Talk about a blessing in disguise. Just as the Obama administration’s high-speed rail program was running out of congressionally-appropriated cash, Governor-elects Scott Walker of Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio have come chugging to the rescue.
By vowing to kill planned passenger train lines in their states, the newly elected Midwest Republicans have potentially freed $1.2 billion in federal rail money that can be used to build “true” high-speed routes elsewhere. The windfall represents more than the $1 billion that the White House has requested from Congress in next year’s budget. It gives the administration breathing space to keep the program going even if the Republican-led House blocks rail appropriations in 2011.
Since the Wisconsin and Ohio grants are of secondary importance to the national goal of getting a 150-mph-plus rail line up and running, the governors’ anti-train stance amounts to an unintended gift to the Obama administration
To be sure, benefiting high-speed rail was not the intent of Walker and Kasich. Both politicians have a history of hostility to public transit. Walker has opposed light rail, commuter rail and other transit initiatives in his current job as Milwaukee County Executive. Kasich, a former Ohio Congressman turned Fox News host, likes to say that the only kind of train he approves of is a freight train.
Both have called on Washington to divert the rail money to state highway projects. Ray LaHood, U.S. secretary of transportation, said this isn’t permitted under the law. LaHood told a rail conference last week that he plans to reallocate the money to other states and will bill Wisconsin and Ohio for federal funds already spent on the suspended rail lines.
Poor Choices for Rail Aid
The $810 million in Wisconsin money was to extend Amtrak’s existing Milwaukee-Chicago Hiawatha line to Madison, with a top speed of 79 mph in 2013, rising to 110 mph in 2015; Ohio’s $400 million was to build a Cleveland- Columbus-Cincinnati route operating at 79 mph maximum speeds over existing freight tracks. It received a $400 million grant.
The Obama administration funded these projects largely because they were “shovel ready” (a key criteria of the stimulus act that provided $8 billion in rail aid to states) and because they represented “regional balance” for the Midwest that Congressmen from both parties demand when money is allocated for highways.
As we have argued, spreading out federal funds to too many marginal projects is a mistake operationally and politically. Operationally, intercity passenger rail will succeed only if it provides an obvious and understandable margin of superiority over highway trip times. Politically, moderate-speed lines advertised as high-speed (or as “emerging high speed,” in Obama administration nomenclature) confuses the public and opens up the federal initiative to legitimate criticism.
Studies indicate that somewhat-faster service will not create the transformational transportation that will get Americans out of their cars and jumpstart regional economies. This was underscored by a recent study of high-speed rail compared to conventional rail commissioned by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Because the up-front costs of truly modern train lines are high, the administration needs to concentrate on finishing one or two routes with state-of-the-art equipment to prove that fast rail is an efficient and even profitable venture once construction is completed.
Florida Should be Centerpiece
The administration now has the opportunity to fund true high-speed rail by reallocating the Midwest money. It can fully fund the high-speed Tampa-Orlando line in Florida as well as help get a segment of California’s proposed 200-mph railway between San Francisco and Los Angeles into revenue service. There may even be money left over to accelerate “shovel-ready” projects in busy rail corridors with proven ridership in Illinois and Connecticut.
Newly elected California governor Jerry Brown (D) is a strong supporter of his state’s rail program – as is outgoing Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both Illinois incumbent governor Pat Quinn (D) and Connecticut governor-elect Dan Malloy (D) are also pro-train.
Florida’s Republican governor-elect, Rick Scott, initially opposed the Tampa-Orlando line (the current governor, Charlie Crist, supports the project). But Scott has recently relaxed his rhetoric and says he is in favor of high-speed rail so long as Florida taxpayers don’t pay for it.
What reportedly swayed Scott was $800 million in fresh federal funds for the project last month. Florida now has $2.05 billion to complete the $2.6 billion line, including the $1.25 billion in federal funds it received in January.
