US rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could ruin it
economist.com
economist.com
They admit that the current batch of high-speed rail lines being built, mainly California's, will run on new lines that won't interfere with freight. The Economist's worry seems to be about the more extensive proposed high-speed rail network that's currently on the drawing board, which is proposed to include extended portions on existing freight rails (at 110mph) to link together the purpose-built higher-speed segments. They seem to be thinking of plans like this one: http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/203.shtml
But is that really even a medium-term worry? I'll be surprised if even California's line gets finished by 2020. I would be very surprised if this more extensive national HSR plan that's supposed to follow later gets anywhere anytime soon. The map linked above is the result of a process begun in 1991, which has not been turning into a high-speed-rail network at any particularly great rate of speed. It'll be a miracle if they settle on a final plan by 2020, much less fund it or actually start building anything. I'll eat my hat if that entire network is built in my lifetime!
More importantly, the lighter touch of the state government means rather than do a full-on government build and operate (ala California/Amtrak), they're looking at private build & operations under a long-term lease, with the government providing liability limitations and eminent domain, in return for owning the infrastructure after the lease expires in some decades of operation. This means the builder is subject to market forces: they can only recoup their build costs within the lease window by getting to operations as quickly and efficiently as possible. The incentives are the opposite for government construction: the milk flows during construction, so there's a disincentive to ever finish, and when things go over budget, it almost always means more money, rather than anyone cutting their losses.
To get a sense what a difference this makes, consider that the NYC subway system was built by competing private concerns under the long-term lease model (ala Texas), between 1905 and 1940. In 1940 the system was unified under government control (ala California), and basically the system was frozen in time, with no expansion happening in the 70 years since (see: http://www.diametunim.com/shashi/nyc_subways/).
Now there's yet another HSR plan, separated back out from the road plans, which might work this time, but I probably wouldn't put any money on this being the year the 20+-year impasse is broken. Honestly I haven't seen any of that supposedly lighter-touch, actually-functioning Texas state government on this issue, just a multi-decade series of special interests and politicking resulting in no rails being built.
In Texas, given all the immigration from other states, the prospect of the population doubling in a few decades and little place left to build freeways, I think there's a growing understanding among policymakers that higher-density transportation will be a necessity going forward. There's a long-term trend of immigration & congestion supporting the eventual adoption of a rail plan, it's just a matter of time.
On the other side, I don't see any trends in California pointing towards sane governance, apart from the possibility of a constitutional convention (http://www.repaircalifornia.org/), which is hardly a safe bet.
So there's good reason to hope for Texas, I'd say, despite the history.
[1] incidentally, I hear that to get the airlines on board, the new Texas HSR plan terminates at the airports specifically, while the earlier plan focused stops at city centers, which might have been better for TOD, but then this makes for inter-modality.
The class differences in the United States are far more extreme than most people realize, mostly because people stay inside their tight little class bubbles all day long in their private cars, driving to work and back and rarely venturing out to get a latte every once in a while.
I can see this claim being plausible concerning short distance rail, i.e. "don't build a train to the ghetto", however.
I can't say I've ever seen much of the thug life on Metra trains, though.
Just checking prices it's about $10 more to fly round trip from Omaha to Denver vs. going from Omaha to Denver by Amtrak. The plane ride (including travel to/from the airports) would probably cost me about 4 hours of my life each way while the train would be over 10 each way (this is a trip I have made before).
But that is a simple example where there is a direct route by both modes of transportation. Lets say I'm going to take the family to Orlando for vacation. By air is about $60 per person more expensive than by train BUT the trip by air will take about 8.5 hours while Amtrak will take 53+ hours EACH WAY!
Rail doesn't get anywhere in the U.S because generally it doesn't go where you want by anything like a direct route so it takes a significant portion of your life in travel time.
I don't think any HSR advocates really believe something like cross-country would be viable. This would be more like (as it is currently) NY-Washington DC.
One problem is population density. The US is geographically twice the size of the EU, but has three fifths the population. Germany is the size of Montana, but has 90 million people. Typical travel distances are short, and the number of travelers on any given day is high. Fixed costs would be proportionally higher for a US service as a result.
