Comments on: Trains to answer traffic, cost, pollution cries?

Shifting 25 percent of U.S. freight from trucks to trains could put nearly $1,000 in your pocket, according to the Association of American Railroads-backed Congestion Relief Index.

[badasscat]

Europe and Japan don't have "high speed commuter trains", they have high speed intercity trains. That's a major difference, because most politicians in this country - even those that espouse the merits of mass transit, and even those that otherwise support Amtrak - are against funding intercity rail with government money. Real high speed rail as seen in Europe and Japan will never happen in this country as long as that attitude persists.

Japanese commuter trains are more or less the same as ours, except they run on time. Europe's commuter trains are a mixed bag. What we can learn from them is not about commuting but the benefit of real intercity high speed rail, and that's still a lesson lost on most American politicians.

[k2dave]

It is a good point that other countries have high speed intercity trains, not so much high speed commuter rails. The distances between major cities in the US make a lot of high speed intercity rail take too long and impractical except for a few key routes (i.e. acela Wash DC, NYC, Boston). But I think much more advances can be made in high speed commuter rail in the US and a much greater impact on fuel savings and road congestion, existing commuter rail systems for major cities run close or over capacity already, so there is a population already willing to use it. For the outer 'burbs where current train commute time is already over a hour one way would be a ideal place to build a true high speed rail, perhaps cutting the travel time in half, or at least 2/3rd, this would draw far more people off the roads and onto the trains IMHO.

[elsa.wenzel]

Thank you for making the distinction in your comment. The post has been updated to clarify.

In Europe, intercity trains also enable far-flung commutes, such as from offices in Paris to cities elsewhere in France or in neighboring countries. In the United States, high-speed rail is also discussed as a potential commuting option for those who live far from work.

[tompw]

In the UK, people commute to London on 125mph trains, which counts as "high-speed" for the FRA. That said, most commuter lines in the UK run at 75-100mph.

[Remo_Williams]

blah blah blah, you're all wet. the real impetus for change is when suburban sprawl -- the very thing that forced truck traffic to explode in the first place -- starts contracting back to cities. unless the railroads intend to build spurs to each supermarket and strip mall in america, intermodal transport is still going to rely heavily upon truck traffic to move goods. that's it, period.

-R

[bwvla]

Short point to point delivery will always be with us. But a stupidly large percentage of goods are still moved via long haul trucking. I5 and I10 exiting Los Angeles are a solid stream of trucks, many of them traveling through much of the city on their way out.

[tompw]

The key thing is to reduce *long distance* truck freight... if goods produced in California are shipped to Florida by rail, it doesn't matter where in each state the goods are shifted to trucks for local distribution - you've still cut out most of the truck miles.
Suburban sprawl is only a problem if peopel end up a long way from their jobs and weekly shopping. Mixed-used developments are the way forward.

[xtrmtrk]

This is an important topic which deserves better reporting. This article is basically a rehash of lobbying group's press release. America needs to take energy and transportation issues much more seriously.

[Below Meigh]

Wrong. No one makes money moving people. Only materials. Plus, the heavy freight trains run on the same rails (at night) causing more problems for HiSpeed trains like Acela. Amtrak is already dumping funds into a groutfix for the beds (that move) from the heavy freight.
Throw in the facts that both Europe & Japan had a SIGNIFICANT train build after WW2. And there is no better reason we don't have it because of the "expanse" of the nation.
I am ALL for rails north, south, coastal and cross country. Monorails, tunnels, new cities, and a new hope. I am glad Ford and other automakers are taking it in the nuts. Serves you right. Gouging us on those (highly profitable and wasteful) SUVs and trucks most never use for more than a case of beer or junk from Sam's Club.
Too bad US bureaucracy would tie up any "right of way" after giving millions of acres to Amtrak, Conrail, etc...only to have them dictate why we won't get better, efficient and expanded mass transit (intercity, extracity).

[tompw]

SNCF makes a profit from its passenger operations.

[c|net Reader]

I can see the value in getting the Government to help trains move more freight as it will reduce the load on the highways, thus reducing maintenance costs. Were it not for the Government's subsidy of trucking in the form of providing highways, I'd hate to see Government getting involved.

Intercity rail is only helpful if there is good access at either end. If one must spend twice as long for a given commute via mass transit, it's not much of a bargain. Granted, one can work or recreate during a train ride or a long bus ride, and one might even be able to get some fitful sleep, but it's not ideal. What we need are Star Trek's transporters!

[fokkwp]

"Many environmental groups and urban planners hope that high-speed
commuter trains, which have long zipped people around in Europe and
Japan, will alleviate congestion and reduce pollution in the United
States."

Wishful thinking. Check out the California site for the new high-speed train. It is expected to create, according to their estimates, a half-million jobs. It will mean building up a whole new set of communities between SF and LA. All those newcomers will be using cars, pouring concrete, watering new lawns, increasing the state's population and resource requirements.

