Let's clear the air. All we ever hear from Washington is "high-speed rail, high-speed rail." I get very upset with this fake label, high-speed rail. The only -- ONLY -- high-speed rail project in America is in California. All the rest of the passenger rail service upgrades receiving federal funding are NOT high-speed. It's high time for the DOT to say so!
The two point four billion dollars kicked back by Florida's Governor are being distributed, 'spread' is a better word, to twenty two rail projects. ONLY ONE is high-speed rail. California is getting $200 billion of the total amount.
All the rest are going to various Amtrak projects with upgrades, permitting in a few cases, speed increases from, say, 79 miles per hour to 85 or 100 miles per hour. Often less. The reason for that is that most of these trains pass through densely populated areas that do not permit higher speeds. Typical trips are thereby shortened by a few minutes.
This Washington Post/Bloomberg article, below, is merely one of hundreds of similar articles covering this federal largesse and found in just about every paper in the country.
As I often do, I now ask, where's the outrage? We are being snookered by the Department of Transportation and its Secretary, Ray LaHood. They are dishonest. They persist in calling all the rail funding in which they are engaged, High-Speed Rail. It is not a high-speed rail program. It is an Amtrak upgrade program, with one, and only one high-speed rail project (which is not yet Amtrak affiliated).
Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with upgrading Amtrak. However, there is no indication that these upgrades will increase ridership. I acknowledge that the ridership has been increasing on Amtrak over the past several years, perhaps attributable to increased driving costs. But Amtrak (unlike the relentless claims for HSR) does not compete with flying, as the article suggests, and that includes the faster Acela train (especially From DC to Boston).
And, I will also acknowledge that increased ridership is a good thing, unless, of course, there is resentment about the subsidies. Therefore, I will represent the following position again. Public mass transit, for high-density urban, suburban and regional commuting populations is a social service, a public utility, and that is a good thing. Major efforts should be made to reduce those subsidies, but that increased ridership is, in my mind, further justification for the existence of public mass transit. It is demand driven.
Please feel free to disagree. What I oppose is under-used and over-costly services such as inter-city rail, whose time has come and gone. We already know that the most extensive use and increased ridership for Amtrak is not from the remote regions across the US, or lengthy inter-city travels; it's from the commuting population within highly populated areas. And, I support that use.
So, to the degree that LaHood and the FRA are making these dollar commitments to commuter rail across America, I really can't complain. But, it is terribly wrong and misleading to call all of it high-speed rail, which it certainly is not. And, the reason for calling it high-speed rail is political, as are the funds being distributed to the twenty two rail projects. It's where those funds are going, not what they are for, that matters to the DOT (and to the White House).
Even this article does not correct this misconception.
By the way, and I say this as a Democrat, when New York Representative Jerry Nadler says, “We must take our passengers off the short-run airplanes. No one in a properly functioning transportation environment should take a plane from New York to Washington, or for that matter from Boston to Washington.” I get very upset about such statements. I really dislike it when my government tells me how to travel; what I should and should not do, so long as I harm neither myself or others.
And, I do agree with the Republicans who make this same point, although they have their own autocratic agendas as well. Yes, I know that the Greens insist that we all "must" do this. Nevertheless, I wish these mandates were kept to a minimum. I prefer to have the opportunity to make the "right" choice, rather than have it shoved down my throat.
And, I certainly don't need a multi-billion dollar HSR 'choice' built with my tax-dollars. Factual realities tell us that there is far less difference in environmental benefits than promised by the HSR rail promoters who actually have self-serving interests rather than altruistic intent. We will not clear the air by building, for over 15 years, a luxury high-speed train that few can afford to, and will, use. The environmental costs are far too high. Construction and manufacturing 'pollution' will be enormous.
This piecemeal approach by the Department of Transportation is devoid of context. There is no over-arching plan for fixing transportation or transit in America. In the absence of such a plan and strategy, merely throwing token funding in every direction for Amtrak fixes is nothing more or less than distributing pork dollars, like bribes, to select states and congressional districts. It's dishonest and should stop.
This piecemeal approach by the Department of Transportation is devoid of context. There is no over-arching plan for fixing transportation or transit in America. In the absence of such a plan and strategy, merely throwing token funding in every direction for Amtrak fixes is nothing more or less than distributing pork dollars, like bribes, to select states and congressional districts. It's dishonest and should stop.
============================
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/amtrak-15-states-get-2-billion-that-florida-lost-after-governor-canceled-high-speed-trains/2011/05/09/AFZDrBXG_story.html
$2 billion in rail projects announced; Northeast to get largest share for high-speed upgrades
By Associated Press, Published: May 9
NEW YORK — Money designated for a now-canceled rail line in Florida was divvied up among nearly two dozen projects around the country Monday, heartening supporters but giving critics fuel to deride it as a diversion from President Barack Obama’s high-speed-train ambitions or as a simple waste of money.
The bulk of the $2 billion is to go the congested Washington-New York-Boston corridor, where $795 million in improvements should allow trains to run at 160 mph on a stretch where they are currently limited to 135 mph. Another $404 million will go toward increasing speeds to 110 mph between Chicago and Detroit.
“These are tremendous transportation projects and investments that America cannot do without,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told reporters at a news conference in New York’s Pennsylvania Station, the nation’s busiest train depot. He delivered a twin announcement later in the day in Detroit.
