Skip to main content

cross-posted from Voices on the Square

Last week, I considered the concept of Pedal to the Metal Climate Change policies: the kind of policies that we will now have to pursue if we become serious about Climate Change, because of the 16+ years we will have wasted since 2000 that would have given us the opportunity to pursue a more gradualist approach. At that time, there was a debate that could be characterized as an argument between "incrementalism" and "purism". However, at present, and therefore by the time the current administration will be completed, we have passed the point of asking "how fast should we go", and have passed into "how fast can we go" territory. Hence the Pedal to the Metal approach.

Last week, I did not rehash Micheal Hoexter's overview of a Pedal to the Metal Climate Change policy, but rather looked at the leading edge of that policy package, what I dubbed "front-runner" policies, and looked the Steel Interstate as one example of a front-runner policy for a Pedal to the Metal Climate Change policy package. This week, I am going to turn from Rapid Freight Rail and consider what kind of Rapid Passenger Rail policy would qualify as a front-runner policy for a Pedal to the Metal Climate Change Policy.

Rapid Passenger Rail as a Front-Runner Policy for a Pedal to the Metal Policy Package

The foundation of my argument are five features that, singly and in combination, make a policy action suitable to play a front-runner role in this kind of Climate Change Policy Package. Refer back to part 1 for more detailed argument as to the importance of each of these five features:

  • Speed of project roll-out: A ten year project with concrete results in five years or less.
  • Self-reinforcing: The results of the project as it is rolled out supports continuation of the project
  • Cross-reinforcing: The results of the project as it is rolled out support other elements of a Pedal to the Metal policy package.
  • National in scope: The project should be able to be pursued on a national basis.
  • Multiple Benefit: the project should be able to deliver benefits that are valuable independent of the benefit to Climate Change.

Central to these five features is not just achieving a climate change policy coalition that can get the ball rolling, but a coalition that is fueled in part by the early results of the policy package, since a Pedal to the Metal policy approach requires holding the Pedal to the Metal policies in place for 15-20 years. Any set of policies that are adequate to the task will be disruptive to the status quo and therefore will generate substantial pushback and ongoing efforts to undermine and sabotage the policy package in service to the Climate Suicide Pact and their political allies.

So, what is Rapid Passenger Rail, and does it qualify? Sunday Train has recently covered two different examples of Rapid Passenger Rail projects: the Miami to Orlando project currently hoping for a 2015 start of service, and the Chicago / Fort Wayne / Columbus project proposed by the Northeast Indiana Passenger Rail Association (NIRPA). As the private Miami to Orlando venture requires on a particular combination of out of state tourists engaged in in-state intercity travel and real estate development opportunities for multi-use stations / retails / residential development, I will be using the Chicago to Columbus proposal as a more typical project.

NIRPA is an advocacy group, and while the Chicago to Columbus via Fort Wayne corridor is not a funded project, NIRPA was able to fund the completion of a feasibility study and business plan (pdf: executive summary). They study two levels of potential service, a 110mph version and a 130mph version, but given the high capital cost of an all grade-separate corridor required for the 130mph version, they focus on the a 110mph version of the corridor with a total capital cost of $1.3b, or about $4m/mile. As noted in that 1 September diary, multiple estimates of the cost of electrifying the Keystone West corridor in Pensylvania through rugged Appalachian terrain place the cost at less than $3m/mile, so even if the average cost for rail and rolling stock is $7m/mile, we can expect to build an electrified Rapid Passenger Rail system at an average cost of $10m/mile or less.

This type of project qualifies for prospective speed of roll-out. Given an appropriate level of funding, a corridor of this length can be completed in a year for the preliminary Environmental Impact Report and two years for construction. By spreading projects around the nation, we could be initiating five corridors a year over an eight year period, which would be a total of 12,000 miles of upgraded intercity rail corridor.

It is also self-reinforcing. Connecting corridors together, either lengthwise or along a hub, offer transport connections that build demand for the corridors. Service on a well-chosen 110mph corridor of this type generates an operating surplus, so that the additional transport demand from connecting service increase the operating profit on this corridor, which can be used to finance Revenue bonds for the improvement of these corridors and construction of additional corridors.

