Blueprint America » high speed rail

Profiles from the Recession: [REPORT] Obama and Republicans stand on opposite sides of the high-speed tracks

tom mcnamara — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:30:13 +0000

Tom McNamara, Blueprint America

An artist's conception of a high-speed rail station in California. Officials there approved a $4.3 billion proposal to build California's first segment of high-speed rail line that would run through the state's agricultural heart. (AP Photo/ California High-Speed Rail Authority)

The Republican Party has drawn a line, taking on President Obama’s high-speed rail plan as he begins to defend his presidency with the 2012 election not far off. The opposition solidified on Wednesday when Gov. Rick Scott (R.-Fla.) became the third Republican state leader to turn down federal dollars for high-speed rail. Wisconsin and Ohio first refused a combined billion dollars for lines that would have connected the Midwest; Florida now rejects a link between Tampa and Orlando, forgoing more than $2 billion.

Just as in Wisconsin, the money in Florida would have covered almost the entire cost of construction. And just as in Wisconsin, the governor argued that high-speed rail would forever obligate the state to subsidize the cost to keep trains running.

Scott’s announcement came a little more than a week after Vice President Joe Biden called for spending $53 billion on passenger trains and high-speed rail projects over the next six years. An initial $8 billion of that plan is already a part of the budget recently released by the White House.

Losing Florida, however, is a huge blow to the Obama administration, which wants to make high-speed rail accessible to 80 percent of Americans within 25 years. Around this time last year, the president came to Tampa amid fanfare and with funding in hand to announce the beginning of an American high-speed rail system. Obama chose Florida because the 85-mile Tampa-to-Orlando line, on which trains would travel as fast as 170 miles per hour, was to be the national showpiece for high-speed rail. Construction could have even started this year because the state already owned much of the land along the route, which would allow it to be built relatively quickly.

Without a change in the national plan though, high-speed trains won’t be running anytime soon in the country. With Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida out of the picture, California remains the farthest along in its rail development, with trains potentially running by the decade’s end.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he was “extremely disappointed” by Scott’s decision in a statement Wednesday, but that the money would likely be redistributed to other states.

Although Scott threatened to turn down the billions in rail money when he ran for office last year, many in the state were surprised that he actually followed through. Florida’s unemployment rate is about 12 percent, and the rail project had been expected to create thousands of new jobs.

Had the money been accepted, it’s possible to imagine that Obama, less than two years from now, would be out stomping for votes from points between Tampa and Orlando, touting job creation and 21st century transportation improvements. Instead, the state is now home to a substantial Obama loss. If Florida turns out to be a swing-state come election time (as it always seems to), Republicans may have just won the first battle for the state and, perhaps, the White House.

With the 2012 elections not that far off, Republicans are taking on President Obama’s high-speed rail plan. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2010/01/200×100hsr-phasing-thumb.jpg

Profiles from the Recession: [BLOG] Futurama: Obama’s fight for Rail no different from Eisenhower’s for Highways

pancrazia — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 17:56:48 +0000

Alexis Pancrazi, Blueprint America

Our unity as a nation is sustained by communication of thought and by easy transportation of people and goods. Together, the unifying forces of our communication and transportation systems are dynamic elements in the very name we bear — United States. Without them, we would be a mere alliance of many separate parts.

–President Eisenhower, 1955

When Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953, and began talking eloquently about connecting America by road, it was by no means a revolutionary idea. The Public Roads Administration had already created an interstate system and dreamed up the idea it might one day extend over 40,000 miles. What Eisenhower did was make that dream a reality by coming up with a plan for funding its construction. He garnered national support with these helpful explanatory videos:

Eisenhower pushed forward the famous Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 which, armed with a financial plan, passed with overwhelming congressional support. And the end results were extraordinary—42,795 miles of standardized roads, 54,663 bridges over 1.6 million acres of land at the projects completion in 1991.

But the path to the finished interstate system was as bumpy as the old roads it replaced. Although the interstate system had been very popular with national and local interests alike when the act was passed, opposition soon mounted, particularly among the cities that were forced to accommodate these new super highways.

