NAMTI categorically denounces the U.S. Department of Transportation’s “incremental high-speed rail” approach for delivering high-speed passenger trains to the United States as misguided and ill-informed. (See the Papers & Presentations section to read why NAMTI is taking this position, especially the paper titled America’s Need For A New USDOT Agency For Intelligent Implementation Of HSM.)
First of all, incremental high-speed rail, or IHSR as the DOT calls it, IS NOT high-speed rail. To compare the costs of deploying IHSR to the costs of deploying HSM, as they do in their 2005 Report to Congress: Cost and Benefits of Magnetic Levitation, is ludicrous in its methodology. Talk about irrelevant apples to oranges comparisons. This disingenuous report attempts to discredit the idea of maglev transport technology deployments by making a series of sophist arguments and comparisons. Statements in this report we challenge and know as uninformed, misleading or just plain false are highlighted in yellow. Particularly egregious errors are also underlined.
“The absurd reasoning behind the DOT plan for bringing fast trains to America through incremental improvements of shared freight railroad tracks is backward thinking at its worst. It is like the Federal Communications Commission proposing to improve a shared party line telephone network by upgrading old rotary telephones to push-button pads. The logic of deploying slightly faster passenger trains on a marginally improved, capacity constrained and winding freight train network is the equivalent of accepting fast push-button dialing on an overcrowded party-line system to avoid the infrastructure costs of deploying a modern and reliable cellular or fiber optic network, despite the obvious efficiency improvements and life-style advantages the advanced infrastructure would bring now and in the future. This is the upside down logic of the DOT’s approach for bringing America fast trains instead of high-speed maglev systems.
Such blatantly flawed thinking is a perfect example of why America needs a new agency staffed with high speed maglev experts to direct and deploy HSM systems in America. In spite of what foreign train manufacturers are claiming, fast trains and their tracks will simply be too expensive to maintain without huge government subsidies – at any speed. More dependable, efficient and cost effective maglev transport works perfectly well overseas and could in America – if only politics would get out of the way.”
– Kevin C. Coates, executive director, NAMTI
In other words, the whole concept of IHSR is a farce and will never lead to “true” high-speed intercity trains because the concept of shared tracks is so blantantly flawed and doomed to schedule reliability problems and continued train derailments (the U.S. has averaged 280 train derailments each year over the last 8 years, according to the DOT).
The DOT’s intent to deliver high-speed train operations through the FRA’s proposed “incremental improvement” of existing freight rails and freight rights of way is a delusional approach that reveals the pervasive lack of high-speed passenger train expertise that now exists in both the DOT and FRA regarding reliable, safe, fast efficient and financially sustainable operations.
Most U.S. passenger lines now run on tracks that can best be described as decrepit (other than the Amtrak northeast corridor). Incremental improvements to our slow rail infrastructure will not deliver world class high-speed trains to America. However, upgrades to these old lines could be the basis for creating the necessary parallel “feeder lines” for the wider spaced true high-speed stations.
The fact is that high, medium and low speed systems require entirely different infrastructure and ROWs. The goal of fast trains (150 mph and faster) operating on slow speed tracks is simply a pipe dream and completely unattainable due to the laws of physics. What’s more, high-speed ground transportation must be financially sustainable from an O&M perspective if they are not to be a yearly financial burden to state and federal taxpayers. Maglev transport’s inherent low maintenance characteristics enable a financially sustainable scenario that eliminates the need for such subsidies, if built between two reasonably large and active destinations. In such a case, the argument can be made for building such a high tech transportation solution from scratch, especially given its all-weather capability and 300 mph plus speeds.
If you think this criticism sounds harsh or is unwarranted, then check out this rebuttal to the “2005 Report To Congress: Costs And Benefits Of Magnetic Levitation” from the U.S. Maglev Coalition
For its part, NAMTI will do its best to educate the public about the intensive and expensive maintenance requirements of traditional, mechanically-based passenger rail (what we call High Maintenance Rail, or HMR).
What is most misleading and disingenuous in the DOT document is the failure to mention any detailed analysis of the yearly costs of maintenance for HMR (incremental, slow, fast or otherwise) – Amtrak O&M has always been funded through taxpayer subsidies. According to Shanghai SMT officials in a November 2010 meeting, the entire 19 mile dual-track guideway has only needed two weeks worth of labor for maintenance in a few specific locations in its entire 8 years of operation – and guideway adjustments were made without stopping operations! Vehicle maintenance is mostly confined to the periodic wearing out of electronic parts (all redundant systems) which is more of function of time than of speed and distance traveled, as with HMR. In addition, ridership (which is relatively light due to this being an incomplete demonstration line) is sufficient to sustain the system without the need for subsidies for operations and maintenance.
It is a sad fact that the DOT is so uninformed on maglev technological advances. This is due in part because there are no real maglev transport experts left at the agency. There used to be, but no longer, since they have all retired, left the government, or passed away.
To make matters worse, the FRA published document, “Vision For High-Speed Rail In America”, is totally lacking in vision to deliver truly advanced and sustainable high-speed ground transport systems between cities.
Additionally, the U.S. government has no maglev transportation policy whatsoever. Then again, this should be no surprise since the U.S. government has no transportation policy, energy policy, or land development policy. All these policies are desperately needed if America is to be competitive with the world’s leading industrial nations; which, by the way, all have excellent high-speed train systems.
How Did We Get To Where We Are Today?
Let’s look at the last 60 years of U.S. DOT policy:
- Federal funding of massive highway development, including Rights of Way acquisition and the funding for all supporting bridges and tunnels.
- Federal funding of large city airport construction for runways and terminals, which enabled airlines to operate as not-so-reliable intercity mass transit.
- Insufficient or non-existent federal funding and support for alternative passenger transport systems that are not oil-reliant, such as electrified intercity high speed rail or maglev.
The Results Of Past US DOT Policies
America now has a 97% oil-reliant transportation system that causes $billions to hemorrhage out of the country every day for imported oil – oil companies are fattening their coffers as the U.S. Treasury is being depleted. As a result, America does not have any viable means of protecting its entire transportation system from total collapse if the country is hit with a global oil shortage or embargo. Think of the blue and red lines on the map as veins and arteries. This circulatory system is dependent on foreign oil for life support – which means the country is hemorrhaging cash as people continue their 1950’s American car culture. America is in economic decline in no small part because it refuses to accept that its transportation system is operating on borrowed money. We are essentially mortgaging our children’s future for a 60-year old transportation vision.
As if that wasn’t reason enough to pursue energy diversification on a national level, highway and airport congestion are getting worse each year and continue to inconvenience our population. What’s more, congestion is more than inconvenience or a source of pollution, it is a costly detriment to America’s economic viability, sustainability, and progress.