Michael Barone compares HSR in China and the US

Barone touches on a number of points we have been discussing in this blog for some time.  He's not an absolute HSR opponent, but certainly has a more realistic understanding of what's sensible and what isn't.  

We will be hearing ever more about China.  They, still bent on paving all of their country over with HSR lines and highways, have so rushed construction of rail lines that they are only now coming to realize that even if their ticket prices are less than any other country, they are still too high for the majority of their transit-seeking population.  As Barone points out, HSR in China is not mass public transportation.  It is elitist.

Those who like to use the word 'Socialist' as a form of condemnation will have to agree that China (a Communist country) is building a transit system that may be 'Socialist,' but only for the upper classes.  And that's what it will be in the US. It will not be the commuter rail service that get's the working classes to work every day.  It will be for well to do tourists and business professionals with expense accounts.  Is that what our Government ought to be doing with hundreds of billions of dollars?

(You do know that on the Bay Area Peninsula, there are clear income level and occupational class distinctions between Caltrain riders and bus riders?)

Let's be clear here. Every HSR train ticket, regardless of cost, will be subsidized by our tax dollars one way or another.  Ticket prices, unless they become extremely high and do indeed cover all the operating and maintenance costs (totally unlikely), will have to be supplemented with state or federal support.  See Amtrak for the prime example.  What does that mean in practice?

It limits access to these luxury trains to those who can afford the premium price of a ticket. And yet, those tickets will still be supported by tax dollars.  

Republicans are profoundly averse to income redistribution; that is, having the money of the wealthy go

-- by way of government programs -- to support the poor and lower income classes.  Yet, here with HSR, there will be income redistribution from all the taxpayers, regardless of their level of income, to support the well to do HSR riders.  While fears of Socialism are based on government orchestrated transfer of income from the top to the bottom, HSR will require the opposite; transfer of income from the bottom to the top.  While this may be overstated here, it's not inaccurate either. 

My point? My fellow Democrats who support this train, for whatever reason, ought to be opposing it at least for ideological reasons.  Would they support a government program that provides Rolls-Royces at a great discount for the wealthy? 

===========================

http://washingtonexaminer.com/print/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/high-speed-rail-doesnt-make-sense-china-either

Published on Washington Examiner

By Michael Barone

Created Feb 2 2011 - 4:33pm

High-speed rail doesn't make sense in China, either

Faithful readers know that one of my pet issues—pet peeves, really—is high-speed rail, which was the subject of one recent Examiner column and was mentioned in my most recent column Wednesday. Yes, high-speed rail might make sense in some high-density corridors connecting big cities with big downtowns, i.e., the Washington-New York-Boston corridor. But it doesn’t make much sense elsewhere. I have pointed out that, with one exception, continent-sized countries like Russia, Canada and Brazil have not contemplated building high-speed rail lines except for those that would connect their two largest metropolitan areas.

The exception, of course, is China, which is lauded by the likes of Thomas Friedman for its supposedly far-sighted program of building a network of high-speed rail lines over most of the country. Now comes Patrick Chovanec, an American who is a professor at Tsinghua University’s School of Economics and Management in Beijing, with the news that high-speed rail doesn’t make much sense in China either. mess. Key paragraph:

“The problem is that high-speed rail is expensive both to build and to operate, requiring high ticket prices to break even.  The bulk of the long-distance passenger traffic, especially during the peak holiday periods, is migrant workers for whom the opportunity cost of time is relatively low.  Even if they could afford a high-speed train ticket — which is doubtful given their limited incomes — they would probably prefer to conserve their cash and take a slower, cheaper train.  If that proves true, the new high-speed lines will only incur losses while providing little or no relief to the existing transportation network.”

We already see this phenomenon in the United States, as I mentioned in my Wednesday column. Bargain-minded travelers don’t use the Acela express or cheaper Amtrak service from Washington to New York; they ride the somewhat slower but quite comfortable bus lines that are far cheaper. High-speed rail is an amenity for the business and professional elite; it’s not a form of mass transportation.

What can we expect from Washington?

We continue to speculate whether the new Congress is intent on a "claw-back;" that is, rescinding the awards made by the DOT, but not yet spent.  It's a high priority intention of John Mica, the Chair for the House Committee on Transportation.  That presumably would include the dollars earmarked for the Central Valley high-speed rail construction start, scheduled for 2012.  

Even if the House approves, the Senate won't.  It remains to be seen what actual impact House decisions will have.  I expect lengthy back-room negotiations over this between Dems. and Repubs.  Also, I have not yet learned if those HSR ARRA funds that have been awarded to the CHSRA are only "obligated" but not spent, or not. 

Our position here is that we certainly hope that this "recapture" can happen. If it reduces the possible work for the Central Valley to what the CHSRA is allowed to spend without federal dollars (and no matching Prop.1A dollars), it does not seem likely that construction can even begin.

However, even if such a rescission is not possible, the likelihood of further federal funding appears to be zero. While we don't want HSR construction to start building useless viaducts and tracks in Central Valley farmland which would be severely harmful to that environment (environmental protection indeed!), at least the harm will be contained.

The other issue is Public-Private Partnerships (P3).  Schwarzenegger had talked about this for HSR but it was only talk.  It's high on the Republican's list of conditions for high-speed rail and other infrastructure development. If I understand this, it means that there would be private investment in the capital development of a project that can be launched by either the government or a private consortium.  However, if the private sector isn't interested in high-speed rail, the government wouldn't be launching it.   

