Getting Real About High-Speed Rail

Today on the Streetsblog Network, member blog Worldchanging has an interview on the future of American transportation with Nancy Kete, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute and the managing director of EMBARQ, the WRI’s Center for Transport and the Environment.

215183857_0c736d4f20_m.jpgA bullet train is not necessarily a silver bullet. Photo by rikdom via Flickr.

who says the US needs to be emitting 80 percent less CO2 by 2050, "at
the minimum," cautions against seeing a nationwide high-speed rail
network as a quick fix to our carbon problems. In an interview with
Worldchanging’s Sarah Kuck, Kete says changing the nation’s intercity
travel patterns is going to take careful planning — and a more
realistic public view of the true cost of driving. She had this advice
for the Obama Administration:

[S]tart with
the corridors where there is a certain density, and a high demand for
something other than driving and flying. Prove out the concept with
truly high speed rail, and then as people see the benefit of it, the
demand for it in other places might increase.

In addition, we have to think about tolls and higher fuel taxes
to discourage driving on the same corridors that have a lot of
congestion on the road so that you drive people appropriately to the
transit option. And then the third thing is, the U.S. has a growing
population. You want to make sure that growth occurs along these
corridors so that you have more density and more riders. Not just to
get the riders, but so that you have your infrastructure and your
demand in the same place because that’s the only thing that will make
it cost effective and carbon efficient.

people don’t know how much it costs them to drive their own car. We
have these externalized costs associated with owning the car, which we
don’t pay every time we drive, so once we own a car and we’ve paid
those costs, we only see the fuel costs… If we made it clearer, like
with pay-as-you-drive insurance,
and with fuel prices that more accurately reflected the cost of
building and maintaining the road system and protecting the fuel
supply, which is related to keeping peace in the Middle East and
keeping our access to a steady supply of oil and all the environmental
costs… if the driver paid all those every time he/she filled the
tank, we would be paying much higher costs all the time and would make
different decisions about how much we drove our cars.

Other things to think about from around the network: The Dirt looks at the possibility that cities of the future will generate more power than they consume. Scaledown asks if Windsor, Canada will be the new Easter Island. And DC Bicycle Transportation Examiner has Chuck Schumer’s word on it: Not only is Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "a very human person," she’s also a cyclist.


The Bay Area Should be Hyper Skeptical about Hyperloop

Hyperloop, Elon Musk’s pitch for a transportation technology that he says will whisk people from somewhere north of Los Angeles to the East Bay in 35 minutes, was in the news again thanks to a two-day conference held at Texas A&M University. Engineering students from around the world displayed designs for a Hyperloop vehicle. So […]

It’s a Go for Caltrain Electrification

This morning, during its regular meeting in San Carlos, the nine-member Caltrain board voted unanimously to dedicate $1.25 billion towards electrifying Caltrain. If all goes according to plan, electric services will begin in 2020. “The total program is $2 billion. That includes money for the advanced signal system, which we’re already installing today,” said Jayme Ackemann, spokeswoman […]