High Speed Rail is long overdue on the American transportation landscape.Its advantages are many, including getting people quickly and comfortably beteween citiy centers 100-600 miles apart ,saving energy, reducing air pollution and decongesting freight rail lines, highways and most important, airports and airways. Along the northeast, for example, nearly 40% of air travellers are destined to another city in the Northeast 500 miles apart or less. Think of the relief to airports if these travellers werediverted to HSR or Maglev. While the construction cost of a dedicated guideway is high($50M to $100M per mile- either for conventional steel wheel-TGV-like or Maglev and the same as a freeway of like capacity), the earnings potential are high so that the construction cost would not be entirely a public expense.High speed rail is similar to air travel in terms of financing not like heavily subsidized commuter or urban mass transit. In our study of Maglev between Unuin Station and Camden Yards in Baltimore, the total cost of construction and equipment was estimated to be about $5B but farebox revenues were estimated to support a combination of bonds and loans toptalling $3.5B, after paying for O&M costs.

We applaud the Obama Administration’s decision to begin investing in high-speed rail development in the U.S., and also applaud the voters in California for approving a $10 billion bond measure to begin development of high-speed rail in that state.

The U.S. Travel Association mission is to increase travel to and within the United States. We support more investment (public and private) in our nation’s overall transportation network in order to provide business and leisure travelers expanded options for reaching their intended destinations safely and on time. We won’t pick and choose which modes of travel to favor – we support them all, and simply want travelers to have a wide variety of choices that help to facilitate greater levels of travel in this country.

Especially with continuing (and in some cases, growing) congestion in the skies and on our nation’s highways, it makes sense to create another viable alternative for travelers. No one is advocating for a coast-to-coast high-speed rail line, but developing high-speed rail in city pairs and in densely populated urban corridors makes sense. Why should the only successful rail line in this nation be limited to the northeast corridor?

Of course, we want to see these funds invested wisely and with great oversight, but this should not be a zero-sum game, where if rail funding “wins” then highways or aviation somehow loses. Let’s commit to creating a truly intermodal system of travel that helps move domestic and international visitors from place to place with greater speed, safety and convenience and by a variety of means, including personal auto, bus, air, water shuttles and rail.

Today, April 16, President Obama, Vice President Biden and Secretary LaHood released the administration's high-speed rail plan, which would be funded initially by the $8 billion in the stimulus package and the $1 billion a year over five years proposed in the president's budget. This link will take you to the Federal Railroad Administration's page with detailed information on the plan and on the rail component of the stimulus:

http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/31

Some thoughts on the subject from Jay Moor, the retired chief of strategic planning for the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT)

Let's stop talking in bits and pieces (as in rail's share of the bailout).

America needs to build a new economy. Efficient transport is the circulation system for any robust economy. Up to now, highways and the highway lobby have held up their end of the bargain. But today the whole system is in trouble. Even with the stimulus package, almost none of the fundamental elements of our rapidly declining economy will return to good health in the next four years, if ever.

· Our volatile petroleum based transport system is no longer reliable,

regardless of the exact timing of peak oil. The airline and trucking industries nearly went belly up and people stopped buying SUVs when oil rose above $100/bbl. That will surely happen again.

· Our trust in the banking system has evaporated and will not return

without some degree of nationalization and strict supervision. Credit for

most non-essential entrepreneurial activities is moribund and will not rise to the same volume in my lifetime.

· Consumerism at the scale we have known it is mortally wounded. It

will never come back to employ many of the millions now out of work. People will for decades be too cautious to spend money on non-essentials, and the material resources will not be there to sustain our consumption levels. (We might each recall our own parents¹ or grandparents¹ long lasting response to the Great Depression.)

We need nothing less than a new ³man on the moon/interstate highway system² strategic goal that will transform our economy into one that is more

sustainable and, at the same time, more robust. I can foresee rail,

electrification of transport, renewable energy and effective land use planning being prominent in the new America. Here is rough outline:

1) Convert electricity production to renewable sources at the local level.

