EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
US Readies Plans for High-Speed Rail Development
WASHINGTON - The Obama administration is expected to unveil its plans on Thursday for accelerating development of high-speed rail, a concept that in the past has had mixed political support and little public funding.
A Japan-made high speed train operating in Taiwan. White House and transportation officials have spent the past several weeks weighing plans for developing at least six high-speed corridors.(AFP/File/Sam Yeh) "It will be broad and strategic," Karen Rae, acting head of the Federal Railroad Administration, told Reuters in an interview on Tuesday about the initiative described by officials as President Barack Obama's top transportation priority.
"It's going to talk about how we begin to create this new vision for high-speed and intercity rail," Rae said.
White House and transportation officials have spent the past several weeks weighing plans for developing at least six high-speed corridors.
High-speed rail initiatives are in various planning stages in California, Florida, Nevada, the Carolinas and the Northeast. States are already formulating how to use the large appropriation for high-speed rail projects in the economic stimulus act.
"Some of these plans are 20 years old," said Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood in an interview this week with Reuters Financial Television.
In February, Congress included $8 billion for rail development in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and Obama has included another $5 billion for the efforts in the White House's proposed budget.
LaHood said the $8 billion in stimulus money will "jump-start" the process, but rail advocates and transportation officials agree that financing high-speed rail nationally will cost significantly more.
The plan to be released on Thursday is required by the stimulus act, but Rae said it will "reference the broader rail agenda that is out there."
Rae said she hopes her agency beats the next deadline set by the act on June 17 to provide guidance on how the competitive grants in the stimulus bill will be evaluated.
Government financing for passenger rail has been a contentious political issue for years although supporters have long touted its popularity in Europe and Asia. The U.S. government defines high-speed rail as "intercity passenger rail service that is reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour."
Supporters of Amtrak, the country's heavily subsidized and only long-haul passenger rail service, fought bitter political battles with the Bush administration to keep the network running nationally. Now, Amtrak and passenger rail advocates have powerful new allies in the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers heading up key committees.
Midwestern governors recently wrote Secretary LaHood asking for $3.4 billion of the funding to build up high-speed rail corridors in Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
"I believe Missouri and the other states in our region present a compelling and united case to the Obama Administration to fund these projects," Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon said in a statement on Tuesday.
"Our states have been working on this rail initiative for more than a decade, and we will aggressively compete for these Recovery Act funds specifically designated for high-speed rail projects," he added.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
45 Comments so far
Show AllAdd the Pacific Northwest States of Washington & Oregon, working in conjunction with the Canadian Province of British Columbia to the list.
Lets hope the airline industry lobby doesn't stifle high speed rail this time around like they have in the past.
Isn't the existing Cascades servce in eastern Oregon and Washington already semi-high speed (< than the FRA 79 mph speed limit)? Get in line.
The current conceptual high speed plan is here:
http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/203
The largest monopolies that will fight this plan with everything they've got are the airline industry and the oil companies.
It sure would be nice knowing the sky wasn't quite so filled with airplanes always flying overhead though.
I've ridden the high-speed trains in France, and the only indication that your are going faster than 60 miles per hour is the short time it takes to travel several hundred miles, and the telephone poles pass by quicker.
We can do anything that we put our mind to doing. We are spending $200 Billion a year on imported oil that would be greatly reduced by most people traveling by train. Perhaps a $20 a barrel and $2 a gallon gasoline tax be imposed to provide the money to build an efficient mass transport system. Now we paid $4 a gallon just last July and people paid it because they had to. More people will use mass transportation, if available, and for the cost of the gasoline that it would cost to drive the same route (I did in Portland Oregon for three years).
The question is how can we afford it? Just think of all the lost production of one person out of work for one year, and then multiply this by 12,000,000. All of the goods and services that these people would have provided by gainful employment are lost forever. By harnessing this productive potential we not only can have our high-speed transportation system; but also energy independence by making solar panels and ocean water turbines to produce electricity. We could also produce 80 percent of our electricity from nuclear like France and Japan do.
