Leland Teschler's Editorial: Taken for a Ride: Pros and Cons of High-Speed Rail
Appears in Print As: Leland Teschler's Editorial: Taken for a ride
One of the most active topics on the Machine Design forums has been the pros and cons of rail lines. Now that gas prices have begun to creep up again, it might be a good time to revisit the idea. It is all the more interesting in light of the Obama administration's plans for a new national network of high-speed passenger rail lines. Proponents want to put up 10 intercity lines running between 100 and 600 miles long. They say the result will be less traffic congestion, less dependence on foreign oil, and an improvement in the environment.
Yet if the experiences of Europe and Japan are any guide, high-speed rail lines will do none of those things.
Wisdom on this subject comes from Randal O'Toole, an economist and public policy analyst who has studied rail use. He points out that mass transit carries only 1.5% of all urban travel in the U.S. Transit ridership did indeed rise slightly last year when gas prices went to the moon, but the increase was a meager 3.4% over the year before. The effect on traffic congestion was insignificant.
Adding high-speed trains to the mix is unlikely to change things. For proof, says O'Toole, look at Europe and Japan. The average resident of Japan logs only 400 miles/year on bullet trains. In France the figure is 300 miles/year. And despite a lot of subsidized train lines in Europe and Japan, the car is still the preferred mode of transportation in those parts of the world. Europeans drive for 79% of their travel; residents of Japan, over 60%. In the U.S. the figure is about 85%.
Such statistics tend to shatter the American stereotype of Europeans as inveterate train riders. The reality is that in Europe, bus and rail lines are becoming less popular. Between 1970 and 2000, bus and rail travel there lost "market share," dropping from 23.2 to 14.9%, with the difference made up by more travel by air and by car.
And it turns out that rail transport isn't particularly "green." Light rail consumes about as much energy per passenger mile as the average passenger car. Measured this way, neither heavy rail nor commuter rail is as fuel efficient as an ordinary Prius.
The situation is similar for emissions of greenhouse gases. Electricpowered transit is "green" only when its electricity comes from nuclear, hydro, or renewable sources. In places where most electricity comes from burning fossil fuels (as is the case in the vast majority of U.S. locales), rail transit generates more greenhouse gas than cars.
Surprisingly, there is a much simpler way to reduce greenhouse gases and use of petroleum than with expensive and hardly used rail lines: Stick with ever more fuel-efficient cars and coordinate traffic signals. The Federal Highway Administration claims three out of four traffic signals aren't properly coordinated with their neighbors. In fact, one signal coordination project in Silicon Valley that cost $500,000 saved motorists about 471,000 gallons of fuel annually, more than paying for the project in the first year. Figuring 19.5 lb of CO2 emitted/gallon, estimates are the project cut greenhouse-gas emissions at a savings of about $200/ton.
The problem with such common-sense ideas, of course, is that they can't generate the kind of front-page news that trumpets boondoggle rail projects.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Newsvine
Furl
Facebook
Google
YahooAdvertisement
Machine Design Product Search
Supplier Search
Plastics Search
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
High Speed Rail
As a relatively frequent traveler to Japan, I ride the high speed rail system virtually every trip. I use it between major cities on single islands. I believe it replaces commuter flights that we use here in the US more than auto usage. Although not running full, they are never empty either. My observations would say that seat usage during rush hours is as high as 70 percent, and off hours about 40 percent. From Tokyo to Fuji city, or Hiroshima for example, it is a great way to get there, at a decent cost. Certainly there is still a great deal of auto traffic, but here in the US we would probably fly to many similar destinations. Comparing High Speed Rail's impact on Commuter flights is more significant than auto travel.
Highspeed trains
I realize that the article is an editorial, so opinion is acceptable, but instead of calling in pros and cons, just call it cons.
The article has holes in its application of the "facts".
First of all, the picture painted about Japan and Europe and auto travel does not reflect what I saw when I was in Japan, England and Germany. Granted, I was there in the early 90s, and it may have changed that drastically since, but I doubt it.
Under-utilization of rail does not negate its validity as a means of transporation. Of course, 3% of the population riding the trains is going to have little effect on congestion of the roads. What needs to be asked is what happens if 50+% rode the trains.
Instead of comparing the trains effeciency and greeness with a Prius, which few people drive, make the comparison to an SUV, which up until gas hit $6/gallon was the vehicle of choice for many. The automakers were severely criticized for building SUVs and the like, but bottom line, those vehicles were what were selling best.
Also the mileage used in the comparison, was it EPA highway, EPA city, or was it when the car was sitting in idle waiting to inch forward ievery few minutes in a traffice jam, or while waiting for a train to go by?
Anecdotal evidence from
Anecdotal evidence from almost 20 years ago doesn't carry much freight, er weight.
