Today, President Obama, Vice President Biden, and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood <a rhef=”http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/16/A-Vision-for-High-Speed-Rail/“>released a vision</a> for high-speed rail in the United States, the first such administration-endorsed rail strategy in American history. The plan attempts to outline a strategy to follow in undertaking the development of rail corridors with the $8 billion included for the effort in the stimulus bill passed earlier this year. The administration has specifically endorsed providing more money in the near future to state and federal rail projects, though those funds have yet to be approved.
The administration’s <a href=”http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31″>report on high-speed rail</a> clarifies the direction of the federal government, confirming that the administration will be spending its funds on the existing Congressionally-designated corridors, which include lines in the Pacific Northwest, California, Texas, the Gulf Coast, Florida, the Southeast, the Midwest, Pennsylvania, New York, and Northern New England. The report, unlike previous federal descriptions of high-speed rail lines, actually endorses connecting these corridors with one another, something that had been left out of previous DOT reports. That said, the existing corridors noted on the plan aren’t necessarily the most thought-out: a line from Dallas to Little Rock, Arkansas is envisioned, but there’s no provision for a line from Dallas to Houston, for instance. Those deficiencies in the existing plan are likely to be remedied as the administration selects the most cost efficient and valuable routes for funding.
The plan identifies two types of project - one, very fast high-speed rail running at up to 200 mph, like that in Europe and Asia; and two, upgraded existing lines running at up to 110 mph. High-speed programs would be funded by grants going to individual programs, corridor programs, or planning programs. Initial funding is to be allocated at the end of the summer.
What is perhaps most exciting about the high-speed program established by the President is that it wholly endorses the idea of a national rail plan, proposing to draft a proposal by November of this year, rather than simply developing isolated corridors. Its insistance that 150 mph and faster rail services are the ultimate goal also demonstrates the the U.S. government isn’t ignorant about the advances in high-speed rail abroad.
Yonah Freemark is an independent researcher currently working in France on comparative urban development as part of a Gordon Grand Fellowship from Yale University, from which he graduated in May 2008 with a BA in architecture. He writes about transportation and land use issues for The Transport Politic and The Infrastructurist.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
“…the existing corridors noted on the plan aren’t necessarily the most thought-out”
Well, that pretty much sums up the problem! The President gives a major address on his new national rail initiative and his proposals aren’t well thought out?! Nobody could look at population density or short-hop flight traffic and figure out where there is an actual demand for this? Nobody thought of making sure you could go Dallas-Houston or NY - Chicago?
Aside from the barely-existing NE Corridor, the only lines that make any sense are a connection of that line to Chicago, extending the DC end down to Atlanta, the California line, and (big maybe) a Texas line that needs to hit Houston, Dallas, and Austin. That’s it.
This reeks far more of constituent-pandering than of a well considered national rail plan. By the time Congress is done with this we’ll have one 3 mile stretch of pork-bloated mag-lev in each of the 535 congressional districts. Which is actually a hell of a lot better than 1000 miles of woefully underused track to nowhere that we have to subsidize for the next 50 years - as this map shows.
Sadly, as I am a life-long rail advocate, I see this going nowhere….
April 16th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Agree with the previous comment by “Rockfish.” Yes, one would believe that a NY-Chicago would be a top priority, which would do wonders for the airport traffic in teh Windy City. And $13 billion is an awfully short amount…
April 16th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Sadly, I have to disagree with “Rockfish” and “Don Ciccio” here. As we all know, almost one third of the airline trips are taken for distances that are within 300 miles, which is the market that High-speed rail (HSR) is slated to serve in its earlier stages. As the system evolves and more lines get built to handle high-speed train sets, the expansion of of the network will envelope cities that are farther apart.
The argument that NYC to Chicago would be a priority corridor is hard to buy at this early stage of this nascent initiative. Because, it does not serve well for rail due to the distance (roughly around 800 miles). For such distances, air travel (~2.5hrs) would be more suited compared against rail (which might take at least 7hrs) viable alternative to air travel.
