The High-Speed Rail Stimulus?
John Judis has an article expressing skepticism that Barack Obama’s stimulus is of the right size and nature to meet our present challenges that winds up touching on a subject near and dear to my heart—high-speed rail:
One area that is ripe for such investment–and that is not, from what I have seen, a declared priority of the Obama administration–is high-speed rail. Amtrak’s Acela trains–the closest thing we have to one–average less than 100 mph between Washington D.C. and Boston, whereas trains in Western Europe and Japan go more than twice as fast. Many of them also run on electricity. They would be the most energy-efficient and quickest means of getting between places like Boston and New York, or Los Angeles and San Francisco. But they would require a massive investment. For instance, installing high-speed rail in the Northeast corridor could cost about $32 billion, while California’s high-speed rail system would require up to $40 billion. A system that would address the other areas of the country could easily raise the cost to the hundreds of billions. The House transportation and infrastructure committee has currently proposed $5 billion in stimulus funds for intercity rail–not even a down payment on what it would cost to convert the U.S. to high-speed rail.
Investing in high-speed rails would be very expensive, but unlike tax cuts–the benefits of which can be siphoned off in the purchase of imported goods–the money spent would go directly to reviving American industry and improving the country’s trade balance. That doesn’t just mean jobs creating dedicated tracks or new rail stations: Though the U.S. abandoned train manufacturing decades ago to the French, Germans, Canadians, and Japanese, this kind of production could be undertaken by our ailing auto companies or aircraft companies–if the federal and state governments were to place orders. And building trains that would run on electricity would be a paradigmatic example of the “green jobs” that Obama often touts.
Like Special Agent Mulder, I want to believe in this. In particular, I do believe that it would be a good idea to make these kind of investments. But I also know that many people hear about the idea of spending $40 billion in California and $32 billion in the Northeast and maybe comparable amounts to build HSR systems in Florida and the rust belt and they start to blanche. So now that all of a sudden there’s broad political consensus in favor of adding a few hundred billion dollars to the deficit, I really want to put my hand up and say “hey! look over here! some productive infrastructure investments we should make!”
The trouble is this—how much high-speed rail could you really build on a 24 month month time frame? When you think about the permitting, environmental review, NIMBY lawsuits, etc. it’s plausible to imagine it taking 24 months to just finish all the lawsuits much less build anything. Spain decided to build its first high-speed rail line, from Madrid to Seville, in 1986 and it seems to have taken five years:
On 11 October 1986 the Spanish government decided to build a new railway between Madrid and Seville. On 25 February 1988, the international tender for the acquisition of 24 high-speed trains AVE followed; these trains were ordered by 23 December 1988. The first train, based on the third generation of TGVs, was delivered on 10 October 1991.
In December 1988 it was decided to build the new line in standard gauge. Construction was ordered on 16 March 1989, and it lasted for 33 months; actual construction activity lasted only 24 months. Commercial use of the line commenced on 21 April 1992. In the first weeks, over 23 thousand passengers used the new trains – an occupancy rate of 81%.
On 20 April 1992, services started between Madrid and Seville. Non-stop travel time between the two cities were 2:45 hrs; with stops at Ciudad Real, Puertollano and Córdoba it was 2:55 hrs. In 1992, tickets cost around 50-70 euros in second class, in first class over 100 euros.
Now presumably if the intention was specifically to do this as a hurry-up project you could do it somewhat faster. But then on the other hand, Madrid-Seville Line is shorter than the kind of projects Judis is talking about. And the Spanish didn’t try to create a train-building industry from scratch—they bought French trains.
Long story short, I don’t think it’s some kind of inexplicable scandal that comprehensive high-speed rail construction isn’t the centerpiece of the Obama stimulus agenda. But I do think it’s very distressing that I’m not seeing any effort to think this issue through at all. Sure as I am that it’s not feasible to undertake $100 billion in new HSR construction over the next two years, I’m also absolutely certain that it’s possible to undertake more than $0.00 in such new construction. And these really are infrastructure investments that are worth doing for reasons totally independent of the need for stimulus. If the economy were doing okay, I’d be saying we need to be finding a way to pay for this stuff. But the economy’s not doing okay so instead we need to find things that are worth spending money on. And high-speed rail definitely fits the bill. How much is feasible? I don’t know. But I do know that if I had all the resources of the federal government at my disposal I’d be looking into it.
