NYTimes: Guns on Amtrak? No thanks. September 24, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Amtrak, Passenger Rail Politics.Tags: high speed rail, guns, second amendment
8 comments
Conservative lawmakers love to bemoan the federal government’s stake in Amtrak as the quintessential icon for big-government waste. However, they have no qualms about using this authority over the company to make it adjust its policies to comply with their impractical political whims. Case in point: a recent amendment to the budget bill for the Departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development requiring Amtrak revoke its post-9/11, post-Madrid bombing ban on guns in checked luggage. The reasoning? Well, if you can have a gun in your checked airline baggage, why not on Amtrak as well? The New York Times has the obvious answer:
Amtrak has none of the hermetic procedures where airport passengers are screened shoeless at detectors while their checked baggage is separately secured. Trains stop at stations and passengers come and go. Amtrak presently has a system of checking passengers and screening baggage at random, much the way New York police monitor mass transit.
And lessened security isn’t the only reason reason train riders should be concerned:
The budget cudgel was approved despite pleas from Amtrak that it lacks the manpower, equipment and extra financing to effectively meet the deadline and that it faces a shutdown if federal funds are lost. Among other changes, baggage cars would have to be securely retrofitted and manpower increased. The warning cut no ice with the majority as the chief sponsor, Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican of Mississippi, intoned a lock-step mantra: “Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason.”
Gotta love those unfunded mandates. TFA will keep an eye on this issue. Hopefully this is the kind of nonsense that gets shaken out during conference committee.
NPR’s All Things Considered considers HSR in a series this week August 31, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in United States High Speed Rail.2 comments
I just heard All Things Considered’s first piece on HSR. There’s at least one more part that airs tomorrow, but I can’t tell if that’s it or if they’re doing a week-long series. There’s nothing too revolutionary in there, but it’s a good assessment of the merits of high-speed rail as well as how it’s likely going to take shape in this country. Unfortunately, like every news report on HSR these days, some extremist from a right-wing think tank is interviewed and presented as a credible dissenting voice on the issue. Couldn’t they at least pick HSR opponents with a little more credibility?
What is rather insightful is NPR’s take on incremental HSR upgrades. The piece largely takes the position that a grand “proof-of-concept” project (read: California) is necessary in addition to quicker, less drastic improvements:
“To make rail a major part of the equation is going to take years of proving to the public that this mode is here,” says Joe Schwieterman, professor of public policy and director of DePaul University’s Chaddick Institute for Metropolitan Development.
Schwieterman says an incremental approach — such as upgrading existing Amtrak service to 110 mph on routes like Chicago-St. Louis and Chicago-Detroit — if it’s done well and soon, can help pave the way for other high-speed trains in the future.
“The public sees it works, they see the ridership, they see the trains, they see the advantages,” Schwieterman says. “Then, that second phase of investment can begin.”
He and others say it took five decades to build the interstate highway system into what it is today. Developing a true high-speed rail network will likely take decades, too.
Interview with Midwest HSR’s Rick Harnish, discussing true Midwestern HSR, Obama paradigm shift August 25, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Passenger Rail Politics, Regional USA Passenger Rail, United States High Speed Rail.10 comments
Yesterday I had the chance to talk with Rick Harnish, Executive Director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Association. As frequent readers probably know, both Pat and I are big proponents of bringing faster trains in the Midwest. Along with California, it’s currently one of the most promising regions for high-speed rail.
But when TFA praises the Midwestern HSR plan, it’s often because of its proposals to incrementally upgrade existing routes to “high performance rail” 90-110mph standards. Rick made sure to remind me that the true goal of the organization is implementing so-called “European-style” routes that will connect the region’s major cities to Chicago in less than 2.5 hours. High performance routes are necessary, but they’re not the total solution.
It’s an issue of missing the forest for the trees. Rick pointed out that politicians, journalists, and rail advocates often see plans for 90-110mph “high-speed rail” as a huge accomplishment and are losing sight of getting truly fast trains into our largest cities. The problem is often terminology. High-speed rail is an exciting term that has obtained wide usage in the public (the loose federal definition helps). High performance rail? Rapid rail? Not so much.
Of course, the fact that high-speed rail is now such a desirable thing to have mentioned in your political speech or your newspaper is surprising and wonderful, but Rick makes the good point that confusion and low standards are a threat to the radical change we should be striving for.
He said that MWHSRA’s recent successes on incremental speed and service improvements in downstate Illinois had been a recent focus because of the unfriendly federal political climate at the time. But with Obama’s new outlook on rail, he thinks the time is right for a more ambitious proposal that will show the capabilities of true HSR, such as the 220mph Chicago-St. Louis route his organization proposed earlier this summer.
