Deja Vu?
-->
Déjà
vu?
An example for
teaching students a more problem based version of history, using documents and
critical thinking skills can be seen in the history of American transportation.
And for this example, I will focus on the American Railroad. I won’t spell out an entire lesson plan, but
will present some of the key aspects of the session.
The
“Transportation Revolution” that spurred the development of our railroads,
canals, and shipping industry, began in the 1830s. It was a result of foreign
investment and a strong willingness to take a risk. Many of the ventures that
characterized the era were supported by tremendous financial investment and
scientific and industrial genius.
Countless inventions and ideas had short shelf lives, but the essence of
most of our transportation systems, are a product of this era.
By 1869, America
had built its transcontinental railroad.
And during the early 20th century the great names in American
railroads (including Pullman, Budd, Union Pacific, Santa Fe, New York Central,
and Pennsylvania) became household names. However, by the end of World War II,
the strength of the car culture began to diminish America’s love of
trains. By the 1960s, America was more
dependent on cars, trucks, ships and planes than it was on trains. Passenger ridership fell and industrial use
took a backseat to more modern developments.
As a result, many
of the great rail-systems suffered financial hardships and some went
bankrupt. Tracks deteriorated and fell
into states of disrepair, the upkeep of stations was ignored, the great palace
stations were closed or torn down, and vast amounts of rolling stock were sold
or abandoned.
The resurgence of
America’s passenger railroads was tied to issues of national defense, economic
instability, and the rise of seemingly efficient European and Japanese
passenger networks. It led to the development of Amtrak as a “national rail
system.” However, on a national scale, America’s passenger service is still not
unified and is only sustainable in a handful of markets.
As a result,
almost two hundred years later, Americans are again forming independent
corporations to provide local, regional and national service. It has been a struggle for most of these companies
to remain in business, and in some instances, municipal and state governments
have taken over failing systems.
Brightline
represents the latest of these ventures. For several years, the creators of “Brightline”,
a railroad company being developed in Florida, have caught the imagination of
rail enthusiasts and transportation experts. Brightline is an entirely
privately owned company. Marketed as a “high-speed train”, Brightline, is
really an intercity rail service covering Miami, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale and
West Palm Beach. Its inaugural service
began on January 2018 with the Fort Lauderdale to West Palm Beach run, and
expanded going from Fort Lauderdale to Miami in May 2018. Planned expansion from
Miami to Orlando is scheduled to begin in 2021, and a subsequent corridor from
Los Angeles to Las Vegas (following the September 2018 acquisition of
XpressWest) is being developed.
In November 2018,
Sir Richard Branson, the man behind the United Kingdom’s Virgin Trains,
injected a greater sense of confidence into the “Brightline” network by
becoming a major investor in the railroad.
It was recently announced that during 2019 Brightline would become
Virgin Trains USA.
The questions for
students to investigate are the reasons why America easily abandoned rail
travel, why was Amtrak formed, is Amtrak successful, what are the chances of
this new venture’s success, and why can’t “real” high-speed rail travel develop
in the United States?
Here are some of
those answers!
The quest for
high-speed rail in America dates back to the 1960s. At that time, there was no
national railroad, rather a series of companies that owned tracks and trains.
Amtrak, which becomes the national rail-system in 1971, was an amalgamation of
various companies and their infrastructure. Various American companies
manufactured the hardware, the trains. Typically, one company built the
motive-power and another manufacturer built the passenger cars. The idea of a
trainset (a complete train built by the same company) was still an unknown
commodity.
The region or
corridor controlled by the Penn-Central Railroad eventually became the core of
what is now referred to as the Northeast Corridor. It is here, the routes from
Washington, D.C. to Boston, New York City to Albany, and Philadelphia to
Pittsburgh, where the quest for real high-speed rail begins. There was a great period
of American experimentation along the corridor from the late 1960s to the early
2000s. The initial efforts began under the auspices of private companies and
were concluded by Amtrak.
Even foreign
trains including the German ICE and the Swedish X-2000 Tilt Train were tested
along the corridor. But before them were
American enterprises of varying success. While most people are familiar with
the Budd’s Metroliner (1969-2006) and the current Acela (2000 to the present),
Rohr Industries’ Turboliner and United Aircraft’s Turbo Train remain among the
fastest American trains of the modern era. Both were used along the Northeast
Corridor and were based in New York City.
The Turboliner was
in service from 1973 to 1994 and it had a top speed of 125mph, and the Turbo
Train, which mainly operated in the 1970s (1968-1976), had a top speed of
170mph. In contrast the top speed for the Metroliner is 125mph, and the Acela
is 165mph. Yet, in spite of these high speeds, there are only stretches in
Rhode Island and Massachusetts where these trains can exceed 120mph. In
reality, the Acela takes more than six hours to travel the 457 miles from
Washington, D.C. to Boston. Very little
has changed in the last 50 years.
