Florida’s Governor Rick Scott has slammed on the brakes, turning down $2 billion in federal funds for an 84-mile high-speed train between Tampa and Orlando. A lawsuit by a group including several Florida lawmakers failed last week [March 4, 2011], as the Florida Supreme Court ruled  that Gov. Scott’s rejection was legal, and that he was within his rights to turn away the federal funds. In the meantime, the Florida ruling sparked a financial feeding frenzy among other states who would LOVE to have that money and have no problem with the idea of high-speed rail in their territory.

What’s up with that? To contractors who would build it, businesses who would benefit from it,  intercity commuters who would ride on it and  city planners and boosters who would develop around it, high-speed rail sounds like a dream come true.

But apparently, there’s trouble on the line. If you listen to Florida’s Rick Scott, high-speed rail is a risky boondoggle, doomed to failure. Others see high-speed rail as a national necessity and an unstoppable economic engine.  America’s number one high-speed-railroad enthusiast is none other than President Obama. His administration’s 2009 Recovery Act included an $8 billion down-payment toward a 17,000-mile, nationwide high-speed rail network.  Who’s got it right? Here’s a look at some facets of a story that alternates between fast-forward and total derailment:

Positive potential

For a rosy picture of  what, ideally, high-speed trains could mean for the US, look at the extensive list of pluses cited by the US High-Speed Rail Association. [USHSR]. “Faster, more efficient mobility, enormous energy savings, reduced environmental damage – a train system solves many problems,” says USHSR.

According to a 2010 report issued by the US Conference of Mayors,  high-speed rail could be an economic game-changer for cities connected by the 13 corridors envisioned in the nationwide plan:

“The benefits of traveling between 110 and 220 miles per hour will mean better connectivity, shorter travel times and new development around train stations…The changes will create 150,000 new jobs and some $19 billion in new businesses by 2035.”

To see the plan for the proposed high-speed rail network, check out this animated map, courtesy of USHSR.

Lessons from China

The fastest of the [conventional] fast trains are in China. And the whole world is watching to see how China’s mind-bogglingly ambitious, $300 billion move into high-speed rail is progressing.

But the news from China is both good and bad. By 2012, just four years after it began its first high-speed passenger service, China is projected have more high-speed train tracks than the rest of the world combined. It’s pulling ahead in high-speed train production, too, and may soon become the leading exporter of bullet-trains and bullet-train technology.

Recently, though, charges of corruption in the Chinese Rail Ministry have raised concerns about the project. And news reports have focused on safety issues in China’s high-speed rail system. In February, Caixin, a Chinese news service, reported that:

Rapid construction has raised worries among many safety experts. A source working for a foreign company that supplies construction materials for China’s high-speed railways told Caixin that building 300 kilometers of railway usually takes 10 years overseas, but only two years in China. He said tight delivery deadlines were sometimes met with lower quality control measures.

A railway engineer expressed concern over the structural stability of railways lines from land subsidence issues. Foreign builders typically leave a four to five year buffer time for land settlement before construction is completed. But in China, the Ministry of Railways has used elevated bridges to address changes in land elevation.

Another development to watch, as America attempts to catch up in the high-speed train race, is ridership. It turns out that, in China, the notion that “if you build it, they will come,” may not be a slam-dunk. Economist and China specialist Patrick Choavec observes that, while China’s conventional rail system is completely overloaded with passengers and coal, the high-speed system may not be a viable answer:

China’s high-speed rail is “expensive both to build and to operate, requiring high ticket prices to break even. The bulk of the long-distance passenger traffic, especially during the peak holiday periods, is migrant workers for whom the opportunity cost of time is relatively low. Even if they could afford a high-speed train ticket — which is doubtful given their limited incomes — they would probably prefer to conserve their cash and take a slower, cheaper train. If that proves true, the new high-speed lines will only incur losses while providing little or no relief to the existing transportation network.”

Derailment in Florida

In an NPR interview, Florida’s newly elected Gov. Scott  explained his rationale for turning down federal funds for high-speed rail.  He said,”The …data shows capital cost overruns are pervasive in nine of 10 high-risk, high-speed rail projects, and that two-thirds of those projects inflated revenue projections by an average of 65 percent of actual patronage.”

The federal funds would have paid for 90 percent of the construction costs, but Scott called the expenditure “too risky” for Florida taxpayers.

The Florida project would have been the first in the US. Some speculate that Gov. Scott’s rejection of federal money was an ideological move—paralleled in other states, where conservative lawmakers characterize any money from Washington, and especially from the Obama administration, as tainted. 

