Obama on U.S. high speed rail: "Make no little plans"

As reported by Railway Age:

President Obama on Thursday, April 16, released an
unprecedented long-term strategic plan to advance
U.S. high speed rail development, beginning with
the $8 billion “down payment” provided through the
Administration’s recent American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, augmented by $1 billion per year for five years in budget appropriations.

"Make no little plans," the President said at a nationally televised news
conference as he presented a plan—centered on rail—for the future of
U.S. transportation. It would begin with upgrading existing rail lines—a
foundation, so to speak—and then progress to building dedicated high
speed corridors, as has been done elsewhere in the world. In great detail
and with an almost startling breadth of knowledge about the high speed
industry, he talked about the many benefits of high speed rail, among them
the convenience of center city to center city travel and relief from highway
and air travel congestion.

Analysis

So, what does this all mean?

On the positive side, this is the most pro-rail announcement of any recent administration. National passenger rail advocates line the American Public Transit Association (APTA) and the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) were falling over themselves in praise of the announcement.

And when you compare this announcement to the lean years of Reagan, Bush and Bush, a rail advocate would think they died and went to high speed rail heaven. In the Reagan years, even Amtrak was zeroed out in the administration's budget and there was no thought of high speed rail, unless it was paid for by the states or private sector. Even the Clinton years were no panacea for funding new intercity rail.

Putting the euphoria aside, what does this mean for funding? Well, it's a total of $13 billion over about 6 fiscal years:

• $8 billion in stimulus funding
  
• $1 billion per year for 5 years

Sound like a lot?

Again, it's a monumental amount compared to the past; I'm afraid it's a drop in the bucket compared to building a system that looks like real high speed rail, such as the TGV in France.

First of all, the funding will be diluted among 10 politically-determined corridors:

Do the math, and it's a average of $1.3 billion per corridor. Somewhat impressive, but say the corridors are about 500 miles (most are longer), that's $2.6 million/mile which is a nice upgrade, but won't buy you a TGV system.

Second, look at what this is buying. Pres. Obama talks about upgrading first. And the press release also defines "high" speed rail at 110 mph, which sound high compared to 65 mph on the interstate, but not compared to TGV speeds over 200 mph.

Now, my background in intercity high speed rail includes working on the US Dept. of Transportation's "Commercial Feasibility Study" were we looked at what it would take to run rail operations with maximum speeds of 90, 110, 125, 150 and 200 mph on most of the same corridors listed above. My job involved looking at maps and track charts in great detail and "test driving" the corridors (using a spreadsheet-based simulation program) to see how fast you could go if you upgraded the tracks or if you built new tracks (for the 200 mph option). Then we estimated how much it would cost it would take to reach each of these top speeds.

In short, I know what you can get out of these corridors and how much it would cost to get there.

Here's a summary of my conclusions:

1. The selection of the 110 mph top speed actually proved to be the most cost-effective target in terms of capital cost compared to increased ridership and associated revenue. While 110 mph is modest compared to TGV (at 186 mph), it is a prudent first step.
   
2. Where the federal funds meet local funding (e.g., in California, they have voted $10 billion of state funds), it may kick start something more than the studies I've seen over the last 2 decades.
   
3. Portions of the Empire Corridor (near Albany, NY) and the Chicago-Detroit corridor have segments already at 110 mph, so this funding can incrementally piggy-back on existing improvements.
   
4. Though not listed as one of the 10 corridors, the Northeast Corridor (Boston-Washington) can compete for funds.
   
5. The funding still depends on local initiatives. This is working in California, but has been a start-stop process in Florida (depending on who the Governor is) and here in New England, the failure of New Hampshire to provide modest funding for the Boston-Montreal corridor has crippled the efforts. This intercity rail is really interstate commerce, and last time I looked, the Federal government was responsible for that!
   
6. Bottom line: other than California (where they may actually build a high speed line), don't count on much. Despite what the President's rhetoric, I say "Make no grand plans!"