I was and am worried about the speed for one thing... 110 doesn/t sound too bad...at least not as bad as two or three hundred miles per hour and as I see in the picture the rails will not be on the ground, passing houses and towns etc. But then again, we'll have to live with the eminent domain issue(spelling?). Who will be removed from their homes and who won't be because they can pay off whomever needs to be paid in order to keep their land or house...I would still have to be convinced that this is a feasible and necessary (evil)?
Why is the high speed bad?
Yes, the tracks will be on the ground, except in certain urban areas, but all road crossings will be separated grade - overpasses and underpasses. In hilly and mountainous terrain, many segments will be in tunnels.
The high speed railroad tracks take up much less land than an interstate highway. Except for the very brief period when a train is passing, they are far quieter than an interstate highway - or any widened highway - for which many people get removed from their homes, but get paid a fair price for their home, land and relocation expenses.
There is no difference between crashing at 110 or 300 MPH. You die either way...simple. I welcome this. Anything to defeat the Airline industries. I am really looking forward to a high speed connection between north and south California.
And if you mean a crash with a vehicle at a crossing, this will not be possible as high speed lines always use seperated grade crossings - overpasses or underpaasses.
If the train hit a car, the train passengers probably wouldn't die. With airbags in the train seats you probably wouldn't die at 110 mph even if the train hit a wall. In many urban settings, 110 mph is simply a practical speed.
For safety, we should look at experience in Europe, where they have had high speed trains for a while now. Eminent domain is often abused, so I hope we handle this with intelligence and grace.
Airports are beastly and airplanes cramped, smelly and fuel intensive. Trains are comfortable and more efficient. Plus you get to see the landscape and walk around. I am so looking forward to high speed trains and also some new lines where they currently do not exist.
Hope I live long enough to see it happen :)
Joe
Nice, only a few decades behind other industrialized countries.
I am on board with this. Just one big concern: right now tickets on old Amtrak trains along the Eastern corridor cost 5 or 10 times as much as busses and often more than airplanes. The prices on Acela are very high. Theoretically, trains should be one of the more affordable forms of transportation. We should figure out the causes of this seemingly irrational price differential and correct them.
Joe
I've had trouble figuring that one as well.
My wife was frequently travelling between NYC and home in Pittsburgh. The price of "doing the right thing" and taking the train, (The segment between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg averaging only 40 mph and never on time) instead of driving or flying was very high.
One would think that the cost of railroad equipment would be far less than an airliner.
Especially with those "Chinatown buses" driving down the cost of an intercity trip.
Progressive elements in US must move deliberately but not so fast that they frighten the usual right wing trash into spasms of destruction.
The filthy right wing nut scumbags have to be brought under social control. They have done enough damage to society with their wars of hate.
Well, let's get up to speed and fast already. The traffic jams out here in St Louis are getting to be more hellish week after week. Either cut down the very steep metro fares, improve the quality, or better yet do both. Even for those of us who are too far away from the closest metro station, at least traffic jams won't be so much of a living hell as they are now.
P.S.: It will be interesting to see if public transportation can be expanded into the rural south and midwestern areas. Maybe there will be a return to life there instead of depopulation and depression for a change.
While metro and light rail lines have their place, people (especially white people) need to get over their aversion to using the bus. The service will only get more frequent if riders - especially better-off "riders of choice" start using the existing bus service.
Thankfully, I don't see this too much in Pittsburgh, where bus riders represent a good cross section of the city, but when I go to DC, it is pretty stark - the Metro system for the white yuppies (even if they have to walk quite a ways to a station) and the buses for the predominantly black and latino poor.
The bus line I mostly use in DC has quite a few white yuppies on it, but only closer to downtown where the residences cost more. But two streets over, usually I'm the most decent-looking white person on there, and I wear jeans and a t-shirt to work, and yes most of the passengers are poor blacks and latins. I've never actually had to use the metro here so far, my workplace is a straight one-bus ride 4 miles from where I live.