This has been a constant issue in the California rail plan; private investment.  The rail authority keeps promising private funding sources, but for private funds to appear, the California project would have to deliver not only on revenue surpluses, but a government guarantee as well.  While P3 appears plausible for future energy infrastructure projects, such as renewables, it does not look likely for the permanently deficit-based rail transit world, particularly high-speed rail.  After all, the major private railroad operators were delighted to relinquish their money-losing passenger services to Amtrak. The overseas private investor 'track record' is less than stellar.  

The only likely investors are the high-speed rail industries from HSR-operating countries overseas looking for huge and profitable contracts here in the States.  That raises the game to multi-national politics, balance of trade issues and similar global economic challenges and raises the politics of HSR to a foreign policy level. My own belief is that California won't be able to do this without Congressional and Administration approval.

==============================

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prdailynews/news.asp?id=25671

2/3/2011    

Legislation

APTA: Key committee members reveal plans for surface transportation reauthorization bill

A few key Congressional committee members have begun to reveal their plans for the next surface transportation authorization bill, according to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

Last week, in a series of meetings with transportation industry group leaders including APTA President William Millar, U.S. Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), chair of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, announced his commitment to drafting a full six-year bill in 2011 and outlined four key principles for the legislation, APTA officials said in a prepared statement.

According to APTA, Mica's four principles would:

• stabilize the Highway Trust Fund, ensuring spending would not exceed actual Trust Fund receipts;

• recapture unspent federal funds within the transportation program (although specific funds have not been identified, Mica has noted significant unobligated funds remain available throughout the federal transportation program that could supplement trust funding spending);

• leverage federal funds through public-private partnerships and other alternative financing mechanisms (Mica is interested in expanding current authorized programs that provide loan assistance and innovative financing, such as the Transportation Innovative Financing and Innovation Act and Building America Bonds. He also is open to new programs that encourage more private investment); and

• streamline programs and speed up project delivery to save costs.

Mica's goals for the legislation "are based on the premise that there will be no new resources available to increase trust fund revenues, and that the political climate is not favorable for a general increase in spending without budget offsets," APTA officials said.

In his own prepared statement, Mica said he plans to travel to more than a dozen U.S. locations this month, starting Feb. 14 in West Virginia, to hold hearings and listening sessions to gather ideas for the legislation. At least a dozen other sessions have been scheduled for Feb. 17-25, including a joint House-Senate hearing in Los Angeles with cooperation from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Boxer also has indicated that a surface transportation reauthorization bill is a top priority for her committee in the next few months, APTA said.

Meanwhile, APTA officials believe the Administration’s outlook on a bill will become clearer the week of Feb. 14, when the President Barack Obama submits his fiscal-year 2012 budget proposal to Congress.

The reports of HSR's demise have been greatly exaggerated

I'll be brief.  Frailey is writing this for Trains Magazine.  He is very pessimistic about the possibilities of HSR emerging as a reality in the US.  From our perspective I would say he's unduly optimistic.  I'm not that secure that Congress will terminate Obama's on-going HSR vision by de-funding it.  I can hope so, but I wouldn't bet on it.

My advice to all those who concur with the viewpoint expressed in this blog, is to keep up all your efforts to expose the fraudulent nature of this project in California, and point out the irrational financial picture being painted, like the Picture of Dorian Gray, is on the surface glossy and attractive, until time and exposure to the truth shows it for the corrupt and unprincipled creature that it is.

And, We hope he's right, but we disagree with Frailey that HSR is a "good idea." 

====================================

http://trn.trains.com/

Trains Magazine

March 2011 Issue

The curtain goes down on U.S. high speed rail

Poor execution dooms a good idea

By Fred W. Frailey

March, 2011

I'm going to go out on a limb -- but not a long one - and declare an end to the era of high-speed trains outside the Northeast Corridor, just two years after that era began. Yes, kaput. I am amazed how abruptly it ended, how enthusiasm and political backing for the $10.5 billion federal government program simply dissolved. Voters in the elections last November [2010] gave high speed rail no support at all. In two states, Wisconsin and Ohio, Republicans campaigning for governors vowed to stop the high-speed rail projects under way in their states and won.

But the collapse of support is not merely a partisan event. Bigger forces are in play. The execution of this idea was botched. Even if it hadn't been, there's no money. Huge federal deficits led to a voter backlash in 2010. Whether or not deficit spending helped the economy climb out of the Great Recession, people are alarmed.

They see how excessive debt led Greece and Ireland to the brink of national bankruptcy. Could it happen here, they ask? From now on, politicians will feel the heat to lower budget deficits and improve the government's balance sheet.

There are two ways to kill high-speed rail. One is for Congress to take back all of the economic stimulus and high-speed rail grants that the Treasury has not yet dispersed -- which is to say, practically all of the high- speed rail money. As of late 2010, a mere three projects had begun turning dirt to improve tracks. Those are in Illinois, Maine, and Vermont. 

Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., the new chair of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, wants to redirect unspent high-speed rail money into Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, where he feels it will do the most good. Other House Republican leaders want to return unspent money to the Treasury and not re-spend it.

Taking back appropriated funds is called a rescission, and it would drive a stake through the heart of high- speed rail, abruptly ending President Obama's initiative almost everywhere. But wouldn't the U.S. Senate, still controlled by Democrats, refuse to go along? I'm not sure. Bear in mind that in less than two years, 23 Senate seats now held by Democrats will be up for re-election, versus just 10 held by Republicans. In today's environment, fiscal austerity easily trumps passenger trains. If you doubt me, please note how few politicians are rallying behind high-speed rail, having seen its toxicity in last fall's elections. Imagine that funds for high speed rail become part of a big, omnibus package of rescissions. I could see the Senate going along. Then the onus would be on President Obama to affix his signature or be cast as a spendthrift before an angry electorate.

