ON TRACK The allure of economic stimulus money has dozens of states in the U.S. vying for high-speed trains such as the one pictured here, Japan's JR West 8-car 500 series.
Image: COURTESY OF WIKIPEDIA/RSA
More In This Article
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Although so-called bullet trains in France can travel at speeds approaching 575 kilometers per hour, their adoption in the U.S. has been more local than express. Now, 140 years after the transcontinental railroad's nearly 2,900 kilometers of track first connected both U.S. coasts, a number of states are hoping for a second golden age of rail, this time fueled by the Obama administration's pledge of billions of stimulus dollars for high-speed railway development.
California is developing perhaps the most ambitious high-speed rail plans, a project that would include a mixture of shorter lines connecting Los Angeles to Anaheim and San Francisco to San Jose as well as a longer line traversing the nearly 1,300 kilometers between San Francisco and San Diego (with a branch through Sacramento). The $10-billion price tag to get these projects on track is equally ambitious—California is looking for $4.7 billion of this to come from the $8 billion in stimulus money the federal government is making available for high-speed rail projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The San Francisco-to-San Diego high-speed line alone is expected to cost at least $45 billion by the time it is finished. With trains allowed to run in excess of 320 kilometers per hour on some stretches, state officials estimate a trip between Los Angeles and San Francisco could take as little as two and a half hours. Anaheim Mayor and High-Speed Rail Authority Board Chairman Curt Pringle has said that the state could break ground on its high-speed rail projects before 2012.
Other states, including Florida and Texas, are proposing to build dedicated high-speed rails from scratch that would allow trains to reach top speeds of about 240 kilometers per hour. The Obama's administration's "Vision for High-Speed Rail in America" report (pdf) released in April identifies 10 potential high-speed corridors for federal funding. In addition to California, Florida, New York State and New England, these include locations in the Pacific Northwest, Midwest, Southeast, Gulf Coast and Pennsylvania.
The administration's rail report does not spell out exactly how many of these high-speed corridors will be include new tracks exclusively for use by faster trains, as opposed to tracks shared with freight and slower passenger services. Amtrak's Acela service is the only passenger train line in the country that has exceeded the 177-kilometer-per-hour speed necessary to earn the U.S. Department of Transportation's "high speed" classification. The Acela is able to reach about 240 kilometers per hour along small segments of its route from Washington, D.C., to New York City and on to Boston, but because Acela runs on tracks shared with lower-speed passenger and freight trains it still only averages 109 kilometers per hour. Changing this is an expensive proposition, eenews.net reported last month. Cutting just 15 minutes off the 354-kilometer route between New York City and Washington would cost an estimated $625 million, and shortening the trip an additional 15 minutes could cost as much as $5 billion.
Several factors complicate the U.S.'s high-speed rail goals. These include a shrinking pool of in-country rail sector experts (which the Obama administration acknowledges is the result of the relatively small investment in passenger rail in recent decades), a lack of money available at the state level for such projects, and the need for safety standards specific to high-speed trains. The administration pointed out in its report that whereas most high-speed systems overseas have a good safety record, they usually operate on dedicated tracks.
But building the infrastructure necessary for a dedicated high-speed rail is no small job, taking into account the special safety requirements these train lines require, says Raj Rajkumar, a professor in electrical and computer engineering at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. This includes running tracks above or below roadways to avoid railroad crossings and fencing off areas to avoid collisions with animals, people and road vehicles. Given the increased centrifugal force created by the high speeds around curves, it is also advisable to increase the height of embankments around curves and widen the track gauge to prevent derailments. "The $8 billion is a lot of money, but it costs a lot more to build out the infrastructure," he adds. Despite the existence of Amtrak's Acela, "you don't have an existing high-speed train industry in the United States to build upon."
Dedicated tracks are important to the development of high-speed railways. For one, high-speed trains are more sensitive to changes in their rails, which means it is not a good idea for them to share their lines with heavier freight trains that can warp the tracks, says José Holguín-Veras, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic University in Troy, N.Y. Although the Acela shares tracks with slower-moving passenger and freight trains, "sharing rails between high-speed and freight won't work" if fast trains are introduced and traffic is increased.
"High-speed rail has an important role to play in the United States, particularly for the mid-range distances of 100 to 500 miles," (160 to 800 kilometers) Holguín-Veras says. "In that range high-speed could compete quite favorably with air travel."
See what we're tweeting about
23 Comments
Add CommentVery high price tag for such slow "high-speed" trains (comparend to those in other countries). And what about the wildlife? Fences to keep wildlife out means wildlife cannot cross the tracks to get to the other side. What will the enviro-types think about that (sue, sue, sue). We'll have to elevate but even then I'm sure there will be plenty of lawsuits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, so France can do this, Germany can do this...but we can't. I get it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot just Germany and France, but Spain, Italy, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and the list goes on and on.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHigh speed trains will really take off in the US when you leave from and go to any address you want at any time you want.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBeen to France and Germany. France, the largest EU country is not much bigger than California. GDP is close to California's too. None of the trains I took were high-speed. Just not that many of them. If California with their economy has to have federal dollars to build the lines, one has to wonder how France has managed while California has not. But then, France has managed to generate most of its energy via nuclear while we are praying for the wind to solve our energy problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts just not that much money. A typical line costs $35 million per mile, or maybe $9 to $12 billion for a typical line away from the coasts. That's the cost of our wars to X-mas. It contributes to the economy while its being built and forever after.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is we have "low speed paper" federalize and expedite the siting process.
