One organization's aim to address the continental disconnect
But a 2007 rail-press call convinced Mangelsdorf, the executive director of Texas Rail Advocates, to think harder about the message and its delivery. A recent ride on the European high-speed train Eurostar, which travels at a speed of up to 186 mph, cemented his resolve to do something about the disconnect on this continent.
"I came home and wanted to do something constructive," Mangelsdorf says.
That something? "Future Mobility North America: 21st Century Transportation" (FMNA), which would address what Mangelsdorf terms the "important transportation issues of our time." (read: intermodal solutions to capacity and environmental problems)
"Rail is both the greenest and least expensive way to move goods and people in large volumes," he says.
Which, of course, isn't news to the rail world. And if what I saw, heard and otherwise observed in the halls and offices of the U.S. Senate and Congress earlier this month during "Railroad Day on Capitol Hill" (more on that event in our April issue) is any indication, the word might be sinking in in federal policy-making circles. But the disconnect — measured in terms of how long it'd actually take to develop high-speed passenger rail or create the freight-rail capacity we'll need to meet even near-term demand — is deep, deep, deep.
All the more reason to get the "Future Mobility North America" show on the road.
"The goal is to inform the general public about railroad technology," Mangelsdorf says. "I think most people in the U.S. have no idea what a railroad is ... or why it is the mode to take us into the 21st century."
Initially, FMNA hopes to convince corporate North America, the not-for-profit sector, the media, the general public, and legislators and policymakers to think "intermodal" by talking up a range of public policies and private initiatives. Among them:
• Interstate II, a plan to build 30,000 to 40,000 miles of double and triple track in existing rights of way.
• High-speed rail technology. FMNA promotes installing GPS train control and separate railroad rights of way from street and highway systems to permit 90 mph speeds for trains carrying containerized freight and highway trailers, and passenger train speeds of 125 mph and higher.
• Energy independence. FMNA suggests converting the busiest rail lines to electric propulsion. ("Only rail can be powered entirely by electricity, which can be generated without imported fuels," Mangelsdorf says.)
• Public/private partnerships. FMNA would identify opportunities for private and public capital to be set aside to build intermodal transportation infrastructure that promotes environmentally clean economic development through such means as tax incentives.
Mangelsdorf has no illusions about what it'll take to deliver FMNA's message, or for it to sink in. But he says he's in this for the long haul.
"And, for better or worse, I'm persistent," he adds.
You'll hear more from Mangelsdorf in the months ahead. In the meantime, he'd be happy to deliver the message directly — call him at 214-749-3549 or contact via email (pmangelsdorf@hotmail.com).
Posted by: 
Pat Foran | Date posted: 3/27/2008
Comments
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 3/28/2008 9:15:04 AM
Mr. Mangelsdorf is undertaking a noble effort. He would not have to had the railroad industry done a consistent job of telling its story to the various constituencies, including the general public, over the years. The railroad industry long has had a pattern of fighting its political and public policy battles ferociously, and then "bringing the troops home" after victory is declared. The current onslaught of bulk shippers seeking to reregulate the industry is an excellent example. Had the railroads spent some of their capital in a continuing campaign to impress the society that they are part of the solution and not the problem, they might not now be forced to engage in the kind of defensive battle they are in.