I used to take the metro rail out in St Louis since I lived close to the nearest station and didn't mind a 1.5 mile walk to it. My work place has some rules on dressing to work such as jeans only allowed on Fridays and no shorts or skirts above the knees unless we wear tights to go with it. On days I would have a meeting, I'd be expected to dress formally so it can get tricky on the metro especially when the crowd would pile on. Since I drive to work, being dressed casually or formally is not an issue but it will be interesting to see how businesses deal with dressing rules and how metro adjusts itself as more people take the sub. Last year in June, the metro folks in St Louis were finally starting to get serious about actually improving their infrastructure although no price discounts would be called for. After gas prices kept decreasing, they silently cancelled all their plans and are even talking about raising their fares while doing nothing to improve their rusted infrastructure. Maybe the USA seriously needs long term rising gas prices if the country will ever come out of its slump.
I don't understand your concern about dress. I lived in Japan for quite some time where the trains are much more crowded than anything in the US could dream of being (think white gloved men pushing the passengers in so that the doors can close) their suits looked just fine when they got off the trains.
National Initiative for Democracy: Direct Democracy via Direct Democracy
ni4d.us
I take it that in Japan, most men and women are generally well dressed unlike here where it's mixed.
I remember a pretty good quote on the necessary politeness in Japanese society, as well: "If they didn't tolerate close proximity so politely, they would have urban fighting to make the most hardcore American gang member blush", or something like that.
It's not a matter of white people or black people. Trains, subways and light rail are the most efficient way of getting people around. The reason the poor use busses is because that's the only option given to them by those oil based power brokers who destroyed passenger train service and street car systems. Get over your reverse snobbism and racism. Yuppies and whites are victims too.
This 10-15 BILLION DOLLARS for Rail IS A DROP IN THE BUCKET COMPARED to the $500 BILLION Congress and the Obama administration (LaHood) plan to throw down a rabbit hole to prop up the paving industry (mafia) for new and wider freeways across the U.S..
We could indeed have a network of high speed rail across the country in less than half a decade if it could recieve half of the $500 billion that will be spent on building new and wider superfreeways.
In Cailfornia alone where voters approved a $10 billion bond measure to build high speed rail is counting on at least $10 Billion from the Feds for their new high speed rail proposal.
Tell your elected "leaders" trough letters to the editor or guest editorials that new new or wider freeways are a waste of your taxpayer money and that this money should be placed in rail instead.
Take a read about California COUNTIUNG ON at least $10 BILLION of Federal money alone.
High-Speed Rail Proposal Passes in California. By Michael Cabanatuan, SFChron, November 5, 2008. "California voters are climbing on board a plan to start construction of the nation's first high-speed rail system. The bond measure will approve the sale of nearly $10 billion in bonds as a down payment on an 800-mile high-speed rail network that would send electric trains zipping between Northern and Southern California at up to 220 mph. Supporters, including transportation, environmental and business groups and the heavy-construction industry, said high-speed rail would offer a fast, greener and less-costly way to travel up and down the state."
Prop 1A: High-speed rail-- Yes 52.3% No 47.7% [95% of vote reported by the LATimes.]
(11-05) 00:26 PST SAN FRANCISCO -- California voters appeared to be climbing on board a plan to start construction of the nation's first high-speed rail system.
The bond measure would approve the sale of nearly $10 billion in bonds as a down payment on an 800-mile high-speed rail network that would send electric trains zipping between Northern and Southern California at up to 220 mph.
Supporters, including transportation, environmental and business groups and the heavy-construction industry, said high-speed rail would offer a fast, greener and less-costly way to travel up and down the state.
"I'm happy," said Quentin Kopp, chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority and chief spokesman for the Yes on 1A campaign. "I'm confident the federal government will not only match this $9.9 billion but double it."
Kopp also hailed Californians "for showing we are as intrepid and energetic as the argonauts of the 19th century and our forefathers during the Depression who built the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge."
Proposition 1A would start funding construction of a high-speed rail line between the Transbay Terminal in San Francisco and Los Angeles Union Station. The trip would take about 21/2 hours, according to the High Speed Rail Authority, and would cost $55 one way. After departing San Francisco, the train would make stops on the Peninsula and in San Jose and Gilroy before heading over the Pacheco Pass to the San Joaquin Valley and points south.