Besides the obvious windfall of funding, a friendly federal executive could have some other rather exciting possibilities. Rick talked about Spain’s Alvia trains, which can run on both the standard gauge Ave lines and the wide gauge track used on Spanish regional rail lines. This means that regional trains can take advantage of the high-speed lines when traveling down a main corridor. And though FRA regulations currently prohibit such a system here, reforms could mean that a 220mph line to St. Louis would also be able to bring cities such as Memphis and New Orleans much closer to Chicago.
It was a good discussion, and thanks to Rick for taking some time out of his schedule to chat. The Midwest High Speed Rail Association clearly has a lot going on these days, with the Chicago-St. Louis route in Illinois, plans for incremental improvements in other states, and goals for well-connected station areas, especially in Chicago. They’re all necessary parts if we want world-class high-speed rail in this country’s future, and in the current favorable climate we have to, as Rick said, “aim high” in our ambitions for better passenger train service.
Streetsblog’s Ryan Avent addresses Glaesar’s HSR criticisms in NYTimes blog August 21, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Passenger Rail Blogs and Transportation Resources, United States High Speed Rail.23 comments
This is from Wednesday, but it’s so good that it merits playing catchup on. Some of you have perhaps been following Edward L. Glaesar’s economic analysis of high-speed rail prospects in the New York Times economics blog over the past few weeks. The last post in the series (although he says he might revisit the topic later) appeared on Tuesday and purports to address misconceptions that high-speed rail would have a signficant effect on land-use patterns. Now, of course, we here at TFA believe in challenging ones own viewpoints, and Glaesar provides some very readable points against HSR investment. But thankfully, Ryan Avent from Streetsblog has gone to the trouble of going a little more in-depth and refuting Glaesar’s dodgy economic logic. The post speaks for itself, but I quote its conclusion as a nice summation:
If we instead build new highway and airport capacity, then that will influence future development patterns and mode share. I challenge Glaeser to demonstrate that that future is greener and better off economically than one in which rail is built.
This is the principle shortcoming of Glaeser’s analysis — that it fails to take into consideration the alternatives.
I believe that increasing metropolitan congestion, rising energy costs, changing demographics, and new transit investments will generate a shift in housing and transportation preferences in coming decades. I think it’s wise to accommodate this shift by building high-speed rail.
Glaeser seems to believe that in coming decades congestion costs will cease rising; otherwise he’d build future increases into his model. He seems to think that the addition of over 100 million new Americans need not lead to any new infrastructure investment; otherwise he’d compare the economic benefits and life-cycle emissions of rail investments to alternative investment plans.
I think those beliefs are daft and indefensible. And four posts into his high-speed rail series, Glaeser hasn’t given any of us reason to think that his analysis is worth taking seriously.
New video by Onboard Midwest promotes HSR for St. Paul Union Depot August 21, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Amtrak, Passenger Rail Politics, Regional USA Passenger Rail, United States High Speed Rail.2 comments
On the heels of the news earlier this summer that Ramsey County had approved the purchase of St. Paul Union Depot from the Postal Service and that its revitalization would be a part of the state’s application for rail stimulus dollars, comes this video by Onboard Midwest. Onboard Midwest seems to be a Twin Cities-based advocacy organization for Midwest High-Speed Rail, and they indicate that that Union Depot will be the terminus for the Twin Cities spur of the project.
I couldn’t find much in the way of hard evidence to either confirm or deny this. Any insights from TFA readers? In the past I’ve heard that Amtrak would be unlikely to want to move to Union Depot because it doesn’t have the service facilities that its current ugly/awful Midway Station has. Let’s hope Onboard Midwest is right about this one.
Madison debates city station, airport station for HSR stop August 6, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Passenger Rail Politics, Passenger Rail Transportatio Policy, United States High Speed Rail.23 comments
My Wisconsinite boss for the summer over at the Congress for the New Urbanism, Stephen Filmanowicz, tweeted about this a few days ago, so a big H/T to him. Madison, WI is one of the major cities to be part of the Midwest HSR project, but a number of activists are uncomfortable about the idea of having the city’s sole train station be at the regional airport outside of town. One man in particular is raising a fuss, much to the ire of many government leaders, who don’t want the city’s chances of getting federal HSR money to be put in jeopardy. From the Madison Capital Times:
Shorter travel times were a key factor in 2002 when officials with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation sent a letter to then-Mayor Sue Bauman, saying a “single airport station best serves the interests of the Madison community and the overall service goals of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative.”
City of Madison officials initially balked at the decision and at one point talked about pursuing two train stations: one at Monona Terrace and another on the east side. But eventually the issue faded as rail dollars failed to materialize, gasoline prices fell, and talk of trains went to the back burner.
With federal rail money looking likely, however, the question over station location has come up again — much to the chagrin of some state and local officials who were hoping to keep things quiet to avoid any last-second controversy.
