If high speed rail is ever going to have a chance of taking root in the US, we’re going need to need a working example that makes everybody jealous.
Specifically, we’re thinking here of a world-class high speed link here in the US, that will make the media machine whir and tourists talk, that looks pretty on tv and execerbates regional rivalries. Since human beings are monkeys and all, generally the quickest way to get us to care about anything is to turn it into a status game and provoking indignation and insecurity. It would be our version of Madrid-to-Seville.
So, let’s say New York out of nowhere decides to roll big and fast-tracks a 250-mph link between NYC and Albany. State pols like Hiram Monserrate–better known as the fellow who’ll take a busted bottle to his girlfriend’s face if she displeases him–can make the journey in half an hour. Seriously: half an hour to Albany. That’s quicker than a lot of subway trips to Brooklyn. Plus, no walking around in sock feet at LaGuardia or creeping along the Major Deegan expressway. It’s a crazy-world proposition, of course, except that if China were running the US–as it someday might–that shit would already be in works. Why? It just makes sense.
Across the rest of the country, this link would serve as both a model and a gauntlet thrown down. In Texas, state legislators might see the quick, easy and civilized trip Hiram was taking to work and say, “Damn, maybe we should think seriously about getting this T-Bone thing built sometime this century.” And so on.
It could happen! Maybe. Ever since we saw Jay Yarrow make an argument along these lines over at Business Insider–giving all the stimulus money to California’s HSR project, to create a national model–we’ve been noodling about the possibilities.
But our problem with Jay’s case is that California is such a massive project that by the time it’s built out enough to convince anybody of anything, another decade or more will have passed. We need something of more modest scope, and we need it now. Ideally, of course, this would be Washington DC-to-New York. But given all the chefs that would have to be involved in cooking that stew, we’re not optimistic on that front (short of the magical emergence of a Robert Moses-style “infrastructure czar” emerges who can just punch it through).
But it’s looking more and more like Florida might be the answer. From today’s Tampa Tribune:
As key political factors fall in place, Tampa, Lakeland and Orlando are leading contenders to launch the nation’s first true high-speed rail corridor, with 150 mph trains running by 2014.
Of course, this is contingent on getting $2.5 billion in federal funds from the stimulus sweepstakes. But there’s plenty of reason to think that might happen. The state owns the right of way, and the project is essentially designed and shovel-ready. The link would also be meaningful first step toward a larger system–targeted for 2017 completion–connecting Tampa and Orlando to Miami (and Jacksonville, via Amtrak.) 
Now, this sounds almost perfect — so naturally there’s a problem. In this case, it’s that the train to Orlando doesn’t actually go to Orlando. It goes to the airport. Now, Orlando has a very busy airport so this proposed route would certainly be of interest to many Floridians and tourists. But this also means it’s a glorified airport shuttle rather than a real intercity rail link, of the sort that civilized people elsewhere in the would want and demand.
At The Transport Politic, Yonah offers a fine suggestion: “In Orlando, trains could continue up I-4 into downtown after the Convention Center stop, and then head back towards the airport, from which trains south to Miami would eventually extend.
The downside of that routing change would be slowing the project down and interfering with this whole “showpiece” business. The upside would be, you know, doing it right. Jeez, Marsha, why does everything always have to be so complicated!
September 26th, 2009 at 11:31 am
The Imfrastructurist is delicious. Jebediah Reed serves up a comprehensive analytic soup of optimistic idealism and pragmatic realism with a dash of salty language. Now if only the obstructionists would get out of the bitchin’ kitchen, and let the Infrastuctionists get cookin’.
September 26th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
2.5 Bil. to go 86 miles, with no state support for capital or operations sure sounds ‘iffy’ to me. Other corridors are putting ’skin in the game’ up front, with committments to continue operational support, such as WA-OR’s Cascade Corridor, where local investment has exceeded 1 Bil. to date. Our Talgo tilt trains are capable of 125 mph with track and signal upgrades. We’ve built or refurbished nearly all the rail stations along the 425 mile route which not carries more than twice as many passengers between SEA-PDX than the airlines.