After only one year, critics began to call for the construction of urban highways to be suspended for the purposes of re-examining land use development. Eisenhower’s vision came into doubt. After two high-ranking highway officials spoke about the interstate at a conference in 1957, one witness expressed anxiety about the project, as, “neither of these administrators had the slightest notion of what they were doing.”

When the government decided to pump more money into the program after a recession in 1957, fiscal accountability was called into question—the term “ninety-itis” was bandied about, indicating that highway officials were spending recklessly knowing the federal government covered 90% of their costs.

Congress seemed to turn against the program, as representatives began to make speeches on the floor blaming a shortage of government funds on unnecessarily wasteful highway budgets. The Wall Street Journal was quoted in 1960 as describing the interstate highway system as “[a] vast program thrown together, imperfectly conceived and grossly mismanaged, and in due course becoming a veritable playground for extravagance, waste and corruption.”

And opposition wasn’t limited to rhetoric: in Boston resistance broke out when a super highway through the city ravaged historic districts and pushed many residents out of their homes. In Baltimore, a grassroots movement rose up to challenge, and defeat, the decision to divide the city between the wealthy and the working class. The urban roads were usually slated to go through the poorest parts of town—which often happened to also be the blackest, thereby stirring the already-boiling pot of race relations. After a massive riot in 1967 in Detroit, Michigan, which resulted in 43 dead, Governor George Romney cited the freeway construction as a major catalyst.

The interstate highway system came about with fits and starts—it was a “Grand Plan,” but also at times a painful and mistrusted one. Yet, even before it was finished, it had changed the rhythm of American life. It built upon and delivered the American dream of a house and a car; populated suburbs and made vacationing easier; brought the masses McDonalds and Holiday Inns; offered easier transport of goods to regions outside of cities; and trucking became one of America’s stalwart industries. Which is not to say it’s been all fun times and road trips. The interstate also gave us sprawl, exhaust pollution, and, of course, McDonalds. While not all of these changes were for the better, what would America be like without it?

President Obama’s similarly expansive vision–a network of high speed intercity rail trains–has already fallen victim to criticism. His opponents suggest that passenger interest doesn’t warrant such a large investment ($8 billion in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act) and will result in a system financially bloated and underused, a blackhole of taxpayer dollars to upkeep.

And for others, his plan is too measured. It focuses on improvements to existing Amtrak lines, raising speeds, but not to the 220 miles per hour that would match bullet trains in Europe. Rail proponents would prefer larger investments in just a few corridors where distances are long enough to allow for higher speeds, and where ridership has high projections. The pro-rail community is concerned that any failed lines will provide fodder for critics.

Perhaps the lesson here is that any big plan is bound to have its share of critics and opponents. But how close in comparison is Obama’s plan to Eisenhower’s interstate? In broad strokes both aim to knit together the country with a state of the art transportation system, but beyond that it’s hard to tell where the similarities begin and end.

President Eisenhower’s dream of an Interstate Highway system was bold and shaped America’s future in the second half of the 20th century. These days the magnitude of his project is largely forgotten, and the vast system of roads is taken for granted as part of American life. But was it always so easy to see Ike’s vision for the country? http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2011/01/800px-Centerline_Rumble_Strip.jpg

Profiles from the Recession: [VIDEO] Off the Rails

tom mcnamara — Fri, 14 Jan 2011 23:07:01 +0000

Sometimes responsibility is in the eye of the beholder. For example, what is the best way to invest in the nation’s infrastructure? In the state of Wisconsin, the governor declined $810 million worth of federal stimulus money for a high speed rail initiative because he says the state couldn’t afford to maintain the system and that money should be spent on roads, not rail.

However, in Illinois, the governor sees his responsibility differently. A look at the future of passenger rail.

