While the Daily Dig was on mandated mental health leave for 10 days or so prior to Labor Day, NPR produced a six-part series on high speed rail. Since we neglected to mention it at the time, and since it was a fairly good primer on the subject, and since one of our official mottos at this site is “Better late than never,” we thought we’d take a look back at it now.
States Pitch For HSR Money: After decades of a transportation policy focused overwhelmingly on highways and air travel, Obama’s $8 billion commitment to HSR rail in the stimulus package was a seachange–the “most that’s ever been put in one single shot for any rail system in America.” Since then, the president has spoken compellingly of HSR’s ability to reduce travel times, alleviate freeway and airport congestion, reduce pollution and oil dependence, “all while creating tens of thousands of jobs.” States have lept at the opportunity, putting in $100 billion in applications for the $8 billion in funds.
The term “high speed rail” has become a bit bastardized in the US, of course–here tending to refer to 90+ mph projects, while in an international context it connotes a more impressive 150 mph and up. Only California is seriously pursuing a true HSR project at this point.
After a libertarian skeptic pops up to scoff, the piece wraps with a good point: Even a well-functioning 110-mph line between, say, Chicago and St Louis, would be a good proof of concept for US passenger rail travel and would likely inspire imitation around the country.
Midwest is All Aboard for HSR - A Midwest regional network would have Chicago as a hub and connect to 11 other cities in the region, including Milwaukee, Detroit and St Louis. The logic is sound with 1/3 of the US population living within a 500-mile radius of Chicago. The plan is to upgrade the current network, which now tops out at 79 mph, to 110 mph. An ambitious vision for decades ahead is a parallel 220 mph network.
But just upgrading to 110 would cost an estimate $12 billion, and skeptics even question whether those speeds are possible on lines that are also heavily used by freight and commuter trains.
California Pulls Ahead - The Golden State is clearly the alpha dog in the race for HSR funds. It has approved a $10 billion bond to finance a true high speed link that will connect LA to SF in just over two hours (and, ultimately, extent to SD to Sacramento). The project would provide a compelling intercity travel option for municipalities now reliant on congested highways and shrinking airline service.
But federal contributions are much needed for the $45 billion scheme and to qualify, shovels need to be turning dirt by 2012. But with self-acknowledged NIMBYs in fancy Silicon Valley bedroom communities like Atherton trying to derail the project in court–and getting a least a little traction–there are still plenty of questions hanging in the air.
All States are Equal — But Some Are More Equal Than Others - In the national broader national conversation, California, Florida, and the Midwest are generally considered the leading candidates for federal HSR funds. This segment rounds up the prospects for the Sunshine state and two darkhouse regions.
Northwest: While some officials in the region are lobbying for an HSR link between Portland, OR, and Vancouver, BC, others doubt whether that project is realistic in the foreseeable future. Washington state officials have asked for $900 million for various projects in this round, and have a second wave of applications coming.
South: There are some interesting political debates going on around HSR in the South — particularly in Georgia — but this report barely hints at them. The takeaway is correct though: It’s a car-centric culture, not especially inclined toward alternative modes of transportation, but Obama’s $8 billion has at least opened up a meaningful conversation.
Florida: The state has acquired all the requisite land and permits for a 100-mile, $2.5 billion HSR link between Orlando and Tampa, as the opening project in a broader network that would eventually include Miami (though, oddly, the state’s largest city isn’t mentioned in the report). The Obama funds seem to persuaded some GOPers, including Gov. Crist, on board.
A Hitch For HSR: Getting To Your Final Destination — A much discussed question around HSR in the US (and a laudable for topic for NPR to examine) is the question of whether it makes sense to build world-class passenger links between cities that lack comprehensive public transit systems. Which is to say, once you get to the Birmingham, Alabama, aboard a sleek fast train, what then? $200 in cab rides?
But following the example of places like Portland and St Louis, US cities are starting to look serious at multi-modal strategies that could develop hand-in-hand with an HSR build-out.
Doubters’ Corner: HSR… Really? - Eric Morris, who goes to graduate school and writes sometimes for Freakonomics, wonders whether the cost is worth it. For example, the California project would cost about $1,200 per resident of the state. Morris points to something called “History” to say that big transportation investments should be “game changers,” like the upgrade from a covered wagon to a choo-choo. And HSR might not be that, although he acknowledges that maybe we should spend a little money on trains in the northeast, where people do seem to use them sometimes.
