Carriage Return (↵) » Blog Archive » Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (but mostly trains)

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (but mostly trains)

by Wyl @ 1:20 am. Filed under Commentary

I’ve been thinking recently about rail travel, specifically high-speed rail. I think it has something to do with remembering my grandpa’s story about riding the train from our hometown to San Diego while in the Navy in the Fifties, a trip that deprived him of a couple days he could have spent with his family. It’s a funny story, from a different time entirely than the world I grew up in, and one I enjoy hearing because it reminds me how lucky I am to have as many travel options as I do.

That said, the system could use some attention.

There are several areas in the country that have some sort of regular inter-city rail service. The BosWash corridor and The Southland are both served by various forms of commuter rail. But while these systems are effective to a point, they could easily be vastly improved. Other major metropolitan centers throughout the country could use some sort of efficient rail connection, too.

To understand the decline of the passenger railroads, I think two things in particular need to be considered. The development of the “Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways” (the technical name for the Interstate) and improvements in automobiles led to a more mobile, less railroad-dependent public. The advent of the commercial airline industry made quick long-distance travel feasible.

There are drawbacks to each mode of transportation, however. Anyone who has ever driven long-distance in a car will tell you how fatigued they feel after traveling for extended periods of time. Driving cross-country is also a significant investment of time, and it’s impossible to accomplish anything while piloting the car.

Flying is insanely expensive. Always has been, and until the industry has meaningful competition in the long-distance niche, that will continue to be the case. Flying is also a big hassle these days - long waits at security checkpoints and absurd and ever-changing TSA regulations on what may be taken on board the plane keep passengers on the defensive. But as they lack a decent alternative, most grin and bear it.

That’s where high-speed rail travel comes into play. Imagine a network of trains connecting major cities in an extended loop, running to depots which have connections to airports and other infrastructure. Instead of flying (or heaven forbid, driving) from New York to Washington, you take a high-speed train. The comfort factor is far greater, and trains can afford amenities that planes cannot - wireless Internet, dining and sleeping accommodations, and the gawk-factor of observatory cars. Studies have also found that high-speed rail is actually competitive with commercial air for passengers traveling 400 miles or less when factoring in check-in and security times. Rail travel also offers greater capacity than air travel, and typically runs more frequently between cities.

Certain cities would be designated as anchors or hubs - cities like Chicago, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, Cincinnatti, St. Louis, Washington, and New York. The hubs would offer high-speed routes to and from other hubs, but they would also offer passengers the option to access the city airport via a light-rail or several smaller cities on a commuter-rail system. Here is an example of what I’m talking about, though I don’t think it’s as developed quite enough.

To illustrate all this, a passenger wishing to travel between Chicago and Minneapolis, a 354 mile trip, could make the trip in the same amount of time as a jet, but with the freedom to move around the train, have a meal, or work on a presentation for their business. Vacationers would be able to enjoy the spectacular scenery of southern Wisconsin and the Mississippi River Valley from streamlined observation cars. Imagine, instead of being cramped into a seat designed for pre-teens and looking at the seatback in front of you, you could be in a spacious rail car gazing out at something like this or this. Suddenly makes travel a little more interesting, right?

Of course, there are issues that would have to be addressed. For true high-speed rail travel (180 mph +) new track would have to be laid. There are two major options - conventional wheeled (such as France’s tried-and-true TGV, capable of up to 200 mph, or Japan’s new FASTECH 360, which has a top speed of almost 252 mph) or magnetic levitation (Germany is currently developing Transrapid, which will reach speeds up to 342 mph on an elevated track).

Maglev is clearly the way to go environmentally, as these type of trains are far more energy efficient and much quieter than standard trains. They are also capable of climbing steeper grades, an advantage in mountainous regions (the American West). The area below the elevated track remains usable for farming or grazing, and the risk of anything actually being in the path of the train is minimal. Maintenance is reduced in comparison to regular track. The only significant drawback is that elevated track is more expensive to build than standard rail, though comparable to other forms of high-speed rail.

High speed rail is something I’d really like to see our country invest in. With most Americans traveling regionally, it provides a great alternative to air travel, and I believe the initial investment would pay itself off rather quickly. It would reduce the consumption of fossil fuel for travel, provide a cleaner and more environmentally safe mode of transportation while offering greater capacity than a jet aircraft, and greater frequency of arrivals and departures. The competition with the airline industry would generate awesome savings for the traveler, and it would give many Americans to experience the beauty of the country we live in first hand.

[link]

6 Responses to “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (but mostly trains)”

Erin Elizabeth Says:
March 15th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
I used to live in England, where rail travel, and public transportation in general, is the usual way to get from Point A to Point B. Coming back to America was tough, since I don’t have a license and can’t really afford a car. My region of the country is pretty much without public transit solutions, so even if there was a viable cross-country rail system (for obvious reasons, I’m not including AmTrak as a viable system), I could get around once I travelled from, say Greenville to Charlotte, unless both cities developed their own reliable inner-city transportation.

The major hurdles I see to the American rail system are cost and distance. The US is a lot bigger and more spread out than Europe. While the rail system makes sense in New England (and, in fact, already exists between many of the cities), I know for a fact that travelling from Greenville, where I live, to New York City is a long and surprisingly expensive trip. I’d rather pay a hundred dollars more for a plane ticket that gets me there in 2 hours instead of 12. Also, the huge amount of money needed to build the rail system in the first place would undoubtedly lead to either higher taxes or steep ticket prices, neither of which will warm the general public to the idea.

