Donal's picture

    For and Against Rail

    By Donal on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 5:59pm | Technology

     
    I am in favor of a better, more extensive rail system, but I wonder if high-speed rail is cost effective and what we really need. As if to read my mind, The Infrastructurist features a four part series, For and Against High-Speed Rail, each with a con and pro position. 
     
    Part One quotes the head of the French national railway, Guillame Pépy, who is très grande pro high speed rail:
    Not only is train travel often faster than plane travel, he argues, but he also puts the case that it is more environmentally friendly. With domestic borders coming down across Europe’s railroads, he says there is an opportunity to challenge the Continent’s low-cost airlines. Initiatives such as Railteam, a joint marketing and ticketing operation with an alliance of train operators including Deutsche Bahn, allow passengers via one website to book high-speed rail tickets on networks across Europe. …

     

    “When you have good long distance high-speed trains you do not need a low cost airline. The chairman of Air France has always stated that in France the low cost airline is the TGV [Pépy's flagship service, the Trains à Grande Vitesse].”
     
    Part Two quotes Stanford historian Richard White, who is dubious:
    Proponents of the transcontinental railroads promised all kinds of benefits they did not deliver. They claimed that the railroads were needed to save the Union, but the Union was already saved before the first line was completed. The best Western farmlands would have been settled without the railroads; their impact on other lands was often environmentally disastrous.
     
    In Part Three, Michael Scott Moore defends high-speed:
    No one denies that high-speed lines need huge commitments by a government and by taxpayers. But that’s not the same as saying they’re unprofitable. The truth is that a high-speed train, done right, can earn enough to pay its own annual finance costs, the interest on debt incurred to pay for them. After many successful years, a well-placed line can even recoup the government’s investment. Eisenhower’s highways earned back their federal investment only because of a national fuel tax, which is still collected.
     
    Part Four's 'con' position is closest to my own:
    Today’s “against” position doesn’t so much oppose U.S. high-speed rail efforts as qualify them. In a recent issue of Washington Monthly, Phillip Longman argues that the United States should downgrade its ambitions for a true high-speed rail system and settle for “a slower, but potentially much better, rail system,” as the subhead puts it. Longman reached his conclusion after a recent trip to Germany in which he rode both a bullet train, the Intercity-Express #616, and a more conventional train, the West Rhine Railway, which is still faster than most American lines. 

    Longman sees many benefits of building a lot of West Rhine Railway wannabes in America, and many problems with building a true high-speed rail system. These include the expense, “endless litigation” and environmental review processes, and strong conservative opposition. As long as train trips can compete with air and highway travel, passenger rail will succeed, he says.

     

    Topics: 
    Technology

    Comments

    I skimmed the first tree, but number 4 is blocked ... domains.googlesyndication.com is blocked by my security software ... purposely.

    What I didn't see was a floorplan for a rail system, although there are hints all over the articles.

    A bullet train rail system is a necessity no doubt and does offer advantages an airport doesn't. Think about it ... where are most rail stations located in the US before they were torn down ??? Normally they were located in city centers thus eliminating the need for taxis and bus services ferrying passengers in and out of a city which was already serving the needs of the local population.

    A smart plan would link major cities following air traffic patterns with high speed rails which would terminate at local train stations. Passengers would then either get off because they were at their designated termination point or transfer to the slower, but efficient, local lines to continue their travels. They could even work out baggage check-in/check-out systems like airports too.  A high speed rail system coupled to local train rails would drastically cut down consumer demand for fuel.

    The trick for high speed rails is distance, time and money ... how far, how fast and how much. It doesn't make much sense to put in one where a local rail line is functioning because the time difference wouldn't be enough to justify the cost. But it would boost demand for the local line.

    But the public needs to be educated. I left military service in 1981 at the end of a 4 year tour in Europe where I learned to use the rail and bus services to get around. I was living in San Diego looking for work and found a position in Santa Ana ... Los Angeles area. I applied for the position and was offered and interview. At the time I didn't have a car so I took a bus to the train station in downtown San Diego and rode the rail to Santa Ana. The business office for the interview was only a city block from the train station. The interesting part of the interview was the interviewer was shocked I had arrived without a car ... he couldn't believe it was possible. I remember him asking if I were hired would I be moving up to Santa Ana. My rely was eventually ... the cost for train fare was really cheap and if hired I figured I could commute and take my time in locating accommodations in the local area. I didn't get the job and figured commuting from San Diego may have been an issue with him.

    I believe the biggest obstacle for all rail systems in the US will be for people to let go of their cars and use public transportation. Of course, it will be on those operating the rail systems to make absolutely sure they run on time and people have ample time to catch their connecting rail lines and their baggage isn't lost ... just like the airlines.

    As for fuel/energy ... has anyone figured out how much fuel/energy it costs to fly between LA and NY then determine the amount fuel/energy it would cost for a single non-stop bullet train to make the same run? Again, distance, time and money will be the determining factors if a high-speed rail system would be a feasible alternative to air travel or driving a car.


    by Beetlejuice on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 8:16am

    I fixed that link.

    Re jet vs train, here is a blog post about the relative CO2 emissions, which should be a clue to the energy used. 

    I just got quick quotes: A round trip ticket from Baltimore to NYC would be $204 coach on a regional train and $296 business on the Acela Express. Travelocity gave me a round trip cost of $327 to fly.


    by Donal on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 8:55am

    Thanks! The linkie workies now! Looks like I was on the right track after skimming the article too!

    Also note on that CO2 emissions blogpost, a Kg = 2.2 pounds so the ...

    London to Paris by Eurostar 3.5 hours, 244 Kg/CO2 2.75 hours, 22 Kg/CO2

    is informative.

    Also this ...

    Air Travel
    CO2 emissions in air travel vary by length of flight--ranging from 0.60kg CO2 per passenger mile to 0.40kg CO2 per passenger mile depending on the flight distance. Our calculator allows the user to take the issue of radiative forcing into account. (Sources: EPA Climate Leaders. For more information on air travel-related radiative forcing, please see this IPCC document.) *Assumes Coach Class, please contact us directly for business and first class emissions.

    Rail Travel
    The CO2 emissions for rail travel vary by distance of the trip. On average, commuter rail and subway trains emit 0.35 lbs CO2 per passenger mile, and long distance trains emit 0.42 lbs CO2 per passenger mile (Source WRI: Employee commuting spreadsheet.) For rail trips under 20 miles we calculate your emissions at 0.35 lbs CO2 per passenger mile, and over 20 miles we calculate at 0.42 lbs CO2 per passenger mile. Transportation conditions vary in real life beyond what can be estimated. To ensure that our rail calculators fully covers your trip, we add 10% to the total mileage of your trip to account for potential detours, stop-overs, and other issues that may arise on your trip.

    http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/carbon_calculators/category/Assumptions

    As for what the weight means, here's an example they give with a motor vehicle ...

    Unleaded gasoline has 8.91 kg (19.643lbs) of CO2 per gallon

    That's 2.2 pounds to a Kg


    by Beetlejuice on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:56am

    Interesting stuff, Beetlejuice. So, if unleaded gas has 8.91 kg of CO2 per gallon, then a car that gets 30 mpg would presumably emit about 0.3 kg of CO2 per passenger mile when carrying a single passenger, which isn't that far off from the 0.60 to 0.40 kg you mention for air travel. More precisely, cars with and 14.9 and 22.3 mpg, respectively, would correspond to those emission levels for air travel.


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 07/18/2011 - 11:07am

    Latest Comments