So as Congress begins a major rewrite of the nation’s transportation laws, many are asking if it is time to redirect freight traffic off congested highways onto more environmentally friendly and fuel efficient railroads. Sounds good, but there is a catch. Unlike highways that receive public funding, railroads are private. Should taxpayers sink public money into a private railway system? And where should the money come from?

Freight yard in New Jersey

Though the competition for investment dollars is heating up, the two systems depend heavily on each other — a train hitched with 250 trailers needs 250 trucks to move that freight to its final destination.

To try and figure out who should pay the freight, O’Brien travels to a trucking school in Central New Jersey, where he learns to back up a big rig, to Bayonne, New Jersey, where massive amounts of consumer products come to port every day, and to Washington, DC, where transportation policies are under debate.

D.C. Metro crash || Photo: Reuters

Following the subway accident on June 22 in the Washington, D.C. Metro, resulting in the deaths of nine commuters, it was made known that federal safety officials had previously warned that the type of train cars involved could be unsafe in crashes, and called for them to be replaced or, at least, strengthened.

Still, the Washington transit agency did nothing after the federal warning. Not because they did not also see the same problem, but because the agency could not afford to replace the cars, which make up more than a quarter of those used in the system.

Metro — like most mass transit agencies throughout the country — is on the verge of operating in deficit, as a shortfall of $154 million is projected for fiscal year 2010.

A tax shelter, also, according to the terms of a lease-back agreement — in which Metro raised extra funds by selling its trains to private companies, such as SunTrust Banks Inc. and KBC Group NV, that would, in return, lease them back — meant the leased cars, like the ones involved in the accident, have to remain in service until 2014.

According to Bloomberg, “The National Transportation Safety Board had advised Metro to improve its rail cars after a January 1996 collision that killed a train operator. In a 2006 report, the NTSB said it was dropping the matter because (Metro) was citing funding concerns related to lease-back agreements…”

The problem: Any federal mass-transit inspections or findings are nothing but symbolic at-best. Unlike with the Food and Drug Administration, for example, the government cannot recall flawed equipment or issue citations for ignoring recommendations.

Transit State of Good Repair

Graphic: Federal Transit Administration

A 2008 report by the Federal Transit Administration, “Transit State of Good Repair,” said, “Roughly one-quarter of the nation’s bus and rail assets are in marginal or poor condition (implying these assets are near or past their useful life or have one or more defective or deteriorated components). The proportion of assets in marginal or poor condition jumps to one-third when the analysis is limited to the nation’s nine largest rail agencies (including these agencies’ non-rail assets).”

The disrepair, according to the report, is the consequence of the fact that “the total level of investment required to bring the nation’s bus and rail assets to a state of good repair is currently estimated at $25 billion ($2004). This investment would effectively replace all assets that currently exceed their expected useful life and address delayed rehabilitation activities. After eliminating the backlog, an additional $9 to $11 billion from all sources is required annually to maintain this state of good repair into the future. At present, annual capital reinvestment rates are only 60 (percent) to 80 (percent) of that required to address both the existing backlog and normal replacement needs.”

D.C. Metro crash || Photo: Reuters

The Monday Metro accident in Washington, D.C., when a train car rear-ended another killing nine people, involved some of the oldest cars in the city’s young subway system. The cars had already been said to have vulnerabilities. Washington, however, is not the exception for using equipment that is outdated.

Earlier this year, in a two-part report on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Blueprint America reported on the financial state of America’s mass transit systems, and focused on Washington, D.C.

More than a third of the equipment in the nation’s seven largest rail transit agencies, according to a recent report by the Federal Transit Administration, is rated in marginal or poor condition.

Still, it has yet to be determined if the old age of the Metro cars in Monday’s crash caused the accident.

Nationally, according to The New York Times, “Replacing all the equipment that has exceeded its useful life and finishing all outstanding station rehabilitations for just those seven large systems would cost roughly $50 billion, the agency estimated, and keeping the systems in a state of good repair after that would cost an estimated $5.9 billion a year.”

The stimulus law passed in February only contains $8.4 billion for transit capital improvements across the nation. That said, the recently introduced transportation bill will dedicate more funding than ever for transit. The Obama Administration, however, wants to delay that funding increase for at least 18-months.