I will say that I think the plan to try to create a domestic train-producing industry is a little bit misguided. Among other things, the US and Canadian economies are so integrated that having US stimulus money get into the hands of a Canadian manufacturer like Bombardier would be about as good as it getting into the hands of a US manufacturer. And for related reasons, it’s much more plausible to think that if North American demand for rolling stock increased dramatically that foreign firms would start locating plants in the United States to meet that demand than that we would actually start up a brand new firm. Just from the perspective of getting a system set up, it makes a lot more sense to buy trains that we know actually work made by people who have experience in the field than to try to reinvent the wheel.
But I would go further than Judis in other respects. What about rail projects other than intercity high-speed rail? In particular, where are the studies of what we can do to speed up completion of currently envisioned programs? Both the Silver Line to Dulles Airport in Fairfax County and the Westside “subway to the sea” in LA are projected to be completely sometime after pigs fly at this point. In part, that reflects logistical realities. But my understanding is that in both cases the issue in part has to do with financing. Can’t we fight the recession in part by doing this stuff faster? And LA and DC can’t be the only metro areas in that boat. Accelerate the Second Avenue Subway, put in streetcars, etc. There are clearly limits to what can be done, but someone needs to be identifying those limits and making sure we walk up close to them rather than just getting discouraged and turning around.
66 Responses to “The High-Speed Rail Stimulus?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 9th, 2009 at 11:08 am
I get this. As long as the economy is in bad shape, we basically have a bunch of coupons for infrastructure development. You want to use our coupons before they expire, on stuff that it would be really cool to have.
May the Flying Spaghetti Monster be with you.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:09 am
This Wikipedia page lists all the projects on the Amtrak run between Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland that could significantly speed up operations but for lack of money.
Unfortunately, the Washington DOT, who is nominally responsible for these projects, has been almost entirely captured by the asphalt lobby and isn’t likely to push for them.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:16 am
I object to the casual statement that “the United States abandoned train manufacturing years ago” GE and EMD make the best diesel locomotives in the world. We also build a lot of frieght cars too. I’m sure given proper incentives GE could build you all the electric locomotives and MU’s you could want (or at least build foreign designs under contract).
January 9th, 2009 at 11:17 am
While it was under construction I lived less than 2 miles from where the Acela line would eventually pass. I remember a whole lot of NIMBY-ism from people scared that the trains would move too fast, and it the high voltage electrical lines would be a hazard. That problem (like with Nuclear plants) that no amount of $$ can solve.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:27 am
I don’t know if this is a problem or not, but the existing Amtrak/Acela lines go through many populated areas and aren’t particularly well secured. I don’t think it’s pure NIMBYism to think that the existing footprint of Amtrak lines on the east coast might not be able to deal w/ the added requirements for real high speed rail. Is this the case? If not, having to negotiate new agreements up and down the coast for new places to lay down track would mean that high speed rail isn’t the sort of shovel-ready project needed for stimulus.
I think $40B (or however much it’ll cost) is well worth it, recession or not; just trying to be realistic about this.
There’s also the political problem of putting a large chunk of the stimulus towards something that does nothing for most states, and the airlines probably can’t afford reducing the value of short-haul east coast legs. I think a real high speed rail option would destroy the demand for first-class/business-class trips along the coast; assuming that increased rail demand doesn’t come hand in hand with increased security measures, etc that make it as inconvenient as commercial flight.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Somehow I managed to read half of Matt’s post and convince myself I read the whole thing and he of course made most of the points in my post. The airlines thing still stands, I suppose, but hopefully they’ve worn out their reservoir of public sympathy.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Even in Boston, which has a pretty good subway, improvements could be still made. The Silver Line fiasco could be fixed. The Blue and Green lines could be extended. The old, crumbling Green and Red line stations could be fixed up. There’s all kinds of room for improvement.
January 9th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Gulf Coast wants HSR too!
A line from Austin-Houston-Lafayette-Baton Rouge-New Orleans-Biloxi-Pensacola-Jacksonville would be the best thing to happen down here in a long time. An extension from New Orleans-Birmingham-Atlanta would be great, too.
And of course, high speed from Chicago to Memphis to New Orleans along the current “City of New Orleans” route would make my life a lot easier. It’s a 14 hour drive, but by train it takes 19 hours.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
And the West! It’s 18 hours to get from Denver to Chicago on the California Zephyr, and no trains running the N-S route from Cheyenne to Albuquerque.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
The real question is whether it would be followed over the next few years with a non-stimulus-related ongoing investment in HSR, but that is by definition a non-stimulus-related question.