Maybe you don't think rescissions will succeed. OK, then high-speed rail will starve to death. High-speed rail will get no more than $1 billion from Congress in 2011, maybe less. Then what the feds haven't paid for, probably won't be paid for. California would be left to finance the unfunded $30 billion or so of its $43 billion-plus high-speed line from San Francisco to Southern California, which it obviously cannot; the state looks more and more like Greece. Also stranded would be Illinois, whose $4.4 billion project to run 16 110-mph trains a day between Chicago and St Louis is barely one-fourth funded. The votes not to spend more money on high-speed rail are there.

So any way you cut it, the high-speed show is over. The Onion satirizes that Obama will soon unveil a plan for high-speed buses instead. Next high-speed rail will probably become fodder for Jay Leno's  monologue. It's hard to recover from ridicule.

Many aspects of this saga were handled badly. Election results suggest that the public was never really won over. Plus, very few high-speed rail grants funded entire projects. Most paid for planning (such as state rail plans for Idaho and Colorado) and environmental studies, or at best the start of ambitious plans, such as in California and Illinois. By dividing the $10.5 billion pie into 107 slices, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood had something for almost everyone. 

But frankly, there was little to show for it.  Amtrak, which sorely needs money to improve the Northeast Corridor, wasn't even eligible to seek a high-speed rail grant.

The Federal Railroad Administration, the rail industry's safety cop, was unprepared for its new role as grant-giver. Enforcing safety, FRA adroitly plays the role of Big Foot. It tried to administer high-speed rail the same way, demanding that host railroads agree to onerous penalties for less-than-ideal train performance once improvements were in place; the railroads refused to go along. Agreements that could have been in place six and eight months ago are still being haggled over. Delay is murderous to public support.

And the cause wasn't helped when FRA gave the California High-Speed Rail Authority another $715 million in October, on the condition it be used quickly to build in the Central Valley district of an endangered Democratic congressman (he won in a recount). The Sacramento Bee is calling this first, 54-mile segment of the 800-mile California high speed rail system "the railroad to nowhere."

I don't know what could reverse the course. Obama could try to put high-speed rail back on track, but he would need more support from Democratic Party office holders than I think is forthcoming. And don't look for railroads to rush to the defense of bullet trains. "We're neutral," a Class I executive tells me.

The one undertaking that could benefit from all this is the Northeast Corridor, which cries for capital dollars. Priority 1 should be constant-tension catenary wires above the rails to enable 150-mph (instead of 135) running south of New York And 1976-era Amfleet cars beg to be replaced.

But high-speed rail, R.I.P.

Is Amtrak on the right track chasing HSR?

Al Engel is the recently hired head of high-speed rail for Amtrak.  I never heard of him, which tells you how much I have yet to learn about the high-speed rail business.  Let's just say, from what this article tells us, that Al and I see the Amtrak/HSR situation very differently.

The issue here goes beyond who builds high-speed trains in the US and in California.  The next question has to be, if built, who operates it?  Many of my colleagues believe that there ought to be an already identified operator involved in the planning and design of the train in California.  That's not happening.  The controlling politicians aren't very good at relinquishing authority and control over their pet money maker. 

You might think that it's going to be Amtrak, the government passenger rail agency, since they are the default inter-city passenger rail operator in the US.  Amtrak has been on the Congress subsidy life-line since their inception, receiving annual appropriations to supplement their farebox revenues.  

Regardless of their puffed-up claims of success, Amtrak does not have a good reputation.  And, although a national rail carrier, it's a deficit operation, run at a loss.  It's passenger to operating cost ratio is not good. Their highly touted record ridership gains still constitute a tiny fraction of the available market.

Parenthetically, Amtrak has had the contract to operate Caltrain's commuter service from the beginning of Caltrain over a decade ago.  It's hard to know how much Amtrak has been involved in decision-making with Caltrain, and what their role has been in bringing Caltrain to near bankruptcy.  We're getting a national picture of the power of Unions representing government employees, and Amtrak is part of that scenario.  Their costs to Caltrain have been huge.   Caltrain has been seeking to replace Amtak with a different, less costly train operator. While that's possible for Caltrain, it's not an option for the United States.

The further you get into this article, the more it appears that from Amtrak's point of view, high-speed rail is all about Amtrak's survival. The author, Tanya Snyder, raises the issue when she says, "But the banner projects are new, next-generation high-speed lines in places like Florida and California. Service on those lines is being opened up to competitive bidding. Will Amtrak be part of it? And if not, will the nation’s 40-year-old rail giant fade into irrelevance?"  Irrelevance? 

Is Amtrak relevant now? Does it meet America's needs for inter-city rail transit?  Actually this kind of rhetoric in the article sounds more like the description of a business model where only competition keeps an industry at the cutting edge and successful.  Is that an accurate description of Amtrak?  I don't think so.  I gather that Al Engel's position is that the best provider of HSR service will be Amtrak, the elephant in the living room, and therefore it is somehow entitled by virtue of its longevity and passenger monopoly to take over HSR, once built. Al, it would appear, is in the hyperbolic public relations business.

Let's make it clear here, that if it is Al Engel's ambition to be Mr. High-Speed Amtrak for the US, it will be -- the way Amtrak is now -- a deficit operation, but on a scale many orders of magnitude larger than currently.  It has been one of the central tenets of HSR critics that such enormously expensive  -- to build, operate and maintain -- HSR service, that massive and permanent subsidies will be required.  That's Amtrak's picture now and it is HSR's picture for their future.  Combine the two, it can only get worse, not better.  And that's why with or without Amtrak, the high-speed rail project in California is doomed; it won't be able to meet it's operating costs.

