A better approach is to merge the best of our automobile highway system with the best of public transport. We can build a new infrastructure that will save 90% of the energy we now use in transportation and still provide the suburbs and rural areas where train/public transport options are not practical.

We don't need trains we need replacements for cars that won't crash, that can go 200 to 300 mph in an energy efficient manner, that we can drive from our house, that don't require our attention for most of the trip so we can work or relax, that park themselves automatically, that allow a mix of privately owned vehicles and public vehicles, that can supplant much of our trucking traffic, that integrates metropolitan transit systems with long-distance systems without stations, that requires no waiting and no slowdowns as traffic nears capacity, that can be serviced easily without taking capacity offline, that uses far less land than the highways, that cannot derail or crash, and that can be implemented for lower costs than a modern two-lane highway, among other benefits.

If we do this right, it can also automate and replace much of our truck traffic as well.

The technology for this exists today. We could also design such a system so that it would be upgradeable to new technology as it comes out.

In short, we need to replace our highway system with a 21st century merging of trains and the automobile.

Finally, we need a standardized infrastructure so that many manufacturers can build the parts, track, systems, vehicles, etc. This will limit the fighting among manufacturers as to which is the "best" technology. These sorts of fights derail most efforts.

If we do this right we can revitalize our rust belt cities as we gear up to build this infrastructure.

Here is an animation that shows one advanced idea , Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) that solves many different problems, especially if it is extended to include high-speed intercity and interstate travel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9tAXdFOhzM&feature=re ...

There are quite a few things that need to be changed for energy efficiency but this video shows a radical departure from our current train orientation which is little changed from the mid-1980s. Trains weigh too much.

But we've got nothing on Europe.

If we could just get one quality high-speed rail line built in the U.S. I think demand would spread quickly.

Amtrak: 1.3Billion
Federal Transit Administration: 9.4Billion
Federal Aviation Admin: 14.6Billion
Federal Highway Admin: 31.4Billion

This does not include ancillary benefits to Aviation and Highway Transport. For more information, I encourage you to visit: http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/

                O   O

                ------

                ----/

nah....

It's amazing how politicians can enter the minds of the people they happen to be talking to, and become that person for a few minutes.  But I believe Obama, I guess, that he has been at least talking about high-speed trains from Chicago.  That would be a no-brainer, because Chicago was and is the national hub for rail; and there are no mountains in the way of the cities he was talking about.

If you want to blame Americans in general for something, I'm starting to think that it is a reluctance to increase the public space, to be abstract, or to be more concrete, a reluctance to let the government do what it does in most countries -- for instance, health care, often the electric system, even the communications system, and as relates here, the transportation system.  But maybe the tide is turning -- light rail projects have been very popular, even in conservative states.  But McCain, so I've read, is very anti-rail.

I suspect that higher gas prices will eventually take care of long distance travel by car, but it's really in the cities where it makes the least sense to drive and fuel mileage is the worst. Unfortunately, as everybody green-tinged knows, we (North Americans) built ourselves into this mess.

There was a pretty good crowd to see Jackson, as he was running for president then and already had a certain degree of fame. There were 200-300 people in the room. The crowd was attentive.

At one point, Jackson stated that small towns like Roseburg needed to be "reconnected" with a revitalized nationwide system of passenger rail routes. That excited me, so I stood up and applauded. I was the only one to make any response to that line. Jackson glanced at me, and continued on with his other topics as if nothing had happened.

I'd guess if Obama said the same thing in Roseburg today, he'd be lucky if one person applauded.

I think it has to be about more than gas prices and gasoline dependency. It also has to be about development. Rail can be a powerful catalyst for development, like highways can, but in a more concentrated pattern around stations. Also, rail for business and tourist travel is becoming more popular throughout the world, and tapping those markets can spur economic development. Creative class businesses/workers are relocating in the walkable cities and towns that are supported by rail service.

And not least, rail can reduce air pollution and can be part of a climate change strategy, as well as a Green Collar jobs strategy.

Ped Shed Blog

But given how many dollars we throw at airports, airport parking, airport fees, Homeland Security, Chap 11 airline bankruptcies, and all the hours squandered getting to, through, around, and from airports, trains are one logical part of the solution in many areas.

It staggers reason that there is not fast, regular train service between Fort Collins - Denver - Colorado Springs, to cite a local example, or any other densely-populated corridor that is already choking on traffic. If this were Europe, 5 trains a day between the aforementioned destinations would be a no-brainer.  

But this is the U.S., where if you don't own your own car then you are, well, SOL.  We've barely started TALKING about efficient train service along populated corridors, much less have it ready to roll.  Even if only 1% of today's drivers used the service, it would be a phenomenally popular alternative.

Chicago was always the rail hub of the country, and my observations have been that all the daily trains from Chicago are pretty much full, so I think the demand is there, particularly with the airlines falling from the sky, metaphorically speaking.

socialscientist, not that Obama would get too outside-the-box on this anyway, but I don't think I agree that he'd get slammed by bringing it up more -- at least, not now.  It would also be a better solution than just saying no to a gas tax -- he needs a good alternative, and if you can't go for biofuels, what else is he going to push as a possible way out of voters' rising gas bills?

If he actually pursued a pro-rail policy as President, then you might see a huge carbon-auto pushback -- although I'm not even sure about that right now, they are all in a weird position, rail might take some pressure off of them.

