Again, the clarion call for high-speed rail rings out across the land. It’s cost-effective, they say. It’s modern. It’s the way of the future. We need it. Japan has high speed rail, and look what it’s done for them. Italy, France, and Germany are all on board. High speed rail is the way to go.
Being well outside the mainstream on so many issues, I simply can’t fall in line with the popularly myopic view that high speed rail is the solution to America’s transportation woes. Just in terms of infrastructure it’s a bad idea. In terms of service, it’s worse.
I feel it is incumbent on me to mention in clear, unequivocal language that there is a far, far better option that is less expensive, faster, and infinitely more scalable.
But, we’ll get to that in a minute. First, let’s rip high speed rail a new one.
Right from the outset, and it’s worth getting this out of the way, high speed rail is great. At least it works well in some limited applications. But only for those who think small, live small, and design their system to serve a severely limited population.
This point of discussion isn’t exactly new, incidentally. These sleek, modern high-speed rollers began popping up in Japan in 1964. And the case supporting the speedy version of a 19th Century transport hasn’t changed much over the years. They’re fast. That’s pretty much the whole pitch.
AVG Italo has reached speeds of 356 mph, a hefty number for the fastest train in Europe. More typical daily top speeds are more like 223 mph, which is still pretty darned good.
Let’s get practical, though, using Japan’s Shinkansen as an example. The initial run from Tokyo to Osaka cut the typical travel time in half. The journey takes less than three hours now. A train had never covered a distance of 300 or so miles so quickly. The direct route is a bit shorter, at 247 miles, but then trains and roads are rarely if ever constructed in a straight line for such distances.
Over the years the service has transported literally billions of passengers with an outstanding safety record. It’s an unqualified success. Yet, that service linked only two cities. Just two. If you happen to live in Niigata, Akita, Yokohama, Hiroshima, or Kobe, you were out of luck.
To expand, as any truly viable national or international transportation system must, and Japan did, the financial status of Japan National Railways was stretched to the breaking point. To survive, the system had to be broken up into smaller private entities that operate independently. The resulting service is high speed, with huge passenger loads, and reliable service to a very limited number of destinations.
The same circumstance exists in other nations that have adopted high speed rail. Germany, France, and the UK have all dipped their toes into the high-speed rail pool, at great expense. And they’ve all benefitted in some way from the service. The question is, does that technology translate well to the US?
Keep in mind the US is nearly 30 times the size of Germany. Or, put another way, Deutschland is somewhat larger than Florida, but only about half the size of Texas. France is roughly the same size as Texas, although their BBQ isn’t nearly as tasty. England is even smaller than Germany.
Which brings us to the inescapable conclusion that these amazing, high-speed rail systems exist exclusively, and at great expense, in countries far smaller than the one we live in. They also stop at the water’s edge. A limitation that is undeniably inconvenient to International travel.
To be truly successful and productive, a national transportation system has to be…nationwide. The distance from New York to Los Angeles is nearly 10 times the distance from Tokyo to Osaka. That puts the establishment of rail service between just those two popular destinations at a dollar figure that would stagger any self-respecting accountant.
Even at full speed for the entire route with no intermediate stops, the journey would take more than 12 hours. United Airlines can get you there in half that time. Several competitors can get you there in a similarly quick manner.
Better yet, the airliner doesn’t require 3,000 miles of runway to do the job. Just about three to four miles of total runway length will do.
Adding even more flexibility and functionality to the aeronautical argument, that same aircraft isn’t limited to just two cities. It can carry hundreds of passengers and/or freight to any other destination anywhere on the planet, provided they have a couple miles of runway available, too.
All of this is true whether there are mountains, rivers, deserts, or oceans in between the departure point and the destination. Transport by air is fast, safe, reliable, more far-reaching, and much less expensive in terms of infrastructure.
The airliner doesn’t stop vehicular traffic at every intersection as it crosses the country, either. I count that as a plus, as does anyone who has been stuck at a railroad crossing for any length of time.
How about scale, though? Good question.
In 2019 roughly 4.5 billion people bought a ticket and traveled by air. That’s in just one year! With greater speed and at lower expense than could be accomplished by rail. This matters because a stunning number of products you keep in your pocket and your home also came by air. Your phone, for example, as well as a number of fresh food products sitting in your kitchen right now.
Aviation can literally serve any community in the world more quickly and at a lower overall cost. If time is money, then aviation is the dividend paying account we so badly need.
And that’s to say nothing of the General Aviation fleet. Of the roughly 210,000 aircraft in the US, only about 7,500 are in service at air carriers. That leaves more than 200,000 aircraft in the marketplace, teaching folks to fly, carrying the kids to grandma’s house for the holidays, or moving businessmen and women to appointments all over the map — and home again for dinner the same day. They travel locally and internationally without having to stop at every border they cross, without being delayed by a fallen tree on the tracks.