Washington transit officials said they could not afford to replace the outdated cars, which make up more than a quarter of their system. Moreover, due to the terms of a complicated tax shelter, the city is obliged to keep like-cars in service until 2014.

The New York Times goes on to say, “Paying for capital improvements has been a struggle for many agencies. Although federal financing for capital improvements to transit systems has been rising, the share going to the largest systems has been shrinking as they have had to compete with new, smaller systems. So while the nation’s seven largest systems — in New York, Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, Washington, New Jersey and San Francisco — carry 80 percent of the nation’s rail riders, and are in many cases among the oldest systems, they have received only 23 percent of federal financing eligible for bringing systems into a state of good repair, according to the transit administration.”

The following is a breakdown of how mass transit is funded federally:

[Transit Capital Assistance] [Fixed Guideway (Rail) Infrastructure Investment] [Capital Investment Grants] [Federal Transit Administration Formulas]

$8.4 billion total in stimulus spending for mass transit
TRANSIT CAPITAL ASSISTANCE
$6.9 billion	The stimulus bill provides $6,900,000,000 instead of $8,400,000,000 as proposed by the Senate and $7,500,000,000 as proposed by the House. 80 percent of the funds will be dispersed according to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Urbanized Formula. 10 percent of the funds will be dispersed according to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Rural Formula. 10 percent of the funds will be dispersed according to the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Growing States and High Density Formula. In addition, mass transit funding in the stimulus bill provides 2.5 percent of the rural funds for tribal transit needs and includes $100,000,000 (instead of $200,000,000 as proposed by the Senate) for discretionary grants to public transit agencies for capital investments that will assist in reducing the energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions of their public transit agencies.
FIXED GUIDEWAY (RAIL) INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
$750 million	The stimulus bill provides $750,000,000 instead of $2,000,000,000 as proposed by the House. The Senate did not include a similar provision. The funds will be distributed to capital projects to modernize or improve existing rail lines, including purchase and rehabilitation of rolling stock, track, equipment and facilities. The estimated cost of the state-of-good-repair backlog for existing fixed guideway systems is nearly $50 billion. This money also has a 180 day use-it or lose-it provision.
CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS
$750 million	The stimulus bill provides $750,000,000 instead of $2,500,000,000 as proposed by the House. The Senate did not include a similar provision. The funds will be distributed on a discretionary basis for New Starts and Small Starts projects that are already in construction or are nearly ready to begin construction. Priority is for projects already under construction or able to comply within 150 days. The funds are available through Sept. 30, 2012.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) FORMULAS
Urbanized Formula	the formula: Primarily, the urbanized formula is based on population and population density. An urbanized area, accordingly, is an incorporated area with a population of 50,000 or more.For areas of 50,000 to 199,999 in population, the formula is based solely on population and population density. The funds are apportioned to the Governor of each state for distribution.For areas with populations of 200,000 or more, the formula is based on not just population and population density but also a combination of bus revenue vehicle miles, bus passenger miles, fixed guideway revenue vehicle miles, and fixed guideway route miles. Funds are not apportioned to a Governor but rather go directly to a designated recipient selected locally (most often, a responsible local official or operator of a public transit service) to apply for and receive federal funds. A few areas under 200,000 in population have been designated as transportation management areas and receive funding directly. eligible purposes: Federal funding according to the Urbanized Formula can be used for planning, engineering design and evaluation of transit projects and other technical transportation-related studies; capital investments in bus and bus-related activities such as replacement of buses, overhaul of buses, rebuilding of buses, crime prevention and security equipment and construction of maintenance and passenger facilities; and capital investments in new and existing fixed guideway systems including rolling stock, overhaul and rebuilding of vehicles, track, signals, communications, and computer hardware and software. All preventive maintenance and some Americans with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service costs are considered capital costs. For urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more, operating assistance is not an eligible expense. Additionally, in these areas, at least one percent of the funding must be used for transit enhancement activities such as historic preservation, landscaping, public art, pedestrian access, bicycle access, and enhanced access for persons with disabilities. the match: The federal share of a mass transit project cannot exceed 80 percent of the net project cost. Exceptions: The federal share may be 90 percent for the cost of vehicle-related equipment needed to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Clean Air Act; The federal share may be 90 percent for projects related to bicycles. The federal share cannot exceed 50 percent of the net project cost of operating assistance. funding availability: Year appropriated plus three years (total of four years).
Rural Formula	the formula: Only for areas less than 50,000 in population, the Rural Formula is based on nonurbanized population and land area. The breakdown: 80 percent of the formula is determined by the nonurbanized population of a state; 20 percent of the formula is based on land area – no State can receive more than 5 percent of the amount apportioned for land area. The FTA also adds amounts based on the nonurbanized population according to the Growing States Formula. Eligible recipients are state and local governments, Indian tribes, non-profit organizations and public transit operators. eligible purposes: Funds may be used for capital, operating, and administrative purposes. The amount that a state can use for administration, planning, and technical assistance is limited to 15 percent of the annual apportionment. States must spend 15 percent of the apportionment to support rural intercity bus service unless the Governor certifies, after consultation with affected intercity bus providers, that the intercity bus needs of the state are sufficient. the match: The federal share for capital and project administration is 80 percent. Exceptions: The federal share may be 90 percent only if it is needed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Clean Air Act or bicycle access projects. The maximum federal share for operating assistance is 50 percent of the net operating costs. funding availability: Year appropriated plus two years (total of three years).
Growing States and High Density Formula	The formula establishes new factors to distribute funds to the urbanized area formula and rural formula programs.One-half of the funds that are made available under the Growing States factors are apportioned by a formula based on state population forecasts for 15 years beyond the most recent census; amounts apportioned for each state are then distributed between urbanized areas and rural areas based on the ratio of urban/rural population within each state. The High Density States factors distribute the other half of the funds to states with population densities over 370 persons per square mile. These funds are apportioned only to urbanized areas within those states.

