel was very expensive and not that quick so Europe and Japan rebuilt their rail systems, then they started to build more roads but with gasoline so expensive and people used to taking trains after 20 years they got a great head start on us. They are building on their suscess and their mind set which is cooperative effort (yes some people say me, me, me) but on a whole they have a much more community and cooperative mind set than America. We come together when we HAVE to but? So if we realize that rebuilding America's rail system and I mean throught many places that are not even on the current maps, we will be much better off.
All rail equipment and associated materials must be made in America, this was we develop the technology, develop the jobs and keep America working. This way we get a REAL return on investment.
Yes the rest of the world is ahead of us in many areas including high speed rail but if we spend our money outside the US we will not really be able to fully rebuild our country and although I am not saying not to buy foreign good, I am saying I would rather spend my money here. We do need to hold anyone working on our systems to a high standard and no more of the if it's 90% it's good enought, if ti's not 100% it not good enough. We start holding ourselves accountable then we can get back to having pride in what we do and have.There is something to being Hertz and NOt Avis. Number 1 is something to stay ahead of everyone else with and not to have to play catch up or to have to make excuses for. If we make a mistake, fix it and get it right then do it right from then on. You have to make some mistake to learn from.

1) Passenger trains priority over freight - {PERIOD) Eminent domain and just tell the railroads thanks for the track and we are going to use them, you get them after the riding public uses it. Passenger train first then a freight, we can build passing tracks and by passes but the fundamental rule is passenger trains first.

2) Reward the railroads for putting passengers first and give them tax incentives or money for upgrading and maintaining the railroad rights of way and let them use it system wide. We need to have multiple routes between cities in case of outages and weather.

3) Regular rail speeds to 80-180 under regular diesel or electric operation. Steam trains our Metroliners & Turbo trains and other equipment did it years ago so it's not that hard, just a mind set.
Yes elevated rights of way in someplaces but the basic system can accommodate it.

4) High speed in specific high density corridors MA/RI/CT/NY/NJ/PA/DE/MD/DC/VD/NC FL TX/OK/AZ IL/IN/OH/WI/MN MO/KS CA/OR/WA/ID/NV/AZ CO/UT/AZ and others but in a corridor system under exsisting and improved right of way.

5) Dedicated high speed eventually for specific corridors that would be more efficient than air 50 - 300 miles at 200 - 300 mph - Travel times of 1-2 hours.

6) Long Distance High Speed Dedicated Rail - Like TGV, set up the full foundation first then let's get to the complete system and have it made in America.

7)) Legal issues - you get hit on a railroad track - You won't like it but "Tough you have no business being there when the gates go down and you must use Caution and commmon sense" Yes America we have it so use it.

8) Terrorisim - Screw with our transportation system and you get shot no questions asked.

9) A REAL transportation Czar no more committees and special interest groups. Just someone who is genuinely looking out for the overall transportation picture and who can go right through the politics to get things done. Integrating roads, cars, buses and trucks with rail, ship, ferries, barges, pipeline, commuter and long distance. There is a big picture because Greyhound and Trailways covered the almost the ENTIRE Country but we let money get in the way. Bus, rail, barge, ferry and commuter systems should be a priority and dare I say it Nationalized maybe. If we let it go down the tubes then maybe it's time we got it back on track. Just because you don't have a car does not mean you should not have access to the entire country. What cost well that's another story.

10) How about alternative fuels for different systems.
Diesel buses (using waste veggie oil or other alternative fuels), how about smaller buses or electric vehicles for routes that are not that heavily used. We have the sun so let's make solar efficient and a viable source for transportation. We have water so lets use hydroelectric and there are many more sources that can be used.
This all leads to a mentality that says "Hey America, let's work together" Recycling and so much more.

You can still have your cars and trucks but we have to have a way of getting from point A to B that is open to everyone no matter how much money the have or don't have. Opening up the country and slowing ourselves down a bit to appreciate it is just as important and the technology involved. We need to appreciate what we have and we need to appreciate our natural resources from our land to our people. We all matter not let's work together and it might take 40-100 years but at least we or our children will have a country to appreciate.