It will be years before we see anything come out of huge centralized energy generation and transmission projects. These will cause much environmental damage, we will become too dependent upon them and they will be too vulnerable (e.g., with a doubling of nuclear energy use around the world, the supply of uranium will be cut to less than forty years, and prices will go through the roof long before that). In a shorter time, many states can generate all the energy they need, locally, with some left for export, using a diversified mix of geo-thermal, wind, solar, tidal/wave, small hydro and conservation.

2) Create a publicly owned electricity grid that accepts energy input from excess local capacity. Take the profit motive out of transmission. This is killing some alternative energy sources now. Do the same for transport routes, pipelines and telecomm networks our lifeline systems. We can afford neither misguided management of these systems nor the eventual monopolies/oligopolies that result from it. Encourage private firms to compete among themselves to provide value-added energy, goods and communication services over publicly (or non-profit) owned networks. This is how the British rail system works.

3) Electrify everything that moves. Pour money into battery research.

Encourage carmakers to retool to produce electric trains, trams, trolley buses and cars. Let them go into receivership if they refuse or drag their feet, then do it for them. Place a very high tax on gas and keep the total price stable, but provide rebates to businesses and farms that still need to use fossil fuels because of technology lag.

4) Set a target of 25,000 miles of new Class 7 and 8 interurban rail tracks to carry passengers and autos at relatively high speed. This will require 5 million tons of steel just for the tracks, plus huge amounts of rolling stock, domestic and foreign. Hauling personal electric cars by rail would allow the traveler flexibility at both ends of an efficient long distance trip. With the demise of cheap air travel, we may not actually need the highest speed and most expensive rail achievable (Class 9 and maglev).

5) Set a target of 15 miles of electrified light rail track per 100,000 people for all cities. This can be organized within each city using computerized location/allocation analysis techniques and effective land use planning. Do this in conjunction with the next point (6).

6) Provide incentives for cities to re-plan and densify themselves based on "villages in town." Each ~5000 person neighborhood, or ³village,² should have all the basic services and recreational opportunities it needs within walking distance, including electric bus/trolley stops, and each ~20,000 person community has higher order services within electric car range and is served by a light rail station. Require cities and counties to integrate their planning and major service provision functions in order to receive federal monies. This was done in the early Œ70s.

7) Set aside close-in prime farmland sufficient to grow emergency food supplies for every 5000 person "village." This could be in the form of green belts or reclaimed suburban land in some efficient pattern. Allocate plots for neighborhood gardens within cities. Reprioritize water rights for lifeline farms and gardens.

A distributed energy generation system will create more sustainable jobs than any expansion of our fossilized energy mega-structure. It will contribute enormously to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Electrified rail and transit systems will create a new infrastructure without eliminating the

(electrified) automobile or associated work, and it will significantly increase the number of long-term transportation jobs. Trucking will remain a flexible option to serve special delivery needs and to connect rail with wholesale/retail centers.

Rail has been a huge and steady employer in America¹s past, with a far-reaching multiplier effect. A renewed rail network can be even more transformative than the Interstate Highway system was in the last century.

In California, we are expecting very good things. Voters gave the go-ahead in November 2008 to the first and only contemporary high-speed train operating on dedicated right of way in the United States. This is a 21st century alternative for a state transportation system designed for the 20th century. This statewide venture is expected to transform the way people travel between cities in California, offering a choice of driving, flying or using high-speed trains. The system is expected to provide a new transportation option available to 90 percent of California residents. Riders will be able to travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in about two hours and 38 minutes, from Anaheim to Sacramento in two and a half hours and from Fresno to San Jose in one hour. A high-speed train system between Los Angeles/Anaheim and San Francisco with extensions to Sacramento and San Diego eventually will carry more than 90 million passengers.

