True high-speed rail — trains going 150 mph or more on newly built tracks — would be “prohibitively expensive” in the United States, says Amtrak President Joseph Boardman. Testifying before the Illinois House Railroad Industry Committee, Boardman said that it makes more sense to improve existing tracks so trains can run at up to 110 mph.
“It’s really not about the speed,” Boardman reportedly said. “It’s about reduced travel times and more frequency.” He added that 110 mph “is double the national speed limit” of 55 mph on highways. Apparently he hasn’t heard that this national speed limit was repealed a mere 22 years ago. (Or maybe he is privy to a plan to re-establish this limit.)
Few media reports about high-speed rail note that a top speed of 110 mph works out to an average speed, including scheduled stops, of just 60 to 75 mph. Between New York and Washington, Amtrak’s regular Northeast Corridor trains, for example, have top speeds of 110 but average 70 mph, whereas the Acela has a top speed of 135 but averages less than 85 mph.
At today’s speed limits, most people can easily average more than 50 mph on intercity freeways, including stops for gas and food, so rail’s advantage is not that great — especially when you consider that your car will go when you want it, will take you directly to your final destination, and will be available for sidetrips along the way.
Tt seems likely that the administration is using Boardman to send a signal to Illinois and other states not to try to emulate California’s rail scheme, which will be true high-speed rail if it is ever built. Be happy with 110-mph trains, he/they are saying, even if California gets 220-mph trains.
However these days, it is generally utilized for healing stern nodular acne. cialis australia This will lead to serious consequences and it may effect your mental well being. levitra generic no prescription PDE5 meds if brought with unlawful medications, for example, euphoria pills or poppers may trigger hypotension (low circulatory strain levels) and passing in serious cases. canadian tadalafil This only means that your phone can still work fine after being dropped on a sink full of water and even if-God forbid-on the toilet. canada viagra sales
Unfortunately, no one but the Antiplanner ever talks about the true cost of a complete national system of either kind of trains. The media takes it for granted that Congress has agreed to spend $13 billion on high-speed rail, when in fact it has only appropriated $8 billion. Obama’s transportation budget proposes an additional $1 billion per year over the next five years, but no one knows where the money is going to come from.
Even $13 billion won’t begin to pay for the national plan issued last month, which I estimate will cost around $100 billion just to build, plus much more to operate. And that’s only if politicians outside of California take the hint not to demand the same trains California wants to build.
Many people see high-speed rail as this generation’s version of the Interstate Highway System. In fact, since high-speed rail will mainly be used by the wealthy, a better analogy would be if the federal government decided to bail out America’s once-rich bankers by buying them all Ferraris or Lamborghinis.
The Department of Transportation will announce in September which rail projects it will fund. If most of the money goes for 110-mph trains, there will be little harm done. The freight railroads that own the tracks will benefit from the improvements and there won’t be any need to spend much additional money in the long run.
But if a substantial share of the money goes to California, this will turn into a runaway train as other states demand their share of the 200-mph pork. Then it won’t matter what Amtrak’s president says: we’ll pretty much be burying hundreds of billions of dollars in a hole in the ground.
Trains haven’t been economically competitive against buses and airliners as people transport for at least the last 60 years. They should go the way of passenger ship transport and be used for sightseeing and party excursions.
The future of passenger transport is automated demand-response systems, and to be most economical it should have small vehicles to carry one to six passengers. These can go non-stop origin to destination and have an average speed very close to their top speed.
To go really fast to compete with airliners it is necessary to eliminate wheels and aerodynamic drag. The solution is Evacuated Tube Transportâ„¢, which would have 6-passenger pressurized capsules suspended by magnetic levitation and propelled by linear electric motors at speeds up to 3000 miles/hour through vacuum pipelines. See http://www.et3.com.
Disclosure – I am an et3 licensee.
Tad Winiecki: The future of passenger transport is automated demand-response systems, and to be most economical it should have small vehicles to carry one to six passengers. These can go non-stop origin to destination and have an average speed very close to their top speed.
JK: Yeah, just like the today’s automobiles with an autopilot, like those currently under development and road testing, operating on free glowing highways.
Oops, “free flowing” highways.
The Autoplanner: Many people see high-speed rail as this generation’s version of the Interstate Highway System.
THWM: From 55mph with traffic lights to 60mph with out traffic lights.
