The High Speed Passenger Rail Act, Draft 1
Posted by Jerome a Paris on March 17, 2007 - 1:00pm
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: energize america, policy, rail [list all tags]
This was written by Arthur Smith, who is a member of the Oil Drum under user name apsmith.
Energize America (as recently introduced to the Oil Drum) has been working on draft legislation to help America reach energy security in the face of peak oil and our over-dependence on the Middle East, and to address concerns about global warming through efficiency and energy alternative measures. This week saw the delivery of several legislative proposals to Congress. Among the commentary and responses there has been one issue that stood out to me: increasing support for rail, both passenger and freight.
The following is a first draft of a new "High Speed Passenger Rail Act", based on Act V - "The Passenger Rail Restoration Act" of Energize America version 5. The first portion consists of background information on the energy benefits and previous legislation, and the second is the actual proposed act. Your comments will help make this a more solid proposal that could make a real difference to the future of this nation!
Energy Implications
Passenger air travel in the US in 2005 got about 45 passenger-miles per gallon of fuel, emitting 140 million tons of CO2 in total (1). Passenger cars on highways traveled over 1.5 trillion miles with an average of 1.59 occupants, at about 44 passenger-mpg, emitting about 750 million tons of CO2. Both air and automobile are heavily dependent on liquid fuels whose future supply is uncertain.
Successful high-speed rail systems, implemented in Japan and Europe, particularly the French TGV system, run on electricity with an efficiency equivalent to 300 to 500 passenger-mpg. And electric power is the easiest form to generate from new energy sources such as wind and solar energy. High-passenger-load high-speed rail would dramatically reduce the impact of the passenger transportation sector on energy consumption and CO2 emissions.
Current US Passenger Rail Status
Mention passenger rail in the US and people think first of Amtrak and its perpetual funding crisis. Amtrak’s total ridership of 25 million per year is dwarfed by the 658 million for air travel and the billions for cars. But commuter rail is widely successful across the country, and “light” inter-city passenger rail has been making a comeback in recent years thanks to state funding to help offset pollution and congestion, for a combined total of 750 million annual trips in 2003 (2). Americans are at least as willing to travel by train as by airplane. The problems with Amtrak are simple to state: unreliability, coupled with high cost and low speed. On some routes, 96% of Amtrak trains arrive late (3). On all but a very few routes, taking the train takes longer than traveling by car because the trains are limited to 79 mph. Yet the cost can be comparable to or even higher than plane fare.
Train travel has one advantage over road or air: it’s much easier for business travelers to work on the way. But that doesn’t help if they arrive at their meetings hours late. States, seeing the importance for local development and pollution-prevention, have taken matters into their own hands and funded significant upgrades for inter-city passenger rail service in Washington state, California, Illinois and Pennsylvania, and other states appear eager to join (3).
But even the fastest “high speed” trains on US railroads rarely go much above 100 mph. By comparison, the French TGV reaches 200 mph in commercial service and over 300 mph in tests, thanks to dedicated passenger-only high-speed track. A successful US program needs to match or exceed the French example with average inter-city travel speeds of at least 150 mph, to provide any significant competition to automobile or air travel. This will require a significant capital investment in high speed rail on the order of tens of billions of dollars over a period of a decade or more. The interstate highway system provides a useful model, with its 80/20% federal/state funding approach, though with rail travel the passenger rail operators would constitute a third partner that should have some equity investment in the project.
Current Legislation and Activity
The US Department of Transportation includes the Federal Railroad Administration which for 2006 had a $1.5 billion budget, about $1 billion of which was for Amtrak support, with roughly half for infrastructure improvements and half to subsidize operating losses. The Bush administration budget proposals for 2007 and 2008 included significant decreases in the FRA budget, to just over $1 billion in 2008, but also included $100 million outside of Amtrak to support state-initiated projects for rail improvements. The FRA in a 1997 report highlighted 12 potential high-speed rail corridors around the country that could be developed at a cost of $50-75 billion over 20 years (4). To fully fund those corridors with the highway administration’s 80/20 funding level means a federal contribution of up to $3 billion/year, at least 5 times what the administration proposes in the near term.
Senate bill S.294, the “Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2007” appears to have an important proposal in Title III, on competitive funding for inter-city rail (Title II covers Amtrak).