Posted by Dave Smith on 3/28/2008 7:16:15 PM
Pat's blog brings to mind several questions and comments. First, one cannot compare the European society with ours vis-a-vis HSR. Europe has far greater population density, taxes it's motor fuel far and above that needed for user fee reciprocity, and of course is predicated on it's citizens marching in lock step for the benefit of it's socialist governments, e.g. a "perfect storm" for mass transit. The US on the other hand is predicated on individualism, taxing fuel only to cover what is needed for a user fee, and outside the East Coast we are rather spread out, e.g. unfavorable conditions for promoting nationwide mass transit ideals. Furthermore, our freight rail system is quite retrenched compared to Europe or even our own highway system. It seems rather ironic that we're talking about adding capacity to the freight rail system when it took the industry four decades to get it whittled down to the current skeletonized network. Much of our nation has little or no decent rail coverage anymore - if public subsidies are involved, shouldn't we talk about rebuilding into dis-railed regions first before we talk about adding double and triple track to current mainlines? Let's get rid of the bottlenecks and add some dispersed redundancy first. Then there's the disconnect between what's best for rail efficiency and what's best for highway efficiency. If multimodalism is what's desired, we need to find a way to fit trucking's preference for 68' trailer combos with railroading's preference for double stacked 53' containers. That means we should probably start allowing longer trailer combinations (2 x 53?) and heavier GVW standards on highways so that the modal interconnect between consumers and bulk transporters is optimized. And for what it's worth, it would make more sense from a cost perspective vis-a-vis energy independence for the railroads to return to coal-fired steam power rather than trying to string expensive copper wires over selected mainlines. Unlike modern diesel engine technologies which are constrained in trying to deal with certain harmful emissions, modern coal fired combustion can easily eliminate all harmful emissions well below what is required for diesel engines, except of course for that poster child of the global warming hoax aka carbon dioxide. Finally, if we are serious about PPP-funded HSR for freight and passenger movements, it would make sense to keep it separated from the current slogging 25 mph private rail network.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 3/31/2008 12:04:36 PM
Dave Smith sounds more like a spokesman for the Bush Administration that one who knows anything about transportation or public policy. European governments are not socilist, as he states, although he's certainly right about population density and the price of fuel driving greater use of rail. Distance also plays a comparable role. And, the U.S. system is not a 35 mph system as he avers. Most main lines can handle traffic at 60 mph and even higher, depending on signalization and traffic control systems. As for spending 40 years shrinking its system, good for the railroads. Mr. Smith's utility industry certainly wouldn't agree to pay for the railroads to have and maintain reserve capacity just waiting for them to decide they have a need. This is something the utilities get to "bake" into their consumer rates and which state regulatory commissions require consumers to pay whether they want or need it - or ever will. Let's try to confine these discussions to facts and opinion backed by facts and avoid the ad hominem and ideological-based comments.
Posted by Dave Smith on 4/1/2008 7:47:24 PM
Kudos to Mr. Kaufman for responding in an ostensibly upfront manner. Several corrections: I did not say 35 mph system, I said 25 mph system which is based on average velocity. There are certainly sections of the rail grid where 60 mph speeds and higher occur, but bi-directional single track, slow order curvature, and bottleneck congestion (to name a few) keep the average speed far below what it should be. In the past the US railroads routinely replaced ABS double track with CTC single track. Saved some one-time money on capital, but slowed down system traffic due to opposing meets. As for Europe being socialist, they do pay more in taxes and have more of their respective economies centrally commanded, ergo they are certainly closer to a socialist ideal than we are. Finally, it is interesting that utilies were brought into the converstation again. Unlike the US railroads, the utility sector has never retrenched it's infrastructure, since it is primarily customer driven. Regulation or no, the utilities exist for the benefit of the consumer, while the US railroads seem to think customers exist for the benefit of rail industry stockholders. Ironic, in that utilities have garnered a 10% ROI practically since the days of Edison and Tesla, while the rail industry ROI has barely achieved half that including the post-Staggers era. Now, in theory railroads should be able to achieve higher ROI's due to monopoly-enhancing retrenchment, but it could be that the recent demands on the system might strain that retrenched system beyond a nominal ability of investment optimization, something that would never have happened under comprehensive intramodal competition.
Posted by James Swidergal on 4/3/2008 8:53:28 AM
And once again D Smith is off and running onto other than factual statements,deviating from the topic at hand and adding his pro-Bush rhetoric to every topic on this blog, must be that energy industry crapola logic that we hear about all too frequently in print and media. But anyway my hat's off to this fellow who wants' to take on such a wonderful idea and propagate the railroad as the way to fly in the new millenium. It's an enormous undertaking and sign me up, but take into consideration that there's no help coming your way from the carriers' themselves nor from a broken regulating body FRA comes to mind. One would think that one might need to overthrow the present regime of railroad execs' to get this job done. And the average speed for US class 1 railroads is 16 MPH.
