TORONTO, ONTARIO - This blog has been relatively cynical about the $8 billion that was to be devoted to "high speed rail" projects from the Recovery Act in the United States, as announced in January. While calling it all "high speed rail" was an almost-pathological overstatement of the projects that were funded, it looked like some serious improvement to rail infrastructure was going to take place in a number of states, and California and Florida, at least, would actually be able to start building true dedicated right-of-way, 200+ mile per hour lines that most of the world would view as high speed rail.
One election later, that's apparently not the case. Most dramatically, almost immediately after the election, Wisconsin stopped all work on a project that would have created a high-speed passenger rail corridor between Madison and Milwaukee. Governor-elect Scott Walker had promised during the campaign that he would kill the project to save money, re-iterated after the election that he would keep this promise, and as a result sitting governor Jim Doyle, a rail supporter, immediately halted all work so as to avoid throwing money away on a project that would be stopped just months later. Assuming that nothing changes, Wisconsin will forfeit the $823 million in Federal funds it had been awarded for the project--and it isn't especially clear how much money it will actually save the state, as the federal money was going to fund essentially the complete project, assuming no cost over-runs.
The same thing has happened in Ohio. Newly elected Governor John Kasich also campaigned against the creation of a rail corridor in his state. As a result, work is being stopped on the "3C" line connecting Cincinnati, Columbus and Cleveland, and as a result $400 million will be returned to Washington D.C. The situation in Florida may prove similar--Rick Scott campaigned against the Orlando to Tampa true high speed line because it was expected to cost the state about $280 million, but seems to be doing a reasoned analysis now, rather than simply rejecting $2 billion in federal money that most expect to grow to about $2.3 billion if the project proceeds. It remains to be seen if Florida will really leave $2 billion or more on the table.
Adding to the anti-rail environment while not part of the Recovery Act situation, New Jersey governor Chris Christie has also killed a $8.7 billion project to create an additional rail tunnel under the Hudson River. Of all the projects mentioned here, this one did stand on the most dubious financial ground--New Jersey could have been on the hook for substantial potential cost overruns--and the political history of the project could be characterized as sketchy. Still, it fit the pattern of a Republican governor killing a rail infrastructure project.
With the money to be refunded to the Federal government only available for rail projects by law, some of the states whose projects were underfunded or not funded at all may yet end up getting funds. Many pundits, however, believe that the returned money will end up going to California, which still seems to be serious about building its high speed line despite its overall financial situation--and it is possible that new legislation may be passed that will simply eliminate the funds and put them toward debt reduction.
What Walker, Christie, Kasich, and (at least during the campaign) Scott all have in common, besides being Republicans, is the claim that their states could not afford rail infrastructure, that it was not an appropriate thing for the state to be spending money on, and that the projects would be a waste of money as not all state citizens would use the systems. The logic really doesn't hold up--taxes go to everything from public schools to air traffic control that not everyone uses, and rail infrastructure is no different conceptually from road infrastructure that seems to draw no complaints when it is funded by stimulus funds.
The truly amazing claim is the first one, that the rail infrastructure cannot be afforded. People from the same party that constantly claim that the United States is exceptional and does not need to look to foreign models are basically admitting that we do not have the money to spend on infrastructure that China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, and even Turkey do have. When the United States wakes up and discovers that it is in the in a second tier of nations, one thing it will be able to look back on is the mass cancellation of rail infrastructure projects in 2010.
{And it's hard to ignore the Onion's take on the situation.}
Showing posts with label high speed rail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label high speed rail. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Transport: Yet Less High Speed Rail
TORONTO, ONTARIO - When the initial announcements were made in January, this blog addressed the fact that much of the high-speed funding in the United States is not actually going to high-speed projects. Well, now it turns out that even less of the money will go to high-speed projects than was first thought.
Recently, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Caltrain will electrify its commuter line between San Francisco and San Jose, a project estimated to cost $1.23 billion. This seemed like an impossibility, considering California's near-Greek financial status and a similar shortage of funds at the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board that runs Caltrain. Yet, the "Murky News" revealed that there is funding available for the project--using funds designated for high-speed railways.
The preferred routing for California's high-speed route between San Francisco and Los Angeles uses the Caltrain right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose, and the line would need to be upgraded for electric power and higher-speed running (currently, the limit on the line is 79 mph, lower in a number of locations) in order to host the high-speed service. Thus, Caltrain qualifies to use a portion of the high-speed funding for its upgrade.