Public-Private Partnerships
By reallocating a portion of the Wisconsin-Ohio funds, the $550 million gap could be closed. Or better yet, Washington could encourage private companies to invest in the Florida line by using federal funds as an incentive. Already Siemens, the high-speed locomotive maker, has announced interest in bidding on the Florida project if government shares a portion of the operational risk.
Such a public-private partnership would appear to satisfy Scott’s objections and could go a long way to appease Rep. John Mica (R – Fla.), a fan of public-private rail partnerships who is expected to become chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in January.
All of this could leave Wisconsin’s and Ohio’s new chief executives on the wrong side of the tracks. Or as a transportation official told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week, “Expanding passenger rail is a national priority. Just because Wisconsin says no doesn’t mean it’s going away.”
Tags: 110 mph, 200-mph, 79 mph, Amtrak, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California, Charlie Crist, Cleveland- Columbus-Cincinnati, Connecticut, Dan Malloy, Florida, Fox News, high-speed rail, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, HSR, Illinois, Jerry Brown, John Kasich, John Mica, Los Angeles, Madison, Midwest republicans, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee-Chicago Hiawatha, Obaa administration, Ohio, Pat Quinn, Public Transit, public-private partnerships, Rail Aid, Ray LaHood, regional balance, Republican Governors, Rick Scott, San Francisco, Scott Walker, shovel ready, Tampa-Orlando, Transportation, U.S. Conference of Mayors, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, White House, Wisconsin
No country has ever built and operated high speed (150+ mph) passenger rail service on routes not already served by heavily used conventional-speed service. All nations and states that operate 150+ mph sevice do so as a supplement to conventional-speed service. No such service is operated in isolation.
Existing U.S. intercity rail passenger service transports barely one percent of all intercity travel. In a few corridors (Boston-Washington, San Diego-Los Angeles, San Jose-Auburn CA) train travel transports a significant but still small percentage of travel. Before attempting to create even one new dedicated trackage 150+ mph rail passenger route, this nation needs vastly increase the percentage of intercity travel on passenger trains, as well as dramatically expand urban bus and rail transit.
Very high top speed is of far less value to most travelers than are low fares, reliable and convenient service and minimal travel time. Amtrak’s Acela trains are capable of 150 mph top speed, yet between Boston and New York Acela travel time is little if any shorter than it was in the ddays 40+ years ago when New Haven Railroad operated the service.
Fascination with maximum top speed is obscuring the value of such service. Comparison of travel time minutes saved and the cost for each increment in top speed would quickly illustrate how exensive it is for each major speed increase increment. Moving from 79 to 90 mph reduces travel time significantly at realtively low cost, as does increasing top speed to 110 or 125 mph. From 125 mph on up to 186 mph, the cost per minute saved grows very steeply yet produces only a very small percentage of travel time reduction. Speed increases above 186 mph cost even more per travel time minute saved, making such expenditures less and less valuable or affordable. Far more “bang for the buck” is achieved from infrastructure upgrades that raise average speed, regardless of the theoretical top speed.
I find myself largely in agreement with Mr. Harding. High-speed trains are great but it is more important that the USA operates a comprehensive rail passenger service. How many times have people phoned Amtrak only to find that there is no good rail service to their intended destination? Those people are unlikely to phone Amtrak again. In Europe the mileage of high-speed lines is relatively quite small compared to the regular lines yet high-speed trains fan out all over the continent using both types of trackage. Here in the USA Acela trains stay only on the corridor. Planned high-speed lines in California and Florida will not have good connections to existing services and the trains will not fan out over existing trackage. They will take years and billions to build even if the political will holds up. What this country needs is a train that can operate at decent speeds over existing trackage.
Has anyone noticed that since both Wisconsin and Ohio have forfeited their stimulus packages, that neither the Obama administration nor Congress have considered giving additional funding to upgrade parts of the Northeast Corridor to make it capable of sustaining high speed rail traffic in the near future? If this country has any chance of planning, financing, constructing, operating and maintaining high speed rail infrastructure, we need to rethink ways of how to interconnect the various forms of transportation we now have, as well as adopting a more positive can-do attitude.