Now I am off my soap box, maybe some of my ideas and thought will be used and maybe we can all get togtehr in some way.
I went throught the blackout in 1964 in NYC then in the 70-'s and 80's and 9/11 what a change in people and attitudes, computers, cell phones and technology, working 6-7 days a weeks because more important and people became less important. I'd rather help someone up than just run past them. He who dies with the most toys does not really win. He who cares about people and has people who care about them are much better off.

Posted by Miowname@...
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.? Sorry, corrected with spell check. Yes I do need to use the computer sometimes.

We're forgetting what happened after WWII, most of Europe was decimated and started to rebuild well railroads were the primary means of transportation between cities and air travel was very expensive and not that quick so Europe and Japan rebuilt their rail systems, then they started to build more roads but with gasoline so expensive and people used to taking trains after 20 years they got a great head start on us. They are building on their success and their mind set which is cooperative effort (yes some people say me, me, me) but on a whole they have a much more community and cooperative mind set than America. We come together when we HAVE to but? So if we realize that rebuilding America's rail system and I mean though many places that are not even on the current maps, we will be much better off.
All rail equipment and associated materials must be made in America, this was we develop the technology, develop the jobs and keep America working. This way we get a REAL return on investment.
Yes the rest of the world is ahead of us in many areas including high speed rail but if we spend our money outside the US we will not really be able to fully rebuild our country and although I am not saying not to buy foreign good, I am saying I would rather spend my money here. We do need to hold anyone working on our systems to a high standard and no more of the if it's 90% it's good enough, if it?s not 100% it not good enough. We start holding ourselves accountable then we can get back to having pride in what we do and have. There is something to being Hertz and Not Avis. Number 1 is something to stay ahead of everyone else with and not to have to play catch up or to have to make excuses for. If we make a mistake, fix it and get it right then do it right from then on. You have to make some mistake to learn from.

1) Passenger trains priority over freight - {PERIOD) Eminent domain and just tell the railroads thanks for the track and we are going to use them, you get them after the riding public uses it. Passenger train first then freight, we can build passing tracks and by passes but the fundamental rule is passenger trains first.

2) Reward the railroads for putting passengers first and give them tax incentives or money for upgrading and maintaining the railroad rights of way and let them use it system wide. We need to have multiple routes between cities in case of outages and weather.

3) Regular rail speeds to 80-180 under regular diesel or electric operation. Steam trains our Metroliners & Turbo trains and other equipment did it years ago so it's not that hard, just a mind set.
Yes elevated rights of way in some places but the basic system can accommodate it.

4) High speed in specific high density corridors MA/RI/CT/NY/NJ/PA/DE/MD/DC/VD/NC FL TX/OK/AZ IL/IN/OH/WI/MN MO/KS CA/OR/WA/ID/NV/AZ CO/UT/AZ and others but in a corridor system under existing and improved right of way.

5) Dedicated high speed eventually for specific corridors that would be more efficient than air 50 - 300 miles at 200 - 300 mph - Travel times of 1-2 hours.

6) Long Distance High Speed Dedicated Rail - Like TGV, set up the full foundation first then let's get to the complete system and have it made in America.

7)) Legal issues - you get hit on a railroad track - You won't like it but "Tough you have no business being there when the gates go down and you must use Caution and common sense" Yes America we have it so use it.

8) Terrorism - Screw with our transportation system and you get shot no questions asked.

9) A REAL transportation Czar no more committees and special interest groups. Just someone who is genuinely looking out for the overall transportation picture and who can go right through the politics to get things done. Integrating roads, cars, buses and trucks with rail, ship, ferries, barges, pipeline, commuter and long distance. There is a big picture because Greyhound and Trailways covered the almost the ENTIRE Country but we let money get in the way. Bus, rail, barge, ferry and commuter systems should be a priority and dare I say it Nationalized maybe. If we let it go down the tubes then maybe it's time we got it back on track. Just because you don't have a car does not mean you should not have access to the entire country. What cost well that's another story.

