Obama’s High-Speed Rail Plan
I’m watching Barack Obama’s remarks on high-speed rail, which I think are excellent, but I’m more interested in the fact sheet I’ve gotten in the old inbox from the White House since it sheds some light on something that I and others have been wondering about—how is this money supposed to be spent? The answer is that there will be a two-stage competitive grant process. In the first stage “applications will focus on projects that can be completed quickly and yield measurable, near-term job creation and other public benefits” and then there will be a “next round to include proposals for comprehensive high-speed programs covering entire corridors or sections of corridors.” What corridors are we talking about?
—California Corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego)
—Pacific Northwest Corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver BC)
—South Central Corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock)
—Gulf Coast Corridor (Houston, New Orleans, , Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta)
—Chicago Hub Network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville,)
—Florida Corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami)
—Southeast Corridor (Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville)
—Keystone Corridor (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh)
—Empire Corridor (New York City, Albany, Buffalo)
—Northern New England Corridor (Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany)
Also, opportunities exist for the Northeast Corridor (Washington, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, New Haven, Providence, Boston) to compete for funds for improvements to the nation’s only existing high-speed rail service, and for establishment and upgrades to passenger rail services in other parts of the country.
My take on this is that the most promising projects on the merits, from a federal point of view, are probably those that upgrade the existing Northeast Corridor (where we know demand exists) and those that connect to the Northeast Corridor since the existing passenger rail corridor extends the utility of the new link. The Chicago Hub Network and the California Corridor concepts strikes me as very important for the long-term future of their regions, but for it to be useful will take a lot of time and money. I assume that the relevant state-level politicians for the Gulf Coast and South Central Corridors aren’t going to be interested in ponying up the sort of state funds that would make these projects competitively viable, and that may be for the best since I think those corridors may be a bit ill-conceived. It seems strange to build so much track in Texas and not manage to link Houston with Dallas.
113 Responses to “Obama’s High-Speed Rail Plan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 16th, 2009 at 10:06 am
The first order of business, naturally, should be to connect the entire Boston-Atlanta Metropolitan Axis with high-speed rail before our hyper-capitalist Zaibatsu-governed dystopian future kicks in.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:06 am
YEAH!!!!! That Boston to Montreal corridor runs through my town; Dept. of Transportation built a station right on the rail with another project a dozen years ago; it currently houses the Chamber of Commerce. Maybe it will function as a train station soon, bringing vacationers here (this is a resort town, skiing in winter, golf, hiking and canoeing in summer, no public-transportation access at all.) and giving me the opportunity to visit Portland, ME (great dining city) without driving.
Selfish, joyous happiness that this will happen. For the whole economy of my region was based on rail transportation; and with the advent of the automobile and highway system, it’s an economy that’s been sliding downward ever since.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:07 am
Doesn’t the Empire Corridor already have the Erie/Barge canal? How much transportation infrastructure do they need?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:10 am
So, I can go from Portland, Maine, to Houston but not to Dallas? And why wouldn’t you connect Cleveland and Pittsburgh so you can go from the Midwest to the Northeast? This is a series of regional trains, not a national system.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 am
It seems strange to build so much track in Texas and not manage to link Houston with Dallas.
That was my first thought too…as well as San Antonio to Houston — completing the Texas Triangle.
Of course you could link Tulsa to KC and Little Rock to St. Louis (via Memphis).
Memphis could then link to Birmingham, and Atlanta (via Nashville).
And then link Mobile to Jacksonville and San Antonio to LA — completing the I-10 corridor.
In short, the plan need a lot of work. Good to see something though, as a start.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 am
It seems strange to build so much track in Texas and not manage to link Houston with Dallas.
I had the exact same thought. My guess that this is a testament to the power of the various airlines based in Texas – American, Southwest and Continental — which no doubt make lots of money flying people between Dallas and Houston.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:13 am
I’m hopeful about this but I’m afraid we’re 60 years too late.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:20 am
The thing about the Chicago Hub is that it is relatively cheap to build (lots of inexpensive flat farmland and usable existing rights of way), the major cities are numerous and about the right distance apart, and it has national benefits through relieving airport congestion, most notably at O’Hare. So I wouldn’t wait.
Obviously eventually you would want to link everything up via Pittsburgh and Cleveland. The problem is that Philly to Pittsburgh to Cleveland is an expensive route, particularly for a real high speed connection, thanks largely to the mountains in the way.
Anyway, I definitely see no reason to backburner the Chicago Hub, regardless of when you plan to link it up with the East.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Trains are poo.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
That Chicago Hub needs to stretch to Des Moines (or even Omaha, then Denver) through Iowa City. A large population of students at the University of Iowa are Illinois out-of-staters.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Clearly, this is a fake made-up chart that was NOT issued by Barack Obama’s administration. Everyone knows he just wants to spend $8 billion dollars of your taxpayer money to connect Hollywood to Sin City.
What’s all this nonsense about connecting Chicago to St. Louis, and San Antonio to Oklahoma City? Clearly, someone is just releasing fake information. Because we all know the government can’t do anything good.
Next thing, you’ll be telling me volcano monitoring has a purpose.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:27 am
Matt, you forgot the Disneyland-to-Mustang-Ranch Corridor.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:27 am
The South Central Corridor seems silly if you don’t live along it and have your finger on the pulse of public opinion. The Oklahoma City and Tulsa MPOs are routinely bombarded with questions about the impending arrival of rail. Additionally, of the two metropolitan capital expenditure projects undertaken by Oklahoma City (remember, the OKC metro is massive, so we’re not really talking about LRT at these scales), commuter rail was either the top or second-highest request among citizens. That is was blown off twice is a testament to how little faith the Mayor places in his constituents. A third capital expenditure program is in the planning phases, and at present rail leads all other demands with about 78% of first-place votes (as determined by the MPO).