By the way, Engel's claim about "success" and revenue production, "in the NEC, he said, Amtrak turns a profit, recouping 121 percent of its expenses."  He can't mean the entire NEC Amtrak service.  With their high ticket costs, a 21% profit margin should not be so impressive.  But, given the inadequacy of Acela's service, relatively low ridership and slow travel times, 'profitability' becomes questionable.  After all, operating costs, labor, benefits, maintenance, etc. are very high. World-wide, with one or two exceptions, HSR is not surplus revenue producing. If every ticket is government subsidized, how can a carrier be generating 121% of operating expenses?

It makes you wonder what numbers are included and which ones are omitted in those calculations.  If the case is being made that Amtrak, the deficit service provider that must remain on a permanent government heart-lung machine, can change itself into a dazzling, profitable success by becoming the high-speed rail operator, I believe that we are being severely misled.

Even if high-speed rail were to be profitable (a notion rejected by most financial experts), that will not salvage our national passenger rail system from its doldrums.  The Chinese are discovering that for all their glorious high-speed rail construction achievements, the ticket costs (in this Communist country, mind you) are far too high for most of the population that earns an average of $5,000. per year.  

Similarly, most of the high-speed train riders in Germany, France or Spain are business types, who can deduct travel costs or have them paid by their employer (plus tourism, of course). None of their rail systems are profitable, especially the way that Al Engel claims profitability for Acela; they are all, directly or indirectly, government subsidized.

We cannot and we must not disregard capital development costs and the cost of such borrowing.  HSR, true HSR, as the article points out, requires dedicated rights of way.  That's far more expensive than merely upgrading current Amtrak passenger rail systems.  Acela has been using existing rail lines. If the NEC obtains true HSR service, completely new ROW will need to be bought and developed. Over 400 miles' worth.  Just imagine the number of bridges.  They are already talking $117 billion development costs.  

That's like the situation in California and that's why there is so much trouble here.  Even use of existing ROW, such as the Caltrain corridor on the Peninsula, turns out to be far more costly than anticipated. 

Amtrak, so desperate to be a survivor and player in the next generation of HSR passenger service, has a lot of history to overcome.  Blending high-speed rail into the mix won't improve their results.  I have a mental picture of a tow-truck being stuck in the mud, trying to extricate a 200 mph racing car.

High-Speed Rail. Government built, government owned, government operated.  I don't think so. 

===================================

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/02/02/what-will-become-of-amtrak-if-it’s-left-out-of-plans-to-expand-hsr

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

What Will Become of Amtrak If It’s Left Out of Plans to Expand HSR?

by Tanya Snyder on February 2, 2011

When President Obama and Secretary LaHood talk about their bold new vision for high-speed rail, you don’t hear them mention the country’s very own train company, which just celebrated ten years of providing the closest thing this country has to high-speed rail service, in the Northeast Corridor.

The administration has doled out $10.5 billion so far for rail improvements around the country. Some of that is going to existing rail lines that Amtrak runs, such as the Cascade service in the Pacific Northwest, which is using federal funds to improve on-time performance, increase frequency of service, improve signaling, and slowly increase top speeds.

But the banner projects are new, next-generation high-speed lines in places like Florida and California. Service on those lines is being opened up to competitive bidding. Will Amtrak be part of it? And if not, will the nation’s 40-year-old rail giant fade into irrelevance?

Florida is expected to issue a call for bids any day now (assuming Governor Rick Scott doesn’t decide, in the end, to kill the project like his colleagues in Wisconsin and Ohio). The state only represents a prospective 2.4 million riders a year (compared with about 13 million on the NEC) but it’s enormously significant because Florida and California are the only new lines projected to run passenger rail service on dedicated tracks – not competing with freight trains.

Where intercity passenger trains compete with freight – in most of the country these days, excluding the NEC – “Amtrak can only run a handful of trains per day because they’re leasing space on a freight railroad that doesn’t keep the schedules,” said Petra Todorovich, an expert on high-speed rail with the nonprofit America 2050. “When [freight trains] fill up their cargo from the yard, then they leave the yard. So Amtrak is trying to run passenger trains on a schedule on tracks that are owned by a railroad that doesn’t keep a schedule.”

That’s why rail service in much of the country has been infrequent and unreliable and has been in a poor position to compete with private automobiles or air travel. Amtrak continues to run those lines as a public service, in many cases mandated by Congress – but they’re not profitable or efficient.

So a dedicated track for passenger rail in Florida and California presents a unique opportunity for rail to show off what it can do for other parts of the country, which haven’t historically had world-class train service.

Amtrak has teamed with French National Railway Corporation (SNCF), in partnership with Bechtel, to offer a bid to design, build, operate, maintain and finance the Florida line.

Amtrak recently brought on Al Engel, a leader in the field, to lead its new high-speed rail division. Todorovich says his hire, along with the creation of the division, sent a message that “Amtrak is going to go after these opportunities.”

“Amtrak is certainly disappointed that we aren’t a factor that’s built into every corridor,” Engel told Streetsblog, “because we do operate passenger services in Florida, and California is our second largest market. It would be unfortunate if a state had to proceed without the benefit of Amtrak’s involvement.”

Still, Engel says Amtrak is in a good position to win the contracts for the new high-speed lines. He points to Acela’s 10-year anniversary of “successfully operating and growing the market for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor.”

“We work with 16 different unions and deliver a very popular service, and our ridership statistics show that,” Engel told Streetsblog. “All that experience of working with labor, the operating equipment, the reservation systems, the marketing, all the different aspects of providing a successful passenger rail service in the United States – we can bring all that strength and all that experience to Florida, or California, or the Midwest.”

