Ken Orski's latest Newsbrief; an excellent overview of the policy decisions made by the Department of Transportation regarding high-speed rail. Ken does not engage in the speculation about the political under-pinnings of the decision-making regarding federal high-speed rail awards. It's a non-trivial issue.
It is a reasonable assumption that there will be no future HSR funding from the Department of Transportation. The House Republicans will see to that. So, what does that mean for the Obama HSR plan? Does it go into suspended animation or deep-freeze until such time as funds become available again?
Outside of California's bond measure of '08, none of the other states have resources they can tap into for any consequential passenger rail upgrades. The federal government is the only money source game in town, so to speak. What does that mean?
It means that all those states (and congressional districts) that have been and are receiving federal dollars for passenger rail can spend them pretty much as they see fit, mostly for making Amtrak trains go a little faster. It's called high-speed rail, or high-performance rail, but isn't. That suggests that those dollars will be spent on existing rail infrastructure and not wasted on pie-in-the-sky startup HSR systems.
But California's brand-new HSR toy is not an upgrade. It breaks new ground. And it will cost untold billions. Stop it now, with only the waste of around six or seven billion dollars as sunk costs on some track running through farmlands? Or, stop it before those six billion are even spent, even if they are available? Don't we have better use for these funds than laying useless track in the rural Central Valley?
Or persist with this content-free fantasy as shown in the CHSRA video, flashing across the countryside, but not to be built without funding; and if built, costing the state billions of dollars forever. The choice in California becomes more stark than ever. Soon, there will be no "middle way." Kill it now, mercifully, before the dollars disappear into the political/corporate black hole, or let it die of old age, never having been born into a fully operational train?
The answer to that lies in the existing federal award for which California Democrats are desperate. They would rather it come into the State, only to disappear in the HSR rat-hole, than not come into the state at all.
Furthermore, they -- the Democrats -- apparently don't care what the downstream costs of these upfront awards will be. They also don't care that the expenditure of the $9 billion in state bond funds will cost the State about $1 billion or more annually, forever. And, with all these expenditures, there may never be an operational train in the state.
About Ken's comments. Some of us believe that this is not the final funding round. We believe that there is a residual pool of funds that are being saved -- several billion worth -- without acknowledgement, for the election cycle next year, at which time they will be distributed to districts and states that need a financial shot in the arm to benefit Democrats there.
Also, in Ken's comments, there is no reference to the politics of these recent award decisions; why and where they were being spent. That would be a useful analysis. Naming names of who the actual winners are.
======================
Vol. 22, No. 15
www.innobriefs.com
May 12, 2012
Pragmatic Funding Decisions Mark the Final Round of Rail Grants
Pragmatic funding decisions have marked the third and final round of awards in the Administration‚s $10 billion High-Speed Rail Program. The awards, announced on May 9, confirmed what critics, including this column, have long maintained: the White House high-speed rail initiative, stripped of its high-blown rhetoric, is in fact a program of modest incremental improvements to existing Amtrak passenger rail services. As such, the initiative represents a small but useful step in restoring more reliable inter-city passenger rail service--- but it hardly deserves the hype and exaggerations that have been used to characterize it. Rather, it is a "victory for incrementalism," in the words of Scott Thomasson, policy director of the Progressive Policy Institute.
The latest round of awards has redistributed the final $2 billion that had been returned to the U.S. Transportation Department when Governor Rick Scott rejected the offer to fund a rail line between Tampa and Orlando last February.
The funds have been awarded to 22 recipients, with the largest single winner being Amtrak's Northeast Corridor. A total of $795 million will enable Amtrak trains to increase their top speeds to 160 mph on a 24-mile stretch of track between New York and Philadelphia and alleviate a major bottleneck in Queens that causes delays for trains coming in and out of Manhattan.
Other major grants were awarded to Illinois, Michigan and the Midwest region for track upgrades that will allow improved reliability of Amtrak service on the Chicago-St. Louis and Kalamazoo-Dearborn lines, and for the purchase of new passenger rail cars and locomotives. A $300 million grant will enable the California High Speed Rail Authority to extend its Central Valley rail segment by an additional 20 miles. The remaining dollars went for minor enhancements in passenger rail service in eight other states.
