The US is a first-world nation with a third-world rail system
By: Jerry Haar,- Opinion Contributor - The Hill
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The US is a first-world nation with a third-world rail system
When my son was a little boy and I took him on his first train trip, he asked me: "Dad, what does A-m-t-r-a-k stand for?" I paused for a moment then shot back: "A Miserable Train Ride Adventure, Kid."
© iStockphoto The US is a first-world nation with a third-world rail system
My snarky response aside, anyone who has traveled on high-speed rail (HSR) in Japan, France or China cannot help but feel embarrassed by America's passenger rail system. Even Uzbekistan, not exactly one of the world's most advanced economies, has a high-speed rail line that has reduced train travel between Tashkent, the capital, and Bukhara, the country's fifth largest city, from seven hours to a little more than three . By comparison closer to home, train travel between Washington, D.C., and Charlotte, N.C., is an 8-hour trip on Amtrak. The Paris-Bordeaux high-speed rail route - the same equivalent distance - takes just two hours .
So why has the U.S. failed to develop and implement a high-speed rail system, as many developed and developing nations have? As Yonah Freemark, a senior research associate at The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., argues : "American society has proven itself incapable of pooling either the sustained motivation or the resources to complete a single major high-speed inter-city rail project."
The increased politicization and partisanship surrounding the transportation issue, with special interest groups and lobbies always in the fray, have contributed to perpetual gridlock with little hope of resolution at the national level. Recognizably, the success of our interstate highway system, which began during the Eisenhower presidency, combined with the increased affordability of automobiles and air travel are major factors that have impeded a high-speed rail system in the U.S. But diagnosis is not prescription.
As asserted by California State Treasurer Fiona Ma in a letter to chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House committees that deal with transportation and infrastructure, high-speed rail would improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods and protect the environment for future generations. She makes a point of noting that "public and private systems both have a role in laying the track that will joint together to form a true nationwide network in the United States."
While a fully privatized HSR speed rail system nationwide is a libertarian fantasy, a fully public one is a progressive pipedream. Just look at Amtrak. It is funded by the federal government and functions as a state-owned enterprise, meaning it is a for-profit company with the federal government owning all its preferred stock. Since its trains started rolling in 1971, Amtrak has yet to make a profit. In essence, it is the U.S. Postal Service on wheels, with a motto that should be: "Although our trains are poorly maintained, we run late, our tickets are expensive and customer service is non-existent, at least we run deficits." Yet, it is asking Congress for $75 billion (meanwhile, the infrastructure bill has only $80 billion for rail), and none of it slated for HSR .
HSR can work well if the private sector is given the green light to take the lead. Witness the case of Brightline, a privately-owned, built and operated rail line that runs on existing transit corridors between Miami and West Palm Beach, Fla. Having raised $5 billion in private investment, Brightline is expanding its destinations in Florida and developing a high-speed rail line from California to Nevada. Subsequent phases will link West Palm Beach to the Orlando International Airport and Orlando to Tampa.
Brightline focuses on travel corridors that are "too long to drive and too short to fly," where introducing passenger rail presents a clear consumer value proposition. Moreover, Brightline uses existing infrastructure corridors and alignments to leverage previous investments, reduce environmental impacts, lower costs, speed execution and build a basis for profitability. In essence, Brightline integrates with other systems to fashion a multimodal network that is diverse and convenient.
If the U.S. is to have an HSR system, there are three ways for Congress to get private capital off the sidelines and into the game. The first is to increase opportunities for public-private collaboration. Presently, federal rail grants are restricted to government projects. By extending it to the private sector, this would leverage overall funding and tap the project management on-time/on-budget expertise of companies. Second, the federal government should eliminate the cost-prohibitive terms for federal rail financing. The present loan mechanism (RRIF) is far too costly for applicants. Third, Congress should increase the availability of private activity bonds, tax-exempt instruments that enable privately-funded projects to borrow at rates similar to traditional projects.
The U.S. needs HSR. Through public-private cooperation and with the right funding models, the U.S. can join the ranks of Japan, China, Spain and other nations that are effectively meeting the transportation needs of their citizens and private enterprises.
