White House Seeks $53 Billion For High-Speed Rail

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration called on Tuesday for Congress to authorize a significant new investment in high-speed passenger rail systems, at a cost of $53 billion over six years.

Appearing at Philadelphia's 30th Street Station, Vice President Joe Biden pitched the proposed infrastructure program as a needed dose of stimulus at a time when states are looking for cheap sources of jobs. The proposal would spend $8 billion in its first year, the first step in what the White House projects would be a 25-year shift to modern, speedy railways able to reach 80 percent of the United States and offering thousands of jobs.

That first round of money would be a drop in the bucket relative to the price tag needed to complete a national system, even on top of the approximately $11 billion that the administration has already spent.

The request for more funds is hardly shocking. Both Biden and President Barack Obama have made high-speed rail a priority -- on Tuesday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood referred to them as "visionaries." But unlike some other multibillion-dollar proposals for new government spending, this one has a growing coalition to help it get past the appropriations committee.

Of course, infrastructure investments tend to engender bipartisan support in Congress. Even in the world of advocacy, it's an issue that brings longtime foes together, with the AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce jointly supporting broad new development projects.

The real pressure, though, is coming from the states, which would only have to provide a small portion of the funds for the rail projects themselves. Republican governors have tried to flex their fiscally-conservative muscles by declining federal funds for high-speed rail projects, but in several instances, the backlash has been severe. The money already out the door won't go toward reducing federal budget deficits -- other states have tried to swoop in and take the rejected funds instead, such as when New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo asked for the money turned down by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

The prospect of further investment is alluring, too, in part because of the job creation it promises. Dozens of foreign rail manufactures have decided to expand or relocate into the United States to get in on high-speed rail production. And states recognize the long-term benefits of being a transportation hub.

The strong support of state lawmakers means that the White House has less of a need to lobby Congress directly on the program, especially since its long-term national design means that plenty of states have an interest in the budgeting. As one official familiar with the plans said, in the Midwest alone, plans are for a line that would connect Chicago, Detroit, parts of Iowa, St. Louis and down to Kansas City.

Comments

[jaycasey]

09:38 AM on 02/14/2011

We need to invest in infrastructure, education and export promotion for our future . As one who lives overseas I see how we are letting ourselves fall behind. We cannot accept that.

Why exports? Exports bring NEW money into the economy.

[oilfield]

10:08 PM on 02/11/2011

these may be a good idea in super populated places like ca or new york.....they take a tremendous amount of power......you would have less polution in a prius....and it takes less btu per passenger per mile to travel via prius than a train....even when you consider amtrak....slow speed rail.

[Stillorganboy]

12:10 PM on 02/11/2011

Add another $10 billion for security.

[netzwerg]

04:58 PM on 02/10/2011

"Could you reply with the passenger capacity of the trains in your country for maslin and I?"

An ICE 3 train has a seat capacity of 425 and a standing capacity of 500 if required. Often they are coupled together, so they fit more people, such as here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANB-yZIJP6o (2 trains if you watch closely).
There are 70 trains in operation in the whole country right now.

"I think it only a matter of time before trains require the same security delays at check in that planes do."
Security checks are not needed, not even in the future in Europe. Too many people as well.

"How are the tracks guarded in your country?"
Not at all, see video above. Not necessary.

"And don't you have to drive to the train station?"
Of course, either by lightrail, bus, taxi, car, bicycle,...

"I can't believe they would stop in every small town or village. "
No, they only stop in bigger cities, not every village, you can use lightrail from there.

[oilfield]

10:04 PM on 02/11/2011

so we they can move 28,000 folks around at a time....what does that cost?

[netzwerg]

02:19 PM on 02/10/2011

"They are not mystical “electric maglev” trains. They would cost hundreds of billion if not trillions of dollars more."

There are, believe it or not! See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-54gBLwK3s

[charles77]

03:36 PM on 02/10/2011

I visited your link then googled “Shanghai Maglev Train”.
This is a experimental train that only runs from the city to the airport and its entire route is 7 minutes. And it was very, very expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train

My point was that the trains in Europe and Japan we are talking about, and the trains that are being proposed for this country are not maglev.

It is very cool.

[netzwerg]

04:38 PM on 02/10/2011

It's not experimental, it is in regular operation for a few years.
7 Minutes, but 39km.

It cost the Chinese US$1.33bn according to your article, not that much, if you consider the 23 mile (37km) Dulles extension for the DC Metro will cost at least 3.8 billion$ and is not even a fourth the speed. http://www.bechtel.com/dulles-metrorail-extension.html

[netzwerg]

04:40 PM on 02/10/2011

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/traffic-and-transportation/metro-dulles-extension-to-cost.html

[charles77]

02:08 PM on 02/10/2011

People are saying Europe and Japan have these why can’t we! Even in those countries the vast majority of people drive or fly. Only a small percent are moved by “high speed” rail, at great cost!

I am not saying we cannot compete with Japan and Europe in rail. I am saying it makes no environmental or economic sense to do so. The trains being proposed run on oil just like cars and planes. They are not mystical “electric maglev” trains. They would cost hundreds of billion if not trillions of dollars more.