[BLOG] Futurama: Futurama: Obama’s fight for Rail no different from Eisenhower’s for Highways
[REPORT] Rail Politics: Freeways aren’t free either
[REPORT] Rail Politics: The choice — build or save our way out of Recession
[VIDEO] Fixing America with High-speed rail

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

Producer Peter Meryash, Correspondent Rick Karr, Researcher Alexis Pancrazi and Editor David Kreger for Blueprint America

However, in Illinois, the governor sees his responsibility differently. A look at the future of passenger rail. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2011/01/NO200×100train-yes1.jpg

Profiles from the Recession: [REPORT] Rail Politics: Freeways aren’t any freer

tom mcnamara — Thu, 13 Jan 2011 23:50:32 +0000

Scott Walker ran for governor with a no-train message. Photo: Scott Walker for Governor

In hard economic times, it’s difficult to believe that two states are together rejecting more than a billion dollars in federal money. Ohio and Wisconsin will not undertake high-speed rail projects that were in development as late as last November. New leadership in both states claimed the rail projects would forever burden their state budgets. In the morning light, however, their objections may face fresh scrutiny.

Last July, President Obama’s Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, stopped in Wisconsin touring the country with a plan he said was only rivaled by President Eisenhower’s interstate-highway system. “High-speed rail is coming to Wisconsin,” LaHood said. “There’s no stopping it!”

Scott Walker, the Milwaukee County executive and Republican candidate for governor, didn’t agree. Walker became the “No Train” candidate as he campaigned across the state before Election Day in November. He put up a website, www.notrain.com. And, he had words for Washington: “It’s outrageous for Secretary La Hood to suggest that your administration can force Wisconsin to continue building a train it doesn’t want and cannot afford,” Walker wrote in a letter to the president. “Almost as outrageous as the fact that the decision to saddle Wisconsin taxpayers with untold millions in operating and maintenance costs, forever, was never debated or voted on by the Wisconsin legislature.”

Walker promised to turn down $810 million in stimulus dollars for a completely federally funded train line from Milwaukee to Madison that would eventually connect Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

Walker went on to win the election with 54 percent of the vote; the first Republican governor in Wisconsin in eight years.

While his opponent argued throughout the campaign that the state would lose thousands of jobs without the multimillion dollar project, Walker said the money should be used for highways instead. “More than 60 years ago, the federal government had the foresight to recognize that the American people no longer wanted to be limited by fixed-track passenger rail,” he wrote in a second letter to Washington, this time to LaHood. “The massive investment in our federal interstate highway system spurred the greatest economic expansion in our nation’s history. For us to now go backwards on transportation makes little sense. I believe that continuing responsible investments in our road infrastructure is a key to growing our economy and creating jobs.”

LaHood wasn’t buying it. Plus, the money could only be used for high-speed rail. The transportation secretary took back nearly all the $810 million before the newly elected governor could even return the check. In Ohio, new Gov. John Kasich, a Republican, also ran against high-speed rail in favor of roads and bridges. Like in Wisconsin, the Obama administration, again, took back the money.

Contrary to what people think, roadwork isn’t inexpensive. Governors Walker and Kasich won, in part, talking only about the great expense of high-speed rail in contrast to the practicality of highway maintenance. USPIRG (the federation of state public interest groups), however, has a study that puts the cost of roads and bridges in perspective. For starters, the tax on what you pay at the pump doesn’t begin to cover the cost of the country’s transportation system. According to the report, “Since 1947, the amount of money spent on highways, roads and streets has exceeded the amount raised through gasoline taxes and other so-called ‘user fees’ by $600 billion.”

Deficit spending and borrowed tax dollars from the country’s general fund have made up the difference.

In Wisconsin, the state projected high-speed rail operating costs at $16.5 million a year. After fare and concession revenue, the taxpayers would be on the hook for about $7.5 million. Gov. Walker said the state could not pay the added money to keep the trains running year after year. But, a new estimate dropped the state obligation below $5 million. And of that money, the feds could pick up anywhere from 80 to 90 percent of the cost. Compare that to the cost of an average road construction project in northeast or southeast Wisconsin last year: While some are in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the majority are in the millions and well exceed whatever it would cost to maintain the Milwaukee-to-Madison line for a year.

The Wisconsin Department of Transportation does, in fact, project a $300 million budget shortfall over the next two years. Walker is right to worry. But it is a road and bridge problem – not a rail problem. Take a look at the chart below:

*The 2010 and 2011 amounts are budgeted figures. Credit: Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Even after Wisconsin stopped increasing the state gas tax in 2005, highway spending (blue line) has still increased and remained in the billions annually. Take note of the red line for state rail funding, though. In 2010, it jumps over $800 million. In 2011, as promised by Walker, it takes a considerable dive.