As to what happend when more people opt for mass transit, we found out in Cleveland. When gas prices spiked last fall, ridership on bus and rail went up by about 10%. The head of the transit department said the extra passengers were adding costs and if trends continued, he would have to hike fares and drop routes. Practically every mass transit system in the world looses money with each passenger. With a set up like that, it's tough to make a profit by adding volume.
Had I been trying to use my
Had I been trying to use my observations while off-shore as evidence, I would not have stated that they were made almost 20years ago.
As far as trains losing money with increased ridership, I can only take your word for it, because I am not one to argue with facts. However, I'd have to see how it can be.
I still say that the arguements in the editorial have holes in them (based on the information given) for those of us who have not already formed an oprinion in the matter.
So if you were going to use
So if you were going to use them as evidence, you would've left out some salient points. That might be good high-school debating style, but it will not lead to intelligent discussions or outcomes. And if the observations aren't evidence of anything, I wonder why you included them.
As to how increassed ridership increases cost, Clevleand RTA said more passengers adds to fuel costs (more weight takes more fuel to move it), and additional wear and tear on cars, tracks, and stations. And my cynical side says management and Unions would soon want raises since they served so many more people.
Trains Are On the Wrong Track
It appears that the Train people are locked into a business model that has not kept up with the times. Instead of shoving rail down our throats, they should be trying new ideas to make people want to use their mode oftransportation (Artificially raising the cost of automobile travel does not count!!!). For new ideas, how about long distant trains that allow a person to take their car with them? That would work great for vacationers and the snow birds traveling south for the winter. Also, how about busses that can travel both on rails and streets like some of the railroad service vehicles. It would allow the bus to utilize the rails where it makes sense and also to deliver people to their final destination instead of a station miles away.
Amazing, and I thought people really tried to analize things
Most of the pictures I've seen of the Japanese Bullet trains there are people pushing people in so that they can close the doors. From the discriptions of the crowding on the French trains it would seem to be close to the same in France. I have ridden the rails in the Baltimore area they were not crowded but they were limited as to where you could get to without a lot of transfering to buses that didn't come often. Driving in the area was never fun and parking was expensive and hard to find close to where I needed to go. A Geo metro gets pretty good mileage but when you go to a destination 10 miles a way and end up driving another 10 looking for parking it makes no sense at all. What is really needed is a comprehensive system that works to get anywhere at any time without a great deal of difficulty. Those who are in their thirties, forties, and even sixties have it easy wait until you are in your seventies and eighties and would like to go somewhere and there is inadequate public transportation. It is amazing in Portland to hop the Max and go downtown or out to the airport in a reasonable amount of time, and the system is expanding into the neighborhoods where my grandchildren live to bad only that it wasn't done years ago, I could travel more often to see them if it was. Cars are for those who are young when you are older you will wish that the system had been expanded and maintained.
Additional Cost Factor
Thought I'd add that with rail getting somewhere uses more energy than just the train energy. Home--> Rail station A--> Rail Station B--> Destination. With personal auto it goes Home--> Destination. So unless you live very close to and travel to a destination close to the stations, the personal auto is more effective.
But cities are going toward centralization. So the rail may still have some value. Personally I'd like to see more rail, but I don't endorse tax money in the billions as good and right. Several million is OK with me.
Apples and oranges
Why compare miles driven by entire population to rail commuter miles? How about commuter miles on train vs. road for same metro area? There are enough metro areas in the US without any commuter rail to skew these statistics.
It's fairly hard to compare use of high-penetration, widespread passenger networks (European or Japanese) with the US commuter rail networks.
I am a rail enthusiast but also a commuter rail skeptic. The best argument against using the Spanish high speed rail as a model for future US bullet trains is found in an article in last month's Int'l Rail Journal: Spain uses GSM-R for traffic management. What alternate traffic management infrastructure should we implement stateside?
Thanks for your well written editorials. As always, I enjoyed reading it.
Taken for a Ride
Boy IF I could teach and display how rails and wheels work!!! This is not a subject taught in school or on the job....RealRail is the way to go. Rolling friction is so miniscule due to surface contact that a few guys can push hundreds of tons of rolling stock by hand as long there is nothing like even a grain of sand on the track...the reverse (stopping) means lacking surface friction takes at least half a mile to stop....BIE...Braking In Emergency locks up wheels to burn and grind FLATS...round wheel with square edge often seen on freight cars. President Obama wants High Speed Rail but has never stepped upon a track!!
High Speed Rail requires decent rails on a stable base. Ties upon ballast securing rail with spikes cannot support HSR....it takes new/hard ballast, precast concrete ties with suspension/Panduit clips and welded rail. Europe and Japan were bombed into STONE-AGE to start anew and we still run rails dating to back to Civil War. NYC subway tracks despite the hard work of crews stink so that CBTC is the only way to move trainzzz efficiently....there is no USS Enterprise and warp speed drive. Except for heavy freight rail, way to go is efficient personal motor vehicles using better tires.
Leave a comment