He added that Amtrak also has decades of experience working with the regulators at the FRA.

Amtrak’s critics have long said that the company is a money pit for federal funds. Republicans recently proposed (again) to eliminate funding for Amtrak. But Engel says it’s not a fair criticism.

“You have to compare different modes on an equal basis, which is never done. The aviation system is heavily subsidized,” Engel said. “We’re providing routes that are desired by those in leadership positions. We also are operating with agreements that were statutorily established in terms of our labor and the routes that we provide.” Besides, in the NEC, he said, Amtrak turns a profit, recouping 121 percent of its expenses.

Malcolm Kenton of the National Association of Railroad Passengers agrees that the Amtrak gets a bad rap.

“My view is that they have been under this survivor mentality – I mean, you can’t do a good long-range plan if you don’t know how much money you’re going to get year after year. You can only plan as far out as one year unless there’s a multi-year authorization.” The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 funded Amtrak though 2013, alleviating some of the problem Kenton referred to – for the time being.

Kenton says Amtrak is in a good position to compete for the high-speed rail contracts because of their long experience operating in the United States, their good relationships with the railroads, and the economy of scale. But he welcomes competition from other companies around the globe.

“If there’s competition to bring the fares down and for better customer service, that would be good for the passenger,” Kenton says. On the other hand, though, it could be detrimental “if the other operators don’t work with Amtrak on cross ticketing, so you wouldn’t be able to book through-tickets to a place that’s only served by a non-Amtrak line.”

The stimulus money for high-speed rail will create jobs and build needed rail improvements in this country, no matter who builds it. But if Amtrak runs it, it could help strengthen the struggling public company by adding new lines that are generating significant buzz.

But will Amtrak survive if it doesn’t nab these high-speed routes? Certainly Amtrak is going to fight hard for the chance to run them, but Engel didn’t seem to think it was an existential question. And he’s still hopeful that much of the federal money will find its way to Amtrak. He wouldn’t engage in “forecasting” but he said that while Amtrak was in a good position to compete in Florida, “California is going to play out very differently than Florida.”

NARP’s Kenton isn’t burying Amtrak just yet. “For the foreseeable future, they’ll have a lock on the long-distance national network trains which will tie these other corridors together by rail and provide an alternative to driving and flying even over long distances,” he said.

Engel said that even if the team Amtrak has put together in Florida isn’t victorious, Amtrak could still be brought on to help the winning team. And other observers see a role for Amtrak in partnering, at least, with whatever rail operator ends up running the lines.

And of course, billions of high-speed rail dollars are aimed at shoring up existing mid-speed corridors already operated by Amtrak, which will continue to be operated by Amtrak. Dramatically improved service on lines that have been long left for dead will arguably do as much to raise Amtrak’s profile as the headline-grabbing high-speed lines elsewhere.

When predicting HSR's future turns out correctly

Because this more than a year old article, below, was cited in another new article,  I'm bringing it back here because Robert Goodspeed did a splendid research job and laid out the facts that make a compelling argument against high-speed rail.


What's valuable about this article is its predictive power.  After all, this is over a year later and we can see what happened to ARRA funding awards (not yet resolved, actually), and how well the process is going in California.


I'm a fan of irony.  Here's some.  In 2009, Karen Rae,the FRA Administrator, was laying out some ground rules for dispersing federal funds. She said, "We're not going to build rails to nowhere."  Did you get that?  Amazingly, what the CHSRA is promising to build in the Central Valley is the first section of the first two segments of the intended 400 miles of high-speed rail.  That's what they want us to believe. 


What we're actually getting is a train from nowhere to nowhere.  Realistically, what are the chances for more funding to go beyond their current plans to lay around 100 miles of track for Amtrak use?  You would think from their posturing that they are the Pharaoh Cheops ordering the first row of 2.3 million limestone blocks for the Great Pyramid.  They wish!

Robert Goodspeed (a wonderful name appropriate for this topic) makes the point that it is not only the lack of funding that will impose terminal restrictions on this project, but also the lack of technical knowledge (which we must import) and "our troubled infrastructure planning and delivery systems."  

Let's look at that a moment.  In these blogs we have been making the point that this California project is a solution looking for problems. There has been no prior strategic planning for California's entire transportation situation and future needs.  In that sense, HSR came out of nowhere, like a personal whim of a handful of back-room politicians. "Wouldn't it be great to build a high-speed rail up and down California?  We'll come up with the reasons later."  That's not good enough.  There is no transportation context, not overarching policies, that address the movement of people and goods in our state.

Any transportation plan that does not incorporate the "big picture," including highway transit of automobiles, trucks and buses, and commercial aviation, both people and freight, as well as rail, is grossly incomplete.  Instead, the rail authority pits its modality, HSR, against these other transportation modes, seeking to replace them. What about major upgrades to existing rail? Not important. 

What are the strategic plans for urban and regional public mass commuter transit in our major population regions?  What are our priorities in the moving of people and goods insofar as they do or don't impinge on economic growth plans?  What are our freight priorities and should they be subservient to passenger movement?

This is not only shortsighted, but suggests the realities behind this HSR project as purely politically motivated pork; seeking, getting and spending other peoples' money regardless of the outcome.  

The state operates a number of fragmented, discreet systems of transit that lack basic coordination to the point of conflict.  So, I ask again, what is the transit/transportation context into which this high-speed rail is intended to be a key component?  Where are those plans? And, most important, where are the solidly based priorities?  Should inter-city rail dominate urban and regional mass transit? (Our answer to that question is an emphatic no.)

