Last week, Secretary of Immobility Ray LaHood designated the Boston-to-Washington corridor as an eleventh high-speed rail corridor. This makes Amtrak eligible for some of the $2.4 billion in high-speed rail funds released when Florida rejected federal funds for the Tampa-Orlando route.
Of course, $2.4 billion won’t even scratch the surface of Amtrak’s $117 billion plan to speed up trains in the Northeast Corridor. But Amtrak would probably use the funds to smooth a curve or two, improve stations, or buy another couple of trainsets.
The Boston-to-Washington corridor already has the fastest trains in America, with an average speed of 81 mph between New York and Washington (but a paltry average speed of just 64 mph between Boston and New York). Since the whole point of Obama’s plan was to bring such fast trains to other parts of the country, why is the administration now inviting Amtrak and states in the Northeast Corridor to apply for rail funds?
One answer is that high-speed rail is pork, and elected officials in the corridor want their share of the pork. However, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania have their own high-speed rail projects outside the corridor, so the only states with cause for complaint would be Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. And LaHood probably doesn’t have any sympathy for New Jersey after Governor Christie cancelled a $14 billion transit tunnel under the Hudson River.
A more optimistic answer is that the administration is gracefully conceding defeat on the high-speed rail program. Though the Antiplanner is not among them, many high-speed rail critics say that “it works in the Northeast Corridor,” so perhaps the administration feels that it can spend the rest of the money in this area without provoking the controversies generated in Florida, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
We’ll know more when the administration actually awards the funds. If a large share go to California, we’ll know the administration is still pinning its hopes on a pipedream. If most go to the Northeast Corridor or for minor upgrades in other states, it is more likely that Obama is giving up on being remembered as “the president who brought high-speed trains to America.” This assumes, of course, that Congress doesn’t just take back the money before it is spent.
In ayurveda system of medicine, cheapest price on viagra its roots are used for medicinal purposes. It’s easier to get the access to this remarkable erectile dysfunction medicine as you can generic viagra in canada and also one of 18% men in the U.S.A, tough luck there). When looking for another treatment canadian cialis for spider veins, laser treatment is required, including a small incision to insert the laser into the vein. All these natural canadian levitra online ingredients of this product will act as a safe guard against clotting impacts.
Speaking of California, the California High-Speed Rail Authority has announced that more than 1,100 firms have expressed an interest in helping to build that state’s rail project. Of course, the press release was written to suggest that this “sends a clear signal that the private sector sees great opportunity in California’s high-speed rail project.”
If I were to announce that I was ready to spend $45 billion to $65 billion on a make-work construction project, I would be disappointed if only 1,100 companies expressed an interest in getting a share of those tens of billions of dollars. The real news is that the authority did not announce that any of the 1,100 firms were willing to put up their own $10 billion to $12 billion to help finance the project, even though the state’s business plan calls for that much in private funding (see p. 93).
Meanwhile, liberal commentators continue to scratch their heads in puzzlement over why fiscal conservatives oppose high-speed rail. It couldn’t be because it costs too much money; it must be because the evil Koch brothers want to sabotage the future economy.
Yeah, right–who is the real saboteur: those who would blow hundreds of billions on a program that do little other than provide an expensive substitute for existing forms of transportation that are faster and more convenient? Or those who would save the country from that mistake?
Update: This just in from New Tang Dynasty Television: China’s high-speed rail network is unsafe, unprofitable, and corrupt. Three more reasons why we have to keep up with the Chinese!
The Antiplanner wrote (with emphasis added):
The Boston-to-Washington corridor already has the fastest trains in America, with an average speed of 81 mph between New York and Washington (but a paltry average speed of just 64 mph between Boston and New York). Since the whole point of Obama’s plan was to bring such fast trains to other parts of the country, why is the administration now inviting Amtrak and states in the Northeast Corridor to apply for rail funds?
Many supporters of passenger rail projects tout maximum speeds of the trains, which (for the Acela trainsets) is an impressive-sounding 150 MPH (240 k/h) according to Wikipedia’s Acela article.
