iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama: High-Speed Rail System Needed

JIM ABRAMS   04/16/09 08:01 PM ET   AP

Trains

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Thursday outlined plans for a high-speed rail network he said would change the way Americans travel, drawing comparisons to the 1950s creation of the interstate highway system.

Obama was careful to point out that his plan was only a down payment on an ambitious plan that, if realized, could connect Chicago and St. Louis, Orlando and Miami, Portland and Seattle and dozens of other metropolitan areas around the country with high-speed trains.

There's no guarantee that the nation has the political will _ Congress has often tried to reduce support for Amtrak _ or the hundreds of billions of dollars and decades it would take to build a comprehensive fast rail system.

"This is not some fanciful, pie-in-the-sky vision of the future," Obama said during an event at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is adjacent to the White House. "It is happening right now. It's been happening for decades. The problem is it's been happening elsewhere, not here."

The United States trails other developed countries in developing high-speed rail. The Spanish can travel the 386 miles from Madrid to Barcelona at speeds averaging almost 150 miles per hour. Japan's Shinkansen links its major cities at speeds averaging 180 mph and France's TGV train averages about 133 mph in carrying passengers from Paris to Lyon.

The only U.S. rail service that meets the Federal Railroad Administration's 110 mph threshold to qualify as high-speed rail is Amtrak's 9-year-old Acela Express route connecting Boston to Washington, D.C.

Initially, regional transportation offices will compete for the $8 billion included in the $787 billion economic stimulus spending package for high-speed rail, bolstered by $1 billion a year for five years requested in the federal budget.

The $8 billion is part of $64 billion in the stimulus package for roads, bridges, rail and transit, what Obama called "the most sweeping investment in our infrastructure since President Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s."

Obama said the first round of money would go to upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines where people could quickly be put to work. The second and third phases would focus on high-speed rail planning and money to jump-start corridors not yet ready for construction. The Transportation Department is to announce first-round grants before the end of the summer.

Obama said a mature high-speed rail system would reduce demand for foreign oil and eliminate more than 6 billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions a year _ equivalent to removing 1 million cars from the roads.

Any region could present a long-range plan, he said, although the stimulus money can go only to the 10 major corridors designated by the Federal Railroad Administration and covering lines in Texas, California, Florida, the Pacific Northwest, the Midwest, the Gulf Coast, the Southeast, northern New England, Pennsylvania and New York.

The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative, joining Chicago and 11 other metropolitan areas within 400 miles, is a front-runner. The governors of eight Midwest states wrote Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood this week appealing for money for the region, one of the hardest hit by the recession.

Howard Learner, president of the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center, a group promoting the rail network, said that with about $2 billion of the stimulus money they could complete or upgrade lines linking Chicago with St. Louis, Detroit and Milwaukee-Madison.

"It's a way of solving our global warming problems that also creates jobs and provides a boost to the economy," he said.

But the competition will be fierce.

"We are very jazzed about it," said Karen Parsons, executive director of the Southern High-Speed Rail Commission. She said preliminary numbers showed that they could increase capacity and speed on the existing New Orleans-Baton Rouge line for about $150 million to $200 million, and for $500 million they could expand service from New Orleans to Mobile, Ala.

Mehdi Morshed, executive director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, said his state has a plan to build 800 miles of track for trains running 220 mph, at a cost of about $45 billion. He said the state may ask for about $4 billion from the federal government to work on lines between San Francisco and San Jose and Los Angeles and Anaheim.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said in a statement that his state leads others because voters last November approved nearly $10 billion in state bonds for high-speed rail. "With a boost from our federal partners, nearly 40 million Californians and millions of travelers from around the world will be able to experience the reality of America's first high-speed rail system."

Chris Lippincott, spokesman for the Texas Department of Transportation, said his office was excited about advancing plans to build high-speed lines from San Antonio to Dallas and then up to Little Rock and Tulsa. But he added that the "nation's rail needs will exceed a single injection of money," citing estimates that just staying even with current level of congestion in his state will cost $313 billion over the next 20 years.

