Hi Speed Trains
President Obama is proposing spending large sums pf money to provide high speed rail access to 80% of Americans. Here are some things to consider about this proposal.
1. Acquiring enough land to build high speed rail lines to 80% of Americans will take hundreds of billions of dollars. One example is a 2800 mile track from LA to NY would require 68,000 acres of land. A ribbon of right-of-way 2800 miles long by 200 feet wide. I estimate the need for 200 feet based on 3 tracks, one each for east and west and another backup for time when tracks are in need of repair or otherwise in use or blocked. This assumes 200 feet is enough for trains to pass safely in opposite directions at 110 MPH.
2. In Asia and Europe high speed trains travel at 120MPH on upgraded tracks, and 160MPH on new track. According to the Federal Railroad Assoc. high speed in the USA means 110MPH. Our trains will travel slower than in other parts of the world. So much for competing in the global marketplace.
3. One study published in the NYTimes in 2010 estimated the cost of high speed rail at $40Million per track mile. That includes land, track, right of way, trains, and support infrastructure.
4. The federal government currently subsidizes AmTrak to the tune of $40 per passenger ticket. This subsidy is required becasue the quasi-government agency cannot operate at a profit. What makes us think high speed rail won;t require the same kind of subsidies? Even European and Asian high speed rail systems are subsidized by their governments.
5. President Truman signed the legislation that built the interstate highways all across our country. We decided long ago that we prefer cars for travel. We are not Europe. We abandoned railways long ago for all but cargo. That's not to say we cannot switch, but at what cost and how long will it take to retrain ourselves?
6. At $40 million per track mile in this economy, can we even consider affording this venture? If it made sense financially, some private enterprise would have already started to build it.
7. All throughout our history there have been great advancements in transportation including steamboats, railroads, cruise liners, tankers and jet planes. None of these were the result of federal government investment. Railroads crossed this country financed by private investment.
8. High speed track design calls for no grade-level crossings. Grade level crossings make the track unsafe for high speed trains, so crossings would need to be below grade (tunnels) or above (overpasses). This contributes to the high per mile cost.
Announcing high speed rail as a goal to work toward is fine and dandy, but let's make sure we consider the implications of that decision before we take that giant leap.
If the Interstate Highway system makes so much sense to you then why didn't a private company build it? Because it would not make sense to a business just like moving people by rail does not except that it will create commerce by moving people around efficiently.
ReplyDeleteIn a recent post on the Midwest High Speed Rail Association web site (www.midwesthsr.org) by Richard Harnish he speaks about a recent airline ticket into Cincinnati for a meeting. A ticket that cost him $850 and countless hours driving to and from the airport and leaving time for checking in and being completely inspected and approved before being allowed to board.
He said he would have gladly taken a high speed train (even at 110 mph) to get there faster. He went on to say, "In addition to speed, bullet trains offer:
Hourly departures, with extra trains at peak travel times
Business-class cars with luxurious legroom and ample space to work
On-board food and beverage service
100% safety record
95% on-time arrival record" Now that is a recipe for success and it will not happen with federal subsidies (not full subsidies like the highway system).
Why can't this be teamed up with the highway system as a side by side project. The throughways are already there.
I guess he's one. Need many more to pay for he train. $40M per track mile cost.
ReplyDelete