But average speed is the metric by which transportation should be measured, not theoretical maximum speed.
“But average speed is the metric by which transportation should be measured, not theoretical maximum speed.”
No. Door-to-door speed is the only practical metric.
I agree with CPZ. Door-to-door speed doesn’t identify problems at different scales or by location (implicit in his quote).
DS
With all respect to Dan and C.P.Zilliacus, I agree with n4. It’s no use airplanes being fast, if you have to turn up two hours in advance of the flight, and then end up at an airport miles from anywhere.
As I’ve said before, I don’t get the Chinese obsession with high-speed rail. For a long time PRC has had a policy of rail, including steam trains (one for Antiplanner), since it was cheaper than airplanes for a nation which is still poor, despite pockets of conspicuous wealth. So, I’m not sure what HSR does for China.
Apparently North Carolina is going to get a large chunk of federal money ($461 million) to increase passenger train speeds up to 90 MPH (145 k/h) between Charlotte and Raleigh, at least according to a story by Bruce Siceloff of the News and Observer here.
Wonder how many more billions of tax dollars would be required to bring the NEC south across Virginia from Washington to Raleigh?
So the now-deposed rail minister embezzled $120 billion? Ironically, that would be enough graft to pay for the entire Amtrak NE high-speed rail project. Risky business? Nah.
n4 wrote:
No. Door-to-door speed is the only practical metric.
To you as an individual making a choice of transportation mode, I agree with you. But that does not work when we are evaluating where or how to invest in transportation infrastructure.
Francis:
If you insist on the door-to-door, our Heimat Sekuritat Department will ensure that airline travel will be grossly inefficient. I no longer like flying as I have to suffer through our Security Theater Kabuki.
If you are going to manage for efficiency across locations, you must have average speeds. If you are talking about a transportation plan in a region, door-to-door is a useful metric to look at what mode may be causing a bottleneck. But as a sole metric, it is inadequate.
DS
“The Boston-to-Washington corridor already has the fastest trains in America, with an average speed of 81 mph between New York and Washington…”
Does speed matter when the train from DC to NYC is chronically late and expensive?
A recent tweet from my DC friend: “left my house 6 hrs ago and still not quite in ny. stupid train – late and expensive. knew I should’ve taken the bus.”
Frank wrote:
Does speed matter when the train from DC to NYC ischronically late and expensive?
Yes, that matters.
A recent tweet from my DC friend: “left my house 6 hrs ago and still not quite in ny. stupid train – late and expensive. knew I should’ve taken the bus.â€
If there is a problem on the train line or with the train line (such as the signaling system or the traction power supply from the overhead catenary, since the NEC is electrified), then all passengers on every train will suffer the consequences. A vehicle on rubber tires can frequently choose an alternate route – something that trains cannot (in most cases) do.
Even if it’s late, still better than those evil, social-engineering cars that don’t let you walk wherever you want or just take mass transit and get stabbed, oh oops, right?
Why thanks MS for that drive by.
CPZ: “But that does not work when we are evaluating where or how to invest in transportation infrastructure.”
Sure it does. Cost/user benefit. Money is best invested at locations where the most people will save the most time, which is determined by the drop in trip time from an improvement and the number of people experienceing the benefit.
For example, a $10M improvement which shaves 10 minutes of a rail or road journey close to the downtown destination of many users is of far more utility thana different $10M improvement saving 10 minutes at the start of the trip where only 10% of the total users are on the facility. The same average trip time reduction results from both improvements, but they do not produce the same benefits.
“A vehicle on rubber tires can frequently choose an alternate route”
Not on a limited access highway which is blocked. Its essentially the same no alternate choices as a rail line. Spoken as someone who has stewed in many a traffic jam up from accidents closing the road ahead of me.
“As I’ve said before, I don’t get the Chinese obsession with high-speed rail.” -FrancisKing
There’s probably a few reasons for it. One that I’ve mentioned is that they simply need more rail capacity. These new lines not only bring HSR but also free up capacity on existing lines for more freight.