April 16th, 2009 at 10:29 am
I would rather they learn how to do this and work out the kinks before they tackle the highest usage areas. BTW the NEC has some higher speed service. It’s that the pricing is not competitive with air.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:30 am
P.S. Tupac supports HSR:
“From Oakland to Sac-town
The Bay Area and back down
Cali is where they put they mack down…”
April 16th, 2009 at 10:31 am
It also strikes me that we do not want to spend a nickel in Texas until this question of secession is resolved.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:32 am
It looks like these routes were drawn by politicians and not transit people. (or the traveling public…) The southern routes make no sense. Although Matt is probably right in writing the South off when it gets down to time for the states to provide the matching funds. An Atlanta corridor should connect to Nashville through Chattanooga. And connect to Charlotte via Greenville/Spartanburg. Southwest Airlines is what’s preventing a Dallas-Houston link.
I think that they need to focus on good systems in a couple of places to stir interest in building a real network. Too bad Jeb! killed HSR in Florida a few years back. Now they can’t even agree to build commuter rail for orlando!
April 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Is there really any new information in the email you received?
Like some others leaving comments, I’m not sure that a sound process was followed in piecing together the hsr corridor map.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Besides the lack of Houston connections with Dallas and San Antonio, some other routes are a little odd. How viable is DFW-Texarkana-Little Rock? And how viable is the Raleigh-Columbia-Savannah route?
I’d also have a few other suggested corridors. Some already mentioned linking Cleveland and maybe Columbus with Pittsburgh and through that to the NE. I’d also suggest:
1) Linking Pittsburgh with DC
2) Have a high-speed line follow I-70 from Pittsburgh to Kansas City.
3) Link the Chicago-Indianapolis-Louisville line down to Atlanta through Nashville and Chatanooga. All the intermediate cities on that route would be within 500 miles of both Atlanta and Chicago, meaning that even Indianapolis-Atlanta would be competitive with air travel.
4) A Mississippi corridor from St. Louis to New Orleans via Memphis, Jackson, and Baton Rouge.
Of course, much of this begs the question of how high-speed are these lines? The lines I cited as dubious might well make sense as 100-125mph routes. But for ultra-high-speed 200mph+ rail? I’d imagine that would only be viable for the heaviest trafficked routes connecting major cities.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:40 am
It looks like these routes were drawn by politicians and not transit people. (or the traveling public…) The southern routes make no sense.
Transit corridors are developed by the FTA in conjunction with state DOTs and MPOs. There are very few politicians involved in the diagnostic and analytic phases of transportation planning. There are politics, but that isn’t the same thing.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Obviously eventually you would want to link everything up via Pittsburgh and Cleveland.
Screw Pittsburg, they don’t even speak English there.
You connect everything by going Cleveland to Buffalo, the historic gateway to the MidWest. Build along the existing Interstate 90 right of way, flat, view of the lake, , each passenger gets complimentary Duff’s wings and a Genny Cream.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:46 am
More than seventy years ago, trains travelling between Chicago and the Twin Cities regularly hit 100 mph. Now we’re talking about spending billions so trains in that corridor can reach 79 mph. It’s sad how far behind we let ourselves fall.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:54 am
There are trainspotters in America! And not the Scottish junkie kind. At some point I’d like to see an in-depth overview of Matt’s view of foreign rail systems, which aspects to copy and which wouldn’t translate to this side of the Atlantic.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am
This is completely incoherent. That’s not a corridor; it’s a spider web.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:59 am
TonyB, StL to Little Rock is actually challenging; the Ozarks aren’t mountains as we usually think of them, but they’re enough to make first-wave HRT deployment difficult. However, I think you could potentially link both KC and LR through Tulsa without too much trouble, which might have the added benefit of getting more Oklahoma congressfolk and state legislators on board for funding.
The one missing connection that’s really puzzling me is Jacksonville to Orlando. Anyone have a reason that doesn’t exist, other than airline fears that they won’t be able to fly people down to Florida from the Northeast corridor anymore? I such fears are unfounded; the distance from New York to Orlando is the rough equivalent of Prague to Barcelona. Even with no mountains and relatively straight tracks, the train will take twice as long as the flight. Airlines would probably lose a lot of Carolinians and Georgians, and that’s it. But if anyone knows a better reason not to connect, I’d be interested to learn.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:03 am
joe from Lowell Says:
This is completely incoherent. That’s not a corridor; it’s a spider web.
Corridors in transport planning aren’t always corridors in the spatial, traditional sense. A corridor is more a term to describe the increased size and scope of a route over a traditional “line”. This includes larger ROWs, as well as land use development along the line.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Opie, to clarify. Little Rock to Memphis to St. Louis. Make I-55 the corridor. (And as Andrew mentions…tie it all the down to New Orleans.)
Obviously, I’m looking long range, but the corridors are already in place if you follow the interstate highway grid.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:09 am
You connect everything by going Cleveland to Buffalo, the historic gateway to the MidWest.
That is fine too, but not an efficient linkage for the East south of NYC.
By the way, DC to Pittsburgh and on to the Midwest would also be nice, but again you are talking about a very expensive link, particularly for true high speed, thanks to the mountains in the way.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:12 am
All that for only $13 billion. Amazing.
Btw, I have a bridge for sale. Lovely, historic, gets lots of traffic, great location running from Brooklyn to Manhattan.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
ostap Says:
All that for only $13 billion. Amazing.
The cost is probably closer to $26 billion, because FTA grants are usually at a 50% match, and that’s for highest priority. Lower-priority grants can hope for something like a 30% match. As it were, rail infrastructure (including rolling stock) is generally much cheaper than automobile infrastructure, both in the immediate and long term.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Genny? Get them a Molson, or if you want domestic, a Killian’s Red.
