Hey, there! Log in / Register
Closest thing we have to high-speed rail in this country loses out in bid for federal funds
By adamg on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 6:11pm
Dan Grabauskas considers the implications of the Northeast Corridor being left off the initial federal list of high-speed rail projects to get federal stimulus money:
... Nothing breeds success like success. Nothing. And while we can recognize the fact that as a region we‘ve benefited more than other areas of the country in terms of dollars spent is fine. But let’s be clear, spending the money the way proposed makes this is a national jobs bill -- not a national transportation bill. Sound national transportation planning would have dictated some additional investment now in the only example we have of effective high-ish speed rail in the US.
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Really?
Let's be honest. The remainder two-thirds of the country built your system. The NE corridor has had billions bestowed upon it over the past decades. Nearly HALF of the nation's population live in the metro areas to be served by HSR in Californoa, Florida, and the midwest.
Well, I guess it all depends
Well, I guess it all depends on whether you want to maximize returns or votes.
It's true - there's an immense amount of the American population in the areas designated for investment. And there's a reason why no one currently takes the trains there, and why the NorthEast Corridor is the only consistently profitable portion of Amtrak's rail network, and accounts for an outsized portion of both its investment and its passengers. It's because people in the northeast live in a manner that lends itself to low environmental impact. Our cities are dense and clustered. Your cities are sprawling metropolises, surrounded by endless rings of suburbia. Taking trains along the DC/Boston corridor is a cost-effective solution. Taking trains in California makes sense for tourists.
But that's not what drove these awards, and I'm a little frustrated that Grabauskis won't acknowledge that. We lost this competition by being stupid and shortsighted. And Grabauskis bears some of the blame.
The states that won this money have spent years - in some cases, decades - investing large sums of their own dollars in planning. They've sketched corridors, gone through the arduous process of environmental impact statements, figured out grading and trackage. They have plans, on the shelf, more or less ready to be built. We, by contrast, have ill-defined ambitions, none of which has advanced to the point of environmental review. We were spoiled by the investments made by Amtrak, and lulled into the belief that because it makes much more sense to invest in rail here, this is where the investments would come. That was where we were stupid. The world, sadly, doesn't work that way.
We've now launched a process, in conjunction with other northeastern states, to rectify this. We're drafting plans, agreeing on priorities, and initiating reviews. In the long run, that will yield dividends. The current batch of funding won't really build anything. If Congress gets serious about developing and funding rail, we'll now stand a chance of competing. But for this round, there were no surprises. Don't do the spadework, and you're not shovel ready.
Try, Try Again
Portland and Seattle are less than 200 miles apart. Vancouver isn't much further on. All are hemmed in by either growth restrictions, geographic barriers, or both. At the speeds reached where things are less congested, SFO to Seattle is like Boston to DC.
I have not been on a train on the west coast in the last 5 years that has not been sold out or nearly so. My organization held a conference in Portland and nearly all our funded participants living between British Columbia and San Francisco came by train (I authorized the travel). Trains added for the Vancouver Olympics might be kept on if people use them - which seems likely. Furthermore, east coast population is stagnant while the northwestern cites have nearly doubled in population and have been building the infrastructure to link passengers to public transit in metro areas.
Until and unless the Eastern cities can break the barriers that prevent faster service, funding more than superficial improvements would be pouring money into a hole. Particularly when you consider how well NY and RI and CT and MA design, permit, and manage construction projects. As you said yourself:
The handshake patronage era is over when it comes to goodies for the east coast - has been for some time, but many don't seem to have noticed. Want that money? Show how it makes "much more sense" to invest here - in terms other than "but we're the northeast" and "we have a lot of people using public transit".
SFO to Seattle is a lot less
SFO to Seattle is a lot less densely populated than Boston-DC. Hell, in the other direction, there's places along SFO to San Jose that are less dense than anything Boston-DC.
You make a straw man
You make a straw man argument, then demonstrate ignorance.
No one is talking about a link north of SF to Oregon or Seattle. And the Cal HSR rail project is not a "SF to San Jose line." That would be the same thing as saying the Acela runs from DC to Baltimore.
Benefit would be in NEC
This does not seem to be a fair argument. You could pick any service or project which is regionally specific and argue that people on the other side of the country end up footing the bill. Ideally, the federal government will allocate money where it is economically beneficial (emphasis on "ideally"), and in the case of high speed rail, the Northeast corridor is a prime candidate.
Sure, you could list off any group of cities and regions where it would be a convenience for many people, but the northeast corridor is the place where the economic benefit will be felt most quickly. First of all, Boston, New York and Washington make up the largest and most economically linked megalopolis in the country. I have never been on a bus or train between these cities which had not been packed. Additionally, these three cities are very transit dependent. Unlike a very car dependent state like California, anyone in LA can just hop in their car and use CA’s very extensive nationally subsidized freeway system to drive up to SF. For a transit dependent New Yorker like me (and about 66% of the population within NYC), taking a trip to Boston means either renting a car, taking a bus, or taking a train (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States... sort by Ridership per Mile; top 4 cities are served by the NEC).
I’m not implying that other areas around the country do not deserve high speed rail, but the current NEC does not really qualify as such; travel time on buses is only 30 minutes more than Acela. Increasing the link between these three cities is extremely important and would have more potential for utilization and economic benefit than anywhere else in the country.
If your goal is to get people out of cars ...
... then you don't build where there is already high ridership. You develop facilities where people are asking for them. That's pretty basic.
You do realize that LA and SFO are eight hours apart by car, don't you?
Google maps says LA to SFO is
Google maps says LA to SFO is 1 day 9 hours...
see...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&g...
(hehehe)
High speed rail in the
High speed rail in the northeast means an incremental speed increase.
High speed rail in California means a whole new mode of transit.
"Boston, New York and Washington make up the largest and most economically linked megalopolis in the country."
But not the only megalopolis. It has, however, been the sole and exclusive beneficiary of billions of federal dollars for intercity medium-speed rail for the past four decades. It has been a sponge, a black hole in which federal dollars have been generously applied for 40 years.
"I have never been on a bus or train between these cities which had not been packed." Same here, bud. But I guess a point like that is lost to the northeast effete, who believe the sun rises and sets within 500 miles of New York.
And the NE states have NOT done their homework for new HSR investment. There is no plan, no EIR, nothing. There is no consensus, other than "gimme gimme gimme."
Got news for you: LA has fewer freeway miles per resident than almost every other city. Freeways in California are paid for by the state or by federal trust funds, which are apportioned according to where the money comes from. There has been no intercity freeway added in California for 30 years. And the fed govt has not subsidized California freeways at all.
And since you already have a decent -- not great, but decent -- iintercity rail service, the bang for the buck is out west.
New Yorkers always amuse me ... their world view is so accurately summed up by that Steinberg New Yorker cartoon cover.