Jerry Haar is a business professor at Florida International University and a global fellow of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. He is also a working group member on Work and Entrepreneurship of the Council on Competitiveness.
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
Having been on HSR (High Speed Rail) here a few times, I never want to fly again. Actually, Canada could probably use HSR even more than the USA.
I've ridden HSR several times in France and Itally. It's almost as fast as flying but, since you're not on an airplane you can stretch out in comfy seats with a real table not a seat back tray. You can see the scenery. You can actually recline your seat to sleep if you want. If we had a decent HSR system here I would never fly again unless I was going overseas. Amtrack really sucks.
Aside from subway and metro rail service Americans just don't use trains anymore. Sure some people keep calling for more and better trains but thank god common sense has prevailed. This is not a case of build it and they will come we're already subsidizing Amtrak as it is since ridership doesn't come close to covering costs. Even the best route in the USA (DC to NYC) would cost Trillions to build and tens of billions to maintain and wouldn't come close to earning it's keep, it would become a black hole of subsidies not to mention a prime target for terrorism. America has a free market system so anyone who thinks differently is free to put their money where their mouth is and invest in High Speed Rail service in the USA.
Well, different strokes for different folks.
It's a different culture, America has a car culture and most people own a car. Once you own a car you're already paying the overhead so you might as well use it. Trains can't compete on cost if you have to rent a car when you reach your destination or if two or more people are traveling together. I used to take the train into NYC but not from my area it would cost to much I'd drive to a town in western Connecticut and park on a side street for free and take the train into the city. It was cheaper than parking in the city and I didn't have to deal with city traffic and let's face it a car is nearly useless in Manhattan, the only good thing is as a home base to keep stuff in the trunk but I used to just get a locker at the bus terminal. I've also taken trains into Boston it's cheaper than parking in Boston but I still drive halfway there to a train station that has a late schedule because the longer lines close early.
And not all cities in America are metro enough for this to really work. A lot of cities, especially out West, are spread out much more than the East Coast cities are. Here in Phoenix, one can actually drive about 160 kilometers and never get out of the greater Phoenix metro area.
I live on the west side of Phoenix. If I want to go to Vegas it's about a 4.5 hour drive up from my front door to a casino. If there was a high-speed train that could make the trip in say an hour and a half, I still have to get from my house to the train station, park, and get thru whatever security is set up to get on the train, so lets call that at least 2 hours. When we arrive in Vegas, there is time spent exiting the train and station and getting in line to get a taxi to a casino and then travel time in the city to get there, that seems to average (if you use the Vegas airport as an example) at least another hour. So there I have spent the same amount of time and I don't have the convenience of being able to travel at my plans but must travel on their schedule. And these time estimates are just best guesses, getting on a plane to fly to Vegas means I need to leave my home a good 3 hours or so before the flight so that I have time to get to the airport, get into parking, waiting on a shuttle bus to take me from the parking lot to the airport, getting thru the lines at check in and then thru security... And the Vegas airport can be so backed up on Sundays with everybody leaving that they recommend you get to the airport a good 5 hours before your flight.
As I already own the car which I need for live here in Phoenix why wouldn't I conform to my schedule rather than on imposed on me.
Boston is the only place I've ever been where drivers TRIPLE park, at least they did many years ago when I was there.
Which would you say contributes more to greenhouse gasses - global warming? A car culture or a train culture?
Yes, you're right. America is a car culture. Although it's possible that more people in China own cars than Americans do, there are still so many millions who don't, which makes the train culture in China viable.
Why is America a car culture? Henry Ford, maybe? Huge profits for car manufacturers...
Do we really want to be a car culture? Were we ever asked that question?
Is it smart, today, to be a car culture?
Your asking ME? True I owned cars from the time I was 16 until I left Canada at the age of 69. Public transit, taxis and Uber are very inexpensive here, and would you want to drive in China? Here is an ariel photo of a Chinese Intersection...
Well, actually, that's pretty unusual. Traffic is not much different here than in North America.
I was asking those questions generally.
When you think about it for more than thirty seconds, a transport system that requires a couple days to get across a single state - I do Yuma-Houston regularly - you quickly conclude that there must be a better way.
