Most of this article is pretty good, but it mostly isn't about any sort of relationship between high-speed rail and freight trains. That comes in only at the very end of the article, and is quite speculative.
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!
One reason to be a bit more optimistic is Texas (http://www.thsrtc.com/). Their equivalent plan to California's is loads cheaper thanks to their more agreeable geography (plains, mostly).
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/).
I do think Texas's plan is one of the most promising, but I suppose my guess is that it'll still take a long time, partly because it's been looking promising for a long time now: the first feasibility study was launched in the 1980s. The state actually awarded a contract to a private group to build high-speed rail in the Dallas-San Antonio-Houston triangle, under terms like those you discuss, in 1991, but it was killed, largely by Southwest Airlines lobbying, in 1994. I went to high school in Texas 1996-2000, and a new high-speed rail plan was being discussed that entire time too, but the talk never went anywhere. In the early 2000s, it was revived once more, this time as part of an ambitious Trans-Texas Corridor (which would have had freight rail, high-speed rail, car-only freeways, and truck-only freeways), but that died a few years later as well, partly due to a nativist backlash against its role as the "NAFTA superhighway".
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.
Fair enough, the special interest game is no fun[1]. But I'll take a bet on the stars aligning in Texas over California finding efficient building practices any day.
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.
I think rail doesn't get anywhere in the U.S because it makes it to easy for "undesirable elements" to get to places they're not wanted too easily. I think that's the incredibly sad but honest truth of it all.
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 find this rather implausible. We don't build a Dallas/Houston or LA/San Fran train because we are afraid that a black guy might pay $80 to ride from Dallas to Houston?
I can see this claim being plausible concerning short distance rail, i.e. "don't build a train to the ghetto", however.
In my home town, there's certainly an instance of this fear for mid-distance runs. The Chicago-area Metra commuter train terminates about 15 miles away, and there's a boarded-up old station from the golden age of passenger rail in the middle of the downtown. Whenever the subject of negotiating a deal with Metra and renovating the station comes up, the crime threat is always second right after budget concerns.
I can't say I've ever seen much of the thug life on Metra trains, though.
I don't agree with this comment in this context, but I do know for a fact that the Washington DC Metro does not extend to the popular Georgetown shopping and nightlife district for precisely this reason.
That's the same reason Atlanta's MARTA doesn't extend into Cobb County. I don't think it has much to do with intercity rail, though; it seems to be mainly an issue with opposition to metropolitan-area rapid-transit systems, with people worried that they'll blur boundaries between nice and not-nice neighborhoods within the same city.
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.
> 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.
I feel compelled to point out that high-speed passenger rail isn't likely to be anywhere near as successful in the US as in Europe even if heavily subsidized.
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.
The parts of the country where the high speed rail lines are planned are that dense. Take the I-5 corridor (Vancouver B. C. to Eugene, Oregon), in both Washington and Oregon something like 80% of the state's population lives within 30 miles of I-5. It's absolutely reasonable to run a real high speed rail link there, Amtrak on those lines gets used pretty heavily, if there were a link that ran on time and took 3 hours to go from Seattle to Eugene it would be used heavily.
Rather than pointing out where it won't work, how about finding places where it will work. The northeast, for example, is densely populated and the major cities are close. The real problem is building straight tracks so trains can go 200mph.
People need to slow their fucking lives down. cross country travel by rail is much more enjoyable than flying, even if it takes 2-3 days. Give me wifi and a sleeper, and leave flying for those who haven't figured this out yet.
cross country travel by rail is much more enjoyable than flying, even if it takes 2-3 days.
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.
Rail seems like it would be a win for someone who was mobility impaired (wheelchair, old, morbidly obese, etc.). The only other viable option would be a specially outfitted car or bus.
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.
While I agree with the sentiment, slowing down that much isn't practical for most working adults in this country, many of whom are lucky to get a week of vacation per year. Four to six days of travel per vacation instead of two won't work for Americans unless labor laws change to protect our right to sufficient time off.
I don't see how sleeper cars are even close to being a feasible option for those who don't have money to burn. From my experience in the past the cost of a decent sleeper car was equal to a plane ticket plus an expensive hotel for every night in the sleeper. For example, checking Amtrak right now I price a trip from Boston to Seattle at $1300+ with the cheapest sleeper for every night.
There's no reason for a sleeper ticket to be expensive. In Europe, Asia and Africa, night trains are certainly affordable. Cheaper than buses in many cases.
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.
Yes, the DC-Boston corridor is the one place where high-speed rail does make sense, and also the one place where there aren't any current plans for high-speed rail lines.
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.
You're right that LA to Chicago is likely to never be a popular route for train travel.
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.)
Local transport isn't any more of an issue than it is with air travel. If there's not sufficient public transportation, taxis and car rental companies will pop up to fill the void.
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.
If you consider high speed rail as a replacement for air travel, local transport is actually a smaller issue than with air travel. Airports are usually far away from city centers, whereas train stations are located in city centers, where there is a higher probability of an established local transport system.
There's also a major issue of right of way. Atlanta has freight lines running right through very built up parts of the city (including right outside my condo window here--I see 6 Norfolk-Southern tracks with at least 100 trains per day). We've already had controversy over the amount of property that would have to be taken through eminent domain, even when just adding passenger lines to the existing rail corridors. There's no realistic estimate yet, but it will be in the tens of billions. Billions spent to tear down buildings and build up rail, for no certain benefit. That's a tough sell.
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.
If US rail freight is so great (which I do believe it is) then get the f*ing trucks off the interstate highways! Let's load up the rail system with the freight it was meant to serve. If not, then make way for the passenger trains, and the tractor trailers can have the roads, which they destroy with every wheel turn they take!
This was mentioned in the article. A number of trucking companies are doing this, and just using trucks for move it around locally.
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.
I did read the article. :-) And absent from it is the fact that the federal government gave the railroads the land in the first place. I love The Economist, but leave it to them to bemoan regulation, but leave out a simple and fundamental fact like that.
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.
You know that sounds like a job for some simulation software, especially if you could model things like adding intermodal terminals and adding links to the network constrained by the cost of right of way. Even better if you could figure out how to model the politics and market forces, if you could come up with something that helped railway executives make better decisions about the environment they operate in (apparently they lease rights of way back and forth, and the company running the train is not necessarily the one that owns a given stretch of track), you would have a saleable product.
We have a huge number of people in this country who are unemployed. Why don't we just redirect the money we give them and their labor towards rebuilding the railroad infrastructure in this country? Seems like a perfectly acceptable use of tax payer dollars.
I don't think Americans should make yet another sacrifice to appease big business who would rather use rail capacity for freight instead of passenger traffic. For once the American citizens should be the priority here.
"Several factors had combined to bring about this sorry state of affairs. Services and rates were tightly regulated. Companies were obliged to run passenger services that could not make a profit."
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.
so we should cause freight prices to go up (which will increase the cost of food, clothing, stuff that literally everybody needs and buys), so that travel prices go down?
who has time and money to travel? not the poor.
who buys food? everybody, including the poor.
Is it in Americans' interests that more freight should go by road, at a higher cost, so some Americans can travel by train? It's not a simplistic 'big business bad, passenger trains good' argument.
If it's 1 to 1 then yes. People cost a lot more to transport on roads than bulk freight so it’s a net gain to the economy.
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.
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!