Tad Winiecki: The future of passenger transport is automated demand-response systems, and to be most economical it should have small vehicles to carry one to six passengers. These can go non-stop origin to destination and have an average speed very close to their top speed.
THWM: We already have this, it’s called a taxi.
JK: Yeah, just like the today’s automobiles with an autopilot, like those currently under development and road testing, operating on free flowing highways.
THWM: It’s interesting to note Mr.Karlock that you of all people would want to relinquish control over your vehicle.
I’ll reply to Tad’s numerous misconceptions about technology in another post.
As The Antiplanner knows, I agree with him, to a point, regarding high speed rail. The travel corridors where 150 mph+ HSR could theoretically make sense, given its high cost, are severely limited in the U.S. In the vast majority of cases, being time competitive with driving is the most important thing, since air only serves a small fraction of intercity trips–something The Antiplanner acknowledges, but still pooh-poohs due to the lack of comprehensive, connecting transit networks in the U.S.
Part of the problem is that politicians–including Obama–like to focus on the fun of unveiling shiny new toys (as well as the associated pork barrel patronage) , and tend to focus the money into various funding “silos” such as “high speed rail,” “airports,” “rapid transit,” “bus rapid transit,” and so forth. On television, this sort of thing make it look like they are “doing something” even if what they’re doing isn’t coordinated with anything else or is effective. This is one reason why the “powers that be” in Silicon Valley, for example, focus on the shiny $7 billion BART extension rather than cost-effective solutions that could serve far more potential riders at an order of magnitude less cost.
To be successful, future intercity rail passenger service and other intercity transit must begin to be conceived differently. A major reason that the affluent little country of Switzerland has the second highest per capita level of rail and other transit usage on the planet compared to Japan (which has much more densely packed cities and severe traffic congestion), is that the Swiss have focused on the connections between various modes. Swiss trains aren’t particularly fast, reaching 125 mph on just one or two longer routes between Zurich, Bern, and Geneva. But Swiss trains are extremely frequent, and are totally coordinated with all other modes at virtually every train station.
The Swiss operate what I call a “pulsed connections network” where most modes at key stations meet at set times past the hour, allowing comfortable, quick “cross platform” connections. This allows the maximum number of markets to be served without costly service duplication. The Swiss system of connections contrasts rather starkly with the typical U.S. approach to “transfers”” too often a lone bus stop sign too close to heavy traffic, and often a mud puddle for company, while waiting 20 or 30 minutes for the “connection.” In Switzerland, the typical connection allows one to simply get off an arriving vehicle and walk across the platform, and then immediately board the waiting vehicle, usually in less than 30 seconds plus a few minutes wait before all vehicles leave simultaneously (some allowance for schedule adherence is needed, especially by the extremely time-conscious Swiss). This system of connections effectively eliminates the negatives associated with transferring routinely assumed by U.S. transit planners.
I’ve posted a copy of the 2003 TRB paper that discusses this issue and proposes a completely coordinated transit system similar to Switzerland in the S.F. Bay Area and environs at http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/TRB2003-002020.pdf.
Now to Tad’s misconceptions…which seem to be the standard delusion of PRT and other “high technology” evangelists…
Here is one of the key principles that I point out to my transportation consulting clients:
There are no such things as “19th Century Technology,†“20th Century Technology,†or “21st Century Technology.†The wheel is a 5th Millennium BCE technology. The Romans invented concrete. Be practical. Ensure that solutions fit the problem.
As someone on another email list pointed out about the severe constraints faced by introducing ANY new technology, even those that are clearly superior:
…and among technology buffs it is known as the “externalities argument.†Simply stated, it says that if a superior technology is introduced it will not be adopted as standard if it cannot interact economically with the existing embedded technology, especially if the latter already is widespread,widely accepted and expensive to replace or adapt to the new technology.
Example 1: Isombard Kingdom Brunel’s 7-ft-gauge Great Western Railway clearly was the superior railway technology that Britain should have adopted island-wide as its standard, but so much standard-gauge track (and station platforms, and viaducts, and tunnels, etc.) had already been built at huge cost that to replace them or adapt them to the wider gauge would have broken the British economy. Britain stuck with standard gauge, and ultimately the GWR had to be downsized to enable its stock to be interchanged with the rest of the system. The same thing happened to the 6-ft. Erie in the U.S.
