Transit
FY11 budget threatens national high-speed rail network
With Congress cutting spending left and right, one of the casualties has been President Obama's high-speed rail initiative. The loss of $2.8 billion in funding is a major blow to the program.
A Union Pacific crew lays new track in Illinois. Photo by Illinois Dept. of Transportation.
The next few months could be a do-or-die moment for supporters of efforts to build a 21st-century transportation infrastructure in the United States. If opponents of improved passenger train service get their way, Americans will face rising fuel costs with few alternatives to costly car travel.
House Republicans' proposed budget for the remainder of the current fiscal year contains no new funding for the federal High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program, and rescinds $400 million in funds that had been awarded to Florida's Tampa-Orlando bullet train, but were turned back by Gov. Rick Scott.
The HSIPR program, created by a 2008 law and capitalized with $8 billion from the 2009 Recovery Act, consists of grants awarded on a competitive basis to states, groups of states, or Amtrak to pay for capital projects aimed at making intercity passenger train service faster, more frequent, more reliable and safer. This includes building new world-class high-speed rail systems, as well as making meaningful upgrades to existing rail infrastructure and equipment to greatly enhance current Amtrak service.
The latter type of investment, often deemed higher-speed rail, is just as important as the former, as it is a cost-effective way of giving more Americans the choice of train travel. This builds the domestic production capacity and the train-riding culture necessary for the U.S. to begin to approach Europe in terms of the energy-efficient choices available to travelers.
The elimination of the program from the 2011 budget unwisely stunts the growth of a program that has already begun to prove its worth.
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which administers HSIPR grants, has been criticized, even by train supporters, for getting money out the door too slowly. Despite that, a recent Government Accountability Office report confirms the agency has moved remarkably fast, given difficult circumstances the agency faces. The FRA's program has only been active for a little over two years, during which time the FRA expanded its mission from safety oversight to grant-making.
America's freight railroads carry most of the nation's passenger trains and coordination with freight schedules proves especially daunting. Even though HSIPR investments usually expand capacity and improve reliability for freight transport, private railroads are wary of agreements that might limit their ability to move a growing volume of cargo. Despite these tough bargaining conditions, four of the six major US freight railroads have already entered into agreements with states and Amtrak to commit to meeting specific passenger train performance standards.
The future Brunswick, ME, Amtrak station under construction. Photo by Jim Nawrocki, courtesy NARP.
In ignoring these successes in spurring economic growth, Congressional Republicans are misinterpreting the rejection of HSIPR grants by Republican governors in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida to argue that no state government wants to be "burdened" with the ongoing operation of poorly patronized trains. On the contrary, the vast majority of states are eager for more Federal investment in passenger rail because they see that recent investments are already producing returns.
So far 23 states, DC, and Amtrak submitted applications seeking a total of $10 billion for a piece of the $2.4 billion that FRA will redistribute after Florida rejected it. For every notice of funding availability the FRA issues, the amount applied for has exceeded the amount available by at least a 2 to 1 margin.
Though the high-profile rejections by a few governors make headlines, many more states are eagerly demanding the money because they see passenger rail as a smart investment.
If we are going to meet the 21st-century challenges of population growth and petroleum scarcity, we must dramatically ramp up investment in passenger trains The National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP), an organization for which I work, has been leading the charge to win the level of investment necessary to put America on track to a more secure, livable, and sustainable future. Please consider asking your Members of Congress to oppose these draconian cuts to high-speed rail programs, transit funding, and upgrades to the Northeast Corridor.
Malcolm Kenton lives in the DC neighborhood of Bloomingdale. Hailing from Greensboro, NC and a graduate of Guilford College, he is Director of Outreach and Engagement for the National Association of Railroad Passengers, where he blogs about national transportation issues. He is also interested in the quality of the built environment and in blending cities with the natural world. The views he expresses on GGW are his own and not necessarily those of NARP. 
Comments
- Understanding can help cyclists, drivers better share the road
- Anti-transit ideology endangers Silver Line
- Give up your seat on the bus or train to those in need
- Last of K Street's great mansions is threatened
- McDonnell's roadblocks threaten Silver Line's phase 2
- Metro tests secure parking with new "bike and ride"
- Support a growing city and join Pro-DC
by SJE on Apr 14, 2011 10:40 am
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/04/11/rush-hour-read-amtrak-on-record-ridership-pace/
http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-05/bay-area/27011008_1_amtrak-trains-amtrak-ridership-northeast-corridor
Perhaps some reall hard examination of the purpose and funding for our highways is in order. I-95 and 495 are real money losers. They never earn operating profit, to say nothing of rural interstates in the middle of the country.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 10:54 am
Intercity rail makes sense only when in one of the two cities parking is a bigger problem than the need for a car. Building such should be evaluated case-by-case. For example one boondoggle connection that was killed was Milwaukee-Madison.
by goldfish on Apr 14, 2011 11:03 am
Or maybe the governors see passenger rail grants as "free money" from the Feds. Remember, these are the same states that have had at least a decade to invest but wouldn't spend their own money to do the same thing. Hey, I'm a big O'Malley fan, but he is guilty on this one, plus for not getting WMATA funding.
Despite that, a recent Government Accountability Office report confirms the agency has moved remarkably fast, given difficult circumstances the agency faces.
That GAO report was released on March 19, 2009, more than 2 years ago. I'd hardly call that "recent" as far as audits go.
The GAO has done more recent audits on rail transportation grants. For example, this GAO report from March 10, 2011 (Competitive Grant
Programs Could Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of Key Decisions). That report found the DOT often failed to adequately document why projects received funding:
The absence of documentation—in particular, the lack of documentation regarding decisions to select recommended projects for half the awards over highly recommended ones—can give rise to challenges to the integrity of the decisions DOT made and subject it to criticism that projects were selected for reasons other than merit. Documenting key decisions, as good internal control practices and DOT’s guidance already require, could provide a roadmap for administering future competitive grant programs and help build confidence in DOT’s institutional ability to administer this type of program.
Also in March of this year, GAO released GAO released another audit of rail transportation funding specific to FRA's program highlighting similar issues (Recording Clearer Reasons for Awards Decisions Would Improve Otherwise
Good Grantmaking Practices.)
So the programs were good, but DOT and subsidiary agencies need to do a better job documenting why they selected projects for funding.
Which is actually a really good question to ask! How did Florida get HSR funding in the first place? How did Wisconsin get funding, too? From what I can tell of reading the available reports and documents, both WI and FL HSR funding was never going to be well spent in the first place and it's good the money is being redirected.
In fact, policy-makers should ask themselves if nearly all the available intercity rail funding should go to the Northeast Corridor. In my opinion, the fruit is lowest and easiest here and I think the data supports that conclusion.
Second, to what extent is intercity rail sucking funding away from intracity rail? GAO has a number of documents (for example here and here, but I'm too busy to find the rest myself) they put together highlighting deferred maintenance/state-of-good-repair issues in subway systems around the country. For the most part, wouldn't the billions be better directed toward those repair needs first?
