In 2009, Congress passed the ARRA act, calling for major infrastructure improvements which would lead to high speed rail in the U.S. Shortly after enactment, the Federal Railroad Administration held a series of public conferences to explain the program and what it would do, and what it wouldn’t do. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) conference for the Midwest was held in Kansas City, MO. Key points were:

1. States which applied for funds had to show a continuing commitment to passenger train service.
2. Applications would be graded on an objective basis to eliminate charges of political influence.

MARP warned several Michigan legislators that the practice of partial-year state funding for the Amtrak Blue Water and Pere Marquette (which had been done for several years, with supplemental funding when the first tranche was exhausted) would not be acceptable to FRA. The legislature went ahead with partial year funding anyway, and many were stunned to find that FRA had denied all Michigan applications.

1. Efforts to reduce the impact of sequestration on the Pentagon by increasing the magnitude of cuts for other programs.
   
   
2. Flexibility in application of the 7.8%. If it applies only to the transportation/housing appropriations subcommittee’s overall total, the subcommittee almost certainly would hit some programs harder in order, for example, to protect the Federal Aviation Administration, which is being forced to “lay off more than 2,000 employees…close 246 air traffic control contract towers.” The 7.8% cut applied across-the-board also would “cause significant delays of FAA’s NextGen program which is needed to modernize an already aging air traffic control system.” See House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers’ (R-KY) “failure-is-not-an-option” letter of October 14 to the supercommittee (FAA paragraphs are on page 6). Particularly given the amount of new equipment authorized (both Amtrak’s orders already placed and planned orders for California and Midwest states), it would appear that Amtrak will have to fight hard just to be exempt from the hunt for “offsets” to protect the FAA.
   
   
3. If funding for 2013 remains unresolved by November, the outcome of the elections could bring an even darker future for Amtrak, considering the statements that some candidates have made.

Our partners at the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) have developed a handy document called Inventory of the Criticisms of High-Speed Rail with Suggested Responses and Counterpoints. These can be applied not just to “true” high-speed rail projects like California’s, but also to as-important undertakings to make existing trains faster, more reliable and more frequent.

The common theme found throughout the document—one on which NARP and all our partners have been focusing our rhetoric—is that, while rail projects may look costly now, it will cost a lot more to accomplish (or leave unaccomplished) the same mobility and economic development goals later by other means later on. Remember: the purpose of transportation systems is not to be profit centers on their own, but to serve as the the bloodstream that keeps the rest of the economy going.

Criticism of passenger train development tends to focus on the fact that it won’t be profitable and will require ongoing subsidies. The returns on investment in modern passenger trains won’t be seen in the form of profits for their operators, but rather in the form of increased economic activity and profits for other businesses in the areas the trains serve—not to mention a cleaner environment, a better quality of life, and easier, safer, more affordable mobility for the people living in those areas.

The Midwest High-Speed Rail Association has launched a Downtown Airport campaign to Chicago Union Station to make sure that the modernization efforts currently being planned are ambitious enough to accommodate the station’s projected growth:

Union Station is a critical transportation asset to Chicago and the entire region. Its serves more passengers every year than Midway Airport – yet it fits neatly within two city blocks in the center of the city. It has the impact of an airport right downtown.

Every year, more than 15 million passengers board Amtrak and Metra trains at the station to reach their jobs, attend important business meetings or take their vacations.

With high-speed trains, that number would double.

They’re asking advocates to write Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel to encourage him to back a truly transformative plan to bring Chicago Union Station into the 21st Century. 

“I understand that the budget and spending need to be curtailed but in doing so, wouldn’t the best plan… be in putting the money where it does the most good?”

The thrust of her comment seems to be: in a time of limited revenue, the government should focus on projects that move the country forward on multiple national objectives.

NARP agrees with the assessment, and it’s a viewpoint we’ve consistently pushed in our advocacy work. 

Amtrak is 31.2% more efficient than automobiles, 33.5 % more efficient than personal trucks, and 13.8% more efficient than airplanes (on a Btu per passenger mile basis).  Passenger trains decrease U.S. dependency on foreign oil and reduce the emission of harmful pollutants into the air.  Intercity rail, properly connected to public transit systems, creates walkable streets and livable neighborhoods. Train travel is far safer than driving; motor vehicle accidents killed more than 32,000 people in 2010, and is the leading cause of death for Americans between the ages of 3 and 33.  And constructing a high-speed train network would revitalize the U.S. passenger rail manufacturing industry, which declined in the decades following the construction of the federally-financed Interstate Highway System.

