Help Me Change Transporation in the United States

I've been a fan of Change.org ever since they hired my friend (and new father) Josh Levy. So when they launched a contest asking for creative ideas that could change America I put in my two cents and didn't give it a second thought.

That idea, to create a high speed bullet train system through major metropolitan cities has received over 800 votes on Change.org, propelling it into the next round of voting (original votes wiped away). The top ten ideas from this next round will be presented to the Obama administration. I wouldn't presume anything after that, but just that the president of the United State's cabinet would be briefed on ideas proposed by the citizenry is reason enough to celebrate.

Considering the opportunity - I decided to give my idea a third cent and a second thought.

I'm sensitive towards public transportation. Having grown up in Los Angeles and lived in New York I've seen the good and the bad. Now living in San Francisco I welcome the day when a high-speed bullet train might connect me and my fellow Los Angelinos in under three hours, for less money, less emissions and more comfort.

But why stop there? Why not connect Seattle and Portland? Then stretch from Portland to San Francisco, down to Los Angeles and San Diego.

I envision a future where one could get from Seattle to San Diego or Las Vegas in 8 hours by train. The same should go for the East Coast: Fro Miami to New York - we should should cut down on air travel and invest in a railway infrastructure.

Like my idea? Go vote for it. With enough votes we can pass on the idea to the Obama administration. Check out the other ideas too. I don't claim mine is the best - it was just how I decided to participate. Lucky for you - voting only takes... two seconds.

Comments

[Christopher Wink]

1.

Dave:
I can vibe with that but I always wonder if it will be so much cheaper. I live in Philly, amid our country's densest clusters of major metro areas. Amtrak connects them all, but the prices are often outrageous - high enough at least that I tend to take a bus instead. Why don't all business travelers, tourists and other visitors take trains from Boston to New York to Philly to Baltimore to D.C. to, even, as you suggest, Miami? Not necessarily because there aren't options, but that the options are too costly for casual riders. ....Can you work on that?

[Jakesommer]

2.

It's a great idea to connect cities with high-speed transportation however there are a few major draw backs from high speed rail. I will address your pros in the order you listed them: 1) Cheaper, 2) better for the environment and 3)easier for individuals, spurring commerce.

First, cheaper is not necessarily true. In Europe you can easily fly between most cities serviced by high-speed rail (HSR) on budget carriers for less than a HSR ticket. Even in the U.S. from NY to DC it costs somewhere in the ways of $250 for the 2.5 hr. Acela HSR ticket. You can find $150 fares on lots of major U.S. carries between DC and NY. I doubt the fare from San Francisco to LA will be much better cheaper but still you can fly that route for $150 rt also.

Secondly, HSR does not pollute as much as airplanes but its construction requires moving people just as the interstate highway system did back in the 1950s. The U.S. is densely populated and construction of HSR would require moving a lot of people from their homes and upsetting a lot of the people who remain close to the rail lines. Noise pollution is still pollution. Still faster than HSR is Maglev technology which is currently being used in China. This has the added problem that health risks might exist from the magnetic fields around the tracks(although this is still debated).

Lastly, I can agree with your point about commerce and I think it's the key selling point especially on a route from NY to Chicago which would tie the PA,MI,OH, and IN rust belts into a HSR corridor linking two of largest commercial centers in the U.S.

On this last point alone I think HSR needs to developed under the Obama stimulus plan but there are certainly pros and cons to this complicated issue.

[Gerard Barberi]

3.

OMG! I'm definitely voting this up. Oddly, I've been thinking the exact same thing the past few days. Flying is so damn expensive; we need to cutdown on gas consumption; and, a little competition between railways and airways can help drive down some prices.

[David Cohn]

4.

I'm working on it!!!

I do think one of the reasons why the prices are high between cities right now is that there is no competition.

[Jakesommer]

5.

Competition is much harder for railroads than airlines because railroads by their nature are highly capital intensive. An airplane can be purchased for only a few hundred million dollars but to lay high-speed rail lines it costs tens of billions of dollars.

With only a few exceptions private companies are not willing to build railroads anymore. There is one exception I can think of however and that is a new high-speed rail line in Italy that will directly compete with the Italian nationalized rail system, Trenitalia ( Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20080715/ap_tr_ge/travel_brief_italy_private_rail_service).

In the U.S. it would probably be much harder to create competition. Even if Amtrak were to privatized it would not solve this because it is only a passenger rail provider and does not own track in the U.S. outside of the DC to Boston NE Corridor line. Amtrack leases trackage rights from BNSF, UP or CSX freight providers throughout the rest of the country.

Potential investors would likely shy away from any offers to run passenger routes to compete with existing Amtrak service because they would still have to lease trackage rights from BNSF,UP, or CSX. These freight railroads are notorious for giving their trains preference over Amtrack trains (part of the reason Amtrack trains almost always run late). A lot of the railroad's ability to control its service would be out of its hands.

Even the big three freight RRs CSX, UP, and BNSF would be unlikely to run passenger trains on their potentially profitable routes. CSX for example has a line from NY to DC which runs parallel to Amtrack's NE corridor but 5 miles to the west (the former B&O RR). CSX simply believes it is more profitable to use the line exclusively for freight and not compete with Amtrack although nothing stops any freight RRs from starting passenger service.

The bottom line is it will take a government program or at least govt. support to create a San Francisco to L.A. route or a NY or Chicago line. This doesn't mean that the fares on these lines can't be low without competition but it means but it would have to come from the service provider who sees some rationale in keeping the fares lower for a quick, easy and enjoyable service.

France has very affordable fares on it's TGV service through out the country (Check out fares: http://www.tgv-europe.com/en/home/). French tax payers subsidize the SNCF fares but they can all benefit by taking high-speed trains throughout their beautiful country (and spending the money they saved when they get to their destinations).

[Bryan Murley]

6.

Dave, Great idea, but I would like to see more cross-country routes - even using Amtrak's current routes but with new track - The City of New Orleans could use a 21st century makeover.