One initial problem identified with a station downtown at Monona Terrace was the need to back trains out to rejoin the main line, adding 30 minutes to the trip and creating traffic snarls downtown. But the Yahara Station plan avoids that hang-up by sticking to the mainline route, eliminating the need for trains to reverse course out of the downtown.
Even the mayor is backing the airport site, stating that there might be two stations for the city in the future. I don’t think that’s going to appeal to Amtrak and Midwest HSR planners, who are going to want to limit the stops to keep travel times down. The whole airport vs. downtown station discussion is one we’ve featured before on TFA. On one hand, one of the biggest benefits of good passenger rail is the downtown-to-downtown connectivity that is convenient for passengers and good for local economies. On the other hand, connections with other modes of transport, including air travel, are also important, particularly if airlines are to be convinced that they stand to benefit from improved train service.
And the pragmatists have a point that it would be a shame to muck up a bid for federal HSR money. But that’s not a good enough reason to not think ahead when placing critical infrastructure. Connectivity is going to be key. If the station ends up being placed at the airport, they need to make sure that there are convenient connections to downtown and vice versa if the urban location is chosen. Taxis don’t count. And the article mentions commuter rail; it would be extremely shortsighted of the city to place this intercity station without an eye to how it could connect to local rail service in the future.
A sticky issue to be sure. Thoughts?
Congressional update: House approves $4 billion for HSR July 24, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Passenger Rail Politics, United States High Speed Rail.Tags: high speed rail, hsr
6 comments
Pat blogged yesterday about Iowa Congressman Tom Latham’s amendment to strip down the high-speed rail funding in the housing and transportation bill to Obama’s original $1 billion rather than the $4 billion that was added in committee. It wasn’t looking good for a while, with HSR advocacy organizations such as the Midwest HSRA and Virginians High-Speed Rail putting out action alerts to their members. Fortunately, thanks to quick responses from those concerned about our nation’s rail infrastructure (or perhaps just the general spirit of the times), the amendment easily failed 136-284.
As The Transport Politic points out, this is a good indicator of the surprisingly high amount of bipartisan support high-speed rail seems to enjoy in the legislature. Maybe this is due to the wide number of states now vying for those funds, or perhaps, pathetically, it’s just the fact that there was no mention of “Amtrak” in the proposal.
If this language makes it through the Senate, that’s a 1/2 increase of the HSR money already allocated in the stimulus package. This runs together with Pat’s anniversary post the other day. If you had told me that the federal government approve $12 billion for high-speed rail with support from a number of likely and unlikely states back when I started in Spring 2008, I wouldn’t have believed you.
How to increase your state’s chances of getting federal HSR money (Illinois knows) – UPDATED July 16, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Passenger Rail Politics, United States High Speed Rail.7 comments
Of course it’s all well and good to apply for federal stimulus money to try and get your state’s rapid rail dream built. But the federal government being what it is, they’re likely to look more kindly on states that are substantially committing their own resources to the project. The Midwest HSR Association must have pulled off some successful lobbying in Springfield, because here’s a snippet from them:
With the governor’s signature of the capital bill, Illinois becomes a national leader in high speed rail. The $850
million for rail infrastructure in the legislation is the largest state capital investment in railroads in the nation
outside of California.By making its own investment in high-speed rail, Illinois is solidifying its chances of receiving a larger portion
of the $8 billion high-speed rail federal funds under the stimulus.The legislation signed today provides not only $400 million for high-speed rail and $150 million for Amtrak-
related improvements, but, $300 million for CREATE, which will address many of the bottlenecks in and around
Chicago that have plagued freight and passenger trains nationwide.These funds will be used for immediate construction work on already planned projects such as the 110 mph St.
Louis-Chicago rail line, and Amtrak extensions to Rockford-Galena, the Quad Cities and other initiatives.
Good news certainly, although I’m a bit curious about parts of the money being appropriated specifically for the 110mph Chicago-St. Louis line. Did someone trip on the red tape and forget about the 220mph proposal?
UPDATE: Rick Harnish from the Midwest HSR Association very kindly cleared up the 110mph-220mph confusion for us in the comments:
We didn’t forget about the 220-mph proposal. In fact, we are excited that the Illinois DOT submitted a pre-application for planning money for the 220-mph proposal.
110-mph and 220-mph lines are not mutually exclusive, they serve different purposes and different markets.
The press release you quoted was designed to celebrate a major win and to provide background on how the money might be spent.
The 110-mph line in Illinois is a critical project. It will link downstate IL to Chicago & St. Louis. It will also be a testing ground for operating fast, frequent and dependable trains on heavy haul freight lines and provide valuable lessons that can be applied nationwide.