While I support all HSR in general, it seems pre-mature or self-fulfilling to showcase such a short line, mimicking I-4 as the nations poster child for HSR done right.
Mike Skehan, All Aboard Washington
September 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Damn, spotted a typo.
Please change not to now on the 7th line. Thanks
September 27th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Jeb, you made a mistake about the merits of the Chinese.
You see, the reason why the Chinese are building HSR megaprojects like crazy men is that their current systems are [i]already running above rated capacity[/i]. In other words, they already had the ridership to make HSR profitable, and they have waited until now to implement it. They are slow to implement…not fast.
If China had train ridership levels similar to the US, you can bet that they wouldn’t be building HSR. In fact, you don’t have to bet. EVERY SINGLE CORRIDOR that is being built to HSR standards in China already had ridership levels to sustain it.
September 28th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Imagine if workers could get from Albany to the Manhattan CBD in 30 minutes. A 2 bedroom apartment in Manhattan runs about a million dollars. You can buy a house in Albany for less than 200 grand. One could live 30 minutes from the Albany train station by car, and have a typical NYC suburban one-hour commute, perhaps from a nice 2 acre spread in Scotia. In other words, wouldn’t the rail link serve to create the exact sprawl that you purport to be against?
September 28th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Eric, sprawl is a much more localized effect than regional rail could ever be linked to. In fact you could expect an increase in density around the Albany station, a sprawl mitigating factor. A commuting population from one city to another city is not sprawl, not very efficient but not sprawl.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
So sprawl only exists if you move out of the city and use your car to get to work :::rolls eyes::: Redefinition is completely disingenuous.
The truth is, rail systems induce sprawl in exactly the same ways as highways: They enable you to live further from your job. In fact, the New York Subway System was originally conceived as a way to escape the horrible and toxic urban density at that time, which contributed to poor health and living conditions.
You might conclude that rail results in a healthier, more sustainable sprawl. You might conclude that the rail system will even out population densities which is a better option than the exponential decline in population density as you move away from the CBD. You might be able to conclude that certain densities are not attainable without a high capacity rail system. But you can’t conclude that it is not sprawl without being a liar.
September 28th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Oh yeah, this is a good history of the purpose of the NYC subway, which originally was to encourage sprawl.
http://www.scrivener.net/2004/10/first-100-years-of-new-york-city.html
September 28th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Danny, maybe it’s sprawl and maybe it ain’t, but nobody minds miles of six-story apartment buildings. The only sprawl that anyone minds is the car-dependent kind, and the way to curb that is to not provide abundant cheap parking.
September 28th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I don’t agree in that people only mind car dependent sprawl. Some people do…and some people love it and think its the only way to do it.
However, I do agree with you on how to curb car dependence. Market pricing of parking will ultimately force higher densities and transit dependence, because the real estate required for a car is so much more useful in a different form. Price it according to the opportunity cost of providing that parking, and whammo, you get high densities.
September 28th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Oh boy. Really? Commuting from Albany to NYC in a half hour is “sprawl”?
Grasping, my friends.
September 28th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Of course some people love it, Danny. You misunderstood my quantifier; I was saying that the only kind of sprawl that anyone complains about - as sprawl, at least - is the car-dependent kind.
I’m glad we agree on the value of market parking pricing. Now how can we get that implemented at the Albany train station?
September 28th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
It would be difficult for various reasons, but first and foremost is the law. It is only legal to use parking meters as a form of parking regulation. It is illegal to use them for revenue generation.
While this is a legitimate parking regulation issue, it would be very difficult for a city to defend that in court because price regulation looks too similar to revenue generation. We would need to change the law to allow it.
September 29th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
That 200 grand spread in Albany will be 500K within a year with the avalanche of New Yorkers descending on the town with dollar signs in their eyes. It may not be ’sprawl’ but it could be something worse, destroying the character and spirit of smaller towns.
I used to live in Charlottesville VA and lived in fear of a high-speed rail link to DC, which would have ruined the town and filled it with absentee owners with no connection to the social fabric, jacking up real estate prices and property taxes. Two hours by car was just the right distance to keep them out.
Actually, I can’t think of anything worse for Virginia than fast, efficient links to DC…