the stuff of dreams
WHEN IT COMES TO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS,
logistics folks can be a skeptical lot, and with good reason. For more
than four decades, the professionals responsible for moving the
materials and goods we all use each day have repeatedly seen their
interests take a back seat to the interests of commuters and other
motorists who are moving, for the most part, only themselves.
It’s frustrating, yet understandable. As the old political saw goes:
“People vote. Freight don’t.”
So it’s probably no surprise that in the logistics community at
least, President Obama’s Jan. 28 announcement that the federal
government would begin work on a nationwide high-speed pas-
senger rail system was greeted with a collective shrug. After all,
Actually, it appears the chances are pretty
high.
In order to bring the vision of a national
high-speed rail program to fruition, existing
tracks will have to be enhanced, upgraded, and
in many cases, replaced. Compared to today’s
trains, the high-speed trains need flatter beds
and straighter lines. And in most cases, they
require dedicated track—that is, track that’s
clear of slower-moving freight trains. It seems
logical to conclude that building new tracks to
accommodate high-speed passenger trains
will free up more of the existing lines for
freight.
Rail advocates love the idea. As they see it, the benefits cannot be
overstated. Making greater use of trains, which are substantially
more fuel-efficient than trucks, would reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and significantly decrease carbon dioxide emissions. On top of that, it would likely go a long way toward relieving highway congestion—by some estimates, a single fully loaded
freight train can carry the same payload as 280 trucks.
Of course, it’s a very big leap from visualization to realization.
Consider that the $8 billion in federal stimulus funds the president
pledged in January is just a “down payment” on a longer-term rail
passenger project. The total cost of building out the 13-corridor
project proposed by the government would actually run much
higher. Although estimates vary, one source, CNNMoney.com,
puts the total price tag at “close to $100 billion.”
And it wouldn’t even be a truly “high speed” network—one
made up of rail lines devoted exclusively to
trains traveling 150 to 220 mph. What the gov-
ernment has proposed is something far more
modest. Although its plan does call for build-
ing some high-speed rail corridors (notably in
California and Florida), most of the projects
involve nothing more than upgrades to exist-
ing track to raise average
speeds—which currently hover
around 80 mph—to 90 to 110.