Previous US Legislation
- 2005 Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act - A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
- 1998 Transporation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
- 1994 Swift Rail Development Act
- 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
- 1980 Passenger Railroad Rebuilding Act
- 1976 Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act
- 1973 Amtrak Improvement Act
- 1970 Rail Passenger Service Act
- 1965 High Speed Ground Transportation Act
References:
(1) Numbers on fuel use and passenger miles from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics: www.bts.gov
(2) Bureau of Transportation Statistics Annual Report, 2005: http://www.bts.gov/publications/transportation_statistics_annual_report/2005/html/chapter_02/figure_06_04.html
(3) “Revving up the Rails”, by Josh Goodman, Governing Magazine, March 2007 - http://www.governing.com/archive/2007/mar/trains.txt
(4) Department of Transportation Report to Congress, 1997: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/515
The High Speed Passenger Rail Act - Draft Text
Next Generation Transportation
Objective
To enable a transition from energy intensive medium-distance air and road transport of passengers to cost-effective, reliable, and safe rail transportation through creation of dedicated high-speed intercity passenger rail services.
Description
The High Speed Passenger Rail Act (HSPRA) of 2007 will provide up to $3 billion per year in federal matching funds under a 60/40 rule to build rail infrastructure improvements necessary to develop high-volume high-speed passenger rail services between major American cities. Both tourism and commerce rely on rapid, dependable transport between cities. This has increasingly been handled by air travel, but the dual pressures of increased security and rising fuel prices have made air travel both more cumbersome and more expensive. High-speed passenger rail is more fuel efficient, quicker and more environmentally responsible than regional air travel, and can serve a key role in a low-emissions future. European experience shows that high-speed trains are more convenient, faster and profitable on high-density or metro-to-metro lines, and can offer a compelling alternative to air travel on trips up to 500 miles, taking 90% of airline traffic for point-to-point trips of less than 2 hours (300 miles at 150 mph), and 50% of airline traffic for trips lasting 3 hours (500 miles).
American passenger rail service could rebound if a single modification were made - increased speed on dedicated infrastructure. The High Speed Passenger Rail Act proposes a federal-state-private partnership to build, equip and operate new high-speed electric rail lines using existing technology. The Department of Transportation would consider joint proposals from states and private operators or Amtrak, with the federal government to provide 60% of capital investment. These proposals would be judged and funded under the following metrics and preferred criteria:
1. Average inter-city speeds: at least 150 mph.
2. Time to high-volume operation: 3 years or less
3. Likely annual ridership
4. Level of CO2 emissions reductions and other environmental benefits
5. Reliability and safety of operations
Additionally, under this Act the Secretary of Transportation will annually prepare and submit to Congress an analysis of high-speed inter-city passenger rail showing current values and trends for these and other relevant metrics.
Benefits
The HSPRA will
1. begin to significantly reduce energy consumption and CO2 emissions in the transportation sector by replacing energy-intensive passenger air and road travel
2. create new jobs through increased economic activity,
3. increase the resilience of US inter-city travel by providing a high-volume alternative to road and air travel,
4. leverage state and private funds in the transportation sector
5. establish and measure success in implementing high-speed rail.
Investment
The Federal Government will invest up to $3 billion per year in a 60/40 split with state and private partners on capital investments in high speed electric rail systems.
Key Messages
1. passenger rail transport can consume one tenth the energy of air and road travel, per passenger mile
2. the key barrier to development of high speed passenger rail service in the US has been lack of suitable track and unreliability of existing service due to conflicts with freight rail transport.
3. Americans already travel by commuter rail in large numbers. High speed inter-city rail is profitable in Europe and Japan; it can work here too.
Note: Energize America volunteers will read this thread and pick up ideas and suggestions, with a view to integrating them into a new draft, which will be re-submitted again to your readership. You can provide nitpicks, fully drafted alternatives, more numbers, other ideas, ... All improvements are welcome - and indeed we are aware that they are needed. If you are really motivated about this topic or any other, you're welcome to join the editing teams. Just email us.
GREAT!
Keep it up. Though mentioning France as an example for Americans to follow is not the sharpest of rhetorical tricks, as it usually make their heads go boom.
Note: I did not write this article, so decline all responsibility for this reference to France. Our experience with high speed trains is relevant, though (if not without its own issues).