As a practical matter, this is probably a very good use of stimulus funds. Caltrain is already one of the best commuter rail systems in North America, with rush-hour "baby bullet" trains running between San Francisco and San Jose in under an hour (try driving it in that!) and regular service throughout the day. Converting to electric propulsion will reduce emissions and noise in the residential areas along the line and allow for faster service that will be cheaper to operate (allowing the operation of more trains). It will also allow eventual extension of the line deeper into San Francisco through a tunnel which realistically could not have hosted diesel trains. The peninsula will have a truly world-class commuter rail system that, if supplemented with other transit connections, will attract riders and have an impact on highway mobility.
Yet, the idea of a high speed rail initiative was to link cities not currently connected with a viable alternative to the automobile and commuter aircraft, not to upgrade a commuter rail service. I'm personally in favor of the Caltrain electrification initiative--and have been since the mid-1990's--but think this smells like dishonesty in federal funding (and state funding through the high speed rail bonds). Maybe it's time to stop pretending there is such a thing as high speed rail funding, and just start calling it "Rail Transformation Funding" or something along those lines. Caltrain will be transformed, but it won't be high-speed any more than the existing "baby bullet" express trains are high-speed. Selling the funding as something else just breeds the anti-government cynicism that is already far too prevalent in the United States. It's time to stop feeding it.
Recently, the San Jose Mercury News reported that Caltrain will electrify its commuter line between San Francisco and San Jose, a project estimated to cost $1.23 billion. This seemed like an impossibility, considering California's near-Greek financial status and a similar shortage of funds at the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board that runs Caltrain. Yet, the "Murky News" revealed that there is funding available for the project--using funds designated for high-speed railways.
The preferred routing for California's high-speed route between San Francisco and Los Angeles uses the Caltrain right-of-way between San Francisco and San Jose, and the line would need to be upgraded for electric power and higher-speed running (currently, the limit on the line is 79 mph, lower in a number of locations) in order to host the high-speed service. Thus, Caltrain qualifies to use a portion of the high-speed funding for its upgrade.
As a practical matter, this is probably a very good use of stimulus funds. Caltrain is already one of the best commuter rail systems in North America, with rush-hour "baby bullet" trains running between San Francisco and San Jose in under an hour (try driving it in that!) and regular service throughout the day. Converting to electric propulsion will reduce emissions and noise in the residential areas along the line and allow for faster service that will be cheaper to operate (allowing the operation of more trains). It will also allow eventual extension of the line deeper into San Francisco through a tunnel which realistically could not have hosted diesel trains. The peninsula will have a truly world-class commuter rail system that, if supplemented with other transit connections, will attract riders and have an impact on highway mobility.
Yet, the idea of a high speed rail initiative was to link cities not currently connected with a viable alternative to the automobile and commuter aircraft, not to upgrade a commuter rail service. I'm personally in favor of the Caltrain electrification initiative--and have been since the mid-1990's--but think this smells like dishonesty in federal funding (and state funding through the high speed rail bonds). Maybe it's time to stop pretending there is such a thing as high speed rail funding, and just start calling it "Rail Transformation Funding" or something along those lines. Caltrain will be transformed, but it won't be high-speed any more than the existing "baby bullet" express trains are high-speed. Selling the funding as something else just breeds the anti-government cynicism that is already far too prevalent in the United States. It's time to stop feeding it.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Transport: Deciphering "High Speed" Funding
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Those hoping for high-speed rail in the United States are likely a bit confused by where the $8 billion in Recovery Act money designated for high speed rail will be spent. President Obama and Amtrak-riding Vice-President Biden announced today that only two true "high speed" projects would receive funding, in California and Florida. However, a number of other states will receive money to incrementally improve their conventional services. What's going on here?
Cynics would say this is only about politics. While certain "blue" states (California, Illinois, Maine, Washington, and Wisconsin) are being rewarded under this view with significant project funding, swing states are over-represented, with Florida getting the only complete high-speed system funded, North Carolina getting a significant grant, and Ohio getting perhaps the most unexpected grant, $400 million to improve infrastructure for new corridors within that state, which sees only Amtrak long-distance service at odd hours presently. "Red" states? There is just a small grant to Texas and some spillover money for Missouri from the Chicago-St. Louis corridor that will go to states that did not vote for Obama.