This policy is potentially national in scope. Given substantial federal support, there are prospective 110mph corridors in the Northeast connecting to the Northeast Corridor; in the Southeast from Virginia to Florida via the Carolinas, to New Orleans via Atlanta, and to Memphis; in the Great Lakes / Midwest in the Chicago and Ohio Hubs; in the Great Plains / Rockies in Texas and along the Front Range;  in California routes complementing the bullet train CHSRA system; and in the Pacific Northwest along the Cascades corridor. The total capital cost would be $15b annually, and unlike the Interstate Highway System, the investment would not put federal, state and local governments on the hook for a never-ending flow of ongoing operating subsidies.

I must stress (from past comment thread experience) that national in scope does not imply setting out to build a transcontinental system. While electric Rapid Freight Corridors would be built to form a transcontinental system, intercity Rapid Passenger Rail corridors focus on linking medium sized cities to each other and to larger metropolitan centers along corridors of 300miles. We should interconnect those corridors where practicable, to gain the benefit of connecting transport demand, but each corridor should be built with an eye to achieving an operating surplus based on the transport demand within that corridor.

I will also stress that while this figure sounds large based on previous experience, the topic at hand is building a policy as part of a Pedal to the Metal Climate Change policy package. Relative to a full-fledged Pedal to the Metal policy package, this is a relatively modest slice of the total.

These corridors have multiple benefit. We know that the these corridors offer transport benefits to intercity travelers in these areas, because the projection of ridership is based on actual passenger demand experience of intercity rail corridors in the United States and how patronage reacts to increases in reliability, frequency and transit speed, so we know that the improvements to intercity rail that these investments make possible are valued by a portion of the traveling public. And if they are built as electrified passenger rail corridors, they offer substantial de facto insurance against crude oil price shocks and crude oil supply interruptions. But despite the fact that they are warranted public investments, they also offer a substantial range of economic benefits to stakeholders in the private sector. For the single Columbus to Chicago rail corridor, these include:

  • $700m per year additional household income;
  • the equivalent of 26,800 full time jobs over thirty years (806,000 "person-years" of work); and
  • $2.6b in new joint development opportunities along the corridor

Spread this across 40 corridors, and that is 1m new jobs, $28b in additional annual household income and $100b in new joint development opportunities.

Cross-Benefits from Rapid Passenger Rail

A particular strength of a national roll-out of electric Rapid Passenger Rail corridors is the cross-benefit to other sustainable transport policies.

In local transport, this is especially important in outer suburban, small town and rural areas that receive a Rapid Passenger Rail station. A pressing problem in small town and rural public transport is the ability to subsidize fixed-route public transport, even where there is a need during the peak commuting period, because of very low ridership per vehicle during off-peak periods. An intercity train station offers an anchor for these services, and can bring marginal routes over the threshold to viability.

An intercity train station also offers an anchor for investment in Active Transport, both walking and cycling. Investment in a complete network of 35mph roads to allow Neighborhood Electric Vehicles to directly reach an adequate range of destinations may be beyond the reach of a small town, but combined with the destinations accssible by train, a general 35mph speed limit for the small town itself and establishment of a few key paths to supermarkets or employment centers may be sufficient.

An intercity train station with charging stations for electric vehicles ~ whether highway-capable electric cars, Neighborhood Electric Vehicles or ebikes ~ doubles the effective range of the electric vehicles from their round-trip range to their one-way range, with their vehicle charged and waiting for them on their return trip.

Rapid Passenger Rail and Bullet Trains as Best Friends Forever

A particular beneficiary from this package would be bullet train systems. While Rapid Passenger Rail primarily draws its patronage from motorists, a well chosen 220mph bullet train corridor of up to 500miles draws from motorists and air passengers in equal measure. However, bullet train corridors are much more expensive than Rapid Passenger Rail upgrades of existing rail corridors ~ compare over $100m/mile for the CHSRA system to $10m/mile ~ and constructing all new, all-grade separated rail corridors takes substantially more time, even if the project is fully funded from the outset.