Sources: Congressional Budget Office, Department of Transportation – Federal Transit Administration, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House Committee on Rules, Joint Committee on Taxation

D.C. Metro crash || Photo: Reuters

On Monday evening in Washington, D.C., as area commuters headed home from work, a Metro train car rear-ended another car — resulting in the deaths of nine, so far, and critically injuring at least two.

Though the cause of the accident is still speculated, especially following two recent rail accidents nationally in the past year — in Los Angeles, where a commuter train collided with a freight train and 25 died, and in Boston, where a trolley rear-ended another trolley and injured 50 – officials said today the Metro train car involved was two months past due for scheduled maintenance on its brakes, and the car was an older model that federal officials had recommended be replaced because of concerns about its safety in a crash.

According to The Washington Post, officials have not said, however, “if they believe that the delayed maintenance played any role in the accident, or if they believe another type of rail car would have performed better in Monday’s crash.”

Still, as investigators are looking at possible mechanical, signal and operator failures for the cause of the accident, which also injured 75, the Metro system – like most mass transit agencies throughout the country – is on the verge of operating in deficit (a shortfall of $154 million is projected for fiscal year 2010 – see map below).

At this point, though funding issues may or may not have been the reason for overdue maintenance and updates to the train car, two U.S. Senators just released a letter to their colleagues asking for $50 million in grants to improve rail safety technology. Commerce Committee Chair Jay Rockefeller (D., WV) and Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D., CA) noted that a $50 million investment in technology improvement grants was authorized  under similar circumstances before — after the Los Angeles commuter rail accident — when Congress passed its rail safety law last year.

According to streetsblog.org, Sens. Rockefeller and Boxer wrote:

More commuters are turning to commuter rail today than ever before. In these tough economic times, with many commuter rail agencies facing budget cuts, funding for the railroad safety technology grants is vital to ensure that important safety measures continue to be implemented.

In the Midwest, Chicago has been a freight rail hub for around 150 years. In the old days, some lines brought raw materials to the city –- like cattle to the stockyards –- while others carried finished products to market. The city’s rails are still laid out that way: a couple of lines come in from the west and a couple of others from the east. Even though Chicago still handles about a third of the nation’s freight, a lot of it has to stop there -– wait there –- and shift from one railroad to another.

As a result, traffic on Chicago’s rails is even slower than traffic on its roads: A 2002 study found that freight trains pass through the city at an average of just nine miles an hour.

