Subscription Center
Apr 16, 2009 03:52 PM | 10
President Obama outlined his vision today for high-speed rail service in the U.S, identifying 10 corridors in heavily populated regions around the country – from the Pacific northwest to the gulf states – for the laying of hundreds of miles of new tracks.
The stimulus bill that passed in February set aside $8 billion for the initiative. The Federal Railroad Administration will begin awarding grants late this summer after a competitive bidding process amongst rail companies.
Proponents of high-speed rail say the system will ease traffic congestion by lessening vehicular and plane travel, cut pollution by reducing dependence on fossil fuels and also create jobs in a down economy. “My high-speed rail proposal will lead to innovations that change the way we travel in America,” President Obama said today. “High-speed rail is long overdue.”
Indeed, the U.S. is well behind other nations when it comes to speedy railways. Bullet trains zip across Japan, Korea, Germany, France, Italy and Spain at speeds up to 217 miles (350 kilometers) per hour, while the only high-speed rail corridor in the U.S. – Amtrak’s Acela line that runs from Washington, D.C. to Boston, Mass. – pokes along at an average of 80 miles (130 kilometers) per hour, the Economist reports.
In addition to the $8 billion available now, Obama intends to provide $1 billion annually for the next five years to help see the rail projects to completion. However, each individual project could end up costing in excess of even the full $8 billion on hand, according to the Economist – California, for example, has plans to connect its major cities with 200 mile (320 kilometer) per hour railways to the tune of $40 billion.
It remains to be seen if the speedy new railcars will impress like those described on the cover page of the very first issue of Scientific American, published in August of 1845: “The manufacturers have recently introduced a variety of excellent improvements in the construction of trucks, springs, and connections, which are calculated to avoid atmospheric resistance, secure safety and convenience, and contribute ease and comfort to passengers, while flying at the rate of 30 or 40 miles per hour.”
The best train cars of that era did not lack in style, either, at least in the eyes of the writer: “Let any person contrast the awkward and uncouth cars of ’35 with the superbly splendid long cars now running on several of the eastern roads, and he will find it difficult to convey to a third party, a correct idea of the vast extent of improvement.”
Click here to view the new planned train routes.
[top] A high-speed train in Korea, called the HSR-350x or the Korean G-7. Image credit: Lakshmix/Wikimedia
Tags:
high-speed rail,
acela,
obama energy plans
More News Blog:
Next: GSK and Pfizer in HIV company merger
Previous: Soot solution: New stoves?
See what we're tweeting about
BoraZ How to Really March Against Monsanto. http://t.co/u93UxagQfT cc @Kevbonham @sci2mrow @patrickmustain @juliannewyrick BoraZ And @edyong209 's missing links http://t.co/DOA2Sf3yvo BoraZ The Phlogiston Theory is not equivalent to the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. http://t.co/ziLt8nu0o6
Deadline: Jul 25 2013
Reward: Varies
This challenge provides an opportunity for Solvers to build a web-based or mobile “app” to explore data relationships in scholarly conte
Deadline: Jun 30 2013
Reward: $1,000,000 USD
This is a Reduction-to-Practice Challenge that requires written documentation and&
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
10 Comments
Add CommentWhile I am generally a free-marketeer, I am glad to see the government involved in rail transport.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPart of the problem in the US is the hodgepodge network of public and private railroads and lack of a "big picture" view. Private freight train often have priority over commuter trains, because they own the rails, and the commuter system is in a fairly sad state.
There are no decent manufacturers left in the US, either. If they can get cost-effective, truly high-speed trains, the public will benefit.
It's about frackin' time. It takes anywhere from 6 hours to ~forever to get from Chicago to St. Louis on Amtrak. This is roughly the same distance as Paris to Lyon, which the French TGV covers in under 3 hours, many times a day, with a schedule so precise you could set your watch to it. The U.S. rail system is a an embarrassment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough, after looking at the route map, I'm wondering why there's no leg connecting Cleveland and Pittsburgh. You can get from Houston to DC, but not Chicago to DC? Not that it matters...I'm sure the Republicans will see to it that none of this ever happens (might cut into oil profits).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nice thing about trains is that they have a simple, fair pricing scheme. I took a TGV from Paris to Basel last Sunday and it cost about 115USD. To book the same flight, one day before travel would have cost around 800USD, and in this case, door to door travel time was just about 30 minutes longer. A nice benefit is that I was sitting in one seat (2nd class, more comfortable than coach on a plane) nearly the whole time so I could actually be productive for most of the journey.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI enjoy flying, but for shorter trips, a good train connection is often much more practical.
The geography of the US does not support rail travel, high speed or otherwise. To spend the hundreds of billions at this late date is wasteful. Far more attractive would be a *system* of transportation incorporating our desires and needs for getting around in a local area as well as in a wide area. Self propelled "pods" that can operate independently around town, utilize battery packs for medium distances, assemble into trains for long distances might make sense. A modular approach would lead to other synergies -- reduction in planned obsolescence for example.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjmedding makes a good point about practicality. High speed itself falls into the category of the impractical, whether by air or rail.
I don't agree that "the geography of the US does not support rail travel". The total area of France + Germany is about 1x10^6 km^2, their combined population is 145x10^6, for a population density of 145/km^2. The combined areas of MO, IL, IN, MI (lower), OH, PA is 769x10^3, the combined population is 58x10^6, population density 75/km^2; only a factor of 2 lower. And these 6 states are not ones that you would consider "densely populated". I'm not asking to go from Chicago to St. Louis or Pittsburgh at 200 mph; but I would think it reasonable that one could get on a train in Chicago and have SOME idea when the train is going to arrive at its destination (today, that's not the case with Amtrak). It's silly to fly between cities that are less than ~600 miles apart, since that should be <5 hours on any train of reasonable speed, and it takes longer to fly that same distance (if you include all the time wasted getting to and waiting at airports, which are necessarily located away from city centers). Again using Chicago as an example, the cities within 600 miles (just off the top of my head) include Minneapolis, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Nashville, Memphis, Charlotte, Washington DC...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe US geography is no barrier to rail travel, high speed or otherwise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf "Other Passenger Rail Routes" isn't high speed, I hope the map in the link is only Phase I. For adequate service, a Chicago to San Francisco line is needed.
I would be very surprised if the gap between Cleveland and Pittsburgh wasn't added before long. That, in itself, would tie Chicago and DC.
It will be interesting to see the demand for high speed rail service, at the fares required to support the service. Example: London to Paris (210 miles) on the well subsidized Eurostar is almost $400 for Second Class and $800 for Premium Class EACH WAY.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny takers?
I'll take you on Perki. Go to www.eurorailways.com and check the prices. They have special offers as low as $78 roundtrip. Why are you trying to disinform? Who do you work for?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisD-Man
The argument that US geography is unsuited to rail (and mass transit in general) is an old and basically circular argument that runs like this: we have sprawl cities; therefore we shouldn't build rail; we have no rail; therefore we have sprawl cities. Do you recognize the flaw in this argument, PatClark?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this