Time for America to Get on Fast Track?

Europe and Asia Have Advanced High Speed Rail Systems. Can America Catch Up?

(CBS)  At the California State Railroad Museum in Sacramento, the glory days of American train travel are remembered and celebrated.

They were days of big machines - and big dreams. The biggest of all was the construction of tracks that would tie the country together from east to west: the transcontinental railroad.

It was a massive contruction project using cutting edge technology. Starting in the middle of the Civil War, the transcontinental railway took just six years to complete, reports CBS News correspondent John Blackstone.

It was an accomplishment against the odds, according to former California treasurer and longtime rail travel enthusiast Phil Angelides.

"Look, in the middle of the Civil War, when 600,000 Americans were dying of disease and on the battlefield, that's when Abraham Lincoln pushed through the transcontinental railroad that ended right here on this spot," he said.

Its western terminus was in Sacramento, but the transcontinental railroad had an impact across the country. Trains became engines for American prosperity - opening millions of acres of land to farming and moving passengers, mail and freight between growing cities. By 1890, 164,000 miles of rail were laid and trains dominated transportation.

But then came the 20th century, with automobiles and airplanes. By 1957, planes were carrying more passengers and a growing interstate highway system provided an attractive alternative to riding the rails.

"In the 1950s, this country made an immense investment in roadways. Like no other country in the world. So, we really did build an economy around automobiles. And we built an economy around cheap gasoline," Angelides said.

But some other countries chose to invest in railroads - high speed trains that travel more than 150 miles per hour. For decades, superfast trains have been a reality in Europe and Asia. And for decades, American travelers have been envious.

In 1964, Walter Cronkite took a ride on Japan's "Bullet Train."

"Behind me is the new Takaido super-express - capable of bulleting down these tracks at 160 mph," Cronkite said then.

In 1990, when the TGV in France was setting speed records, "Sunday Morning's" very own Charles Osgood took a close look.

"It is really very pleasant sitting here watching the countryside going by at 200 mph. There was a time when we used to do things in the new world and here in Europe they would look at us and say 'Too bad we can't do it here.' Now it seems to be the old world where new things are happening - new things like this and it makes us wonder why can't we do it too," Osgood reported.

Today, the fastest train in the United States is the Acela in the Northeast. While the Acela is capable of 150 mph, the tracks are so bad it limps along at an average of 80 mph.

But true high speed rail could be coming to the Northeast and nine other busy corridors, including Florida, Texas, Illinois, California and the Pacific Northwest.

"The federal government under President Obama has made it clear it's going to be a partner in building high-speed rail," Angelides said.

The president's stimulus plan committed $8 billion for high speed rail development.

"Building an new system of high speed rail in America will be faster, cheaper and easier than building more freeways and adding to an already overburdened aviation system," Mr. Obama said in April.

California already has an ambitious plan for high-speed rail. Computer animation imagines trains zipping past clogged freeways at up to 220 mph.

So far, it's all still on the drawing board, but getting closer to reality.

"We call this a war room, so these maps get shifted and changed," Tony Daniels showed Blackstone

Daniels leads an engineering team planning some 800 miles of new track from San Francisco and Sacramento to Los Angeles and San Diego.

"It's got challenges, but challenges that can managed," Daniels said. "There's nothing that would give us any doubt whatsoever that this can be built. Not one."

It can be built, but will it? Daniels left his job with British Rail 30 years ago hoping to build high-speed railways in America.

"And there was an opportunity. In [1979] somebody said, 'Well, we're gonna do it in the United States,'" he explained. "And I said, 'Right. I want to go and try it.'"

And since 1979, Daniels said he hasn't gotten discouraged about the prospects of high-speed rail in the U.S.

"Absolutely not," he said. "And you'll get people saying, 'Yeah, he's too optimistic.' But we made it. This time, it's gonna go."

California voters approved a $9.9 billion bond issue last November to get work started. Even a recession won't get in the way, says Quentin Kopp of the California High Speed Rail Authority.

"We're California. We're the state, during the middle of the Depression, which built the Golden Gate Bridge. We're the state, during the middle of the Depression, which built the Bay Bridge. And a depression, economically - much less a recession - has never stopped the spirit of California," Kopp said.

Kopp is an enthusiastic salesman for high speed trains in California. He says it's the only way to keep the state's growing population moving.

"Let's just take that hypothetical of accommodating travel requirements of 50 million Californians in the year [2030]. We would have to spend money somehow, adding 3,000 lane miles of freeway, adding five runways at major airports, which can't be expanded today because of environmental reasons mostly," Kopp said.

Today the train from San Francisco to Los Angeles takes more than 12 hours. In a high speed train, the trip would be cut to just two hours and 38 minutes - 10 hours less.

And, according to Angelides, city center to city center will be faster than flying.