The system would be the largest public works project in California history - bigger than the California Aqueduct - and would cost $32 billion for the main line between San Francisco and Los Angeles and another $10 billion to $12 billion to complete the network with extensions to San Diego, Sacramento and Riverside County. The state is banking on getting about a third of the construction budget from state taxpayers, a third from the federal government and a third from private investors.
The bulk of the bond revenues - $9 billion - would be spent on planning and building the system, and the remaining $950 million would be devoted to connecting rail service, such as BART, the Altamont Commuter Express and the Capitol Corridor.
Thank you President Obama.
Much more is yet to be done in support of high speed rail.
There is an 'all important' consideration with transit systems: their inextricable connection with development. US cities are plagued with traffic. But high-speed rail is NOT a solution because it's an alternative to long-distance air travel. The more pertinent rail technology best able to deal with the morning/afternoon commute nightmare is light rail -- an all day, 5 to 15-minute interval, electric rail transit system with stations no more than 1 mile apart offering commuters and general transit users a better option for many trips than a bus, and offers an ideal means to guide future growth and development whereby transit use may become more convenient and commonplace.
We drive too much, too far, for too many purposes, at too high a cost and impact because we have developed US cities and suburbs principally under the assumption that to go anywhere, no one will have a choice but to drive. Now, all trips are too far to walk, too unsafe to bicycle, and too impractical to arrange mass transit.
High-speed rail is a good idea, but it is not the solution. Walking, bicycling and most mass transit use are not high-speed. Got it? Huh? Figured that out yet? High-speed rail is a ruse. In Orwellian logic: Faster is actually slower, and slower is actually faster. The faster we think we must go to get to destinations further away, the slower we eventually realize that most trips must be shortened so that they can be made via more energy efficient means -- walking, bicycling and local mass transit.
High-speed rail will always be a luxury. It's better to improve basic Amtrak service to eliminate its scheduling conflicts with freight rail.
High speed trains are much more energy efficient, cheaper and much less polluting alternative to long distance air travel.
For many decades, there has been essentially no free market in rail innovation. So, there have been no innovations except those that railroad companies thought up by themselves, or innovations imported from countries such as Japan. Do you think that the U.S. could possibly have developed the first bullet train?
The lynchpin in strategic rail development is the rewarding of successful inventors. No all-American payoff incentive, no innovation. Even a dumb Republican could figure this one out . . . nahh!
Our metro in St Louis almost started having a sort-of free market jump for joy last year when the gas prices will so high. I can never forget their sleazy advertizing filled with total schadenfreude. Nothing ever changes for the better on metro. The only thing that goes up are the fees and often to ridiculously higher prices. The state and local legislatures will run a "globe and trotters" faux "debate" on how to address the metro but in the end it's all status quo. Even when the gas prices fell, metro had no intention of lowering its fares and they even increased it yet again. Sadly, most people who come to work on the metro are generally fully reimbursed for the metro costs though not everyone's lucky. I once asked a snobbish guy at work as to why he takes the metro over driving despite the higher costs and his reply was "Well, my company pays for it but you should take it anyway even if it doesn't, ..." and he's blather on about it. I cut him short by saying "Well, if metro doesn't want to know how to compete and get its pricing within reasonable range, metro can kiss my @$$ !" I'm tired of throwing money at a system that won't improve itself.
Nowhere in the world do public transit systems, or interciy rail, pay for themselves. They are part of the public infrastructure that is funded by a variety of tax sources.
The fare increases for public transit in many US cities are due to the deep cuts in public funding share that a lot of public transit systems used to get. Believe me, they don't want to raise fares, but it is either that or deep service cuts.
There are many reasons for traffic problems- some of those reasons have connection with inter-state transit. If an inter-state highway goes through a city, or even a by-pass that has be developed around, all those trucks and travelers will clog up the streets- especially when combined with rush hour traffic. There are many solutions to this- but basically it is, aside from better street planning- having 2, hopefully complementary, systems... urban commuter transit (busses, trains, park and drive, bike-paths and the like) and interstate traffic that is directed and focused away from heavy commuter corridors.
Are there more Trucks than Cars on our highways? if so, then the High-speed rail would do well by including shipping as well as passenger trains. Even without interstate traffic, there would still be commuter traffic- without better civic planning- but the problem is expounded when we add interstate traffic.