Very true. I would extend that to include infrastructure investment in general. The 40 year allergy to public spending on the Federal level has cost us a lot here in the US. Not only in terms of keeping up with Europe and Asia with regards to rail, but existing infrastructure from bridges to sewer systems has not been well maintained. It pains me to think that infrastructure spending is something you only do when your economy is melting down. Bailout mentality is not a good foundation for the future.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I’ve got some non-transit infrastructure projects I’d like to see too. For one thing, they could start a massive stimulus package to redevelop downtown D.C. with real buildings. Unfortunately, this would require repealing the height restrictions, which Congress will do when pigs fly.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I worry that we’re in need of a major, dramatic plan conceived of in the classic ‘big picture’ sense, and that the people working on it are largely not ‘big picture’ people. Asking Larry Summers and Robert Rubin to rethink the American economy – and you end up with a bunch of silly tax cuts and NO plan for high speed rail.
I worry, a lot. Are we about to watch our last trillion dollars (loaning ourselves another tril. if this doesn’t work will be next to impossible) get thrown out the window by people with small imaginations who are too small picture and detail oriented to think big enough?
January 9th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
You know what else makes for great stimulus spending? Flood protection systems and wetland restoration.
I think Sacramento and the entire Mississippi River drainage area would agree with me.
Louisiana is literally disappearing into the ocean, and we’ve got less than a decade to reverse the loss. Federal cash would create a lot of jobs here, jobs we need to save our land, history, and livelihoods. Not to mention saving America’s energy and seafood coast.
Obama ignored us on the campaign trail, and he appears to be ignoring us as part of the fiscal expansion. That’s not comforting when we have such a long way to go before the coast is protected.
As a means of comparison, New Orleans is promised by the Corps to have 1 in 100 year flood protection by 2011. Amsterdam is protected agains a 1 in 10,000 year flood event, and no part of the Netherlands is protected at a level less than 1 in 1,250. That’s the level for farmland.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
24 months to finish the lawsuits? Are you deranged? If everything went right, you could run the process beginnning to end in a little over 10 years. But, to be honest, there are lots of lawyers out of work, so there’s stimulus effect just on the lawsuits.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Bombardier, Alstom, Siemens and Kawasaki all have assembly plants in the US already, because rolling stock purchases by public agencies are often subject to “Buy American” regulations.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
The stimulus kicks in when the employment starts, not when the project is completed. So the six years from start to finish for the Madrid-Seville line isn’t very relevant.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Again, a ten year horizon is way too long for a stimulus per se, but that just means getting this put into place isn’t really part of the stimulus conversation
A ten year horizon is too short.
You need a non-Ricardian fiscal stimulus regime, one that promises perpetual permanent spending to change deflationary expectations. SS. Bonneville Dam. Remember the disaster of 36-37.
The Republicans want a non-Ricardian regime with permanent tax cuts. I wish to hell Democrats would start understanding economics.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
I’ve been going back and forth between New York and Providence for years, so like Matt, I’d be thrilled to see true highspeed rail come to northeast corridor. Despite my enthusiasm, however, $32 billion strikes me as a tough sell. Specifically, when I hear that number, I think two things:
1. If we’re spending $32 billion on a high speed train, how much benefit do we get versus say, investing in DC/NYC/BOS public transit. Matt’s been hyping the need for improved DC bus service. Couldn’t say, $1 billion, give DC the greatest bus service is the world? As a New Yorker, I know I’d be thrilled if I could see current bus and subway wait times online, and that probably wouldn’t cost more than a few million, and it could benefit from the investment almost every day.
2. The current highspeed Acela only reach its top speed of 125 MPH for a tiny fraction of the trip. It currently takes at least 3 1/2 hours to travel 215 miles from NYC to BOS. Is there a way we could cut the trip down to under 2 hours for a more modest investment?
January 9th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Low-speed rail = I have to take a job within 25 miles of Philly.
High-speed rail = I could take a job in NYC or DC.
High-speed internet = I could take a job anywhere and work from home!
I choose the latter.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
There are, in practical terms, two classes of High Speed Rail. The first is “true” High Speed Rail, like the Japanese bullet trains and the Paris / Marseilles line. They are dedicated new, fully grade separated, dedicated alignment designed to allow trains to average trip speeds in excess of 150mph, and often in excess of 200mph. And acquiring that alignment and putting in the full grade separation costs money.
That’s why the California HSR system is projected to cost $46b. Of course, that permits LA/Bay in under three hours, which will cut into a substantial amount of airport market share as well as pull people out of cars, and the same transport capacity in airport and highway infrastructure would cost in excess of $80b. So in addition to all its other advantages, its the cheapest way for California to meet their projected needs in interregional transport capacity.
And, of course, they have already passed $9b in state funding for the system, as well as $900m in funding for rail infrastructure to link into the HSR system.
