

US rail freight is the world’s best. High-speed passenger trains could ruin it - cwan
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

======
_delirium
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!

~~~
Empact
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/>).

~~~
_delirium
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.

~~~
narrator
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.

~~~
DavidAdams
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.

~~~
_delirium
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.

------
Zak
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.

~~~
melling
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.

NYC to Philly - 95 miles

NYC to Washington DC - 225 miles

NYC to Boston - 220 miles

Washington to Bostin - 420 miles

~~~
mikecarlucci
Exactly. We have airplanes for cross country travel. The train technology that
exists in other countries could make even Boston to Toronto doable.

~~~
riffic
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.

~~~
randallsquared
_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.

~~~
rdl
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.

------
masterponomo
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.

------
lr
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!

~~~
megablast
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.

~~~
lr
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.

~~~
olefoo
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.

------
jsz0
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.

~~~
confuzatron
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.

~~~
Retric
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.

------
lutorm
I thought this article about electrifying railways in the US was an
interesting perspective, too:

<http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4301>