The super-high speed trains are really spiffy, and it’s a big improvement environmentally over each of those passengers driving their own car. Last I heard, they were trying to build a train similar to the high-speed Japanese trains to link various cities in England. It would mean getting from London to Edinburgh in about 2 hours and 30 minutes, which is a huge improvement over the current travel time, but the price tag is causing hesitation. The costs here would be even greater, and frankly I don’t think America will get into the idea of inter-city high-speed rail travel until the escalating gas prices make it an attractive alternative.
Wyl Says:
March 15th, 2006 at 6:04 pm
I think the only way high-speed rail could compete with air travel in terms of time is over regional travel, basically distances of 400 miles or less. That New York - Greenville (392 mile) trip could be done in a competitive time to flying if the latest maglev trains were used, especially when you consider that while the flight may only take 2 hours, the check-in and security processes add quite a bit of time.

Connecting regions like New England, the Midwest, and the Southern Atlantic States, would be a good start at impacting the business commuter and recreational travel markets. New York - LA would obviously not be feasible for trains from a competitive standpoint.

You’re right, funding the construction would be pretty expensive, but it would also create a ton of jobs and stimulate economies across the country. As a nation we’ve sunk $247,680,199,096 (based on Congressional appropriations) into the war in Iraq at this point, and that cost continues to climb. Broken down, the individual expense is $990 per person for the entire country, or $22,195,401 from my hometown of Winona, MN. For that price Winonans could have built a depot and track practically across our entire county all by ourselves. At this point, I’m inclined to think that high-speed rail would have been the better investment.

I really wish we’d be more proactive as a country and decrease our dependency on oil, but I agree with you, until fossil fuel climbs beyond the reach of everyday people, we won’t see many steps in this direction. It’s the same reason hydrogen-powered cars (and the turbine cars before them) haven’t gone far beyond limited production, even though they have incredible potential. The technology represents an investment on the part of the consumer, and with the government and Big Oil in bed together we’re stuck with the situation at hand.
Erin Elizabeth Says:
March 16th, 2006 at 9:29 am
I think there’s also a lot of skepticism about cars powered by alternative fuel sources. Until there are significantly more models on the market, I think they’ll still seem like a risky investment to most consumers. Given the alternative between a familiar gas-powered car and a hybrid, I think your average person will feel safer and more confident about buying the former.

I hadn’t thought of the fact that building the rail system would create more jobs, something we desperately need. South Carolina has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, right behind the states hit hardest by Katrina. What with the manufacturing jobs (formerly a big part of the local economy) being outsourced overseas, we’re in major need of a new source for employment.

FYI: Greenville, South Carolina is over 700 miles from New York City. Trust me, I’ve driven it more than once going to and from school. Oh, and I went to Sarah Lawrence with Tim Miller, who went to school with Jo, who linked this site from her livejournal. Nice to meet ya.
Wyl Says:
March 16th, 2006 at 11:20 am
I know where I got that mileage statistic, but I don’t know why I actually believed it. Obviously Greenville is further away from New York than Chicago is from Minneapolis. Now, if you had business in Washington or Atlanta…

Interestingly, one of the blogs on Wired.com linked to this Business Week article which plays down some of the hype and exposes the current drawbacks of hybrid vehicles. It’s a very interesting read. From an economic standpoint, they’re a greater investment than a regular car. And you’re right, most people will opt for the proven technology over this new stuff, no matter the benefits to be reaped down the line. Still, I’m left with the hope that the premium on hybrids some pay today will help develop improved technology, allowing a greater number of people to buy the next generation of hybrids and ensuring cleaner air to breathe tomorrow.

It’s a pleasure to meet you, as well. You’re the first person to comment here that I don’t know personally. Shouldn’t that deserve some sort of prize?
Carriage Return (↵) » Blog Archive » Where I’ve Been, Where I Want To Go Says:
July 19th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
[...] This also necessitates me delving into the news more often than I have been of late. I firmly hold to a policy which keeps me from discussing either political or religious views outside of a small circle of individuals, mostly because such discussions tend to have a point of diminishing return which is encountered early in the process. There are plenty of other subjects, equally or perhaps even more interesting, out there to discuss, such as when I posted about the value of preserving a historical landmark like Tiger Stadium in Detroit or the ins and outs of high-speed rail service in the Midwest. I was quite proud of both of those posts when I made them, and they will serve as models for what I hope to bring back to the table in the future. [...]
Carriage Return (↵) » Blog Archive » Top Five: Internet Rabbit Holes Says:
March 1st, 2007 at 2:13 am
[...] I’ve held forth at length here in the past on the subject of high speed rail connections in this country. The MHSRA has crammed more information into one place than I can possibly link to, so you’ll have to do the exploring on your own. Worth looking at no matter if you’re a railroad buff, a proponent of sound civil engineering, or just curious about why high speed rail is such a no-brainer for the Midwest. [...]

You must be logged in to post a comment.

10 March, 2006

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (but mostly trains)

6 Responses to “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (but mostly trains)”

Leave a Reply

Search (↵)

Way-back Machine

Categories

About

Dailies

Diversions

Internal

Feeds

Copyright Info