Some say the investment is too small, Obama acknowledged. "But this is just a first step. We know this is going to be a long-term project," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Natasha Metzler contributed to this report.

___

On the Net:

Federal Railroad Administration on high-speed rail: http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Thursday outlined plans for a high-speed rail network he said would change the way Americans travel, drawing comparisons to the 1950s creation of the inter...
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama on Thursday outlined plans for a high-speed rail network he said would change the way Americans travel, drawing comparisons to the 1950s creation of the inter...
Filed by Nicholas Sabloff  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 831
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
08:19 AM on 04/30/2009
Check out this alternative. I think it's pretty neat, and comparatively cheap.

Peruse the entire site. I think you'll be impressed.

http://www.tubularrail.com/video.htm
01:36 AM on 04/20/2009
that's the soundest big project in the package.

just see how bullet trains won over planes and even cars across Europe.

CA and TX have postponed their much needed projects for too long.
08:15 AM on 04/18/2009
Naturally, the republicans don't want this. They prefer their corporate jets.
09:01 PM on 04/17/2009
If we put all the money slated for this into alternative energy personal vehicles and alternative means of fueling them...

Really the nicest way to travel is in one's own vehicle, able to take interesting side roads, alter the schedule, stop and start at on whim, and have complete control.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tyrione
06:25 AM on 04/18/2009
Taking the train isn't addressing, ``on a whim'' let's take a drive traffic. That's random and infrequent. It's addressing the bulk of repetitive traffic.
02:04 PM on 04/18/2009
Exactly. High speed rail is not aimed at just leisure travelers. The current Amtrak trains in most of the country are for only leisure travelers when the trips are more than 100-200 miles, because business travelers don't have the time for the slow trains and schedules we currently have. High speed rail would enable the trains to take on more business passengers who travel for work and improve service for those who already use it.

The Acela service has already taken a big chunk of business from the airlines for the NY to DC route and they don't even make the trip that much faster than the regular trains. Imagine if they made the time for the trip shrink from the current 2 hours and 52 minutes to around an hour and a half, taking you straight from Penn Station in NY to Union Station in DC. Who would rather fly and deal with trying to get out of an airport 20 miles outside the city when you can get from one city center to another in less time?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
juanjo
Plaudite, amici, comedia finita est.
04:25 PM on 04/19/2009
I travel between LA and SF on business. I am not interested in taking side trips on those jaunts. I am interested in fast, reliable travel such as I have used in Europe and Japan.
08:50 PM on 04/17/2009
Can only think such a system could succeed if it make sense to most people to use it instead of flying or driving. And for that, it would have to be significantly less expensive or much faster or far more convenient/easy -- or some combination of those factors.

Such attractive combinations have been very rare exceptions in US mass transit.

Usually the speeds are much slower than advertised, the lack of very convenient transportation after arrival at point B, and myriad other factors inclined the great majority to choose car or plane travel. So the systems wind up lightly used and heavily dependent on large doses of public funding.

I'm dismayed that Obama (for whom I voted) would support such hideously expensive GREENSTANDING, especially when it will take money needed by many more worthy projects that would provide much greater benefit to Americans and the environment.

(Drifting around Europe for a couple months on Eurorail is great for young students on a very tight budget and a whole summer vacation to spend: That is not a good measure of whether such systems could succeed here.)
01:19 AM on 04/18/2009
You really have no idea how trains are used in other countries.

Even in the U.S. there are many routes on which train travel is faster than both automobile and airplane door-to-door.

And, there is no difficulty in filling up trains with the slow trains we have now. I've been on a few long distance train trips in the past year and both were packed to capacity. If they were faster, they'd be even more popular.

