I don’t like using tragedies to promote my political causes but I must point out that the 50 people who died when a commuter plane crashed near Buffalo on Feb.12 might be alive if High Speed Rail had been available.
The plane that went down, Colgan Air Flight 3407, was on a short haul flight between Newark and Buffalo. Short haul commuter travel between cities only a few hundred miles apart, like Buffalo and Newark using planes makes little economic sense. Indeed it has now come out that Colgan Air was cutting costs by ignoring regulations and only paying one of its pilots $16,000-23,000 a year. Obviously Colgan wouldn’t have to be so chintzy if it were making money on this short haul flight.
Such short haul trips little economic sense using planes but they make a great deal of sense using trains. Trains after all have much lower fuel and maintenance costs than planes and lower labor costs (only one engineer is needed to run a train). Trains can also make a lot more stops at more destinations which means they can carry many more paying passengers. (Yes the crews on the trains themselves can be larger but since the service personnel who work directly with the rail passengers can collect tips salaries can be lower) I might also add that because the railroad can charge lower fares it can discount and attract even more passengers.
This isn’t imagination in Europe airlines have eliminated shuttle service on many routes also served by High Speed Rail because they simply couldn’t compete with the trains. High Speed Trains could do much the same thing in much of the US if dedicated grade separated tracks could be built for them.
Replacing short haul air service with High Speed Rail could make travel safer because there would be fewer smaller planes and fewer small airlines using cut rate methods. Reducing short haul air traffic would reduce congestion at airports and the possibility of collisions and crashes. By utilizing High Speed Rail we could also divert some long haul flights from crowded big city airports like Newark to smaller outlying aerodromes like those in Utica or Albany served by the High Speed Trains. This would further reduce congestion and make travel safer and easier.
Finally High Speed Rail could take over the movement of large amounts of packages and other goods now moved by air freight. That would reduce congestion and make the skies safer. It would also reduce travel costs and the cost of doing business. It would also make business and industry more efficient and faster.
Yes I know it sounds cynical and ghoulish but I still have to wonder did those 50 people in Buffalo die needlessly. Could they be alive today if America had decent passenger rail service?
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
The Interstate System: A Blueprint for High Speed Rail
President Obama is to be commended for his support of High Speed Rail in the United States and passenger rail in general, but condemned for not using the most logical blueprint for American high speed rail the Interstate Highway System.
The President’s Vision for High Speed Rail seems to be based upon the designated High Speed Rail corridors as laid out by the Intermodel Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (AKA Ice Tea). A quick look at the map of these corridors found on the Federal Railroad Administration’s website (www.fra.dot.gov) shows that they make absolutely no sense. For example there’s a high speed rail line between Houston and New Orleans but no bullet train between Houston and Dallas or Houston and San Antonio. Further north there is a “High Speed Rail Corridor” between Chicago and Cleveland but none between Cleveland and Buffalo.
This is bothersome because rail lines between Houston and Dallas or Cleveland and Buffalo would meet the FRA’s own criteria for “High Speed Rail Corridors.” The FRA’s criteria for these corridors is pretty simple a High Speed Rail line should link two major population centers that are less than 600 miles apart. Dallas and Houston are obviously major population centers, as are Cleveland and Buffalo, and there are no corridors linking them why?
The FRA’s plan ignores its own criteria and worse leaves large areas of the country high and dry. Under the present plan there is no High Speed Rail in the Rocky Mountain Region at all. My home town of Denver is a major population center yet no high speed rail line gets close to it. Nor is there any High Speed Rail to places such as Las Vegas, Phoenix and Salt Lake City even under the FRA’s criteria these places qualify, Las Vegas is less than 600 miles from Phoenix and Salt Lake City. In other words we’d get a rail system that all Americans would be taxed for but vast numbers of Americans wouldn’t be able to use.
So how did this disastrous plan come about? The answer is quite simple, politics was the FRA’s real criteria for the High Speed Rail Corridors. Congressmen, local politicians and pressure groups in certain areas made a lot of noise about High Speed Rail and FRA bureaucrats responded by designating a “High Speed Rail Corridor” in their area. Basing a transportation system only on politics makes no sense and is inherently unfair.
Fortunately an excellent blue print for high speed rail is available and it was laid out fifty years ago. The blue print is the Interstate Highway System launched by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s. The Interstates connect almost all of America’s major population centers with direct and fairly logical routes. Building High Speed Rail lines along the major Interstate routes would connect almost all of America’s major cities and give us a network of trains that would take people where they want to go.
