• California state auditor Elaine Howle is pulling a Cassandra — predicting that the state may not be able to complete its planned high-speed rail system — which is set to break ground in 2012 — due to poor planning and a lack of funding. (LA Times)
• Meanwhile, the California High-Speed Rail Authority released a report concluding that cities including San Francisco and San Jose that want the state’s HSR line to run through a tunnel will, in all likelihood, need to pay for the tunnels themselves. (Mercury News)
• In New York, the Republican challenger to Democrat veteran Rep. Louise Slaughter — who has been dubbed “Mrs. High-Speed Rail” for her fierce support of new rail lines — is launching a long-shot campaign based on calling HSR a “taxpayer ripoff.” (StreetsblogDC)[SButtonZ button="digg"]
• The Washington Post lays on a pretty brutal critique of delays and lousy customer service at Amtrak — despite the rise in ridership. (WaPo)
• And the Chicago Tribune responds, saying the train operator’s service really isn’t so bad, considering. (ChiTrib)
• Across the pond, there’s an important election going on. So what would each of the parties have in store for high-speed rail? (ETA)
Image: Courtesy Warner Bros.
Tags: California, New York
Sometimes it’s hard to read these headlines when in the same news cycle we see an oil spill threatening seemingly the whole Gulf of Mexico … what did Palin say “Kill, baby kill!”
One potential problem is the US need to build entire HSR systems at once. Granted, that’s where you will really see the advantages of HSR, but it may be impossible (politically). The European approach has generally been to start small and build up the network from a solid standard rail line.
Switzerland – which does not really have a HSR system – is a good example of the approach: constant quality improvement: increasing speed, service quality and frequency. Their motto has been not as fast as possible but as fast as necessary. The problem now is that too many people are riding their trains!
Maybe the USA would do better by focusing on really improving the regional rail networks in the main cities (e.g. Los Angeles, San Francisco and Chicago) and then building connecting HSR lines (e.g. Central Valley, to St Louis).
Imagine if it was as easy and convenient to get around the SF Bay Area as the Zurich region (instead Caltrain is threatened with bankruptcy). Even a HSR connection just to Fresno from an improved SF Bay Area regional network would clearly show the value of HSR in the USA.
I know it’s a complicated political question with good arguments on both sides, but sometimes I think that the incremental approach is neglected. Maybe it’s time for a Plan B.
Agree with Andy about the gradualist approach. Unfortunately, Americans want instant gratification- space age HSR now! (or maglev! or monorails!) Gradualism and measured growth is too European, not “in-your-face look-at-me” enough to capture the imagination of the public or the politicians. Personally I think at first just one true HSR line should be built in the U.S., to act as a showcase, and the remaining lines upgraded to 110mph pre-HSR specs, but at a standard that allows non-FRA compliant rolling stock, including cab signaling, minimal grade crossings, and little or no sharing of track with heavy freight.
By the way, when is Infrastructurist going to report about its trip to Japan and the railway infrastructure there?? I hope you didn’t spend all your times in bars singing karaoke…
Japan galleries and train pics are coming! Apologies for the delay.
Andrew, I believe that is the plan. Tampa to Orlando will be the first “showcase” route not because it makes necessarily the most sense in terms of immediate ridership but because it can be built quickly with the ROW and Engineering plans already set aside/completed.
–Joe
The US needs to study the history and development of high speed rail in Europe and Japan. The geography and the ability to use high speed rail to connect major cities is far different than the most of the US. There are only a couple of corridors, the Northeast Corridor, California, and maybe corridors in Texas and Florida. Cities in the 300 mile travel range, beyond that, trains cannot compete with airplanes. But trains from California to St. Louis, not economically possible or desired. The Obama administration, applauded for supporting HSR, but the federal maps and networks are totally unrealistic and just plain stupid. Politics. The funding for HSR, the Congress can’t even pass a reauthorization for highways and transit, is not going to fund HSR. the gas tax is the funding source, and the Obama administration is opposed to raising the gas tax. So where is the funding going to come from. In Europe the price of gasoline is $6 to $7 per gallon; why taxes to fund transit and HSR. Will US taxpayers pay that price for gas to fund HSR? Doubtful. Will politicians raise taxes in todays political climate? Doubtful. The State Auditor is absoultely correct in pointing out these facts. She was also correct in pointing out the Program Manager, Parsons Brinkerhoff, for mismanagement. People in California need to know this is the same firm that just settled a $458 million lawsuit for failure to manage the Big Dig (Boston’s Central Artery Freeway) over several years for the same problems cited in the State Auditor’s Report. Parsons Brinkerhoff acknowledged serious failures in its obligations to manage the project, acknowledged its failures regarding its oversight responsibilities, failure to manage its construction management obligations, failed to assure the accuracy of contractors records of time and material. US Attorney, Michael J. Sullivan, stated, “todays settlement with Bechtel/Parsons Brinkerhoff is continuing evidence of our commitment to vigorously investigate and prosecute those who have perpetrated a fraud on American taxpayers”.
I respectfully disagree with the incrementalist approach. HSR just isn’t that expensive to a country that spends a grand total of 3% of the federal budget on transportation infrastructure. The revenue from the recently expired estate tax $20 billion per year, would fund a fairly aggressive program very nicely. Plus, It’s always cheaper and faster to do it right the first time.
Trying to run passenger rail on tracks shared by freight is a prescription for delay, frustration and failure, especially as the economy improves.
HSR isn’t a network in my view. At least it won’t be for a while. Its a point-to-point system that would mostly alleviate the bottlenecks in our overburdened short-haul air traffic system. I can think of a half-dozen projects where this is a crying need. The public generally supports transportation projects. Let’s stop the hand-wringing and get down to it.
I respectfully disagree about the gradualist approach. Its always cheaper and faster to do it right the first time. Transportation infrastructure is only 3% of the federal budget. We can easily afford a fairly aggressive $20 billion per year program. Its about the cost of the estate tax which lapsed last year.
I see HSR as a point to point system that primarily is used to alleviate choke points in our oversubscribed short-haul air travel system. There are a half dozen or a dozen fairly obvious routes. A ubiquitous system that replaces highways and cars would be a long way off.
The estate tax lapsed last year and is returning in full force the next year. To pass his 2001 tax cuts, Bush had to use reconciliation, which has a ten-year time limit.
There aren’t enough projects you could spend $20 billion a year on in the US, unless you include pointless lines like Atlanta to New Orleans or accept construction costs several times the European average.
As for the gas tax: the European gas taxes go into the general fund. The American notion of lockboxing taxes doesn’t really exist elsewhere, except for social security programs.
As long as Amtrak doesn’t operate future HSR services, everything would be alright!
[...] The Week in High Speed Rail: Another Day, Another Arbiter of Doom for California » INFRASTRUCTURIST [...]