Voter approval of Proposition 1A on the November 4 ballot authorized $9 billion in bond funding for the 800-mile train network capable of speeds up to 220 miles an hour. It also provides $950 million to finance capital improvements to commuter and intercity rail as well as local transit lines that will connect existing infrastructure to the high-speed train system. Over the next three years, the California High-Speed Rail Authority will focus on environmental and engineering work on six segments of the system: Los Angeles to Anaheim, Los Angeles to Palmdale, Palmdale to Fresno, Fresno to Merced, Central Valley to San Jose, and San Jose to San Francisco. Construction is expected to start in 2012 on alignment preparation, laying tracks and building civil structures. The Los Angeles/Anaheim to San Francisco backbone of the system through the Central Valley is expected to be completed between 2018 and 2020.

Caltrans will play a significant role in developing the system, including securing right of ways, materials testing, construction inspection and determining where the train system interfaces with state transportation facilities. In virtually every major city, a high-speed train station will be developed in conjunction with existing rail transportation hubs to produce the most efficient linkages to local and regional transit systems. Efficient integration of the high-speed train network with local transportation systems is paramount and the key to the success of both. High-speed trains will alleviate the need to spend nearly $100 billion to build about 3,000 miles of new freeway, five airport runways and 90 departure gates during the next two decades. A statewide high-speed train system will meet that same need for about half the cost. It will use only one-third the energy of airplanes and one-fifth the energy of passenger automobiles. It will help free California from dependence on foreign oil by 12.7 million barrels per year, and reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming by 12 billion pounds per year.

Design, preparation and construction of the high-speed train system are expected to create thousands of jobs, stimulating California’s public and private economies. Nearly 160,000 construction-related jobs will be generated to plan, design and build the system. About 450,000 permanent jobs are expected to result from the economic growth the train system will bring to California. The public will realize long-term benefits as well. There will be an improved movement of people, goods and services throughout the state. Train travel times will decrease. There will also be reduced delays to air and auto travelers as freeways and airports are relieved of congestion. Air quality will also improve, and that will help reduce related health care costs.

In my view, high-speed passenger rail is worth it. In fact, I believe that high-speed rail must become an essential part of our national surface transportation network. Yet, my reaction to President Obama's request for $13 billion over the next five years for high-speed passenger rail is mixed.

I applaud the fact that the President is making a down payment on high-speed rail, but I am dismayed by the fact that he continues a pattern of underinvestment in the rest of our national surface transportation network.

President Obama has challenged us as a Nation to rebuild our economy--not only from the current financial crisis, but with an eye to the future. He has urged us to build our prosperity on a firm foundation that will make this country strong and competitive in the 21st Century. The President has acknowledged that this will not be easy. We will have to make tough choices.

I believe that revitalizing our national surface transportation system is one of the tough choices we must make if we are to rebuild our economy for the 21st Century.

Transportation is critical to our economy and our quality of life. If our goal is to build a firm foundation for our economy, if our goal is to make our country strong and competitive in the 21st Century, then we must take significant, decisive action now to create and sustain the pre-eminent surface transportation system in the world. This is not just my view, but it is the view of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, on which I served as Vice Chair.

After two years of study, the twelve-member, congressionally-chartered Commission issued its findings and recommendations in 2008. In addition to calling for major reform, the Commission concluded that we need to invest at least $225 billion annually from all sources for the next 50 years to upgrade our existing system to a state of good repair and to create a more advanced surface transportation system to ensure strong economic growth for our families. We are spending less than 40 percent of that today.

The Commission recommended substantial investment in high-speed passenger rail, and the President's budget proposal for high speed rail is a good first step in that direction. In moving forward with high speed rail, we must ensure that we do not reduce freight rail capacity and that we do not build just bits and pieces around the country. Instead we must build full segments that are integrated into our national surface transportation network. And we should build them on a cost-to-complete basis, as we did with the Interstate System. This will be expensive, but it will be an investment that will pay dividends for generations to come.