Or endless traffic jams...
My feeling is that Americans, under the spell of auto advertising, cannot even imagine an alternative.
People like the freedom of a car, you can go anywhere, anytime at a moments notice and you can bring your stuff with you. Once you've owned a car nobody has to convince you that it's great. If you're going to the beach you want chairs, towels, a cooler, and maybe a sunshade, try taking all that on a bus or train. Most of America and Canada are just to spread out not to own a car but if I lived in a city like NYC I wouldn't use a car daily I might still own one but maybe not, I could still rent one for trips. If I visited a large city in another country with good public transit I probably wouldn't bother renting a car since I'd want to be out on the streets anyway but I might want to visit the countryside so then I'd need to rent a car or motorcycle.
I really cannot imagine that a city planner starting with a blank sheet, couldn't do better.
For example, a regular bus / driver-less trolley route to the beach isn't hard to imagine... including ways of taking along one's gear.
This seems to me to be a subject that deserves far more thought than it actually gets.
I think in America our money would be better spent on more conventional passenger trains in urban areas than high-speed rail. I read a story about a proposed high-speed rail in the USA and the biggest problem is every town wants it to stop there so it could never reach it's high-speed anyway. Who can blame them, who wants a train blowing through town at 110mph that provides no service to the community, it's a slap in the face saying the future doesn't include your town. We need more commuter trains and buses in our urban areas and more park and rides into urban centers. If we're going to increase subsidies for trains I'd rather see lower fares between cities like Boston, Providence, Hartford, NYC, DC (likewise in the rest of the US) which could actually get people to choose rail over cars or planes. I never had a problem with the speed of a train it was always about cost whether it was high fares or parking fees at Park and Rides and train schedules which outside of urban areas tend to run their last run out at 10pm which if you're going to a concert is just to early.
As I said, HSR requires specific track. It must have large, gentle curves. That's incompatible with urban passages.
That's why I think if we ever do get a high-speed rail the best bet would be to start with Las Vegas to a Western California hub then maybe to Texas. Flat cheap land and a lot less nimby's and the weather isn't as hard on the infrastructure so building and maintenance would be much less. They could even put Park and Rides around every hour along the route to serve the area that way they're not stopping very often but locals can drive an hour to the P&R then a couple more hours on the train into Vegas or to the California hub.
The BosWash corridor would be the most useful, but current eminent domain rules make it pretty hard to get done. The Texas Triangle would be useful, and probably easier to do.
California is screwed, I think. Either corrupt or incredibly stupid. There's HSR in several countries, with differing technologies... but California decided to create a new technology... from zero.
Rail is the, well, third rail of American infrastructure!
The Oil and Gas Industry along with the gop stops it.
Wrong again. NIMBY stops it. People don't want a high speed rail going by their houses; businesses; or anything else. They also don't want to pay for the initial costs; or the maintenance.
Your Republican rant also doesn't account for the failure of it in California. Tell me Republicans are blocking anything there.
So yah, it is all the Republicans and big oil fault. No financing issues at the state and local level; no NIMBY, and definitely no cost overruns.
In China, much of HSR is raised, even through wilderness, preventing those problems.
The ultra-rich never take a train, so why should America have trains at all, much less good trains?
When trying to understand a social problem in America, always start by asking, what do the ultra-rich wanf?
So how are you going to move the massive amount of freight across this country from the ports, and long distances between the East and West Coast? Air expedites cost way too much. There are not nearly enough truck drivers now for the volume of freight; and government regulations have forced many of the older drivers to retire early, or turn to short haul. That leaves the rail.
One of the massive problems with high speed rail is that it wants to be passenger only. There isn't enough passenger volume between most points to make high speed rail work. Democrats reject the rail hauling cargo as well as people to make up for the lack of volume.
How are you going to pay for the initial cost, day to day operating expenses, and maintenance? Government subsidies can't cover everything.
Freight rail is even slower than passenger, around 25 mph. But in most cases, that isn't really a problem. Passenger traffic must be (much) faster.
Freight rail is a big deal in the US. That's good, economically and environmentally. Could be improved, but better than trucks, for the moment.