If they’re considering extending a track up into Canada, I hope they coordinated the technical details so that any Canadian HSR system could use the same trains.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Dallas and Houston don’t like each other much. It’s also tracking the IH 35 corridor.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am
I notice a huge empty space in the west –
How about an I-25 corridor from Cheyenne to El Paso, with a spurs to Laramie and a slow route across to Salt Lake – perhaps connecting further northwest (to travel by rail from Portland to Denver, one must go to Seattle, then across to Chicago, and then back to Denver – that’s just crazy!)… Another spur out of Denver to Boulder.
That would connect a huge swathe of the populations of Wyoming, Colorado and New Mexico, who currently have no rail options at all…
Oh – and actually not having to get off a train to go to Vancouver BC from Portland would be nice…
April 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am
All I know is if they build high speed rail from DFW to Austin, I may never spend another weekend sober and in Dallas.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:34 am
I don’t understand why one can’t get from NYC to Chicago?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
ETMSG: I had the exact same thought. My guess that this is a testament to the power of the various airlines based in Texas – American, Southwest and Continental — which no doubt make lots of money flying people between Dallas and Houston.
Bingo. Every few years some consortium or other proposes a high speed rail plan for Texas, and without breaking a sweat, SWA kills it in the Legislature. Been going on for 20+ years.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am
There already is a passenger train link between Buffalo and Cleveland (and on to Chicago and New York City at the ends); Amtrak’s Lake Shore Limited.
Denver-Omaha-KC looks like pretty long leaps with very little in between.
St. Louis-Memphis-Little Rock, and Memphis-Meridian or Memphis-Birmingham, and Jacksonville-Orlando and Dallas-Houston connect the east half of the country pretty well.
I think the key is to start building some shorter segments of High Speed Rail, and later extend and connect them. Cherry pick the routes that will do best, build them, run them, and build public support for more investment.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:45 am
I have no idea what the practical limitations are, but showcasing a New York-Chicago high-speed link could show the benefits of HSR. A flight is slightly under three hours, not counting the time to get to and from the airports at each end, nor time wasted to allow for security check-in. If the train could manage 200mph, Penn Station to Union Station would be about four hours (790 miles). When you add in no luggage checking (and no waiting at the luggage carousel) plus AC for your laptop, it’s a no-brainer for business travel.
I once took the TGV from Marseilles to Paris, a trip of about 500 miles. It took 3 hours.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Man, it sucks living in the Mountain West. Not enough population centers to sustain any high-speed rail corridors.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:48 am
We already have the spur from Denver to Boulder being worked on (yay!) but I like the idea of an I-25 corridor up to Wyoming. I just don’t think it’ll be used as much (I should be wrong, thats got 1 Texas city, 2 in NM and all the major Colorado cities and Wyoming.)
Living in Houston i’m just glad they’re thinking of putting any rail in… Gives me an escape route. Again I do agree they should finish the triangle with Houston to Dallas and San Antonio. Then San Antonio to El Paso…
Gosh, given enough time we could have intercontinental high speed rail.. Okay, I doubt that.
But whats up with not connecting Orlando to the rest of the nation? I’m sure the Mouse would help pay, it would make it so much easier for a lot of people to take a short vacation at WDW.
I’m guessing its all about the airlines right now.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:51 am
if you think the Acela counts as “high-speed”, please go to Germany or Japan. f
April 16th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Frankly I would avoid the entire South altogether, especially Texas. The Chicago hub, I agree with some of you, is the best idea and can be implemented the most efficiently.
I spent twelve years down in Atlanta and while it has a lot of great things they still live in the nineteenth century. For them, trains are what the niggers and spics ride to get to their jobs servicing the white people who clog Hwy. 400 every day listening to Neal Boortz tell them about people peeing on MARTA elevators. MARTA, you know, stands for “Moving Africans Rapidly Through Atlanta”. It gets no funding from the state and may have to shut down service one day a week so as to “show a profit”.
I’m all for letting the South save all of that money and skip out on all that federal funding because they don’t want it and they don’t deserve it. Build up the rest of the country and let the fuckers rot in the sand.
Wow, there’s not a lot of anger there, huh? I shocked even myself. Never mind. Fuck the South.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Oh nos, there is no Vegas-to-LA train. How will I ever get my kids from Disney World to the Bunny Ranch?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Obviously, if we’re building the rest, there should be routes between Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, Orlando and Jacksonville, and if you’re building to Little Rock, you may as well go to Memphis, Nashville, and Louisville from there.
Why wouldn’t we connect Detroit to Toronto? Could help revive the city a bit as a way-station between Toronto and Chicago.
The Columbia/Savannah link seems hopeless, as does Albany/Buffalo.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Something’s wrong with the map. Everyone knows the 20th Century Limited doesn’t go west of Chicago.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
It looks to me like the Chicago, Gulf Coast, and South Central coridors should all be connected at Memphis. the Pacific Northewest and California coridors should be conneced between their southern and northern terminuses and some connection be made between the coasts. Then we would have a national system.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
It’s obviously ridiculous to be talking about a Texas rail system while leaving off Houston. And then tying Houston into a gulf coast system liking it to New Orleans and points east?
When high speed rail comes up locally here in Texas the route they always talk about is a San Antonio to Dallas mainline with a spoke running from Houston to Temple (north of Austin). I doubt anyone in Texas sees the point of running a line 300 miles to connect to Little Rock (metro population 800,000) and 250 miles to connect to Tulsa (metro population 900,000) while leaving off Houston which is about 150 miles off the proposed mainline and has a metro population of close to 6 million.