Second example: In the 1960s and 1970s, Panasonic’s VHS home videotape system competed with Sony’s Betamax. In controlled, double-blind tests, groups of viewers were able to distinguish between the two systems on any TV monitor larger than 19 inches, and they universally reported that the Betamax picture was better. Nevertheless, VHS prevailed because Panasonic succeeded in getting more of its VHS players into more households first, and few households wanted to own two different technologies to play two different types of tapes. Likewise, the videotape rental stores did not want to rent sufficient floor space to stock a VHS and a Betamax version of each film. The inferiorâ€â€slightlyâ€â€technology won out because it became just too expensive to support the superior one.
Unlike Betamax, the jury is still quite out whether PRT and other allegedly superior technology that Tad is promoting is actually superior, and even if it works. I’ve taken a closer look at the two PRT technologies closest to deployment, the ULTRa technology that allegedly will open at Heathrow Airport in the “4th quarter” of 2009, and the “Vectus” PRT running around a test track in Sweden (and backed by Posco Steel of South Korea). I have my severe doubts if the ULTRa vehicles will hold up under the projected usage, given their heavy use of light duty automotive technology and components. On the other hand, the Vectus vehicle undercarriage is very complex, with many moving parts and potential wear points–e.g., 4 propulsion wheels, 4 guide wheels, plus 4 wheels in the complex on-board switching mechanism. In contrast, the moving parts of even the most complex rail vehicle is a model of simplicity. Vectus maintenance is likely to be very high for a 4-6 passenger vehicle.
Tad’s ideas for “evacuated tube” transport is probably more technically feasible, but I seriously doubt the economic, or ecological, logic behind the concept. Like PRT being highly unlikely to meet the contradictory economics of high cost fixed guideways servicing low travel volumes (e.g., it may be “feasible” with larger volumes of passengers, but so is BRT, LRT, and other forms of rail), evacuated tubes will have a huge starting energy disadvantage to overcome. Even in Switzerland, where the concept has gained some interest in the past two decades, economics still works against the idea, particularly the astronomical first cost. Why spend somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion U.S. so someone can get from Zurich to Geneva, in 35 or 40 minutes, vs. two hours by conventional 125 mph train?
Tad’s idea also faces another potential, likely fatal, challenge: aircraft that can be fueled by carbon free fuels that can be generated by renewable and nuclear electricity, such as hydrogen or ammonia. Given the problems with hydrogen, I’d bet on ammonia, due to the fact it is much easier to handle than hydrogen, is safer than jet fuel, and in principle, can be produced by any clean source of electric power and with a modest supply of water. See freedomfertilizer.com for a full exposition of this ALREADY PROVEN early 20th Century technology.
We have an efficient method for allocating resources: the market.
We have a government, one of whose principal functions is supposedly roads, though based on current indicators it exists to pay and glorify one eyed, lesbian, Inuit single mother welfare recipients, and other rent-seekers, mostly Democrats but with plenty of Republican snout in the trough. But I digress. My point was roads and the fact that only the government can efficiently expropriate land for roads.
Railroads are roads.
Why not try to let business have government expropriate the land needed for high speed rail, either greenfield or extant railbed, at the instance and cost of business? Answer: There ain’t no money in it and business would never ask for that.
There, the market just did a complex analysis, instantly, and told you that all those people who say they would just looove to ride a high speed train are liars. You’ll have to ask two questions: “Peter, would you ride this high speed train if we get Paul to help pay”. Answer: Yes, sure, absolutely. “Peter, would you ride this high speed train if you have to pay full cost?” Answer: Jeez, I dunno, I’ll get back to you.
Can the high speed rail enthusiasts not get it through their heads that something is efficient in precisely the degree that it satisfies the actual wants of its consumers? Actual wants as defined by exactly how much they actually spend, not by some half considered answer on a slanted poll.
If efficiency meant what they think it means, we’d all eat barely cooked porridge, own one shirt each and live in unfinished concrete spaces, rather than our recklessly inefficient finished homes full of steak, lobster and other goodies. Consumers do not care about engineering efficiency and never will. Indeed, I often think we loathe it, and prefer to do things a little bit the hard way.
Anyway, I don’t for a minute believe that high speed trains are more efficient from an engineering standpoint either. Too many obvious and laughable lies have been told me by proponents.
Nah, distributed processing is the way to go. The PC and Mac linked via an internet killed the dominance of the mainframe computer and automobile and trucks will continue to grind away at their mainframe analogue, namely rail.