10) How about alternative fuels for different systems.
Diesel buses (using waste veggie oil or other alternative fuels), how about smaller buses or electric vehicles for routes that are not that heavily used. We have the sun so let's make solar efficient and a viable source for transportation. We have water so let?s use hydroelectric and there are many more sources that can be used.
This all leads to a mentality that says "Hey America, let's work together" Recycling and so much more.

You can still have your cars and trucks but we have to have a way of getting from point A to B that is open to everyone no matter how much money the have or don't have. Opening up the country and slowing ourselves down a bit to appreciate it is just as important and the technology involved. We need to appreciate what we have and we need to appreciate our natural resources from our land to our people. We all matter not let's work together and it might take 40-100 years but at least we or our children will have a country to appreciate.

Now I am off my soap box, maybe some of my ideas and thought will be used and maybe we can all get together in some way.
I went through the blackout in 1964 in NYC then in the 70-'s and 80's and 9/11 what a change in people and attitudes, computers, cell phones and technology, working 6-7 days a weeks because more important and people became less important. I'd rather help someone up than just run past them. He who dies with the most toys does not really win. He who cares about people and has people who care about them are much better off.
Posted by Miowname@...
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
There is too much emphasis on high speed. Current equipment is capable of running 80 mph on decent freight roads and over 100 mph on dedicated passenger track. I recall 20 years ago the AMTRAK turbos routinely did 110 mph from Albany to NYC.on the east shore of the Hudson where tracks were dedicated to passenger use only.

What is needed is assigning or building high quality trackage exclusively for passenger equipment. Delays caused by sharing lines with priority freight trains, and certain employee practices are what's hurting AMTRAK. The trains we have are capable, but they are always delayed by something beyond their control.

It is rare that a train arrives on time.
Posted by Hans Schmidt
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
High Speed needs to be defined in the US/Canada context. Speeds of 125+ are not feasible except in the most population corridors or linking widely separated major cities.

While most of the discussion focuses on the NEC, Great Lakes. Texas and California, an emerging corridor is NC-SC-GA. North Carolina has been aggressive but cautious in implementing state-supported, Amtrak-operated services for several years now, that has become successful.

The three states are actively studying "High Speed" service RAL-CLT-ATL using existing Norfolk Southern infrastructure. Their position is that with much less expensive alterations to existing mainlines, consistent service in the 90-100 mph range can significantly reduce travel time in that corridor to be a competitive alternative to driving or flying.

Instead of new rights-of-way and electrification, double-tracking, grade crossing elimination, fewer stops, straightening out sharp curves and super-elevating all curves on the existing tracks would do the trick. Combined with advanced dispatching and positive train control technologies and "off the shelf" rolling stock (Think Spain's Talgo trains now in service as Amtrak's "Cascade" service) this relatively low tech approach could produce significant benefits for travelers and shippers at "reasonable" costs.
Posted by artpete@...
6th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Not at $50 million per mile construction costs
4 lane interstate highways cost 1 million per mile, not counting bridges.

Highspeed rail is much simpler and should not cost more than that to construct; especially since half the infrastructure is already in place.
Posted by Dr_Zinj
7th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Let's Get Real !
I am for this IF the private sector does it. If it is a good idea, then the private sector would want to build this. The private sector is much more in-tune to what customers want and are willing to pay than government is. They have to be otherwise they would not be able to exist or make money. The government, just like Amtrak, will just simply keep pumping in more of our tax money into the program and then we have another boondoggle. We are spending too much money already.

Everytime I price out Amtrak I am disappointed. It is too expensive. It not timely and I cannot afford to waste my time waiting around a train station.

