Obama’s Rail plan will derail or deliver on right track
Considering the several issues looming over the plan, it is unclear about the outcomes HIGH-SPEED RAIL (HSR) fans rejoiced earlier this year when it became clear that President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package would include at least some new money for HSR projects in America. On April 16th, the Obama administration revealed “Vision for high speed rail in America” High-speed rail networks might very well be the “smart transportation system” of the 21st century, as President Obama declared. The trouble is, we're using a 20th century method to pay for them. The plan released on April 16 focuses solely on HSR and outlines a rather bold vision backed by not as bold an amount of money. There are three pillars to the plan: 1. Projects: grants for shovel-ready projects where engineering work has already been completed 2. Corridor programs: use ARRA money to develop phases or geographic sections of HSR corridors (see map below) that have completed plans and environmental documentation 3. Planning: use non-ARRA appropriations in budgets between FY 2010 and FY 2015 to work toward fully developing and an HSR network The HSR corridors identified in the plan as holding development potential are shown on the map below (click on the map for a larger PDF). Further details on these corridors can also be found on the Department of Transportation's website.
Rationale for HSR In a recent report on HSR, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted the following as arguments in favor of HSR. On congestion at airports and on highways: "The Department of Transportation (DOT) estimates that several intercity highways linking major urban markets will experience significant congestion by 2035. According to a recent report, capacity limitations will constrain air traffic at 14 airports in 8 metropolitan areas, even if planned capacity improvements are carried out through 2025. In addition, the dependence of growing highway and air travel on fossil fuels raises significant environmental concerns regarding greenhouse gas emissions." On the demand side: "The National Railroad Passenger Rail Corporation (Amtrak), the nation’s intercity passenger rail provider, has seen nearly a 20 percent increase in riders in the last 2 years, in part because service enhancements in some intercity corridors have improved overall travel time and reliability, making the train more competitive with highway and air travel. Still, Amtrak does not offer service in many heavily traveled intercity corridors. Moreover, Amtrak’s service continues to have slow average speeds relative to other transport modes, and experiences significant delays, often resulting from sharing track with commuter and freight rail."
"In the United States or elsewhere, high speed rail tends to attract riders in corridors with high population and density, especially where congestion on existing transportation modes prevails." On optimal ranges: "According to foreign and domestic officials with whom we spoke, generally lines significantly shorter than 100 miles do not compete well with the travel time and convenience of automobile travel, and lines longer than 500 miles are unable to overcome the speed advantage of air travel. Between 100 and 500 miles, high speed rail can often overcome air travel’s speed advantage because of reductions in access and waiting times. Air travel requires time to get to the airport, which can often be located a significant distance from a city center, as well as time related to checking baggage, getting through security, waiting at the terminal, queuing for takeoff, and waiting for baggage upon arrival at a destination. By contrast, high speed rail service is usually designed to go from city center to city center, which generally allows for reduced access times for most travelers." HSR Funding - Where The Steel Meets The Track As stated above, the sums going into HSR are overall unimpressive. They are broken down as follows: 1. $8 billion of ARRA money mostly for pillars #1 and #2 above with the added advantage that, unlike other ARRA-funded initiatives, funding for intercity passenger rail development will remain available for obligation until Sept. 30, 2012 2. $1 billion per year for five years in budget appropriations starting with the FY 2010 budget to fund pillar #3 above This equates to $13 billion over a roughly five-year period. The plan does not, however, claim that this $13 billion is the only money that will be made available for HSR projects. Historically, rail has lagged other modes of ground transport with respect to the federal government matching state capital funding (see graph below). States will therefore be expected to be significant financial partners in the projects as will the private sector. Still, even with significant participation from other stakeholders, the question remains: in today's HSR world, is $13 billion enough?
“Now, all of you know this is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future. ... It's been happening for decades. The problem is, it's been happening elsewhere, not here,” Obama said, referring to countries such as France, Japan, Spain and China that have impressive bullet-train networks. But there was something he failed to mention: With the exception of China, whose government can spend any way it likes, all of these countries impose steep taxes on gasoline. The taxes have the dual purpose of providing the funding to build public transit and encouraging people to ride it because they make driving prohibitively expensive. Gas taxes in the United States are minuscule in comparison. President Barack Obama pitched his green energy plan in Iowa on Wednesday and draw raves for his proposal to build a high-speed rail network that with a line connecting Des Moines to Chicago. "We could be on a train to Chicago in the next three years," said Andrew Snow of the Environmental Law and Policy Center, a group pushing the high-speed rail plan. "It's going to bring people to downtown Des Moines. It also offers the opportunity to make the quality of life better here." Obama said mass transit is green transit. "My budget is also making unprecedented investments in mass transit, high-speed rail and in our highway system to reduce the congestion that wastes money and time and energy," Obama said. The proposal would connect Des Moines to Chicago by using and updating existing tracks along Interstate 80. The train could go up to 79 mph and take passengers between the cities in about five hours, with a few stops. The project is expected to cost about $30 million to connect the rail from Des Moines to the Quad Cities. Illinois has already started construction on the rest of the leg. “A major new high-speed rail line will generate many thousands of construction jobs over several years, as well as permanent jobs for rail employees and increased economic activity in the destinations these trains serve,” Obama said. “High-speed rail is long overdue, and this plan lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways.” Project selection for funding will be based on merits and benefits. The first round of applications will focus on projects that can be completed quickly. The second round will include proposals for comprehensive high-speed programs covering entire corridors or sections of corridors. Additional funds will be available for planning to help jump-start corridors not yet ready for construction.
President Obama and Vice President (and train-rider) Joe Biden last week jointly called for new investments in high-speed passenger rail service. Both stressed how such investments - $8 billion in the current Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the promise to seek $5 billion more over the next five years - can create jobs, save travel time, increase productivity and reduce carbon emissions. Obama said that overcrowded highways cost the nation $80 billion a year in lost productivity and wasted fuel. Biden, in an uncharacteristically short sentence, said, "This is a giant environmental down payment."