Just learned that Governor Rick Scott is refusing the high speed rail $ for Florida.
http://www.kgmi.com/...ntentId=7674012
When I read Sh!# like that, it just makes me wanna go postal.
What if all the Governors told Dwight D. the same thing 50 years ago? We'd still be driving coast-to-coast on two lane roads I guess.
The U.S.A. is destined to staying a 3rd-world country when it comes to HSR I guess. It just blows my mind.
We are afraid to "do" big projects anymore, like the Interstate System, or the Apollo project. Content to sit on the sidelines, and watch our world-side competitive advantages just disappear, and watch China and others pass us by. So sad.
In my mind, the recent state of the high speed rail push in the US has been grossly misdirected. The media and many Amtrak/rail supporters like the ones that post on here (don't take that the wrong way folks) liken the current HSR push to "building the next generation of the Interstate Highway System," when it is simply not the case. The current state of HSR in the United States
(here) is really nothing more than a small number of largely localized high speed rail (a term that is up to interpretation anyway) designated corridors that, with the exception of SEHSR, don't link up to a greater network and require at least some form of state support. Do not confuse this with the original plan of the IHS, which was a Federal effort and was very deliberately designed as an interconnecting nationwide network. For proof, look at page 5 of the original General Location of National System of Interstate Highways publication from 1955, which can be found
here. The two simply cannot be compared. I find it greatly disappointing and short-sighted that our current plan for a high speed rail network remains so fragmented, and that this country, as well as many of its states, lacks a comprehensive master plan for the future of its transportation, distribution, and logistics systems.
From a rail supporter's perspective, it is unfortunate to watch HSR having such a hard time getting off the ground domestically. However, from someone who is realistic, very fiscally-aware, and future-oriented, I have to agree that it is not the right time for HSR in its current form. I have personally opposed any HSR project outside of California's effort and SEHSR, because I believe that these two areas have not only the greatest need, but also the greatest potential. I believe, and have for some time now, that the public isn't necessarily set on the prospect of true HSR for the future of rail transportation. Sure, the marketing aspect of HSR is sexy - a sleek, modern, electric train pulling into a shiny newly-constructed station whisking you away to your destination at 150+mph...I mean, who wouldn't want that, right? - but realistically, all that most Americans want in the present and near-future are consistent, reliable, drive-competitive trains. There is very much so pent-up demand for this type of service in our country. If this weren't the case, NCDOT would not have seen the need to institute 2 new midday roundtrip departures (74/75) between Charlotte and Raleigh, in addition to its existing two roundtrips per day (80/79 and 73/74). Could one drive the same distance in an hour less and at a lower fuel cost than the $26 one-way itinerary? Most likely, assuming no traffic. But for many people, there exists a certain willingness-to-pay in premium for not having to drive it. The implementation of this new midday service is proof of all the above. Additionally, NCDOT would not see a need to extend service to Salisbury to Asheville, and from Raleigh to Wilmington if the demand didn't exist. Another perfect example is the large success of the Amtrak Regional extension to Lynchburg. As with trains 74/75, one could drive the distance in about an hour's less time, but for an increasingly small difference in fuel cost as compared to the $29 one-way fare, again assuming no traffic. Again, the service's unexpected (not so much to me; I figured it would break the ridership goal, but not to the extent that it did) success is a testament to what consumers are content with and want in our country. From 10/1/09, to 9/30/10, the Lynchburg train achieved an annual ridership of 126,072, exceeding its initial yearly target of 51,000 by 147.2 percent. The service also exceeded its initial annual revenue goal of $2,580,000 by generating $6,337,457.42 in revenue, 145.6 percent over the goal. The new Richmond extension introduced at around the same time is doing well also. Case in point.
In going with the idiom, "you have to walk before you can run," I deeply believe that our focus should be on implementing new service and/or extending existing service at current speeds, all the while improving the existing infrastructure, and expanding where necessary with the goal of continuous improvement at a relatively even spending level. Obviously, first updating and fixing our existing network's most serious problems and bottlenecks (read: Chicago congestion, the NEC, Amtrak equipment, etc.) would involve a potentially large initial outlaying of public funds, but its benefits would be clear and very, very noticeable. However, after the initial large-scale, large-effect updates and improvements have been completed, smaller continuous improvements of the system would take over, and would be far less likely to require large capital investments. But more importantly, these funds would go towards optimizing an existing integrated system, not an entirely new project. The truth is that HSR is simply too much to swallow at this time financially with the state of the economy. The Department of the Treasury reporting a deficit of $1.29 trillion for 2010 and our national debt being more than $14 trillion as of last month certainly doesn't help the HSR case either. Without a plan in place for a national, integrated network like we had with our Interstate Highway System, we are unable to prioritize route planning, and as a result, we get projects like the ~80-mile-long Orlando-Tampa corridor. That is, small, localized routes whose benefits to the nation as a whole are ambiguous at best. Are HSR projects that small
really necessary? I think the answer to that is no, given the vast amount of funding that it would require. I instead would support, and I think the public would as well, a network of consistent, clean, frequent 79-90mph trains whose upfront costs would be significantly less, yet would still offer drivers an advantage over a frustrating, cluttered drive up Interstate 4. It also concerns me that such short routes would prevent us from realizing potential cost savings from a lack of scale as opposed to if the project was part of a larger integrated plan, in addition to the potential for differences in equipment, technical aspects, personnel, etc. between two given corridors.
Overall, I do feel that we are moving in the right direction in general with rail transportation, albeit slowly. We must remember that our government has much on its plate right now in terms of transportation funding, and passenger rail must compete with the need for an updated air traffic control system, highway rebuilding and expansion, and modernization and expansion of our ports, all of which we badly need, and arguably more than localized HSR corridors. The reality that many states are coming to is that "Yes, HSR would be nice, but we simply can't justify its upfront costs and the risks associated with it, especially at the current time. Instead, let's get a dialogue going with the guys over at the freight railroads and see what we can mutually agree on to perhaps get some existing speed passenger trains running on existing infrastructure," which is totally acceptable in my opinion. It's what North Carolina has been doing for the last decade, albeit with a unique agreement with NS, and it's what Virginia has started to do in the last few years. A perfect example is the new service that was approved late last year for new 79mph service to Norfolk from Petersburg/Richmond via the NS, which will provide a viable alternative to the congested I-95 and I-64 corridors, and will serve the Hampton Roads area as a whole, an area of 1+ million that hasn't seen passenger rail since 1977. The cost for this ~85 mile project? A cool $87 million, funded by a Rail Enhancement Fund grant. Quite a sizable contrast to the $2.4 billion price tag on the similarly sized Tampa-Orlando corridor, with probably only about 20-30 minutes' difference in travel time. Florida Governor Rick Scott was quoted as saying, "Government cannot spend more than it takes in. ... The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits." I'll side with Rick on this one. A continuous improvement strategy and culture is what keeps an increasingly large amount of companies competitive in today's business environment. Here's to hoping our nation's passenger rail system can do the same.
I'll be hopping on the new Lynchburg train to Newark in 2 weeks and then will be returning the following weekend on it from Washington. I am very much looking forward to supporting this service and becoming a part of its successful numbers.
CM