Comparing The US To Other Places That Are A Little More Serious - The man behind the excellent California High Speed Rail Blog, Robert Cruickshank, says that to build any kind of HSR network in this country will require more than $100 billion. China, which is starting from a similar place, is spending $700 billion, on the theory that it’s real economic stimulus and that the resulting world-class rail system might even prove useful. And then Noah Adams calls Cruickshank a train “enthusiast,” which sounds to us kind of like calling someone a dweeb, but so it goes with US media.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:35 am
Texas is growing like a weed…we have plans for rail linking the big cities out east but here in the far west borderland we’re relying on New Mexico to care about us by extending the Rail Runner down from Albuquerque.
West Texas doesn’t get a lot of attention beyond the murders in Juarez but we’re growing and already large. El Paso is set to reach 1 million people in around 2020. The metro poplulation is set to reach one million by 2013.
With our sister city across the river Juarez at 1.5 million and El Paso’s 740 000 we already make up the largest boarder community around.
To get to any city beyond El Paso requires a minimum drive of 4 hrs (Albuquerque). The nearest Texas city of San Antonio is 7 hrs and 30 minutes. Phoenix is 6hrs north west.
Everything in between is wide open desert with some small towns. I think we could see some benefit from HSR honestly. Especially since we’re at the beginnings of a large medical research community and HUGE expansion of Ft Bliss that is adding some 30 000 soldiers and their families over the next year or two.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
When you talk about high speed rail in the southeast, for now, leave Georgia out of it. When you say “Southeast” most people instinctively think “Georgia” and “Atlanta” but when it comes to HSR, if there’s been any “meaningful discussion” of HSR down there I’ve completely missed it. When it comes to alternate transportation, Georgia can’t even muster enough political will to accept a $100 million federal grant that would cover basically 100% of the construction costs for a commuter rail line to Atlanta.
The only places in the Southeast that are taking HSR seriously at the moment are Virginia and North Carolina. Both states have already invested hundreds of millions of dollars in their passenger rail programs. The VA/NC concept is to link the metro areas of Richmond, Norfolk, Raleigh, Greensboro, and Charlotte as extensions of the Northeast Corridor. Somehow these “HSR overview” reports, both yours and NPRs included, miss this.
September 14th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Orulz,
My curiosity was piqued by Sonny Perdue’s engagement in the HSR debate. Not that that has born any fruit, but as a matter of politics still noteworthy.
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2009/06/03/coming-from-the-right-side-of-the-railroad-tracks/
September 14th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
“But just upgrading to 110 would cost an estimate $12 billion, and skeptics even question whether those speeds are possible on lines that are also heavily used by freight and commuter trains.”
Wait, it’s going to cost $12 Billion, and we are not even going to get new rail lines? Where the H*** is that kind of money going to go then? What could cost $12 Billion except for major new construction?
September 14th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I think the saddest, most disappointing thing about Obama’s stimulus was that it included $300 billion in tax cuts but only $8 billion for high speed rail/mass transit. I think that the $100 billion in applications for funding says it all; there is more demand for transit investment than there are politicians willing to supply the needed funds.
Had that $300 billion been directed toward debt relief for mass transit agencies, electrification of commuter rail services in the 10 biggest metro areas, side-by-side with HSR construction, we would not only be in the middle of the biggest recovery of all time, we would be seriously *investing* in future productivity and quality of life for a majority of Americans. An investment of that scale, improving people’s lives and the economy, would have changed the American people’s perceptions about transit for a very very long time and garnered future political support by changing the political reality “on the ground.”
Instead, in a futile pursuit of “bipartisanship”, we got $300 billion in tax cuts, which George W. already showed us to be ineffective at stimulating anything, and not a single GOP vote in the house. As far as I am concerned, Obama and the Dems owe this country $300 billion in transit investments.
September 14th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Re : Dallas
That $12 billion (probably an under-estimate) would be used for road bed upgrades (wood ties replaced by concrete ones, fresh gravel, etc.) and signaling improvements. The real ball-buster would be straightening some of the lines and switch / tunnel upgrades. One source of funding could be a federal fiber network laid in the ROW.
P.S. If any new track gets laid it needs to be done to a high standard. Not only should it handle 150mph trains but also be bermed (flood measure), well spaced, and include wildlife culverts (remember cow-catchers and bison herd jams). The well spaced part is needed because I believe the wake effect from true HSR would cause train-to-train suction if the traditional spacing were used.
September 14th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I suppose the title I gave the producer, “Public Policy Director at the Courage Campaign,” was too serious and legitimizing for both HSR and myself. I was surprised to hear myself described as an “enthusiast” when the segment aired, as if I have a big trainset in my basement (which I don’t). Oh well. I thought it went well anyway.