Breakdown of states applying for HSR funding July 13, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Uncategorized.1 comment so far
There’s a flurry of news out there about state requests for federal HSR stimulus money. Thankfully, Yonah Freemark over at the Transport Politic has compiled a list of state applicants for federal HSR money, both confirmed and likely. There are the high profile projects on there of course, ones likely to take home a good chunk of that money (California, New York). But the FRA’s calls for projects in the planning phases, which obviously will be asking for less money (for now), seem to have not gone unheeded either, as Pat’s post about Arkansas’ new awakening to the possibilities of fast rail indicates.
This would seem to be in line with the different “tracks” set out in the guidelines for funding requests put out last month. Projects more in the planning phase would receive money out of the congressional appropriations hat rather than the stimulus package.
Of course, not everyone can get funded. How this money is distributed will be a good indication of this administration’s commitment to getting high-speed rail built. Regional political pandering is, unfortunately, an important legislative strategy, but an overemphasis on these types of proposals will leave necessary improvements undone and the country not much closer to a functioning ideal of American HSR.
Just what is the federal plan for high-speed rail?, asks GAO June 25, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Passenger Rail Politics, United States High Speed Rail.2 comments
For the first time, a fair amount of federal money has been set aside for high-speed rail — the much sought after $13 billion from the federal stimulus and budget. And we’ve seen all sorts of hands in many different states reaching for this funding for their projects, many of which certainly stretch even the low federal 110mph definition of high-speed rail. Last week’s project evaluation criteria put out by the Department of Transportation for rail stimulus money sets some boundaries, but the Government Accountability Office is asking a fair question: where’s the real “strategic plan” for this high-speed rail “vision”? The Transport Politic, naturally, has some good commentary on this:
[GAO Director of Physical Infrastructure] Ms. Fleming’s statement comes three months after the release of GAO’s major report on high-speed rail, which advocated a major federal investment in the transportation mode. Emphasizing that that report pushed the DOT to pinpoint specific goals for rail improvement, Ms. Fleming argued that the Obama Administration’s actions so far were little more than a “vision,” rather than “a strategic plan.” The U.S. must “define goals for investing in high speed rail,” she said, and describe “how these investments will achieve them, how the federal government will determine which corridors it could invest in, [and] how high speed rail investments could be evaluated against possible alternative modes in those corridors.” Ms. Fleming said that the FRA largely agreed with her opinions. In fact, DOT has been planning to release a draft national rail plan by mid-October; however, that is a month after the FRA will release initial stimulus bill grants to applicant projects for rail investment.
Mr. Szabo, the head of the FRA, said that U.S. plans were similar to those already achieved in Europe. Yet the U.S. government has yet to commit to even one high-speed corridor, nor has it established a reliable and objective framework for national planning.
Mr. Boardman, meanwhile, claimed that “With high-speed rail, speed is not the issue. Convenience and trip times are.” This rhetoric is dangerous on several counts. For one, it will allow the U.S. to distribute funds to projects that are ill-suited to high-speed rail, but which are politically popular. The Senate’s strong rural bent means that unworthy projects may be given the green light ahead of more valuable ones if the DOT’s guidelines for resource distribution aren’t based on projected passenger ridership and cost effectiveness.
Second, the repeated claim that speed “doesn’t matter” may result in less-than-popular completed projected. It is worth again mentioning what I wrote yesterday: if the U.S. doesn’t get high-speed rail right the first time, it may be decades before the mode is politically acceptable enough to promote again.
This is a difficult issue to grapple with. Here at TFA, we’re in favor of passenger rail improvement on all levels… not just the European-style “true high-speed” routes. Incremental improvements to existing routes can make a huge difference in a country that is woefully under-served by convenient rail transportation. On the other hand, Freemark’s comment about the need to “get it right the first time” is certainly valid. Any slight boondoggle with high-speed rail money is sure to be leaped upon by highway interests as a way to put a stop to this new progressive attitude towards intercity transportation. This is why projects such as California’s are so important. It’s the ideal proving ground for an American rail line at world-class speeds. It can be the example rail advocates and politicians can point to in the future as a successful model. On the other hand, any federal rail plan needs to address the more immediate (or, dare I say, “shovel-ready”) problems that are affecting our existing Amtrak network. Passenger rail in America is growing in popularity and visibility, and it needs immediate improvement if this momentum is going to last until the first “true” high-speed line is built.
HSR and centralization: Quebec-Ontario HSR continues long controversy June 21, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in International High Speed Rail, United States High Speed Rail.3 comments
High-speed rail has a simple purpose, right? Decrease the travel time between two points, what geographers call the “relative distance.” For better or worse though, bringing far flung places into close contact with the country’s core can bring homogenization and control along with economic benefits and convenience. This was one of the primary rationales for China’s elaborate railway into the core of Tibet, and the Basque nationalist group ETA has often stated their intention of targeting any Avé line into the region. Of course, it’s not a usually a problem here in the US… we’re highly mobile to begin with, and regional separatists are aren’t exactly easy to come by (I know do someone who leans that way sometimes, however…).