My point is not to criticize, but hopefully highlight two things. First, the pot of money for rail is constrained in a way formula-funded highways are not. The implication is rail systems have an extra burden of proving return on investment. This is especially true if advocates (like most of us on this website) want the limited funding to continue or expand.
Second, advocates (again, like me and most readers) have a burden of spending the money we are allocated in an efficient way. Many HSR projects simply don't meet that test because they're either in Florida, where no one will use it, or California, where construction costs will eat up all the available money and more.
Hopefully, by focusing on improving intracity rail and the Northeast Corridor, rail advocates will be in a position to ask for more money down the line.
by WRD on Apr 14, 2011 11:05 am
by NikolasM on Apr 14, 2011 11:10 am
It has recently come out that the CEO of a freight-rail company made illegal contributions to Scott Walker. Given the general animosity that freight rail companies have toward passenger rail in general, could it be that this payoff was a contributing factor in motivating Walker's anti-HSR stance? Certainly Wisconsin & Southern - the company in question - profits more from having the state focus on upgrading the (mostly public) rail lines that it uses for its freight traffic (which it is now doing), than it does having a federally-funded passenger service around that it has to share rail capacity with.
by egk on Apr 14, 2011 11:36 am
First, unlike highways, funding for HSR comes from the general fund. There are no special revenues earmarked towards funding the system. Given its complete build-out, HSR will only cover 33 states and 65 of the nation's 100 largest urban areas. This means that many of those paying into the system won't be able to benefit from its services.
Second, it will be too expensive for most Americans. Right now, $99 gets you from NY to DC in a little under 3 hours. Megabus can do it from 4-5 hours for $20. A flight costs about $119 and lasts a hour. The price point for most Americans making a similar trip will be much, much closer to buses than trains.
Third, the environmental benefits are grossly overstated. Inter-city automobile trips on average have 2.4 occupants. This makes Amtrak only 8 percent more efficient than light trucks and 15 percent less energy efficient than cars. These statistics were found in a CA HSR report and used by Amtrak.
Malcom, the three points I've made encapsulate the core arguments that proponents of HSR have yet to counter. I, probably like yourself, appreciate having choice in how I commute and welcome infrastructure policies that make my life easier. But they must make sense and prove to have lower opportunity costs than other options. You really have to concentrate on these points, or at least re-tool HSR policy to address them, before it can really be thought of as a good idea for our country.
by Brendan on Apr 14, 2011 11:56 am
Yes, the NE Corridor actually makes money for Amtrak, and if that was the only route Amtrak had, it wouldn't need any subsidy and would show a profit all on its own, but none of its other lines come close. Of the 44 Amtrak routes, 41 of them lost money.
I love the Acela to Boston which I take about every two months for work, but even with the high use of the NE Corridor, the system wide subsidy is still slightly north of $30 per rider. Some of its barely used routes are subsidized to the tune of $450 per rider.
SJE didn't advocate for shutting the system down, just taking a reasoned approach to which routes need to be eliminated.
I personally think the NEC needs to be completely upgraded for true HSR, but there are middle of nowhere routes that aren't connecting any economic centers that almost no one rides and just meander through the plains that cost a fortune to operate.
by freely on Apr 14, 2011 12:09 pm
Cato? With David Koch and another Vice President from Koch Industries on the Board of Directors (http://www.cato.org/people/directors.html)? This has a much credibility as Phillip Morris doing a study on the health effects of smoking. I'll pass.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 12:13 pm
I hate the Koch family as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean that all of Cato's researchers should be disregarded at face value. That would sound like, um, oh yes, an ad hominem fallacy. We're above that here, right? Read the report.
by Brendan on Apr 14, 2011 12:24 pm
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/254048/perversity-californias-high-speed-rail-authority-reihan-salam
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/243845/yonah-freemark-overselling-high-speed-rail-reihan-salam
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/262103/amtraks-plans-northeast-and-fast-trains-partisan-issue-reihan-salam
by WRD on Apr 14, 2011 12:30 pm
Some notes:
- Amtrak is not very well run; that doesn't mean a different operator would also be poorly run.
- NEC is clearly the best place to get a return on your investment but has political and other things holding it back
- NEC tickets are expensive BECAUSE of demand - people are willing to pay that much for quick trips
- All world-wide HSR systems (not lines but systems) are profitable, not that that should be the only benchmark by which we evaluate HSR. Highways are not paid for by gas tax + tolls by any means.
- America is paying the price for building out in a much more car-dependent fashion than Europe. It's hard to retrofit on mass transit when you've decided sprawl is the best option everywhere.
by EJ on Apr 14, 2011 12:45 pm
First of all, it's by Randall O'Toole, and IMO he's completely without integrity. I've never seen him write anything that isn't completely intellectually dishonest.
But let's go through your points.
unlike highways, funding for HSR comes from the general fund.
Well, for the last couple of years, some highway funding has come from the general fund.
many of those paying into the system won't be able to benefit from its services.
That's not true. Many people may not use them, but they still benefit. If HSR makes businesses more competitive, travel safer, cleaner or just "better" they derive secondary benefits from all of that. Regardless, there are a lot of programs I pay into that I don't directly benefit from. Most Americans will never get cancer, so should we still support cancer research?
The price point for most Americans making a similar trip will be much, much closer to buses than trains.
Again, that doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that most Americans won't use it (even if that is true). Those who choose to use the highways instead will benefit from less traffic on those highways. Those who choose to fly will benefit from less congested airports.
it will be too expensive for most Americans. Right now, $99 gets you from NY to DC in a little under 3 hours. Megabus can do it from 4-5 hours for $20. A flight costs about $119 and lasts a hour.
The follow on almost makes the point. The Acela is 5 times as expense and only an hour or two faster, but is generally sold out. What O'Toole leaves out is total cost and value. The train is more comfortable than the bus. There is less time and cost on the front and back end of a train trip than there is a trip by airplane (which he acknowledgs, but you'll note he doesn't quantify). HSR will be the same cost as flying, but will be faster and more comfortable. People seem Ok with the cost of flying, and so will they will HSR.
And, airplane tickets are going up. Fuel costs are up 400% since 1990. How much do you think they'll go up over the next 20 years? HSR can be fueled by electricity with a little extra investment. I haven't seen a 747 that can do that.
the environmental benefits are grossly overstated. Inter-city automobile trips on average have 2.4 occupants. This makes Amtrak only 8 percent more efficient than light trucks and 15 percent less energy efficient than cars. These statistics were found in a CA HSR report and used by Amtrak.
They weren't used by Amtrak and here's why. That study is from California. Carpooling is much more common in California than in the rest of the country, and I think it's foolish to project driving patterns in CA to Missouir. But O'Toole doesn't. In addition, O'Toole doesn't acknowledge that HSR will likely be converted entirely to electricity, something that is not as easy to do with cars or airplanes.
In addition, he completely ignores the social benefits of getting people out of cars (namely fewer traffic fatalities and less congestion) and onto rail, which HSR is likely to do.
And this all hits on what I call the O'Toole trick. First he compares the total cost to the time savings and finds it doesn't match. Then he does the same thing for safety savings and then again for environmentla costs. What he NEVER does in any of his reports is to total up each of these items and compare them to the cost.