I'm not going to argue that politics played no role here, but there may actually be a policy strategy here that makes sense which I have yet to see presented elsewhere. For a long time, advocates have been arguing that a demonstration corridor was needed to show what a high speed rail corridor could do. Orlando to Tampa, Florida has apparently been selected as that demonstration corridor, and in that regard, it's an interesting choice. It's long enough--80 miles--to show the speed advantages of high-speed rail, but short enough to be relatively inexpensive to build, and it has the interesting advantage of competing mostly just with the automobile--few fly for that short of a distance, and Amtrak runs only long-distance trains between the two cities. The only inexplicable part is that the Federal money will only pay for about half the cost of the project--Florida will have to come up with the rest of the money on its own, and in its current budgetary situation that's far from certain.
The bulk of the rest of the money went mostly to states that have already demonstrated an ability to effectively improve existing service. The California money may be designated for the high-speed system supported by Governor Schwarzenegger, but California has been the national leader in using state funds to create meaningful corridors, with the greatest success achieved in the "Pacific Surfliner" corridor from San Diego to Los Angeles and on to the Central Coast, and the "Capitol" corridor between San Jose and Sacramento. Washington received a significant grant which fits right into its incremental approach that has already shaved a half-hour off the travel time between Seattle and Portland, Oregon and increased the number of corridor trips from one to four in the past fifteen years. Maine fought almost single-handed to create and improve the Portland to Boston, Massachusetts "Downeaster" corridor which also runs through New Hampshire and now may get to extend its corridor to Brunswick, with a goal of reaching the capitol in Augusta.
From a policy perspective, that just might make sense--get a demonstration corridor going, encourage the states that have invested in rail by reinforcing the investment, and hope that by setting this precedent, other states will start to invest. It's hardly a bold move, but perhaps it sets the stage for a further round of investment someday if the demonstration corridor becomes popular. The Obama administration is all about hope, isn't it?
Cynics would say this is only about politics. While certain "blue" states (California, Illinois, Maine, Washington, and Wisconsin) are being rewarded under this view with significant project funding, swing states are over-represented, with Florida getting the only complete high-speed system funded, North Carolina getting a significant grant, and Ohio getting perhaps the most unexpected grant, $400 million to improve infrastructure for new corridors within that state, which sees only Amtrak long-distance service at odd hours presently. "Red" states? There is just a small grant to Texas and some spillover money for Missouri from the Chicago-St. Louis corridor that will go to states that did not vote for Obama.
I'm not going to argue that politics played no role here, but there may actually be a policy strategy here that makes sense which I have yet to see presented elsewhere. For a long time, advocates have been arguing that a demonstration corridor was needed to show what a high speed rail corridor could do. Orlando to Tampa, Florida has apparently been selected as that demonstration corridor, and in that regard, it's an interesting choice. It's long enough--80 miles--to show the speed advantages of high-speed rail, but short enough to be relatively inexpensive to build, and it has the interesting advantage of competing mostly just with the automobile--few fly for that short of a distance, and Amtrak runs only long-distance trains between the two cities. The only inexplicable part is that the Federal money will only pay for about half the cost of the project--Florida will have to come up with the rest of the money on its own, and in its current budgetary situation that's far from certain.
The bulk of the rest of the money went mostly to states that have already demonstrated an ability to effectively improve existing service. The California money may be designated for the high-speed system supported by Governor Schwarzenegger, but California has been the national leader in using state funds to create meaningful corridors, with the greatest success achieved in the "Pacific Surfliner" corridor from San Diego to Los Angeles and on to the Central Coast, and the "Capitol" corridor between San Jose and Sacramento. Washington received a significant grant which fits right into its incremental approach that has already shaved a half-hour off the travel time between Seattle and Portland, Oregon and increased the number of corridor trips from one to four in the past fifteen years. Maine fought almost single-handed to create and improve the Portland to Boston, Massachusetts "Downeaster" corridor which also runs through New Hampshire and now may get to extend its corridor to Brunswick, with a goal of reaching the capitol in Augusta.
From a policy perspective, that just might make sense--get a demonstration corridor going, encourage the states that have invested in rail by reinforcing the investment, and hope that by setting this precedent, other states will start to invest. It's hardly a bold move, but perhaps it sets the stage for a further round of investment someday if the demonstration corridor becomes popular. The Obama administration is all about hope, isn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)