September 14th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
One can only hope that Sec’y LaHood will do the responsible thing and dole out the vast majority of the US$8B or US$12B to those states who have had the foresight to spend money on rail improvements, some for a decade or more. Why one penny of that money go to the NE or the SE (except NC and VA) when those states have continued to be ostrich-like for so many years. Hello, WA, OR, CA, IL, NC and a few others - you should get the bucks. NE Corridor? Pony up, NY, MA, PA, NJ and the rest, THEN you’ll get some matching money.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:29 am
“But following the example of places like Portland and St Louis, US cities are starting to look serious at multi-modal strategies that could develop hand-in-hand with an HSR build-out.”
I’ve never been to St. Louis, but I am so sick and tired of Portland’s light rail & streetcar system being held up as some kind of beacon of transit nirvana in this country. Rail in Portland is ridiculously slow: A highway trip from Portland Airport to downtown takes 20 minutes, at all times other than maybe 3 or 4 peak hours each day. A light-rail trip on that same route takes nearly an hour (and this is one of the system’s main lines, and not counting wait time or walk time to final destination). There are no fewer than 4 stops over a 10-block (1/2 mile) stretch in the Lloyd District - on a street mostly flanked by parking lots for local hotels & offices - so it takes about 10 minutes to go a half mile. On a RAIL line. The downtown segments, across the river from Lloyd, are even worse. The Streetcar is worst of all - operating without its own right of way, it gets stuck in traffic - what was the point of building it? The express buses Portland replaced with rail all ran faster than the trains do.
If you’re going to spend billions on rail, at least make it comparable in speed to the cars you want to lure riders away from, otherwise it will never succeed. Emulate European networks, or the East Coast workhorses (NYC, Boston, Philly subways), not these expensive toy train sets, screeching around curly-cue ramps in the West.
September 15th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Cruickshanks blog ‘excellent’? He is a dangerous idealist who doesn’t speak for residents or sane railroad people. High speed rail is a good idea, but Cruick’s brain has fallen out of his open mind.
September 15th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
I think it’s disgraceful that our country has devolved to such a degree that we can only muster $8 billion for HSR, while China is spending $700 billion to do it right, is building the world’s largest network of dedicated ROW HSR lines with state of the art technology, and will leave us in the dust (literally).
Speaking of dust, it’s more like dust bowl. I don’t know how this country that built the transcontinental railway in 6 yrs (during the Civil War no less), the Insterstate Highway System, and has gone to the Moon suddenly has no more ‘gas in the tank’ (pun intended) and prefers to settle for a 19th/early 20th century transportation infrastructure that will leave us as the economic backwater of the industrialized world. In fact, i could add it seems we are preferring to de-industrialize from this world.
it’s sad. really sad. this is a country that does everything patchwork and half-ass these days, underfunded, over-NIMBY’ed, and without a strategic plan, while others like China, Japan, Germany, Spain, etc…FORGE AHEAD.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Jonathan, That there is exactly why I’m doing the age old thing of getting married for a passport.
But wait. Its not to be in American. I’m American by birth. But with the stupidity here, I am out. You all can enjoy the country while it burns and keep electing people like McCain who last I heard lost this election but is still doing his best to F it up.
Counting the days to a real solution.
September 15th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
PS. My comments were to agree with Jonathan. The stupidity I refer to is the general public of the United States and not him.
September 15th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
“A Hitch For HSR: Getting To Your Final Destination — A much discussed question around HSR in the US (and a laudable for topic for NPR to examine) is the question of whether it makes sense to build world-class passenger links between cities that lack comprehensive public transit systems. Which is to say, once you get to Birmingham, Alabama, aboard a sleek fast train, what then? $200 in cab rides?”
I’ve seen this point numerous times and it just does not make the least bit of sense to me. Which is to say, once you get to Birmingham, Alabama aboard a sleek, fast airplane, what then?
September 15th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
First of all, I hate it when they talk about CAHSR as a $45 billion project, as if it will take that much to get built. The $45 billion includes not just the SF-LA part but also the extension through the Inland Empire to San Diego and up to Sacramento. The figure for SF-LA and OC is more like $30 billion.
PdxNyc, in some ways I agree with you. MAX does have way too many stops and should be grade-separated in Downtown and the Lloyd District. However, the streetcar doesn’t serve the same function as MAX, it’s purpose is to serve as a local connector, whereas MAX is a regional connector. The streetcar can go slow because people won’t ride it more than a mile or two. MAX should go fast because most trips are several miles.