At the end of his article, Goodspeed drives home the point about all the existing shortcomings that will guarantee a failure of this proposed project in California, and the HSR vision for the United States.  In comparing the HSR development process in France to ours, he says:

"In the U.S. on the other hand, government agencies act both as project designers and boosters, relegating other stakeholders to reactionary roles as outsiders who rely on lawsuits to pursue their interests. In addition, our government agencies are also lacking in competent planners and administrators who specialize in rail. In the end, dysfunctional planning processes and weak planning capacity may result in avoidable cost overruns. Overcoming these obstacles may prove even more challenging than finding the historically elusive political will."

If Goodspeed is talking about anybody, it's us.  Remember, this was written over a year ago. Realities have come to prove him correct.

=================================

http://www.planetizen.com/node/41658

The Future of American High Speed Rail: Regional and Slow

Robert Goodspeed

Fri, 11/13/2009 - 09:04

During his dramatic presentation last April, President Barack Obama laid out a bold vision for high speed rail in America. Wielding a stylish red, white, and blue map (below) he presented the proposed corridors for new high speed trains. (Similar, if not identical, to plans long sitting on the shelf at the Federal Railway Administration.) He asked Americans to "Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination." In reality limited funds, our dysfunctional planning processes, and the historical lack of investment in rail will mean the U.S. will most likely end up with a diverse collection of regional rail systems that may not go that fast.

Americans that have visited Europe or Asia have likely experienced modern high speed rail systems. France's TGV system, the product of decades of upgrades and improvements to the existing passenger rail system, now extends from the Chunnel to Marseille by way of Paris. 

Spain's rapidly growing AVE train network is credited by the Guardian with transforming traditionally provincial Spanish society with trains topping out at over 180 mph. China is famously pursuing an aggressive plan to expand their high speed rail network. Siemens considers the new service inaugurated between Moscow and St. Petersburg in Russia a testing ground for technology they hope to sell in America, which the Siemens spokesman quipped is "like a developing country in terms of rail" during an on-board interview with the New York Times.

Will our system look anything like these? The answer, as transportation wonks already know, is no. Even the $8 billion appropriated by the stimulus is a small portion of the funds required to implement even a portion of Obama's plan. This became painfully obvious at a briefing sponsored by the Rappaport Institute I attended recently, where Federal Railway Administration Administrator Karen Rae described how they viewed the $8 billion a modest sum to invest strategically in the rail network, sometimes for trains running well below Obama's 100 mph goal. 

In fact, the High Speed Rail Strategic Plan released in April includes not only new high speed service with top speeds over 150 mph, but also investment in "emerging and regional" services with top speeds of 90-110 mph, and upgrade reliability and services on "conventional" intercity rail services with speeds up to 79-90 mph. In response to the ARRA call for proposals, the Federal Railway Administration announced in October they received an "overwhelming" 45 applications, saying they would delay announcement of winners beyond the announced goal of November to sometime "this winter."

What high speed rail should Americans expect? With significant bond funds approved by voters and serious planning underway, the California high speed rail plans seem a likely recipient of some of the funds. The Chicago region, with engaged stakeholders and a rich tradition of rail is another likely candidate.

Despite hopefully boosters, the other corridors, such as Pacific Northwest, Florida, New England, and Texas, seem less likely for high speed rail in the near future. Despite political leaders who don't want to be left out in cities in Arizona or Utah, Rae mentioned another important variable to a reporter in October: "We're not going to build rails to nowhere." In addition to having a local plan, high speed rail will work best when it can integrate with cities with well developed public transit networks at either end. Transportation planners know the "last mile" connections can play a critical role in determining whether riders will choose rail over other options -- such as driving or flying. 

Ironically, the California system is demonstrating the biggest problems for high speed rail in the U.S. may not be our lack of technical knowledge but our troubled infrastructure planning and delivery system. Disputes about alignments in California have already spawned lawsuits. Maybe beyond ogling their trains, we should study how our foreign counterparts resolve conflicts about system design. In one case study I read about planning a TGV line in France, the government convened a "debate" bringing together the stakeholders before choosing an alignment or other technical details. 

In the U.S. on the other hand, government agencies act both as project designers and boosters, relegating other stakeholders to reactionary roles as outsiders who rely on lawsuits to pursue their interests. In addition, our government agencies are also lacking in competent planners and administrators who specialize in rail. In the end, dysfunctional planning processes and weak planning capacity may result in avoidable cost overruns. Overcoming these obstacles may prove even more challenging than finding the historically elusive political will.

Robert Goodspeed is a PhD student at the MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning.

The views expressed are solely those of the author, and do not represent the views of any group or organization that he or she is affiliated with unless clearly stated, nor the views of Planetizen.

Mica Transportation Committee hearings are coming to a neighborhood near you

As we all know by now, John Mica, Republican Congressman from Florida, is the Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.  Apparently, they are going to hold field hearings, going to where the people are.  That means, they are coming to Fresno (closest to us in the Bay Area) February 21,22, or 23rd.

We appreciate the importance of Fresno since it is in the middle of the intended first section of rail to be built for the California High-Speed Rail project.  

Thank you, good colleague and mentor Gary Patton, for this valuable information.

I do have a little problem with seeking to have Congressman Mica hear our critical voices, since the DC.STREETSBLOG.ORG points out that "witnesses must be invited to speak."  I'll try to find out more about that.

A few words about what I think is going on in Washington. The Democrats, following Obama's lead, support the high-speed rail vision although they don't have a clue to how to pay for it.  The Republicans don't want high-speed rail because it is Obama's vision and will cost gobs of money the government doesn't have. 