"You know, I traveled up today from Los Angeles. It's quote, unquote, "An hour and 15 minute flight." You know, but there's the trip to the airport. There's the hour you got to be there before the flight. You know, all probably end-to-end, a four hour trek," he said.

To run 220 miles an hour, the trains will have to go over or under all roads. That means building 600 new bridges or tunnels in a state where big projects often run into environmental concerns. But Angelides, whose Apollo Alliance promotes green industry, said the electric-powered trains are definitely green and worth the $40 billion price tag.

"Look there are a lot of environmental benefits. We can take a million cars off the road," he said.

But critics worry the benefits of high speed rail are overestimated and the costs have been underestimated.

"My concern is we've had a sales pitch," said Julie Quinlan, a mother of two and neighborhood activist who fears such a huge project is bound to go far over budget.

"At the same time, you're having teachers that are getting pink slips in California. And the public school system really needs to be taken care of. So, we need to balance this, and not waste a dime," she said.

Like the rest of Amtrak, California's passenger trains are heavily subsidized. Supporters of high speed rail, however, say the fast trains will operate at a profit.

"Everywhere that you put a high speed train in - once it's in, it makes money. Everywhere, without exception," said Daniels.

Opponents say the U.S. doesn't have a train culture - we'll never ride the way Europeans and Asians do. But those who have been pushing high speed rail for years believe America is finally getting on the right track.

"Once you've been on high speed rail, whether it's France or Japan or Spain or Germany - you never forget it," Kopp said. "And you realize that this is a technology whose time has come. As a matter of fact, it came in the last century. But it sure is 21st century for the United States of America."

[pw08-2009]

We, as voters are always duped into passing bond measures that are supposed to go into "Rail" projects, yet, where are they?

Our leaders steal that money for their own pet projects and we forget about it.

[Hosheen]

This we should have a government-run subsidized rail system? Think about what a disaster Amtrack has been. Then think about anything else the government has involved itself in. What haven't they made worse?

Now, you want to give them billions more to fund another economic disaster?

[Hosheen]

There is only two passenger rail systems in the USA, maybe the world, that pays their own way without tax subsidies. That's the monorails at Disneyland and Disney World. Every other passenger rail system, including commuter lines in the northeast, are subsidized by tax money.

The fact is, the days of rail travel in the USA are over. Planes and private cars have replaced it and as long as both are available, will continue to do so.

Personally, I like rail travel and have used it in Alaska, Europe, and South America. But that doesn't mean I am in the majority or even part of a large enough group to support rail travel in the USA. Good roads and private automobiles appeal to far more Americans than rail travel ever will.

[American93]

Americans have this weird idea that the only way you can get stuff done is to verbally attack your opposition. Tell me, when was the last time you obtained your goal by calling someone a communist or a stupid far-righter?
Win over you enemys' minds with facts and logic, not insults and curses.
A wise man once said that after you defeat your enemy, do not punish him with every punishment within your power, for afterward he may still become your friend. Man can forgive defeat, but not humiliation.
For America's sake, let us stop all of the infighting, forget parties for a sec, and let's just be Americans.

I am an American, then a Republican, in that order.

[bougiemon7]

If all the negative nay-sayers of HSR have their way, we will be as un-american as the so-called "neo-cons" are! Unimaginative, Backward and Fearful, are those whose think the way THEY do! Implementing a complete and fully functional HSR system will take time and money, but it is NOT impossible! This IS America. The land of the possible. Let's think proactively and not reactionary for a change. This is what President Obama is talking about. Long range vision has always been a staple of American pride. The dream of HSR in this country is no different than the Wright Brothers, Henry Ford and Alexander Graham Bell. I remember a term called: "American Ingenuity"!

[parisdakar]

Exactly why do we have to match what Europe does? Rail may not be economically feasible here. Why should we hide from that? Why should we support a transportation system that maybe can't stay alive without subsidies?

[jokr8790]

Hey Brett who are you to speak for the majority of the American people? We should have emphasized mass transit right after WWII. If we had, we wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in now and completely dependent on fossil fuels. The fact of the matter is that right after WWII the Congress and the White House were in the pockets of the seven sister oil companies as they were known then with interlocking directorships with the automobile companies and a decision was made not to institute mass transit and instead got for individual car ownership. There was no vision or foresight about what the eventual results would be and as is usual with conservatives it was all private profit then, private profit now, private profit forever putting wealth in the fewest hands possible. Thanks primarily to Rethuglican policies there has never been as wide a gap in wealth disparity as there is now since the depression.

[whymayiask]

Try AMTRAK out of you want to ride a train, oh are they still around?

[whymayiask]

BTW "most" Americans?? Ha ha ha ha haha ahha hahahahahahahahaha ha!! Try only a few where the "Obamatrain" is centrally located.