But even if, in the short term, Gov. Scott’s decision has financial merit for Florida, rejecting high-speed rail technology for the US in the 21^st Century is like saying no to automobiles in the early 20^th century or nixing the interstate highway system in the 1950s. When new technologies emerge—advances that can improve quality of life and the nation’s economic health—they’re going to be adopted. So, high-speed rail is probably going to happen—eventually. The only questions seem to be when, where, how much and what we will learn from the journey.

The post High-speed rail: fast-track or slow-down? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Midwest High Speed Rail Association (MHSRA) advocates for fast, frequent and dependable trains linking the entire Midwest. The MHSRA website lists compelling arguments why the Midwest, in particular, needs high-speed rail for its economy to achieve its potential:

• Although the Midwest has the ingredients for a strong economy: well-educated work force, a powerful higher-education network, and major hub airports offering non-stop service to business centers worldwide; cities and towns are too far apart to function as an efficient economic unit. Drive times are too long and airfares too high.
• Only high-speed trains can draw our cities into commuting distance, transforming the entire Midwestern into a virtual metropolis with more dynamic cities and rural towns, with quick connections to worldwide markets.
• Transforming the Upper Midwest into a single economy requires the ability to visit a distant city and return the same day, which means downtown-to-downtown trips of just two hours; three hours max. With modern trains, the entire Midwest would be less than three hours from Chicago. With transit times that short, it would become very practical to spend a fully productive day in another city and still be home in time for dinner.
• High-speed trains would draw major Midwest universities together, allowing them to cooperate more closely and focus on their individual strengths.

Sample travel times on 220-mph high speed trains would be 36 minutes from Milwaukee to Chicago, approximately 2 hours from St. Louis to Chicago, or  3 hours from Pittsburgh to Chicago. Trains would take passengers from downtown to downtown cutting out the need for local transportation to and from the airport. Not only would a high-speed train system transform business, research, and higher education, it would provide hundreds of thousands of jobs for construction and ongoing operation. It would link rural towns with larger cities, unleashing creative energy and untold economic opportunity.

MHSRA envisions a Midwest network that would have fast, frequent and dependable trains linking the entire Midwest including 220-mph high-speed lines and upgraded Amtrak routes using 110-mph cruising speeds and increased frequencies for shorter routes.

Earlier this year, the Obama administration introduced plans for a high-speed rail system in the United states. Although advocates for high speed rail feel it doesn’t go far enough, it is a welcome start for something that should have been in place long ago.

You may have read that high-speed rail is a “boondoggle,” or too expensive, or not right for this country. But, as MHSRA points out, “most of the ‘research’ and quotes online and in the media [against high-speed rail] can be linked to just three conservative groups: The Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation and the Heritage Foundation, which receive funding from the likes of Chevron and Exxon Mobil.” It seems the oil industry, and the think tanks they fund, would rather we continue to use gas and oil in our cars, trucks and planes, rather than move to the more efficient and environmentally friendly electric high-speed trains.

Because of the excessive influence of the oil industry on our economy, and the shortsightedness of past administrations and politicians, the United States lags behind the rest of the world in efficient rail transportation. We have only one high-speed rail service—Amtrak’s Acela Express — that operates along the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C., and Boston via Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York. The highest speed the Acela trains attain is 150 mph, though they average less than half of that. Currently, the popular Acela is the only Amtrak line to show a profit.

On the other hand, much of Europe, Japan and China, has efficient high-speed rail systems that can achieve speeds of up to 220 mph, and they are aiming to expand these systems in the future. China’s trains are the world’s fastest, its network of tracks the longest, and its expansion the most ambitious, with plans to link China to the European Union. By 2012, just four years after it began its first high-speed passenger service, China will have more high-speed train tracks than the rest of the world combined. It also hopes to become the chief high-speed train supplier in the world, including providing trains for the United States.

Postscript: A week ago, I traveled from Madrid to Toledo on the Ave, a high-speed train that is part of the Spanish rail system. The ride was whisper quiet and smooth. The train was clean and on time, and the short 50 mile journey took all of 30 minutes. After this experience, I can’t wait for this exciting Midwest high-speed rail network to become a reality. It will transform my personal travel from St. Louis to Chicago and Milwaukee, but more importantly, it will transform the Midwest into an economic dynamo, linking it to the rest of the country and the world.

The post A vision of high-speed rail for the Midwest appeared first on Occasional Planet.