In hard economic times, it’s difficult to believe that two states are together rejecting over a billion dollars in federal money. Ohio and Wisconsin will not undertake high-speed rail projects that were in development as late as last November. New leadership in both states claimed the rail projects would forever burden their state budgets. In the morning light, however, their objections may face fresh scrutiny. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2011/01/200×100scott-walker-speech.jpg

Profiles from the Recession: [VIDEO] Fixing America with High-speed rail

tom mcnamara — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 21:11:57 +0000

Last month, Blueprint America’s colleagues at Need to Know debuted a new segment on the program: Fixing America.

This week, their big thinkers take on infrastructure and the economy — can High-speed rail get America back on the right track? Guests include Petra Todorovich, director the America 2050; Felix Salmon, a financial blogger for Reuters; and Patricia DeGennaro, a senior fellow at the World Policy Institute.

Watch the full episode. See more Need To Know.

Last month, Blueprint America’s colleagues at Need to Know debuted a new segment on the program: Fixing America.

Profiles from the Recession: [REPORT] Rail Politics: The choice — build or save our way out of Recession

tom mcnamara — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:57:51 +0000

Tom McNamara, Blueprint America

After making headlines for weeks, yesterday New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made it official: He’s killing the commuter rail tunnel between Manhattan and New Jersey. The project is too expensive, he says, and his state doesn’t have the money to cover its share of the costs. The demise of the largest public works project in decades illustrates the stark political choice many voters will make next week: either spend our way out of the recession with big projects like high-speed trains and tunnels or save our way out with good old fashioned belt-tightening.

Christie made his choice clear last week with a childhood story: “In our house, when I used to go to my mother and say, ‘I’d like something new, I’d like to buy something.’ My mother would look at me and say, ‘Well, of course, Christopher, you can have that, just go in the back yard and take the money off the money tree. You know where that is, right?’”

The New Jersey governor is only in his first year of office and not up for reelection, yet he has been crisscrossing the country this election season endorsing Republican candidates and preaching his wildly popular brand of fiscal conservatism.

In closing the story of Christopher and the money tree, he made a connection to the unchecked spending he sees today: “There is no money tree in Washington, D.C. … To me it is a moral imperative to say no to these things.”

Does Chris Christie have his finger on the country’s pulse?

Nearly two years after an economic stimulus steeped in infrastructure building promises and $787 billion in government spending, Americans by and large have had enough. In a September 2010 Rassmusen poll, 61 percent of U.S. voters said cutting government spending and deficits would do more to create jobs than President Obama’s call last month for $50 billion more in infrastructure spending, what’s being dubbed”stimulus part two.”

And while Christie isn’t the first politician to take a stand against Washington, he certainly turned down an awful lot of money: $6 billion in combined federal, regional and stimulus funds for a new and needed (even Christie thought it was a good idea) commuter rail tunnel. In fact, for saying no, New Jersey could owe the feds some $600 million it has already spent on the project.

NJ Governor Chris Christie holds a Town Hall Meeting on his Reform Agenda for the state in Moorestown, NJ. Photo: NJ Governor's Office/Tim Larsen

It’s not every day a governor turns down billions in infrastructure spending. It was estimated that the project would have created 6,000 new jobs, greatly lessened commute times and increased property values for state residents. But that isn’t exactly the deal Christie walked away from. The tunnel would have left the same residents on the hook for $6 billion in projected cost overruns on top of the $3 billion the state was already obligated to pay.

Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, a former Republican Congressman, took an impromptu trip to the New Jersey capitol last week to convince Christie to change his mind. But, in the end, the feds were unable to calm the governor’s fears that cost overruns would trash New Jersey’s budget. Later, the DOT chief only had this to say by way of Twitter, “Is it just me, or is it hard to argue against writing the next chapter in American innovation?”

