Mayors declare support for President Obama's high-speed rail initiative

I'm pleased to hear the news out of Baltimore this morning that the US Conference of Mayors has reaffirmed their support for an American high-speed rail network.

Because of high-speed rail's many benefits, the nation's mayors today approved a resolution commending the Obama Administration's "leadership in promoting high-speed rail in America" and urging Congress "to support the Administration's High-Speed Rail Initiative through the appropriations and authorizations process."

Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa, the new president of the US Conference of Mayors,
and a leader in the mayors' advocacy of high-speed rail

America's mayors appreciate President Obama's commitment to connect 80 percent of Americans to high-speed rail in the next 25 years.

They appreciate the $10.1 billion the Administration has devoted to putting America on track toward improved rail access and faster service, and they approve of the President's proposed $53 billion in high-speed rail investments over the next six years.   That's because our nation's mayors know that a strict "Buy America" requirement means that high-speed rail investments will put thousands of Americans to work, save travelers hundreds of thousands of hours every year, and boost U.S. manufacturing.  And they know that high-speed rail will spur economic development across the country.

One of the newer members of the US conference of Mayors, Chicago's Rahm Emanuel

I want to thank the US Conference of Mayors for reaffirming their strong support for bringing high-speed rail and all its economic benefits to America.  And I particularly want to thank the mayors who submitted today's resolution:  Ashley Swearengin of Fresno, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, Jerry Sanders of San Diego, Francis Slay of St. Louis, Pedro Segarra of Hartford, Mike McGinn of Seattle, Sam Adams of Portland, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake of Baltimore, Ed Lee of San Francisco, and Miguel Pulido of Santa Ana.

This is not the first time we've had terrific support from mayors on high-speed rail.  Earlier this month, several California mayors made the strong case for high-speed rail in an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee.  As they put it:  

"Building it is a major investment, but the most recent estimates say it would cost twice as much over the next generation to build new highways and runways just to move the same number of people. With California expected to grow by 12 million people in the next 25 years, investment in the state's transportation system is inevitable, and high-speed rail is a cost-effective alternative."

They are exactly right.   Our investment in high-speed rail will be significant, but the cost of expanding roads and airports to accommodate a rapidly growing population over the coming decades will be even more costly, and it won't solve the problem.

High-speed rail will bring jobs, economic development, revitalized US manufacturing, and reduced travel time to America. With those benefits, it’s safe to say that the mayors who wrote the Sacramento Bee opinion got it right: “the United States needs high-speed rail, so let's keep going.”

Comments

[Bre Williams]

I am thrilled to find mayoral support for the President's high-speed initiative. This is a boost for so many areas of our ailing economy and a thumbs-up for political party cooperation. The need to move more quickly into a new era is now. Gas prices, vehicle costs, and out-dated modes of transportation are just a tiny few of the negatives that are ascending upon the transportation industry. I live in the state of Indiana, and the choices of passenger transporation our residents have to choose from is disgraceful. We have train depots in our city that are used for socal events, while residents must travel to remote, unattended, questionable areas to ride a passenger train. The city is surrounded by and run through with train rails, but they are used only by commercial rail service. We have a bus depot that is housed out of an old gas station with very limited service to potential customers. Even our city bus service stops running after business hours; therefore, people who are blessed enough to have jobs outside the city limits or after regular business hours must purchase a car (even if their budget is strained), rely on others for a ride, or walk (which can be unsafe). If you throw in the cost of tickets for a plane, train, or bus trip for passenger service out of state; you have little money in and little money out for transportation!

[Josh]

BULLSH*T! They don't want that garbage. They want their own transit systems brought up to date, even though Cali and Chicago have the worst ones in the history of creation. Philadelphia's needs to EXPAND. FIX THE CURRENT LOCAL SYSTEMS BEFORE STARTING ANOTHER PROJECT

[Patrick]

Good to hear. Let's not forget that CA's population is aging as well as growing.

Our seniors are going to face a mobility crisis as they have less confidence driving and as air travel gets more expensive.

[Stan Thompson]

High speed rail has my support and, for that reason, I'm very concerned about what might be an economic derailment lurking ahead on the main line. It's the present and future price of the copper used in transmission lines, substation transformers and other catenary-related applications.

Copper has roughly quadrupled in price since the recession bottomed-out and the domestic and export manufacturing needs of China, India, Brazil and blooming economies (not to mention recovering established players) will not let it plateau-out for decades. Current $10-to-$12 million incremental PER-MILE construction cost for electrification will soon be a nostalgia number from the Good Old Days—(right now).

If an electrified corridor is interrupted, simple re-routing means swapping-out traction power and the zooming instances of copper theft make that a growing risk.

Per a Discovery Channel segment aired on April 23, 2009, just one major US rail carrier is the largest single user of fuel in the world, using 4,000,000 gallons a day in a down-economy. Per the Discovery segment, that's over two percent of the nation's fuel needs.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEEBjMu-m14)

Scale that up to reflect the whole national rail industry and we're talking about demand that finds its way into the price of everything shipped by rail and, given the cross-elastiity of demand, by air and road as well—including passengers.

A few more rail corridors can probably be electrified before the chain jerks tight. But why not take the hint that BNSF has dropped like a spike on a tin roof and commit to a national hydrail conversion policy? China (possibly partnering with Canada and Germany) has already "introduced" a hydrail "new energy" train. Japan has tested two. Some fifteen countries have sent government and academic speaker to the University of NC's International Hydrail Conferences.

For the cost of electrifying just one more High Speed Rail corridor, up to $150 million in R&D could help the US stay in the international race to a hydrail transition and also help keep the next generation's locomotive and railcar manufacturing jobs onshore.

Before very long High Speed Rail will see an economic "red board" ahead. Why wait until then to announce the necessarily slow transition to a domestic, zero-carbon, nuclear and renewably fuelled rail traction technology (hydrail)? It's hardly an Apollo-scale undertaking and, very quickly, there are serious paybacks in energy security, climate/environmental, and Green tech exports.

Better to lead the hydrail parade with a baton than follow it with a scoop!