I do agree with you on the fact that Houston/Dallas line should have been considered a priority in this proposal because it it continues to carry a lot of vehicular traffic and also the distance (~250 miles) perfectly suits HSR.
The President made it clear that this $8B investment is definitely not enough, but it is a good start for us to get moving on this “Critical” need. After all, we got to start start somewhere and why not now when you need to revitalize this economy. The longer we postpone getting this rail infrastructure, the harder it will be for us to move away from the current petroleum driven-economy.
The only “real” alternative we have for our road-based transportation systems is air travel, which is mired in a lot of problems of its own and is poised to get worse in the decades to come. The Aviation industry is bogged down by a lot of factors - increasing flight delays, airport congestion, attrition in work force, growing passenger & freight traffic loads, lack of additional investment from the private sector in aviation, etc.
In this scenario, we have a golden opportunity to improve upon what we already have. With the current investment and a good deal more would bring us a bit closer to taking that “first evolutionary step” in the direction of a HSR-based transportation & economy.
Above all, if we continue to harbor negative attitudes such as “blame anything and everything a politician does” we would never progress and squander any little wealth we have left. As a nation we overwhelmingly wanted to have Obama as our president but why do we cry foul when he, as the elected leader, wants to invest in the future of this country.
Even though I fear the worst, as you pointed out - we may be left with 1000 miles of woefully underused track to nowhere that we have to subsidize for the next 50 years, I am definitely supportive of this initiative and stand willing to accept this above mentioned risk. This financial risk is any day better than going to war and squandering our wealth to fight battles that shouldn’t have been started in the first place. Oh BTW, our past President’s war in Iraq has already cost us close to a trillion dollars (~$660B+, without taking into account the cost of impending troop withdrawal & paying for the medical care of our combat injured vets). I recommend that everyone who is reading this site to take a look at this link (Financial cost of war), which is ticking at a rate faster than a bullet can fly out a barrel. (http://costofwar.com/)
By now you would agree with me that compared to this alarming ( & fast up-ticking) amount spent on a useless war, $8B is just a drop in the bucket. And I am sure everyone on this planet will agree that the current President is fiscally more “conservative” compared to his predecessor on many fronts. He is only spending on initiatives that are necessary before our entire financial system goes broke (if you are to point at some of the other pork-bloated bills he has signed, I’d agree with you definitely).
If you still continue believe this initiative is a dumb thing and it only caters to the wishes of constituency-pandering politicians’ re-election, I’d say nothing will change your mind.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I’d like to add one more piece of information to my above argument. As per our current Federal budget allocation in 2009, for every $100 you paid in Federal Income Taxes, the government has only spent $1 on Transportation needs and $20 is paid to cover our nation’s debts. Here is the complete breakdown of $100 spent on various categories.
$29 goes to Military
$21 goes to Health
$8 goes to Interest on Military Debt
$12 goes to Interest on Non-Military Debt
$7 goes to Income Security and Labor
$4 goes to Housing and Community
$4 goes to Veterans’ Benefits
$4 goes to Food
$3 goes to Government
$3 goes to Education
$3 goes to Environment Energy and Science
$1 goes to International Affairs
$1 goes to Transportation
Does anyone out there still thinks it is a bad idea for the President to have done “something” about the need for more transportation spending? If so, this will help you understand why it is not a bad idea to spend on rail, even if it is just $8B.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/taxchart2009/100.00
April 16th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Every drop in the (non-highway) transportation bucket is important, but a true high-speed system as envisioned on today’s map will require hundreds of billions of dollars (even a trillion?) over 20-30 years to accomplish. Do we have the national will to say NO to all that military spending? Do we have the national will to sacrifice many of the “life style comforts” to which we’ve grown accustomed over the last 60 years and to wean ourselves from our cars and tax ourselves to build this national rail system? Only time, and our votes, will tell.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:30 am
You guys ignored this sentence:
“Those deficiencies in the existing plan are likely to be remedied as the administration selects the most cost efficient and valuable routes for funding.”