Congestion [Image: Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz Mariordo]

So building passenger rail fulfills not just transportation goals, but environmental, social, safety, and national defense goals as well.  Why not invest?

The answer seems to be as conceptual, as much as anything.  Here’s an excerpt from a piece we posted in November looking at the relative costs of different modes of transportation:

Using the relative government transportation budgets as a jumping off point, David C. compares the relative efficiency of the $1.6 billion spent on Amtrak (FY 2010) and the $96.4 billion spent on highways (FY 2007):

Amtrak’s federal grant, constituting just 0.05% of federal spending in 2010, is once again under attack. Its critics perennially point to the railroad’s 24¢ per passenger mile (ppm) government subsidy, compare it to the 2¢ ppm direct subsidy for driving, and call Amtrak a waste.

Comparing these direct subsidies, though, tells only part of the story. When indirect subsidies are considered, Amtrak’s total subsidy comes out to a little less than 44¢ ppm, but motoring’s subsidy rises up to almost 5645¢ ppm.

By “indirect subsidies”, David C. is referring to costs not directly covered by drivers, such as air pollution, traffic congestion, and a certain percentage of the cost of car accidents (anything not covered by driver’s insurance policy)—to name a few of many.

Now, “externalities” are difficult to build an argument around.  Rather than a simple bullet point, we’re asking undecided readers to let us deconstruct their world view and replace it with something more complicated and difficult to understand.  It’s an easy task for critics of Amtrak to say “taxpayers subsidize each train ticket on X route by Y dollars.”  It’s much harder to explain why policy dictating that every department store have X square feet of dedicated parking per Y square foot of retail space is making their purchases Z more expensive.  Or figure out the dollars and cents cost to increased instances of asthma found in children who live near highways—and are thus exposed to higher concentrations of vehicle exhaust.

Understanding the ways passenger trains benefit our communities requires work.  Understanding the ways over-reliance on roads is hurting the U.S. also takes work.  That’s why it’s important for advocates of a smart transportation system do the work, and help others to understand the indirect costs associated with our travel decisions.  Only by educating the general public about the real cost of transportation will we get the most bang for our buck.

The California High Speed Rail Authority responded immediately with harsh condemnation of the group’s study, questioning their fundamental understanding of how high-speed rail systems are built throughout the world.

California Law AB 3034 mandated creation of an eight-member Peer Review Group with a different California official responsible for appointing each member; the group currently has six members, two slots are open. The document’s central criticism seems to be that the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA) has failed to secure funds to cover the projects $74.5 billion final cost:

We cannot overemphasize the fact that moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize independent utility and value to the State, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk on the part of the State of California.

CAHSRA was quick to point out that no large project of any stripe—rail, road, or otherwise—is held to this strict standard.  They argued that the plan created by the Authority was in line with best practices for high-speed rail systems built around the world.

Roelof van Ark, chief executive of CAHSRA, wrote, “It is unfortunate that the peer review committee has delivered a report to the Legislature that is deeply flawed in its understanding of the authority’s program and the experience around the world in successfully developing high-speed rail.  As someone involved in many of the successful high-speed rail programs internationally, I can say that the recommendations of this committee simply do not reflect a real world view of what it takes to bring such projects to fruition.”

There was also the implication that this report could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  The more doubt that legislators cast upon their willingness to go forward with the project, the more skittish the U.S. Congress and private investors get about supporting the project.  Another peer review committee commissioned by the Authority to review its work—made up of engineers, transportation planners, and economists—had in fact already deemed the ridership model a solid foundation for project planning just this summer, with this to say about CAHSRA’s business plan:

“We are satisfied with the documentation presented in Cambridge Systematics, and conclude that it demonstrates that the model produces results that are reasonable and within expected ranges for the current environmental planning and Business Plan applications of the model.  We were very pleased with the content, quality and quantity of the information.”

As for the political implications of the new peer review group study, Robert Cruickshank has this to say over at the California High Speed Rail Blog:

There’s no doubt that the lack of secured, full funding is a problem. The question is how does one resolve it? Do you assume that the federal government will never spend another dime on high speed rail again and call it a day? Or do you press onward and build what you can, working to change Congress’ mind while also hoping that the initial construction can itself act as a spur to win more funding?

…

There’s no doubt this report will be used by HSR critics in Sacramento and Washington to argue against spending the bond money. But they’ll have to fight Governor Brown, President Obama, California’s Democratic Congressional delegation, and the California Labor Federation.