Adding a Houston spoke would also tie College Station into the system which has a metro population of 200,000 and is home to the second largest university in the state.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Ok, I may not know much about high-speed trains, but I’m calling shenanigans on this “we can’t because there are mountains” bs. Japan is nothing but volcanoes, and they have the fastest trains in the world.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
$8 billion added by Rahm and 2 senators from Maine and 1 from Pa. vote “yes.” I bet I know who’s getting money.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
While I generally agree with the idea of boosting the Northeast Corridor and lines connected to it, the Chicago hub is so much farther along in planning and preparatory work that it has to be top of the list for stimulus money because it’s the only one that is truly “shovel-ready.” Ideally, they’d use it as a demonstrator, put the entire $8 billion in the Midwest for this year in order to allow not only existing equipment to do 110, but to immediately start infrastructure work for new equipment to do 150. This would be a genuine showcase for incremental improvements to existing infrastructure that actually works. Amtrak already has 110mph on the Porter, IN-Kalamazoo, MI section of the Chicago Detroit run; it could easily go higher given the equipment and infrastructure.
The problem with the Northeast Corridor is a huge amount of infrastructure work and advance planning still needs to be done before it can really make use of this kind of money. Go and take a look at MARC’s long-term plan in Maryland to get some idea of what has to be done; the MARC Penn Line (the Northeast Corridor) is the part to look at, and what has to be done is basically four-tracking throughout the state and completely new tunnels through the Baltimore area. Moving on up outside of MARC’s jurisdiction, here are a few more things that need to be done: restoring the bypass around Wilmington station so that non-stop trains don’t have to tie up slots, nor do they have to slow for that severe turn into the station (the right of way is there but the electrification was removed years ago); widening every other part of the line that was narrowed from four tracks back up to four tracks, and widening existing four-track sections to five or six, and then the BIG ONE — forcing New Jersey Transit to play ball with other transit agencies and design the new Hudson tunnels so that companies other than NJT can actually use them (as it is, they’d be NJT only, for eternity, because they don’t connect to other infrastructure).
And that doesn’t even begin to cover Connecticut, where the line between New York and New Haven is in dreadful shape, and where the Shore Line East route, while it is in pretty good condition, is hobbled by drawbridges and turns and was supposed to have been replaced by an inland high speed route years ago between New Haven and Providence.
Also, from Washington DC to New Haven you’re talking very old electrification that needs to be replaced. 1930s era wiring from Washington DC to New York, 1910s from New York to New Haven.
All the above is immensely expensive. Although much less expensive per mile than widening the New Jersey Turnpike, but still, immensely expensive. Just Washington DC to New York was once estimated at about $9 billion, and that was 15 years ago. Bringing the entire NEC up to modern capacity needs, 150mph running throughout and replacing all the old infrastructure could well be a $50 billion project. The payoff of course would be the ability to move several hundred thousand people per day on any given section of the line — more than even the widest highway.
But to get there, we have to realize that the $1 billion per year for rail improvements over the next five years is a real problem. This is where the political battle should be. I have no problem with the $8 billion for stimulus, it’s about as much as we can reasonably spend on stuff that’s sufficiently shovel-ready to be called a stimulus. But increasing this annual rail funding in years to come by at least a factor of ten — that’s the real issue.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
What about, as Goldberg mentioned, expanding freight rail? That project would have much greater commercial and environmental impact (in the good sense) than any expansion of commuter/traveller rails.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
A friend’s grandfather, a retired railroad man, told me the Milwaukee Road’s Hiawatha Flyer, a steam train, used to average 90 mph from downtown to downtown Minneapolis. Unoffical top speeds were clocked over 140 mph.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
This is a series of regional trains, not a national system.
That’s a feature, not a bug. One of big reasons that Amtrak is doomed to lose money as currently constructed is that it is compelled for political reasons to run a bunch of long-distance trains that (1) uncompetitive with air travel; (2) far too sparse to support a reasonable frequency; and (3) horribly inconvenient and unreliable. The alternative conception of high density HSR corridors is the appropriate remedy.
What about, as Goldberg mentioned, expanding freight rail? That project would have much greater commercial and environmental impact (in the good sense) than any expansion of commuter/traveller rails.
Two answers: (1) the U.S. already a tremendously capable freight rail system, with rail rates among the lowest in the world, so the need is much less dire; (2) the government is in fact putting money into the freight rail system through a system of investment tax credits and direct subsidies. There are a couple of projects with large benefits to the public that would be a good use of more federal money; the interconnection project in Chicago for starters.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Oh nos, there is no Vegas-to-LA train. How will I ever get my kids from Disney World to the Bunny Ranch?
The really dishonest thing about Arizona congressman Trent Franks complaining about the Anaheim-Vegas rail taking people to the doorstep of the Moonlite Bunny Ranch is that the MBR is nowhere even close to Las Vegas. It’s just outside the Carson City limits in Northern Nevada, 400 miles away. Even if he’s just using the MBR as a stand-in for all brothels, the closest legal brothels to Vegas are in Pahrump, 60 miles away.
And Franks is from just over the state line in northwestern AZ, so he knows he’s peddling horseshit; he just doesn’t care.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Consider this an ignoramous question, but does this plan include freight transport at all, besides passenger?
If so the South Central route from Mexico to Little Rock could be very commercially important, and needn’t include Houston at all.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Bear in mind that the Federal Railroad Administration’s high speed rail map is driven in part by what kind of existing infrastructure they have to develop. For all those of you hoping for Dallas-Houston, for example, that would require some serious work because existing capacity is deeply constrained as it is and you’d have to resort to an all-new line much quicker than you would on, say, Dallas to San Antonio. Chicago to St. Louis is at the head of the line in part because it is good quality infrastructure on a wide right of way that’s easy to expand and carries very little freight traffic.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
There will be no high speed rail in America. $8 billion isn’t nearly enough. $13 billion isn’t nearly enough. The money will be consumed on minor upgrades and repairs. A few existing Amtrak services may get somewhat faster. True high speed rail — European- and Japanese-type bullet trains — are a fantasy.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
@bob mcmanus
AAR (American Association of Railroads) is all in favor of the Obama Administration’s high speed rail program.