The second are Rapid Passenger Rail, which are a distinct step up from traditional Interurban Express trains, but operate at speeds that allow them to use upgraded level crossings, and normally use tilt-train technology to support average trip speeds of 90mph+ and top speeds of 110mph to 125mph.
These systems are far cheaper per route mile. For example, the entire Ohio Hub, with Cleveland / Columbus / Cincinatti as a trunk and connections to Chicago from both Cleveland and Cincinatti/Indianapolis, Buffalo from Cleveland, and Pittsburgh from Cleveland and Columbus, can be done for $5b with change back. The same system done as a true HSR line would be tens of billions of dollars, but the cities in the Ohio Hub are close enough together that the Rapid Rail is good enough for now.
Most of the DoT designated HSR corridors are proposed Rapid Rail projects rather than true HSR projects. And that makes sense … true HSR might make sense today for Florida through to Atlanta, the Northeast Corridor, and California, but for the rest of the country, the patronage to support true HSR for a route like New York City to Chicago would require a stronger rail feeder network than we have at present. If we pursue Rapid Rail projects on those areas, we could well be in a position to start planning true HSR rail on a much wider basis by 2016.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
This is a silly comparison – they are not serving the same transport need.
The comparison is the cost of providing the same transport capacity with road and/or air. In the congested Northeast Corridor, true HSR is cheaper, hands down.
In most of the eastern US, providing additional regional transport capacity through Rapid Passenger Rail is cheaper than roadworks and airport infrastructure (and operating costs … we subsidized a far greater amount of air operating costs than any other transport technology), but under current conditions, its much less likely that true HSR would be cheaper.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
I’m with Thomas – ten years might be enough time to run out the lawsuits for the Northeast Corridor. Remember, we’re talking Fairfield County, Westchester County, Princeton, and Montgomery County Maryland here. These folks have lots of money to fund suits.
Having said that, a large part of a long-range infrastructure plan should consist of funding HSR for the corridors where it makes sense. And, to keep the rest of the country happy, maintenance funding for existing roads (and an end to federal funding of new highways – if Vegas and Phoenix want more highways so they can keep building into the desert, let them find the money – and I know this makes the idea DOA because Reid would never put up with it).
In the short run, increase the Amtrak subsidy to maintain existing routes and increase service levels to attract customers. Funnel enough money to Amtrak to repair the out-of-service cars (the main roadblock to increasing service right now). Get money to the states to repair existing roads (assuming there are projects that can be pulled ahead). Fund the engineering studies that would be needed before HSR can be built.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Matt wonders whether with the projected $40 billion LA-SF supertrain “it’s plausible to imagine it taking 24 months to just finish all the lawsuits much less build anything.”
Matt, with a $40 billion construction project in the environmentally sensitive LA-SF corridor, 24 _years_ to get all the permits seems more plausible. For example, the train would likely go right past the TPC of Valencia golf course and housing development about 40 miles north of LA, which was announced in 1985 but construction didn’t begin until 2000 because of environmental and similar wrangling. That’s not unusual in modern California, which is home to the modern environmental movement (e.g., the Sierra Club).
January 9th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
One of the beauties of being the federal government is that you can also pass laws preventing lawsuits from limiting your activity.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
I second the “speed up construction on the Second Avenue Subway” suggestion. Construction has been going on directly outside my bedroom for about the past two years. There is no sign it will ever stop (or that there will be a subway there if it does). As it is, I think they only work between the hours of 7am and 9am and then sometimes midnight and 2am.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Things that I can think of – without searching for references etc. – that can improve service in the Northeast. . .
One of the reasons it takes so longer to get from Boston to New York compared to New York to DC is that there are speed restrictions on the line. In particular there are grade crossings in Connecticut that could be eliminated. If they aren’t shovel ready they are close to it. New York City to Albany could be speeded up but there’s no money to do it. Again something that if it isn’t shovel ready, close to it. Then there’s projects west and north of Albany that … need money. The line between Sputyen Duyvil and Penn Station.. needs lots of work… They wouldn’t be able to start digging next week but tell Amtrak and the States that the project is funded and there’s lots of work to be done even before a spade of dirt is turned. Someone has to find the plans and dust them off. Specifications for bids have to written up. Someone has to go out to the site with the construction company people.. Lots of work to be spread around …
High speed rail.. New York has plans, which I’m sure are not well developed, to run HSR on the Thruway’s right of way. Maybe not the best choice but spending money now to develop the plans gets people to work.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Steve Sailer, my other comment is still apparently in moderation hell, but in it I explained that the CA HSR project is quite advanced. Most of the EIR/EIS statements have been finalized. The California High Speed Rail Authority has been working on this since 1998 and believe they will be finished with the environmental permits no later than 2010 and ready to turn dirt in 2012. They have also said that can be accelerated with more money.