All a buncha nonsense anyway. If you want high-speed, buy a motorbike and cruise around in the sunshine, as I’m off to do now on my Suzuki SV-650, which is more ‘efficient’, in both senses, than most of you lot and your vehicles will ever be.
Tad Winiecki wrote:
” The solution is Evacuated Tube Transportâ„¢, which would have 6-passenger pressurized capsules suspended by magnetic levitation and propelled by linear electric motors at speeds up to 3000 miles/hour through vacuum pipelines.”
Hello again.
Jim Karlock wrote:
“JK: Yeah, just like the today’s automobiles with an autopilot, like those currently under development and road testing, operating on free glowing highways.”
Only if the government indemnifies the car manufacturers against problems. Otherwise the first time that one of these cars crashes itself there will the mother and father of legal cases. Indemnities of this type already apply to computer software. A computer controlled car will also be this complex.
msetty wrote:
“Isambard Kingdom Brunel’s 7-ft-gauge Great Western Railway clearly was the superior railway technology”
It was also more expensive since every embankment, cutting, and bridge had to built wider. As originally built, it was also very flawed – the sleepers were laid lengthways, instead of across the track, leading to a very poor ride quality.
“Tad’s ideas for “evacuated tube†transport is probably more technically feasible, but I seriously doubt the economic, or ecological, logic behind the concept.”
IK Brunel built an evacuated tube system, but with the train on the outside, and the drive system inside the tube. It was an unmitigated disaster – it leaked continuously. By some bizarre process this new system will be built air-tight at only $2M/mile. This wouldn’t even pay for the rails or other guideway inside it.
Further, I wouldn’t want to be in one of those vehicles if it started leaking. Astronauts have to wear expensive space suits.
“Given the problems with hydrogen, I’d bet on ammonia”
That’s a very interesting idea, particularly since the ammonia can be produced using the Haber process. Let’s hope it doesn’t leak fuel, though, or JK’s glowing highways will be the very least of it. 🙂
My bet on the future of transport is the monorail, once the price tag has the correct number of zeroes on it.
My take is this:
http://www.transportpolicy.org.uk/Future/Monorails/Monorails.htm
But Obama said that we should implement “high-speed” rail because they are doing it “successfully” in Europe and Asia!
blacquejacqueshellac said:
We have an efficient method for allocating resources: the market.
THWM: What market?
If we had one, guys like Cox & O’Toole would have to get real jobs, instead of gallivanting around collecting corporate welfare cheques!
Ah so, highwayman, it’s all clear: jealousy. You think the antiplanner is overpaid.
Unlike you.
And me. That ratbastard antiplanner, how’d he do that, getting all those capitalist bastards to support him?
By the way, if there is no market, it’s because ratbastard leftists destroyed it. We rightists always try to take it over,but…we never succeed.
Again…
It’s bullshit with you libertarians, you all preach about this ultra capitalism crap, mean while you exploit the public domain to it’s fullest!
If Randal O’Toole or Wendel Cox were putting out constructive criticism, that would be great. Though that would mean being fair, reasonable and not attacking railroads & transit for the sake of them being railroads & transit.
ROT:Many people see high-speed rail as this generation’s version of the Interstate Highway System. In fact, since high-speed rail will mainly be used by the wealthy
ws:Pray tell, how many billions do airports get in grants and municipal backed bonds and what type of people travel by air? Fair is fair, and where is your criticism of this?
msetty is correct that old technologies prevail until new technologies are sufficiently developed. The old technologies don’t disappear either; there are still sailboats (I have a trimaran) and some people still ride horses for example.
blacquejacqueshellac is also correct that for most trips in a metro area the most economical transport is a motorcycle or scooter when all costs are considered. I usually ride my BMW R90S or Kawasaki KZ250 when I am going someplace alone and don’t have to carry something big or pull a trailer. A significant fraction of the the population isn’t licensed to drive a motorcycle or any motor vehicle and could benefit from personal automated transport. Many people use only automated elevators when they are available but elevators haven’t replaced stairs.
Francis King said:”By some bizarre process this new system will be built air-tight at only $2M/mile. This wouldn’t even pay for the rails or other guideway inside it.
Further, I wouldn’t want to be in one of those vehicles if it started leaking. Astronauts have to wear expensive space suits.”