Moreover, if we are to build a firm foundation for our economy in the 21st Century, we need to do much more than just increase investment in high speed passenger rail. We also need to increase investment substantially in the other modes of transportation, as well as operate them more efficiently. We need to adequately maintain our existing roads, bridges, rail and transit systems. We need to upgrade our freight rail network. We need to expand and substantially improve our transit systems. We need to expand the opportunities for non-motorized transportation. And even with all of these improvements, we will still need to significantly increase highway capacity in the growing regions of our country. And all of this investment must take place in the context of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and addressing greenhouse gas emissions.

If we fail to make this investment, if we continue the current pattern of underinvestment, then our economy will suffer. Instead of a "firm foundation" we will have a "crumbling foundation." We simply cannot have a healthy and robust economy with a sick and undernourished national surface transportation system. We must make the tough choice to significantly increase investment in transportation. I respectfully urge the President to revise his budget to do for all modes of transportation what he did for high speed rail.

While the challenges may seem daunting, the Commission concluded that we can do it. We cannot sit back and wait for the next generation to address these ever-increasing needs. The crisis is now and we have a responsibility and obligation to act now to create and sustain the pre-eminent surface transportation system in the world. Only in this way will we be able build the strong foundation necessary to support economic growth in the 21st Century. And we should pay for it from user fees so that we do not pass down more debt to future generations.

Representatives Oberstar and Mica write that other governments spend their taxpayers’ money on high-speed rail passenger service, but that is surely not a sufficient reason for the US government to do so.

Is not the important question what investments in transportation infrastructure are likely to produce the largest public benefits? Unlike Mortimer Downey, I’ve seen no evidence that expenditures on high-speed rail are likely to be more beneficial to travelers than expenditures on roads or aviation. If the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has relevant data, could it make them public?

It surely cannot be that the US Congress is more interested in expenditures than in benefits!

The President has made a bold and I would say wise decision to encourage significant investment in passenger rail. I am not going to focus on the merits of rail or transit investment versus other modes per Mort Downey’s points. The more critical question, as Mort pointed out, is how the $13 billion is utilized with respect to corridor development. If the funding is allocated the right way, the President will have built a solid foundation for high-speed rail. Moreover, if the $13 billion in high-speed rail funding is coupled with bold and strategic investments in the rest of the surface transportation system, the President’s high-speed rail down payment could help shift our current silo approach to transportation policy to a multi-modal one.

The opportunity to make railroads and public transit play a more active role in addressing the travel needs of people up and down the Northeast Corridor is staring right at us. Forging a complementary supportive relationship between Amtrak, the commuter railroads and transit operators is important to establish a long term service plan that while addressing travel needs, reduces green house gas and use of oil, and sustains our economy at this most critical time. As in Europe, we need to establish and enhance the ability to people to use public transit in tandem with Amtrak's services to minimize the growth of auto use and provide an alternative to short flights by plane.

Prior to joining NJ TRANSIT, I spent a number of years with Amtrak focusing primarily on introducing the Acela service to the NEC . ACELA represents the closest thing this country has to high-speed rail, reaching speeds of 135mph for brief periods in New Jersey and 150mph for brief periods in Rhode Island. It is critical that the President recognize that even the NEC, which has received the lion’s share of Amtrak funding, has still been historically drastically underfunded.

As such, the vast majority of the $13 billion the President has allocated to high-speed rail would be most wisely spent on state-of-good-repair and upgrades of the Amtrak system. Also, there needs to be a reality check on what is practical given there is no way an entirely new railroad can be built in the relatively near future given the complex and lengthy environmental documentation and review processes that must be followed.

Incremental investment is needed both on the Amtrak system and in potential new corridors that provide a firm foundation for later investments that can offer more substantial high-speed rail opportunities. In the mean time, Amtrak should work with other operators to acknowledge and blend the multi-modal needs along their service area. This $13 billion along with other goverment funding can achieve a lot creating a win-win for all transportation systems.

President Obama is on the right track, if I may use the term. High-speed rail can help us address our growing congestion issues on the highways and in the air by providing an efficient, convenient, comfortable alternative to driving or flying short or medium distances.