Nothing in that map is set in stone these are merely the “congressionaly approved” routes and are likely to reflect inefficiencies due to pork.
Seriously guys, are you so opposed to pork that you would sacrifice something that is likely to benefit the country to prevent something that is only a minor inefficiency? It is this sort of attitude that prevents societies from advancing and eventually leads to decay.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Don’t get me wrong - I have, and will continue to, advocate for improved rail service in this country (at all scales, not just HSR). I am just disappointed that when the issue finally gets funding and a national stage it is so obviously ill-considered.
To address some points above:
1) I consider the NY-Chicago corridor a key despite the fact that the end-to-end distance is a bit far. There is a significant concentration of metro areas along that route that create a high density of short-hop flights which could be reduced with an HSR alternative.
2) Also, if anything I think the initial investment is too small to get much more than planning and environmental impact studies for such a scattered and dubious group of projects. Either we divert more money from “bad” expenditures like wars and bailouts, or we focus on a couple of high-impact projects and get them further along. My criticism is that by trying to spread too little money too thin (and put a project in every district) you will end up woth nothing to show for it when the money and political will eventually dries up.
3) “This plan is bad but we can count on Congress to improve it” is the most absurd thing I’ve ever read!
4) While I appreciate the sex appeal of HSR I think it is poor strategy. The funding could do more for more people by restoring and expanding existing rail service, light rail, rapid streetcar, and other services. The obsession with hitting one or two “home runs” undermines the reality that we are more likely to win the game with a bunch of singles….
April 17th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Rockfish has misunderstood what Skeptik O’Skeptiks wrote.
The Obama administration did not make that map. The map is not the plan. Those are the federally designated HSR corridors. This map was first created as a result of ISTEA in 1991. There is a set process to modify it.
Basically what is being proposed is a process to start to implement better passenger rail. The map will continue to be tweaked as it has over the last 15 or so years. The only way that the map matters is that in order to be considered for many types of funding, your project must be on the map. If you have a project that is not on the map, the first step is to get it on the map. That is what Ohio has recently done with Cleveland-Cincinnati. If I’m not mistaken, it was the last addition to the map.
April 18th, 2009 at 2:35 am
Other than improvements to the Northeast Corridor, I don’t see this money being wisely spent on rail. The densities and distances of the United States simply do not justify the costs. Air travel is too cheap and fast and I say this with all the love in the world as a rail fan and one who despises commercial air travel.
Were we to take this sum of money and allocate it to the transportation infrastructure in a manner to create the biggest “bang for the buck” i.e. funding those projects that would have the greatest economic return, I would imagine that serving the needs of business would come first. These needs would include enlarging urban highways and expanding Mexican border stations to improve the flow of goods.
We should take $1 billion and expand the San Ysidro Port of Entry. The remaining $7 billion could add 2 dedicated truck lanes to 20 miles or so of America’s most congested interstates in urban destination areas.
Were such projects politically feasible for President Obama, the $8 billion invested might pay federal tax dividends sufficient to recoup the costs within a very short time-frame, not to mention toll revenue to the states/local governments.
April 19th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
The density and distances in the U.S. absolutely do justify building HSR. The West and East Coasts, the Midwest, Southeast, and Texas, are all plenty dense enough to build HSR.
Air travel in this country is HEAVILY subsidized- starting with the airports themselves, to the highways that connect them to city centers, to the air traffic controllers and radar navigation systems. Air traffic is NOT fast and easy- the delays and security clearances alone are huge inconveniences.
Expanding urban highways is an AWFUL idea- more automobile traffic, air pollution, and congestion is NOT what this country needs.
Building dedicated truck lanes is stupid and only further increases America’s dependency on oil. Expand and improve freight rail lines instead.