Let's take Wisconsin for instance. We have our wonderful Governor Jim Doyle going to put in "high-speed" rail that will only go 70 mph. It will offer a route from Milwaukee to Madison but it will drop you off at the Madison Airport. Then you need to figure out how to get to downtown or wherever else you want to go ! Nice design.

Offer tax incentives to businesses. This must be cost effective, effiicent, and timely. We have the post office going to post $7 billion in losses this year and they have been losing money since 2007. Medicare and social security are underfunded by trillions of dollars. Medicare alone is underfunded by $38 trillion. We don't need more government programs that will suck our tax money.

First and foremost can we fix the economy first before spending more trillions ? 247,000 more people lost their jobs last month. 3 million lost jobs since January. At this rate the environmentalists will be happy because we will not afford trips of any kind.
Posted by pizzaman7
7th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
I know what the statistics say about air travel safety, but the fact is, I'm
a white knuckle flyer. I live in the East Coast and whenever I travel
between DC and NY, I ALWAYS take Amtrak, and do you know what,
I've never had a white knuckle on that train!
Posted by William Bailey
7th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
Look at related cost.
You have to look at the bigger transportation picture to see the worth in this. Logan airport in Boston opened a new runway a few years ago to much fanfare. It was the first runway added to a major airport in over 30 years at a price tag in excess of $50 million. Denver is adding a sixth runway at an estimated cost of $166 million.

The Boston runway did nothing to increase the airports capacity, but it does allow the airport to operate in wind conditions that other wise would have closed the airport. The Denver runway is being built for much the same reason so it will not increase capacity. It will just keep the airport open more often in certain weather conditions.

With those kind of numbers for expanding an airport the rail option looks better for some crowded corridors like the North East and out west.
Posted by Hates Idiots
7th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
yes
High speed, lower cost options to airline flights and cars would be a welcome addition to
interstate traveling methods.
Posted by Htalk
7th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
I totally agree with some of the readers here, First we need to work on
getting Mass Transit in large and medium sized cities and urban
residential and employment centers up to par. Then we can connect
these hubs with a High Speed Rail System.

As an american living in Europe I am totally amazed at the mass
transit system here. It a mix of public transportation, publicly
subsidized private transport and all-private, non-subsidized transport.
All of these systems fall under one regulatory body which offers the
traveling public a seamless experience when it comes to ticket
purchase and travel planning.

In most western european states the system is comprised of the
following>

1. A publicly funded local transport system which could use busses,
subways, trams and light-rail trains (depending on city-size and
population) which connects the residential, commercial and
employment centers of the area.
2. A publicly subsidized, privately run light-rail commuter system
which connects smaller towns and suburban areas to larger population
and employment centers. These also operate a regional network in
some areas.
3. A privately operated light-rail and long-distance network to connect
larger centers with each other. Some of these also offer High Speed
Rail to connect national population centers together.
4. Privately operated joint ventures between several of these
companies offer High Speed connections between important and
popular destinations. An example is the network connecting
Amsterdam, Brussels, Paris and Cologne. The Thalys trains, which I
take quite often, connect these cities and offer travelers a great deal
of luxury at very high speeds for a fraction of the cost of driving or
flying.

I have a monthly subscription ticket which gives me access to all
transportation, including local, regional and long distance whether they
be city busses, trams, subways, or rail, for an area roughly the size of
southeast Texas. This costs me about 1/4 of the cost of owning,
insuring and fueling a car. I dont even own a car and dont miss it one
bit!

In my opinion, Texas would be a perfect candidate. It has very large
population centers surrounded by sprawling suburban areas. Most of
the low population areas (at least in east Texas) would lie between
these population centers, in the path of the trains. Setting up a local,
commuter, regional and statewide system including HSR would work
perfectly.
Posted by ElgatoNL
8th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
To the question: Is High speed Rail Worth It, there is one and only one absolutely more important question to ask every single person that blogs back on it.....
WILL YOU PERSONALLY COMMIT TO USING LIGHT RAIL ON AN EVERY WORK DAY BASIS?