We could have built a super sonic plane like the Concord built in Europe, but it did not make economic sense to do so. And the Concord, while being "very cool and futuristic", never made money. Counting development costs, it lost billions.

[charles77]

02:04 PM on 02/10/2011

Everyone promoting “high speed” rail says it will be competitive with flying for trips of fewer than 500 miles. Planes go 400-500 mph and the proposed train goes 300mph. But that assumes the train never stops at all the cities in between. The plane does not land at every city it flies over, that’s why it is so fast. Imagine flying in a plane that landed in every city along the way for people to get on and off! Every city on the trains route will fight for a stop in their city, you know that’s true. Cities that get “bypassed” will lose out.

Every stop makes the train ride slower and slower. It takes time to slow a train going 300 mph, time to board and off load people, time to get the train back up to speed. If you’re flying or driving you go from point A to B with few if any stops. And please don’t reply “while driving your stuck in bumper to bumper traffic” because for what it would cost to fully build this rail system, which will serve only a small percentage of the people, most will still be flying or driving, you could DOUBLE our road and airport system!

Every stop you add GREATLY increases travel time, which makes the train rides slower and slower. You lose all advantages of so called "high-speed" rail!

[netzwerg]

02:15 PM on 02/10/2011

"Every stop you add GREATLY increases travel time, which makes the train rides slower and slower. You lose all advantages of so called "high-spee­d" rail!"

You forgot to include driving to the airport (which are usually not in the city), check-in, security and possible delays.
Travelling by highspeed rail is not much slower than airtraffic here in Europe, and much more relaxing.

[charles77]

03:19 PM on 02/10/2011

Could you reply with the passenger capacity of the 300 mph trains in your country for maslin and I?

On your point, I think it only a matter of time before trains require the same security delays at check in that planes do. You used to be able to get to the airport a few minutes before departure and get on.

A plane is very safe once it is in the air, but trains are always at ground level. The route or track must be protected along its entire route. How much security would it take stop one terrorist with a sledgehammer from damaging the track anywhere along a 500-mile route? How are the tracks guarded in your country?

And don't you have to drive to the train station? These are high speed city-to-city trains, I can't believe they would stop in every small town or village.

[maslin]

02:17 PM on 02/10/2011

Hey charles.

I think you're leaving out a few things in this analysis.

First, and probably most important, trains actually will have the effect of adding in a massive number of work (or play) hours to commuters days, safely. It's perfectly possible to write, email, IM, txt, or generally work on a train. Not possible when you are driving, or not safely. This has the effect of removing people who are in effect drunk drivers from the roads.

Second, trains can carry more people than planes.

Third, options are good if your objective is to build a robust, resilient transportation infrastructure, and that should be our objective. Trains are not vulnerable to the same types of service disruptions that cars and planes are. It's a different set.

Fourth, airline congestion has become pretty bad in certain markets (eg NYC) such that delays in those markets actually ramify through the whole air transport system.

We are better off with a larger set of travel options than we are with fewer.

Take it easy.

-m

[charles77]

03:00 PM on 02/10/2011

On your third point, “Trains are not vulnerable to the same types of service disruptions that cars and planes are”, trains have their own problems. If a plane crashes flying midway between cites, other planes continue to fly over it. If a train derails, there was a fatal high speed train crash in Germany last week, all other trains on that route must stop.
A plane is very safe once it is in the air, but trains are always at ground level. The route or track must be protected along it’s entire route. How much security would it take stop one terrorist with a sledge hammer from damanging the track anywhere along a 500 mile route?

On your fourth point, see my comment on this page with the Newsweek link, read that article.

“We are better off with a larger set of travel options than we are with fewer.”

That of course is always true. Like with our energy discussions, you could argue it would be better to use ALL energy sources if cost were not a factor. Sometimes you can’t have everything, but must chose the options you can afford for very real economic reasons.

[charles77]

03:01 PM on 02/10/2011

Hi maslin!

You raise good points and I would like to respond.

On your first point I think these trains are more for longer city-to-city trips as opposed to mass transit which operates in one city and can replace some driving commutes. There are some people who take an airline trip to and from work but not many. That does not mean some people would take jobs in far away cities if there was a train between them, but that would add to commuters, not reduce them.

On your second point some of today’s trains can carry more people than large planes but they are long and slow. The pictures I have seen of high-speed trains are much shorter. Perhaps some people from countries that have them can reply with an accurate capacity. Slower trains can be very long, like freight trains, but with very high speed trains your talking about a lot of mass to accelerate and stop, not to mention going around a corner.

[historian1960]

10:32 AM on 02/10/2011

While maglev is an expensive boondoggle, high speed steel wheel on steel rail makes a great deal of sense. It is necessary to look ahead to a time when high fuel prices make driving long distances and flying possible only for special occasions or the wealthy. We need to plan for this eventuality.
Several shortsighted posters call for the abolition of Amtrak. One question. How are all the people Amtrak carries into NY and DC going to get there otherwise? Fly? Drive? C'mon. You think LaGuadia and National airports are busy now? How about Interstate 95?

