The U.S. government created Amtrak in 1971 to resuscitate train travel, which had dropped significantly since its peak in 1929. But ridership is low compared to that of other developed countries. The Obama administration has now allocated $8 billion to upgrade and increase speeds on existing rails and create new high-speed lines in 10 corridors nationwide. Pictured: an Amtrak train passes south of Manassas, Va.
Image: J.P. Mueller, courtesy Flickr.
-
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 »
Dear EarthTalk: If train travel is so much less polluting than driving or flying, why are passenger rail options in the U.S. so limited compared to Europe? And is anything being done to shift more travelers over to American rail lines from cars and planes?
-- Jeffrey Orenstein, Bradenton, Fla.
It’s true that train travel is one of the lowest impact ways to get from point to point short of walking, jogging or bicycling. In the early part of the 20th century, with car and air travel both in their infancies, taking the train was really the only practical way for Americans to get from city to city. And take the train they did: By 1929 the U.S. boasted one of the largest and most used rail networks in the world, with some 65,000 railroad passenger cars in operation across some 265,000 miles of track.
But a concerted campaign by U.S. car makers to acquire rail lines and close them, along with a major push in Congress to build the world’s most extensive interstate highway system, combined to shift Americans’ tastes away from rail travel and toward cars. As a result, while Europe focused on building its own rail networks, the U.S. became the ultimate auto nation, with more cars per capita than anywhere else in the world. By 1965 only 10,000 rail passenger cars were in operation across just 75,000 miles of track.
In response to the declining use of America’s rail network, the U.S. government created Amtrak in 1971 to provide intercity passenger train service across the country, running mostly on pre-existing track already in use for freight transport. Today Amtrak runs some 1,500 rail passenger cars on 21,000 miles of track connecting 500 destinations in 46 states. In 2008, upwards of 28 million passengers rode Amtrak trains, representing the sixth straight year of record ridership for the publicly-owned rail line. Despite this growth, the U.S. still has one of the lowest inter-city rail usage rates in the developed world.
But that may all change soon. In the spring of 2009, President Obama allocated $8 billion of his stimulus package toward development of more high-speed rail lines across the country, citing the need to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on foreign oil. Currently only one high-speed rail line exists in the U.S., Amtrak’s Acela Express, which can reach speeds of 150 mile per hour on its Washington, D.C. to Boston route. The success of high-speed, high-efficiency “bullet” trains in Asia and Europe—where train rides can be as fast as flying but without the long waits and security hassles—has helped convince American transportation analysts that the U.S. should also take the high speed rail plunge.
The first round of federal funding will go toward upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines, but the majority of it will be used to jump-start construction of new high speed lines in 10 corridors across the country, including in northern New England, across New York State, across Pennsylvania, in and around Chicago, throughout the Southeast, and up and down the length of the west coast.
A 2006 study by the Center for Clean Air Policy and the Center for Neighborhood Technology concluded that building a high speed rail system across the U.S. (similar in scope to that proposed by Obama) would likely result in 29 million fewer car trips and 500,000 fewer plane flights each year, saving six billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions—the equivalent of removing a million cars from the road annually.
CONTACTS: Amtrak, www.amtrak.com; Center for Clean Air Policy, www.ccap.org; Center for Neighborhood Technology, www.cnt.org.
EarthTalk is produced by E/The Environmental Magazine. SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT
06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.
See what we're tweeting about
16 Comments
Add Comment"Currently only one high-speed rail line exists in the U.S., Amtraks Acela Express, which can reach speeds of 150 mile per hour on its Washington, D.C. to Boston route."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt can reach those speeds but it only averages 60 miles per hour or so because of shared tracks, etc.
"The first round of federal funding will go toward upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines, but the majority of it will be used to jump-start construction of new high speed lines in 10 corridors across the country, including in northern New England, across New York State, across Pennsylvania, in and around Chicago, throughout the Southeast, and up and down the length of the west coast."
Of course this strategy will doom the projects to failure. Resources will be spread too thin. They should perfect the Acela line running in the Northeast Corridor (e.g. increasing average miles per hour by buying new track and fixing old track, etc) in order to create a successful model that could fund and stimulate demand for high-speed lines in other areas.