Animals are not that big a problem. One can make over- and underpasses for them like with roads (interstates). Of course all that fencing is not cheap, but it's not money spend stupidly as all that work generates money circulation, as others already pointed out. Maybe the paperwork, all the permits is going to be the biggest problem. And for high speed one would want to have as straight as possible rail lines. Take two cities, draw straight line between them and then look where one absolutely must make turns to avoid impossible routes. It's not going to be easy to allocate all that land for rails.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnimals are not that big a problem. One can make over- and underpasses for them like with roads (interstates). Of course all that fencing is not cheap, but it's not money spend stupidly as all that work generates money circulation, as others already pointed out. Maybe the paperwork, all the permits is going to be the biggest problem. And for high speed one would want to have as straight as possible rail lines. Take two cities, draw straight line between them and then look where one absolutely must make turns to avoid impossible routes. It's not going to be easy to allocate all that land for rails.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe already have high speed transportation - they are called airplanes. We do not need this expensive redundancy, danger, or labor union intense throwback to the 1800.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are we building high speed trains on conventional tracks. These need to be designed from ground up. Maybe a monorail system within interstate highway property with links to park and rides throughout the country. The first pilot study train should be as a vacation train to the Jersey Shore with stops for day trippers. This would cut down bigtime on traffic conjestion, auto pollution, and would enable people to have sea shore day trips that are relaxing, with food and alcohol service on the train and no driving. Gamblers to AC, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat no mention of Maglev technology despite fact that a number of states have selected maglev in their applications to FRA-Pennsylvania for its Pittsburgh line, Maryland for an initial Northeast segment from DC to Baltimore and Nevada for a connection from Las Vegas to Anaheim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo mention of Maglev? Shanghai project wildly successful and will be extended. Japan has announced all future high speed rail there will be maglev. In the US a number of states have selected maglev in their applications to FRA-Pennsylvania for its Pittsburgh project, Maryland for its initial Northeast project from DC to Baltimore and Nevada/ Californis for a line from Las Vegas to Anaheim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fundamental problem is that during the 1950s, 60s, and 70s , thousands of railtracks were simply dismantled. This left the US with only a skeleton rail system mostly used for freight. This means that in order to build high speed rail, we need to start (in practice) from scratch: building anew. Maglev, in my opinion, is not a practical option: too expensive to build and operate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe most important point of this article is that in order to implement the true high-speed rail network that will be as efficient as those existing in Europe and Asia we need to invest significant amounts of money into the project. It will be very hard to get such a huge commitment of funds on the federal level since the Senate has equal representation from all state, and most states in the US - let's face it - will not benefit from High Speed Rail. High Speed rail will be most needed in the more congested metro areas, such as the High Speed Corridors mentioned in the article. But you cannot expect the Senators from states like North Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Utah, etc. to support such a massive federal investment which will need to be in hundreds of billions of dollars in order to be effective. We can look at Spain as a model where they recently build the new dedicated line from Barcelona to Madrid. This one line cost more than what we are planning to spend statewide. And the states and localities in the US, especially California and New York, are in such poor financial shape right now that they simply do not have the money to fund such massive projects. As much as I would love to see the modern High Speed Rail Network in the US, I don't think it will materialize in the near future because of the budget and financial situation this country is in right now. Maybe next time we should build high speed rail instead of starting the unnecessary wars in the Middle East...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLarger countries need a transportation system faster than EU's to compete with airlines. A pressurized train on rails in an evacuated tunnel or pipe could easily travel 2000 MPH. (The speed record for a rail mounted rocket sled is 63oo MPH.) Natural gas transmission lines already crisscross the country and the same technology could be used to provide an enclosure that would accommodate a passenger train a bit larger than a roller coaster. There is no sonic boom in a vacuum and no worry about animals or other vehicles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimple enough -- remember how the sky cleared after 9/11 -- get those emitter numbers numbered!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBullet Trains -- U. S. Employment -- And Stopping Environmental & Human Destruction
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. (Email) October 23, 2009, Joan Lowy, Associated Press, Yahoo News: "High-speed rail advocates say $8B is just a start":
2. Communities and companies seeking to build high-speed rail systems haven't yet received the $8 billion in stimulus money the Obama administration promised for the projects, and already they want more — a lot more.
3. The consensus at a conference for high-speed rail proponents here this week was that the federal government should ante up substantially more to demonstrate the long-term financial commitment to make the projects viable.