People won't vote for you if you are going to tell them they'll eventually have to get out of their cars.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Those percentages are derived from these Oak Ridge figures (British Thermal Units or BTUs per passenger-mile, 2005 data), organized here most to least efficient:

Amtrak: 2,709
Commuter rail: 2,743
Rail transit: 2,784
Certificated air carriers: 3,264 (excludes international services)
Cars: 3,445

notes of interest:

Amtrak consumed 14.6 trillion BTUs in 2005, which was 8.2% less than 15.9 trillion in 2003 and 19.3% below Amtrak's peak year of energy use (2001, with 18.1 trillion BTUs).
Amtrak in 2005 consumed 65,477,000 gallons of diesel fuel and used 531,377,000 kilowatt hours. [Both figures exclude consumption by commuter railroads for which Amtrak provides services.]
This indicates that 62.3% of Amtrak energy is diesel fuel vs. 37.7% electricity.

The tables you may find most useful are:
Table 2.12 Passenger travel and energy use, 2004
Table 2.13 Energy intensities of highway passenger modes, 1970-2005
Table 2.14 Energy intensities of nonhighway passenger modes, 1970-2005
Table 9.10 Historical Amtrak figures including car-miles, train-miles, etc.
Table 9.11 Summary statistics for commuter rail operations, 1984-2005
Table 9.12 Summary statistics for rail transit operations, 1970-2005
Table A.15 Intercity Rail Fuel Use
[Note: Table 2.12 has 2004 data because 2005 data is not yet available for some modes. As the relevant footnotes explain, the airline statistics in Table 2.12 include "1/2 of international scheduled services" whereas those in Table 2.14 do not include any international services. This report also has considerable freight data.]

The "What's New" page for Edition 26 reports that, "The transportation share of U.S. energy use reached 28.4% in 2006 which is the highest share recorded since 1970." The page also reflects a disturbing trend towards less information:

"Due to more stringent data restrictions imposed by R.L. Polk, the latest number of vehicles by age that we are allowed to publish is 2001." (Tables 3.5 & 3.6)
The American Metals Market discontinued the survey which collected information on the average materials in a domestic car; therefore, the 2003 data are the latest available. (Table 4.14)
The Census Bureau has discontinued the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey; the 2002 data are therefore the latest data available. (Tables 5.4-5.9)
The Department of Transportation has discontinued the National Household Travel Survey; therefore, the 2001 data are the latest data available. (Tables 8.5-8.13 & 8.17)
The EPA has not published new data from the National Emissions Inventory since the 2002 data; thus, Tables 12.1-12.11 remain unchanged.

Comments on other dubious responses will follow.


J. Howard Harding Rail Transportation Advocate

Currently efforts are under way to vastly expand U.S. rail passenger service, in part via targeted federal capital investment in rail infrastructure. S. 294, passed by the U.S. Senate several months ago, would begin that process by providing a federal/state capital investment partnership program similar to the federal/state highway program. Companion legislation will soon be introduced in the U.S. House.

On Tuesday, January 15, 2008, the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission released Transportation for Tomorrow, a report on the status and future of America's highways, bridges, and transit systems, before a crowd of reporters and transportation insiders at the National Press Club.  NARP Executive Director, Ross Capon, a member of the Commission's Passenger Rail Working Group (PRWG), was present.  In NARP's release regarding the report, Capon noted that "this long-awaited report takes a hard look at the quality-of-life, economic, environmental, and energy consequences of our current transportation policy and maps out a realistic strategy to address current and upcoming needs." Focusing on the passenger rail aspect of the report, Capon said "Transportation for Tomorrow" builds upon NARP's proposed "Grid and Gateway" train network which we unveiled this past summer.  In particular, many of the routes included in the report were originally a part of NARP's plan, as well as the idea of using rail to increase the level of connectedness between rural and metropolitan areas.  NARP's release concluded, "Capon thanked the Commission, especially Wisconsin Secretary of Transportation Frank Busalacchi," who chaired the PRWG.

J. Howard Harding Rail Transportation Advocate

First, the decisions are different if you are an INDIVIDUAL or a society.  For us individuals, if we travel on something that's already going there, we are using NO fuel and causing NO pollution - unless we displace someone else who then has to drive.  

Figures on energy efficiency are different, depending on if you measure seat-miles or people-miles.  Airlines do better than Amtrak at cramming every last seat full of people.  Automobiles are typically occupied by one person - so they get twice as efficient if two people are in them.

Much of the environmental impact of driving comes when building the car in the first place.  There is a lot of value in going car-free, and for society, in enabling people to be car-free.  Thus renting a car every weekend is preferable to owning one.

Another measure, not often talked about, is the amount of land required.  On this railroads are much superior to roads.  I'm not sure if airports (which are very big) have enough footprint to cancel not needing any land at all once you are in the air.

My "theory" is maybe complete garbage. I don't know enough about relative costs of building for cars vs. rail and other public transit systems. But I wouldn't want to imagine densely populated areas like that more filled with single occupant cars than they already are.

I think we can all agree that the American rail network needs to be given top priority, and as Obama pointed out -- who knew he knew? -- Chicago would make a natural starting point for the renaissance of the rail network.  I think that, more important than average statistics on density, is the question of which cities are located at what distances from each other -- the classic case being Ohio, which has several large cities.

In fact, the case of Ohio is very instructive.  Here we have a state that has been devastated by the decline of manufacturing, with presidential candidates appealing to blue collar workers, and we have a set of cities that would be perfect for high-speed interconnections -- what better place to build a train-manufacturing industry to supply the trains?  It's a no-brainer!

Please document this. Please don't use the infamous "dust to dust" study, made by a PR firm that publishes conclusions only, but refuses to share data.