Sen. John F. Kerry rails at Acela

The Boston Herald ^ | July 15, 2008 | Hillary Chabot

[mowowie]

U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry is taking aim at the Acela bullet train, saying the 8-year-old line meant to zip passengers between Boston and Washington is riddled with speed and safety issues that have thrown its swift mission off track.

“Are you kidding? That train can go 150 miles an hour, (but) it goes that for, what, a couple of miles?” Kerry scoffed. “I want America to have a first-rate high-speed rail system. A high-speed rail that really lives up to the name and gets people there in the time that we ought to be aiming for.”

Kerry plans to file in two weeks a $1 billion bill that will target out-of-date bridges, tunnels and tracks that prevent the train from hitting its 150-mile-per-hour maximum and getting commuters to their destinations faster.

[Enchante]

"regret that this country has not developed a serious coast-to-coast high speed rail system that could compete with the airlines."

?? A coast-to-coast high speed rail system could not be competitive with the airlines (unless it was very heavily subsidized). The travel time would still be much longer, even at 200 - 250 mph, and the fares would be much higher.

I love trains, and have enjoyed riding many around western Europe as well as some long stretches in the US and Canada (when I was a student and not too pressed for time). I love the high-speed trains I have ridden in Europe such as the TGV and Thalys. But the economics of long distance high-speed train travel in North America just aren't there. Maybe that will change if the price of oil continues to soar and if we finally get toward a (nearly) all-nuclear-powered electric grid. Even if the energy costs are more competitive, however, the initial investments for infrastructure would be many hundreds of billions of dollars if you're talking about trans-continental service. Maybe more can/will be done in the northeast corridor and on a few other inter-city routes within a few hundred miles..... but 3,000+ miles? Don't see it happening in our lifetimes.

[CedarDave]

Now I don't think the government is the answer ... the private train operators need to upgrade their tracks and right a ways.

The private railroads got rid of passenger service 38 years ago because they could not make money on it. That continues today: You don't make money hauling passengers. Where railroads are spending money they are doing it to upgrade their tracks because of freight capacity issues. Higher fuel costs means more freight moves by rail rather than by truck. Amtrak is supposed to get priority on the tracks, but with existing rails clogged with freight/maintenance projects, you wait your turn.

And, BTW, how do you make private industry spend money they don't have on a money losing proposition? Nationalize them? Yeah, more government will solve the problem, right? And isn't that contrary to your original premise?

There is an answer, but it requires a private/public partnership which the private railroads generally resist because they do not want more government intervention/regulation. However, at some point some may see that they can accomplish more upgrades with a mixture of funding approaches that requires passenger and freight share track, as has been done in the Oakland/Sacramento rail corridor. IMO that is the only approach which will work to unclog the system. Bullet trains in urban areas on tracks isolated from others will carry an immense price cost requiring massive private property acquisition and business disruption for gaining only a few minutes of time. Totally impractical.

[Straight Vermonter]

Amtrak, the low cost of flying with the speed and convenience of taking the bus.

[Robe]

N.theknow...I was pretty sure back in the steam days they were pushing 100mph but didn't want to post that here less I because I didn't have the docs to prove it...

C.Dave..... If I recall the passenger rail traffic was hit hard when aviation made it faster to get from a to b.. with the advent of only higher fuel costs and the reduction in air route to smaller and mid-sized towns, I submit that it MAYBE possible for the private lines to indeed make money on these routes.

[CedarDave]

C.Dave..... If I recall the passenger rail traffic was hit hard when aviation made it faster to get from a to b.. with the advent of only higher fuel costs and the reduction in air route to smaller and mid-sized towns, I submit that it MAYBE possible for the private lines to indeed make money on these routes.

I wouldn't count on it as passenger rail loses money throughout the world. However, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be pursued as government may decide that it is better to have subsided rail at a loss than spend excessive amounts for infrastructure expansion (new roads, etc.).

My problem with that approach here in NM is that Gov. Richardson has decided commuter rail would both enhance his resume and please his greenie supporters, regardless of its practicality in a marginally urban environment. We (NM taxpayers and without a vote by the people) are paying one-half billion dollars for a service that few use and with fares under $4.00 for a roundtrip. It recovers only 14% at the fare box and that will drop to 7-9% when the new track under construction is put into service early new year. The service is a black hole and unnecessary. However, in the crowded NE US, such service may be really necessary and supported by both government and the general population.

[mvpel]

[Lady Jag]

[mowowie]

LOL!!

[C19fan]

Investing in fast rail service in the densely populated Northeast corridor makes sense. The problem is all the money wasted subsiding rail service in other parts of the country.