The
lack of high-speed trains in America has nothing to do with train
manufacturers. Siemens (Germany), Alstom (France) and Bombardier (Canada) are
the largest providers of passenger train locomotives in the United States.
Siemens and Alstom are responsible for most of the high-speed trains operating
in Europe. Alstom’s TGV is the world’s
fastest train. It has built a TGV for
Morocco and a similar train for India. A joint effort by Bombardier and Alstom
produced the Acela. And, Alstom is currently constructing the Avila Liberty, a
trainset with the ability to go more than 199mph, and it will become the
Acela’s future replacement.
The
failure of high-speed rail in America can be blamed on the lack of suitable
infrastructure. High-speed rail requires several components-a high-speed power
source usually an overhead catenary, exclusive straight high-speed tracks, and
no grade crossings. [The federal government has mandated track requirements for various high speed rail. For example, regional high-speed rail (110 mph) needs track category 6; category 7 can accommodate speeds up to 125 mph; and category 8 can handle up to 165 mph. The highest category is 9 (up to 220 mph) and that is the speed of European and Asian trains.] None of the current American rails can accommodate the highest speeds. The Northeast Corridor, for
example, shares space with several regional railroads, and it does not have
dedicated tracks or the adequate power supply in its overhead catenary. In
spots, there are grade level crossings where vehicular traffic crosses the
tracks. And safety concerns have limited
manufacturing designs that would enhance faster speeds.
Many
of these issues affect the Brightline. The rails are largely inherited-
purchased from abandoned freight and passenger companies, and a good portion of
the line is at street level. Within weeks of its initial run, Brightline trains
struck pedestrians who ignored signals and chose to cross the tracks. And this situation continues as more trains
hit impatient pedestrians as well as cars. Such occurrences can disrupt on-time
performance, raise public concern, and will force state officials to pass
legislation to protect citizens and the railroad. (Probably reinforcing rail
crossings and limiting train speeds)
Brightline
currently uses the new Siemens SCB-40 Charger diesel/electric locomotive with a
top speed of 125 mph. Brightline’s
version of the trainset is the diesel version without catenary. Other versions
of the Charger are used by Amtrak and regional systems on both the east and
west coasts. While the Charger may become a major part of the American
landscape, it is not a high-speed train.
So why are
Americans satisfied with what cannot compare to the best train networks, and
why would Mr. Branson invest in a project that seems doomed from the start?
Here is where
students will find the strengths of American mythology. And, they will have to
decide if it is a reality or simply a myth.
I personally don’t
think it is a myth. It seems hard to explain, but the answer is simple. Because,
it won’t fail!
Brightline might
not become a financial success but it won’t fail. Mainly as Brightline is more
than a single company, rather it is a symbolic dream. It is not high-speed rail
but it is the start of a new transportation revolution! Brightline draws from
an anxious market looking for a consumer friendly product. It will spawn other
similar minded groups to develop successful regional rail networks, and
eventually one of them will produce a real high-speed network. In a way history
will repeat itself with vast amounts of investment and ultimately local and
state government support to guarantee varying degrees of success. Passengers will investigate these networks
and once they see that they offer comforts and good service they will continue
to support the ventures. [1]
History reveals
that Acela did not go faster than the Metroliner, the Turboliner or the Turbo
Train, but it offered better service than its predecessors and at a price that
was competitive with the airlines that traversed the northeastern corridor.
Brightline, using a comparable formula, should prove successful in Florida and
in the run from Los Angeles to Las Vegas.
Sir Richard
Branson understands this revolution and that there are great risks. He has
experienced them in his United Kingdom projects. But Branson also knows airlines and his
Virgin American and Virgin Airline experiences might give him an analytical/tactical
advantage that other American entrepreneurs lack. Rail travel works best when
it is a suitable alternative to all other forms of transportation, especially
airlines.
Sir Branson also
knows that this can be the jumpstart for the stalled efforts in Texas,
California, and the Midwest. He may
become a major player in many of these projects. And there are dozens of private rail ideas in
various stages of development that need inspiration from a successful
venture.