There is a place for high speed rail in this world. But in a nation the size of the US, with a population as affluent and mobile as ours is and will continue to be, air travel is a far, far more productive bet. Whether commercially or personally, it’s just a better deal all around. Let’s support it and believe in it, accordingly.
Trains make sense in some instances where you are traveling relatively short distances from downtown to downtown. But who does that? Contrary to many other places in the world (including Europe) Americans do not live in downtown silos and the vast majority of Americans have no interest in doing so.
When you take that into account it becomes obvious that trains’ real problem is the fact that they cannot compete with the automobile on short-medium distances and they also cannot compete with airplanes on medium-long distances. The automobile is extremely flexible and it is ready when you are to go exactly where you want to go. In order for trains to offer any kind of flexibility there must be lots of departures – but that means lots of half-empty trains and then the environmental argument goes out the window. And you still have to travel to/from the train station on both ends.
And even if hypothetically the environmental impact, ‘will be the economic bottom line in the next century’ it is certainly not like the airline industry has reached the end of its evolutionary path. We could build large, slow, super-fuel-efficient turboprops that would turn a coast-to-coast trip into a 12-hour ordeal with a half-way refueling stop – and it would still be way quicker than a train. As unpleasant as this solution sounds, it is probably more likely to happen than a coast-to-coast network of ‘high-speed’ trains.
I hate to break it to the train-people, but as anybody who has spent any amount of time in Europe will know, in spite of the enormous investments having been made on trains in Europe, Europeans are increasingly traveling by planes and automobiles – and NOT by trains. Just ask Ryanair and lots of other LCCs.
Biggest problem with new rail lines is the *astronomical* cost of obtaining right of way. Not only is it costly, it is slow. Often you have to go through eminent domain because someone flatly refuses to sell – which is their absolute right. Other times, “the word” gets out that the railroad is coming and everyone jacks up their prices because suddenly they can. I would too . . .
As a result, high(er) speed rail is usually attained by improvements to existing railroad rights of way. Sometimes these aren’t especially good because they are old, dating from the days of steam engines, not very straight, not banked correctly, inadequate clearances, and so forth. Fixing these is often slower and more costly than building brand new rail lines because you can’t take them out of service for a year or five while you work on them.
Then you run into “Who’s gonna pay for this?” Taxpayers don’t want to, often revenue falls short of even maintenance requirements let alone bond repayments, and then you get NIMBYs who don’t want the railroad anywhere near them because of (whatever).
Here in central Florida we have a thing called “Sunrail” which doesn’t quite reach Orlando International Airport or Disney on one end and the other end stops in essentially the middle of nowhere. As a result, ridership is low and revenues are inadequate to support it. If it were extended just a little further to OIA/Disney on one end and another 25 miles or so to Daytona Beach on the other, then it would be full all day long, it goes someplace. Right now, the local governments say it ain’t makin’ money, we ain’t paying to expand it – not realizing that if it *did* connect to anywhere people wanted to go, it would be a gold mine.
Florida East Coast Railroad, which runs from Jax to Miami has been talking about adding passenger service on their existing route for over 40 years so far . . . nothing.
Branson was involved with the south Florida railroad (Miami and north) and is going to extend to Titusville, turning west to OIA. He’s out, and they’ve decided Titusville isn’t getting a station after all. The right of way runs next to the Bee Line (528), which is the connection between the coast and the cruise line ports and Orlando. As a result, it is clogged with shuttle buses taking people back and forth to the cruise lines. They really ought to be taking the train, but sorry, no station in Titusville!
The era of railroad building is over in the USA. The railroads themselves often didn’t make money carrying people or freight, but instead made their money by selling the 20 miles of land on each side of the railroad that the government GAVE them to encourage them to build the railroad in the first place.
The ideal setup would be high speed rail for trips of 200/300 miles or so and air for longer trips, but the railroad infrastructure is archaic and astoundingly expensive to upgrade, so it isn’t going to happen. There’s a pair of railroad tunnels under the Hudson River, NJ to NYC, they’re a hundred years old and they are talking about several BILLION dollars to upgrade them. Whew!
I disagree with you on this one Jamie. If we only had an “either/or” choice, I’d go with aviation, but that isn’t the case. We can, and should have both. In a big country like this one, high speed rail doesn’t make sense if you are travelling from Seattle to Miami, but most trips in this country are much shorter. On trips between roughly 200 and 500 miles, commercial aviation is a PITA and doesn’t make much sense. You have to get to the departure airport 2 hours in advance, you have to suffer the indignities and hassle of TSA checks, you have another long wait at the baggage carrousel. and the destination airport is WAY out of town. For these medium distance trips, small planes are convenient. I know, because I have one, but economically, they are stupid. Yes, I just called myself a financial numbskull. The fixed costs make small plane ownership ridiculous from the standpoint of your pocketbook. I pay $350/month for a hangar, $2,600/year to insure my taildragger (and I have over 2,000 hours with a commercial ticket and an instrument rating), my annual inspection costs about $2300/year and on top of that, I spend about $60/hour in just fuel costs. I use my small plane for medium distance trips because I’m crazy about flying, not because it make any kind of economic sense.
