A friend of mine posted a meme about high speed rail that sent me off on a rant. The text of the meme read:
Most people in the US underestimate high-speed rail. There's a direct train from Barcelona to Paris that takes 6 hours, tops out at almost 200 mph, and costs $41. Not $400+. $41. Why aren't we funding this?
My rant in response:
Because those who profit from selling $400+ tickets on the existing rail and airline infrastructure can afford the price of a congressman.
But it's actually much more nuanced than that (it always is).
19th-century rail laws are play a large role, as do land use jurisdictions. Add to that the growth of infrastructure around the automobile and trucking and the preference of Americans for suburban single-family homes on as large a lot as we can get away with. Top that off with transit funding models that pit types of transit against each other for budget allocations. Then garnish with good old-fashioned corporate greed and inertia. Serve with a side of corruption.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, they've been trying to expand BART to ring the bay and out to Livermore for almost 50 years. Not going to happen. Each county wants an exception to make sure that they don't pay for the infrastructure. CalTrans wants the project scuttled, because rail funding takes away from their budget for highway construction and maintenance (and executive bonuses).
Using existing rails is a nightmare for two reasons:
- Our poorly maintained freight rails are barely up to the needs of freight trains and would destroy passenger cars in quick order--simply rattle them to pieces.
- Primarily, existing rail laws give freight companies sole jurisdiction over the use of the rails--Amtrak has to rent rail time and space, and passenger trains must by law yield to freight every time. The freight companies are jealously possessive over what they consider their rails.
And just try building new rails through a mix of jurisdictions. Do you remember how much flack NM Gov. Bill Richardson caught over building the Railrunner connecting Santa Fe and Albuquerque? "Richardson's folly" and "Bill's boondoggle" they called it.
In Colorado, they've promised rail through the Denver corridor eventually connecting Colorado Springs all the way north to Fort Collins. the first trains are supposed to start service in 50 years, this being enough time for oil and gas lobbyists to feel comfortable in their ability to completely scuttle it, but still we passed a rail transit bill to get the liberals off their backs…
I commuted into Silicon Valley from the town of Tracy CA for 16 years, from 1989 through 2005. It was a 60-mile commute, each way, 1½ hours on a good morning, as many as 6 hours in the car on a bad day. I totaled several cars over the years.
The year we moved there, 1989, they announced ACE Rail, the Altamont Commuter Express connecting from Stockton to San Jose. First trains were supposed to start service that spring, 1990, because they were using existing freight rails and most of the platforms were already in place, just needing updating to current seismic standards.
Well, one thing led to another, and in 1999, the first trains ran, merely a decade behind schedule. The first day, BNSF, who owned the rails, held a "stop to rule" protest to express their displeasure over the existence of a commuter train on their tracks. They diverted the ACE Rail trains to allow freight trains to pass at every conceivable excuse. The 98-mile trip from Stockton to San Jose took 8 (EIGHT) hours. Eventually, the state agreed to a set of stipulations (these from memory, so if any of you know that actual stipulations and numbers, I’d be grateful):
- They increased the amount of each ticket that went to the freight companies.
- They agreed to make up any shortfall below 100% ridership to the freight companies out of a special budget.
- They raised the price of a ticket to cover the increase in fees.
- They agreed to kill the project altogether if it was not self-funding from ticket sales within 5 years. This last, I believe, was a poison pill, because most commuter rail is never 100% self-funding, and projects typically reach peak income vs. operating costs after 8 to 10 years.
After that, the trains were allowed to run on schedule.
Lo and behold, it was at 100% capacity within two months. Traffic had gotten so bad that it was by far more appealing that sitting in a car breathing exhaust every day. It reached self-funding from ticket sales within 2 years, unheard of in commuter rail. I rode it every day for about 4 years!
Even so, Alameda county sued San Joaquin county because riders from San Joaquin county were riding on sections of rail funded by Alameda County while not paying taxes within that county. GAAAHHHH!
Yes, there is a need.
But dammit, we've got some serious restructuring of a century's worth of policies and entrenched interests to do first. I despair of it ever happening.
But climate change is going to make air travel increasingly unpleasant, so maybe…