No train

Apparently, it is getting easier to argue against the next chapter of American innovation, especially if it’s being proposed by the Obama administration. If elected, Republican gubernatorial candidates from Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and California are promising to say “no” to federal dollars for high-speed rail. Being against massive government investment in high-speed rail isn’t hurting their chances either. The anti-rail candidates are in command in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida; and California is a tossup. And it’s no coincidence that Christie has campaigned in all of these states.

High-speed rail is one of President Obama’s signature initiatives. In his State of the Union address this year, the president backed up his national rail vision by announcing that $8 billion in stimulus money would be distributed to various states, including Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida and California, to get the country’s next generation of transportation moving.

“The bottom line is that high-speed rail is a national program that will connect the country, spur economic development and bring manufacturing jobs to the U.S.,” said Secretary LaHood in a statement. “It will also transform transportation in America, much like the Interstate highway system did under President Eisenhower. It’s hard to imagine what would have happened to states like Ohio and Wisconsin if their leaders had decided they didn’t want to be connected to the rest of the country back then.”

Wisconsin

More than $810 million in federal stimulus money is going to build a high-speed train line between Milwaukee and Madison. Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker has made that issue central to his campaign, even holding a “Stop the Train” rally over the summer. Walker argues that taking the money will forever obligate the state to spend $7 million to $10 million a year. High-speed rail will not be self-supporting, he says. His website, NoTrain.com, runs an advertisement in which he calls the rail project a boondoggle. “I’m Scott Walker,” he says in the video, “and if I’m elected as your next governor, we’ll stop this train.”

Ohio

Republican candidate for governor John Kasich has promised to kill a $400 million federal stimulus project to connect Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati by high-speed rail. In a recent debate, Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat seeking re-election, was dumbfounded his opponent would return that much money, “Your position, quite frankly, really puzzles me,” Strickland said.

Florida

Rick Scott, the Republican candidate for governor, has flip-flopped on the high-speed rail line from Orlando to Tampa. In a CNN debate Monday night, Scott said he’d pull the plug on the project if the state had to pay for any portion. The next day, Scott softened, “I would go through first and wait until we can see the feasibility study and see what it’s going to cost taxpayers. Then I would make the decision,” he said.

All told, after an initial $1.25 billion in stimulus earlier this year and another $800 million just this week from the feds, Florida only has to pay for 20 percent of the project.

California

After an investment of $2.3 billion in federal stimulus, Republican candidate for governor Meg Whitman has maintained that the time for the $45 billion high-speed rail plan, connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, is not now. “In the face of the state’s current fiscal crisis, Meg doesn’t believe we can afford the costs associated with new high-speed rail at this time,” said Tucker Bounds, a campaign spokesman, to The New York Times.

However, as the California High Speed Rail Blog points out, the costs for the project are not associated with the state’s budget, and any delays could only jeopardize the stimulus money.

And just this week, the feds announced that another $902 million is on the way for high speed rail development in the state.

A 21st 20th century infrastructure

It remains to be seen how much power fiscal conservatives will have in saying “no” to high-speed rail and other big infrastructure investments. These deficit hawks, demanding to know where Chris Christie’s proverbial money tree is, could stand in the way of the Obama administration’s goal of bringing America’s infrastructure into the 21st century.

After making headlines for weeks, yesterday New Jersey Governor Chris Christie made it official: He’s killing the commuter rail tunnel between Manhattan and New Jersey. The project is too expensive, he says, and his state doesn’t have the money to cover its share of the costs. The demise of the largest public works project in decades illustrates the stark political choice many voters will make next week: either spend our way out of the Recession with big projects like high-speed trains and tunnels or save our way out with good old fashioned belt-tightening. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2010/10/200×100_20101028MoorestownTH103.jpg

Cowboys don’t ride buses

tom mcnamara — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 21:51:15 +0000

1940s WPA poster, showing various infrastructure projects that could benefit a community at the time || Unknown, WPA

Tom McNamara, Blueprint America

The Dallas Cowboys left town for a new stadium before the start of last year’s season. And the Dallas suburb of Irving, where the NFL team played from 1971 to 2008, is planning for life after football with a new transit-oriented development. At the same time, a new stadium just down the road has no transit access at all — except for a one-day, temporary rail line to be built for Super Bowl Sunday next year.