Canada, on the other hand, has to contend with the particular political and cultural position of Quebec within the country, and one Liberal MP has recently stirred up trouble by talking about “national unity” with regard to a proposed HSR line from Quebec City to Windsor. The Bloc Québécois, however, isn’t taking the bait.
“Imagine that the people of Quebec are prepared to engage in . . . spending money that’s taken out of the province of Quebec to build a line that’s going to make it easier for them to connect with southern Ontario,” Volpe said in an interview, as parliamentary hearings wrapped up last week on high-speed rail.
…
“I’m not happy with (Volpe’s) statement (on national unity),” said Bloc transport, infrastructure and communities critic Mario Laframboise. “It’s not a question of politics, it’s an environmental and economic question. We must achieve transport systems for the 21st century.”
Be happy that, despite a myriad of other issues, “national unity” is not a particular stumbling point for American HSR.
HSR stimulus guidelines lay out federal objectives, aim for grants in late summer June 18, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in United States High Speed Rail.add a comment
The US DOT has released its criteria for the evaluation of HSR programs to be funded through the federal stimulus money. The official release is your typical government-issue dense packet of 68 pages, and it offers no real surprises. Funds will be distributed beginning in September/October, depending on the type of project. Streetsblog has a nice summary:
Here’s where things get a bit complicated, because high-speed rail aid has been split into four tracks.
The first two use stimulus money for projects and programs, and the second two use money from the annual congressional appropriations process for planning and project execution. In fact, DOT’s guidance says the first two tracks of money — the $8 billion popularly referred to as high-speed rail stimulus money — may not be paid out in full this year, “to allow for potential future rounds of solicitations and awards which occur after 2009.”
The first track of stimulus money is aimed at “shovel-ready” projects that are supportive of high-speed rail development. For these funds, economic benefits (read: job creation) is the No. 1 criterion, followed by general transportation benefits at No. 2.
Saving energy, promoting sustainable development and discouraging fossil fuel use — what DOT calls “other public benefits” — is ranked No. 6 out of six priorities for this first track of stimulus money. For the second track of stimulus money, reserved for longer-term work that’s not primarily aimed at economic recovery, “other public benefits” is priority No. 2.
As we’ve seen over the past few months, different state and regional projects are in varying states of readiness… from “shovel-ready” to complete disarray. The different “tracks” hence make a good deal of sense. The CAHSR blog points to Associated Press’s brief assertion that the program favors the California and Midwest projects, which is hardly surprising given the organization and publicity of these two plans, regardless of these new guidelines. Indeed, the release does seem to pay particular attention to grander projects that focus on multiple lines, corridors, cities, and states. That would include the Midwest proposal as well as the “Texas T-Bone” that Pat has been covering for TFA in Arkansas. But it’s all mostly conjecture until the actual funds are allocated at the end of the summer… now that will be interesting.
New York Times Magazine talks HSR, reminds us why we like Ray June 15, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Amtrak, Passenger Rail Politics, United States High Speed Rail.4 comments
Yesterday’s New York Times Magazine is all infrastructure, and it has a quite thoughtful and well-researched piece on high-speed rail in America. It focuses on the California project, but also discusses the international context and the dilapidated state of Amtrak. Unfortunately, their “fix” for Amtrak seems to be projects like CAHSR rather than, you know, fixing Amtrak. But still, what an illustrative quote this is:
When the conductors stepped back on board, they had satisfied looks. “We threw some switches to get onto the sidings,” one of them told me, catching her breath as she removed her work gloves. I hadn’t realized that Amtrak employees who take tickets and wear crisp formal uniforms also tend to the tracks. But on the Surfliner, at least, they do.
European rail systems are [rightfully] praised up and down in the article for their efficiency and service. But this isn’t just because they have true-HSR lines. They also manage their conventional passenger rail system a whole lot better than we do. They can walk and run while we’re still crawling around looking for our glasses. Still, it’s a really excellent article. But we just wouldn’t be rail advocates if we weren’t complaining about something, right?
Also worth checking out is the Magazine’s little interview with Ray LaHood. Although it oozes with awkwardness as the transpo man tries to respond to odd questions about things like skateboards and his last name (is it that strange?), there are some gems in there:
President Obama has talked about his desire to wean Americans off automobiles.
What we’ve talked about is getting to a concept that we call livable communities, where people don’t have to get in a car every day. You can use light rail, you can use buses, you can use walking paths, you can use your bike.The conservative columnist George Will recently denounced you as the “secretary of behavior modification,” in reference to your plan to have Americans give up cars.