At the same time, the community of Barrington, IL, an outlying suburb in the Chicago area, has had freight re-routed to pass through the city. Residents are not too happy. Still, the shift in train traffic is likely to lessen the congestion of freight in the City of Chicago.

And while the City of Chicago, railroads, and federal authorities have developed a plan to ease freight train traffic, it won’t be complete for years. As a result, the freight carrier Canadian National did what it could and moved some of its trains away from the metropolitan area.

Correspondent Rick Karr reports.

PBS stations are producing radio and television segments, hosting discussions between policy makers and their communities, and offering further content online, all as a part of Blueprint America.

In partnership with Blueprint America, ten public television stations across the country concentrate on the state of their local infrastructure.

PBS stations are producing radio and television segments, hosting discussions between policy makers and their communities, and offering further content online, all as a part of Blueprint America. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/05/200×100blueprint_america.jpg ]]> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/partner-stations/overview/578/feed/ 1 http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/road-to-the-future/analysis-congestion-pricing/603/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/reports/road-to-the-future/analysis-congestion-pricing/603/#comments Wed, 20 May 2009 00:05:38 +0000 tom mcnamara http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/?p=603 It was made plain on April 7, 2008, by the Democratic leader of the New York state Assembly, Sheldon Silver, that the congestion pricing proposal in New York City would not even come to a vote in the state capitol in Albany.

Traffic in New York City

Just a year earlier, on Earth Day, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg first proposed the congestion pricing plan as a way to both reduce traffic in Manhattan’s streets and increase funds for mass transit throughout the City’s five boroughs.

Congestion Pricing

Congestion pricing, in design, puts an added fee on driving in a designated zone within a city, most often in overcrowded and car-filled areas. It is a tax on driving – to discourage driving and, at the same time, fund alternatives to driving. As a result, the ‘tax’ can be taken two ways:

• Due to car emissions, driving both adversely affects the environment and the health of communities. Consequently, it should be taxed similar to increased taxes on tobacco and liquor – people will drive less and mass transit will have better investment.
• Driving may be harmful, but it is still not a vice like tobacco or liquor. Rather, driving is a need and a right. The cost is already high, and it is taxed enough. And, simply, the alternatives to driving are not yet an adequate substitute.

  Congestion Pricing in London

Some major cities around the world, including Singapore, London and Stockholm, have been able to remedy this divide and implement congestion pricing plans. Still, though cities in America have proposed it, nowhere in the country has congestion pricing been realized. Since its failure in New York, San Francisco is now considering a similar plan.

New York City

As a part of the PlaNYC initiative put forward by Mayor Bloomberg to make New York a greener city as it continues to develop over the next few decades, the initial congestion pricing plan announced in April 2007 proposed an $8 fee to passenger vehicles entering Manhattan below 86th Street between 6 am and 6 pm on weekdays, and $4 for trips within that zone. By implementing congestion pricing, $354 million in grants through the federal Urban Partnership Agreement would have been allocated to the City for mass transit improvements.

Also referred to as the Central Business District, the part of Manhattan below 86th Street on a given day has some 2 million workers from around the region, hundreds of thousands of tourists, and several hundred thousand residents. With these people come cars. And, if it had been implemented, traffic within the congestion pricing zone was projected to decrease 6.3 percent and speeds were projected to increase 7.2 percent.

Still, in January of the following year, changes were made to the Mayor’s proposal – namely, reducing the congestion pricing zone to below 60th Street instead of 86th.

The opposition to the plan came mainly from the outer boroughs and the surrounding suburbs – where the drivers lived. But, that opposition was minimal. According to a March 2008 Quinnipiac poll, the overall public support for congestion pricing in the City, if the proceeds were used to improve mass transit, was 60 percent to 30 percent statewide. New York City voters supported the plan, if the money was used for mass transit, 67 percent to 27 percent, while suburban voters supported it 51 percent to 43 percent.
Despite the city and statewide public support, the New York City Council, which votes unanimously on most issues, voted only 30 to 20 in support of the plan on March 31, 2008.

The deadline to apply for the federal Urban Partnership Agreement funds – $354 million for mass transit – was on April 7th. In the end, no vote was made by the New York State legislature. Mayor Bloomberg’s plan to implement congestion pricing failed as time ran out. The winners: Politicians from Queens, Brooklyn and New York’s suburbs, who maintained that congestion pricing was a fee on commuters to the benefit of well-to-do Manhattanites.