TRANSIT: ‘THE TALL T’ IN TEXAS

With a population around 200,000, Irving is a part of the North Texas Metroplex (nearly 7 million live there) — sprawl-land, U.S.A., to an outsider, but a part of the country that also has been building one of the most extensive mass-transit systems outside of the Northeast Corridor. That said, Texas was seen as the big loser when federal (stimulus) high-speed rail dollars were awarded earlier this year. It only received a $4 million grant for planning a project in the Dallas-Fort Worth area (with Irving in-between) as opposed to the hundreds of millions to even billions other states won.

When Texas Stadium is razed April 11, plans are already in place to redevelop the 80-acre site (with an additional 320-acres surrounding) located at the busy intersection of Texas highways 183 and 114, which about 150,000 cars pass through daily.

With new construction a least two years out, a city-contracted developer is looking for tenants in the meantime. And with the site’s proximity to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit light rail line to be installed next year, the area is primed for high density development — with plans for housing and condominium towers, a corporate or medical campus and an entertainment venue already in the works.

TEXAS TEA IS OIL, TOO

Older professional sports stadiums typically were built around highways and parking. Old Texas Stadium is a perfect example. But as the years went on, local mass-transit connected fans not wanting to pay big bucks for parking (or wanting to knock back a few drinks) to their teams. It happened in Irving and it happened in most sports-towns across the country. At the same time, almost all newly built stadiums now incorporate mass-transit, biking and walking (Target Field, the new Minnesota Twins stadium in Minneapolis, for example).

Don’t even ask how much the pizza costs || Arlington, Texas

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, however, built a $1.2 billion, 80,000-seat stadium 15 miles outside of Irving in the Dallas suburb of Arlington — the largest city in the country (population nearly 400,000) without a public transit system. The city recently tried a commuter bus system, but it met with little success. Arlington has even voted against tax increases several times in the last two decades that would have financed some form of public transit. Still, the city did increase the local sales-tax by a half cent in 2005 to pay for the new football stadium. On game day, as a result, area fans can spend hours in traffic and pay upwards of $60 for parking. And that’s just to get to the game — tickets to watch the game are even more expensive.

The lack of transit in the city can be seen in other ways, too. Rail connects Dallas to the east and Fort Worth to the west, but goes out of its way to avoid stopping in Arlington. And when the city hosts the Super Bowl next February, it will divert freight rail lines to set up a one-day rail stop — at a cost of $250,000 for a temporary public transit line, moving a projected 10,000 fans to the big game. The following day: Arlington will again be the largest city in the country without a public transit system.

Public Works: Video: Blueprint California

tom mcnamara — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:17:44 +0000

KCET –- With the one-year mark of President Barack Obama’s stimulus plan approaching last month, the White House selected 13 passenger rail corridors in 31 states to receive funding. High-speed rail projects in Florida, Illinois and California were the big winners.

KCET public television in Southern California — as a part of Blueprint America — reports on California’s plans to build a high speed rail system connecting major metropolitan areas in the Golden State. On one side, supporters say it will reduce gridlock (on the road and at the airport) and change travel in the state by moving commuters between Los Angeles and San Francisco in just 2 hours and 40 minutes. On the other side, detractors, increasingly worried about cost (to the state and riders), say the project is on track to build a very big and very fast white elephant.

KCET — No longer is the argument for investment in renewable energy just about climate change. As America’s economy is in rescission, renewable energy could create a boom in good paying jobs — ‘green jobs’. KCET public television in California — as a part of Blueprint America — reports how some untypical students at an East Los Angeles school and an economically hard hit community in the Antelope Valley are hoping to make it in a green economy.

KCET public television in Southern California — as a part of Blueprint America — in a two part report following the one-year mark of President Obama’s stimulus plan on the question of high-speed rail and the potential of green jobs as the California state budget verges on bankruptcy. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/06/200100wind.jpg

The Next American System: [VIDEO] Beyond the Motor City

tom mcnamara — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:02:41 +0000

(View full post to see video)

Blueprint America examines how Detroit, a symbol of America’s diminishing status in the world, may come to represent the future of transportation and progress in America.