Despite the commendable new focus on the Northeast Corridor, long advocated by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL) as the country's most legitimate target for rail investment, the Transportation Department‚s announcement drew the latter's renewed criticism. "Once again the Administration has scattered funding to numerous slower-speed rail projects," Mica said in a press release. Railroad Subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA) echoed the criticism. "I continue to question the realism of the President's overall high-speed rail policy," said Shuster.. "We need to focus government funds on the lines that make the most sense...Until then, true high-speed rail will remain on the drawing board."
Amtrak spokesman, Steve Kulm admitted that the final round of projects would not significantly reduce trip times, but asserted that they were necessary to lay a foundation for future service improvements. Progressive advocacy groups, predictably, praised the US DOT announcement as putting thousands of Americans to work and reducing dependency on foreign oil. Secretary LaHood brimmed with his usual optimism: "America is abuzz today with the news that the high-speed train is just around the bend... I am thrilled," the Secretary wrote in his blog, announcing the latest round of awards.
Assessing the results
Now that all of the money in the Administration's passenger rail program has been fully committed [there is a remaining pool of ARRA stimulus funds not yet obligated or committed that are not being spoken about. More about that later.] , it is time to form some initial judgment as to its impact and influence. In our view, several observations are warranted:
First, the Administration's initiative took a major step in expanding the federal role in surface transportation by embracing inter-city passenger rail as a major new candidate for federal capital assistance. Henceforth, highways and transit may have to compete with passenger rail for available federal surface transportation funds.
Second, by injecting $10 billion into the upgrading of existing inter-city rail facilities, the Administration's rail program will hopefully bring about incremental improvements in the average speed and reliability of Amtrak inter-city passenger services in several key corridors. The money has not been totally wasted, as asserted by some critics, but the value and cost effectiveness of the $10 billion investment remains to be demonstrated. Growing Amtrak ridership would be indication of positive success.
Third, the compelling need to reduce the budget deficit and rein in discretionary spending has dimmed the prospects for further congressional funding of inter-city passenger rail. Fiscal 2011 funds for high-speed rail have been rescinded and funding for next year remains in doubt. The ambitious $53 billion high-speed rail plan proposed by the White House earlier this year has been given a quiet burial. Deprived of further federal aid, the momentum gained in the past two years will likely be lost.
Fourth, given Gov. Scott's decision to cancel the Tampa-to-Orlando line and given the uncertain future of the troubled California's high-speed rail project (read the sharply critical report by California's Legislative Analyst's Office, "High-Speed Rail is at a Critical Juncture," released on May 10, http://lao.ca.gov/reports/2011/trns/ high_speed_rail/ high_speed_rail_051011.pdf), the Administration can hardly claim to have launched an era of high-speed rail.
The pledge to connect 80 percent of the nation to high speed rail in the next 25 years, repeated by Secretary Ray LaHood in a mantra-like fashion, is particularly misleading and has raised false expectations in the rail industry and among transportation reformers. A more tempered, realistic and accurate conclusion would be that the prospect for true high-speed rail in this country, with bullet trains running on their own dedicated tracks, still remains highly uncertain.
Lastly, what we have said in an earlier Brief bears repeating. The President's initiative came at a most inopportune time, while the nation is recovering from a serious recession and desperately trying to reduce the federal budget deficit.
However, the recession will eventually end, the economy will start growing again, and the deficit will hopefully come under control. At that more distant moment in time, perhaps toward the end of this decade, the nation might be able to resume its tradition of "bold endeavors;" ambitious programs of public infrastructure renewal.
That might be an appropriate time to revive the idea of high-speed rail, at least in the context of the densely populated Northeast Corridor where road and air traffic congestion will soon be reaching levels that threaten its continued growth and productivity. For now, prudence, good sense and the nation's well-being require that the federal government and its surface transportation program live within their means.
###
Note: The NewsBriefs can also be accessed at <http://www.infrastructureUSA.org>www.infrastructureUSA.org
A listing of all recent NewsBriefs is available at <http://www.innobriefs.com>www.innobriefs.com
Please feel free to forward or reprint this item with appropriate citation. All correspondence, including requests to subscribe and unsubscribe, should be addressed to: C. Kenneth Orski, Editor/Publisher; email: korski@verizon.net; tel: 301.299.1996; fax: 301.299.4425. Please make sure that your email account is set up to accept incoming mail from korski@verizon.net