Unfortunately they’re moving backward – the state’s budget crisis means they have no money to pay contractors and engineers, and they may have to suspend planning work. Obama could help by not only funding HSR but also by using the stimulus to alleviate state budget deficits.
Ultimately we need to reject the assumption that long development and construction schedules are either the norm or are acceptable. The US went from nearly total disarmament to military supremacy in the space of 3-4 years from 1940 to 1943-44. Judis is saying we need to have that same kind of urgency now. Too many people here are listing the familiar reasons why mass transit projects are slow to get off the ground, when what we need are solutions to properly expedite that process.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
In discussing trains speeds, it’s important to understand the difference between average speed and top or “design” speed (a distinction that Mr. Judis, in the cited article, apparently does not understand). Amtrak’s Acelas have a top speed of 150 mph (though only a couple very short stretches of track permit that speed). That compares to TGVs, which, I believe, operate at a top speed of around 170 mph. An Acela has an average speed of less than 100 mph, because the average icludes periods of time when it stopped at intermediate stations–when it’s speed is 0 mph–and because large stretches of track do not permit 150 mph operation. In contrast, I believe the TGV operates at an average speed of around 125 mph. Besides its somewhat higher top speed, TGV has the advantage of a better right of way (i.e., can maintain its top speed for longer periods), and makes fewer intermediate stops. A 150 mph Acela, however, is a true high speed train by any reasonable defintion of the term.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Investing in high-speed rails would be very expensive, but unlike tax cuts–the benefits of which can be siphoned off in the purchase of imported goods…
Can we please put this myth to rest? I’m not disagreeing with Judis’s overall point — I’d like to see vastly more funds allocated for high speed rail. Frankly, the “hundreds of billions” needed to upgrade to Western European standards doesn’t sound like all that much when we’re spending those kinds of sums to prop up a small collection of financial firms — especially when you realize that said “hundreds of billions” would be amortized over a decade and a half or more.
I’m also not objecting to Judis’s critique of tax cuts as stimulus: he’s right. There’s not much bang for the buck.
What I’m objecting to is the notion that money people go out and spend won’t provide much stimulus because the benefits are “siphoned off” due to imports. Krugman was talking about this recently on some interview program. The net-net is that an incredibly small percentage of the average buck you spend at Target or Wal-Mart ends up in China. They apparently pay a pittance for much of the inventory they import for their stores — and the bulk of the money goes to overhead, salaries, profits, etc.
January 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
If we’re spending $32 billion on a high speed train, how much benefit do we get versus say, investing in DC/NYC/BOS public transit.
Attitudes like this drive me crazy — although the unfortunate reality is they’re very common in the US. My point is, we’re going to spend $150 billion or more on saving AIG alone. So, why the hell can’t we allocate enough money to have great inner city transit and great intercity trains and well-maintained highways?
January 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Robert Cruickshank writes:
“Ultimately we need to reject the assumption that long development and construction schedules are either the norm or are acceptable. The US went from nearly total disarmament to military supremacy in the space of 3-4 years from 1940 to 1943-44.”
Have you ever seen pictures of what the air pollution in Pittsburgh looked like in 1943-44? Street lights in downtown Pittsburgh were on all day because the smoke was so thick.
Progressives have spent 40 years creating environmental and other regulations making it harder to build big things.
Now, though, that they’ve got power and a blank check, they want to DEREGULATE on a crash, no forethought allowed, basis for their pet projects. Pretty ironic …
But, it’s not going to happen, as Obama has started to realize over the last month.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
A couple of commenters have highlighted my statement/question:
If we’re spending $32 billion on a high speed train, how much benefit do we get versus say, investing in DC/NYC/BOS public transit.
I certainly agree with their sentiments that we ought to be able to do both, and that the two projects serve different needs. Both Jasper and BruceMcF make solid arguments, and I wish those arguments were being made more outside of Matt’s blog’s comment section. Clearly if we’re spending billions on highways, we should also be talking about rail.
That said, I think one of the stopping blocks regarding highspeed rail proposals is that “train vs. subway vs. lightrail” is a natural comparison for a lot of people to make. We seem to have established that serious national highspeed rail investment comes with ~$100 billion dollar pricetag. How far would that same amount go when invested in subways/lightrails/buses? Even if the goal was solely to eliminate highway congestion, is highspeed rail priority one?
