High-Speed Rail in America

This week I will be taking a 17 hour journey by train from Chicago to our nations' capital. I'm quite excited, as this will be my very first cross-country trip via Amtrak. Moreover, I am very pleased that I will be able to go from my house to Union Station to Washington DC, to Silver Spring, MD, to Bethesda, MD, back to DC, then to Chicago, and back to my front door, all without setting foot in a single car. The trip will span 5 states, involve 3 mass transit systems, and will include an estimated 40 hours on one for of train or another. Needless to say, I'm taking a few books.

What I find amazing about all of this is that someone like myself - a confessed TrainGeek and mobility infrastructure wonk - has yet in my life embarked on such a journey. I've taken similar routes in Europe, where I traveled from the small village of Didcot in England, to within 200' of my apartment in Paris. Of course that trip utilised Europes' high-speed rail connections, and which saw me across four train systems and two countries, all in about 6 hours. But this trip on Amtrak is quite different. Amtrak is a notoriously slow and unreliable service. In its entire history it has failed to turn a single year of profit, and thus relies heavily on government subsidies. I nearly opted against this excursion on Amtrak, as the total travel time will nearly double, and the cost is slightly higher than would be the cost of gas for the trip. The only reason I'm willing to make these concessions is that I don't like driving, and I do like the free time granted by rail travel. Indeed if I weren't such a geek about trains, there is little chance I would not have driven my car all that way. Unfortunately for Amtrak, there are few people like myself that are willing to make such concessions.

And thus the great American High-Speed Rail Gamble: Obama is putting a great deal of money on the line that if given the choice between driving or flying, or having the option to travel on relatively inexpensive, reliable, safe, and convenient high-speed rail, that Americans will choose the latter. Even with my obvious biases toward rail (I would love to visit any medium-sized metropolitan city without setting foot in a car), I do feel that this is a realistic and as-of-yet unresolved issue. To provide high-speed rail in the quantity and quality required to turn a profit, costs may end up being prohibitive to flying. If you seek to provide cheap, reliable service you will end up sacrificing quality.
And so on.

Therefore I hold the belief that if you are to provide the type of service, quality, etc, required to convince people that rail is a viable option, AND you provide it at a cost similar to or less than driving, you must first revolutionize the way we think about "high-speed rail" I do not believe that the European or Asian models will work in America. This is what I think will:

Dedicated, elevated rail: Amtrak faces its sloth and inconsistency on two factors: 1)They share rail lines with freight trains, and often are the second-priority when it comes to sharing a single track. This results in increased stoppage time, and when they can run,  2) track quality, contextual issues, and imposed speed regulations prevent the trains from achieving a speed necessary to provide quick transit. By providing dedicated tracks the trains will be able to travel smoothly and consistently. By elevating the track, the risk of animals or debris on the tracks is reduced and speeds can be increased.

Electrified rail: The second advantage to elevated rail is that the system can be provided ample, secure electricity to power the trains. This can also lead to cleaner transit if the power is generated sustainably.

Solar Power: With over 87 million square feet of potential surface area along the rail between Chicago and DC, there's ample opportunity to install solar panels along many different lengths. The panels would have direct access to sunlight, and would be able to easily power the entire rail system, thus providing clean, cheap energy. There's potential for additional profit if Amtrak sells power back to the grid when not in use.


Computerized trains: Having studied the CTA budget, it's plain to see that the highest cost to any mass transit program is its manpower. While I would certainly never suggest fully automating a 200 MPH train with hundreds of live aboard, there's certainly an ability to automate many functions of rail travel, which reduces costs and reduces the risk of human error. One engineer aboard a bullet train could pilot the vehicle, while the computer monitors the engines, the passenger cars, and the track ahead. Automating certain aspects of the stations would further prohibit human error and improve safety. Maintenance of tracks and vehicles would be much more efficient if the tracks and vehicles were monitoring themselves and pointing mechanics to specific issues, instead of lengthy and costly maintenance overhauls on healthy trains.

Smart Ticketing: The ability exists today to implement a ticketing system that would provide any industry (airlines, hotels, sports venues, etc) with the right balance of occupancy and profit. Creating a program that analyzes trends in hourly, daily, monthly, yearly, and 5-year purchasing, companies could simply input their desired occupancy (75% full, 95% full, etc.) and the program would constantly adjust prices so that the cost rises when demand rises and lowers when demand lowers. As the scheduled departure approaches ticket prices would increase or decrease dramatically in order to fill the requisite seats. This system could be a boon to business class and other last-minute travelers, as they will be able to find inexpensive seats (as opposed to astronomical airline prices) and the train is able to make a bit more money by filling up the last remaining seats.

These are a few. I'm sure I'll add to this list upon my return.