A major transportation bill charts new territory, Chinese rail investment attracts major corporations, two passenger rail critics miss the point, and more on this week’s roundup of reactions and ruminations related to rail.
Last week, Chaiman James Oberstar (D-WI) of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee unveiled his much-anticipated draft of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act. Transportation for America has the executive summary and full text (90 pages), and a discussion of how it would affect states and locales seeking money for new transit systems. The Transport Politic and Streetsblog DC also have commentary worth reading. NARP is encouraged that a rail title was included, representing a change from initial plans and a first for a major surface transportation bill. However, to our knowledge, the $50 billion authorized for the new high-speed rail program over five years still lacks a funding source.
China’s $87.9-billion rail investment is generating a lot of economic activity, and not just in China. IBM and General Electric are joining other multinational companies in producing the technology and infrastructure that could soon make China the world leader in rail volume and sophistication. Ramped-up rail investment on the home front would make a similar impact, generating a sizeable number of both blue- and white-collar jobs.
Bill Farley’s Charleston (SC) Post and Courierop-ed calling for an Amtrak shutdown shows that hostility to passenger trains is alive and well among the usual suspects. Distances between many U.S. cities are comparable to those in Europe. The key to the success of intercity trains there is that pedestrian- and transit-friendly urban development patterns enhance their accessibility and proximity to final destinations. but many depend on Amtrak even in less populated areas. The main reason why some foreign intercity passenger rail lines seem profitable is that their balance sheets do not account for the massive public investments that went into their construction nor the urban and suburban transit lines that feed into them, which nobody expects to be profitable. The U.S. is making progress on this score—consider Dallas whose train station is the hub of light rail and commuter rail services, and St. Louis where the new multimodal terminal has linked Amtrak to the highly successful light rail service and Lambert Airport. Farley also whined, “There are vast areas of this country where nobody lives and/or nobody wants to go.” But many depend on Amtrak even in less populated areas, not just in Montana, North Dakota and East Texas but in many of the other smaller cities that Amtrak serves. More and more Americans are taking trains, and with the proper investment and guidance, they can once again become “a major mover of people.”
A known critic of rail investment and smart growth policies once again focuses on the non-issue of passenger rail’s profitability. Why doesn’t anyone ever ask why highway construction and maintenance isn’t profitable, or why the air traffic control system doesn’t make money? Because that’s not the point. We invest in transportation infrastructure because society and the economy benefit from the dividends, and because almost all other profitable enterprises depend on efficient mobility.
LCL: Secretary LaHood talks up DOT’s guidance for high-speed and intercity passenger rail proposals; rail industry leaders discuss electrification in the US, Canada & Britain; Switzerland and Italy are working on the world’s longest railroad tunnel (35 miles Zurich to Milan); Michiganders hear a dubious proposal for a privately-financed hydrogen-powered maglev line while their cash-strapped state threatens to cut its operating grant for Amtrak and potentially terminate a route in the state; Michigan’s top transportation official defends high-speed rail; dramatic on-time performance gains draw riders back to the rails in Missouri; Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) wisely shelves maglev support in favor of the more acheivable Desert XPress proposal (meanwhile, the Las Vegas Sunevaluates the competing bullet-train proposals);federal rail money turns heads in Atlanta; and an op-ed in New Jersey’s Daily Recordechoes NARP’s concerns about the new tunnels under the Hudson River.
Our slightly-delayed news and views roundup shows that going green does save green, that oil production may peak sooner than expected, and that LaHood’s thinking is still on the right track.
Implementing a number of known practices for cutting carbon emissions from transportation would actually save money within 15 years, with savings increasing as time goes on, finds a new report on the subject. Nearly a year in the works, the paper contains necessarily limited cost-benefit analyses of various strategies, including expanding public transportation offerings, without bias towards any particular method. It is geared mainly towards transportation within metropolitan areas, but also looks at high-speed rail and highway tolling ideas for intercity travel.
The International Energy Agency’s chief economist says that the impending oil crisis will come sooner than expected, with production peaking in 10 years. Petroleum prices will escalate rapidly as the remaining oil becomes harder and more costly to extract, stunting the recovery of the economy. All the more reason to ramp up efforts to ready our transportation system to move more people and goods on little or no oil.
Los Angeles Times business columnist David Lazarus reminds us that re-training America will take not just more and better trains, but policies that make driving less attractive and cities and towns more compact.
Streetsblog uncovers some pieces that seem to be missing from a Harvard economics professor’s analysis of a theoretical Texas high-speed rail line—primarily that he neglected to seriously consider the less palatable alternatives: more highway and airport capacity.
In a speech to the National Association of Counties, Transportation Secretary LaHood reiterates his commitment to reducing the number of miles Americans travel by automobile and to greater parity between highway and non-highway investments. Giving local governments more say in where transportation dollars are spent generally results in less of a bias towards asphalt.
American journalists marvel at China’s new high-speed train, which are a testament to the impact a major investment can have.
LCL: Trains for America gives a tongue-in-cheek endorsement to our call for full 2010 Amtrak funding; on the Pere Marquette‘s 25th anniversary, officials, businesspeople and residents along the line express their desires for additional service; an Ogden, Utah, columnist enumerates why riding the California Zephyr from to Chicago beats flying, and longs for the Pioneer to call once again at his hometown; the Allegheny Trail Alliance has a survey with which it hopes to demonstrate the demand for being able to bring bikes on board Amtrak trains, even to or from unstaffed stations; NARP Council member Jim Loomis reports on his latest Amtrak journeys—including a tight Chicago connection and some good reasons to head to the Quiet Car; yet another little-known danger lurking on the highways; and a travel writer’s look at the plethora of fun rail trips that can be taken in southern California.
You may register to post comments in response to NARP-generated postings on the Blog. By registering you agree 1) that all comments will be relevant to the respective posting and 2) not to post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, or that violate any laws. We reserve the right to permanently block postings from any user who does not abide by the above terms. NARP reserves the right to remove, edit, or move any messages for any reason.