Less than a year ago, Andy Kunz,
president and CEO of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association urged those forces to
get ready. Mr. Kunz argued that it was time to implement high-speed rail in
America. He stressed that high speed rail was tied to national security: it
would save energy, improve travel safety, limit our carbon footprint, make
housing more affordable, encourage newer rail development that would redirect
urban sprawl, create new jobs, and offer congestion relief. [2]
Richard Harnish, the Executive Director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association,
offers a similar sentiment on the need to move forward. “Brightline” Mr. Harnish
stated, “ has turned passenger rail in the United States upside down by doing
one seemingly obvious thing: defining what it wanted to do—its ideal
scenario—then finding a way to make that happen. Too often, efforts to begin or
expand passenger rail in the U.S. get off on the wrong foot by first outlining
what isn’t possible. Once all the constraints and barriers are in place, you’re
not left many options, and certainly not great ones. Brightline, instead,
started with its advantages, like an existing rail corridor, and real estate
development possibilities. It then set out goals, like frequent service on
modern trains, and did what was necessary to make it happen. In some cases,
they weren’t sure how they were going to achieve their goals, but they
proceeded with confidence nonetheless.”[3] Harnish concludes with great optimism
writing: “Brightline has
already set its sights beyond Florida with its acquisition of Las Vegas service
rights. To bring fast, frequent and reliable trains to the Midwest, we’ll need
to borrow some of Brightline’s confidence and apply their bold methods here.”[4]
Groups like the Midwest High Speed
Rail Organization are slowly redefining the image of American high-speed
rail. At this point few believe that the
United States will duplicate the European or Asian networks.[5] Instead
they advocate to take it “one step at a time” to develop dependable and
frequent train service.[6] This
service needs to reach more cities with faster, but not necessarily high-speed,
trains. That American developers use
existing rails to launch future projects. And, that they can learn from the
failures and successes of Asian and European rail networks to make a better
system and one that is suited to the needs of the American public. [7] Their
revolution will not happen overnight, and it will take decades to fulfill its
promise.
I feel like such an exploration
of the development of railroads in the 19th century, their decline
in the 20th century and the attempt to revitalize them in the 21st
century is a more holistic way of conceptualizing aspects of American history. It
also is a means to explore the uses of energy and political policy. Students can learn about the thinkers,
entrepreneurs, politicians and policies. They can see how events affect
ordinary people who may or may not have been involved in building America’s
rail networks. And, hopefully they will see that all Americans play a role in
past activities.
This is where the history lesson ends and the
real work begins. The students now have the tools to prepare themselves as
citizens in a democracy. They will be better prepared to make decisions as
manufacturers, politicians, consumers, voters, taxpayers and workers. Hopefully
they will realize that the fate of America’s railroads lie squarely in their
hands.
Because the last question is: who
will ultimately foot the bill for this revolution? As a transit enthusiast, I think it is
America’s destiny to join government and entrepreneurs to develop efficient
mass-transit systems. I feel it is our
obligation to redevelop our infrastructure.
However, I know that there is
another perspective. Outside of rail enthusiasts, massive criticism of high-speed
rail persists. Critics suggest that taxpayers will pay a heavy price for these
ideas. Articles in local newspapers as well as national mediums cannot minimize
degrees of skepticism. Significant numbers of influential anti-high speed rail
voices have good reason to contest these plans. One, Randall O’Toole, the
director of the Transportation Policy Center in Denver, makes a strong case to
abandon trains. [8]
He argues that Amtrak is not profitable and it relies on federal subsidies to
sustain all lines, including the Northeast corridor. California’s high-speed
project is already years behind schedule.
The first phase has barely started and it is experiencing cost overruns.
The entire project is now slated for completion in 2032. Networks within Minnesota
and Texas as well as routes from Chicago to Indianapolis, St. Louis to Chicago,
and Cleveland to Columbus are still looking for additional funding.
In my mind, these projects are a
necessity. However, if I can stay
impartial, the students can debate these issues and make informed choices. And
when faced with supporting or rejecting them as voters, they will make the
right choices for their futures.
[1]
See US High Speed Rail Association
[2]
Andy Kunz, “High Speed Rail: Now it’s America’s turn” Global Railway Review
June 7, 2018
[3] Richard Harnish, “Brightline Succeeds By
Being Bold” Midwest High Speed Rail Association October 29, 2018 <
https://www.midwesthsr.org/brightline-succeeds-being-bold>
[4]
Richard Harnish, “Brightline Succeeds By Being Bold” Midwest High Speed Rail
Association October 29, 2018 <
https://www.midwesthsr.org/brightline-succeeds-being-bold>
[5]
According to the US High Speed Rail Association, America ranks last of the
developing nations in terms of the number of operating trainsets. China - 1200 trainsets, France - 600 trainsets, Japan - 450 trainsets, Spain - 300 trainsets, and USA - 20 trainsets (all
Acelas).
[6]
“How Do We Build Successful High-Speed Rail?” Midwest High Speed Rail
Association
[7]
Glenn Luk, “Why Doesn’t The United States Have High-Speed Bullet Trains Like
Europe and Asia?” Forbes March 11, 2017
<
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/03/11/why-doesnt-the-united-states-have-high-speed-bullet-trains-like-europe-and-asia/#4c230188c080>
[8]
See, Randal O’Toole, “Denver has a coming transit apocalypse” The Hill November
1, 2017 < https://thehill.com/opinion/international/358048-denver-has-a-coming-transit-apocalypse>,
“Mass transit is collapsing everywhere” The Hill May 13, 2018
< https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/387498-mass-transit-is-collapsing-everywhere>
and, “It’s time to hit the brakes on
high-speed rail spending” The Hill February 1, 2018 < https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/371795-its-time-to-hit-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-spending>.
Comments