An additional note: that same act was posted on dK and gave birth to a really interesting 360 comment thread well worth reading as well. Arthur Smith is already working on a draft 2 on the basis of the comments in that thread, and will additionally incorporate input from this thread.
And, there is already thought that really what we want to pursue is a packaging/framing of what might be called the "Rails to the Future" package:
* a High-Speed Interstate Rail act, to provide the infrastructure support for 2 and 3 hour high speed rail journeys to start replacing all or part of our air travel;
* a regional rail infrastructure improvement act, to improve the capacity of the regional system to handle high speed freight and intermediate speed passenger services;
and
* a local dedicated transport corridor improvement act, to improve the ability of local areas to provide alternative transport corridors to cars.
And, well, moving toward electrication as much as possible.
But, re electrification, if we accept -- quite roughly -- that rail (across the board) is roughly 10 times more efficient than car/truck transport (VERY ROUGH, I know, just for discussion), by moving from road to rail, we have a 90% reduction in fossil fuel use. Electrification, of course, enables moving into an even better situation.
The emphasis is mine. Any large projects that depend on centralized hierarchy are suspect for a number of reasons (Tainter, Homer-Dixon, Halliburton, FEMA). It would seem to me a plethora of small, local projects would be better place to start.
$3B is nothing. Not even one AEGIS destroyer. It would probably take twice that to make a first dent in a single state like Maine. A first dent meaning a meaningful number of people in some areas could give up automobiles entirely. There is no point in providing an alternative; one must provide a replacement. And that's assuming the construction of a system much more like the old green line in Boston than the modern gold plated welded rail version. A meaningful effort would be order of magnitude $100B/year and it could easily take a decade. [I'm only guessing at order of magnitude for the numbers.]
High speed is not necessary. 60mph in the open would be just fine. But it needs to handle mixed freight too.
There is no need to replace all of our air traffic. Much of it should be eliminated. [There goes my job.]
cfm in Gray, ME
Yes, commidities have gone up as oil has gone up, but don't assume a steady link between the two. One year ago nickel was trading at $23,000 per metric ton, now at $49,000 per ton according to Bloomberg's site: www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/cfutures.html
The main reason for these metal prices rising is demand from China and India, plus some speculator's money moving from oil and gas to metals. If oil goes high enough to cause a recession then you will see commidities demand fall off by a few percent and price drop to perhaps half of current values for copper, nickel, steel and zinc.
Now on the rail proposal that advocates new lines running trains at 150 mph average speed. The capital cost for building one such route of 300 miles could easily be 5 or 6 billion.
A better proposal would be to upgrade existing routes with additional tracks so new right of way is not required - savings no. 1.
Then eliminate bottlenecks where freight train congestion can slow passenger trains - savings no. 2.
Then build trains that are more energy efficient using electric propulsion (overhead wire) for highest density routes that freight can also use, while introducing diesel hybrid with regen braking on lessor used lines - savings no. 3.
Then run trains at 150 mph top speed for express runs and 110mph for local stop trains - increased revenue no. 1. Then tie this upgraded rail system to some big city airports (perhaps making a suburban station into the airport stop) with direct access to the air terminals - increased revenue no. 2
A program of $5 to 10 billion per year for 20 years is needed for converting a substantial portion of our intercity passenger transport to rail. Start now and people will still have mobility when the real energy crisus comes in 10 years when the world has only 70 or 80% of current oil production. Wait ten years to start and the federal and state governments will not have the cash (tax revenue) because the economy will be wrecked.
"High speed is not necessary. 60mph in the open would be just fine."
I totally disagree with that statement -- 60 mph is not high speed rail and will not attract nearly as many riders as a 150 mph system. If you don't believe me, check out what happened to rail ridership in Japan and Europe after real highpeed lines were built.
Remember that you are competing with both airplanes and automobiles, airplanes having much higher top speed than any rail system and automobiles with their point-to-point advantage.
Hi Frugal,
I think the point was - will there be the capital for high speed?
Still, just anecdotal, but personally I know many people who would love to take the train but don't due to things that seem within the realm of "doable" - better reliability, schedules, cost (depends on trip), connections, a little more attention to safety/health features.
I wonder if the "point-to-point" can be helped in some way. Planes often also involve "point-to-point", depends on how far. For many purposes, all three are options, and train is out of the question at present, which seems "fixable".