When George came over here for lunch, I could tell from the tone of our conversation that he wasn’t particularly keen on what we were trying to promote here.
Oh, George Will. The Overhead Wire also points to another recent interview done by US News and World Report which, oddly enough, seems to be more professional.
Does anyone else remember when all the sustainable transport blogs were biting their nails over LaHood’s appointment? Funny how he turned out to be one of the most sensible and visible people in the job for quite a while.
Georgia governor Purdue is HSR convert June 15, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Passenger Rail Politics, United States High Speed Rail.1 comment so far
Maybe it’s something they put in the Kool-Aid at Biden and LaHood’s HSR meeting earlier this month. For whatever reason, Sonny Purdue has had a change of heart about HSR. From the Savannah Morning News:
Gov. Sonny Perdue returns from a meeting of governors in Washington as a new convert to the idea of high-speed rail.
What’s more, he’s vowed to evangelize the governors of neighboring states — who skipped the meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood — on the merits of establishing a high-speed rail network.
Perdue’s change of heart is welcome news. For years, Perdue downplayed high-speed rail as too expensive and unlikely to draw enough riders to be self-supporting.
To be sure, President Obama’s announcement of $8 billion in rail funding from stimulus funds, plus another $5 billion called for in the president’s budget, might have been enough to turn the governor’s head on the issue. (Although aides say Perdue’s train travels in China and Spain also played a role.)
That’s all well and good, but is he going to do anything to overhaul Georgia’s inflexible DOT and dethrone King Highway? Probably not, but there’s definitely something to be said for having an administration that is, at least, not hostile to passenger rail in one of the nation’s growing population centers.
And if it’s all political posturing? That’s good news too. Since when did passenger rail support become something political figures had to pay lip service towards?
In China, big rail push leading to big IT jobs – UPDATED June 11, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in International High Speed Rail.3 comments
It’s not a secret that China is making massive investments in its passenger (and freight) rail service and infrastructure. They’re looking at spending something to the tune of $87.8 billion over two years, and $727 billion by 2020 as well. It might not be too long until we’re talking about “Chinese-style high-speed rail” rather than “European-style” for the fastest and most efficient systems.
So maybe it’s not surprising that IBM is making China home to its new rail technology center. Building and efficiently managing the IT framework behind complex modern rail networks is hard work and serious money. Despite common misconceptions, rail advocates aren’t pushing for quaint choo choo’s.
Robert Goodwin, a travel and transportation analyst at research firm Gartner, estimates that about 3% of worldwide rail spending will go to IT systems.
“Within five years, China is going to have more high-speed rail than the rest of the world combined,” Dierkx said.
But China’s rail system, the primary mode of long-range distance travel for most Chinese, is still beset with huge problems, such as an antiquated ticketing system whereby passengers must be present at a station to purchase a ticket, and massive overcrowding of the system during holidays.
IBM has been a vendor of basic information technology systems to rail projects in China, including the recently finished high-speed rail connecting Beijing to the northeastern port city Tianjin. Its goal with the new innovation center is to expand its services to offer technology and business management consulting for railways.
We can hope that improvements in services like e-ticketing will eventually make their way over here. Train booking still isn’t quite as seemless, straightforward, or integrated as it is for the airlines (and that’s not even saying much). After all, the company’s objective is, ostensibly, global. But the jobs, like the rails, seem to be seem to be flowing towards Chinese soil.
UPDATE: It seems in this post I neglected to really focus on what the Global Rail Innovation Center itself is doing. Short answer? Crunching numbers and developing technology to maximize efficiency and service in advanced rail systems. It’s the sort of work that is going to make the most out of rail’s particular advantages over other modes of travel… and that’s crucial.
American and international roadways have had efficiency experts scrutinizing them over and over for years. Air travel has had a similar advantage. It’s no wonder studies like this (H/T to my friend Eric Handler) come out from time to time questioning if American trains really are more efficient than planes or cars. Apples and oranges. American planes and cars are perpetually being upgraded to newer and better technology. You can’t say that for Amtrak, which is long overdue for new rolling stock, or even most commuter rail and transit authorities.
Hopefully we’ll be seeing some exciting rail tech come out of this place in the coming years. For the full lowdown, check out the press release or, for the web 2.0 oriented, the well-done YouTube video.
Ohio’s Gov. Strickland lobbies for state’s HSR (read: passenger rail) plan June 10, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Amtrak, United States High Speed Rail.add a comment
From the Columbus Dispatch comes more news that Ohio is trying to get its passenger rail plan connecting the “3C” cities of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati to each other and the national network. Cleveland and Cincinnati are already served by Amtrak, but a connecting route would be an obvious good investment for the state and provide another thru route for the national network.
