Every once in a while, we get a clear view of a major disconnect in the Republican Brain.This certainly is true with the responses of many GOP office-holders to the recent tragic crash of an Amtrak train in Philadelphia.

In terms of what happened, the train was going 106 mph in a 50 mph zone with a tight curve, as it headed north to New York.The train derailed,  leading cars to fall apart and tumble down inclines. Of the 238 passengers and 5 crew on board, 8 were killed and over 200 injured, 11 critically.

It has still not been determined if the cause of the crash was human error by the engineer, mechanical failure of existing equipment, or even the remote possibility that a projectile hit the engine window and disoriented the engineer.

Officials of the National Transportation Safety Board said that the crash might have been prevented by a computerized, speed-limiting system called Positive Train Control (PTC) that was operational elsewhere on the Northeast corridor.

When it comes to understanding why the PTC system was not in place on this stretch of track, we have a classic example of how Republican thinking tends to be illogical. Shortly after the crash, House Speaker John Boehner was asked if the crash was in part due to Amtrak not being well-funded. Boehner jumped on the question and said, “Are you really going to ask such a stupid question?” He went on to say:

“Listen, you know, they started this yesterday, it’s all about funding; it’s all about funding. Well, obviously it’s not about funding. The train was going twice the speed limit. Adequate funds are there, no money’s been cut from rail safety, and the House passed a bill earlier this spring to reauthorize Amtrak, and authorize a lot of these programs. And it’s hard for me to imagine that people take the bait on some of the nonsense that gets spewed around here.”

(21-second video)

Amtrak’s budget has been repeatedly cut by GOP lawmakers. Boehner is missing the obvious. Had more money been appropriated to Amtrak, it would likely have been spent it on installing PTC in that stretch of track.This action was already in Amtrak’s budget for 2015, and with a few more dollars, they could have completed this work much earlier, as well as many other necessary safety projects.

Boehner was not alone in his stance. Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which has oversight of Amtrak, said the crash “did not have anything to do with money.” His committee that bottled up requests for increased Amtrak spending on safety.

Rep. John Mica (R-FL) took it considerably further, saying that opening the commuter rail market to private investment was the solution to what he called a “third-world rail system …. run in a Soviet-style operation.” His memory seems to fail him. For years, passenger train service was in the private sector (with considerable government assistance). When airline business boomed in the second half of the twentieth century, passenger service plummeted.

Yet, in certain areas of the country, particularly the northeast corridor from Washington, DC to Boston, demand was still high. One only needs to drive from Washington to Boston to be convinced that it is good policy to have alternate forms of transportation that can take cars off the roads. That route is the bread and butter of Amtrak. For it to be sustainable, it must be safe.

Train fares alone do not provide that money for Amtrak. Since its inception. it has had federal subsides (as the private railroads previously had). It is in the national interest to keep Amtrak solvent, which means a combination of sales revenue and federal subsidies to make it safe, convenient, and effective.

Republicans can laugh all the way to the bank as they continue to pour government largesse upon our largest corporations, particularly in the financial industry. But for them to not see the connection between government assistance and safe rail service is not just poor public policy, it is a window into the curious and often malicious Republican brain.

The post Amtrak crash shows disconnect in Republican Brain appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I’ve done some traveling in recent days, and when it comes to travel, these days are not ordinary. The federal government is closely watching many of us, wherever we might go. Our whereabouts are often tracked by private firms that are “just trying to protect us.”

The most obvious example of the tentacles of security impacting the way we travel is the work of the Transportation Security Administrations (T.S.A.). Long-gone are the days when someone could rush into an airport, buy a ticket and then beat a speed record going from the ticket counter to the actual doorway of the plane. Also gone are the exciting days of being able to go to the gate in advance to wait for a close relative or friend to arrive on the next inbound flight.

I took the Capitol Limited Amtrak train from Washington, DC to Chicago. The journey was most relaxing, and so was the transition from land to rail. We arrived at the refurbished Union Station in Washington, checked in at the ticket window with no wait, and were directed to seats in a special waiting room for passengers with sleeping car arrangements. I must confess that this was a special privilege; a convenience that I was willing to and able to pay extra for.

Twenty-five minutes before the train was scheduled to depart, we were escorted through a door that took us right to the train. Climbing the steps to the car with luggage was more challenging than boarding a plane, but we made it. What we would otherwise have checked  on an airplane, we simply put on a luggage rack on Amtrak. It stayed there for nearly 18 hours, and as has always been the case on previous journeys, it remained undisturbed the entire trip, even though anyone could have grabbed the suitcases and absconded with them. We went to our room, enjoyed watching the bustle around the train until we left at our appointed hour. A few minutes later, the conductor scanned our tickets. No muss; no fuss; no quizzical looks; no disrobing; no x-rays.

Beside having terrific sleeping accommodations, we had food that was second to none. The journey went through Appalachia, which was both beautiful and haunting, because the landscape was dotted with pockets of poverty and environmental scars.