Specifically, New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, representing the Lower East Side of Manhattan, opposed the plan arguing motorists would avoid congestion pricing fees by parking in neighborhoods just outside the zone. As a result, neighborhoods would become “parking lots.” Also, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky of Westchester County issued a report on the proposal, calling it a “regressive tax” on the poor and middle class of the region.

Still, though New York City lost federal funds for its transportation system as a result of the plan’s defeat, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood recently made it clear that the funds are still available if the city is ever able to implement congestion pricing in the near future.

The Singapore Example

Singapore was the first country in the world to implement Electronic Road Pricing (called congestion pricing in the U.S.).

The following is a Worldfocus-Blueprint America report on Singapore’s successes in alleviating congestion, while, at the same time, the automatic fees take a toll on Singapore’s commuters.

Worldfocus producers Mary Lockhart and Ara Ayer, and correspondent Daljit Dhaliwal report; this segment was part of a series on infrastructure produced by Worldfocus.

An introduction to congestion pricing, its failure in New York City, and a Worldfocus report on the system in Singapore. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/05/052-nyc-long-street200×100.jpg ]]>

To track New York City’s use of federal stimulus funds for these six projects and beyond, visit the NYCStat Stimulus Tracker.

About 1,100 of the authority’s 70,000 employees will be laid off. Fares for commuter rail, subway and bus transit will increase at least 20 percent across the board. Service cuts include the elimination of 35 bus routes and two subway lines, the W and Z. Off-peak and weekend subway, bus and commuter rail service will be cut back. Existing tolls on bridges will also rise.

Still, the MTA had hoped to avoid the draconian measures.

The vote came as legislators at the state capitol in New York have so far failed to act on a plan developed by a panel headed by the MTA’s former chairman, Richard Ravitch, imposing tolls on free East River and Harlem River bridges and creating a new corporate payroll tax to fill the budget gap.

After weeks of debate and deliberation, The New York Times reported, “several Democratic senators from Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx remain adamantly opposed to the tolls. And with Democrats holding a bare 32-30 majority in the Senate, and Republicans refusing to provide any votes for the plan, the Senate majority leader, Malcolm A. Smith, has been forced to come up with an alternative plan that could win enough support to pass in his chamber…”

That plan, though, comes up too short in adequately addressing the MTA’s budget needs – a deficit of $1.2 billion in operating costs alone. It includes a 4 percent fare increase, half of what Ravitch had proposed, and would impose a tax of 25 cents on every $100 of payroll on employers within the 12 counties served by the authority, significantly less than the 34 cents that Ravitch had proposed.

As a result, with no sufficient alternatives offered by the state legislature – and with no new tolling on drivers – the MTA voted to burden local transit users (who already cover the highest proportion of transit operating expenses in the country) to keep the system from bankruptcy.

A look at the subway fare increase

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) of New York

Last April, chagrined transportation professionals from New York were aghast to find their L.A. compatriots wearing “I Love NY” buttons.  The Angelinos were enamored of the Big Apple because we had just forked over our $354 million in federal funds for congestion pricing after the New York State Assembly failed to even hold a vote on the matter.  The City of Angels (as well as Chicago, St. Louis and others) is hoping for a repeat as New York struggles in planning for stimulus money.

The infrastructure portion of the stimulus bill (don’t call it that to the administration; they are very sensitive and it must be called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) is aimed at “shovel-ready” projects, meaning that funds must be allocated almost immediately with at least half the money obligated within 180 days of the bill’s February 17th enactment. Unobligated funds would be redistributed presumably to states that met or exceeded the 50% threshold. The rest of the money must be obligated within one year. But, there’s one pot of money that has a much longer window — in fact, longer than 10 years.  In a “squeaker,” the high-speed rail initiative went from zero to $2 Billion to $8 Billion in the final version.  And there’s more where that came from.  All expectations are on the new federal transportation bill (the old one expires in September 2009) to include billions more.