"Currently only one high-speed rail line exists in the U.S., Amtrak’s Acela Express, which can reach speeds of 150 mile per hour on its Washington, D.C. to Boston route."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt can reach those speeds but it only averages 60 miles per hour or so because of shared tracks, etc.
"The first round of federal funding will go toward upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines, but the majority of it will be used to jump-start construction of new high speed lines in 10 corridors across the country, including in northern New England, across New York State, across Pennsylvania, in and around Chicago, throughout the Southeast, and up and down the length of the west coast."
Of course this strategy will doom the projects to failure. Resources will be spread too thin. They should perfect the Acela line running in the Northeast Corridor (e.g. increasing average miles per hour by buying new track and fixing old track, etc) in order to create a successful model that could fund and stimulate demand for high-speed lines in other areas.
"... why are passenger rail options in the U.S. so limited compared to Europe?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause trains in US suck big time. They're much slower than those we have in Europe, and the typical distances are much larger.
Dear Sirs,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy company can build a high speed railroad system that can provide travel in excess of two hundred MPH and at an initial cost that is lower than the old system using wood ties.
The RALE System is so durable, because it utilizes a low cost concrete foundation under the rails, therefore, the resulting long term life cycle costs are so large, that it is hard to imagine. Replacement cost of foundation materials for a period of time less than one hundred years is virtually eliminated. Please contact me for further details.
Look up Patent # 5,863,147. [PAVEMENT FOR CONVEYING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC] See figure # 8. {USPTO}
David E. Pressler ( rale2@verizon.net )
RALE Systems
I appreciate your help. Thank you.
Maglevs while a greater investment upfront, are far more efficient and non-polluting than conventional rail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith speed capabilities in the 500 km/h range, they are even a viable alternative to air travel over medium distances.
I traveled in Europe using a EurRail pass (called that at the time). Somehow I missed out on all the fast trains. Most are not high-speed trains. However most towns had (slow) rail service. The lure of a car though is complete freedom. One doesn't have to keep a schedule that correlates with train departures. Plus when you get to your destination, you are not relegated to your feet for transportation. Another reason cars won out here - cheap and plentiful oil resources. Not many oil fields in the heart of Europe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaglevs with powered tracks, not powered trains. Power the onboard systems through induction off the tracks, etc... software handling speeds & routing, with manual overrides in case of emergencies. & on & on. What europe would build today if they had to start completely over.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLets build what europe would build today if they could start with a blank slate, not shoot for catching up to halfway where they are now like a bunch of complacent slackers.
This sounds like a great idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDavid, I hope you've sent your company's information to the government for consideration.
The cost equation between maglev and conventional rail is rather complex. As maglev can handle steeper grades, there are circumstances where it can be less capital intensive than steel on steel track. Given the much greater distances in the US, compared with Europe, the speed advantage of maglev may make it a better proposition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Northeast Corridor is the main place where somewhat longer distance rail traffic has worked in the U.S. This can be attributable to the "accidental" property of major cities lining up (roughly) between Boston and Washington D.C. The fact that New York City, Newark, Philedelphia, Baltimore, etc. are all on that route means (quite obviously) that you get more people wanting to go the same direction at the same time than you would otherwise. Moreover, trains in the NE Corridor connect with local rail systems in these cities as well (not perfectly, of course). Japan's long distance trains also benefit from this (between Tokyo and Osaka there are several other major cities lined up between, such as Nagoya and Kyoto). Europe doesn't necessarily have this, but you have greater population density, i.e. smaller distances, making medium distance train travel feasible and economic. But people generally won't take the train from London to Athens or Moscow, planes being far more efficient for such distances. The U.S. has a much more difficult geography for efficient long-distance train travel. And the connections to local systems tend to be poor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is relatively hard for New Yorkers to take the train to Florida for vacation; and once they arrive, they are still going to need to rent cars. And in today's rushed working environment, most people don't find it easy to have a lot of time for that length of trip by train (especially when you consider round trips).