And, train travel is about the same price if not cheaper if you take out all the subsidies the airlines get. That's right. Air travel gets more in subsidies per traveler than Amtrak.
09:37 AM on 04/18/2009
Can you point toward a good source that identifies the subsidies given to the airline industry?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SCVADem
My micro-bio is empty.
03:30 AM on 04/18/2009
I was 30-something when I lived in Italy. To be able to just hop a train and go anywhere in the country was wonderful! It's not just kids using the rail system in Europe; it's everyone.
08:49 PM on 04/17/2009
http://ellisjacksom.blogspot.com/2009/04/take-chance-on-this.html

Everyone has their own ideas about how to solve the Stimulus Problem that is in affect around the world . Let me first say that I'm proud to have Barack Obama as are first Black President and the work he has before him is going to take tremendous amount of time and thought to bring this world back to the order in which it was before George W Bush came into Office . I'm a black male living in Springfield Massachusetts , I work as a Certified Nurse's aide through a pool agency, before this big crash to the world economy , I had plenty of hours at work and now It's a blessing if I get to work 24 hours and that's not enough to hold up my household of living I have car a payment and rent and all the other things you need to live in today's world. I'm just like millions of other Americans Fighting to stay away from loosing the roof over my head and the car I drive to get me back and forth to work . I know that President Obama has people working on a way to bring this Recession to an end and what I'm about to purpose my have already been said or reviewed by people assigned to handle this matter ,but like everyone else all I see is the money going back to the
08:42 PM on 04/17/2009
This is a great idea, if he's able to get it through Congress it would be a major advancement.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PhilipTaylor
Legalized Bribery is an Oxymoron - must END
08:34 PM on 04/17/2009
The Equations of Conservation:

Tax on OIL/GAS Go UP = Oil Demand Goes Down
Rail Travel goes Up = Oil Demand Goes Down = Oil Prices Goes Down
Ride Small Cycles = Oil Demand Goes Down = Oil Prices Go Down
Green Alternatives = Oil Demand Goes Down = Oil Prices Go Down
Insulation = Gas/Oil Demand Goes Down = Gas/Oil Prices Go Down
Conservation = Oil Demand Goes Down = Oil Prices Go Down
Autos from 12-20 MPG to 40-65 MPG = Oil Demand Goes Way Down = Oil Prices Go Down

Any way you slice it = Sell Big OIL!
08:34 PM on 04/17/2009
The money would be much better spent investing in solar powered airplanes.
07:53 PM on 04/17/2009
This is probably just going to be a big waste of time and money. We should have had our system set up here in Florida after we voted for it. But there are interests in this country (Big oil, the environmentalist, the trucking industry) that killed it then and Obama is too soft now to do anything that may actually benefit more people than some companies bottom line.
02:31 PM on 04/18/2009
What killed the Florida high speed rail was gullible voters who voted it down after we had voted for it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vginger
07:46 PM on 04/17/2009
In response to Loarainnes comment....
OBAMA SAID " THE FIRST ROUND OF MONEY WOULD GO TO UPGRADING AND INCREASING SPEED ON EXISTING LINES...ETC."
SEEMS HE DID THINK OF THAT. v.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cavegal
The Revolution Will Not Be Privatized
07:26 PM on 04/17/2009
One of the reasons I love traveling in Europe so much is because of the high speed rail system. You can get anywhere in Europe relatively quickly. Look at the Chunnel that connects Paris and London. What a great idea!!

In addition I have noticed that because the European's oil is not subsidized, they are much healthier because more of them walk, bike and take the Metro! I loved it when gasoline got so high here because I got to the point where I looked into my own public transportation options here in Texas. I was pleasantly surprised to find out I could take one bus into downtown and be a block away from work. When oil went back down I realized that I preferred mass transit because it was less stressful, I lost 15 pounds by walking more over the past two years and I found out that all of the busses for public transportation are green busses as in non polluting.