As you know, Washington talks black and white, but in practice blends extremes.  Both Democrats and Republicans appear to agree that if any high-speed rail is to be built at all, it ought to be in the Northeast Corridor, between Boston and Washington.

There are lots of reasons for that which we will discuss in a future blog entry. If this plan became a decision, it puts a grandiose multi-trillion dollar national fantasy on hold.  This one corridor in the Northeast alone is projected to cost more than $100 billion. We already can predict that whatever they say are to be the costs, we can double or triple that amount.  But, never mind.  

I gather this would mean no HSR funding for any other part of the country.  Will the Republicans find that acceptable? Will the California Democrats, like Feinstein and Boxer? Will we? We'll have to wait and see.

###

Subject: Federal Transportation Hearings in Fresno & Southern CA

The hearings are coming!  The hearings are coming!  The <http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/01/28/ti-committee-announces-field-hearing-schedule/>federal transportation hearings that Chairman John Mica is holding across the nation will be touching down in California at the end of the month, specifically in Fresno. 

This bulletin came to me from the “PRO” HSR folks, who will be trying to get their troops out in force. Obviously, Congress Member Mica would be happy to hear some critical voices.

###

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/01/28/ti-committee-announces-field-hearing-schedule/

Friday, January 28, 2011

Schedule for Transpo Bill Listening Tour Announced

by Tanya Snyder on January 28, 2011

More committee news…

Field hearings don't have the pomp and circumstance of Washington events, but don't expect to testify unless you're invited. 

Yesterday’s field hearing (Jan.27) of the House Transportation Committee on high-speed rail in New York City wasn’t officially part of the series of field hearings on the reauthorization. The tentative schedule hits small towns, big cities, and suburbs:

•February 14th – West Virginia (Ranking Democrat Nick Rahall’s home state)

•February 17th – Philadelphia area (Republican committee freshmen Patrick Meehan and Lou Barletta are from the area, as is Democratic T&I member Tim Holden)

•February 18th – Rochester, NY (freshman Republican Tom Reed’s district and not too far for some of Richard Hanna’s constituents)

•February 19-20 – Columbus, Ohio, Indianapolis, and suburbs of Chicago (within reach of four Republican members’ districts and one Democrat)

•February 21-23 – Portland, OR; Vancouver, WA; Fresno and Southern California (reaching four Republican districts and two Democrat)

The hearings may be focused on specific topics, which haven’t been announced yet. Witnesses must be invited to speak.

###

There's a lot of nonsense and political posturing described in this article, below.  You can easily separate the wheat from the chaff.  The central issue, however is critical and we've discussed this already in prior blog entries.  

Will the Northeast corridor be the compromise between the two parties as they clash over high-speed rail?   Please understand that the costs will be mind-blowingly high and there is no funding source identified by anybody, including the President whose vision this is.

Those of us in California should exercise caution in advocating this alternative to funding all the other corridors, including the one in California.  Do we want to be state NIMBYs?  Go ahead and build it, but not in my state? Are we OK  with this plan when this project imposes the same destruction to every village, town and city it passes through between Boston and Washington, just as we fear it here?  

I can't resolve that moral dilemma for you.  My own position is adamant.  No high-speed rail in the US.  Before this century is out, it will be an obsolete technology.  The greatest waste of the greatest amount of money since Napoleon tried and failed to conquer Russia.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/01/27/mica-touts-public-private-northeast-corridor-hsr-in-grand-central-hearing/

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Mica Touts Public-Private Northeast Corridor HSR In Grand Central Hearing

by Noah Kazis on January 27, 2011

Sitting beneath the famous zodiac mural of Grand Central’s main concourse, with the rumble of commuters and trains in the background, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held its first field hearing of the new session this morning. The topic was the future of high-speed rail on the Northeast Corridor.

Chairman John Mica led the committee’s Republicans towards what appears to be their emerging message on high-speed rail: they’re for it, so long as it’s built through public-private partnerships and largely limited to the dense Boston-Washington corridor.

High-speed rail advocates and some Democrats seem to think the re-prioritization of the Northeast Corridor could be a good thing, though other Democrats remain committed to the Obama administration vision of a nationwide network. Disagreements over the proper roles of the public and private sectors, however, were somewhat more partisan and contentious.

The call to prioritize the Northeast Corridor — and therefore to stop spreading high speed rail dollars across the nation — earned support from across the political spectrum in the hearing, perhaps not surprising given the heavy representation of northeastern representatives.

Pennsylvania Republican Bill Shuster, who chairs the Railroads Subcommittee, called himself a strong rail supporter but attacked the Obama administration’s strategy so far. “There’s no better way to move large numbers of people than passenger rail and high-speed rail,” he said, telling the story of how improved service on Pennsylvania’s Keystone corridor had convinced him to ride the rails instead of driving. But, he continued, Obama “took that stimulus money and spread it too thinly across the nation.” He said that the President’s State of the Union promise to bring high-speed rail to 80 percent of Americans by 2036 was simply unrealistic and that starting on the Northeast Corridor would be smarter.

Across the aisle, New York City Representative Jerry Nadler agreed that high-speed rail spending shouldn’t be too diffuse, though he didn’t specifically criticize past administration spending. Americans need to be able to see something for their money, he argued.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, both witnesses at the hearing in their positions as co-chairs of the infrastructure advocacy organization Building America’s Future, agreed that future rail dollars needed to be more narrowly targeted. “We need to get real,” said Rendell. “The way we’re doing high-speed rail right now in America will amount to nothing.” The small amount that his state received, he argued, “was done just to say that we gave Pennsylvania some money, so that Senator Specter and Casey can’t be too mad.” (The rail dollars were allocated while Arlen Specter was still in office and before he was replaced by arch-conservative Pat Toomey, who is against federal funding for high-speed rail.)