For example a High Speed Rail corridor running along Interstate 80 would connect New York, Cleveland, Toledo, Chicago, Des Moines, Omaha, Salt Lake City, Reno, Sacramento, Oakland, and Sacramento. A route along I-15 would connect San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Barstow, Las Vegas, Saint George, Provo, Ogden, Salt Lake City, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Butte, Helena and Great Falls and it could be extended north of the border to serve Calgary and Edmonton if our Canadian cousins wanted. I might also add that this route could easily be connected to lines to Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Sacramento and San Francisco. A route along I-25 would serve El Paso, Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins, Cheyenne, and Casper and by following I-90 north Billings. In Texas a route along Highway 45 would connect Dallas/Fort Worth with Houston and one along I-10 could connect Houston with San Antonio and El Paso.
Now obviously all of the communities named here aren’t major cities but don’t the people who live in them deserve service? After all they pay taxes too and they vote. A future transportation system should serve areas where population is growing. The Interstates run through high growth states such as Georgia, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. Three of these states are ignored by the idiotic corridor system. Providing good transportation connections to these areas would stimulate economic growth and create new opportunities for the residents there.
Interestingly enough most of these Interstate Highway routes meet the FRA’s high-speed rail criteria. According to Rand McNally*, the distance of a train between San Diego and Las Vegas would be 335 miles. If the train ran at 200 MPH it would take about 1.7 hours to cover that distance. Add the time spent stopping to pick up and drop off passengers and that’s around two and a half hours about the same time as a flight between the cities. Dallas to Houston would be 247 miles which take about 1.2 hours on a 200 MPH train. We should note that these travel times don’t include travel times to the airport and back so the train is very competitive.
Even some of the longer routes would make a lot of sense for high speed rail travel. The distance between San Diego and Salt Lake City is 759 miles that’s a travel time of around four hours at 200 MPH a time that would be competitive with airlines. A train between Denver and Chicago using the routes of I-76 and I-80 would cover a distance of 1077 miles that’s a travel time of around six hours at 200 MPH or five hours if the speed could be cranked up to 250 MPH on the open plains. Of course most travelers wouldn’t stay on the train for the whole trip most would only ride for shorter segments say between Riverside and Las Vegas or Denver and North Platte, Nebraska which would be one or two hour trips so the trains would make a lot of sense.
High Speed rail lines running along the major interstate corridors, and note the rail lines wouldn’t exactly follow the Interstates they’d be rough approximations would give millions of American drivers an alternative to the car for long distance travel. Today Americans who live outside of major metropolitan areas have no choice but to drive even if they can’t afford to. Many Americans are forced to live in urban not because they want to but because they have to for their work. High Speed Rail along the Interstate corridors could enable those people to live where they want by giving them fast transportation to cities, airports and other destinations.
These High Speed Rail lines could also be used for freight trains that could move most of the freight and packages now moved by air that would save billions of dollars now wasted on oil for planes carrying air freight. Reducing freight costs would make our economy more competitive and efficient.
A national transportation system such as High Speed Rail should be designed to serve as many Americans as possible. The Interstate Highway System has been a huge success because it serves virtually all of the people in the lower forty eight states. It makes sense to base the new High Speed Rail System on the excellent blueprint provided by the Interstate Highway System.
* Rand McNally (2009) The Road Atlas, Chicago, Rand McNally.
The President’s Vision for High Speed Rail seems to be based upon the designated High Speed Rail corridors as laid out by the Intermodel Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (AKA Ice Tea). A quick look at the map of these corridors found on the Federal Railroad Administration’s website (www.fra.dot.gov) shows that they make absolutely no sense. For example there’s a high speed rail line between Houston and New Orleans but no bullet train between Houston and Dallas or Houston and San Antonio. Further north there is a “High Speed Rail Corridor” between Chicago and Cleveland but none between Cleveland and Buffalo.
This is bothersome because rail lines between Houston and Dallas or Cleveland and Buffalo would meet the FRA’s own criteria for “High Speed Rail Corridors.” The FRA’s criteria for these corridors is pretty simple a High Speed Rail line should link two major population centers that are less than 600 miles apart. Dallas and Houston are obviously major population centers, as are Cleveland and Buffalo, and there are no corridors linking them why?