So that's my take on it.
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 2:01 pm
As another GGW commenter has said about the Cato hacks:
"Randall O'Toole is a liar and a cheat who gets his funding from the car and oil lobbies, and makes a career out of repeating theories and math that have been soundly invalidated by serious researchers along every front for years. He is a quasi-academic hack, paid to lobby for a pre-conceived position regardless of the facts.
His thoughts on cities should be taken approximately as seriously as Lady Gaga's thoughts on astrophsysics."
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 3:18 pm
O'Toole says that when the Interstate Highway Act was passed we knew how much it was going to cost, how long it would take, and how we would pay for it. This is complete bunk. The original bill authorized $25 billion and said it would take 20 years. It ended up costing $114 billion ($425 billion in today's dollars) and taking almost 40 years. The user fee (gas tax) wasn't originally meant to pay for all the interstate costs for the rest of eternity - it was supposed to end in the '70s.
by MLD on Apr 14, 2011 3:30 pm
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 3:44 pm
That is one of O'Toole's usual tricks in comparing peak-period transit with cars - not accepting that most peak-period cars have one person in them. But in this case to compare with HSR he may actually have a point that if HSR is supposed to compete for intercity trips car occupancy may be higher.
That said I think this paper suffers from the usual problem that the cheapness of car travel is easily documented and is made to look better because certain costs are not included, while rail projects appear expensive because 1) they are expensive and 2) their benefits are not as easily quantified.
by MLD on Apr 14, 2011 3:52 pm
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 4:05 pm
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 4:07 pm
I've always been curious that if HSR is such a great business why doesn't someone build it?
by charlie on Apr 14, 2011 4:28 pm
by goldfish on Apr 14, 2011 4:28 pm
Because it isn't. But that's OK.
When a business looks at this they want to know that they will get enough money to cover their costs + make a profit + remove almost all risk of losing money. They don't care one bit about the positive externalities. And as such, it isn't that good a business (not yet).
When a government looks at this, they want (or should want) to know that they will make enough money to cover their costs - any positive externalities they gain. That is obviously a lower standard.
If we had policies that pushed the negative externalities onto competitors that would be better than subsidizing. But we seem incapable of doing that.
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 4:37 pm
by charlie on Apr 14, 2011 4:42 pm
by charlie on Apr 14, 2011 4:43 pm
They are not independent at all. According to the Energy Information Administration (http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=oil_home#tab2), the US consumes 18.7M barrels of oil per day. 72% of the consumption was for transportation. The EPA estimates that passenger vehicles are responsible for forty percent of our oil consumption (http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f10055.htm), although I've heard as much as fifty percent from others.
I want electric vehicles to succeed as much as anyone but even 1M electric vehicles by 2015 is considered extremely ambitious. The plans for high speed rail in CA are for electrified trains and I believe Amtrak's recent report calling for $113B would also have electrified track. So, no, they are not independent at all. Every day that we continue to postpone investment in high speed rail and transit is one more day that we remain addicted to oil.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 4:47 pm
So what if we're importing oil?
HSR isn't going to dent that problem. If we want to use less oil, we need to raise the price of gasoline and drive less.
by WRD on Apr 14, 2011 4:55 pm
From all the National Review links, I assume you're a conservative. Many conservatives are pretty hawkish on national defense/military issues. Importing oil signfiicantly weakens the America's geopolitical position throughout the world. As Tom Friedman notes, we're financing both sides of the war on terror. We're paid over a trillion dollars for the Iraq war but we're funding countries that support fundamentalist Islam where suicide bombers are recruited. 19 of the 21 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. What is Saudi Arabia's main export? Consumer electronics? Computer chips?
I remember a certain candidate for president in 2008 who couldn't wait to bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Iran can more easily brutally murder its innocent citizens demanding democracy and can build nuclear weapons when oil is $110 per barrel.
Russia is another example. When oil was cheap last decade it took baby steps towards democracy and human rights. When oil is $120 per barrel, it invaded Georgia and has a generally beligerant attitude towards all its neighbors.
I also don't know if you've been paying attention but we have huge problems in the US. Keeping $300B in the US every year so we can invest it in good schools, affordable college education, bridges that don't collapes, clean energy research and other important commitments would make the US far better of than send $300B to countries that may/may not be outright hostile to America.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 5:09 pm
We don't need them, as I said, we could tax negative externalities (as we do with some pollutants) or ban them (as we do with others) or cap them (as withe still others). We could also offer subsidies to private companies - which is what we're doing here. As near as I can tell, the government won't run these businesses. They will pay for the infrastructure and then allow for-profit entities to use them, which is really just a big subsidy.
doesn't Amtrak claim a profit on northeast corridor operations?
Yes but it doesn't make the kind of profit that most companies would find worth investing in. And I think it's only Acela. Plus, there are old subsidies built in. I believe Amtrak got all the trackage and stations and trains etc... for free. I may be wrong on that.
Freight rail has old subsidies too. Most railroads were given enormous amounts of land in exchange for building their lines. So we have a long history of subsidizing rail, and it has worked out for us pretty well. Certainly we're better off for it.
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 5:09 pm
For example, the goveernment could give half of the 7.6 million yearly car buyers an electric car.
by goldfish on Apr 14, 2011 5:10 pm
Well the $113B is over like 40 years. So really, we could give 1/80th of new car buyers and electric car. And that would do anything to deal with other issues like safety, congestion and land use.
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 5:14 pm
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 5:15 pm
Decreased oil consumption is just one goal among many:
1)Decreased highway congestion.
2)Decreased aviation congestion. JFK, Newark, and LaGuardia are our three most delayed airports in the country. It is estimated that aviation delays cost the economy approximately $30B - $40B each year.
3)Improved air quality/decreased greenhouse gases
4)Reduced traffic fatalities. Each year there are 35K - 40K auto fataliities in the US every year. In addition to the tragic human toll, this costs the economy roughly $160B every single year. Since the Shinkansen opened in Japan in the 1960s, there has not been one fatality on high speed rail there.
5)More reliable transportation and reduced travel times. You'd be able to get to NY in 90-120 minutes rather than 4 hrs in a car. Travel time on highways will only increase with population growth.
6)More productive travel-- you can use moble electronics and wireless internet on HSR. You certainly can't do this without possibly (likely) killing someone while driving.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 5:19 pm
Actually, I'd like to see it expanded in regions where is makes the most sense: where there is high population densities, a lot of inter-city commuting, and especially if air transport poses problems(e.g. airports are a long way from the city, frequent weather outages). Thus, the NE corridor should not only stay, but be upgraded to true HSR. I took the Acela on Tuesday, and it was great.
You could make similar arguments for the West Coast (San Diego to San Francisco), industrial midwest (e.g. Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Chicago), and perhaps some expansion from the NE (e.g. NYC to Buffalo).
However, you have Congressmen forcing Amtrak to
(1) stop in small communities (slowing overall transit times, especially in the Boston-NY route),
(2) continue subsidizing long haul routes (e.g. Chicago to the Southwest) that will never compete, or
(3) rely on the fiction that people will take a train that is far slower than a car or bus (e.g. NYC to Albany), nevermind planes.
