An interesting read: The NY Times Magazine has a lengthy story on the challenges facing high speed rail in California, and in the U.S. more generally.
The author covers a good number — if not all — of the difficulties in constructing hundreds — or thousands — of miles of dedicated high-speed rail lines. From the political and economic challenge of securing land, to the engineering challenges of building a track that has no traffic crossings.
A German friend once remarked to me that one of the first things he noticed when visiting the US was that the trains actually blew their whistles. The sound of a train whistle was foreign to him. I, on the other hand, grew up listening to the sound of train whistles every morning and evening, as it came into our town, crossing multiple streets that otherwise carried automotive traffic. What was natural to me — cars, pedestrians, and trains on the same surface — was a quaint relic of yesteryear to my friend.
The US passenger rail system isn’t even a 19th century system, despite more modern locomotives. It’s a slow-moving, delay-prone embarrassment.
In any case, high speed rail, while facing an uphill climb, is finally looking up in the U.S. The Obama administration is planning $13 billion in infrastructure investments for rail, and regional authorities are making plans to connect their cities.
High speed rail works wonderfully on short- to intermediate-distance regional routes; shortly after it opened, the Madrid-Barcelona AVE train grabbed 50% of the passengers from the airlines on the route. If the routes are planned right and the speed is right, expect a similar impact on air travel in the Northeast corridor, California, Texas, the upper Midwest, and possibly the Carolinas/Georgia. High speed rail won’t replace trans-continental flying, but it can affect a lot of the high-frequency shorter hops.
But don’t expect the airlines to remain complacent. Expect lobbying, advertising, and side-deals from the airlines to try to quash high-speed rail. Maybe not quite at the level of GM’s quashing of streetcar systems — the airlines don’t have that kind of money or clout right now — but keep your eyes open. You know the airlines are watching.
RSS (FeedBurner)
Read with Amazon Kindle
Subscribe by E-mail
Follow on Twitter
June 15th, 2009 at 11:37 pm
You’re right – and it can be summed up in 1 word – Acela.
The Amtrak “high-speed” train from Boston to DC is both awesome and horrible. The cars are nice and comfortable, and it makes for a great trip. But it goes over existing tracks, which in some cases cross residential roads! Add in breakdowns, et. al., and it is no DB or any other hi-speed service in Europe.
mp/m
June 16th, 2009 at 6:53 am
I am not holding my breath.
Take note of recent events in Florida; a very modest proposal to create a decent mass transit system in central Florida, which is desperately needed, was pretty much lobbied to death.
High speed rail ideas, which make a ton of sense in an area with high population density and lots of travellers were mocked into oblivion.
Sad.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I work for an airline, yet I also support HSR. That said, look at the delays and conflicts of building new runways, a much smaller-scale problem than 300+ miles of railroad with catenary lines. There is simply massive amounts of money to be poured into rail infrastructure, and we as a nation don’t tend to keep up our infrastructure. See our interstate system, airports, and mass transit systems.
The other issue is that we are becoming an exurban nation, where wealth and those that travel tend to live outside of cities. If I have to drive or take the train 60-90 minutes just to get to the central station (I live about 9 miles west of O’Hare), why bother? One of the benefits of HSR is the “city-to-city” aspect, but outside of the Northeast Corridor, our cities are simply too spread out.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
I believe HSR is critical. Besides being the optimal mode for regional intercity travel, with airport and airspace congestion, HSR can subsitute commuter flights and free up capacity. It is also more comfortable than an RJ and is likely to run at much higher frequency. Airlines should embrace it as complement to their model, not as competition as it is for them most likely cheaper to buy seat contingents than to operate an RJ. That’s something airlines in Europe are have been more advanced in realizing: They aren’t only in the flying business, they are part of the Transportation business and should utilize all modes suitable.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
Flyerist need not worry about driving “60-90 minutes” into downtown Chicago to catch his high-speed train. In the Midwest High Speed Rail Association’s plan for a multi-state HSR system, the lines converging on Chicago from the south, west and east would not terminate in downtown Chicago as they do now but would continue on to a new station integrated into the proposed new terminal on the west side of O’Hare. The line approaching Chicago from the Twin Cities, Madison and Milwaukee would stop at O’Hare before entering Chicago. Travelers who now take short- and medium-distance flights to connect with long-distance flights at O’Hare would simply take a train directly to the airport, eliminating the small feeder planes which are choking O’Hare’s airspace and taxiways and opening up new slots for trans-continental and overseas flights which are profitable for the airlines and cannot be replaced by rail. Residents of suburbs around other cities also will have access to high-speed trains, since the trains must pass through the suburbs on their way out of town and will pause there at a suburban station. Nobody will be forced to go into the center of the city to catch a train.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Hermann’s point — “[Airlines] aren’t only in the flying business, they are part of the Transportation business and should utilize all modes suitable.” — is one which came up a recent thread. It would be interesting to see an airline reconceive of itself as a transportation company, and to incorporate rail into its own strategy. But right now, I just don’t see any American airline with the vision, the strategy, or even the capital to do it. It’s cheaper to try to block HSR’s growth, so that’s likely the path of least resistance.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:07 am
Well, in Europe airlines successfully cooperate with train companys. See for example LH and DB (german rail company). DB operates a high speed train station at Frankfurt Airport. so you actually can check in at a few other stations and connect in Frankfurt like you would connect using a regional flight. You can even drop your luggage at those train stations and it will be checked through to your final destination. You don’t need to pick it up when you transfer from train to aircraft. LH also puts a flight number on those trains. The benefit for LH is that they don’t need to use valuable slots in Frankfurt for such short hops like Cologne or Stuttgart.
Even the Airport operator benefits because the direct connection to a high speed train increases the 1h and 2h catchment dramatically.
It’s a win-win-win. You just need to somehow finance the expensive infrastructure.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
[...] Closing: unseen Chapter 11 wave; anti-stab knives (how British); Will high speed rail kill the airlines? (answer — not if the TSA does it first); “get used to tighter credit“; highest [...]
June 20th, 2009 at 10:08 am
I like the Picture of the stacked rail cars. Reminds me of my visit to Lima back in ’04, taxiing down the runway you could see dozens of out of use planes stacked there..
June 23rd, 2009 at 12:38 am
Europe is connected by high speed trains and they still have a number of competitive airlines…
June 24th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
You’d have to so some pretty sweet talking to get me to consider rail for anything but in-city transportation. I’ve generally had good experiences with public transport in DC, Boston and London (Vancouver not so much), but long-distance travel by rail sucks, IMO. BritRail and Amtrak seem to have forgotten that they’re carting human beings, not cargo. Horrid experiences, both.
May 10th, 2010 at 4:56 am
The US rail system is an embarrassment. Developing countries have better systems with a fraction of the budget, and nations like China are developing multiple high speed corridors in addition to existing dedicated passenger lines that already put US infrastructure to shame in efficiency, service and punctuality.
We are literally 20 to 40 years behind much of the developed and developing world in lines of transportation. Its a sad reality that the auto and aerospace industry own both “sides” of Washington and they are doing what benefits them, not a nation of 300 million people.
Transportation is vital to the economy and our antiquated, laughable infrastructure speaks volumes as to why our once unstoppable economy is now in shambles. Its not the only reason, but it is definitely a contributing factor.
January 20th, 2012 at 4:53 pm
u nos tyz takie byda