Most freight doesn't need to travel fast. Since speed requires more energy / fuel, slower is better.
Passengers want their trip to take as little time as possible, so the two systems don't have the same priorities.
There are technical differences, too. High speed rail needs large, smooth curves, and extra-long rail sections, that freight can do without. In France, freight and high speed passengers do not use the same rails.
High speed rail is an investment. It should be part of an overall strategy, including electric cars.
Freight rail and light rail have very different design considerations. Freight is far heavier, hence the name “light rail”. Elevating freight trains to avoid conflicts with the surroundings is not economically feasible.
We used to have passenger rail service all over the place. Every little town with a railroad running through it had a passenger depot. Many of the platforms are still there today, often with some of the oldest buildings in town nearby. But that was 100 years ago.
All of that rail service went away because of cars and interstate highways, which are now the preferred mode of travel (besides flying) everywhere except for a handful of cities with very high population density and very crowded roads.
We'll probably never be a passenger rail country again. The automobile completely rules here. Besides, most of the country is too spread out with too many small towns to make widespread, modern passenger rail economically viable. We'd have to lay new, smoother track all over the place specifically for it. I don't see it happening.
Amtrak serves larger cities from coast to coast over a few existing freight lines, and they have a hard enough time staying in business as it is. There's just not a lot of demand for it. People generally aren't that interested in travelling by train here.
And let's be honest, mass transit sucks to begin with.
The future of urban transportation will more likely be semi-private autonomous electric modules. Think something like Uber except driverless...
have to agree , US rail is not designed for passenger service and was never focused on passenger service since the 40s ,50s and 60s , its more oriented to moving freight , and people dont like being treated like freight . the 2 things that made rail unappealing is flight , and the interstate roadways , and both those did and do it in the individuals time constraints .
the only 2 places passenger service is even contemplated is the east and west coasts , cross country , not so much and is not economically feasable due to lack of passengers lost to ground ( private auto) or flying .
I tend to agree with you. I think this will change, though, once autonomous cars become mainstream. One of the problems with rail is that, once one gets to one's destination, now what? They like to get around on their own and having a car fits the bill. If I could, say, take a high speed train to San Diego for instance, I'd be a lot more likely to do it if there were autonomous cars there waiting for me.
350 kph vs 100 kph. No need to stop for refueling, food or WC. Can get up and walk the aisle for exercise. Attendant s just like flight attendants. At your seat food/drink service. Okay to nap - no need for cruise control of autonomous car control. Easy all-weather.
The problem is that Americans know about America (a little, anyway), but know nothing about any other part of the world. I've been riding the Train à Grande Vitesse since the 1980s. Forty years. Americans have been riding their high speed trains since... oh, wait... there are no American high speed trains... which of course does not prevent Americans from having strongly held opinions about high speed rail.
In America, knowing nothing about a subject does not mean not having strong opinions about it. Half of the population actively avoids learning anything unpleasant...
LOL
Precision Scheduled Railroad (PSR) is the management business pattern American railroads are currently afflicted with. Precision Scheduled Railroading and the government required Positive Train Control (PTC) are both 3 lies in one and have greatly hurt railroads and waste money and resources and caused more problems they the solved.
The USA needs High Speed Rail. Many tracks and facilities have been abandoned or reduced.
Virginia and Amtrak have recently bought the ability to add a third track from Washington to Richmond and several other RR projects
This will have to be a Government thing as the big railroads are so concerned with PSR and looking good to Wall Street the next quarter that they are having trouble running their freight trains
This has been a very rewarding discussion. I agree that America is a "car culture" (as it was in Canada as well), and when almost everyone owns a car it's a pretty good reason why it is. There are probably other factors to determine the reasons for "car culture" or "train culture" but in any event it all comes down to "different strokes for different folks" (plus some other factors).
Amtrak has ordered some dual mode locomotives to cut time changing from electric to diesel electric in Washington. Some of the 60+ year old dual power FL-9 locomotives from the old New Haven RR are still running.
I think it was shortsighted for American airports not to have rail connections. There was a railroad that went right by Dulles Airport and they used it for construction and then tore it up