So, decide what routes make sense, and ensure that they operate as fast and reliably as possible. NE works because it is a reasonable compromise from the alternatives, in a crowded, heavily trafficked area. Orlando? give me a break.
by SJE on Apr 14, 2011 5:23 pm
Right now the USA has much more important finanical issues to deal with then the building of a cross country railway!
by nancy on Apr 14, 2011 5:30 pm
Amtrak would be offered a subsidy per passenger mile. The more passenger miles they can get, the more money they get from the govt. [This is a gross oversimplification and may not even be the best way, but you get the idea. The govt buys passengers and Amtrak figures out how to get the most out of it].
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 5:32 pm
If your objective is to reduce oil consumption, you'd get better return on the tax dollars by giving away electric cars, because most people need to do most of their traveling by car. Building electric trains would will eliminate only a small fraction (0.02% on average) of oil-powered travel.
by goldfish on Apr 14, 2011 5:33 pm
Well from my comments here I may seem like a conservative, but really I'm not. I just think Salam deals with the issue in an intelligence manner and I appreciate that.
The links between national security and oil importation are dubious, at best. But I don't want to get into a fight over that as it's besides the point (and mostly has to do with values). Suffice it to say, I am not open to persuasion on that issue and I bet you feel very similarly.
Your goals of reduced congestion, improved air quality, etc. are valuable. I agree with each goal, in fact. However the question becomes what is the best way to achieve those goals?
You have not provided any evidence HSR will move us forward materially on any of those goals. I particularly doubt HSR will have any detectable effect on oil demand. Further, you provide no cost-benefit analysis even suggesting HSR is the best use of the money. In my first post here, I strongly suggested the HSR money would be put to better use rebuilding and expanding intracity rail (subways).
There are other options, too. They range from "green investment" to more highways to simply cutting taxes and letting the market do its job. Whatever. HSR needs to be both better than doing nothing AND better than the alternatives.
Lastly, all of these options require popular support. Bluntly, they need to pass Congress. While a carbon tax would be the best solution, there is little chance of that passing Congress. Modest gasoline tax increases are slightly more feasible, too. Shame on my own state (MD) for not taking action on that this year. But all of this moves away from the main point I have been trying to make.
Those of us inclined to support HSR need to look at the issue with the eyes of an accountant or engineer. I do not see it as being a particularly good investment at this time, period. I especially view it as wasteful given the other demands on transportation funding.
by WRD on Apr 14, 2011 5:36 pm
That is standard GO(B)P canard. Nobody is proposeing rail across country. What has been proposed are routes connecting cities in our most densely-populated, most congested mega-regions such as LA-SF, the Northeast Corridor and the Minneapolis-Chicago-St. Louis.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 5:38 pm
Please explain how giving hundreds of billions dollars each year, every single year to countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela doesn't affect our national security. I'm waiting for a response, as I'm sure other readers of this blog are.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 5:40 pm
Again, where did 19 of the 21 9/11 hijackers come from? Sweden, Argentina, South Korea? Get your head out of the sand.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 5:43 pm
"Those of us inclined to support HSR need to look at the issue with the eyes of an accountant or engineer."
Again, how much profit has I-95 or 495 earned you this year? The federal Highway Trust Fund has needed to be bailed out with $7B - $8B of contributions from the general fund (i.e. subsidies for drivers) each of the past four years. I hope you look at highway and road spending like an engineer also.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 5:45 pm
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 5:47 pm
I said I didn't want to get into this but I guess that promise was too big to fail.
It "affects" our national security in the same way our trade with every other country affects our national security.
Remember, we don't just up and "give" money to the Saudis. We trade our money for their oil! We clearly get the better deal. Suckers! And they feel the same way. That's how trade works.
Our oil imports concern me as much as our coffee imports do. The best way to "address" any problems here are through price signals. As oil becomes more and more scarce, the price will increase. As price goes up, consumers use less and less of it (clever bastards). Also remember, there are a number of large, US-based oil companies that make a lot of money off this trade. I know because I own some stock in one of them.
But really, truly I don't want to get into this. Last word goes to you, Ben, but I'd love to hear you address the substance of the rest of my comment.
by WRD on Apr 14, 2011 5:47 pm
But I'm not in Congress. John Mica is. Fighting formula funding for highways is a great way to lose supporters, so I guess I'm willing to live with it if we are making forward progress on other fronts.
by WRD on Apr 14, 2011 5:50 pm
You compare oil to coffee imports? How many suicide bombers have come from Costa Rica? How many nuclear weapons is Columbia trying to build.
We have the option to not give one cent to Saudi Arabia if we made the right choices. Just Google and see how much Saudi Arabia has given suicide bombers in Iraq or how much they contribute to Hamas.
RAND published a report a few years ago and it cost the US as much as $130B each year to keep the US military in the Middle East to protect access to oil. This definitely makes us more vulnerable.
by Ben on Apr 14, 2011 5:53 pm
How will HSR change that? I will reiterate:
You have not provided any evidence HSR will move us forward materially on any of those goals. I particularly doubt HSR will have any detectable effect on oil demand. Further, you provide no cost-benefit analysis even suggesting HSR is the best use of the money. In my first post here, I strongly suggested the HSR money would be put to better use rebuilding and expanding intracity rail (subways).
by WRD on Apr 14, 2011 5:56 pm
by Rich on Apr 14, 2011 9:01 pm
There are plenty of cost-benefit analysis that show that the benefits of HSR outweigh the costs. As a starting point would you accept that? We can talk about alternatives later. But let's see where we have common ground.
Here's one, for example, that criticizes another. But both of them show that the benefits exceed costs.
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 9:11 pm
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 9:14 pm
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 9:14 pm
I'm not a libertarian. I'm a Democrat. I'm curious why you say I'm a libertarian as I made an explicit argument for using HSR funds to expand urban heavy rail...
@ David C--
Agreed! It is better than nothing! I'm not sure it pays for itself, though. Not that it should. "Paying for itself" is both a vague target and too high of a hurdle. As Ben pointed out, the interstate highway system didn't meet that target and HSR shouldn't be forced to either.
I tend--TEND--to side with Glaeser. GAO has also produced some good stuff that tends to point more toward Glaeser's projections, too. However the jury is very much still out on this as we're in somewhat uncharted waters.
But I think the deck is stacked against HSR in the Glaeser/Infrastructurist debate because they're looking at the less viable segments. In the NEC, HSR is on much, much stronger ground. California is somewhat less viable but still has potential. TX, WI, and FL are, I believe, marginal projects at best. Investment in the NEC should priority one. Not a Wisconsin or Florida segment. From the Republican House Transportation Rail Subcommittee website:
[T]he Administration has virtually ignored the one region of the United States where high-speed rail makes the most sense and would have the most national benefit – the Northeast Corridor between Washington, New York and Boston. Amtrak’s Acela currently serves this route, but at an average speed of only 83 mph.
I hate when I agree with Congressional Republicans, but it does happen on occasion. This is a fair criticism of the current HSR proposals. I highly doubt those same Republicans would be fair to the program if Obama did change it around, but anyway...