[Onfyre]

I'm ready to ride. I want a ticket.

[kofiannanymous]

the rail lines I've heard being proposed are not coast to coast, they are within a single large state, or within several small states. They are relatively short distances that could be covered as quickly or nearly as quickly as an airplane due to all the waiting involved at airports. They would offer a choice between driving for a long period of time, where driving is the only task you can perform, or taking a much faster train, on which you could multitask. Depending on gas prices, which will increase as gas becomes more scarce, it might end up being cheaper to take the train too. Our highways are almost completely subsidized by taxpayers (our highways are socialist), rather than user-funded, so I don't really care if the rail needs some subsidizing too to make up for a deficit in user-funding.

[whymayiask]

Great!! We already subsidize one form of transportation. Let's add another. Again, if it were profitable ie NOT a waste of money, the private market would have picked it up by now.

[whymayiask]

BTW if it were a profitable business venture. Private investors would be taking it on.

[Noval53]

This is not about democrats or republicans or idiotic politics of either useless party. We need fast trains to advance our transportation system. I hate flying on jammed planes. Cars are no fun in traffic jams. Anyone who has been on trains in Europe knows America's rail system is 3rd world. If only fools will get out of the way so that we can "improve" our basic needed transportation system with modern fast trains.

[whymayiask]

How many people can realistically fit on a train?

[saneObserver]

I don't think it should be an issue of catching up. Europe and the US are very different and what works well there might not here and vice versa. A 2 hour, $30 trip to Chicago from my native Detroit would be great. If it could be done without subsidies, I'd gladly leave the car parked. Is the energy savings worth some some subsidies? I don't know.

[whymayiask]

Isn't keeping up with the Jones what got us in our current economic situation with defaults and forclosures? I don't want to keep up with Europe if it means we just WANT a shiny new "train" to look cool to the rest of the world. You know who is "cool" to me? Those who are frugal, don't spend more than they make, and can take care of any NEED they have.

[whymayiask]

What an utter WASTE of money. There is a reason we have an interstate system. To go places. Ohh and guess what. Along the way you can stop at small towns, drop a few dollars and boost their economy. Trains are no longer beneficial unless of course you are at Disney World.

[dsnj1-2009]

I, for one, would definitely use this form of transportation, as would many others. I have spent a lot of time in EU and Asia and see that this system is great and have to say that for all the naysayers on this post, "ohhh, it can't be done", that is just the attitude we DON'T need right now in the US. It is a no=brainer-A project like this would create jobs, and the ease of transportation would pay for itself. All political groups aside, this idea WOULD work.

[rf35]

High-speed rail between the cities and light rail inside the cities. That is the best bet. I used the rail system extensively while stationed in Japan. It was faster than navigating the congested highways and cheaper than paying the tolls to use those highways. Not to mention not having to pay for parking, gas, etc, etc. A few minutes walk from the station to your ultimate destination doesn't seem to be killing the Japanese, but then many of the wider Americans might not be able to handle such exertion. I've walked farther in many airports than I did going to/from the train stations in Japan. And in many cases, the train pulled up right under the most popular destinations and wound up being closer than the car park.

[ubrew12]

'build it and they will come'
(or not)

[poseidoncambria]

Your information is based on completely wrong and false assumptions. You may not live in California, but just this past November, we voted IN FAVOR of a $9.95 nillion bond issue to start the construction of a statewide high-speed rail system. A few years back, Florida voters voted in favor of funding a high-speed rail system, only to be vetoed by no other than Jeb Bush and Southwest Airlines who feared the competition. Obviously, there are plenty of Americans in this country who want high-speed rail.

An it's not just liberals in favor of high-speed rail systems. Republicans such as Bobby Jindal and Eric Cantor who both want to see high-speed rail systems in their state.

Also, building a high-speed rail system in California is HALF the cost of the alternatives which is to build countless new airport gates and runways and expand hundreds of miles of freeways just to match the capacity of a high-speed rail system.

You seem to talk about the cost of a high-speed rail system. Well look at how much we spend just to maintain our present-day highway system. Though high-speed rail systems almost always make a profit, we don't expect the highways to make money. They require billions every year in subsidies.

Before you go around making false assumptions, you should probably take sometime to do your homework to look for the nonexistent facts to back up your ideas.

[ariess63]

I would use the train if it was available. Of course I'd probably be dead by the time it was finished. It's hard to believe it only took 6 years to build the transcontinental railroad. Today you'd be lucky to get one bridge done in that amount of time.

[proudmilvet]

It will never be built. With all the corruption & Political backstabbing in this country nothing ever gets done!! That is why the U.S. is the Laughingstock of the world! It does'nt matter who is President or who controls Congress, this country will continue to fall apart. Eight years since 9-11-01 & we still can't get the Memorial built at ground zero in New York! What a great country!