SecOfTrans Ray LaHood in Europe

Rode the TGV, says it's a "magnificent system":

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124354749274164117.html

I always held that the Journal edited the Reader's Comments before posting; evidently such is not the case (five posted at present, the paste of one such should be within the scope of Fair Use);

• Trains ARE a 19th century form of transportation. All great when you go "local", but it does not work to go to Chicago from NYC. That is because all the "great" train rides in Europe, are Boston-DC or less in terms of distance.
  
  OK, lets implement Bos-DC, LA-SFO, and a couple more, and make sure we ALL subsidize it for the travelers. Will then you train people shut up?
  
  Get a map, a calculator, and figure out that Bos-Chi is 2 hrs by plane, and no train is going to do it in less than 24 hrs. Keep your train, I need to GET there, and be back home.
  
  All of you train freaks, is the reason we need better math/science education, (and it turns out geography too!).

The link only goes to a shortened version of the article. You can read the whole article by accessing through a google news search using terms "Europe listens".

Other related articles:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... xT3lnyIszQ

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/busin ... ns.html?em

While Sec. LaHood went to Europe, there was an HSR conference in Seattle this week focusing on improving speed and service along the Cascades Corridor. Various bigwigs from Siemens, Talgo, Stadler and others made presentations for their companies and commented on the Obama HSR initiative. Overall, my impression is that all the manufacturers are watching the process with some interest, but they've all seen how the system works and they're not getting too excited about the prospect of HSR in the USA. First, they know that $13 billion doesn't buy much choo-choo and second, they know that their products don't mesh well with the FRA's paradigms regarding safe railroad operations. We know that Talgo has spent a lot of money trying to get established in the USA, and probably most of that money has gone down the drain. Siemens spent over $10 million creating a design for the Midwest HSR proposal and, of course, we know that Siemens hasn't sold a single car to Amtrak. But fortunately for Siemens, the Midwest design work was applied to the Railjet train that was purchased by the OeBB (Austria). If you look at the Austrian Railjets , you are seeing what Siemens hoped to have serving the upper midwest region of the USA, except with diesel traction.

I think Sec. LaHood is going to have a good time riding the trains, but once he gets a look at the cost of building HSR/USA he's going to realize that there's a big job ahead. Critics are correct when they point out that HSR is expensive, but I ask them to calculate the cost of not building better rail infrastructure. We don't need HSR from Seattle to Chicago, but there are plenty of places where HSR is appropriate and cost effective.

But fortunately for Siemens, the Midwest design work was applied to the Railjet train that was purchased by the OeBB (Austria). If you look at the Austrian Railjets , you are seeing what Siemens hoped to have serving the upper midwest region of the USA, except with diesel traction.

Very interesting. I always wondered why Austria chose a push-pull design for their new service rather than an EMU design. So the Midwest's loss was Austria's gain. Sad, but seems to be the case often nowadays...

Gilbert B Norman wrote:I always held that the Journal edited the Reader's Comments before posting; evidently such is not the case (five posted at present, the paste of one such should be within the scope of Fair Use);

• Trains ARE a 19th century form of transportation. All great when you go "local", but it does not work to go to Chicago from NYC. That is because all the "great" train rides in Europe, are Boston-DC or less in terms of distance.
  
  OK, lets implement Bos-DC, LA-SFO, and a couple more, and make sure we ALL subsidize it for the travelers. Will then you train people shut up?
  
  Get a map, a calculator, and figure out that Bos-Chi is 2 hrs by plane, and no train is going to do it in less than 24 hrs. Keep your train, I need to GET there, and be back home.
  
  All of you train freaks, is the reason we need better math/science education, (and it turns out geography too!).

A couple of things for the writer of this "Reader Comment" to consider:

1. Does he know of a way to power a jet airplane with something other than petroleum-based jet fuel? If not, should we waste the planet's finite supply of petroleum by traveling Boston-DC, LA-SF, D/FW-Houston, Houston-San Antonio, D/FW-San Antonio, DC-Atlanta, Chicago-St. Louis, and St. Louis-Kansas City by air?

2. If rail travel along the above-mentioned corridors can be improved so that it's faster than car travel, wouldn't it be better to reserve petroleum for long distance air travel and use electrified HSR for medium distance travel such as the aforementioned corridors?

At the risk of infringing upon rights held by Dow Jones & Co (postings to websites customarily become property of the siteowner lest we forget), I have added here the comment I made to the material. At times, such as on weekends, the Wall Street Journal site is free content, but that is hit or miss to non-subscribers. Prince Rupert, may I have a pass or must i be sentenced with having my Times and Journal home delivery replaced with one of your British "tabs"?

The reporting of Mr. LaHood's European Joyride could well lead a person uninformed of railroad industry affairs to believe that the "$8B for High Speed Rail' enacted under ARRA '09 will create a national high speed passenger rail system analogous to the Interstate Highway System. But the hard truth is , in view of that such must be allocated away from the Northeast, the requisite pile of consultant reports (after all, THEY need "stimulus" too) will of course materialize, but tangible improvements will be a segment of track here and there will be upgraded to permit more efficient passenger train operations - and not much more.

Let us not forget that the 400 mile San Fran LA high speed rail initiative has a reported price tag of $45B, and if such is ever to move forth - cost overruns will certainly be part of the landscape.

The only rail passenger model for the 21st century is that which provides fast, reliable,, and frequent service through a region that has population density needed to support frequent service and where if the rail service was not offered, additional, and far more costly, infrastructure such as highways and airports would need be built in order to ensure free movement of people within that region. That of course means the Northeast Corridor Boston to Washington. It also means to a lesser extent the Southern California Corridor of Santa Barbara to San Diego. There's "been talk" of a Midwest Corridor which would comprise lines converging in a hub at Chicago, but I do not hold that such could generate economic and efficient transportation for the region.