The FRA’s plan ignores its own criteria and worse leaves large areas of the country high and dry. Under the present plan there is no High Speed Rail in the Rocky Mountain Region at all. My home town of Denver is a major population center yet no high speed rail line gets close to it. Nor is there any High Speed Rail to places such as Las Vegas, Phoenix and Salt Lake City even under the FRA’s criteria these places qualify, Las Vegas is less than 600 miles from Phoenix and Salt Lake City. In other words we’d get a rail system that all Americans would be taxed for but vast numbers of Americans wouldn’t be able to use.
So how did this disastrous plan come about? The answer is quite simple, politics was the FRA’s real criteria for the High Speed Rail Corridors. Congressmen, local politicians and pressure groups in certain areas made a lot of noise about High Speed Rail and FRA bureaucrats responded by designating a “High Speed Rail Corridor” in their area. Basing a transportation system only on politics makes no sense and is inherently unfair.
Fortunately an excellent blue print for high speed rail is available and it was laid out fifty years ago. The blue print is the Interstate Highway System launched by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s. The Interstates connect almost all of America’s major population centers with direct and fairly logical routes. Building High Speed Rail lines along the major Interstate routes would connect almost all of America’s major cities and give us a network of trains that would take people where they want to go.
For example a High Speed Rail corridor running along Interstate 80 would connect New York, Cleveland, Toledo, Chicago, Des Moines, Omaha, Salt Lake City, Reno, Sacramento, Oakland, and Sacramento. A route along I-15 would connect San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Barstow, Las Vegas, Saint George, Provo, Ogden, Salt Lake City, Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Butte, Helena and Great Falls and it could be extended north of the border to serve Calgary and Edmonton if our Canadian cousins wanted. I might also add that this route could easily be connected to lines to Los Angeles, Bakersfield, Sacramento and San Francisco. A route along I-25 would serve El Paso, Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Pueblo, Colorado Springs, Denver, Boulder, Fort Collins, Cheyenne, and Casper and by following I-90 north Billings. In Texas a route along Highway 45 would connect Dallas/Fort Worth with Houston and one along I-10 could connect Houston with San Antonio and El Paso.
Now obviously all of the communities named here aren’t major cities but don’t the people who live in them deserve service? After all they pay taxes too and they vote. A future transportation system should serve areas where population is growing. The Interstates run through high growth states such as Georgia, Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. Three of these states are ignored by the idiotic corridor system. Providing good transportation connections to these areas would stimulate economic growth and create new opportunities for the residents there.
Interestingly enough most of these Interstate Highway routes meet the FRA’s high-speed rail criteria. According to Rand McNally*, the distance of a train between San Diego and Las Vegas would be 335 miles. If the train ran at 200 MPH it would take about 1.7 hours to cover that distance. Add the time spent stopping to pick up and drop off passengers and that’s around two and a half hours about the same time as a flight between the cities. Dallas to Houston would be 247 miles which take about 1.2 hours on a 200 MPH train. We should note that these travel times don’t include travel times to the airport and back so the train is very competitive.
Even some of the longer routes would make a lot of sense for high speed rail travel. The distance between San Diego and Salt Lake City is 759 miles that’s a travel time of around four hours at 200 MPH a time that would be competitive with airlines. A train between Denver and Chicago using the routes of I-76 and I-80 would cover a distance of 1077 miles that’s a travel time of around six hours at 200 MPH or five hours if the speed could be cranked up to 250 MPH on the open plains. Of course most travelers wouldn’t stay on the train for the whole trip most would only ride for shorter segments say between Riverside and Las Vegas or Denver and North Platte, Nebraska which would be one or two hour trips so the trains would make a lot of sense.
High Speed rail lines running along the major interstate corridors, and note the rail lines wouldn’t exactly follow the Interstates they’d be rough approximations would give millions of American drivers an alternative to the car for long distance travel. Today Americans who live outside of major metropolitan areas have no choice but to drive even if they can’t afford to. Many Americans are forced to live in urban not because they want to but because they have to for their work. High Speed Rail along the Interstate corridors could enable those people to live where they want by giving them fast transportation to cities, airports and other destinations.
These High Speed Rail lines could also be used for freight trains that could move most of the freight and packages now moved by air that would save billions of dollars now wasted on oil for planes carrying air freight. Reducing freight costs would make our economy more competitive and efficient.
A national transportation system such as High Speed Rail should be designed to serve as many Americans as possible. The Interstate Highway System has been a huge success because it serves virtually all of the people in the lower forty eight states. It makes sense to base the new High Speed Rail System on the excellent blueprint provided by the Interstate Highway System.
* Rand McNally (2009) The Road Atlas, Chicago, Rand McNally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