“If we don’t do this we will be left behind,” Strickland told Ohio reporters at the state’s Washington office before his meetings with the federal officials. “Ohio will be an island in the middle of this nation without passenger rail service — we will not be appropriately connected to a system that will be broad-based, and it would be intolerable for us.”
Amtrak is studying how many passengers the rail service would likely attract and how much the state would need to subsidize it. The study is due in August.
The $400 million figure is up from the previous estimate of $250 million for Ohio’s corridor, but Strickland said that depending on the Amtrak study’s findings, the cost could wind up well below $400 million. A spokeswoman for the governor said the state hasn’t yet submitted a formal proposal for money.
The article says that they’re looking to get funding through the $8 billion in HSR stimulus money. It seems questionable whether the plan, “which would run slightly slower than a car moving at freeway speed,” might qualify as HSR, but it’s probably a leap they have to make in their quest for federal money. Basically everything is being touted as “high-speed” these days, so it’s not surprising. But hey, if that semantic strategy gets the public thinking about train travel and hence puts more rails on the ground, I don’t have a problem with it.
Fox News and its “analysts” try to compare GM deal to Amtrak June 1, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Amtrak, Passenger Rail Politics.15 comments
Another journalistic homerun from Fox News, which, in its a piece today on the GM bailout announcement, has once again shown itself to be the grand master of wiggle-words and half truths.
General Motors is trying to prove that it is the little engine that could. But the bankrupt automaker may never fully climb the mountain ahead of it, if Amtrak is any example.
Some analysts say the federal government’s effort to prop up the nation’s largest auto manufacturer is eerily similar to a 40-year effort to revive the nation’s ailing railroad system. Billions of taxpayer dollars later, Amtrak still needs the government to survive — and critics say General Motors appears to be headed down the same track.
The “analysts” the article refers to constantly seem to be drawn from only two referenced sources: Wendell Cox and some guy from the Heritage Foundation… not exactly objective observers. I don’t need to reassert the fact that national rail systems across the world are accepted as places where the government needs to continually invest, and I’m not going to take sides on the issue of General Motor’s bankruptcy. I’ll just say that we can start comparing the GM deal to Amtrak when GM is the only company selling cars in the entire country. There are a host of good reasons to support rail transportation, and the only one making the GM deal legitimate right now is jobs. This should be treated as a real national issue, not just another chance for slanted journalists to take potshots at their favorite political target.
Baltimore uses Penn Station as hub for urban development (good idea) May 29, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Amtrak, Regional USA Passenger Rail.5 comments
Here’s a great example of how intercity rail can interlock with local transit and just good urbanism in general. Baltimore’s Penn Station, on the Northeast Corridor, is already a multi-modal hub, serviced by Amtrak, Maryland’s commuter rail service, and the city’s light rail system. The City of Baltimore has been planning a revitalization of the area around the station for a number of years, and Amtrak is taking another step in that direction by commissioning proposals for a 77-room hotel in the station itself. Other projects include the conversion of a nearby parking lot (surface parking lots are the bane of good urban design) and renting more retail space in the station building. Here’s some details from the Baltimore Sun:
The inn is one of several steps that Amtrak, also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp., is taking to improve its properties in Baltimore.
Amtrak has leased space to Faber, Coe and Gregg of Secaucus, N.J., to run a Java Moon cafe and limited-menu branch of Dunkin’ Donuts on the station’s main concourse. Faber’s operations will replace a coffee shop and cafe run by Eddie Dopkin’s Crazy Man Restaurant Group, which left the building on May 22 after 17 years.
Faber, which also runs the station’s newsstand, opened a temporary coffee shop this week and plans to open the permanent replacements this summer, according to senior vice president Roberta Rubin.
Amtrak is also preparing to hire architects and planners to complete a “highest and best use analysis” of the 185-space parking lot it owns north of the station, property that is considered a key to the area’s revitalization.
Fifteen teams, including some of the country’s top urban designers, sought the work after Amtrak issued a request for proposals in April. Amtrak has narrowed the list of candidates to three and is in the final stages of selecting a design team. All work by the winning team is scheduled to be completed by mid-September.
I’ve never been to Baltimore and can’t really speak to the area around the station or the project’s prospects (I’d love to hear some thoughts), but at least in principle multi-use stations are a great idea. The problem with many intercity rail stations is that they don’t feel lived in. The train comes once or twice a day and in between those times they sit empty and unused. Retail, hotels, and connections to more frequent local transit increase the level of activity, making a station feel more like a real place than a passenger rail warehouse. It also brings attention to the rail services offered there, increasing visibility and knowledge about intercity trains and where to catch them.
Train stations are not airports. When we’re looking at where to spend future money for passenger rail service, we should be attempting to integrate stations as much as possible with the community rather than isolating them from it. It’s great that this is happening with older stations, but our approach to new or relocated facilities should also follow this principle.