I guess what I’m asking is, besides the general awesomness of superfast ground travel (which I fully support), what set of goals are best fulfilled by highspeed rail investment, and not other projects. As matt points out, short term stimulus is probably not one of them.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Enough already with the “environmental and other regulations”. Because, you know what, in the 40s there were other constraints. During WW II, for example, everything was rationed if you could get it at all. And most of that smoke in Pittsburgh came from making steel that we don’t need today, while the steel we do need is made with more efficient electric furnaces.
Rightwingers love to talk about how environmentalists slowed down the construction of an unneeded poorly designed nuclear plant that was being built on an active earthquake fault line and so that proves environmentalists will always slow down everything. What a load of bull.
And how anyone can look at the long list of disasters that is our history, and not conclude that some environmental review is just as necessary as having a lender look at a house before issuing a mortgage, is totally beyond me.
Go to the website of either Seattle daily today and look at the flooding. After the big floods last year the Seattle Times investigated and found clearcuts upstream from the worst flooding, on unstable slopes that never should have been logged.
Anyone who looks at the last 50 years of transit in the US can only conclude that all of the other work can be done, and done well, in a lot less time than it takes to deal with rightwing obstructionism. Sure, big companies that want to cut corners and stick the public with the mess (google ‘coal ash slurry’) have more trouble than they used to in doing what they want.
But there’s no reason for public investments to adopt the wasteful practices of private industry, and no indication that the job would be done any sooner if we did.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
mpowell, if HSR and the stimulus are more important than our environmental regulations, why is a factory someone wants to build next year also more important? Do you really think that anyone wants to have that conversation? And do you really think that Obama would overrule environmental regulations?
January 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
The current Dept. of Transport designated high speed rail corridors, except for the Northeast Corridor and California, are almost all planned as Rapid Passenger Rail corridors, and could be built out as Rapid Rail for something around $25b-$50b.
$10b in incremental improvements for the Acela services in the NEC would also gain substantial market share gains … the $30b figure for the NEC is a wish list, but there are a number of individual projects in the 10-digit range that would each reduce total trip time and shift traffic from air to rail, saving on expensive air transport infrastructures, as well as energy-wasting short air hops (the type of air travel that Rapid and HS Rail competes against happens to also be the most energy inefficient, and for the small commuter planes, the most wasteful in terms of FAA operations budget and runway space per passenger).
That would be Rapid Passenger Rail in the Empire Corridor in New York, Keystone Corridor in Pennsylvania, Ohio Hub, Midwest Hub, Southeast Corridor, Florida HSR Corridor, Gulf Coast Corridor, Texas T-Bone network, Front Range corridor and Cascades Corridor.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
serial catowner, January 9th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
When in reality the biggest obstacle to faster roll-out of oil-free transport infrastructure is not environmental regulations, its the insistence that each and every Energy Independence transport project gets funding for each step of the project development process, while roadwork project development gets a guaranteed funding stream to develop projects and have them ready on the shelf.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Why would “lots of people” conflate HSR, light rail, and subways? They serve entirely different markets.
HSR is only high-speed if stations are separated by distances of about 50 miles. HSR serves travel markets between cities and does not pick up commuter trips into or out of the cities. The comparison with HSR is the freeway and the commuter flights, and that’s where you compare your markets and costs.
Subways are very expensive and serve very dense city cores, reaching out to relatively dense suburban hinterlands. In contrast, light rail is relatively inexpensive, can run at any point on the route as fast light rail or slower streetcar service, and does not require a particularly dense level of population.
Now, there may be some understandable confusion in an America where many children have never actually seen a train. But this confusion shouldn’t persist among people who have enough computing capacity to comment on this thread.
January 9th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I question the emphasis on “shovel-ready” projects. Is there something about paying a planner or engineer in the design stages of a project that is less real than paying a backhoe operator? If the object is to get money and paychecks flowing in the domestic economy, doesn’t paying a transportation planner get the money flowing as quickly as paying a laborer?
Perhaps the emphasis on moving dirt merely betrays our national bias against intellect and strategic planning, and in favor of Joe-the-Plumber “real American” mythologies about the virtue of brute force.
Somehow, we think that people moving heaps of earth and asphalt around is “real” whereas adding value as a result of intelligent exertion is frivolous or inauthentic.
If the point is to produce usable infrastructure in the shortest amount of time, that’s a different story. But if the point is to charge up the economy with flowing money, “shovel-ready” doesn’t make that happen any more than “drawing-board-ready.”
In any case, building poorly planned new roads will just destroy farmland and natural areas and subsidize more sprawl, which was a big part of the housing bubble.
