Tag Archives: high-speed rail

Early Tuesday morning, Congressional leaders agreed on a 2011 budget package that zeros out funding for high-speed rail and rescinds $400 million in 2010 funding that remains unspent (transportation begins on p. 404). The package has the support of Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Speaker Boehner, and House Appropriations Committee Chair Hal Rogers.

The budget plan, now more than six months overdue, also cuts Amtrak’s budget by $80 million and rescinds 2010 highway funds that remain unspent by the states. But the federal government will continue to spend money on highways, transit, and Amtrak. The real significance is that the budget plan is probably the death knell for Obama’s ambitious plan to spend more than $500 billion extending high-speed rail to most major American cities.

Continue reading →

High-speed rail may be dead, but numerous states would be happy to get some of Florida’s $2.4 billion in rejected high-speed rail funds. Yesterday was the deadline for applications for this money, and some of the applicants include:

• California, of course, would like it all, even though that would still leave it $50 billion or so short in completing the first leg of its high-speed rail dream.

Continue reading →

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?

Continue reading →

Sometimes I feel like Chevy Chase proclaiming, week after week, that Franco, by which I mean Florida’s high-speed rail, is still dead. Yet people are still trying to revive Florida’s high-speed boondoggle. The latest is a just-released ridership projection showing that the rail line, if built, would earn an operating profit as soon as it opened.

The original projections (see page 9) estimated that the Tampa-to-Orlando train would carry 2.7 million riders in 2015 and 3.2 million in 2020. Based on fares of about $20 a ticket and operating costs of about $50 million a year, the line would initially require an operating subsidy but would cover its operating costs after 2020.

The new projections say the train would carry 3.2 to 3.6 million riders in 2016. That’s enough riders to cover its operating costs right away–assuming the cost and fare projections are correct. The new analysis uses the same costs and fares as the state’s.

Continue reading →

As C.P. Zilliacus noted in one of his comments yesterday, Slate published an article subtitled, Why Do Conservatives Hate Trains So Much?. The writer, David Weigel, covered most of the bases, but a couple of clarifications are in order.

First but not foremost, Weigel seems to confuse passengers with passenger miles when he writes, “Amtrak got $2.2 billion in pure subsidies in 2010 and carried 28.7 million people, for around 13 cents per passenger, although some researchers estimate the annual cost at closer to 30 cents. Highways got $42 billion in funds in fiscal year 2010, but far more people use them; the estimate puts cost at between 1 cent and 4 cents per driver.”

I told him that Amtrak subsidies are nearly 30 cents per passenger mile (not per passenger), and road subsidies are about a penny a passenger mile (not per driver). Even his arithmetic is wrong: $2.2 billion in subsidies divided by 28.7 million passengers is $76 per passenger, not 13 cents. I’m not even sure where he got the $2.2 billion in subsidies; I think it was closer to $1.7 billion in 2009. Maybe this is one reason why reporters like trains so much: they can’t do the arithmetic.

Continue reading →

A new trend in Chinese is to turn an active verb into a passive verb–usually with a sinister context–by prefixing the character “bei” (pronounced “bay”). For example, bloggers who have been censored will say they’ve been bei huh-shyeh, or “harmonized”–a reference to the Chinese government’s efforts to create a “harmonious society.” This new, and formerly ungrammatical, usage of bei has become so popular that Chinese education ministry declared bei to be the “character of the year” for 209.

One frequent use of this character is to combine it with Gao Tie, which means high-speed train (literally, “fast iron”). Bei GaoTie means high-speed railroaded, or “being forced to take expensive high-speed trains” because conventional (and affordable) service is not available. High-speed train fares are typically three times as much as conventional fares, but with high-speed trains taking some of the business of conventional trains, conventional train service is often reduced.

Continue reading →

Secretary of Immobility Ray LaHood proudly announced Saturday that the BNSF Railway has agreed to increase Portland-Seattle train speeds from their current average of 53.4 mph to 56.1 mph, saving just 10 minutes (3 hours 30 minutes reduced to 3 hours 20 minutes) over the 187-mile trip. This, said LaHood, is “part of the President’s long-term vision to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail in the next 25 years.”

Amtrak Cascades with Mt. Rainier in the background. Photo courtesy Washington State Department of Transportation.

And it is costing taxpayers a mere $590 million. But wait–there’s more! You not only get a speed boost of 2.7 mph, you get two new daily round trips, increasing the number from 5 to 7. How can you top this deal?

Continue reading →