I think we should be looking beyond the next few years. For now it appears essential that you need a 150mph service, but I am sure the capital costs greatly increase for higher average speeds. Also there will be a time in the not too distant future where air travel costs will go up so much that a decent long-distance rail system will be very competitive
I think the aim should be "moderately high speed" i.e. from 75mph-100mph. This will put it way ahead of any bus service. Also consider the maintenance costs, I am sure that such costs will increase if you need to maintain 150mph speeds.
and remember a good rail service will start and finish in a city center, not at an airport which requires a longer car/taxi/bus/train journey to get to any destination.
My analysis is that diesel-electric locos are 8x as efficient as diesel heavy trucks.
Conversion to electric increases efficiency by x2.5 on the plains and x3 in the mountains or built-up areas (stop or slows frequent). Delta due mainly to regnerative braking. Industry "rule-of-thumb".
So trade 20 BTUs of diesel for 1 BTU of electricity :-)
Alan
Well, up to 90% reduction in the fossil fuel use of all those car journeys that can be replaced by a locomotive journey.
I use Switzerland as an example :-)
Best Hopes for Swiss neutrality,
Alan
Folks, this is an important debate, one of many pieces parts we will be having over this sort of thing at TOD. This is exactly the kind of piece that needs exposure, debunking, and discussion.
This is not about dKos, this is not about ideology. This is about finding appropriate and timely policy options that are technically and operationally feasible with as much alacrity as possible. Policy choices need to be as well-reasoned as possible, and the expertise here at TOD can be an invaluable asset to helping these pieces of legislation become the best they can be.
I would also ask that you continue to hit reddit, hit digg, and send these posts to your linkfarms. Let people see that a) there are reasons for these discussions to take place, and b) that smart people are discussing these problems.
Hi All,
Sad to say, but I find this type of article a waste of time.
I thought the idea of TOD was all about the world's energy crisis - how humanity will survive in a post-oil energy decline.
But this political nonsense about creating legislation to funnel vast amounts of money into conglomerate empires to do what small coimmunities should be doing for themselves - I just did not think this was the purpose of this forum. I see this debate is purely focussed on the next elections and finding out which party will support these legislations.
But most important - TOD has fallen for the old mantra - the energy crisis is all about the good old USA!
Let's debate rail 'in the USA'. Let's fix everything 'in the USA'. Let's make Congress 'in the USA' listen to the problem.
Apart from the fact that dear old USA looks like it is well into the opening stages of a 10 year or more recession to rebalance three decades of excess - so no money will be available for these pipe dreams - the US has stopped having the important driving role it once had. That has now moved to German-centric Europe.
Come on USians - think globally. Get out of your parochial pyjamas and get more global in viewpoint.
US has 4.5% of world's population and uses 26% (21.5 MB/D of world's oil output (84 MB/D).
US uses 75% of all oil, domestic & imported, for transportation.
So fixing the US transportation system will solve many of the world's future oil supply problems.
If the dam is leaking, fix the biggest hole first!
By the time the world spends additional giga-tonnes of the planet's dwindling resources fixing the world's biggest hole, there'll be precious few people anywhere else left to worry about.
Seems there's people who are more worried about saving the 'American Way of Life' than about finding real remedies to a world-wide problem.
This type of story on TOD would not be happening, I'm sure, if you USians weren't beginning another two-year round of insanity called 'presidential elections'.
Change lifestyle - don't try to reconstruct your country at the expense of the rest of the planet. Tell the politicians that the American way of life IS negotiable!
Hi Ian,
I support your wanting to address the energy situation in world terms.
How do you suggest we do this?
What problem would you like to address?
re: "...small communities should be doing for themselves..."
Qs: 1) How can a small community construct a workable rail system for both people and goods? I don't see how this would be possible. Do you?
2) OK. Let's assume the American way of life *"is"* negotiable. As you say.
How can it be negotiated, such as people can live? What does transportation look like in the "negotiated US"?
3) What do you think of this: The US puts in place some workable transportation plans for itself. For the "new , negotiated US", as part of an ideal, TOD-devised energy policy. ("Ian's Energy Policy for the world").
(By the way, what is your ideal energy policy for the world?)
What does the US component look like? With such a component in hand, the US can also say: Okay, look...not knowing about "peak", we did the following things. Now we know. Our support for the Oil Depletion Protocol and Alt. Energy Sharing agreement means: US does the following; We share the following tech; We make the following unilateral moves: 1)Sharing R&D on wind/solar/biomass, TOD development.