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 4/7/2008 10:40:00 AM
Just for the record, Mr. Swidergal (and if I misspelled his name, I apologize in advance) is incorrect when he says average Class 1 train speed is 16 mph or whatever specific number he used. According to the authoritative and non-controversial weekly electronic publication Week in Review, the lowest system average train speed for the week ended April 4 was CSX at 19.6 mph. Each of the other Class 1s had an even higher system average train speed. I'll leave it to others to try to argue that this is not so.
Posted by Dave Smith on 4/9/2008 7:11:10 PM
Look guys, here's the primary problem I have with current HSR proposals for the US, including that of Mr. Mangelsdorf: It is all predicated on hauling passengers. Not a mention is made of using HSR for hauling time sensitive freight such as UPS, certain ag products, et al. Memo to Mangelsdorf: Unless a rail passenger hauler can either emulate low cost no frills airlines like Southwest or appeal to a lucrative tourist niche, you're not going to make money hauling passengers. So why waste public funds and otherwise scarce resourcs promoting the same? Conversely, if a HSR was predicated on hauling freight first and foremost (with passengers as an addendum), such an enterprise would easily steal UPS traffic from the Class I's as well as FedEx, DHL, US Postal Service et al, and time sensitive ag procucts, and any other "I needed it yesterday" items. Now, all that being in mind, why on earth would one want to invest all that HSR capital on the current 25 mph Class I oligarchy?
Posted by david foster on 4/9/2008 8:49:26 PM
Paul Manglesdorf and his band are on the right track. The "steel interstate" was a great idea when Gil Carmichael first proposed it 9 years ago, and it's even better today. All rail advocacy groups need to pull together to make it happen. We need a vision comparable to that which produced the Eisenhower Interstate System 50 years ago. It is now built-out and mature. We're long past the time when every problem of congestion and growth in this country can be solved by more lanes of highway. We need to think smarter for the future. A core national network of high-capacity rail lines, grade separated and electrified, can be a real 21st Century transportation paradigm. There are a myriad of reasons why the nation needs to move in this direction, among which are: 1) preserving national mobility of people and goods when oil runs out 2) rail is safer, more energy efficient, less polluting, and has less greenhouse gas emissions per ton-mile of freight handled. 3) It's footprint on the environment in terms of land required is much more modest than adding comparable highway capacity 4) Intercity trucks can continue to make pick-up and delivery as now, with the line haul being aboard trains, as has been done successfully in Europe but never tried in the U.S. 5) The high-capacity lines can be used for both freight and passenger trains, as well as truck trains and other intermodals In order to get moving in this direction, believers and supporters of the concept need to band together with business and government allies and all pull together. AASHTO says that it took a lot of work to get the highway interstate program underway and no doubt it will take even more to get the steel interstate launched because we have not yet identified a credible national leader such as Gen. Eisenhower to spearhead the effort. But Manglesdorf and others, including the organization RAIL Solution of which I am executive director, are working hard to move in that direction and form a national coalition for the steel interstate. Our website is www.railsolution.org
Posted by Larry Kaufman on 4/10/2008 10:38:49 AM
Mr. Foster presents some very interesting ideas and concepts. He either misses or chose not to get involved in the sina qua non of his proposals. Absent a comprehensive national transportation policy there is no structure or system to prevent members of Congress from viewing all transportation spending as pork barrel politics subject to the depradation of even more earmarks than the 6,400 contained in the last surface transportation act. And before anyone starts screaming, I do not consider a policy to be a blueprint for spending, but a map directing users and others in which direction to go. A decent policy that mandated competitive equity in the way government treats the various modes would be a start. The fact is that our society probably has ignored its infrastructure for so long that it will be virtually impossible to catch up as fully as many of us wish. That makes it all the more essential that government be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Using a slogan that I personally don't like, we need to get more bang for our bucks.
Posted by A. T. (Tom) Lewis on 5/27/2008 12:14:00 PM
I think your organization is on the right track