Not everyone agreed that focusing on a few routes, and the Northeast Corridor in particular, makes sense, however. Ranking member Nick Rahall said in his opening statement that a national rail network ought to remain the focus. “After all,” the West Virginia Democrat said,” it was a national vision that led to the creation of the world’s most advanced highway and aviation networks.”

While there is surely a regional divide at work, it wasn’t a pure split. Ohio Republican Bob Gibbs praised his state’s new governor for killing its high-speed rail program but said that it might make more sense in the northeast, where air traffic is snarled with congestion and transit already feeds into rail stations.

Building a high-speed rail line along the Northeast Corridor carries some particular challenges. First, the lack of an environmental impact statement has stalled improvements so far, according to Petra Todorovich of America 2050. That spurred calls from some committee Republicans, including Highways and Transit Subcommittee Chair John Duncan (R-TN), to ease environmental laws.

High-speed rail advocates seemed open to at least speeding up the environmental review process. Todorovich said her group is asking Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to expedite an EIS for the corridor. Rendell agreed that the slow speed of the process will “drive you crazy” and suggested it could be faster.

Additionally, building high-speed rail through eight different states and the District of Columbia requires a high level of political coordination. Todorovich suggested the creation of a new public authority to cross state lanes.

Even as the committee debated where to prioritize high-speed rail, it also tackled the question of how and by whom it should be built. Although Amtrak has a $117 billion plan to build true high-speed rail along the Northeast Corridor by 2040, Mica said that “Amtrak will never be capable of developing the corridor to its full potential.” The complex challenges of building the route, he said, “can only be addressed with the help of private sector expertise.”

Rahall, in contrast, defended Amtrak, which he called “one of America’s greatest assets.” Only now, with increased funding over the last two years, is Amtrak financially stable enough to turn its attention to the kind of big ideas included in its Northeast Corridor Plan.

Rep. Corrine Brown, the Florida Democrat who serves as ranking member on the Railroads Subcommittee, tried to focus attention on Amtrak’s chronic underfunding. “We’ve invested a lot of money in the highway system: $1.3 trillion,” said Brown. 

“Just $6 billion or $7 billion in passenger rail.” And under Bush, she said, “every budget that arrived to Congress was zeroed out for Amtrak.”

Of course, the debates over public-private partnerships and over prioritizing the Northeast Corridor can’t be completely separated. Because the Northeast Corridor already turns a profit and has a large ridership, said United State High Speed Rail Association VP Thomas Hart, it’s the route most attractive to the private sector.

High-Speed Rail is no Dutch treat.

"Look at all the great high-speed trains in Europe," they said.  

"Look at all their profitability," they said.  

"Look how great their ridership is and how they are breaking ridership records," they said

"We will never come back to the voters for more funding," they said.
"Build it, and they will come," they said. 

Well, here's a little cold water on all that Europe-envy. As Bent Flyvbjerg has researched and written about, all railroad projects go way over budget and produce far fewer riders than they initially claim.   The Eurotunnel ridership, for example,  is still millions less than originally predicted.

Here's my favorite sentence from this article because it is so reassuring:

"There is currently no danger of immediate bankruptcy. To ensure continuity of service for the travellers, the HSA will operate the trains at the expense of the state should the company risk bankruptcy."
This is the lesson for us in California today.

================================

REUTERS

Dutch high-speed rail faces financial woes 

 http://reut.rs/ihwtnk/ 

By Greg Roumeliotis

AMSTERDAM | Tue Feb 1, 2011 1:19pm EST

Feb 1 (Reuters) - The Dutch high-speed train operator could face eventual bankruptcy unless steps are taken to boost its viability, after little more than a year of full services, infrastructure minister Melanie Schultz van Haegen said.

Parliament debated the fate of the services on Tuesday after Schultz van Haegen wrote in a letter to members that train operator High Speed Alliance (HSA) faced a serious deficit.

A high-speed rail line linking Brussels to Amsterdam opened to great fanfare in December 2009 but the service has struggled to attract enough domestic passengers, travelling to and from the south of the Netherlands, to pay for its access charges.

HSA is 95 percent owned by state-owned railway NS and airline KLM (AIRF.PA) has a 5 percent stake.

"Given the situation, action on my part is necessary," Schultz van Haegen wrote, adding that operational profits at HSA are substantially lower that those envisaged due to fewer domestic passengers than originally projected.

"There is currently no danger of immediate bankruptcy. To ensure continuity of service for the travellers, the HSA will operate the trains at the expense of the state should the company risk bankruptcy. So that I have time to find a solution, I will approach this process carefully," she added.

An HSA spokeswoman said discussions were continuing with the Dutch government on finding a solution.

Governments across Europe have seized on high-speed rail as a sustainable, environmentally friendly alternative to air and road travel, which can also help to stimulate economic activity through capital spending.

But luring passengers is key. Some of HSA's trains travel with just 15 percent of their seats occupied, Dutch broadcaster NOS reported on Monday. HSA has slashed from February the premium that domestic passengers have to pay to travel on high-speed trains by more than half.

High-speed train operators have to pay hefty access charges across Europe, often because they have to allow for cross-border travel where different types of technology are used on the tracks, pushing up costs.

Europe's high-speed rail network is dominated by Rail Team, a marketing coalition of national rail operators, posing a challenge as an established incumbent to private companies aspiring to enter the market. (editing by David Stamp)

INDUSTRIALS