Local transport upon arrival is a big issue. Most European cities have public transportation systems that are effective enough for large portions of the population to not own cars. This is only true in a very small number of US cities (probably fewer than 5). For many people, any cost savings from taking a train instead of driving would be offset by the cost and inconvenience of securing transportation at the destination.
A final issue is that very long distance train travel still takes a long time compared to air travel. Using a generous estimate of a 100mph average (remember, the trains have to make stops), a high-speed train would take 20 hours to get from LA to Chicago. I think few people would opt for that over a 3 hour flight even given a significant difference in price.
NYC to Philly - 95 miles
NYC to Washington DC - 225 miles
NYC to Boston - 220 miles
Washington to Bostin - 420 miles
Not in my experience. I took Amtrak from Atlanta to DC in 2008, and it was basically a 13 hour flight -- same kinds of seats, only marginally more space, and the food service amounted to paying exorbitant prices for awful sandwiches that could have been vended from an office machine. I would prefer to spend 10 hours in an airport and 3 hours in flight, given the chance; airports are at least quite comfortable, in general.
The times I've taken Amtrak (mainly for amusement value; Seattle-SFO and SFO-DEN), it was mainly old people (many of diminished mobility), some religious groups (mormons? menonites?), and foreign tourists. And mostly empty seats.
Amtrak is expensive because it's expensive. It bills its sleeper service as a luxury thing, and charges luxury prices. There's nothing to say that it has to, or that anybody who decides to compete with them has to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Couchette_car
proper sleeping cars where you have your own private small room are a lot more expensive.
I'm guessing it's a land availability problem: the existing tracks aren't straight enough, and building new tracks through these densely populated areas would destroy tens of thousands of homes. What we really need to do is travel back in time to 1920 and set aside some nice dead-straight sections of land for future rail works. Or perhaps we need to wait another hundred years and hope that building a 300-mile tunnel becomes affordable.
Even if it were an issue, people in this country are getting increasingly fed up with air travel, and they may be willing to make some trade-offs to travel in a more humane manner.
There's two big problems with air travel in the U.S. that trains could exploit.
First, most cities don't have direct connections to their neighbors. Connecting in hub airports takes considerable time and adds the possibility of additional delays. (i.e. I've got to worry about a snowstorm in Chicago if I want to travel from Des Moines to Indianapolis.)
Second, check-in, ticketing, boarding, and baggage claim are a huge pain and add an hour or two to every flight.
Trains could directly connect any number of large, close-together cities that are not currently airline hubs and provide very competitive travel times.
Kansas City to St. Louis is only ~250 miles. That's 2-3 hours on a fast train. Including check-in and baggage claim, it takes 5 - 7 hours to fly between the two cities (connecting in Chicago.) St. Louis to Cleveland is about 550 miles. That's 5 - 7 hours on a fast train. On a plane that same trip would take 4 - 6 hours including check-in and baggage claim (connecting in Chicago again.)
Markets talk. As the article said, when rail was deregulated, the business ditched passenger and emphasized freight. That's what is in demand. If government has to fund something, that's often a signal that there is not an organic market demand for it.
This has increased congestion on the railroads, and the new passneger traffic will make this even worse.
It really is worth reading the article, very informative. I remember reading some ridiculous statistic about how cheap it is to move a ton of cargo in the US before, now I have a few more details.
The article even mentioned how new tracks are being put in for long distance passenger traffic -- which will not impact the freight trains -- but that local traffic has to be on freight lines, and this does impact freight because of freight's erratic schedule. But perhaps with more use freight will be less erratic. Perhaps the best solution is to move freight transfer stations (where rail freight moves to trucks) out from cities, and allow passenger service closer in. This does not help freight that has to go through the city in the first place. But, if we can move off of coal a little faster, then maybe we will have the capacity for increased freight and passenger rail service.
Edit: The total cost to the economy to send a single person per car is about 60c/mile if you include the cost of maintaining and expanding highways / increased congestion on existing highways. It costs to use busses, but the benefit is primarily from getting people out of private cars and high speed trains are much better at this.
Are you suggesting that rail companies should again be forced to offer unprofitable passenger services until again a "fifth of rail mileage was owned by bankrupt firms."? Why should passengers be a priority? The most economical use of the railways should be the priority.
who has time and money to travel? not the poor. who buys food? everybody, including the poor.