- Legislation Introduced to Codify Stem Cell Rules
- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
High Speed Rail for High-Tech Economic Development
Multiple studies have advocated for improving and modernizing the U.S. rail network as a way to spur economic growth, rein in sprawl, and make a strong commitment to sustainability. One such report, focusing on Boston, found that quality regional transportation played a significant role in fueling life sciences research.
For decades, Japan and Europe have deployed high-speed rail systems, which consist of trains that average over 125 mph. The closest we come to such a network in the United States is Amtrak’s Acela Express service, a train with an average speed, 86 mph, that is dwarfed by that of many international competitors, like France’s TGV trains, which average 173 mph.
Several states have recently announced, or are in the process of building, high speed rail lines. The federal government should embrace these projects and support them financially, recognizing that they can play an important role in sustaining the innovation and business networks that serve as the bedrock of the 21st century American economy. Here are a few proposed around the country:
An $18 billion to $20 billion project envisions 200-mph trains running throughout the “Texas T-Bone,” from Dallas/Fort Worth to Austin, San Antonio, and Houston. According to the Secretary of the Texas High Speed Rail and Transportation Corporation, “this system will create thousands of permanent jobs and attract a significant amount of investment, helping to ensure the continued growth of Texas’ economy.”
On election day this past November 4th, California voters approved a ballot proposition that authorized $9 billion in bond funding for an 800-mile intercity high speed rail network that will carry passengers from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 38 minutes. A report released in 2008 by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute found that “the high-speed train service can help Bay Area businesses expand their markets within California by providing more efficient access throughout the state.”
In the research and development phase, the Ohio Hub is a proposed 860-mile high speed rail network that will connect the major Ohio commercial centers of Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland with southern Ontario, Detroit, and other smaller cities. A report evaluating the economic impact of the proposed network found that “in the communities linked by the system, the project will create a new business environment that will be attractive to ‘New Economy’ (high tech mobile industry, frequently related to computer, telecommunications, and professional services businesses).”
A 2000 Florida referendum authorized funding for the phased development of a statewide HSR network, although a later referendum repealed that funding. A 2007 Florida State University study estimated that the “benefits of a statewide high speed rail program could range from $39 to $51 billion,” primarily by encouraging business connections between centers of industry.
For more on innovation clusters and tech-based economic development, see our “Regional Centers of Innovation 101.”
Comments on this article
The California voters were duped into approving a $9 Billion High Speed Rail project that is expected to cost over $40 Billion, Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee wrote it would be closer to $49 Billion.
When their initial 10 trains a day were seen a poor substitute for the 50 flights a day from SFO to LAX, they quickly changed the frequency to 100 trains a day.
Just what are those passengers doing now?
Are they flying airplanes?
There are three airports in the SF Bay Area and four in Southern California. Passengers take whichever is most convenient, but the train will need for all of them to go to one central place to catch the train, is that better?
Any energy study of the cost of driving a train at 220 mph with four or five intermediate stops would show that they are not competitive with airplane flights.
Environmental Impact: They claim that wet lands where migration birds come every year, East of San Jose, by the thousands will not be affected. Can you imagine how noisy 100 trains would be travelling at 220 mph. I could go on but it is depressing.
Two last arguments.
1. If the trains were successful in taking all the passengers from the airlines, is it not a Zero-Sum case?
What ia going to keep people working in the airlines?
2. Airplanes fly less about 60 Percent the distance of the train because they fly in an straight line. They fly at twice the speed of the train. They have a higher frequency departures. Why would anybody take the train?
The future:
The Aerospatiale 380 is already flying to both LAX and SFO, its energy efficiency per passenger is about the same as a motorcycle. Am I suppose to believe the train is more efficient? They like to quote only the energy used in level terrain, in California?
They never mention the energy required at each stop to accelerate the train each time.
At the last minute, they simply asserted that it would be electric, without a change in the cost. You believe that?
———–
Finally, how about security? Will they have to duplicate the airport facilities for the High Speed Trains?
What would happen if a bolt showed up anywhere in the 600 miles of track? Will they need a high fence on both sides? In a recent presentation on BART, they said that such fences would never be approved, again!
Elevated trains, like in Japan, have no problems with that. This brings up an important factor.
High speed rails work in Europe and Japan because both are relatively compact with short distances between stations. I guess they forgot to look at a map.
If the Blended Wing airplane proves successful, the state will have to subsidize travel by train to keep it running.
The Blended Wing design has the potential of increasing flight efficiency by something like 20%, or more.
The High Speed Rail seems designed for the benefit of some group that is pushing it. If the idea was so good, how come no bank would lend them the money?
They been talking about it for more than five years (10 years?), since well before the Recession started.
Why not ask engineers at RAND, Aeropace or MIT to do an energy analysis? Are they afraid of numbers?
February 9th, 2009 at 2:04 amThis project is a blemish in the Mechanical Engineering Profession. Must we build it to prove it is too expensive?
I think your blog needs some updating. I would love to read more about this.
December 17th, 2009 at 12:40 pm