The trucking industry may even have more to fear from high-speed interstate trains (if shipping was included).
As for paving- well a lot of that goes to actual city streets, which need constant maintenance. Then there are highway projects- most of those are "poor civic planning" and usually mean keeping the old crappy structure and just expaning lanes. And don't get me started on selling our roads to Spain and the like.
As for noise, well it depends on the system that gets built. MagLev trains are far quiter, and all trains are quiter than highways.
The traffic started to get somewhat reasonable as the gas prices went up. I usually go earlier in the morning so the trucks aren't as numerous as they would be 7:30 AM and afterwards. I will say however that even before that the traffic wasn't as hellish as it has been since September last year. It just gets worse and worse and yet no word from metro on upgrading or at least improving its infrastructure at all. They can paint a few trash cans and change the carpet to floor but it's all just coverups in the end.
personally I would not be worried about the airline lobby too much.
Good luck getting the plans past the environmental movement. do you think they gonna stand idly by and let a railroad line cross thru habitats of endangered species? I mean just last month Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) started clucking about no solar panels in the desert.
An airport is just a 1.5 mi slab of concrete in the middle of nowhere and you have enironmentalists going crazy. wait until thousands of miles of tracks cross thru pristine land.
I'm not even gonna start going into the NIMBY syndrome.
"An airport is just a 1.5 mi slab of concrete in the middle of nowhere"
Uh, along with all the associated pollution from millions of pounds of jet fuel being burned each year. And the associated noise pollution. And all the roads and hotels and restaurants constructed along with them, and all the new cars going there, and all the pollution and noise from that too.
The so-called environmentalists that rail against railroad tracks are NOT environmentalists. And no, the airline lobbyist and Big Auto are the ones to confront the most. They're the ones responsible for killing the public transportation system and putting us all through traffic jam hell.
I had a dream…. Of national integrated electric transit. That there would be solar and wind generators on every roof top, that would power plug-in electric cars that you could drive up to a train station and onto a train car, and those trains would be high-speed mag-lev trains that would run down the median of our highway systems, powered by solar and wind generators on the highway property, and those trains could consist of independent, operator-less traincars, that could carry people or product, and could enter and exit the system at any point, like cars on an on/off ramp, and would- along with the highways, by-pass major pedestrian areas, or for trains go under or above ground to go into an urban area, and for highways to separate into slightly slower main roads with parallel even slower access roads when in a major pedestrian area, so as not to cut a town in half- all allowing citizens anywhere (close to a highway) to ship themselves or their goods quickly and cheaply, to take the trucks off the road, to increase safety and decrease oil-use, to open up rather than section off, to increase mobility for all rather than those that can afford it, to come back to civic planning of the square rather than the strip, and of course to bring back the trains cause they’re so freakin cool.
Your dream could be a reality today if it hadn't been derailed (pun intended) by corporate interests. What an awful nightmare these monsters have created! I really can't think of a punishment too cruel for them. I hope the laws of karma truly exist.
By the way - with all the stimulus money and talk of green jobs, at this time NYC Transit is in the process of raising fares 25% or more, making severe cuts in subway and bus schedules and service, eliminating jobs, closing stations and station booths and even closing down entire lines.
How is it possible that one of the most important examples of pollution reducing, poor people serving, getting to work enabling, public transportation is being allowed to flounder like this? Where has all the cash gone? Why has none hit this target? The MTA deficits amount to far less than the bonuses being paid to execs in bailed out companies.
There is a disconnect between rhetoric and reality. More people are noticing, but still want to give Obama a chance. In my opinion nothing will improve until Obama fires Summers and Geithner. They are toxic assets.
Joe
acutenecrotizingfasciitus
Hey, I grew up in Pittsuburgh, Pa., and as I recall we could take the bus all over town. You could transfer in downtown and travel all over the place. Hell, I was probably the only teenager in my neighborhood who didn't want a car. Those kids who did have a car could only afford cheap ones, and so they had to wrench on them constantly. I loved taking the bus. In the winter you had some respite from the cold, & in the summer they were air conditioned (I think. It has been some years.) Basically, we need high speed rail from Miami or the Keys to Montreal on the East Coast. And we need one from San Diego to Canada. If Mexico gets its economic act together, there could be a spur to TJ.