Why? Because by focusing on improvements to existing routes, it provides a direct benefit to the freight railroads. Longer passing loops, for example, mean not only that Amtrak trains no longer have to sit in the passing loop waiting for the longer freight train; they also mean that two long freight trains can pass one another simultaneously. As a result, both the freight and the passenger trains run faster.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I think it is too bad there is not and LA-Vegas connection. That is a road that has nearly bumper to bumper traffic each weekend and heavy traffic at any random time. You can easily verify this second point yourself by looking at Google Maps and check out I-15 between the two cities.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Agree with Charles. None of this is ever going to happen. It’s fun watching you all get your public transportation boners up though.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
@charles
Not a fantasy, if the political will can be summoned for something on the scale of the Interstate Highway System. Republican congressman Tom Latham (Iowa) put it best a few weeks ago — saying this ought to be the start of a trillion dollar program. Of course, for every Latham, there are two “centrist” Democrats that aren’t interested in anything except the next press release and five wingnut Republicans who regard it as a socialist plot, but it’s a start.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
TonyB Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Opie, to clarify. Little Rock to Memphis to St. Louis. Make I-55 the corridor. (And as Andrew mentions…tie it all the down to New Orleans.)
Obviously, I’m looking long range, but the corridors are already in place if you follow the interstate highway grid.
============================================================
The Illinois Central has run passenger service on the New Orleans – Jackson – Memphis – St. Louis – Chicago route for forever. Remember that Arlo Guthrie song “The City of New Orleans”?
I used to take the Panama Limited/City of New Orleans between Memphis (home) and New Orleans when I was in school at Tulane in the early 70s.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
About 15 years ago I worked in the Dept. of Economic Development in the City of San Antonio. High speed rail was discussed then too, with a San Antonio-Austin-Dallas-Houston triangle route. They were talking to a consortium who had partnered with the same group who did the TGV in France. Unfortunately, Southwest Airlines said that they would pull out of the state entirely if high-speed rail was put in. All discussions basically stopped at that point.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Stephen Says:
April 16th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I think it is too bad there is not and LA-Vegas connection. That is a road that has nearly bumper to bumper traffic each weekend and heavy traffic at any random time. You can easily verify this second point yourself by looking at Google Maps and check out I-15 between the two cities.
============================================================
True, you likely could get passenger volume to support that. And you are right – I-15 is a mess on the weekends.
Also, they could do like some of the entrepreneurial bus services (the bingo bus!)on that route and have casino cars. Gamble all the way up and back on your way to gamble.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
It’s only a fantasy if you ignore what’s going on at the state level, which most of you seem to be. California’s got $10 billion ready to go for construction of the San Francisco to downtown LA high-speed rail link, the start of our west coast system. Now, we need $40 billion total, which is far beyond what this tiny plan can offer, but even a tiny infusion to make what we’re doing better would help. For example, there are currently people trying to make the high-speed system stop on the outskirts of SF, miles from our light rail tracks. A few hundred million would get it downtown.
That kind of stimulus can make sure this all gets done right — not that that it gets started in the first place. I can’t even express what high speed rail from San Francisco to San Diego would do for this state. It would transform it utterly. And if (though it’s a true pipe dream) they extended it to connect with the Pacific Northwest, people would take weekend excursions to Portland, Seattle and Vancouver on a regular basis. It would be amazing.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Not a fantasy, if the political will can be summoned for something on the scale of the Interstate Highway System.
I have no idea how you think that follows. The benefits of high speed rail are simply too small in comparison to the costs, and would be concentrated among a small and affluent segment of the population. It just doesn’t make sense either economically or politically.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
California’s got $10 billion ready to go for construction of the San Francisco to downtown LA high-speed rail link, the start of our west coast system.
Huh? What $10 billion ready to go?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
The Southern routes do not need to be completely ignored. For example, The Atlanta and Birmingham MPO’s have been wanting a high speed rail line between their cities for litterally twenty years (the states have been the biggest hold up despite the major pressure it would remove for both I-20 and Hartsfield airport). All of the Southern cities in question are at a distance where there would be major advantages for using them versus airplanes, and the national benefits of taking the strain off of the airports in Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Charlotte would be worth it in any case.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Nothing from Des Moines to the Twin Cities.
Fuck!
April 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Existing infrastructure and geography go a long way here. Why so much high-speed rail in declining Ohio? Because of the existing rail infrastructure that can be converted. Why absolutely nothing crossing Tennessee, or through Colorado? Mountains.
I live in East Tennessee and think it would be great to have high-speed rail that went northeast through the Great Valley into Virginia and then to DC. But it would have to cross the Blue Ridge Mountains. And to go west to Nashville, it would have to cross the Cumberland Plateau. A route southwest to Chattanooga and down to Atlanta and Birmingham is more feasible, as historic railroads went that way. But is there enough modern traffic that direction? Hard to say.
I imagine somebody who knows Colorado and Utah better could explain why mountain passes there aren’t amenable to high-speed rail. Surely, a Denver-Salt Lake link would carry many passengers.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Nothing to do, “charles”? Going to repeat the same old bullshit for the next twelve hours?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
@Charles
That would be the $9 billion voted in last fall in addition to the $950 million voted in for existing line improvements at the same time. Prop 1a passed, in case you were sleeping.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
The naysayers are correct, this will never get done. As long as there is breath in the Republican party they will block any attempt by this country to join the 20th century, let alone the 21st.
Of course, if the current Republican party is destroyed and the Blue Dogs constitute a moderate Right wing on the political spectrum, who knows?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
When I look at the official corridor map, the thing that jumps out at me as stupid is that the Empire and Keystone lines do not connect to the Chicago Hub.