The question I ask is: how can the government best use the limited money it does have for this purpose? Honestly, killing the existing HSR projects and reallocating the money seems like a better option to me.
by WRD on Apr 14, 2011 9:40 pm
Which is 80% of the population, and serves regions generating well over 90% of the federal taxes - quite equitable.
> Price:
Underlying costs of providing rail transportation are very low (what is expensive is the rail) - something like 12 cents a mile. (Average German high speed rail fares are about 24 cents a mile, which pays for some of the rail, and provides some profit). Amtrak needs to get what it can out of its very limited infrastructure, so its prices are very high.
> The environmental benefits are grossly overstated.
> Amtrak ...
Amtrak isn't HSR. Why compare Amtrak's slow diesels to high speed rail? Well-used high speed rail of the European variety is about 3.5 times as energy efficient as either a car or a plane, and generate correspondingly less carbon emissions.
Most importantly: the real benefits of intercity high speed rail is patterns of development it promotes. Ever walk to an airport?
by egk on Apr 14, 2011 10:28 pm
Cato?
Libertarian-Randian-Supply Sider-"Gubbermint is Evillll"-Reagan Fans? Enough said.
by NQD on Apr 14, 2011 11:19 pm
We're very much in agreement here.
I also think the NEC should have been closer to the front of the line, but fear it was left off for political reasons (A HSR for NE liberals).
The Florida line got money because it was ready to go, the plan was in place and so was the land - and an independent analysis showed it would cover operating costs and then some. It could be finished quickly, used by people from all over the country as they go to Disneyland and make money. It was to be a showpiece. As a NASA employee, I'm fully aware of the value of good politics, so I don't begrudge them this. California had similar benefits. I do think there was a little calculus going on to get a majority of states (and thus Senators) involved - another NASA trick - and that was unfortunate.
Earlier you stated that we needed to prove that the cost-benefit of this is both better than nothing and better than other options. I only partly agree with this.
If it is better than nothing - in that it returns more than a $1 of value for $1 spent - we should do it. It doesn't matter if there are better projects because, to me, we should do that too. If someone is willing to give me $1.30 for every dollar I give them, I'm going to give them every dollar I have. Of course, there are hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars worth of transportation projects with a desirable cost/benefit ratio, we should do those too. It would be pro-busines, pro-employment, pro-environment (if done right) etc... It should be 100% bipartisan.
Tea Party people like to say "if I ran my business the way the government does, I'd be out of business" which has many flaws, but I'll go with it. If you could make an investment in your business that pay you back $2 to $1 as some transportation projects do, and you could borrow money for 2 or 3 cents on the dollar, you'd be a terrible business person not to, and that's what we're doing by not investing in a lot of these projects - including HSR.
So for me, everything above the with a cost/benefit ratio lower than 1 should be funded.
But if you think we can't or shouldn't borrow that much money, then by all means lets prioritize our infrastructure spending lowest ratio to highest. Unfortunately, that isn't how the feds do it. They partition parts off, set up "trust funds" (which are often short on both) and make decisions without an engineer's or account's eye. So it's unfair to hold HSR to a standard that no other project is held to.
Still, if you have such a list of all such possible projects with their cost/benefit ratios listed and show that HSR ranks way down there, and far past the point where you're willing to borrow, then I'd support you in fighting it....unless of course, there is something else even lower on the list being funded. Go for that first. But to say that a person needs to make such an exhaustive list, and to do such an intense analysis of every single thing that could be done is unrealistic. Businesses generally have a threshold, ROI in some time period or with some certain level.
Going all caps on you here - I WOULD LOVE FOR SOMEONE TO DEFINE SUCH A THRESHOLD. It would be great if Congress actually relied on such a thing, but they do not. Frankly, there are too many people in Congress who are managers and lawyers - and not enough engineers, accountants and hard scientists to make that happen. One of the flaws of democracy I suppose.
by David C on Apr 14, 2011 11:22 pm
I also think the NEC should have been closer to the front of the line, but fear it was left off for political reasons (A HSR for NE liberals)
I also fear that. If you look back at my quote from the March 2011 GAO report--Competitive Grant Programs Could Benefit from Increased Performance Focus and Better Documentation of Key Decisions--you will see some tentative evidence of this. I'm not going to re-paste the quote, but GAO concluded senior DOT officials passed over "excellent" projects in favor of "good" projects and didn't explain why. This is an indication they picked projects based on factors other than merit.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED politicians are playing politics! We have to live with it. In fact, this is why we see formula funding for transportation projects in the first place.
From you:
The Florida line got money because it was ready to go, the plan was in place and so was the land [ . . . ] It was to be a showpiece.
I also suspect this was an important reason for picking the Florida project. It is a key reason why I oppose it.
First, it won't work as a showpiece if it fails. Which it did. It didn't have the support it needed in Florida.
Second, I am skeptical the analyses accurately predicted ROI on that project. Basically, I don't think they were ever really going to cover their costs. I think they were too optimistic, but I eagerly concede there is legitimate debate on this point.
Third, and follow me here, think of how much it would set back HSR if the Florida project was picked, went forward, and then failed anyway for whatever reason. Maybe people don't use it, maybe construction costs skyrocketed, maybe a hurricane destroyed the project, whatever. It would make expanding HSR in other locations virtually impossible. Everyone would point at the failure of the Florida project and say "We're NOT spending that kind of money on HSR ever again!" The strategy the Administration picked was high risk.
That's why supporters of HSR should have worked harder to give the first project the absolute, maximum chance of success. I think both the economic projections and subsequent political events show the Florida project was not the ideal model. That's also why I'm a bit hard on these decisions. I saw them as likely to fail and likely to jeopardize other projects around the country. Sadly, I believe we are on that path already. (But I love to be wrong sometimes!) We will see Congress's commitment--and the Administration's commitment--to this issue in the coming years.
You again:
So for me, everything above the with a cost/benefit ratio lower than 1 should be funded.
In an ideal world, I would agree with you. However we're really looking at a piece of a piece of the pie. Rail appropriations within DOT within the Federal Government. The "proper" way to do this is take the money from Congress as fixed in the short-term and use it to fund projects from highest ROI to lowest ROI, stopping at zero.
Also, let us not forget these ROIs are not points but ranges that depend on the certainty of our projects. Ditto for IRRs, which you also correctly identified as important. Uncertainty is higher with HSR because it's never really been tried in this country. Given the billions at stake, policymakers need to use conservative projections. Little "c" as in accounting conservative not political conservative.
You also correctly identified borrowing costs as an important factor. However for largely political, historical, and tax reasons, this is extremely important for state and local governments and less important for the Feds. I would love to see more of a partnership both amongst localities and between localities and the Feds. Which goes back to the Florida project, which didn't have the necessary support from the state and local governments.
You again:
As a NASA employee, I'm fully aware of the value of good politics, so I don't begrudge them this.
I am an accountant, but I also value good politics. In fact, many of the disagreements between us seem to be of this order. To what extent are we wiling to sacrifice good policy for good politics? Lobbying and public pressure can also gradually change the political calculation, too. It's always a difficult line. I think we're probably on opposite sides of that line on this issue, but only just barely.