Additionally, Amtrak does operate a system of Long distance trains that cover enough of the country with a once-daily frequency to ensure some larges is passed about the land and hence ensure the needed legislative majority for continued funding of the quite regional Northeast Corridor (the California Corridor noted is primarily funded at State level). While these Long Distance trains are reasonably filled with roundly an average 200 passengers aboard. The amount of transportation they provide can only be considered minuscule, save the hobbyists, excursionists, "can't drive/won't fly", and the few people traveling between points on a route for which they are convenient, they are essentially non-entities. As Mr. LF notes above, it is simply unreasonable to expect one from the general public to expend 24 hours traveling Boston to Chicago, when such can be flown in maybe six - including formalities and transfers.

Finally there is the 800lb gorilla in the room that Mr. Rabe notes, and that is Corporate America will be taking a hard hard look at the need for business travel to such as conferences that as technology marches onward can be replaced with teleconferencing. All of the travel industry must be concerned just on what King Kong will want to have for lunch.

Most of the rail expansion funded by ARRA is going to be, viewed from a European perspective, simply an upgrading of the existing conventional rail lines. A true 220 mph HSR system won't fit onto most of the existing freight/passenger shared rights-of-way. Track centers are further apart for HSR and the radius of a HSR curve is much longer than a conventional freight curve. The WSJ commentator is more-or-less correct: Euclidean geometry won't allow a true 220mph HSR system to co-exist with a Class IV freight system.

So are we wasting $13 billion on upgrading our existing rail systems? I don't think so.

The interstate highway system is clogged and decaying. Highway funding is heading for a big crash. The highway trust fund isn't bringing in enough money to pay for the already planned maintenance and expansion projects. (I believe it was $8 bn short last year and the money had to be appropriated from the general fund.) Has anyone sponsored legislation to raise the federal fuel tax? A big chunk of the ARRA funds are going to highway maintenance projects not funded by the Trust Fund. How many more ARRAs will we need to get the interstate system into a state-of-good-repair? Or should we start investing in a higher speed passenger rail network where appropriate?

ARRA isn't going to build much HSR, but if the funds are spent wisely, there will be a few more corridors with reliable, frequent and comfortable trains running at up to 110 mph.

Will 110 mph be successful? It's probably not enough speed to compete for the business air traveller in the 250 to 500 mile range, but I think it will get a lot of the highway drivers out of their cars, particularly for trips <250 miles. Seattle to Portland in 2.5 hours on a 110 mph train with a chance to work, get something to eat, look out the window or 3+ hours gripping a steering wheel on a 70 mph (if I'm lucky) interstate? I get to make the choice several times a year. For me, it's a pretty easy choice.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:At the risk of infringing upon rights held by Dow Jones & Co (postings to websites customarily become property of the siteowner lest we forget), I have added here the comment I made to the material. At times, such as on weekends, the Wall Street Journal site is free content, but that is hit or miss to non-subscribers. Prince Rupert, may I have a pass or must i be sentenced with having my Times and Journal home delivery replaced with one of your British "tabs"?

The reporting of Mr. LaHood's European Joyride could well lead a person uninformed of railroad industry affairs to believe that the "$8B for High Speed Rail' enacted under ARRA '09 will create a national high speed passenger rail system analogous to the Interstate Highway System. But the hard truth is , in view of that such must be allocated away from the Northeast, the requisite pile of consultant reports (after all, THEY need "stimulus" too) will of course materialize, but tangible improvements will be a segment of track here and there will be upgraded to permit more efficient passenger train operations - and not much more.

Let us not forget that the 400 mile San Fran LA high speed rail initiative has a reported price tag of $45B, and if such is ever to move forth - cost overruns will certainly be part of the landscape.

The only rail passenger model for the 21st century is that which provides fast, reliable,, and frequent service through a region that has population density needed to support frequent service and where if the rail service was not offered, additional, and far more costly, infrastructure such as highways and airports would need be built in order to ensure free movement of people within that region. That of course means the Northeast Corridor Boston to Washington. It also means to a lesser extent the Southern California Corridor of Santa Barbara to San Diego. There's "been talk" of a Midwest Corridor which would comprise lines converging in a hub at Chicago, but I do not hold that such could generate economic and efficient transportation for the region.

Additionally, Amtrak does operate a system of Long distance trains that cover enough of the country with a once-daily frequency to ensure some larges is passed about the land and hence ensure the needed legislative majority for continued funding of the quite regional Northeast Corridor (the California Corridor noted is primarily funded at State level). While these Long Distance trains are reasonably filled with roundly an average 200 passengers aboard. The amount of transportation they provide can only be considered minuscule, save the hobbyists, excursionists, "can't drive/won't fly", and the few people traveling between points on a route for which they are convenient, they are essentially non-entities. As Mr. LF notes above, it is simply unreasonable to expect one from the general public to expend 24 hours traveling Boston to Chicago, when such can be flown in maybe six - including formalities and transfers.

Finally there is the 800lb gorilla in the room that Mr. Rabe notes, and that is Corporate America will be taking a hard hard look at the need for business travel to such as conferences that as technology marches onward can be replaced with teleconferencing. All of the travel industry must be concerned just on what King Kong will want to have for lunch.

Mr. Norman, you make a good point about the fact that improvements in web-based teleconferencing technology will make a lot of today's business travel unnecessary in the future. However, why do you feel that a Midwest Corridor (presumably at 110 MPH) wouldn't generate economic and efficient transportation for the region?