Only about $300 million will immediately go toward true high-speed railroads like those in Europe and Asia. That money is earmarked for a 220-mph link planned between Los Angeles and San Francisco.
Speeding up trains significantly through the Northeast could prove difficult because the region is so congested, with different railroads often sharing the same tracks and stations. Some even doubt it can be done, period.
Matthew Konopka, a 30-year-old economist from Washington, travels to Boston a few times each month. Traveling by plane takes him about 3 1/2 hours, including check-in time and getting through security. Amtrak’s fast Acela trains take about seven hours.
“It’s too much of a waste of time,” Konopka said of the trains. “I would be doubtful that they’d ever be able to get it fast enough.”
The projects being funded by the diverted money range from a train station in Ann Arbor, Mich., to elevated tracks in Washington state, platform improvements in Rhode Island and engineering studies in Texas.
“Once again, the administration has scattered funding to numerous slower-speed rail projects, and allowed Amtrak to hijack 21 of the 22 grants,” Rep. John L. Mica, the Florida Republican who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in a written statement. His home state lost the money when Gov. Rick Scott canceled plans for a high-speed train between Orlando and Tampa.
Politicians in the Northeast enthusiastically lobbied for the money, hoping to improve their constituents’ travel times and lure more passengers away from the region’s gridlocked highways and congested airports. Delays at New York’s three main airports frequently snarl air travel across the United States.
“We must take our passengers off the short-run airplanes,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat.
“No one in a properly functioning transportation environment should take a plane from New York to Washington, or for that matter from Boston to Washington.”
The improvements should benefit New York commuters by making the overhead electrical lines that New Jersey Transit shares more reliable. Another $295 million upgrade will benefit the Long Island Rail Road, the nation’s largest commuter railroad, by allowing Amtrak trains to bypass the Harold Interlocking, a busy junction in the New York City borough of Queens.
But none of the $2 billion announced Monday is earmarked for two of the most significant rail bottlenecks in the Northeast.
One is the Portal Bridge, a 100-year-old span in New Jersey that officials say is in desperate need of a replacement; another is the two Amtrak-owned tunnels under the Hudson River. A state and federal plan to build more tunnels collapsed last year after Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey pulled out, arguing it put his state on the hook for cost overruns.
Instead, $450 million will go toward track and power line upgrades to increase speed. Existing Acela trains have a top speed of 150 mph but can go that fast only on stretches in Rhode Island and western Massachusetts. The next generation of Acela trains should be able to run at 160 mph, Amtrak spokesman Steve Kulm said.
The track upgrades should allow the new Acela trains to cruise at 160 mph along a stretch between Morrisville, Pa., and New Brunswick, N.J., Kulm said. The speed limit there is currently 135 mph.
About $22 million will go toward replacing a bridge over the Susquehanna River in Maryland. Another $25 million will go toward a third track in Kingston, R.I., so that trains moving at 150 mph can pass slower traffic.
Florida’s Scott, when canceling the project in his state, said he had been concerned that the state government would be locked into years of operating subsidies. However, a report by the state’s transportation department forecast the rail line would be profitable. The project initially had been approved by Scott’s predecessor, Republican-turned-Independent Charlie Crist.
“If they don’t want it, we need it. We’ll take it,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said of the money. “Florida’s loss is New York and New Jersey’s gain.”
But other politicians have been less enthusiastic about rail travel.
“If President Obama and Congress insist on piling more debt on our kids and grandkids, they should at least let us decide how to spend it,” said Tom McMillin, a Republican state representative in Michigan. “We need to fill potholes and improve roads, not shave 50 minutes off a train ride from Detroit to Chicago.”
Along with Scott, two other Republican governors elected in November have canceled train projects in their states.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker turned down $810 million to build a Madison-to-Milwaukee high-speed line. Ohio Gov. John Kasich rejected $400 million for a project to connect Cincinnati, Cleveland and Columbus with slower-moving trains. Both the Ohio and Wisconsin projects had been approved by their Democratic predecessors.
Republican members of Congress have also opposed funds for high-speed trains, rescinding $400 million of the money previously awarded to Florida, as well as other unspent money designated for trains in budget deliberations with the administration.
Obama has said he wants to make fast trains accessible to 80 percent of Americans within 25 years in order to catch up with China and other countries.
His administration is also hoping to ease congestion and pollution caused by airline flights. The number of airline passengers annually is expected to rise from 700 million to 1 billion by 2021.
At Washington’s Union Station on Monday, some travelers said they’ve come to enjoy high-speed train travel. Jim Moeller, a 46-year-old geographer from Fredericksburg, Va., rides the Acela about twice a month from Washington to New York.
“I actually do business on the train. It’s a lot nicer than an airplane,” Moeller said.
He praised the additional funding for Acela as “throwing money at something that’s actually a good thing.”
Other projects announced Monday include:
— $186.3 million to upgrade tracks on the Chicago-to-St. Louis line, allowing speeds of 110 mph over 220 miles of rails.
— $58 million for upgraded tracks, signals and stations along the Empire State line running from Albany to Buffalo, N.Y.
— $40 million to rebuild a rail junction near Harrisburg, Pa.
— $15 million for engineering work to develop a high-speed rail line between Dallas and Houston.
___
Associated Press writers Joan Lowy and Ben Nuckols in Washington and Corey Williams in Detroit contributed to this report.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© The Washington Post Company