The Milwaukee-Chicago-St Louis proposed upgrade touts top speeds of a super-sonic 110mph! This would be its "top end", but would only be achieved occassionally in open farmland.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"High Speed"...a tribute to our political hacks in D.C.
You bring up a good point, bostonprof. Yesterday I was looking into what it would take for my kids and I to go from central MA (North Worcester County) to the Orlando/Tampa area by train. You can't. Or at least, you can take one train to somewhere that is closer to FL, and then hope to find another train going Florida-ward from there. At that point, it's faster to drive there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy experience of travelling by train on Amtrak during my last US visit was entirely positive and pleasant, compared to British trains it was like travelling First Class. Admittedly I wasn't in a rush to get to work, but I was impressed. Yes, definitely don't just try to copy Europe (and especially not the disastrous fragentation of British railways), but come up with a better and fully integrated network with simple fares, ticketing and perhaps linking to easy local car hire at destinations. Rail and public transport in general should be seen as a national/federal investment, not a profit-making exercise, then the real benefits will be felt by the nation. Good luck, America and I look forward to my next train tour of the US!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBefore I discuss my company's transformational locomotive technology for all classes of freight and passenger rail (including HSR), readers should note that the $8 billion referred to in this article is only a down payment on what will be a long-term plan under the Obama adminstration to revolutionize U.S. freignt and especially passenger rail which has been starved for funds for over thirty years, until now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe investment in this long-ignored transportation sector will expand sharply, which will by itself begin to attract customers from crowded highways and aviation.
My company, AHL-TECH (www.AHL-TECH.com) is preparing to build, test, and demonstrate the world's first ethanol-electric hybrid locomotive, the cleanest and greenest in the world, which can be applied to freight and passenger rail. Provided we obtain needed financial resources, our "shovel ready" locomotive prototype can be on the rails before the end of this year.
This highly-efficient U.S. technology will create new jobs, industry, demand for biofuels, and sharply reduce the consumption of fossil fuels in the railroad sector which is more than 6 billion gallons of diesel fuel per year. In addition, through the use of 100% fuel-grade ethanol made from cellulosic feedstocks, the AHL-TECH locomotive will reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 90%, emissions of carcinogenic particulate matter by well over 90% and oxides of nitrogen by almost as much.
Our technology, which has garnered the interest of a number of Class 1 freight railroads, the U.S, Dept. of Transportation, Amtrak, and others is cost-competitive with conventional diesel locomotives, both in terms of price per unit as well as operational costs.
AHL-TECH is interested in exploring any number of opportunities for funding and other means by which our prototype can be launched and tested, after which this technology can be commercialized within a matter of 1 - 3 years.
Your thoughts and comments are appreciated.
James Peeples
Vice President
AHL-TECH
www.AHL-TECH.com
jpeeples@AHL-tECH.com
(703) 256-4497 (DC office)
Hi David,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know a David Pressler that is and industrial designer in CT.
Could you be that person?
Mike Cohen
I wonder why it is so important to save the motor industry!!!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose people could be better employed directing there efort by designing and building a better system to re-enginer a better system, and make transportation enter the 21 st, century.
We need an all electric sociaty and a program of solar power derived from space.
We need country --no no a continent wide total speed mag lev. transportation system that is so revolutionary that it runs in three oval tracts north south, and three tracks east and west.
The MLT's (magleve trains) are in fact two MLT"S connected side by side and connected to allow passengers to transfer from one to the other train as MLT,(A) continues non-stop while the MLT, (B) is the pick up and drop of system every one gets onto B there point of entry.
This vehicle is on the passenger exit ramp, that slows it down and allow passengers to leave at the top to exit.
While the entry passengers enter to prepare to speed back down the exit ramp as the MLT (A) speeds though and picks up (B)from the down or exit ramp ahead of it.
I know I'm dreaming but if we keep making gasoline cars and Jet planes to transport people to and fro across the continent we will never control our problem and never get rid of personal transportation or pollution.
Oh why dose the problem seem to be so easy when all you need is MONEY and the will to get on and DOOO IT!!!!!!!