Also, if we set aside high-speed rail & improving standard rail networks now, saying that they won’t be ready, there’s no point, etc., it will just be even further down the road when we finally do get started. We don’t have time for that. If it’s a seven or eight-year process to rail, then by golly we need to get started sooner, not later!!
January 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
I am a big fan of this idea (from Korea) for the stimulus:
January 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Betsy – As the number of construction workers currently in need of work is likely far larger than the number of unemployed traffic planners the emphasis on shovel-ready projects would mean more individuals collecting a paycheck.
The intent isn’t to diss traffic planners. It’s just that the design stage of major construction projects employs far fewer people than the actual building of same.
January 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
I question the emphasis on “shovel-ready” projects. Is there something about paying a planner or engineer in the design stages of a project that is less real than paying a backhoe operator? If the object is to get money and paychecks flowing in the domestic economy, doesn’t paying a transportation planner get the money flowing as quickly as paying a laborer?
Well, there’re probably a couple reasons it’s not quite the same. For one thing, you’d ideally want to get the stimulus to unemployed workers. But the architects, engineers, and whatnot that you’d be putting to work on planning projects may still already be more or less fully employed. And you can’t just plug in unemployed guys who used to pour foundations for McMansions for that work. But you probably CAN plug those guys tolerably well into pouring asphalt or laying rail ties or whatever.
The other thing is that the planning/architecture/engineering phase of infrastructure projects is usually really cheap compared to the construction itself. Assuming you could find enough engineers to hire, I wonder if you could sensibly spend even a billion or two that way, let alone tens.
Still, trying to plan out in detail all the needed infrastructure projects for the next couple decades would be good to do on its own merits. I think we need to be planning ahead for transportation needs a LOT more, especially given how long it takes to get projects built. It seems like things like new Metro lines get lobbied for and eventually built serially, but ideally we’d be planning ahead 10, 20, 30 years, and moving forward with various complementary regional projects in parallel.
Plus, you’d build a nice fat portfolio of productive “shovel-ready” projects to have in hand for the next potential recession. You give developers and city authorities make smarter plans of their own. And thinking ahead can save a lot of money and inconvenience down the line (for example, proactively building stations with allowances for planned future tracks, transfers, etc.)
So I’d love to see an ambitious program to develop serious plans and development roadmaps for transit and rail infrastructure all over the country. Call it “Transit Vision 2020″ or something, if that’s not taken already.
January 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Betsy @45- The emphasis on shovel-ready projects has to do with spending lots of money fast. Fact is, planning and design are cheap, compared to actual construction. Not to mention the fact that you have to commit to spending a lot more dollars down the road for every planning dollar you spend now. Not that that’s a bad thing; but if you’re wanting to spend a lot of money fast, construction is a good way to go.
January 9th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Steve Sailer, I don’t think anyone here is arguing against rolling back necessary environmental policies and regulations. Instead we need to find a way to make them more effective given the current economic and climate crisis we face.
John Judis was suggesting that if we could focus a huge national effort on building a massive military infrastructure in 3 years, we should be able to do the same for sustainable environmental infrastructure while keeping the lessons of the past in mind. To me that implied not throwing environmental rules to the wind for the sake of pouring concrete.
You’re implying a false choice between a green stimulus and environmental regulations, in what seems to be an effort to undermine both. Instead we need to put in the work and resources to ensure that they work together for common purposes.
January 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Can we please not hold our high-speed-rail building projects hostage to the economic nationalists? If we can get more miles of rail built for the same amount of money by buying foreign trains and expertise, let’s go for it. We have too many good uses for the money to afford to waste it appeasing people who don’t understand basic economics.
January 9th, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I have to say, this is the only issue I really care about. National health care, out of Iraq- good, but I want my European-style train system in the US. I want it to be like Germany where you can go to any backwater on the S-Bahn. I realize we may never get there, but I hope that Obama will listen to John Judis and others and make a serious effort in this regard. I am hoping that since Biden used to ride the Acela all the time he can appreciate this. Amtrak is pathetic. Another idea is to have states build more rail services on the model of NJ Transit at that level, but I realize that the states have no money anymore.
January 9th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
In fact, any real environmental accounting and stewardship would leave us with nothing to build but rail.
We’ve built our trucking warehouses on the floodplains, and our housing subdivisions on the farms that were near our cities. The runoff from the roads serving this sprawl kills the fish and the fumes are killing us. Sprawl has turned out to be so energy inefficient that we literally can’t afford it anymore.