2) Change/support the following plan for agriculture.
3) Support water-sharing agreements as follows.
4) Stop further RD on nuclear weapons, putting in place bi-lateral agreements.
etc. etc.
Hi Aniya,
You didn't ask how I would:
a) Provide world peace
b) Grant immortality to everyone
c) Exceed the speed of light
d) Invent a portable fusion reactor...
I can't do any of the points you raised. I haven't the slightest idea how it will be done.
What I do know is that a bunch of wild-eyed idealists writing reams of new legislation to be presented to a self-indulgent government structure will achieve nothing except increase the Bureaucracy; waste time; make lucky companies richer; and provide absolutely no relief for the growing problems facing billions of people. It is designed to molify us overfed westerners.
The concept of bringing legislative debate that is essentially about how the US can keep its absurd level of consumption (and that includes my own bloated country) while ignoring the fact that we Westerners are a minority in this world is the exact opposite of what I imagined TOD to be about.
Maintaining the belief that TOD is about peak oil and seeking serious solutions to humanity's incredible dilemma is impossible while allowing political myopics to masquerade their agendas behind the real-world debate of energy depletion.
If this type of charade continues, I think TOD will be no more than a postscript in the next election campaign.
Hi Ian,
First, a smile (intention):
"Provide world peace". This one has not been done, yet. Unlike the other items on your list, it is not entirely outside the realm of physical possibility.
In any case, I'm definitely trying to support what you say here. (Did that come across?)
If you do not have any specific answers you'd like to share (and I'm being completely sincere), then, perhaps a way to
have *the kind of conversation you'd like to have*. I am 100% in favor of this. I'm trying to be helpful.
re:
"Maintaining the belief that TOD is about peak oil and seeking serious solutions to humanity's incredible dilemma is impossible."
Just to clarify...are you saying that seeking serious solutions to humanity's dilemma is impossible?
I am not saying this. I am saying that seeking serious solutions is why I'm here. (That and to learn). If this is what you would also like, then let us work together towards this goal.
Here is something someone who has done some successful environmental organizing told me:
1) Figure out what is it you want to see happen.
2) Figure out who it is that needs to make decisions or do something to bring this about, and exactly what it is he/she/they would need to do.
3) Figure out who he/she/they are influenced by.
Strategize to influence those people.
In other words, what do you want to see happen, in specifics, and strategizing about how to get it done?
This is just one suggestion.
I'm concerned, and I do believe there is much that we can do. Examples are available. Since I've said this three times today, here's a 4th http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=541
On the side of world solutions, there's Oil Depletion Protocol, there's World social forum, there are perhaps other things. It seems to me there are precedents.
http://www.pugwash.org/
What do you want to do? In a positive sense. Here.
Hi Aniya,
The positive side of your comment was clear - what I was replying is that I do not have answers - none - not one - except what I am able to achieve in my own life, in my small area of influence, for my immediate family.
What I find humourous is up higher a small debate goes on over whether we need high speed or would slower be sufficient.
The debate misses the point of what will happen soon. Speed of any quantity above self propulsion is just part of this non-negotiable 'lifestyle'.
Who really needs to travel for five hundred or a thousand kilometres in a day?
No-one. No-one on this planet needs to move that far in that short a time.
All the 'speed' debate is simply about maintaining the 'lifestyle' which is a charade.
The whole concept of making legislation for high speed getting-somewhere-devices is to maintain the 'lifestyle'.
What do I want? People with political agendas out of this debate. Then real work can be done.
Hi Ian,
Thanks for responding. If I may continue, with your permission...?
re: "People with political agendas out of this debate. Then real work can be done."
Okay. Here I am. I do not have a political agenda. (I am wondering if politics can be useful, and I think, perhaps, yes, although I do not want to side-track my comment.)
I am here. Perhaps others are as well. I have no political agenda.
My Q: What *is* "...the real work that can be done?"
Can you please describe it?
Or give me a hint? Honestly, 100% sincere. We're here.
Q#2: So, even fixing up Amtrak is not a good thing to do? (Amtrak being what passes for passenger rail, here.)
Q#3: How far does your sphere of influence extend? And what are the things you are doing within this sphere?