[charles77]

01:01 PM on 02/10/2011

If Amtrak stoped runnung if would have NO effect on traffic or the airports. No one but it's riders would even notice!

“Indeed, intercity trains—at whatever speed—target such a small part of total travel that the effects on reduced oil use, traffic congestion, and greenhouse gases must be microscopic. Every day, about 140 million Americans go to work, with 85 percent driving an average of 25 minutes (three quarters drive alone, 10 percent carpool). Even with 250,000 high-speed rail passengers, there would be no visible effect on routine commuting, let alone personal driving. In the Northeast Corridor, with about 45 million people, Amtrak’s daily rider ship is 28,500. If its trains shut down tomorrow, no one except the affected passengers would notice.”

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/why-high-speed-trains-don-t-make-sense.html

[wdw808]

10:23 AM on 02/10/2011

wow, i agree will oh bama on something

[humanbeing-rick]

09:06 AM on 02/10/2011

Hooray!! This is exactly the kind of projects America needs to invest in in order to get our people back to work, and to retake our position as the leaders of the modern world.
It is time to start looking forward, and stop living in the past.

[netzwerg]

07:07 AM on 02/10/2011

"Here is some more on why the examples you cite, in Europe and Japan, which ALL lose huge amounts of money, do not apply in the US."

Our government owned national railway company, which operates those nice ICE trains, made a profit of 1.7 billion € last year.
http://www.deutschebahn.com/site/ir/ir__dbag/en/db__group/factsheet/facts__figures.html

[netzwerg]

07:11 AM on 02/10/2011

So did the French: http://www.sncf.com/Finance/pdf/en/CP_et_Presentations/3.pdf

[dennisrs]

10:39 PM on 02/18/2011

humanbeingrick thinks of all the jobs with these HSR--but maybe the gov should just give "workers" a check and let them stay home. That might be cheaper in the long run. :)

[netzwerg]

05:49 AM on 02/10/2011

"In Germany for regular working people 2000, - minim is a LOT of money for a driver's license and for any unattainab­le.
Thus public transporta­tion s not a choice but a dilemma."

Not really, we have even more cars per person than Americans: http://www.economist.com/node/12714391?story_id=12714391&fsrc=rss

Why can't Americans afford as many cars as Germans? Or the French? Or even Canadians?

[Voltairus]

09:35 AM on 02/10/2011

"Why can't Americans afford as many cars as Germans? Or the French? Or even Canadians?"

Because we pay for their defense?

[netzwerg]

02:16 PM on 02/10/2011

Defense from who? The Commies? The Talibanos?

[PoloniumMan]

03:33 PM on 02/10/2011

We don't need as many cars as the Germans or French. We have larger families so we buy larger vehicles instead of more. How many Chevy Tahoes do you see driving around Europe?

[netzwerg]

05:08 PM on 02/10/2011

I have never seen a Chevy Tahoe in Europe, I think its not even sold here. People love BMW X5 and Mercedes M class here.

[CologneCitizen]

04:09 AM on 02/10/2011

The reason we have a functioning high speed rail system in Europe is quite simple. Decisions made on the level of a city, state or country are usually part of a plan that has a structure for short time and long time benefits. Like most of our cities have a development plan, regardless what political party is in power. According to this philosophy, our communities have built a working infrastructure that can be permanently developed and has not the demand of short term profits.


From what I have seen in the US, city development is fueled by investors that want to make a fast buck. Once they have cashed in they move on to the next project. This shortsightedness and the lack of political vision is responsible why the USA is falling back on so many issues. On top of it you have strong lobbies that pay a lot of money to influence people in their favor. Real progress for the benefit of average people will hardly come up under these circumstances.

[James Caird]

04:30 AM on 02/10/2011

CologneCitizen
We have more freeways in Germany than California. And when you check the average European income, 2.000,- is not a lot of money.

Again your post doesn't make any sense or has a little bit of truth in it, pathetic. posted Feb 10, 2011 at 03:31:15
++++++++++++++++++++

In Germany for regular working people 2000, - minim is a LOT of money for a driver's license and for any unattainable.
Thus public transportation s not a choice but a dilemma.

Germany tops world for shrinking wages. Worker's pay packets over the past decade have shrunk more in Germany than any other industrialized nation.
http://www.thelocal.de/money/20101215-31839.html

Germany's low wages, high exports trouble Europe
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Germanys-low-wages-high-exports-trouble-Europe-30692-3-1.html

The Increase of Low-Wage Work in Germany –
An Erosion of Internal Labour Markets?
http://gesd.free.fr/paper441.pdf

[netzwerg]

06:19 AM on 02/10/2011

"In Germany for regular working people 2000, - minim is a LOT of money for a driver's license and for any unattainab­le.
Thus public transporta­tion s not a choice but a dilemma."

Per capita personal income is pretty similar in Germany and the US:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_countries_by_per_capita_personal_income

At least we have good public transportation here. More car ownership as well, see link below.

[Mark Morlock]

12:47 AM on 02/10/2011

Hurray! If you ask me we're long overdue for something like this. The thing that irritates me the most is it didn't happen sooner. Can't wait to hear more on this topic.