Austin finally approved the bond for a high speed rail system that will service outlying suburban areas. Something we are all looking forward to here.
06:57 PM on 04/17/2009
They need to be sure you can bring your dog with you.
09:16 PM on 04/19/2009
I would love to travel with my dog across country on a train! I wish.
06:07 PM on 04/17/2009
It's about time we had high-speed rail lines connecting cities regionally, especially in California, where I live. I just hope Congress and the American people have the foresight to see how this would benefit the nation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JerseyExit4
05:52 PM on 04/17/2009
For nearly 3 decades the airline lobby has successfully blocked worthwhile funding for intercity rail systems.
So now we have the equivalent of flying cattle cars (we’re the cattle!)

The simply did not want the competition.

Imagine how much easier it would be to take a train to another city.

No more need to fly into an airport 10-20mi outside of the city.

The cost of that taxi ride from the rail station would be WAY cheaper that riding in the business districts of most major cities that from the outskirts where most airports are located.

Competitive cost per traveled mile…

Then there are the quality of travel advantages…

Watching the scenery change…

Really comfortable seating…

More than two toilets available during the trip…

No more sitting on the tarmac waiting for take off…

Being able to walk around…

A wider variety of food (or bring food onboard from the rail station)…

Don’t get me wrong, I really love to fly (My first flight was on Eastern Airlines) but what air travel has become is a grim shell of what it used to be (unless you’re in 1st class)
07:05 PM on 04/17/2009
You are saying the airline industry has successfully blocked funding of rail...... say..... in a similar way and scale (relative to the likely usage I suppose) of ...... air ports and aviation infrastructure like radar, air traffic control and so on?

What would you say would be an example of an ideal pair of destinations for a high speed train? As in, Los Angeles and San Fransisco? Chicago and New York?

Would you expect to get there faster? Cheaper? Would you expect to be serviced by multiple companies in competition with each other? Would you expect the train to make stops along the way? Would you expect to cover a similar percentage of the public infrastructure as you do with air travel as part of your ticket price?
08:59 PM on 04/17/2009
Plane travel is FAST. So it's convenient for people who can't sit for long (elderly, disabled or very young) or who need to get somewhere quickly or just don't want to spend a lot of their precious few days of vacation traveling to/from their destination.

My two experiences with traveling by Amtrack:

1. We spent a long afternoon on a slow train from Cinncinati to Chicago standing up because Amtrack had oversold the train. There was nothing to eat but dry roasted peanuts and NO WATER on that hot August day.

2. We traveled from Chicago to Seattle, again in August, in sweltering heat with no air conditioning. The only break from the extreme heat was when, at stations, the staff would open the doors. During the trip, some college students who traveled regularly between home and school on Amtrak told us horror stories of piling up in bunks together in winter to keep from freezing when heat broke down.
01:24 AM on 04/18/2009
"During the trip, some college students who traveled regularly between home and school on Amtrak told us horror stories of piling up in bunks together in winter to keep from freezing when heat broke down."

You are so full of it. There's no way a bunch of college kids are buying tickets in sleeper cars. Second, they won't even let you on the train if you'll be standing the whole way. Stop with the nonsense propaganda.
12:46 PM on 04/18/2009
There is no reason to believe that a broken system (even if it were as bad as you say, although it likely is not) COULD not be much better. The reasonable comparision is with a modern, well run, well used system in a high density medium distance situation where trains are actually used in a significant way.

It seems that the reasonable comparision is in many of the European markets where a 1-2 hour flight competes with a high speed train. In those cases it seems that the economy air fares tend to be cheaper than the train fares but the total travel time (for the flight, including all the fooling around at both ends) tends to be up to twice the total travel time for the equivalent train trravel. In other words, people are paying MORE for the train for the savings in time and convenience.

Conversely, where a flight is 4 or 5 hours, a train (even a high speed one) probably can't compete.

Air travel is an incredibly flexible and powerful tool that simply has no competitor in many situations in the USA, but for travel between high density markets in the range of 3-700 miles it would probably be very attractive on a level playing field.