HI Aniya:
Q#3: About 50cm - the diameter of my body - though it's more like a tube than a sphere. Re-Practising energy efficiency, self-sufficiency, and patience.
Q#2: Fixing any infrastructure is a good thing, but to do it to maintain an unnecessary lifestyle for a very small sector of humanity rather than change that lifestyle to aid the larger community??? No. The US chose the personal vehicle over the community vehicle, Amtrak upgrades will not change that - and certainly not in time.
Q#1: Hint: I did already: I do not know. All I know is that I can prepare my little area. What I am doing:
Working from home,
Installing (additional) solar water heating,
Re-discovering easy gardening techniques (the arthritis, you know): The Square Foot Garden is my current project,
Ensuring I have the means to ensure that my children (all adults)and only grandchild are safe and secure and nourished,
Contemplating whether solar energy is a viable option,
Reassuring myself that in this country (Aus) we have the best possible hope for the future.
For the USians I feel sorry that they may not be so fortunate.
Again, Aniya, Hi,
By coincidence, I am just reading Mick Winter's Peak Oil Prep, and I just turned over to page 180, where I read:
Amtrak, such as it is, is the United States' only national passenger railroad system. The network currently has 22,000 miles of routes serving 500 communities...in 46 states...In 2004, more than 25 million passengers used Amtrak. By comparison, in 1916 the United States had 245,000 miles of rail, and in 1920 passenger use peaked with 1.2 billion passengers
Where did all the rail-lines go...gone to freeways every one. When will they ever learn?
The point is to even get back to 1916 standard, you've got to build 223,000 kilometres of new track, plus infrastructure, plus train tens of thousands of personnel. Then, to cater for the growth in the country you've got to add an additional ... amount of track and infrastructure.
So, PO isn't for another half century and the whole country puts in an impossible effort for a system that just isn't wanted by the masses and if your pollies would just see reason...Nah. Won't happen.
After reading what Ian has written, and the responses up to this point, and after, I feel as if Ian's point is not being understood.
Bear with me as what I write may be repetitive.
What I take him as saying is this: your 'lifestyle' is going to have to contract.
Part of this contraction includes not traveling hundreds and hundreds of miles every year ... by train, or by any other means.
If, as Kunstler and others have written, as the cost of oil increases in the face of decreasing supply and increasing demand, with consequent contractions in many aspects of world, national, and local economies, our lives will converge to points closer to where we live. This is likely to mean traveling great distances less frequently, or not at all. If the economy isn't there to support or require traveling long distances, it won't happen. The need for any kind of expanded long-distance modes of travel will dwindle. And long-distance travel will likely become very expensive, esp. air travel.
So I see Ian as talking about reducing demand, reducing demand for energy-intensive activities. The contracting economy is liable to mean more people out of work, or having work which doesn't pay as much as before. This is liable to mean less travel, and probably less of many other things as well.
I see Ian as saying, stop trying to perpetuate a 'lifestyle' that doesn't make sense on a global scale. Six and a half billion people living at the consumption level of Americans, Australians, and citizens of other countries with highly industrialized economies, is impossible. So start thinking about contraction, reducing your consumption, and then reducing your consumption some more. It's tough; we don't want to do it; we don't even want to think about it.
So we think about the supply sides instead.
India has a massive rail transportation netwoork that they are steadily electrifying. Semi-HSR should get close to 2,000 pax-mpg equilavent using new renewable electrical energy.
Given these facts, why give up travel ?
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hello Alan,
Is there any chance you might comment on this part of Ian's comment and quote (below) - at some point, when you have time? I'm interested in your take on it, and your ideas wrt feasiblity. Also my question that follows.
Thanks.
"Amtrak, such as it is, is the United States' only national passenger railroad system. The network currently has 22,000 miles of routes serving 500 communities...in 46 states...In 2004, more than 25 million passengers used Amtrak. By comparison, in 1916 the United States had 245,000 miles of rail, and in 1920 passenger use peaked with 1.2 billion passengers..."
Where did all the rail-lines go...gone to freeways every one. When will they ever learn?
"The point is to even get back to 1916 standard, you've got to build 223,000 kilometres of new track, plus infrastructure, plus train tens of thousands of personnel. Then, to cater for the growth in the country you've got to add an additional ... amount of track and infrastructure."