The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission released its estimates of national needs for the passenger rail network as part of its January 2008 report. Based on the Passenger Rail Working Group report, commissioned by the National Commission, the federal share of the network needs is estimated at approximately $5 to $6 billion per year.

In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, or ISTEA, called for the selection of not more than five corridors to be designated as high-speed rail corridors. Later, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, TEA-21, authorized another six corridors to be designated. On October 15, 1992, the DOT announced the first designation: the Midwest high-speed rail corridor which today, using Chicago as a hub, links Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin. One of the key proposals is to increase trip speed from Chicago to St. Louis to a maximum speed of 110 mph. Two of Amtrak’s services currently provide service between Chicago to St. Louis: Lincoln Service and Texas Eagle. The trip time is five hours and 20 minutes, and provide up to seven round trips a day. The Midwest proposal would reduce trip time to four hours, a trip time savings of 1 hour and 20 minutes or 25 percent. While 110 mph doesn’t match European trip times, it is a substantial improvement from existing service.

When I was a graduate student at the College of Europe in Belgium, part of our work was to travel into various parts of Europe and research different economic systems. I traveled from Paris to Lyon, almost 300 miles. It was a four and one-half hour trip. I came back to Europe in 1989, I wanted to experience the TGV. The same trip from Paris to Lyon took only two hours. At a certain point, the train passed a small airfield where a twin-engine aircraft had taken off, and the train passed the plane at 180 mph. Today, the TGV is thriving in France. In 2007, a TGV train broke the world speed record achieving 357 mph.

That success did not occur overnight. France, like Japan and several other countries that followed in their footsteps have made substantial public investments in their high-speed and passenger rail systems. According to an April 2005 study on public budget contributions to railways, which was commissioned by the European Union, in 2003 alone, France invested $10.6 billion (US converted from 2003 market Euro rates) in its rail system; Germany invested $12.4 billion; Italy invested $7.9 billion; the United Kingdom invested $7.8 billion; the Netherlands invested $2.5 billion; Austria invested $2.3 billion; Switzerland invested $1.9 billion; Sweden invested $1.7 billion; Spain invested $1.3 billion; and Denmark invested $1.2 billion.

Outside of Europe, Japan invests about $2 billion annually to its Shinkansen and, according to the Ministry of Railways, China has launched a plan to spend a total of $162 billion to expand its railway system.

There is no reason why we cannot do the same here in the United States. The Federal Government just needs to step up and take charge with a strong program to support passenger rail service. The States cannot do it alone. The private sector will not do it. We must decide what we want in the way of intercity passenger rail service and decide how to pay for it.

And that is exactly what President Obama has done. He has recognized the need for high-speed rail – with ever increasing congestion, fluctuating gas prices, concerns over greenhouse gas emissions, and consumers that want fast and efficient travel alternatives. It is unacceptable that we, as a nation, have fallen dead last when it comes to financing rail, including high-speed rail, in this country.

I salute President Obama for his vision, and I intend to work with him on this endeavor.

The $8 billion in stimulus funding provided by the Administration to invest in U.S. high-speed rail is certainly just a down payment, but it’s encouraging that they are willing to take this important step in finally establishing this significant transportation alternative for our nation.

I am a long-time supporter of high-speed rail. For this nation to seriously consider developing this mode of transportation – long overdue, in my opinion – I thought it critical that we invite all potential participants, public and private sector, to offer proposals for developing high-speed systems in corridors around the country. I offered an initiative that was included in the Amtrak reauthorization law to open up this process and see what the results will be.

The Federal Railroad Administration has received over 110 expressions of interest so far, another encouraging sign that there is tremendous interest in bringing high-speed rail to the United States.

It won’t be right for every region of the country, and it will require a significant investment, but if we ignore this mode as part of a national transportation strategy, we will continue to rely on our overburdened highway and aviation systems to move an ever-increasing number of travelers. This is short-sighted and unrealistic.