We arrived at Chicago, although late, and could easily unload our luggage and walk to the station. Only at that point were we confronted with the inconvenience of security. Taxis could no longer drive into the tunnel by baggage claim to pick up passengers. We had to lug our belongings some distance to the street. Not fun, but acceptable.

Like most passengers on the train, I would like to see Amtrak greatly expanded and equipped with more modern technology. However, I hesitate to push too hard for this change, because I feel as if train travel is a hidden American secret. It’s possible that if terrorists targeted trains, they would have much more success than they have with planes. So I enjoyed the trip, was pleased that it was entirely the work of a government agency rather than a private corporation, and hoped that these glory days would continue as long as possible.

The post Amtrak: A respite from intrusive security appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Florida’s Governor Rick Scott has slammed on the brakes, turning down $2 billion in federal funds for an 84-mile high-speed train between Tampa and Orlando. A lawsuit by a group including several Florida lawmakers failed last week [March 4, 2011], as the Florida Supreme Court ruled  that Gov. Scott’s rejection was legal, and that he was within his rights to turn away the federal funds. In the meantime, the Florida ruling sparked a financial feeding frenzy among other states who would LOVE to have that money and have no problem with the idea of high-speed rail in their territory.

What’s up with that? To contractors who would build it, businesses who would benefit from it,  intercity commuters who would ride on it and  city planners and boosters who would develop around it, high-speed rail sounds like a dream come true.

But apparently, there’s trouble on the line. If you listen to Florida’s Rick Scott, high-speed rail is a risky boondoggle, doomed to failure. Others see high-speed rail as a national necessity and an unstoppable economic engine.  America’s number one high-speed-railroad enthusiast is none other than President Obama. His administration’s 2009 Recovery Act included an $8 billion down-payment toward a 17,000-mile, nationwide high-speed rail network.  Who’s got it right? Here’s a look at some facets of a story that alternates between fast-forward and total derailment:

Positive potential

For a rosy picture of  what, ideally, high-speed trains could mean for the US, look at the extensive list of pluses cited by the US High-Speed Rail Association. [USHSR]. “Faster, more efficient mobility, enormous energy savings, reduced environmental damage – a train system solves many problems,” says USHSR.

According to a 2010 report issued by the US Conference of Mayors,  high-speed rail could be an economic game-changer for cities connected by the 13 corridors envisioned in the nationwide plan:

“The benefits of traveling between 110 and 220 miles per hour will mean better connectivity, shorter travel times and new development around train stations…The changes will create 150,000 new jobs and some $19 billion in new businesses by 2035.”

To see the plan for the proposed high-speed rail network, check out this animated map, courtesy of USHSR.

Lessons from China

The fastest of the [conventional] fast trains are in China. And the whole world is watching to see how China’s mind-bogglingly ambitious, $300 billion move into high-speed rail is progressing.

But the news from China is both good and bad. By 2012, just four years after it began its first high-speed passenger service, China is projected have more high-speed train tracks than the rest of the world combined. It’s pulling ahead in high-speed train production, too, and may soon become the leading exporter of bullet-trains and bullet-train technology.

Recently, though, charges of corruption in the Chinese Rail Ministry have raised concerns about the project. And news reports have focused on safety issues in China’s high-speed rail system. In February, Caixin, a Chinese news service, reported that:

Rapid construction has raised worries among many safety experts. A source working for a foreign company that supplies construction materials for China’s high-speed railways told Caixin that building 300 kilometers of railway usually takes 10 years overseas, but only two years in China. He said tight delivery deadlines were sometimes met with lower quality control measures.

A railway engineer expressed concern over the structural stability of railways lines from land subsidence issues. Foreign builders typically leave a four to five year buffer time for land settlement before construction is completed. But in China, the Ministry of Railways has used elevated bridges to address changes in land elevation.

Another development to watch, as America attempts to catch up in the high-speed train race, is ridership. It turns out that, in China, the notion that “if you build it, they will come,” may not be a slam-dunk. Economist and China specialist Patrick Choavec observes that, while China’s conventional rail system is completely overloaded with passengers and coal, the high-speed system may not be a viable answer:

China’s high-speed rail is “expensive both to build and to operate, requiring high ticket prices to break even. The bulk of the long-distance passenger traffic, especially during the peak holiday periods, is migrant workers for whom the opportunity cost of time is relatively low. Even if they could afford a high-speed train ticket — which is doubtful given their limited incomes — they would probably prefer to conserve their cash and take a slower, cheaper train. If that proves true, the new high-speed lines will only incur losses while providing little or no relief to the existing transportation network.”

Derailment in Florida

In an NPR interview, Florida’s newly elected Gov. Scott  explained his rationale for turning down federal funds for high-speed rail.  He said,”The …data shows capital cost overruns are pervasive in nine of 10 high-risk, high-speed rail projects, and that two-thirds of those projects inflated revenue projections by an average of 65 percent of actual patronage.”

The federal funds would have paid for 90 percent of the construction costs, but Scott called the expenditure “too risky” for Florida taxpayers.