High speed rail, on the other hand is a delight for mid distance trips like LA to Las Vegas, DC to New York, or Atlanta to Orlando and lots of other high traffic travel corridors. A couple of years ago, my wife and I took the high speed train from Madrid to Barcelona in Spain. That’s about 300 miles, and the trip only took 2 hours and 15 minutes. Better still, we got to the train station just 15 minutes before our train departed and we still had time to buy a gourmet lunch and something good to drink. If we wanted more, there is a dining car on the train. There was no hassle filled TSA line to go through, or any other security checks.. When we got to Barcelona, our hotel was walking distance from the train station and had us in a lovely part of the city. It was also 1/3 the cost of plane tickets for the same trip. It’s hard to beat easy, cheap, and fun travel, especially when the overall door to door time was shorter using the train than for flying. When was the last time anybody called commercial air travel fun?
For trips over 1,000 miles, I still fly commercially since it saves time and is actually cheaper than flying my own plane. Commercial aviation will always be best for those trips, whether here or overseas. Those mid distance trips are just soooo much better by high speed train. I mean that in terms of cost, overall time requirements, comfort and even fun. I’ll leave the assessment of financial viability for others to work out since my ownership of a small plane already identifies me as someone that can’t be trusted with sane financial analysis.
I think comfort is definitely a key argument here. Who likes to be shoehorned into a cramped airline seat with the guy in front of you reclining right into your lap?? We may use the airlines to travel long distances, but most of us spend the flight looking forward eagerly to the chance to get the heck out of that seat.
Trains, on the other hand, are spacious and comfortable, with large windows, dining and bar cars, and bathrooms that don’t feel like an airlock to hell.
” . . . let’s rip high speed rail a new one.” There’s nothing like flying the flag before you light the cannon!
As a thirty-year aviation professional, your argument fails on several fronts. One, you never consider total economic impact between the two systems. Two, you never consider total environmental impact between the two systems, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WILL BE THE ECONOMIC BOTTOM-LINE IN THE NEXT CENTURY. Three, you have contrary arguments, e.g. ‘you have high-speed rail in small European countries, but it doesn’t work economically. You can’t have high-speed rail in the US, because it’s too large, and won’t work economically.’ Is the US 12 hours runway to runway? Yes. How long is the drive to the airport? The wait in line for TSA? Is the flight delayed due to weather, manpower shortages (pilots and mechanics are needed now and in the future!)? I once spent seven hours waiting on the tarmac at Philadelphia due to weather. Seriously, I could have bicycled home faster.
I’m with the Acela rider and the hockey guy. Transportation pros know that to transport your widget (or, yourself) xxx-number of miles, use a truck (or bus), yyy-number of miles, cargo ship. zzz-number of miles, rail transport. Aircraft should always be the most expensive, because it’s fastest, and the most wasteful.
An interviewer once asked Fred Smith (FedEx Freddie) ‘why does FedEx charge x-number-of-thousands to ship a 180lb. package coast-to-coast, when an airline will fly a 180lb passenger for the same distance for a couple of hundred bucks?’
Fred Smith replied, ‘that’s why I fly cargo.’
When you fly the flag, make sure you have shot and powder for your cannon.
Bill
It makes sense in high density areas of a few hundred miles distance for transport from a downtown to a downtown. Certainly not ALL THE WAY across the country. Ever ridden Acela on the east coast? If it were more often, it would be fantastic. Traveling from DC to New York? It is a very quick Acela trip, and you go downtown to downtown. Literally right THERE. No schlepping out to Dulles going through 90 minutes of security and waiting at the gate and blah blah blah and then taking a taxi from JFK. Train gets you there cheaper, faster, less stress and using less energy to do it.
Great piece by Jamie Beckett.
Even in Europe which supposedly is well suited for high speed rail, low-cost air transportation is winning. And anybody who has tried to plan a cross-border rail trip in Europe will know why. It is slow, expensive, and a big hassle. And, the tax-paying part of the population still gets to pay for enormous subsidies to the government-owned rail companies.
Rail worked relatively well in the US during the first half of the 20th century, but it is now time to move on. But instead of arguing over it, why don’t we just wait for California’s taxpayer-funded, ‘high-speed’ train project to show us how it works before we pour any more money down that pit? That pig is going to require multiple layers of lipstick.
Transcontinental high-speed rail probably doesn’t make sense in the US or Canada, but it could make a huge difference in busy corridors like Boston-Washington, Quebec-Windsor, or perhaps even.(at a stretch) NY-Chicago.
Nobody’s building new airports near major cities, and when there’s not a pandemic, the existing airports are overwhelmed. if we could remove some of the short-haul commuter flights, we’d have fewer delays for the medium- and long-haul flights that do make sense in North America, as your article points out.