And a particular challenge for bullet trains is gaining access to the centers of large urban areas. The California HSR system would be substantially less expensive if there already existed electrified Rapid Passenger Rail access from the edge of the Bay Area into the Transbay Terminal, or from the edge of the LA Basin into LA Union Station. Being steel wheel on steel rail technology, bullet trains can junction onto Rapid Passenger Rail corridor ... so long as that Rapid Passenger Rail corridor already exists.

Indeed, the first French "TGV" bullet train corridor, from Paris to Lyon not only ran an operating profit, but actually covered its capital costs from its operating profit, largely because it was able to use existing Intercity Express corridors to access downtown Paris and downtown Lyon. The TGV system to this day focuses on constructing 220mph express rail corridors in regional areas outside the large cities, using the Express Intercity network to gain access into the large cities themselves.

To give an example of the benefits to bullet train services offered by a broad national investment in Rapid Passenger Rail corridors, consider HSR from New York to Chicago.

New York to Chicago is not one of the five highest priority corridors in the country for 220mph HSR under current conditions. That is despite the substantial transport market between the two cities, and because of the 4hr travel time. A rail travel time of 3hrs or less makes the service far more competitive for same-day trips, so that a 3hr HSR corridor will typically attract about 40% of the total air/train transport market and a 2hr corridor will typically attract 70% of that total market. A rail travel time of 4hrs or more typically attracts a substantially smaller share of that total travel market.

However, consider a New York to Chicago HSR corridor built in stages, with the Chicago Hub and Ohio Hub already in place. An alignment from New York connecting to the Empire Corridor between NYC and Albany runs through northern Pennsylvania. It crosses the Cleveland/Pittsburgh Rapid Rail corridor south of Youngstown. It runs through Northern Ohio between Arkon and Canton, with an Akron/Canton airport stop, then crosses the 3C (Cleveland/Columbus/Cincinnati) corridor west of Akron. It continues through Northern Ohio, and crosses the Columbus / Detroit corridor south of Toledo. It continues to connect to the Columbus / Chicago corridor at Fort Wayne, with the corridor upgraded to a 220mph, all grade separated corridor through to Gary, where it runs through to Chicago on the 110mph Rapid Rail corridor.

Consider the range of direct services that this corridor supports:

  • New York / Chicago, of course
  • New York / Detroit via the Columbus/Detroit corridor
  • New York / Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati via the 3C corridor
  • New York / Cleveland via the Cleveland/Pittsburgh corridor
  • New York / Pittsburgh via the Cleveland/Pittsburgh corridor
  • Chicago / Toledo-Detroit via the Columbus / Detroit corridor
  • Chicago / Columbus via the Columbus / Detroit corridor
  • Chicago / Cleveland via the 3C corridor
  • Chicago / Pittsburgh via the Cleveland / Pittsburgh corridor
  • Chicago / Erie-Buffalo via the 3C corridor

At $50m to $150m per mile, an HSR rail network connecting all of these cities would be quite expensive and, even more critically for a Pedal to the Metal policy, likely take 20-30 years to complete.

However, given an appropriate network of Rapid Rail corridors for a set of cities this size and distances apart, staying on a single HSR corridor as long as possible and then completing the trip on a 110mph corridor that can be used with far better reliability and frequency than it possible today for Amtrak trains running on coal and long distance container train corridors.

And unlike the "empty map" approach to bullet trains, connecting onto an existing Rapid Rail corridor means that the bullet train corridor can be put to effective use in stages, long before the corridor is completed all the way between New York and Chicago.

So the cross-benefit criteria for front-runner policies make investment in a broad range of Rapid Passenger Rail corridors particularly appealing as a front-runner policy. The cost effectiveness of the Rapid Rail corridors , with better peak passenger capacity at less than per mile cost of new divided Interstate Highway, allows us to roll out over ten thousand miles of Rapid Passenger Rail corridor in under a decade. Based on the Chicago/Columbus corridor with a local station every 25-30miles, that offers 400 new anchors for local sustainable transport services, many of them in small town and rural areas where a self-supporting sustainable transport anchor is particularly valuable.