Further, I think for the first time in a while, there might be support for HSR in the Northeast. I would have rather the Administration tried that approach and settled on Florida rather than going straight to a less economically beneficial project from the get-go.
Finally, none of this addresses the very real need to fund urban subway systems more. I see this as probably the best use of available money at this point, but we must live with the Congress we have, right?
by WRD on Apr 15, 2011 10:17 am
Just wanted to chip in with the observation that this is a result of the half-century "conservative" War on Expertise.
by oboe on Apr 15, 2011 10:19 am
"Lawyer" and "Lawmaker" have historically been overlapping groups.
I don't want to exonerate Congressional Republicans, but let's also point a big fat finger at the public, who elects those scumbags year after year.
by WRD on Apr 15, 2011 10:35 am
by David C on Apr 15, 2011 10:41 am
Well, if that is not another endorsement for Mayor Gray....
@Ben; please remember that Saudi and OPEC generally is a small minority of imported oil. Saudi imports total about 1M B/d -- out of the 20M b/d we use. OPEC includes non middle eastern states such as Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, and while they are important, a lot of our oil comes from strange places like Russia, Azerbaijan, Algeria, Ecuador, Columbia and Argentina.
by charlie on Apr 15, 2011 11:00 am
So you have broader goals than decreasing oil consumption. Good. But to do that you will spend $113B on HSR. Is that the most effective way to meet your goals?
1)Decreased highway congestion. Since most travel is by car to places that will never have rail connections, the best way to reduce congestion is to build more roads.
2)Decreased aviation congestion. JFK, Newark, and LaGuardia are our three most delayed airports in the country... But NYC is already well served with (higher) speed railroads, and this proposal was for other parts of the country.
3)Improved air quality/decreased greenhouse gases HSR will use consume (mostly) coal-generated electricity. Moreover, this benefit is clearly not worth $113B for the marginal reduction of carbon emissions, from the total number of passenger miles replaced by HRS.
4)Reduced traffic fatalities. Interesting argument, but how many lives will $113B save? And again, would we save more by spending that on roads?
5)More reliable transportation and reduced travel times. You'd be able to get to NY in 90-120 minutes rather than 4 hrs in a car. Again, I thought this was for places other than NYC. Travel time on highways will only increase with population growth. Only if no new highways are built...
6)More productive travel--you can use mobile electronics and wireless internet on HSR. So you think we should spend $113B so people can surf the net while getting somewhere? You can already do this on the bus, and the fare is only $25 from DC to NYC.
by goldfish on Apr 16, 2011 2:24 am
1) Decreased highway congestion: Adding more highway capacity rarely results in a reduction of traffic. It encourages more sprawl and encourages people to live further from their places of employment:
http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access%2025%20-%2004%20-%20Traffic%20Congestion%20is%20Here%20to%20Stay.pdf
2)Reduced aviation congestion: Amtrak and even Acela can hardly be described as high speed rail. Investments in rail that allow travelers to get from DC - NY in 90 minutes and from DC - BOS in under three hours will help reduced aviation congestion in the Northeast, our most crowded airspace. The Regional Plan Association's recent report shows the potential for high speed rail to shift passengers from aviation to rail on short-haul flights:
http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class.pdf
On the West Coast, SH&E, a very well-respected consulting firm, estimates that as many as 6M annual Bay Area passengers per year will switch from short-haul flights to high speed rail for travel within CA.
http://www.octa.net/pdf/clippings022510.pdf
San Diego is a single-runway airport with about 15M-17M passengers annually and has limited room to grow because of the bay. Please tell me where you'd build a new runway there and how many billions of dollars you'd like to spend doing that.
4)Reduced highway fatalities: As someone noted above, the $113B investment in the Northeast corridor or the $42B investment in CA's high speed rail will last decades. This past year there were over 35,000 auto fatalities. Over a forty year period, that is 1.4M auto fatalities. In addition to the tragic loss of life, with 35K annual fatalities, that is a $160B cost to the economy every single year. Over forty years this is trillions--perhaps tens of trillions of dollars. Will high speed rail prevent all of these fatalities, no, but rail is the safest mode for surface transportation and it will likely prevent a significant number of fatalities on I-95 and I-5 over the forty-year planning horizon.
5) Greater reliability and reduced travel times: Again, adding more highway lanes does not reduce congestion-- induced demand is one of the most basic concepts in transportation policy.
http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access%2025%20-%2004%20-%20Traffic%20Congestion%20is%20Here%20to%20Stay.pdf
The population of the US is forecasted to increase to 400M by 2050. CA's population is expected to increase to 50M - 60M in that same time period. The status quo, Ayn Rand strategy of not having any investment in our public infrastructure is clearly not an option unless you want crippling congestion, suffocating air quality, and even greater dependence on oil imported from unstable regions of the world.
6) More productive travel time: Intercity bus is great but true high speed rail will be 2-3 times as fast as the DC - NYC bus. It would also provide a greater level of comfort, allowing it to attract passengers who do not currently ride the bus.
by Ben on Apr 16, 2011 9:01 am
Can we also stop pretending the alternative to investing in clean, safe, high speed rail is to not spend any money at all. The alternative to high speed rail is to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new highway and airport capacity. The annual American Society of Civil Engineering report card notes that there is currently something like 2.3 trillion of deferred investments and maintenance of our transportation system. As the Regional Plan Association report above notes, the new runways and terminals at JFK and Newark would cost $15B. Adding new lanes on I-95 in the Northeast Corridor would also cost tens of billions of dollars.
In California, the alternatives to investing in high speed rail is similarly significant. I forget, though, that it is only money spent on rail/transit that we care about and since cars run on oil, billions of dollars spent on highway capacity isn't really considered a subsidy. Only rail must have a rigorous business plan to show that it would pay for itself.
*LAX modernization $5B - $7B
http://www.scag.ca.gov/aviation/documents/LAXmodernizationunveiled.pdf
*Widening I-5 in San Diego County alone will cost between $3.3B - $4.3B
http://www.scag.ca.gov/aviation/documents/LAXmodernizationunveiled.pdf
*State highways (not interstates) are estimated to cost $30B between 2009-2019.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist6/planning/sr99bus/businessplan/route99bpfinal.pdf
*Sacramento International Airport modernization $1.3B
http://www.sacbee.com/2009/12/21/2413055/sacramento-airport-expansion-under.html
*San Jose airport modernization $1.5B
http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-06-26/bay-area/17248826_1_airport-s-terminal-airline-gates-san-jose-international
by Ben on Apr 16, 2011 9:17 am
http://fresnodowntownplans.com/media/files/110128_HST_Station_Area_Concepts_reduced.pdf
Not only will hundreds of thousands of jobs be created from one of the nation's largest engineering and construction projects but it will also encourage building around the stations creating more jobs for the construction industry, where unemployment was recently as high as 30%.