4. The U.S. High Speed Rail Association is promoting a plan for a 17,000-mile, national network of 220 mph bullet trains — a wish list of every potentially credible project. The estimated price tag: $600 billion over 20 years. That's a lot of money, conceded Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, who addressed the conference. By the time a national network gets built, "I think it's going to be that much," Johnson said.
5. At least $150 billion is needed for a serious start on a national high-speed rail network, said Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a rail proponent. Then he added: "We're probably talking about more than that."
6. The entire $8 billion for high-speed and intercity passenger rail included in the economic stimulus program enacted by Congress earlier this year is only a third of the cost of constructing a single high-speed line from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh — an estimated $20 billion to $25 billion, Rendell said.
7. "We haven't yet made a serious commitment to high-speed rail," said Rendell, who has joined with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to form Building America's Future to promote rail and other transportation projects.
8. The inclusion of the rail money in the stimulus bill sparked fierce competition among state officials, many of whom have long thirsted for speedy bullet trains like those in Europe and Japan. The Obama administration initially hoped to begin awarding some of the $8 billion in September, but that timetable has been pushed back to later this year or early next.
9. The Federal Railroad Administration has received applications from 24 states seeking $50 billion for high-speed projects, more than six times the available funds. The agency has also received 214 applications from 34 states totaling $7 billion to beef up service between cities by trains traveling less then 110 miles per hour. Those projects are also eligible for a share of the $8 billion.
10. Officials for companies who want to build the rail systems or supply the trains said they worry the administration will bend to pressure to spread the money around instead of concentrating it on a single project or two or three projects.
11. In addition to the $8 billion, the White House requested Congress approve another $1 billion a year for the next five years for high-speed rail. The House went further, proposing $4 billion for next year, but the Senate has approved only $1.5 billion.
President Eisenhower's Interstate System needs to become President Obama's Union America Bullet-rail together with accompanying rail-freight! This would be real stimulus adding jobs along with tremendous energy and emission reductions; cars are the 'buggy-whips' of the 20th century interstate system, 'bullet-rail' is what the 21st century must have!
For anyone who thinks that all we need is the airline industry to support our high speed travel needs, I ask you to step back and take a look at how "wonderfuly convenient" flying has become these days. Long lines at the airport, increasing ticket prices, lost luggage from lay-overs, added fees for luggage and travelling during busy holidays. More competition from another transportation source will only force the airline industry to lower prices and start offering a lot of the things they've been taking away from customers for years now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf China sees high speed rail as the future, why shouldn't the US? Our countries are roughly the same geographic size, our countries are both growing in population and both pump out high amounts of CO2 from factories, automobiles, and airplanes. A train emits a fraction of the pollution of an airplane... shouldn't we show that we want to help take America out of the global climate debate rather than only talking about it.
I've already sworn off flying for good. I take the Amtrak, and simply budget a couple extra days to get from San Diego to Chicago. All you have to do is schedule properly, and stick to your guns. You couldn't pay me enough to fly commercial air travel again. Get that high speed route in. If you build it, (and not try to get in the black on day two) they will come.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere should be elevated tracks, thats the other problem with this they propose using ancient outdated technology. We should implement a new elevated track design which would use less land would not require as much eminent domain, would be cheaper to build, and would lead to a new high speed train technology that we could then sell to other countries. Again rather than using france's or germany's which is outdated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a great believer in the metric system and I believe it should have been adopted many years ago in the United States.\
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut it has NOT been and most of us still think in miles per hour and not kilometers per hour. I can multiply by .6, in my head, to convert but it is a pain in the brain.
575 kilometers per hour is, 575 x .6 which is a little less than, er, uh, 600 x .6 = 360 mph which is a little more than ...
And I know that 177 kilometers per hour is, er 177 x .6 = almost 200 x .6 = 120 mph. Therefore 177 x .6 must be about, uh, 100 mph.
Have a good day.
The real pity is that there is a high speed rail system invented in the U.S. that has the potential to put the others to shame while costing much less ( needing less accuracy and complex controls systems), yet the U.S. 'entrepreneurial spirit' is too busy trying hiding it's head from change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttps://www.llnl.gov/str/Post.html
Hi terrymc2 - you are spot on. ETT ( evacuated tube transportation ) makes scientific and engineering sense in many of the crucial factors that determine an economic and efficient transport system. Try vactrain on wiki and follow the links. It is even a more efficient use of construction materials as this simple example can show. A flat strip of paper has poor strength and rigidity, but if rolled up into a tube it can support a significant load. Roads and rail beds are essentialy strips that require thickness for strength.Rolling that strip round to form tubes greatly increases their load carrying ability, and the thickness required to resist atmospheric pressure is quite thin. With maglev suspension ( probably using halbach arrays) very little energy is lost travelling long distances at high speed. Immunity from weather and collisions with animals and birds are other major factors. All the present designs of high speed rail require expensive track, both to build and maintain, and the bridges and tunnels need to be larger to allow for aerodynamic shock as the speeding train passes through. Quiet they are not,and as they still rely on wheel track friction for braking, they cannot run closely together on the same track, so the passenger capacity is limited by the train length.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this