A real rail network, as what is seen today in Europe and parts of Asia, is what this country’s transportation system truly lacks. Rail has the potential to seriously improve the environment by reducing the large carbon footprint produced by short-haul air or motor vehicle travel. A high-speed rail line for trips of less than 500 miles can easily compete and should beat air travel. So, if we are looking for opportunities to make transport more sustainable and connect and revitalize major cities, why not start at home?

We are pleased that Governor Paterson and the New York State Department of Transportation recently released their New York State Rail Plan 2009 – Strategies for a New Age, the state’s first comprehensive rail plan in 22 years. The Plan creates a 2020 vision for a statewide high-speed (we think medium-speed is more like it with top speeds of 110 mph vs. Asian and European high speeds of 200+ mph) rail network. Such an aggressive target year is laudable for the changes that the Plan proposes: reliable and frequent service between New York City and Albany; increased and improved service between Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, Utica, and Rochester (the Empire Line); a 6½ hour trip between Albany and Montreal (the Adirondack Line); a modernization and improvement in the state’s freight rail system; and a host of other improvements.

However, we want the state to begin thinking on an even grander scale. While medium-speed rail may be achievable by 2020, high-speed is certainly within reach by 2030.  Here’s New York State’s chance to step up to the plate and take what’s rightfully ours. By the way, we also call for upgrades of the Northeast Corridor – but we’re less worried about that because of strong advocacy by our Veep and a cadre of U.S. senators and congress people. We want to speed up service on the Empire and Adirondack Lines, beyond the 110mph laid out in the Plan, to run competitively with systems in China, Japan, and soon California so let’s aim for 250mph or NY to Buffalo in less than 3 hours and to Albany in an hour.  Montreal and Toronto could be just 3 and 5 hours away, respectively, even with customs checks on the train!

Upstate New York cities are dying – they started experiencing their own recession decades before the rest of the country fell into the recession we live with today. Frankly, while the country is catching a cold now or even the flu, we’re worried upstate will catch pneumonia. Bringing them hours closer to New York City — the world’s capital — will give them an enormous boost. Linking them with Toronto and Montreal will create a cosmopolitan opportunity to Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo and Albany. And by revitalizing our cities, New York State can really begin promoting compact, urban development – another huge plus for the environment.

Another major issue affecting our state’s economic well-being is the transport of freight. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey faces fierce competition with the Port of Baltimore. By strengthening our freight rail network, we may be able to capture some of the freight which is currently directed to Baltimore. Also, by providing a reliable freight rail link into Canada, we can make New York Harbor into a faster, more economical gateway for trans-shipment to the Canadian and upper Mid-West markets that are currently served by slow ships on the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes. Heck, throw in Congressman Jerry Nadler’s freight tunnel, link it with an upstate freight line and we will be on our way toward restoring New York Harbor as the Port of Entry to the U.S. east of The Mississippi and reestablishing New York City as the world’s port.

But we can’t rely solely on federal dollars to see our vision through. We must come up with a long term funding plan to assist a new rail system.  We look to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) model created by Governor Nelson Rockefeller over 40 years ago.  Today, the MTA Bridges and Tunnels (née Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority (TBTA)) hands over its excess revenue to its parent, the MTA. This money, in turn, helps fund New York City Transit, MTA Bus, and the commuter rail lines. We propose a similar model to help subsidize rail initiatives and operations throughout the state. In this case, we would recommend using the tolls on the New York State Thruway and introducing tolls on roads which parallel the rail system.  Toll rates would be set to include a subsidy for the rail.  This would also have the effect of shifting some freight and passenger traffic from the Thruway to the railways.  That means faster travel for motorists and less need to widen the Thruway as the upstate economy recovers.

High-speed rail for New York State already has its champions. Senator Chuck Schumer (D) called the plan a “great first step” towards a European-style system. Representative Louise Slaughter (D) has suggested aiming for electric trains that run at 150mph or faster which would develop the economy of Upstate New York. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) have also voiced support. We need to rally our champions to think even one step further. And perhaps we should also go beyond state lines to consider connecting our fast service with other cities and another country, Canada, to garner even more support.

We are at an exciting, but critical point in United States rail history. Rail is finally getting the attention it deserves and the dollars are beginning to flow in. But if we don’t think like visionaries now, we risk giving up our potential, and ending up with a good (yes, it will be good!) rail system that results in impressive – but not extraordinary – change.