Detroit is the crucible in which the nation’s ability to move toward a modern 21st century transportation infrastructure is put to the test. The documentary shows how investments in the past — beginning with the construction of canals in the 18th century — profoundly shaped Detroit’s physical layout, population growth and economic development. Before being dubbed the Motor City, Detroit was once home to the nation’s most extensive streetcar system. In fact, it was that vast network of streetcars that carried workers to the area’s many car factories. And it was the cars made in those factories that would soon displace the streetcars in Detroit — and in every major American city.

Detroit’s engineers went on to design the nation’s first urban freeways and inspired much of America’s 20th century transportation infrastructure system — from traffic signals to gas stations — that became the envy of the word.

But over the last 30 years, much of the world has moved on, choosing faster, cleaner, more modern transportation and leaving America — and Detroit — behind. Viewers are taken on a journey beyond Detroit’s blighted urban landscape to Spain, home to one of the world’s most modern and extensive transit systems; to California, where voters recently said yes to America’s first high speed rail system; and to Washington, where Congress will soon decide whether to finally push America’s transportation into the 21st century.

Blueprint America: Beyond the Motor City examines how Detroit, a symbol of America’s diminishing status in the world, may come to represent the future of transportation and progress in America. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2009/12/Title-still200×100.doc2.jpg

The Next American System: [VIDEO] The Stop at Visalia

tom mcnamara — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:46:39 +0000

(View full post to see video)

Even before President Barack Obama set aside $8 billion in federal stimulus funds last year for high-speed rail projects nationally, California voters in 2008 had already approved a $10 billion bond measure to begin construction of a statewide high-speed train network. California’s High-Speed Rail Authority is responsible for planning, constructing and operating a high-speed train system serving California’s major metropolitan areas.

Blueprint America: Beyond the Motor City (Feb. 8 at 10 pm) follows several members of the California High-Speed Rail Authority to Spain, where they tour that nation’s extensive high speed rail

Visalia, California || photo: Amtrak California

system and learn about the challenges they face as they try to get the first American trains up and running — from Los Angeles to San Francisco — by the end of the decade.

In addition to connecting California’s key cities — San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento — high-speed rail will link some 20 smaller cities throughout the state. Leaders from many of those communities lobbied to get a train stop placed locally. The potential for the trains to link local economies to state and regional economies drove those efforts — and no one wanted to be passed by.

The agricultural community of Visalia – located 44 miles south of Fresno and nearly the midpoint between Sacramento and Los Angeles – was one such city.

Blueprint America followed Mayor Jesus Gamboa as he lobbied the California High-Speed Rail Authority for a train stop for Visalia.

High-speed rail in California, in addition to connecting the state’s major cities, will link some 20 smaller cities to the industries and economies of those larger centers. And as train stops were determined, no one wanted to be passed by.

Blueprint America followed Mayor Jesus Gamboa as he lobbied the California High-Speed Rail Authority for a train stop for the city of Visalia. /wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2010/01/200×100mayorjesusgamboa.3.jpg

The Next American System: [REPORT] High-Speed Rail America

tom mcnamara — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:17:51 +0000

A national high-speed rail plan was put forward by President Barack Obama in April 2009, just months after he set aside $8 billion in stimulus funds to begin such an undertaking.

(View full post to see video)

Following the announcement, forty states and the District of Columbia requested over $100 billion for high-speed train projects.

At the end of January this year, however, the White House selected 13 passenger rail corridors in 31 states to receive stimulus funding. High-speed rail projects in California, Florida and Illinois were the big winners.

— California: $2.3 billion to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego.

— Florida: $1.25 billion to build a rail line connecting Tampa on the West Coast with Orlando in the middle of the state, eventually going south to Miami.

— Illinois-Missouri: $1.1 billion to improve a rail line between Chicago and St. Louis so that trains travel up to 110 mph.

— Wisconsin: $810 million to upgrade and refurbish train stations and install safety equipment on the Madison-to-Milwaukee leg of a line that stretches from Minneapolis to Chicago.

— Washington-Oregon: $590 million to upgrade a rail line from Seattle to Portland, Ore.

— North Carolina: $520 million for projects that will increase top speeds to 90 mph on trains between Raleigh and Charlotte and double the number of round trips.