Mr. Cruikshank may well be right, but we’d be remiss not to come up with a full tally of the opponents lined up and ready to fight this project.  You can be certain that when an issue becomes as politicized as high-speed rail has—and when a project is as big as this one is—there will no shortage of willing combatants. 

None of this is to say the legislature should not be closely involved with the project; overseeing the prudent investment of public funds is one of the highest responsibilities of government officials.  But there is an inconsistency in the way the Los Angeles to San Francisco rail corridor is being treated, as compared to other transportation expenditures.  And the legislators involved are certainly on the hook to consider the cost of the alternatives: the cost of more congestion, more roads, and more airports and runways.  The current estimates put that cost at as much as $171 billion, for an additional 2,300 lane-miles of highways, 4 runways, and 115 airline gates.

Honolulu nearly had its transit system twice before. The first time was back in the 1970s when the federal government was not just willing, but eager to pick up 90 percent of the cost. On both occasions, however, the project died, falling just one vote short on the City Council.

It does indeed look as though we will finally get our transiit system this time, but we’re still trying to deal with the same kind of hysterical opposition that is battering the high-speed rail project in California. It’s been coming from the anti-government ideologues, from out-of-power politicians using the issue to attack incumbents, from shockingly misguided environmentalists, and various others.

As diverse as these groups and individuals may be, they do have one thing in common: none has offered any serious alternative transportation solutions for moving an expanding population in the decades ahead. Still, it does appear that the third time will be the charm and Honolulu will finally break ground for the rail project sometime in the next several months.

“You’re talking about 13, 14 hundred dollars a year, doldrums that it is,” Papp explained to WABC-TV reporters.

You can read more about the cuts on NARP’s Hotline #738.

This reflects a growing and highly evident preference for urban living amongst those of us of the next generation, combined with the increasing prevalence of teenagers waiting longer to get their first driver’s license, once considered a rite of passage into adulthood. “Millennials” such as myself would rather not be tied to needing a car to get everywhere, along with the stress, danger and great expense driving entails. Being able to use electronics or read while traveling, having easy access to a multitude of activities, and being able to enjoy bars and parties without worrying about getting behind the wheel afterwards are all good reasons to live in a place where a car is not a necessity.

Combine that with my generation’s increasing awareness of the great social and environmental costs of the automobile’s disproportionate dominance of America’s transportation universe—oil dependence, homogenous suburban sprawl eating away at farms and open spaces, air pollution, etc.—and you have growing demand for human-scaled neighborhoods connected to one another by trains, subways and streetcars.

Yet many of our elected leaders aren’t getting the message. Just when more and more professionals are moving into cities and relying on public transportation to get to work, Congress’s lack of action on an extension of provisions in the 2009 Recovery Act means that the maximum pre-tax transit benefit allowed to employees will be cut in half come January 1—while the maximum parking benefit will increase. At the same time, decreased revenues and state and local funding cuts due to the recession are forcing many transit agencies to raise fares. For many Americans, my generation especially, this will be a painful double-whammy. It will encourage some commuters to switch to driving—precisely the wrong message to send when we’re also trying to ease congestion and pollution in our urban areas—but for most transit commuters, it will make the struggle to make ends meet harder and force difficult tradeoffs.

It’s up to all of us to maintain pressure on our Senators and Representatives. Remind them that the plethora of public policy goals that are achieved when it is cheaper and easier for people to use transit than drive are worth more than the miniscule additional tax revenue resulting from the reduction in the transit benefit cap. It’s also good to know that our biggest opportunity to tell Congress how we feel is coming in 11 months.

—Malcolm Kenton

[I]ndividuals who ride public transportation instead of driving can save, on average, $807 dollars this month, and $9,690 annually.  These savings are based on the cost of commuting by public transportation compared to the December 20, 2011 average national gas price ($3.21 per gallon- reported by AAA) and the national unreserved monthly parking rate.

Currently gas prices are $.15 a gallon less than last month, but still $.23 higher than this time last year. Proving riding public transit is a smart way to lower transportation costs.

That extra money will come in handy, because Congress failed to extend the mass-transit benefit on Tuesday.  That means that while people who drive to work will see a slight increase in the pre-tax benefits they receive to offset parking costs—from $230 a month to $240, to account for inflation—public transit benefits will be slashed from $230 to $120 per month.  While the Senate may take up the issue in February when it comes back into session, America’s workers will still be hurting in the meantime.

—Sean Jeans-Gail

[APTA] [Streetsblog Capitol Hill]