From those two basic routes more rails can be developed. Actually, the plans for the rails could mimic the present air routes. What are the most popular? the most used air routes? Build the rail routes. And then we could place posters in the cars touting zero population growth! Ta da!
Perhaps the Obamination of the govorporation will do something positive after all. Hey, let's build a rail bridge to Cuba!
Also, there are no routes along the coast of Northern California, nor access anywhere near Nashville. I don't expect us to duplicate the density of coverage we find in Europe, but we stopped building routes about 100 years ago when the population and pollution levels were both much lighter. Car travel has been the model since the early 1900s.
My question - is this country still capable of construction or only destruction?
Joe
I hope 110 mph is a minimum. I believe the state of the art systems in Europe and Japan are in the 200+ mph range.
First, let me apologize if I'm echoing anyone's thoughts here, because I was too excited to read through all 40 comments.
I've ridden Amtrak in America. It was nice. I've ridden various European rail lines as well, and it was convenient. I've even ridden the high-speed between France and England: it was fast, but a little boring in the tunnel. Speed never really mattered much to me: the convenience alone was worth it.
I've lived in Taiwan for 3 1/2 years now, and Taiwan has a pretty good rail system. Taipei has a clean and efficient Metro, and island-wide there are a variety of train systems that are used by many people for many reasons. There's even a high-speed train here, but again: it's kinda boring, and quite expensive.
The best things are these: you don't need to have a car or motorcycle to get around (taxis are pretty cheap too, if it comes to that) and you REALLY CAN count on the timetables. In short, I couldn't imagine living in a country without decent public mass transit anymore. My last vacation to the US involved a ridiculous amount of time spent driving to do anything or go anywhere, and it was a shame to lose so much vacation time to transit.
I grew up in the Midwest: long driving distances (nice scenery, at least!) were common, but trips to Rochester, MN, Wausau, WI, Chicago, IL, and Detroit, MI were the bulk of my long hauls, and at FRA max. 79mph they would have been wondrously faster and a lot more convenient.
You Don't Need The High Speed.
Just get the feds to back national rail lines and keep the cost low. All aboard?
------------------------------------------------
If you don't ask yourself why, you know nothing.
I guess I'm really just afraid of the speed. What if one crashes at 110 or some are supposed to go faster... I can see where overall it's really an improvement over the transportation we have now. But, Leftist, when you talk about how the rails will be on the ground except through urban areas, what about the rural areas. We have a cargo train which goes by my house only approximately two hundred yads or even less from my house. If it were high speed and derailed going over 100 mi per miles per hr. what would happen, it would take out the whole little hamlet... So would they have these trains set up so that rural areas would be safe, like not having road crossings, extremely high fences so kids( you know kids, they do the craziest things) can't get on the tracks?
I just have questions that's all.
Rebuilding our rail system with conventional engines is far better than nothing... but high-speed is exciting too. Japan's are pushing the upper 200 mph, but as infastructure improves and people get comfortable with it, it can possiblly get between 300-500 mph, around or above the speed of a commercial airliner. With Mag-lev, it would take an atomic explosion or the fault line of an eathquake to derail those suckers (or you know conventional terrorism, or more likely shoddy (privitization) workmanship- skiming on regs)
As for the current trains I ride, interstate ones have great timetables- what slows them down is giving right-of-way to freight lines, which btw suckered the govt for their own little fiefdoms along the lines that cannot be touched. City trains, well the problems usually come down to funding... they are never fully funded, the managers have to fight, every budget, for what they can get and it is never enough- they can be pushed down the priority scale. And when budgets get tight- that fight gets harder.
I wonder... what would be the parallels between city transit and cit education in budget fights? Both get shafted, but the effects are easier seen short term in transit and long term in education? What budget trumps those two? Tax breaks?
An airline mechanic friend of mine told me once -
When a train engine malfunctions, the train stops. When an airplane engine malfunctions, the plane stops too [and falls]