The existing long distance trains are a nightmare, with six-hour delays on a one-day trip. If we fixed those trains we'd get people out of their cars. Right now, despite incredible traffic and the cost of gas, people are driving instead of taking trains.

Fix the trains we have and get people out of their cars, rather than bringing in a whole slew of new development, cars, water and power use, into the state with the high-speed high-tech wonder train.

[Penguinisto]

Points of order: 1) European nations and Japan funnel a TON of money into their projects. 2) In most areas, US railroads already have more than enough existing right-of-ways and property with which to expand their networks. 3) the big trick will be to increase inter-city train travel for passengers (not just freight), but there are already a lot of very natural areas in which to begin.

[AndrewRich]

"Californians will have the option to vote in November to back 220 mph high-speed railway projects, which have been proposed in the state for several decades and have the backing of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger." -- this is not true. Schwarzenegger has done everything he could do to keep the HSR bond measures off the ballot again -- he succeeded last year in postponing them. No doubt his GOP buddies would prefer that we continue buying Hummers.

[Dead Soulman]

Let's move along then. I can't wait for the day when I don't have to deal with dozens of trucks pushing their huge vehicles against mine. Truckers are a mixed bag of good and bad drivers. However, considering the lethal power one single truck represents, it takes one incident to ruin a lot of people's drive or lives.

Do we need trucks? Yes we do as trains do not have access to inner areas of a city. However, any transportation of goods that go outside a city should be transported via train. Living in north-east I can tell you of the indifference drivers express towards their fellow drivers. It gets much worse during the winter when frozen layers of snow/ice fall off the top of their trucks hitting the vehicles around them, and sometimes killing people. People were trying to get a mandatory law passed that would force drivers to ensure the ice on top of their load was cleared. Truckers said that they could get hurt trying to clean up that ice. I don't think anything was passed. However, I did notice a truck with a sticker on its read door saying "during winter, ice may fall off the top. Please stand clear." Now that's a solution, isn't it? Guess what? I'd need to be real close to be able to read the sign, and if you have any lose ice, well, I'd be eating it by the time I'm done reading your sign.

We need our government to get involved in creating an energy and transportation policy that can be enforced. Unfortunately, there is no one in DC with a spine who'd stand up to corrupt group of lobbyists. Why? Because politicians do not want to burn bridges as a lot of politicians become lobbyists themselves. Quite a sad situation we have.

[EZnTn]

I travel all over the south with my business, from Virginia to Texas. The thought of not dealing with semi truck traffic, my greatest fantasy. The trucking lobby has bought the politicians, convincing them all into believing their agenda is the most practical. More of your tax dollars not at work. Highways would not fall in to disrepair annually as they do now. How many interstates have you traveled where you can't drive in the right lane due to truck induced ruts?
Semi's and their tired drivers take a terrible toll on happless vehicles and their cargo. Its time this madness stop.
Rails, efficient, maintained, and safe, for freight, and transportation, are an absolute necessity, not to mention the reduced consumption of our resources. Get the trucking industry off the interstates, and watch the price of diesel drop drastically.

[swimdad623]

I chose my home in New Jersey because it's only 2 miles from a train station, and I can take an electric train to work. If this country were serious about encouraging trains, one simple solution would be for Amtrak to just put more parking spaces at the train stations. I waited 4 years for a parking pass, and the wait is 8 years now. There are about 2500 people now on the waiting list, and that's 2500 people that travel to New York or Philadelphia by car rather than by a non-polluting electric train.

Whenever the subject of parking comes up, Amtrak asks for our town to add the spaces, and won't help with the cost. The town won't pay for them because most commuters are non-residents, and most of the residents already have spaces if they commute.

In the end, the politicans at Amtrak spend all of their money on the Acela train (hardly any faster than the standard Metroliner) or trains in the west that run 99% empty. It's all fluff. Something as simple as parking spaces would take a lot of commuters off the road, and cut the gas consumption for people who aren't lucky enough to take a train to work.

[tompw]

The obvious thing would be for Amtrak to charge for car parking (say $1-5/day), and then the cost of building the car park could be offset against future revenue... except Amtrak doesn't have enough capital to do that, even if the car park would huge profits.
Write to your city, suggesting they do a deal with Amtrak whereby the city builds the car park, but gets the revenue from fees - then everyone wins.

That said, why on earth are there no transit links to the station? 2,500 people/day want to travel there.... that's 50 bus loads! Ignore the car park, the city could make mint on providing environmentally friendly transit - everyone wins even more!

[galacticgufus]

we won't get mass transit of any kind because the fedgov is to busy giving the automobile manufacturers corporate welfare. if theautomakers had to pay for their own roads, we'd have mass transit.