Astronauts don’t usually wear space suits when they are in space stations. Passengers in the supersonic airliners didn’t wear space suits. The pressure difference inside and outside the ETT passenger capsule is one atmosphere or less. Many truck and bus air brake pressure tanks have a pressure of eight atmospheres, and the tires have a pressure of six or more atmospheres. Of all the design challenges, accidental leaks are among the least.
Cost on any large infrastructure project is a challenge that must be worked from start to finish. Most of you can cite projects where more than $2 million per mile was spent just on public outreach and hearings. The lowest cost will be for an isolated place with low labor costs, such as the 500th mile of pipeline in the Gobi desert built by an experienced Chinese construction crew.
55MPH national speed limit? I wonder if Boardman knows Conrail isn’t around anymore. 🙂
Conrail is still around. http://www.conrail.com/
HSR: Rarely wanted.
How often is a person going to be be at a “node”, within a ~1/3 sq.mi. & want to go ~89 miles to “that city”?
Over-priced. Underutilized. Realize! Not “that many have people” have the same destinations.”
Hi-man, following for your mentality:
Again, you say stuff with no substance & no support.
ie: accusations of “attacking railroads & transit for the sake..”
meaning ??? Who rides? Who wants?
You are very limp (non-biological statement) in your communication.
For the umpteenth time:
Transit is value for <4% of people.
Roads are value for 80%+ of adults, as drivers, 100% incl. delivery.
Roads are <1/4 non-user supported.
Problem with “general taxes” not supporting too much?
Most programs/policies are much more specific (fewer people).
It’s too bad that you did not use the education system that is available to all.
Your posts help illuminate how leftism doesn’t reason, nor use facts.
5Ws & H? Who cares? Just post an illogic & a ~riddle & cast doubt.
Highwayman —> Thanks. I had a good laugh on the Conrail one. That’s karma for making my snarky comment in the first place. 🙂
“How often is a person going to be be at a “nodeâ€Â, within a ~1/3 sq.mi. & want to go ~89 miles to “that cityâ€Â?”
Why won’t people just take transit to the station?
Scott said:
HSR: Rarely wanted.
How often is a person going to be be at a “nodeâ€Â, within a ~1/3 sq.mi. & want to go ~89 miles to “that cityâ€Â?
Over-priced. Underutilized. Realize! Not “that many have people†have the same destinations.â€Â
Hi-man, following for your mentality:
Again, you say stuff with no substance & no support.
ie: accusations of “attacking railroads & transit for the sake..â€Â
meaning ??? Who rides? Who wants?
You are very limp (non-biological statement) in your communication.
For the umpteenth time:
Transit is value for <4% of people.
Roads are value for 80%+ of adults, as drivers, 100% incl. delivery.
Roads are <1/4 non-user supported.
Problem with “general taxes†not supporting too much?
Most programs/policies are much more specific (fewer people).
It’s too bad that you did not use the education system that is available to all.
Your posts help illuminate how leftism doesn’t reason, nor use facts.
5Ws & H? Who cares? Just post an illogic & a ~riddle & cast doubt.
THWM: What you wrote is the irony of having “capitalists” denfending “socialism”.
Roads, railroads & transit benefit every one even if you don’t directly use them.
prk166 said:
Highwayman â€â€> Thanks. I had a good laugh on the Conrail one. That’s karma for making my snarky comment in the first place.
“How often is a person going to be be at a “nodeâ€Â, within a ~1/3 sq.mi. & want to go ~89 miles to “that cityâ€Â?â€Â
Why won’t people just take transit to the station?
THWM: Some will be by mass transit and some by other means(bike, foot, car, etc).
Ever wonder why there are automobiles called station wagons?
I’ve always assumed station wagons existed because some car designers were too hung over when cranking out some designs. 🙂
All aboard — for a wedding!
http://www.boston.com/video/viral_page/?/services/player/bcpid10609694001&bctid=23467259001
I agree with Amtrak President Joseph Boardman about high speed rail and with the Anti Planner about the limitations of train travel in general.
However, a viable network of regular speed trains would increase the number of available choices and opportunities for those who do not wish to drive, and those who cannot drive … which are not an insignificant number of persons.
It would seem to me that CHOICE is the elephant under the living room rug and seems odd that a libertarian or free marketers would want to keep it there.
As regards taxpayer money being spent on various and sundry boondoggles … that discussion seems to be one of kind rather than degree at this juncture in history.
Lorianne, assholes like Cox or O’Toole don’t want poeple to have a choice, even local train service!