To airlines: Don’t fear the trains May 22, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in United States High Speed Rail.12 comments
A [very interseting] article on Streetsblog yesterday off-handedly mentioned Ray LaHood keeping mum about any threat that high-speed rail might pose to the airlines. A link was provided, and I clicked through to find a post on a blog called “Things in the Sky.” It’s certainly well-written and interesting, but, naturally, holds views rather divergent from TFA. And geez, take a look at some of the other posts. How come no one talks about rabid “plane-fans”?
Things in the Sky points to the huge decrease in Madrid-Barcelona plane traffic after the high-speed line went into service. Here’s what they say about what HSR might do to America’s air carriers:
Some airlines here in the States could definitely be hurt by a high speed rail expansion. Any further improvement in the Northeast Corridor could negatively affect the Delta and US Airways shuttle operations, and I agree with Marshall that Southwest would get hurt (I think the intra-Texas and intra-California routes especially).
If this is ends up being an expansion of Amtrak, I’m very worried when it comes to competition with the airline industry. The air carriers are motivated by profits and losses (as they should). If a route isn’t performing well, the airline will adjust accordingly by either eliminating the route or trimming capacity, and the opposite happens on successful routes. Meanwhile, a government-funded train system with guaranteed funding can continue operating despite being unprofitable, making true competition difficult.
Let’s just ignore for now the many times that airlines have received large bailouts from the federal government. And yes, high-speed rail and trains in general should be supported by government; the service rail provides to communities large and small is more equitable, clean, and efficient than air and car travel. The mistake that air carriers in the past, including, as the blog mentions, Southwest, have made is that they view high-speed rail as competition rather than an opportunity. Let conventional/high-speed rail take over these short/medium haul routes and make sure that there are connections to the airports. This way, passengers can be funneled into the more profitable long-haul routes and the carriers don’t have to subsidize the connecting flights.
And airlines are realizing this. As our friend Robert Cruickshank points out over at the CAHSR blog, none of the major carriers have opposed either the SF-LA project in California or the renewed Texas HSR plan, which Southwest helped kill years ago. European carrieres, such as Air France/KLM are even looking at getting into the HSR business themselves. If airlines find that they are hurting because of high-speed rail, they will have no one to blame but themselves. No one’s saying that trains will replace planes across all routes. What TFA and other progressive rail advocates are working towards is a situation where one can take the train across distances where rail makes sense and flights across distances where planes make sense. Let’s work together to make sure these systems connect rather than inconveniencing travelers through unnecessary competition.
New England lacking behind in HSR prospects, but at least Vermont is keeping its Amtrak service May 19, 2009
Posted by Logan Nash in Amtrak, United States High Speed Rail.Tags: vermont amtrak
add a comment
Seems like news about its salvation was far more muted than the ruckus surrounding its possible cancellation, but Vermont has chosen to increase its gasoline tax rather than cease support for its popular Ethan Allen Express route. Here’s the critical portions of a brief AP snippet from earlier this month:
Vermont lawmakers have passed a transportation bill that will raise gasoline taxes by about 3 cents at the pump at current prices.
…
The $540 million transportation bill for the fiscal year that begins July 1 spares Amtrak rail service between Rutland and New York from being eliminated. It also sharply increases the budget to repave Vermont’s battered roads.
This is great news. It would have been a huge shame for the state to end one of its well-liked Amtrak services at this critical juncture. Sure, the economy is bad, but ending smart transportation services like this is not the way to put us on the path to a more stable green economy.
But if New England is avoiding steps back, it doesn’t really seem to be moving forward, at least according to this Boston Globe article:
Until late last year, New England lacked a regionwide high-speed rail organization – an illustration, transit advocates said, of the region’s belated effort to craft a high-speed rail plan encompassing all six states.
As a result, advocates fear, a region that hosts the fastest train in the nation, Amtrak’s Acela, and has no shortage of ideas for improved rail service, may miss out on the funding in favor of California and the Midwest, which have been methodically developing high-speed rail plans for decades.
“New England needs to be better organized,” said Tom Irwin, a senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation and one of the founders of the New England Regional Rail Coalition, the group assembled last year that is lobbying for a share of the high-speed rail funding that Congress approved as part of the economic stimulus plan.
A missed opportunity? Depends on the way you look at it. On one hand, this is a fairly dense region that seems well-suited to passenger rail service. On the other hand, there are already a number of lines that crisscross New England, which is more than you can say for an underserved region like the Midwest or Florida. And as the article admits, successful projects anywhere in the country could increase momentum for HSR that could eventually benefit the region. So while I certainly sympathize with Globe article, it’s high time forother parts of the country to see at least some of the same service that the region enjoys with the Acela and other frequent routes. Certainly worth a read.
patlynch
Logan Nash