If less than 2 in 10 replies are ANYTHING other than an UNEQUIVOCAL YES, then the answer to the first question is FORGET IT. INVEST IN SOMETHING THE COUNTRY really NEEDS INSTEAD OF A PIE-IN-THE-SKY, WHITE ELEPHANT BOONDOGGLE.

The USA is nothing like Europe or Japan in terms of geographic distribution of population vs workplace. I'm guessing that there is only 1 in 20 that will venture an UNEQUIVOCAL YES simply because a trin gets nowhere close to where they work and with long work hours already being the norm, why would anyone wontnly kiss off another 2 hours of a day for public transit HOPEFULNESS.

EITHER IT SERVES THE need OR MOVE ON or MOVE ON to something that does.

The only hope I see with something like this is that BUSINESSES step up to provide workplace to station transportation to support employees in making a major change in transportation habits.
Posted by daves1646
8th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
It takes point to point travel density to make rail viable. An airline route can be viable for one round trip per day if 50 people a day will take the flight. A TGV like, high speed rail requires several round trips per day on the line at well over 1,000 people per train to justify building the infrastructure. That is what France has for the TGV from Paris to Lyon (just to pick on one of their most successful routes) where the rail service is so effective that airline service on the route has dropped significantly.

As others have mentioned, it requires either dedicated high speed lines or absolute passenger priority. On time service must be at least as good as an airline. The convenience factor must provide a better overall experience than the independent scheduling of driving in the heavy traffic of a major metropolitan destination.

At long distances the time saved in airport security and congestion is more than offset by the speed advantage of the airplane. This makes links such as New York to Chicago dubious even if there are the thousands of passengers per day making the trip.LA to New York just won't become viable. Modern blimps have greater potential on these routes for lower energy consumption per passenger mile while providing a competitive passenger experience.

High speed rail fits the up to 500 mile high density travel link. This is the where the European high speed rail lines are successful. These are between nearby major cities. Portland to Seattle has promise. Boston, New York, Washington D.C. could definitely displace airline traffic. Dallas, Houston is another route with a good potential.

Carefully selected point to point high speed rail service routes should be viable in the US,just as they are in Europe. A nation wide high speed rail system for the US is not viable. The distances are too great and the potential passenger volumes too low. Rail can only be a green technology where the service is well used. It is not just the locomotive that uses energy. Building and maintaining the rails uses energy as well. 100 people per day use less energy driving from Charlotte to Raleigh in North Carolina than building and maintaining a high speed rail service for them. But at enough thousands of people per day, the rail service can be financially viable and save energy.
Posted by Bonesteel
12th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
For any operation to be successful there must be a margin of profitably,and there few locations in the US where that is so. Public transportation is notoriously not cost effective. Also, the cost of construction in high density population centers, where such a system would be viable, are excessive. There would not be any grade crossings as any road or highway must pass under or over the tracks, etc. and as a final thought, if the government is involved, forget it.
Posted by Roy011@...
29th Aug 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
From European experience, high speed rail competes with air for up to a three hour journey. So electric train with max speed 200 mph is commercial up to around 500 miles. This assumes a pair of major cities providing a market which justifies the massive capital investment on a new line. Diesel trains at 125 mph work up to around 300 miles and can use upgraded old lines - much cheaper to set up but one problem in the US has been freight oriented railroads don't give them priority, which makes the service slower, unreliable. The diesel version has been making since 1980 here in Britain, but as one person pointed out the geography is different (we have 10 times more people per square mile)
Posted by jw@...
27th Oct 2009
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Is high-speed rail worth it in the U.S.?
It depends how you define high speed. 200km/h? 250km/h? 300km/h?

This is important, having in consideration that a train that travels at 300km/h uses as much as 50% more energy that a train traveling at 225km/h (aerodynamic resistance). How are we going to provide this energy, coal? The only way France can do it is with the use of Nuclear power.

JuanCarlos
Posted by jch75
22nd Jan 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive