Passenger rail investments add needed capacity to America's transportation infrastructure

If President Eisenhower had waited until he had all the cash on hand, all the lines drawn on a map, and all the naysayers on board, America would not boast the state-of-the-art interstate highway system we have today.

That’s why I was so disappointed to read the Washington Post’s editorial criticizing California’s high-speed rail plan. Unfortunately, the editorial writers at the Post have taken a shortsighted, parochial approach to our pressing infrastructure needs.

When it comes to high-speed rail, we stand at a moment similar to that in the 1950s when President Eisenhower pressed for a network of American highways. And, if we fail to prepare for the decades ahead by taking similarly innovative steps to add capacity to our infrastructure, we will shortchange future generations and deprive them of the tools they will need to compete in a global economy.

Because of the leadership of President Obama, our children and grandchildren will benefit from a high-speed rail system that connects 80 percent of Americans and keeps us competitive with other leading nations. High-speed rail will revitalize America’s manufacturing sector, spurring economic development and creating green, high-wage jobs for tens of thousands of people.

The people of California understand this, which is why they approved a nearly $10 billion bond measure to build a high-speed rail system in their state. The Obama Administration is proud to support California’s pioneering high-speed rail plan with a corresponding federal investment that will jump-start the project by funding the first section of the corridor ready to be built, which is in the Central Valley. 

The Post creates a false choice between the Central Valley and other sections of the project, which are not ready for construction. But the Central Valley segment will not exist in isolation; it will connect to existing rail service at both ends of the line, improving passenger service even before other sections of high-speed rail are built.

As Roelof van Ark, chief executive officer of the California High Speed Rail Authority, said, "The Central Valley is the backbone of the future of transportation in the state. We need to connect Southern California and Northern California."

And, perhaps most importantly, the project will put Californians back to work.

In fact, last fall, 30 rail manufacturers and suppliers committed to expanding their base of operations in the U.S. and employing American workers if selected for high-speed rail contracts. Many of our workers are skilled and in need of work. And, a 100 percent Buy America requirement for high-speed rail projects will ensure that our economy and U.S. manufacturers see the maximum economic benefits of our investment.

Now, the Administration has also invested billions of dollars in other promising high-speed rail corridors across America, including the Northeast Corridor. But focusing the total sum of our federal dollars in one project, as the Post suggests, is a poor strategy for creating a national high-speed rail network.

With our population expected to swell by 70 million over the next 25 years, continuing to rely on congested highways and overburdened airports is simply unsustainable and would constrain America’s economic growth.

Comments

[Scott Tisthammer]

I don't think anybody doubts fast rail would be a benefit but considering the fact every problem we face as a nation is a direct result of our representatives accepting campaign finance, breaking US as a nation in the financial crisis, wars, oil spills, insurance unaffordable while Goldman Sachs, drug makers, all other contributors have offshore tax havens, and letting infrastructure fall $2.2 trillion into dis-repair is a red flag!

DC is obviously dysfunctional, incapable of handling anything, and responsible for all our problems so how could anyone in their right mind consider letting DC lead the way waith fast rail?

I would truct our represnetatives with old Lionel or Radio Shack beginners electonics kit for kids.

[Rob]

WASTE OF MONEY! F CALIFORNIA! GIVE GRANTS TO THE LOCAL LINES LIKE IN PHILLY AND NJ.

[E Stachura]

Its unfortunate that the national rail network is not presented as a multi-year plan and to be accomplished the same way the Interstate highway system was .... over more than a 50-year period. The rail network should not take as long since a lot of existing infrastructure ("bones") are already in place.

As for the costs .... lets identify what the total cost investment was for the base Interstate highway network, plus the add-ons for local/regional expressways that used the federal funding venue. The billions invested for this mode would be interesting to define.

[Herb McLane]

Yes, the Post editorial is myopic! We need rail service to extend it's reach into America, and to add speed in routes!! We need a third alternative travel mode! Gas is going to be to expensive and air travel is - has reached it's capacity.

[Ronald C. Sheck]

You are absolutely right, Mr.Secretary, America needs a naitonwide passenger rail system that increases service and expands the Amtrak system, adds high speed rail and provides connecting feeder bus service to off-line cities and towns and links with our growing local and regional rail transit systems. This will offer the mobility options that people who can't drive, shouldn't drive, or prefer not to drive need and want. Full speed ahead with investment in passenger rail. Failure to do so will place us at an economic and social disadvantage in an increasingly competitive global society.

[Michael E. Bailey]

High speed rail is something that is needed to benefit both the economy and the environment. And using connecting bus lines and commuter rail will create a multimodal system that is as seamless in transferring from mode to mode as is possible to be.
But there are also some new members of the Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors and one reappointed member who think funding for the new Anaheim Transportation Center should be stopped. (It would serve as a terminal on the high speed rail line.) They also argue it is better to increase the speeds of the trains we have now instead of build new infrastructure and equipment. It looks like this group is a minority on the Board.
The former Mayor of Anaheim, who was also an OCTA Board member, was a key supporter of high speed rail in California and played a major role in putting together the route the new system will take. He also was and is on the High Speed Rail Board of Directors, serving as Chairman of the Board last year. He was termed out of office as Mayor of Anaheim last year and had to leave his seat on the OCTA Board but still serves on the High Speed Rail Board. He, the City of Anaheim, and most of the OCTA Board and administration support the building of high speed rail in Orange County as part of the larger state system and moving ahead with the construction of the new Anaheim Transportation Center which should be completed in 2014. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.

[Renesugar]

Bonds specifically for constructing California high-speed rail could be sold to investors if additional revenue streams were implemented and maglev technology was used (lower operating costs).

Given the amount of time required to construct the project, it could be funded over several years by monthly payments by those buying California high-speed rail bonds as part of their retirement investments.

$100/month * 48 months * 10,000,000 people = $48,000,000,000

High-speed rail could be made more attractive to consumers by using separate tracks for the entire line so the trains can operate at maximum speed reducing travel time making it competitive with in-state air travel (when you factor in the travel time to the airport and the wait time at the airport).

To be able to pay back investors, in addition to passenger fares, the company operating the high-speed rail line must come up with new revenue streams such as light cargo transport to ensure sufficient revenue is generated to repay investors.

High-speed rail could deliver light cargo using much less fuel than air transport which would make it attractive to companies like FedEx and UPS. High-speed rail operating at lower speeds by sharing lines with regular rail would not have the opportunity to contract with delivery companies like FedEx and UPS for same-day and overnight deliveries. Separate light cargo trains making fewer stops could travel ahead of passenger trains.

Operating costs can also be reduced by using maglev technology (NAMTI.org).

High-speed rail relying exclusively on passenger fares does not generate enough revenue to pay back investors.

[BillB]

Great Leadership Mr. President and Secretary !
I for one can't wait to jump on hi-speed rail from my
Green City , Portland , and zoom up to Seattle or down to SF for a game. Hopefully the Trains
can run over a Park Roofed CRC Bridge as featured in this Article.

http://www.portlandtribune.com/sustainable/story.php?story_id=127810849697704800

[Gregory Thomas, Bradenton, Florida]

Planes grounded due to snow on the runways in the Northeast? Stuck in an airport, sleeping on the floor, because your flight has been canceled in the mid-atlantic states due to ice? It's time to build the high speed rail network in the United States and provide a safe and effective method of transportation for its travelers. Travelers had no alternative to allow them return to their homes or businesses. Passenger rail service would have solved the weather dilema and averted the loss of thousands (millions?) of dollars due to standed travelers. Mr. Secretary, I support your vision for high speed rail and wish you success in your endeavor.

[Mark Turner]

When Secretary LaHood spoke in Charlotte in November, he told the crowd "you are all going to be in the high-speed rail business." Then when the high-speed rail money was distributed, North Carolina was disappointed to get just $1 million.

North Carolina is still committed to high-speed rail. We sure wish the Obama Administration was, too.

[Brian]

After living in Japan for two years, I am convinced that our failure to build rail service has been a major strategic disadvantage for the US. I agree with one of the previous poster, we need better commuter rail from city centers to the suburbs. Japan, and many other industrialized nations are clearly doing better than us in this regard.

I don't understand why this has to be an either/or proposition. I believe that both high-speed rail and commuter rail are essential for softening the blow from high oil prices which some analysts believe will hit $5 per gallon sometime this year. Only a comprehensive national strategy incorporating energy efficient vehicles, walkable neighborhoods, mass transit and high speed rail will allow us to avoid the massive disruptions that high oil prices will cause.

[Patrick]

Keep the pedal to the metal, Mr. Secretary. Don't let America develop a "No, we can't" mindset which the "Party of No" keeps pushing.
Please keep engaging with the freight railroads so that they view passenger rail development as a positive thing. There are plenty of rail capacity bottlenecks out there. If we fix them, that will help passenger and freight trains. Win-win.

[Erik H.]

The problem with this, like so many pro-rail projects, is that it is short-sighted, over-optimistic, and so single-focused on building rail, rather than a transport system.

Transport is not mode-specific. Projects are. And this purports to build a transport system that is one mode.

Here's an example: The Pacific Northwest corridor would serve the city of Salem - Oregon's capital city. But what happens once you step off "high speed rail"?

The city's public transit system - which is a bus system - shuts down at about 7:30 PM during weekdays, and doesn't operate at all on Saturdays and Sundays. How do you complete your journey if you travel on a weekend? How do you get to, say, Dallas, or Stayton, two of Salem's suburbs?

What about Albany - what if your destination is Corvallis, home to Oregon State University, a major Hewlett-Packard campus; or Lebanon?

And if you're traveling to Portland, how does "High Speed Rail" help you, if you work in Beaverton?

We don't need high speed rail. We need an honest analysis of our transportation needs, followed by an honest assessment of the proper vehicle to meet those needs. Just because high speed rail works in Germany or Japan doesn't mean it works in America; for the same reason that having five Dash 9-44CWs and 100 freight cars, which works well in America, doesn't work in those two countries. Japan can operate 747s in commuter service; America has very little use for the Boeing 747, even in domestic, trans-continental flying. Germany has all but abandoned the short-haul airline mode, but the U.S. still has great use for it.

What America could use more of, are short-to-medium distance rail corridors that are not "high speed" but of speeds of no more than 100 MPH. Not everyone in Germany rides an ICE train; in fact the vast majority of rail riders ride common, workday commuter trains and regional trains. Same for Japan; the majority of riders don't ride the Shinkansen but ride ordinary trains. Here in America, we have the wrong trains in the right places - Amtrak's paltry intercity network runs 50% empty. It's not because we don't need trains, it's because we run empty trains to nowhere, and overcrowded trains where we need them. We are focused on "high speed rail" when we need commuter trains and buses.

[Thomas Dorsey]

President Obama and Secretary LaHood, thank you for leadership beyond the next newspaper ad cycle! I look forward to a 2035 Interstate High Speed Rail Map with color-coded phasing and definition of what routes will be 110 mph and which routes will be upgraded to 180-220 mph top speed.