But the world doesn’t stop just because we want to get off. If we don’t build rail, we need to build more airports and roads…that is, if we can afford it. The day of reckoning for an unprecedentedly profligate civilization seems nearer and nearer.
In any case, one thing is clear- on the environmental balance sheet, rail is the clear, and in fact, the only winner.
January 9th, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Realist, January 9th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Its a lot easier political to split the difference and buy a foreign design that they agree to assemble in the US. Since the US has so much spare industrial capacity in the rustbelt available for doing that assembly, and Americans manufacturing workers work for less than Europeans and Japanese, its not even that bad a deal for the overseas train manufacturers.
If its either/or, we should go for the foreign expertise (indeed, when we first built up our industrial capacity as a developing nation in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s, that’s quite close to the strategy we pursued, and we might not have “understood” post-WWII academic math-based economics, but it seemed to have worked out alright).
January 10th, 2009 at 6:48 am
HSR is near and dear to my heart as well, and partly due to you Matt. I agree this is an investment that needs to be made now, at least somehow but I come to it for a different reason that I believe you have already discussed. Certainly programs that aren’t shovel ready, like this, may not be appropriate for a stimulus bill…because these things need to create jobs now. I’m willing to give that. But after this crisis is over (crosses fingers) I am 110% sure the attention will correctly turn to NOT spending and severely reducing the deficit and overall national debt. At that point, HSR will NOT be an option, at least not by the government and I don’t think we can count on a private company jumping in and doing this…at least at any rate regular people would able to afford it at. So I think if we don’t do this now, it will never get done…and as you say, the reasons beyond stimulus for having it are far too serious and important to just let it go. It isn’t a central issue of Obama’s plan, but I have seen (and written about) Joe Biden bring it up. Hopefully he can make himself heard.
January 10th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Oh and as an east sider, I agree, let’s get that 2nd ave. line cookin.
January 10th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
doggril, January 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
This is quite simply not true. There is no need to commit to doing a project to do the planning for a project.
Indeed, normally with urban public transport, its the other way around … you have to get quite a far way down the path of planning the system before its possible to qualify for federal matching funds. And unlike roads, public transport projects do not normally have a dedicated income stream to pay for doing plans on an ongoing basis … each project normally has to fight for the funding to do the preliminary planning, then to do the preliminary economic impact assessment, environmental impact assessment, then to do the full fledged transport modeling and scoring against the DoT (twisted) cost-benefit thresholds, which rise to height massively above the median funded road project before a dime is released in matching funds.
Now is the time for every town and city that ever wondered what a new transport project might look like and where it might stand to get a project or three into the project bank … if, of course, there is funding as part of the stimulus.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
I am working on a long study related to this problem, focused on subways, and based on about 3 years of research. There are some problems here. First, the Japanese when starting to make subways in the U.S., learned to do so from the Americans. So, the idea that the U.S. is “reinventing the wheel” when it makes transit products, misses the point if we are talking about subways. Furthermore, many transit agencies know more about the mass transit product and design requirements than suppliers of transit systems, so the idea that supplier knowledge is hegemonic is false (see Jonathan Feldman, “The Conversion of Defense Engineers’ Skills: Explaining Success and Failure Through Customer-Based Learning, Teaming and Managerial Integration.” Chapter 18 in The Defense Industry in the Post-Cold War Era: Corporate Strategy and Public Policy Perspectives, Gerald I. Susman and Sean O’Keefe, eds. Oxford: Elsevier Science, 1998.). Furthermore, the idea that the interaction of foreign and domestic knowledge is some kind of null set is falsified by licensing agreements linking US and foreign suppliers. The US has assembly operations already, but they are largely low content operations. So, just waiting for transplants to mushroom is not a winning strategy. There are a host of other issues to consider, i.e. the financing, R&D, and training systems necessary to support any new manufacturing initiatives. These are all weak, part of the challenge which Obama will have to confront, whether or not he is aware of it.
Finally, this statement: “the US and Canadian economies are so integrated that having US stimulus money get into the hands of a Canadian manufacturer like Bombardier would be about as good as it getting into the hands of a US manufacturer” is rather confusing to me. When the Canadians compete with U.S.-based operations for subway contracts, why is the macro level of integration relevant to a sub-macro sectoral level competition? It’s precisely the delinking of stimulus money to domestic-rooted operations that is the core of the problem. Furthermore, in mass transit, the U.S. is really on the bottom of the food chain in terms of supplying industries (aside from some components), so what we are talking about is uneven development and unequal exchange where the U.S. position is akin to that of a third world country.
March 14th, 2009 at 4:58 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:22 am
viagra
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:57 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:49 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra