Will high-speed trains solve our plane problems?
Looks as if the politicians and pundits are trying to harness our collective anger against the U.S. airline industry to make a pitch for their pet projects. High-speed train, anyone?
That’s the answer that Bruce Reed, president of the Democratic Leadership Council and Paul Weinstein of the Progressive Policy Institute, have proposed to the problem of worsening airline delays and service declines.
In the short term, passengers have two choices: fly less or pay more for an inferior service. But if the United States is serious about fixing the air-travel mess, there’s a real, long-term solution: high-speed rail.
That’s an idea I supported several years ago, too. It wasn’t so much a political — or even a policy — statement, as it was a practical one.
We have to ensure that there’s adequate redundancy in our [transportation] system, even on the transcontinental routes where airlines currently have no competition. That’s where the money should be going - not to subsidizing our failing airlines.
Forgive me for being skeptical. But I live in Central Florida.
Unfortunately, even though train ridership is higher than ever, calls for high-speed rail (or any mass transit system) is unlikely to click with the traveling public until the pain increases significantly. I’m talking $200-a-barrel gas and pre-deregulation prices for airline tickets.
And we’re not there. Yet.
You may also be interested in these articles
Comments
5 Responses to “Will high-speed trains solve our plane problems?”
Please share your thoughts...
You’re probably right, but some of us can dream.
At least people are talking about it though, right?
I’m taking the Acela from Boston to Philadelphia this week instead of flying. (In my case, it’s medical, not political, and the price was about the same when I got my tickets.) It will take three hours longer to go by train than to fly, and over an hour of that time is the difference in getting to the train station (by subway) instead of driving to the airport. (At the time of day I’m going, it will take too long for my husband to drive into town and drop me off and then get home in time to get our son to school.)
And because the Acela only has business and first class seating, I’ll have a power port at my seat and time to actually do some work if I choose. Chances are good that it will leave on time, too ;-)
I really do wish that our ground transportation options were improved. Personally, I prefer the train to air travel and just wish it actually fit into the “Need to leave and arrive Friday so I can come back Sunday” American life style. If there was a train that left MI and arrived in Florida within 24 hours and with only a few stops you can bet it would be packed! Same time as driving but without the hassles. aaahhh to dream!
Nina:
You’re right; it would be packed.
I will say, however, that I’ve seen quite an improvement in the Detroit-Chicago line over the past couple of years. A 5-hour train ride is quite different from a 24-hour one, but, hey, you gotta start somewhere.
The amount of political will required to bring this about will be staggering. This requires the laying of new rails; existing track (a) is owned by freight railroads who prioritize their own traffic over passenger traffic, and (b) is wholly unsuited to high-speed service (rail joints, turn radii, at-grade crossings, lousy railbed, and on and on…). Generally that will require new rights-of-way, which means either expensive land purchases or condemnation via eminent domain, which is expensive in terms of lawsuits and political capital/good will.
If you thought the old “who gets an interstate exit” arguments were bad, imagine the arguments about who gets a stop on a high-speed cross-country rail line. Which states get construction money and concession money. Who builds the power plants (’cause the only way this works is with electrified lines). How those rail lines are secured (Barcelona, anyone?). ANd, most critically, who gets the contract to run the thing? No way you have competition (multiple rail lines, multiple train operators); too expensive, too capital-intensive. The US Government would have to build it and then farm out operations.
Personally, I’d vastly prefer reliable high-speed train travel to the modern hades of air travel. But there’s no way I’m going to spend 24 hours sitting in a coach seat, let alone 48. Sleeper space is capacity limited; today, for example, Amtrak sets the price of sleepers just high enough that demand matches supply. Too many people complaining about sold-out sleepers? Jack up the price until enough folks say “No way!” That’s unlikely to change.
It’s gonna have to get waaay uglier for this to pan out.