Though any state could ask for federal funding for projects, the administration identified 10 potential high-speed rail corridors: California, the Pacific Northwest, Texas, the Gulf Coast,

The Obama High-Speed Rail Plan || Image: White House

Florida, a Southeast corridor, the Northeast Corridor, the “Keystone Corridor” through Pennsylvania, the “Empire Corridor” through New York, and a Midwest hub centered in Chicago. Anyone outside these regions will be hard-pressed for high-speed rail dollars.

That $8 billion is going to have to go a long way as, for example, building a system in California — the state furthest along in high-speed rail planning with construction set to start as soon as next year — will cost $42.6 billion alone (up from $33.6 billion just a year ago).

In addition to the stimulus investment, Congress has approved $2.5 billion more in high-speed rail funding for the annual federal budget this year. Still, that is budget to budget, year to year support for projects that take 10 to 20 years to build. And, if a system is implemented nationally, it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars — not counting inflation over the decades it will take to build.

By spreading the $8 billion among so many states (31), President Obama ignored calls from transportation experts and high-speed rail advocates who maintained that the only way to build support for the program would be to concentrate funding on only two or three projects — to not only accelerate construction, but also get those high-speed lines up and running to be seen as an example of success throughout the country. In the end, only the line in Florida (Tampa to Orlando), which received $1.25 billion on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars in local private and public funds already raised, is expected to be finished in the next five years.

HIGH–ER SPEED RAIL

Rep. John Mica of Florida, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, complained that the Midwest lines awarded stimulus funds will achieve top speeds of only 110 mph and were “selected more for political reasons than for high-speed service.”

Still, “high-speed” has been a loosely used phrase in America.

Between Washington, D.C., New York and Boston, the Acela Express — Amtrak’s version of high-speed — can reach 150 mph, but only for short stretches and averages just 80 mph. The definition of “high-speed” in Europe, however, is trains that travel at least 155 mph with speeds that oftentimes exceed 200 mph.

[For more on financing a high-speed rail system, watch The Bank not Built]

Currently, applicants nationwide for the $8 billion in federal high-speed rail funding are planning medium-speeds of 90 to 110 mph and high-speeds of 130 to 150 mph. That said, as early as the 1930s in America, trains routinely reached speeds of 120 mph and higher.

California is the only state so far to propose a high-speed rail network with trains traveling up to 220 mph. A trip from Los Angeles to San Francisco, for example, will take about 2.5 hours.

BY PLANE OR BY TRAIN

Still, that 2.5 hour train ride is just over an hour by air. Then again, the train will take you to San Francisco’s city center from Los Angeles’ city center — connecting directly with mass-transit. Also, you will not have to owe your brother-in-law any more favors for picking you up from the airport.

The most likely determinate if people will get off planes and onto trains: cost.

Already, a one-way, rush-hour train ticket (purchased a week in advance) on the Acela Express from New York-Penn Station to Washington, D.C.-Union Station costs upwards of $155 for the 2.75 hour ride. That same route by air ranges in cost from $103 to $200 — roundtrip — for the 1.5 hour flight. Although, the Acela Express line was one of only three Amtrak lines to turn a profit in 2008.

But, if California is the bellwether for the future costs of riding high-speed rail, then it will be only slightly cheaper than the Acela Express. The projected average ticket on the high-speed train from San Francisco to Los Angeles is $105, or 83 percent of comparable airfare. Last year, the state said prices would be set at 50 percent of comparable airfare and predicted a ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles would cost $55.

Still, much of America’s high-speed rail plan is just lines on a map. It is 2010, and ground has yet to be broken anywhere.

Sources: Amtrak, California High-Speed Rail Authority, The White House

/wnet/blueprintamerica/files/2010/01/200×100obama.-biden.-lahood1.jpg A national high-speed rail plan was put forward by President Barack Obama in April 2009, just months after he set aside $8 billion in stimulus funds to begin such an undertaking. At the end of January this year, the White House selected 13 passenger rail corridors in 31 states to receive stimulus funding. High-speed rail projects in California, Florida and Illinois were the big winners.