You can high-speed from Bangor to Houston but not Philly to Cleveland. What???
Overall, that significant blunder aside, I’m very happy to see Obama out there on this. Go rail!
April 16th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
It looks like with about 5% more track, the whole thing could be linked together except the West Coast stuff.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
KC-OKC, Pittsburgh-Cleveland, and Jacksonville-Orlando. That’s all it would take to connect the whole East Coast/Midwest system.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
We have to prepare for the return of $150/bbl oil. There is no airline model that can sustain the sort of traffic we need for commerce & leisure travel at that price.
I think economists are underplaying the role that the recent energy spike had in the current downturn.
The 70’s oil shocks caused recessions, and we’re kidding ourselves if we think this current one is just the housing bubble bursting/toxic loans.
And if we as a nation don’t start progress on a transportation plan to replace short-haul (under 500 mile) flying, we’re crazy and headed for big trouble.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
That would be the $9 billion voted in last fall in addition to the $950 million voted in for existing line improvements at the same time. Prop 1a passed, in case you were sleeping.
Prop 1a merely authorized the sale of bonds to fund HSR. No bonds have been sold, and no bond money has been appropriated. Given the dire state of California’s finances (it has the lowest bond rating in the country) there is no chance of raising the bond money in the foreseeable future. The California HSR Authority has been out of money since the election. It just got an emergency infusion of $29 million so it can pay its consultants, who had stopped work on the project because they weren’t getting paid. But that will only cover its expenses through June. In case you were sleeping.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
We have to prepare for the return of $150/bbl oil. There is no airline model that can sustain the sort of traffic we need for commerce & leisure travel at that price.
This is what’s called “wishful thinking.”
April 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
So many who talk about these various segments not connecting are completely missing the point of high speed rail that has been discussed numerous times. It is not intended to get you from New York to Florida or Chicago to LA. Those routes have to be handled by air travel and only a hardy few will travel those by rail. High Speed Rail is meant for 500 to 600 mile corridors that make it faster or the same as air travel and getting people out of the airports which have become a pain in the rear.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Why would I “wish” for $150/bbl oil? I love flying to Colorado for vacation and driving to see friends, free mobility, etc.
But global demand for oil will resume it’s climb. It may take 2-4 years, but demand creation is built into the global economy: Tata’s production is sold out into the forseable future, China is adding some amazing # of new cars per month, etc.
The utter failure of airlines to prepare for the last spike is no excuse to to prepare again. I remember when oil was at $75 and Northwest executives were forecasting a business model that could be profitable “all the way to $90″ I remember literally yelling at my newspaper when I read this. they were idiots to think 90 was anything like a realistic estimate.
Of course NWA went bankrupt (and I unloaded my shares at 47 cents). I’ve been an investor on & off in airline stocks for over a decade, bub, and I worked in the Texas oilpatch in the 80s, so don’t “wishful thinking” me.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
I agree, CYNYC but why link Buffalo to Albany but not Pittsburgh to Cleveland & Toledo? And by doing so, allowing the option of folks going Philly-Cleveland or Chicago-Pgh?
Oh, and not linking Houston to DFW mystifies me.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Why would I “wish” for $150/bbl oil?
Not that. Your claim that “There is no airline model that can sustain the sort of traffic we need for commerce & leisure travel at that price.”
April 16th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
charles: “Given the dire state of California’s finances (it has the lowest bond rating in the country) there is no chance of raising the bond money in the foreseeable future.”
Actually, this month’s $6.5 million dollar bond sale went very well.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
…and by “million’, I of course mean “Billion.”
April 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
OK, who does have a pricing, fleet and network plan that works at $150? I want to know so I can be an investor in that airline!
April 16th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Actually, this month’s $6.5 million dollar bond sale went very well.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Those are general infrastructure bonds, not HSR bonds. It hasn’t sold any HSR bonds. Nor is it likely to in the foreseeable future. As the article notes, the state has a backlog of $61 billion in general obligation bonds to sell.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
OK, who does have a pricing, fleet and network plan that works at $150?
I don’t know. The question is irrelevant. Your claim is not that no airline has such a plan, but that “there is no airline model that can sustain the sort of traffic we need for commerce & leisure travel at that price.” Show us how you know this to be true.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
A couple comments:
As others are noting, HSR is about connecting medium-to-large cities a certain range of distances apart. Here is a handy map helping explain the routes above:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/mapGallery/2kpopden.html
As for mountains, it is in fact possible to push HSR through mountains . . . it just becomes really, really expensive on a per mile basis.
Finally, as we have discussed here a bit before, the pre-existing plans are phased in fairly sensible ways. The map linked above is basically a middle phase, and the very next things that would come are interregional links. For example, see here for a useful series of maps (originally pointed out by BruceMcF), showing the proposed phases in the Ohio Hub project plan:
http://www2.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/Ohio%20Hub/Website/ordc/maps.html
If you compare those phases to Matt’s map, you can see Matt’s map has gotten Ohio to something roughly equivalent to Phase 3. In Phase 4, the Pittsburgh to Cleveland link would be added, followed by Pittsburgh to Columbus in Phase 5, then finally Cleveland to Buffalo in Phase 6.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Jar: “Ha ha ha ha ha! Those are general infrastructure bonds, not HSR bonds.”
Non sequitur. Contra charles, California’s bond rating does not appear to have impacted its ability to sell bonds.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Two points–one, some have mentioned that existing Amtrak routes already cover some of this territory. While true, wouldn’t the point of the initiative be to make those routes faster? In other words, to get from Chicago to Memphis now takes 10.5 hours. With a train going 200 miles per hour, with fewer stops (see point 2 below), it could be cut to, say, 3-4 hours. (I think the distance from Chicago to Memphis is 547 miles).
