A National Strategy for Rail

After two days of meetings in Abu Dhabi that included a long series of convenings on public transport, this story in the The Economist hits home.

"France, Japan, Spain, Germany, all have trains that zoom through the countryside at speeds up to 217mph (350kph). America has one 'high-speed' rail corridor, from Washington to Boston, on which trains average about 80mph. With new federal cash, rail enthusiasts hope to convert a car-loving country to their cause. High-speed rail holds vast promise, from easing congestion (and speeding the flow of goods and services) to reducing carbon emissions. By April 18th Ray LaHood, the secretary of transport, must present a strategic plan for how the money will be spent. Those hoping for a Shinkansen in their suburb, however, will be disappointed."

As the article warns, though, America's plans for high-speed rail are not so high speed.

"Many plans would make trains high-speed only in a relative sense. Proposals that are cheaper than California's are also much slower. A plan for the Chicago-St Louis line, for example, would speed up trains from 79mph to only 110mph. Multiple road crossings require trains to move more slowly than in Europe. Adding to the problem, most passenger trains run on track owned by freight railways. Congestion makes service less reliable."

The U.S. doesn't even yet have a consistent model for evaluating the various competing corridors.

High speed rail can make an important contribution to America's competitiveness but only if it solves actual problems. That means we have to get it right, without compromise and without fudging.  I'd rather do it right in one corridor than do it slower, cheaper and wrong in several.

  

There are no comments for this entry.

Post a Comment

Name:* E-mail Address: URL:

Comment*

Please type the word below*

Please leave the following field blank:

*Required fields (your email address will not be published)