And investing in Rapid Passenger Rail corridors around the country also provides a substantially improved platform for the roll-out of bullet train HSR services.

Conversations, Considerations and Contemplations

So I argue that a policy of investing in a Rapid Passenger Rail corridor system on this scale qualifies for consideration as a front-runner policy for a Pedal to the Metal Climate Change policy package.

And now, as always, rather looking for a more ringing conclusion that that, I now open the floor to the comments of those reading.

If you have an issue on some other area of sustainable transport or sustainable energy production, please feel free to start a new main comment. To avoid confusing me, given my tendency to filter comments through the topic of this week's Sunday Train, feel free to use the shorthand "NT:" in the subject line when introducing this kind of new topic.

And if you have a topic in sustainable transport or energy that you want me to take a look at in the coming month, be sure to include that as well.

Originally posted to Sunday Train on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 06:00 PM PDT.

Also republished by Climate Hawks, DK GreenRoots, and Climate Change SOS.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Some Good News on the Climate Change Front (9+ / 0-)

    The Guardian newspaper is reporting that United Nations Secretary General is convening a global conference to hammer out an agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions.


    Climate change: UN makes high-risk attempt to break deadlock on talks

    The United Nations secretary general is to invite world leaders next week to an unprecedented summit on climate change, in the hope of breaking the long deadlock on global warming talks. The high-risk strategy will put heads of state and government together to talk about the issue for the first time since the Copenhagen summit in 2009 ended in scenes of farce and disarray.

    Ban Ki-moon has decided he must convene the meeting because of the stalemate in the talks for the past four years, with international action dwindling even as greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise strongly, and scientific warnings over the consequences grow more strident.

    He will tell world leaders next week that he expects them to attend crucial talks in 2014, ahead of a diplomatic push for a new global treaty on the climate, to culminate the following year. It is understood that he thinks one of the failures of the Copenhagen process was to bring in leaders only in the dying days of those negotiations, when diplomats had already failed to secure a deal.

    Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue - A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma

    by JekyllnHyde on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 06:10:23 PM PDT

    •  World Leadership Is Going to Have to Use Analogous (6+ / 0-)

      tactics to grassroots activists', including staging high risk events like this even though they might fail, because realistically world leaders are only a bit beyond activists when it comes to dealing with the global economy.

      The economy is burning up the planet and it needs to be dealt with severely and soon. Governance as usual is not set up to do that.

      Political leaders and the people are going to need to become quite impolite before the economy will get serious about trying not to be the enemy of civilization.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sun Sep 22, 2013 at 06:24:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Nt Can we forget fixed route transit when (0+ / 0-)

    ...driverless car technology comes around? I'm not talking about personal autos, those take up too much real estate when they're not in use (90% of the time). But what about a driverless taxi or jitney bus? That would get people from your train stations to their destinations and could be dispatched by a central computer system. Then it could toodle off and pick up someone else and take them to the station. They would stay busy most of the day so there could be fewer of them. Would work well in suburbs and rural areas I would think. They would be for the "last mile" only, of course.

    Just thought I'd throw that out there to get around the usual objections to trains. (Cue Glenn Beck to scream about socialism in 3..2..1).

    “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” Lyndon Baines Johnson

    by spacecadet1 on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 12:48:48 PM PDT

    •  Its only socialism if someone isn't making (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spacecadet1

      an obscene profit off of it.

      Electric driverless cars, of course.

    •  They still require ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spacecadet1

      ... too much space in cities to be given over to transport, since the capacity of a road lane full of driverless taxis and jitneys is no greater than the capacity of a road lane full of cars and buses.

      But provided they are sustainably powered, they could well perform much of the task in less densely populated districts.

      There is, of course, no one size fits all solution, since one size fits all solutions never fit all and only fit a minority well. But as a piece of the puzzle, they are certainly worth exploring.

      Support Lesbian Creative Works with Yuri anime and manga from ALC Publishing

      by BruceMcF on Tue Sep 24, 2013 at 04:13:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site