Second, one of the existing problems with Amtrak is that in order to get Congressional support for its appropriations, it has to include stops in very small towns so that the local Congressperson will support funding. (The one I’m most familiar with, the City of New Orleans, makes multiple stops in Mississippi, which was insisted upon by former Sen. Trent Lott). My guess (please correct if I’m wrong on this one) is that high-speed rail, of necessity, would have to bypass some of these smaller towns. My hope would be that the additional funding needed (after this first $9b) would be found despite the cut-off in service.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
“charles” has now planned out the next four hours, which will be devoted to nitpicking the long-term feasibility of the American air travel industry.
He’s not got much else to do on a Thursday afternoon.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
Non sequitur. Contra charles, California’s bond rating does not appear to have impacted its ability to sell bonds.
Jer has produced no evidence that California’s bond rating has had no impact on its ability to sell bonds.
Then again, someone who thinks load factors are “magic” generally falls into the “too stupid to bother with” category.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
You’re not fooling anyone, ‘Mixnerspotter’.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
showing the proposed phases in the Ohio Hub project plan
The Ohio Hub plan is not High Speed Rail, except under the federal government’s very limited definition. It would increase the maximum speed of some services from 80 mph to only 110 mph. That’s maximum speed, not average speed. A more honest name would be SFR (Slightly Faster Rail). Hilariously, the documents DTM links to are full of images of European HSR trains.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Just to back up some previously posted thoughts about a Dallas to Houston rail connection – it is the obvious connection but it is also the bread and butter of Southwest Air. At the same time, the I-35 corridor passing from Dallas to Austin is stacked with traffic congestion. You could probably sell the state (with enough federal dollars) on a Dallas to Austin train whereas proposing the idea of a Dallas to Houston train will end up getting killed in the state legislature by Southwest lobby money.
Now, if the corridor between Austin and Dallas could get built, Houston would end up being added no matter what Southwest tried to do to stop it.
I’m not holding my breath, though. Other regions seem ready to embrace a rail option and deserve the money because they will get something done. Texas’ legislature would probably try to figure out how they could turn the money into additional funding to triple-deck highways or build new toll roads.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Jer has produced no evidence that California’s bond rating has had no impact on its ability to sell bonds.
See that underline beneath the words “very well”? That’s called a link. If you move the mouse pointer over it and press the left button,
It will take you to a page explaining that, despite CA’s bond rating, its latest bond auction went very well.
Glad to be of help.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
While I don’t want to downplay the influence lobbying has on the Texas lege, it’s also possible that Houston is not connected to the I-35 corridor at first because of strictly economic reasons. Houston’s economy is all about oil, which makes a connection to other Gulf Coast cities seem useful. But if you look at the relative traffic on I-35 versus the traffic on highways connecting Austin and San Antonio to Houston (I haven’t gone Dallas to Houston much, so can’t comment on I-45), it’s pretty clear that DFW, ATX, and SA have economies that are far more connected to each other than they are to Houston’s. But this is just my speculation based on current highway traffic, where the much wider I-35 is a never-ending traffic jam up and down the state, but you can get from Central TX to Houston on smaller highways without much hassle.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
See that underline beneath the words “very well”? That’s called a link.
You do understand that the link has to actually support the claim in question to be relevant, don’t you?
April 16th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Again the southwest is ignored when we (NM) have the fastest growing rail expansion in the country.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
You’re all kidding yourself. High-speed rail in a country as vast as the United States would cost trillions and bankrupt the already near bankrupt treasury. It currently costs about $80 million per mile to construct proper high-speed rail lines. So consider all the miles of track needed and you’ll soon discover it won’t work. Obama is a delirium dreamer. There’s little reality in much of what he says. Just dreams and fancy talk aimed to please his constituency.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
The map is out of date (from 2001) at least for California and Texas. There is a new privately-initiated proposal for Texas called the Texas T-Bone that links Dallas-Houston-SanAntonio.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
While I don’t want to downplay the influence lobbying has on the Texas lege, it’s also possible that Houston is not connected to the I-35 corridor at first because of strictly economic reasons. Houston’s economy is all about oil, which makes a connection to other Gulf Coast cities seem useful. But if you look at the relative traffic on I-35 versus the traffic on highways connecting Austin and San Antonio to Houston (I haven’t gone Dallas to Houston much, so can’t comment on I-45), it’s pretty clear that DFW, ATX, and SA have economies that are far more connected to each other than they are to Houston’s. But this is just my speculation based on current highway traffic, where the much wider I-35 is a never-ending traffic jam up and down the state, but you can get from Central TX to Houston on smaller highways without much hassle.
I-45 from Houston to Dallas can be an absolute mess. Drove it a few weekends ago and there was insane congestion from Houston all the way to Huntsville. The worst commute out of Houston is actually the 290 which is the direct route towards College Station and Waco, which his actually the most logical high speed rail corridor.
The reason that I-35 is so much worse is due primarily to the long-haul trucking from Mexico to points north that travels this route. Not so much because of all the traffic between Austin and Dallas. I-45 is not nearly as big of a trucking route.
Don’t underestimate the connections between Dallas and Houston. Both are major corporate and manufacturing centers that distribute goods and services back and forth.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:17 pm
There are two keys to success in the Chicago Corridor.
The first key is eliminating freight train delays between Gary, IN and Chicago where the Lake pinches all the major rail corridors together and creates considerable congestion (this quirk of geography is also true for I-80/94 in the same region) and delay to Amtrak today. This would be done presumably by building a passenger-rail-only right of way. The right of way from the old PRR and NYC (that ran redundantly parallel between Chicago Englewood and the Gary Airport area) and were combined into a single right of way after the ill-fated 1968 Penn Central merger can be used in many locations.
