High-speed rail, long considered the future of fast medium-distance travel, is in trouble. California’s grand plan for a statewide high-speed network is mired in cost overruns and may never be built. New Jersey has cancelled a planned tunnel under the Hudson River, which would have cleared a key bottleneck in the Northeast Corridor. Straightening out the slow, curvy rail corridor between Boston and New York would be hugely expensive and take years.
But there is another option for expanding our intercity transportation capacity at much lower cost: reform of our nation’s airports and airways. By changing the way we charge airlines to use airports, we can get a lot more travel out of the infrastructure we already have — and reduce fares and delays while we’re at it.
Comments
Absolute rubbish, start to finish! High-speed rail has become the preferred mode of transportation everywhere else in the world, and Amtrak's Northeast corridor service, for all its flaws and imperfections, is a resounding success. Whether for business or pleasure, travelers between New York and Washington have a choice: they can fly or they can take Amtrak. And -- Lo! And behold! -- 60 percent are choosing Amtrak! There are almost a dozen other corridors around the country with similar distances and population densities where high-speed rail would mirror the service and, no doubt, the success that Amtrak is experiencing in the Northeast. If California's proposed high-speed rail system is in trouble, it's largely because of the shameful misinformation campaign being waged by ultra-conservative "think tanks", most of which are at least partially funded by oil companies, airlines, the highway lobby and the foundation bankrolled by the infamous Koch brothers. Hopefully, Americans will soon start to ask why dozens of countries around the world have all determined that high-speed rail is the way to go.
I also think that high-speed rail is preferable to flying but probably for different reasons. We burn too much fossil fuel flying jets. NEW PARAGRAPH As much a I hate to say it, we already have the ability to tavel quickly and efficiently between cities. It's called the automobile. Take your standard BMW sedan and think about what it does well. For driving around the city with all the useless travel we as Americans do, it is miserable. There are few things in life more ridiculous than sitting in clogged traffic in a BMW sedan. But on the open road a car does very well. If you need to travel faster than it takes to drive a car from Boston to NY, your trip itself is un-necessary. Why do people travel to NY? If it's for visiting family I say move closer. We don't need to build a ten billion dollar rail line so you can visit your Aunt Jean for three hours. Nor do we need it so some business man can commute, (I say move closer) or do a meeting (do it on-line). And finally if you think we need high-speed rail so that you can run down to NY for entertainment purposes then you are living in some kind of Jetsons fantasy.
Preferred mode of transportation? Only in the sense that governments heavily subsidize rail travel.
This is an excellent analysis. Let's put infrastructure funds into rebuilding roads and bridges, not into hugely expensive rail projects with few riders.
Good point. Why travel at all? Just move closer. RIGHT.
I personally have to go to New York a couple of times a month, since I manage teams here and there. Train is not only faster and safer then driving, I can work on the train. Plus it's downtown to downtown. All the plane options put you 45 minutes out of town. The train isn't the solution to every problem, but it's perfect city to city.
We are way behind many other countries in high-speed rail. Airport travel is unpeasant,crowded and,lately,a huge hassle with the overcrowding,extra fees,inspections and long time allotment for getting on the plane.It is necessary to get there at least an hour early for domestic flights.Airports are located where u have to take a cab or drive and pay to park your car for the duration of the trip.They are best-suited for business people with expense accounts.Planes were never meant for everyday trips for most of us. Many of us prefer trains, at least most of the time.They are more comfortable and leisurely.Train stations generally have charm and character and a local flavor.South Station comes to mind.Train projects are described as too costly but are a very worthwhile investment.Ask European and UK countries. Huge amounts of taxpayers money are being spent.It's a matter of spending priorities.
This opinion piece fails to mention that the reason heavier aircraft are charged more is because the heavier the craft, the more wear and tear, reflected in runway maintenance costs, to the tarmac. Also, Ozark, as of the most recent accounting from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail subsidies are $1.5B annually, versus $45B annually for air subsidies. The nationwide subsidies for public transit are about $46B, and the total annual subsidies for highways are $122B. Intercity rail is a bargain.
Yeah, we travel too much. That's a reality. We ruin the environment with all of the useless travel. We don't need to travel as much as we do and we certainly don't need to do it so quickly. If you want to travel to NY, fine. Drive down there. But the trip itself is not needed.
We need multiple modes of transportation and air, rail and bus are the obvious ones at present. One of the results of 9/11 should have been that relying on airlines alone is foolish from a national security standpoint, if for no other reason. For several days the country came to a halt, unless you could get a seat on Amtrak or Greyhound. Air travel is the mode of transportation most vulnerable to foreign attack. Not taking that into consideration is foolish, and possibly disastrous.
We don't need a kabillion dollar high speed rail for you to go to NY for that purpose. Sure it would be convenient for you, but the payback to society is negligible to non-existent. Pick a team and manage it. Or do your meetings through email and video conferencing. Or drive down there yourself. The cost is not justified from a macro economic standpoint or from a societal standpoint. I'd love to jump on that kind of train too. There are just too many other things that this country has to work on. High-speed rail is way, way down on that list. You're asking the rest of us to pay for your private office (air conditioned rail car) so that you can get some work done. Rent some office space and spare us.
I should have also mentioned that another result of 9/11 is the discovery of the large amount of pollution spewed by airliners.
This piece doesn't begin to tell the story. "New Jersey" canceled a train tunnel? No, the Republican governor of NJ canceled the tunnel. A lot of NJ'ites - especially those who commute - thought doing so was a huge mistake and they were right.
I haven't seen reports on reduction in pollution during the week following the 9/11 attacks, but you are right on target regarding the need for multiple modes of transportation. Infrastructure needs were what drove the creation of the interstate highway system, after all.
Eight hours to Washington DC by train versus 55 minutes by plane.
Few riders?? Ozark obviously has never taken the Acela, it sells out most trips, Amtrak is adding additional cars to the existing train sets. Good services does bring riders.