An executive from JR East (a Japanese HSR operator) noted at TRB that 1/3 of that company's revenue comes from joint development projects. High speed rail will encourage walkable developments throughout the state. Infill development around stations rather than more single-family homes on greenfield sites will save farmland and further reduce sprawl. CA is the nation's leading agriculture producer. Walkable, infill development around the high speed rail stations will also further reduce auto congestion and emissions.
by Ben on Apr 16, 2011 9:20 am
by Ben on Apr 16, 2011 9:23 am
Just because the pasty, dough-faced idiot Glenn Beck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0qJUvcdy-I) says that high speed rail is an evil French/atheist/socialist/Islamic/latte-drinking plot, doesn't make it so. I encourage you to read "The Roadmap to a HIgh Speed Recovery" by Richard Florida.
http://www.tnr.com/article/economy/76961/richard-florida-reset-recovery-economy-future
by Ben on Apr 16, 2011 9:35 am
Can we also stop pretending the alternative to investing in clean, safe, high speed rail is to not spend any money at all. The alternative to high speed rail is to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on new highway and airport capacity.
No. One possible alternative is to spend the money on urban heavy rail, like the Orange Line Rosslyn - Ballston corridor. Which you praised.
There is substantial reason to doubt HSR will result in the type of development that subways produce for a simple reason: HSR won't be stopping every mile. It might produce development at each stop, but the more stops added, the slower the train can travel.
@ Goldfish--
Since most travel is by car to places that will never have rail connections, the best way to reduce congestion is to build more roads.
This is much less true in urban and suburban areas. Projects like the ICC are inefficient uses of money. All that should have been spend on Metro or other urban rapid transit.
@ Ben again--
The status quo, Ayn Rand strategy of not having any investment in our public infrastructure is clearly not an option unless you want crippling congestion, suffocating air quality, and even greater dependence on oil imported from unstable regions of the world.
True, but the status quo of wasting money on marginal "test" HSR projects is likely to jeopardize the long-term goals you espouse. Better to expand and modernize existing subway systems and focus on the NEC with available money first. When that fruit is picked, move on to lower return projects.
And while you have failed to show how HSR will materially mitigate congestion, carbon emissions, or oil imports. That's no fault on you, it illustrates how uncertain even high-quality forecasting is on each of these issues.
And, just to irritate people who don't like the National Review, here is Salam again. It's part way through a conversation with Andrew Sullivan, so follow the links back if you want more context. But it shows, I think, both some of the problems with existing projects AND the benefits of HSR in the NEC.
by WRD on Apr 16, 2011 12:05 pm
HSR will use consume (mostly) coal-generated electricity.
Not true and incomplete.
Coal only makes up 44.9% of our electricity spectrum. 32% is zero carbon and 23.4% is lower CO2 producing natural gas. And coal's share is becoming smaller and smaller every year. TVA just agreed to shut down several coal power plants. By the time HSR comes online, coal could be down to 40% or lower.
In addition, electricity can often be more efficient. An electric train - even one that is 100% coal powered - creates less CO2 than a diesel train.
Moreover, this benefit is clearly not worth $113B for the marginal reduction of carbon emissions
OK, how much is it worth?
how many lives will $113B save? And again, would we save more by spending that on roads?
The full $113B isn't being spent just to save lives, it is doing all the other things too. As for how many lives it would save, it depends on how many drivers it removes. "a rail line that displaces 750,000 drivers creates an extra $8.73 million a year of traffic safety benefit."
So you think we should spend $113B so people can surf the net while getting somewhere?
Again, that is only one benefit. How much do you think this increased productivity is worth?
@WRD
Salam thinks we should have let the Russians beat us to the Moon and that we've spent too much on scientific research and K-12 science education. He thinks setting us up to be the leaders in the satellite and launch industries was a bad investment. He thinks the Highway system was a bad investment. He thinks DARPA, who invented the internet, was a bad investment. Clearly the guy wouldn't know a good investment if he used it to shave his head. I can't take someone like that seriously.
by David C on Apr 17, 2011 12:07 am
China is literally spending this much money every nine days on building out their 220mph network.
I became politically conscious as George W Bush came into office, and I treasure our freedoms and participation more than most, but I'm not sure I've *ever* been this cynical about the viability of our federal decision-making bodies. Our national public debate has far exceeded 'surreal', it's just become disgusting. The craven debate the rabid during 5 minute breaks between special interest whoring sessions. I can't even rant properly on policy any more, because there are so few sane voices or objective facts that haven't been subjected to ritual denial and ideological demonization.
The only reason the budget debate is in its present state is that for some reason, Obama has Goldman Sachs staff and officials who first engineered the financial problems running discredited 'libertarian' economic policies which loan money to the banks at negative interest rates while sabotaging growth in order to maintain zero inflation. The media refuses to explain whether world monetary flows and national fiscal/budgetary/monetary policy is functionally equivalent to a shopping list and a credit card. The people, who aren't really supposed to understand the intricacies of these systems in the first place, have no idea what to think.
In short: As a country, we are very, very ill. It's a daily struggle for our country to remember the purpose of our most cherished institutions, or dress itself in the morning with a consistent view of which body parts need regulation to cover them and which do not. Until we manage to silence the gibbering madmen and once again develop the capacity to have forward-thinking public debates, actual productive discussion about costs, benefits, and externalities is pointless at the federal level. I don't know what exactly that requires, unfortunately.
I'm reminded of AlanfromBigEasy's point over at The Oil Drum a ways back - nobody is going to ride high speed rail if they have to rent a car at the end station to get around, and focusing on an expensive national network may be putting the cart before the horse. His cost-effective solution was streetcars, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks, particularly about areas where we can substitute time and zoning changes for money. What can local/regional governments do inexpensively to prepare for a system like this complementing interstates & airports ten years in the future?
by Squalish on Apr 17, 2011 1:29 am
Clearly the guy wouldn't know a good investment if he used it to shave his head. I can't take someone like that seriously.
I think what he was saying is there are large costs to the investments we did make. While I agree with you on the R&D investments of decades past, there is a lesson here.
Liberals--myself included--use the Interstate Highway system as an example of positive government intervention. We hold it up as a model of how a HSR program could be funded and administered. However, don't many liberals--again, myself included--lament the suburban sprawl made possible, encouraged by the Interstate Highway system? I know I certainly advocate for undoing many of the unintended consequences of that program!
Salam thinks we should have let the Russians beat us to the Moon and that we've spent too much on scientific research and K-12 science education.
No, I think he's saying at the margin we spent perhaps a bit too much on some of those things. For example, defense research, which may even be on the chopping block as we speak. I am open to the possibility that perhaps a few billions spent in 1960, reallocated in an alternative universe, could produce positive benefits.
Just things to be weary of. Large, government investments don't have a great track record around the world, or even just in the United States. The last thing either of us wants is to look back in 15 or 20 years and be pissed that billions were wasted, inefficient trains operate where they're not used, and the public has no desire to experiment with further HSR.
by WRD on Apr 17, 2011 10:46 am
Where are you getting these figures? And don't forget that the latest report on fracking that says that overall, this way of obtaining methane is worse for climate change than burning coal.
by goldfish on Apr 18, 2011 9:55 am
About the "induced demand" thing: Obviously when you build a road new businesses locate on it, and that makes new traffic. But mobility is not a bad thing; it is what makes the economy possible. So to follow your "don't build new roads because it induces traffic" thinking to its logical conclusion, we could eliminate traffic by tearing up roads. And we could apply these same ideas to HSR. Part of your advocacy is that new HSR routes will "make new development." But this is also "induced traffic" that, by your "road" logic, we would be better off not having.