-------- Also, I'm wondering, in regard to my question about about the "upstream" (electrical-source) aspect of this and similar proposals: Has anyone looked at the question of:
1) how much solar and/or wind capacity would need to be installed to run how much elec. train?
2) and the feasibility of doing on-going maintenance and upgrade w. an electric-only energy supply? (i.e., no oil).
Just wondering.
Ina is one of my "Do not bother to read" psoters. But in response to your question, in 2002 the US had 142,268 miles of freight railroad (plus some pax only miles) and moved FAR more freight by rail in 2002 that we did in 1916. Just not the pax.
The US is the premier success story for rail freight in the world !
http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/transportation/a_freightrr.html
Bets Hopes,
Alan
Thanks, Alan.
I really appreciate your getting back to me, esp. w. the reference.
Hmmm, I never got that impression. Indeed, the reason there are various TOD sites (NYC, Europe) is because there is plenty of regional interests as well as global commonalities. I've always thought the orginal TOD (this one) was North American biased simply because of origin.
You've also skipped over the idea that as the world's largest user and importer of oil, what the US does to modify its oil use will affect everyone else.
Also, the issue the US has with size/density/rail tractability is true of Canada and somewhat Australia too. Note that on a per capita basis those two countries have energy use very close to that of the US, but at 1/10 the population their totals just don't add up as much.
Finally, as I mentioned below the SYSTEM needs support by the manufacturers and maintenance contractors, which does affect European economies. E.g., light rail components manufactured in Germany. Any truly significant re-engineering of American transport will have plenty of companies from Europe, Japan, and China bidding for business.
Postscript: Although Stuart has done some analysis showing the limited returns (economically) of current mass transit systems, wrt dealing with US automobile use, there really is no other way to move masses of people if you want to live a non-agrarian lifestyle. Without breakthroughs in areas such as very high temperature superconductors (for electric automobiles), or genetically enhanced algal bio-diesel (and the subsequent massive investment in production facilities), the concept of current US (and Canadian) lifestyle will change when oil production has dropped noticeably. In my mind it is not a question of whether the US will need to do a significant rail investment, but only of how (public/private) and when.
So this topic will not go away.
No.
The only question is, Can the US expect the rest of the world continue to subsidise the US so it can 'do a significant rail investment'?
Ian,
"what they all said above" is too trite, but it's kind of what I want to say. The US, in a lot of the ways, is the problem and the solution, and is the most likely to suffer going backwards unless the policy chosen is to secure as much oil as possible around the world...
oh...hmm. I guess that doesn't affect anything or anyone. Yeah, you're right, I'm sorry Jerome posted this. It obviously doesn't matter.
Hi PG,
Thanks for understanding the spirit of my post.
The question is, of course, which direction is backwards?
Ian,
This seems to be the way Americans think. Most Americans really have no idea what happens outside the US, even people posting at TOD. They have heard about it, they read about it, but it seems to be very difficult to understand, even with the best intentions. That is a real pity, because the US is by far the richest country in the world and if anybody could help here, it would be the Americans.
The simple fact is that PO is not very difficult to solve. Just raise tax on gasoline a bit and keep raising it every year. And while you're at it, also raise tax on NG, electricity and a few other energy sources. That should do it. You would end the war in Iraq, cool down the nuclear standoff with Iran or end the genocide in Darfur along the way, just as a by-product. Even have a good shot at global warming.
You don't need new technology, no new scientific breaktroughs or 'Manhattan Projects' like this one (another favorite daydream). You can buy a car that runs 50 mpg for less than 10.000 US$. Where is the problem?
The whole world is addicted to oil, but the US seems to have caught a particulary naughty strain of it. It has to do with the 'Non-negotiable' part of the way the US is currently organized.
However, before we start explaining to Americans how to run their own country, we also should look at ourselves. Your name indicates you're from Australia, and Australians have a lifestile which looks very much like the Americans, if not worse. Remember, the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty, but also Australia didn't either. How's that for a good example?
Maybe it's also the other way around. Maybe people outside the US really do not get the way Americans think.
So instead of explaining to eachother what to do, lets fix our own issues first.
Hi Richard,
No argument from me:
It wasn't 'Australia' that didn't sign - it was our politicians. The same type of people who will supposedly use the high speed rail act to solve the world's problems...Hah!
Ian, it's pretty simple. If you don't like what we do here, don't come back or start your own site. Have a lovely day.