The second key (and this addresses Rich Paul who is spinning this as long-haul trains for the “vast” country like the US) is the need to somehow integrate the trains from all the routes into O’Hare airport, as the synergy between long haul hub flights and shorter haul high speed rail is vital. This is more difficult, but there is an existing Metra route that runs from Chicago Union Station to just outside O’Hare near the long-term parking area and people-mover into the terminals that could be used. This would require the Milwaukee-Madison-Minnesota trains to continue to DeVal junction in Des Plaines and divert to an existing freight-only route in order to rejoin the existing Milwaukee Amtrak route (Glenview would be missed by these trains but Northbrook could be substituted). It would also require “through terminal” operation at Chicago Union Station, which is challenging (most tracks stub on the north or south ends but there are a few that run through) but feasible. But for God’s sake don’t make airline-HSR passengers connect between ORD and Chicago Union Station using the CTA Blue Line and a long walk or connecting city bus ride! That has FAIL written all over it.
As for Dallas-Houston, I agree with Dave R that Dallas-based Southwest Airlines, the only US air carrier that makes money anymore, would scream to high heaven if this SWA-lucrative route was included. There’s precedent for this, as Herb Kelleher has griped loudly in the past whenever high speed rail subsidies were broached. Of course Dallas-Houston makes sense. But realpolitik sometimes means picking your battles.
So does LA-Vegas for that matter, but this proposal without LA-Vegas neatly avoids the whole Harry Reid demagoguery.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
I would love high-speed rails throughout the US. Hopefully they are magnetic rail, not something that runs on fuels or insane amounts of electricity. Also I wish they would include Phoenix!
http://www.TheNewAtheist.com
April 16th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
RE: Track in Texas.
Looks to me like one could take that weird track to Little Rock and build a track for Houston/Dallas AND San Antonio/Houston. That would link the gulf and the south central lines. I have a hard time imagining a lot of traffic from Dallas to Little Rock.
Of course with our governor and legislature of Republican halfwits, we are unlikely to participate. Governor Goodhair will still be trying to build his toll super highways with every dime he can beg borrow or steal.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
WiFi is the key to getting people on the train. I ride the Amtrak Downeaster from Portland, ME to Boston every week, and being on the train is as good as being in my office. Better, actually. There’s a coffee shop on the train, wireless internet, comfy seats. Sometimes I’m happy when there’s a delay.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
The corridor locations are out of date (they were put down in 1999 or 2000) and some are kind of absurd. Texas stands out most to me: It should be something like the proposed Texas T-Bone Corridor, which connects San Antonio, Austin, Houston and Dallas in a large T shape which splits at Killeen/Temple, north of Austin. Texas has enough people to warrant building an island of rail which would then expand north and east upon the respective completions of the Midwest hub and the full Eastern corridor. Meanwhile, California’s trains can expand east into Arizona and, gasp, earmarks! Las Vegas.
April 17th, 2009 at 12:24 am
@mnpundit
As much as I’d like to see a rail link between Des Moines and the Cities, it’s barely even viable for I-35. Average traffic counts north of US-20 are around the 15,000 mark, and I suspect a substantial part of that is local because there are big variations exit-to-exit. It’s a long way behind any of the corridors on the government’s list of rail developments. First, let’s see Des Moines-Chicago, where I-80 carries almost twice I-35’s traffic.
April 17th, 2009 at 4:30 am
On possible objections by Southwest Airlines to a viable Houston Dallas rail service, I think those could be partially assuaged by an immediate removal of any restrictions on SW operations out of Love Field. In the early 90s when Kelleher blocked some Texas rail activity, SW was a rapidly growing but still largely regional carrier. It is now a major national carrier and probably has bigger fish to fry than DAL-HOU.
Not that it’s clear to me that tons of people would choose rail over SW current DAL-HOU service if it were available.
April 17th, 2009 at 6:05 am
On possible objections by Southwest Airlines to a viable Houston Dallas rail service, I think those could be partially assuaged by an immediate removal of any restrictions on SW operations out of Love Field. In the early 90s when Kelleher blocked some Texas rail activity, SW was a rapidly growing but still largely regional carrier. It is now a major national carrier and probably has bigger fish to fry than DAL-HOU.
Not that it’s clear to me that tons of people would choose rail over SW current DAL-HOU service if it were available.
Sorry… forgot to say great post – can’t wait to read your next one!
April 17th, 2009 at 11:52 am
What about, as Goldberg mentioned, expanding freight rail? That project would have much greater commercial and environmental impact (in the good sense) than any expansion of commuter/traveller rails.
Freight rail is already a booming industry, however, rail lines are expensive to use for most business that aren’t shipping raw materials and chemicals. The trucking industry will never die just because of the limitations on freight rail in regards to where they can reach.
My point, there is very little to optimize because of the majority of hazardous freight being moved on rail cars. Freight rail can’t be more optimized, but rather maintained because of the amount of derailments, impacts, and obviously, the large amounts of hazardous material that is moved with rail lines.
Passenger rail however is severely lacking, even considering most rail companies we’re passenger trains back in the day! Amtrack is a piece of overpriced crap.
Japan’s interconnected rail islands are about the same size as the eastern sea board from the top of florida to about mid-newyork. It is a highly mountainous country, yet they have several high speed trains, and tons of regular commuter trains.
High speed rail wasn’t privatized until the mid 70’s when the development of more routes was pushed faster than they were making money, which led to them being bought by several companies. Which, are still doing incredibly well.
Yes, there were set backs in regards to money, but learning from mistakes is one step ahead of the curve.
I think more passenger rail would greatly benefit the eastern and midwest. Save money, create TONS of jobs, and save some oil.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:41 am
Wow…lots of south bashing on some of these posts. I live in AL and would take full advantage of high speed rail…esp since I hate flying. I would like a route that covers the area Amtrak’s sunset limited currently runs…truly connecting the east to the west. The population and economic growth is in the SOUTH…like it or not. It would be foolish to fund areas that are actually losing population left and right.