Bottom line: don't argue against mobility; it is bad for the economy.
by goldfish on Apr 18, 2011 10:13 am
The CA High Speed Rail authority seeks to run their trains entirely on renewable energy.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/energy_policy_goal.aspx
Coal is already a very low part of the energy mix in CA, with natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy being used to generate electricity. Additionaly, Jerry Brown just signed into law last week a requirement that CA investor-owned and public utilities have to get 33% of their energy from renewable sources.
by Ben on Apr 18, 2011 10:14 am
The report does not say that they will build new sources of wind or solar energy; they are going to buy it on the market. This less less for everybody else, who will need to burn more coal to make up the difference.
by goldfish on Apr 18, 2011 10:30 am
In 2007, coal was 20% of the electricity mix in CA. With the growth in renewable energy in the four years since then and this new mandate for 1/3 renewable energy, coal is going to be an even smaller part.
@WRD:
I am glad to see you support commuter rail and subways. These are also necessary investments in mobility. The people at Cato, Reason, and these other hack 'think tanks' that oppose high speed rail oppose nearly all investments in sustainable transit. They oppose bike lanes, even though this is perhaps the best value in transportation spending. They oppose livable communities (i.e. building things like sidewalks), they ridicule electric vehicles, oppose streetcars, etc... I'm glad you support commuter rail and intracity rail but these opponents of high speed rail would be a little more convincing if they supported other forms of sustainable transportation instead.
by Ben on Apr 18, 2011 10:42 am
I'm not arguing against mobility-- far from it, I'm advocating an investment that would give people more transportation choices instead of dicating to them that they have to drive. There is a choice, however, in building transporation infrastructure that encourages more sprawl, more congestion, and greater dependence on foreign oil. This is the choice we've made for the past half century. Alternatively, we can invest in transportation mobility that will run entirely on domestic energy sources, that will be far safer than driving, that will encourage infill development and help further revitalize our cities, and that will get people to their destinations in a third the time as driving.
I don't know why conservatives/oil-industry hacks want to force people to drive by denying them transporation choices.
by Ben on Apr 18, 2011 10:48 am
My questions were an attempt to distinguishing these choices, asking if the money was better spent there. You would get converts if you answered them.
I don't know why conservatives/oil-industry hacks want to force people I guess I should be an "oil-industry hack" so I can force my opinions on others... will I make more money?
by goldfish on Apr 18, 2011 11:13 am
I answered the questions above but here they are again, in case your ideology didn't allow you to see my answers before.
@Goldfish:
1) Decreased highway congestion: Adding more highway capacity rarely results in a reduction of traffic. It encourages more sprawl and encourages people to live further from their places of employment:
http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access%2025%20-%2004%20-%20Traffic%20Congestion%20is%20Here%20to%20Stay.pdf
2)Reduced aviation congestion: Amtrak and even Acela can hardly be described as high speed rail. Investments in rail that allow travelers to get from DC - NY in 90 minutes and from DC - BOS in under three hours will help reduced aviation congestion in the Northeast, our most crowded airspace. The Regional Plan Association's recent report shows the potential for high speed rail to shift passengers from aviation to rail on short-haul flights:
http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Upgrading-to-World-Class.pdf
On the West Coast, SH&E, a very well-respected consulting firm, estimates that as many as 6M annual Bay Area passengers per year will switch from short-haul flights to high speed rail for travel within CA.
http://www.octa.net/pdf/clippings022510.pdf
San Diego is a single-runway airport with about 15M-17M passengers annually and has limited room to grow because of the bay. Please tell me where you'd build a new runway there and how many billions of dollars you'd like to spend doing that.
3)Reduced highway fatalities: As someone noted above, the $113B investment in the Northeast corridor or the $42B investment in CA's high speed rail will last decades. This past year there were over 35,000 auto fatalities. Over a forty year period, that is 1.4M auto fatalities. In addition to the tragic loss of life, with 35K annual fatalities, that is a $160B cost to the economy every single year. Over forty years this is trillions--perhaps tens of trillions of dollars. Will high speed rail prevent all of these fatalities, no, but rail is the safest mode for surface transportation and it will likely prevent a significant number of fatalities on I-95 and I-5 over the forty-year planning horizon.
4) Greater reliability and reduced travel times: Again, adding more highway lanes does not reduce congestion-- induced demand is one of the most basic concepts in transportation policy.
http://www.uctc.net/access/25/Access%2025%20-%2004%20-%20Traffic%20Congestion%20is%20Here%20to%20Stay.pdf
The population of the US is forecasted to increase to 400M by 2050. CA's population is expected to increase to 50M - 60M in that same time period. The status quo, Ayn Rand strategy of not having any investment in our public infrastructure is clearly not an option unless you want crippling congestion, suffocating air quality, and even greater dependence on oil imported from unstable regions of the world.
5) More productive travel time: Intercity bus is great but true high speed rail will be 2-3 times as fast as the DC - NYC bus. It would also provide a greater level of comfort, allowing it to attract passengers who do not currently ride the bus.
by Ben on Apr 18, 2011 11:18 am
If CA buys more renewable energy by mandate, that will create greater demand for renewable energy (and a demand that can be relied on). What usually happens to supply when demand goes up?
@WRD, I think rail transit and intercity rail complement each other. These things should be built in parallel, not in series. We should start out connecting cities with good transit systems (NY, Philly, Chicago, Boston etc....) first while improving the transit systems in cities that don't (Houston, San Antonio, etc..)
by David C on Apr 18, 2011 11:20 am
Keep in mind that this was a national network, connecting points in Florida, Wisconsin, and Ohio. You have focused on places where HSR makes sense, around NYC and California. But most of the money will have been spent far away from those places, and will not relieve the congestion there.
by goldfish on Apr 18, 2011 11:41 am
True. But we have greatly limited funding for these items. It would be nice if we could do both, but there isn't money for it. Rail advocates have to make tough choices in a way highway advocates don't.
And back to the point of Kenton's post. The Florida project wasn't a good test case for HSR.
The people at Cato, Reason, and these other hack 'think tanks' that oppose high speed rail oppose nearly all investments in sustainable transit.
Just as a broken clock is right twice every day, I will agree with Cato, Reason, or your choice of right-wing writer on occasion. Even when I don't agree, I try to read and understand what they say. I believe we ignore their opinions at our peril. There are always smart, articulate people who think differently.
In 2007, coal was 20% of the electricity mix in CA. With the growth in renewable energy in the four years since then and this new mandate for 1/3 renewable energy, coal is going to be an even smaller part.
We will see. I highly doubt a renewable energy mandate will achieve the desired effect.
by WRD on Apr 18, 2011 11:45 am
Add a Comment