The Florida project would have been the first in the US. Some speculate that Gov. Scott’s rejection of federal money was an ideological move—paralleled in other states, where conservative lawmakers characterize any money from Washington, and especially from the Obama administration, as tainted. 

But even if, in the short term, Gov. Scott’s decision has financial merit for Florida, rejecting high-speed rail technology for the US in the 21^st Century is like saying no to automobiles in the early 20^th century or nixing the interstate highway system in the 1950s. When new technologies emerge—advances that can improve quality of life and the nation’s economic health—they’re going to be adopted. So, high-speed rail is probably going to happen—eventually. The only questions seem to be when, where, how much and what we will learn from the journey.

The post High-speed rail: fast-track or slow-down? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Many Americans have looked to fixed-rail modes of transportation such as intercity trains, subways, and light rail systems as key to addressing America’s transportation problems.  As has been reported in the Occasional Planet and in many other publications, exciting innovation is occurring in the world of rail travel and fixed rail provides opportunities for easing metropolitan and inter-city transportation.

One of the major advantages of trains over airplanes is the ease of boarding.  You can still do with trains what you could pre-September 11, 2001 with airplanes: go to the terminal, purchase a ticket, and board.  But how long will this last?  If more and more Americans use rail transportation, will trains become targets for would-be terrorists?  Apparently there are some who think so.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported this past July 4:

Don’t be too alarmed to see stepped-up security on MetroLink or Amtrak trains in St. Louis.

During the past week or so, Metro and Amtrak officials have alerted their passengers that they may encounter canine teams and uniformed law enforcement officers.

“This is not in response to any sort of threat or risk,” Amtrak spokesman Marc Magliari said last weekend. “This is something we are doing around the country more and more. I think our customers are going to see this more and more often as they travel around our system.”

The surge team was in St. Louis for an undisclosed number of days, Magliari said last Sunday. The dogs are brought in to detect explosives on arriving and departing Amtrak trains.

This stepped-up security corresponds with the holiday weekend — a time when more people are out and about. Metro is expecting big crowds this weekend and will have extra trains for people attending Fair St. Louis.

This weekend, Metro — along with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and local police agencies — will patrol the transit system. The operation goes by a clunky name: Visible Intermodal Protection and Response. And this weekend isn’t the first time it has been in effect. The teams are on the system a few times a year.

We should not be surprised that officials are taking steps to try to ensure more safety on rail travel.  What we should be concerned about is whether or not these officials learn from the way in which security has been instituted at airports.

At airports such as Lambert International in St. Louis, travel is down more than 50% since pre-September 11 days.  While part of this is attributable to a lagging economy, much is due to passengers’ unwillingness to endure the delays, aggravation, probing, and at times invasion of privacy that occurs in going through security to terminal gates.

As railroad officials increasingly address security issues, it is important that procedures be reassessed.  Two things are clear: (1) regrettably, we may need more security with trains, (2) airport-type procedures would drastically undermine an attempt to generate a renaissance of rail travel.

What is unclear is what different procedures would work.  Fortunately, we now have an opportunity for a “do-over.”  The post-September 11 procedures were put in effect under emergency conditions; there was very little time for thought and none for debate.

There has to be a better way to address security issues for fixed rail while not taking the fun out of riding the train.  If we don’t mandate serious studies of how to address these questions now, we will be caught in the jaws of the same instant procedural changes that occurred after September 11.  We now have an opportunity for forethought; let’s use it wisely while we can.

The post Protecting rail passengers, with lessons from airport security appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In a move that invites all manner of bad puns, Amtrak has begun testing the first train to operate solely on bio-diesel fuel. The test marks the beginning of a year-long experiment to see if a specially equipped train can run efficiently and problem-free on alternative fuel. According to The Infrastructionist:

The train chosen for the job is the Heartland Flyer, which travels daily between Oklahoma City and Forth Worth, Texas. The Federal Railroad Administration is picking up the tab for the experiment, with a $274,000 grant. The trial is part of a larger environmental initiative meant to highlight Amtrak’s position as a green alternative to air travel

The fuel, which mixes 80 per cent diesel with 20 per cent biofuel, cuts both hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by 10 per cent, according to the company, which said that the fuel also reduces particulates by 15 per cent and sulphates by 20 per cent, compared to standard diesel fuels.

The biodiesel, which was refined from beef byproducts provided by a Texas supplier, will run as a 12-month experiment, during which Amtrak will collect data on emissions, and on the impact of the fuel on mechanical parts. Although technically the fuel mix can run in unmodified trains, the Heartland Flyer was fitted with new engine assemblies so that detailed measurements could be taken to establish the effect of the fuel on the engine.

And now, from Occasional Planet, here’s the opening salvo in the inevitable pun-o-rama [feel free to join in]:  It remains to be seen if the notion of running trains on a  mix of diesel and beef by-products is a viable idea or just a load of bull.

The post Amtrak testing bio-diesel train appeared first on Occasional Planet.