Other nations use this modern method of transportation to effectively move people over short and medium distances. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be doing the same in this country – why should we have so many short-haul flights between Washington, DC and New York, for instance? This corridor is ideal for high-speed rail and it would reduce aviation delays throughout the country. Around 80% of chronically delayed flights in the U.S. go into and out of the New York airspace, and this ripples throughout the entire aviation system.

Whether it’s in the Northeast Corridor, California, or other parts of the country, I’m pleased that we’re taking a serious look at high-speed rail as a transportation solution. I believe high-speed rail has to be a piece of our national transportation strategy.

In my opinion, the Obama budget decision to encourage passenger rail investment is a sound one, and I hope it will be supported by the Congress. But I do have some small concern about the debate engendered by Lisa’s question. First, I will impolitely point out that the math is wrong. The Administration’s offer is $13 billion ($8 billion plus 5 years of $1 billion), not $33 B. Second, I’m afraid that a debate over the abstract merits of rail investment simply brings out mainly the same-old, same-old, on both sides of the argument.

The real proof will come when hard decisions made through sound analysis have to be made for specific corridor investments. If we can structure programs in a way that some of that investment represents private equity decisions, so much the better, but it is those specific corridor decisions that will prove or disprove the merit of the rail case. What the Obama proposal has done is to bring rail options to the intercity transportation table, just as the Kennedy-Johnson decision to encourage mass transit did with respect to urban policy.

On the likely prospect, though, that some of the same arguments will come forth in the specific debates about corridors, let me comment on a few of the points we will hear.

On the side of the proponents, we’ll hear that rail will be energy-conserving, greenhouse-gas reducing and will contribute to a more efficient style of development. I would agree with all of these goals, but it will be up to the proponents of specific projects to show how effective they are in bringing about the desired results.

And on the other side, I expect that we will hear many of the same points again, so let me comment on those.

We should have a more market based system—Good point, but not if the market can only bring forth one solution. And it’s my view that is what now happens and it is a function of governmental exercise of decision making power in a way that only permits the highway solution to be implemented—whether it is done as a governmental project or whether government contracts out the financing and development. Real market decisions have to be among real alternatives.

We need more study and analysis—Yes, but this ought to be among real alternatives. The mega-study, I recall, has been done, and done well. FRA’s report on High Speed Ground Transportation for America, was issued in 1996-1997, following on years of studies in the Northeast that led to the Northeast Corridor and Acela decisions. FRA reached two fundamental conclusions, which we should keep in mind as we implement the Obama program. First, it is possible for well designed and operated corridor rail services to meet their O &M costs—that’s not “turning a profit,” but it is asking the user to pay for the running costs of what they consume. Second, FRA found that every technology from low-speed rail to maglev could be a success in some corridor and that every corridor could support some improvement, looking at full costs and full benefits. That’s what we should ask of future corridor projects.

We will be subsidizing rail to compete with aviation—Let’s admit it—aviation is subsidized as well and will need very significant support to provide needed capacity. Let’s encourage rail where it will reduce and redirect those capacity choices.

Passenger rail will detract from freight rail—If this were true, I would stop and think. But I believe this concern is a product of years of unproductive debate between Amtrak and the freights as we have known them. Enlightened rail management is coming to the conclusion that their really significant asset, the continuous rights-of-way that were often the product of government assistance, can be better used and developed through jointly-planned and funded capacity investments. The railroad desire for some support in those investments through the provision of tax credits is a reasonable response to their economic situation, but so is their willingness to seek partnerships. And the governmental decision to require a national and interoperable system of positive train control will contribute to the feasibility of such joint use.

There is still congestion on the parallel highway lanes after HSR is in place—Can I save this argument and use it the next time I hear about the benefits of a HOT lane with a picture of the freeflowing toll lanes adjacent to the congested free lanes?

We shouldn’t ignore the needs of our highway system—Of course we shouldn’t, but now we will have the opportunity to consider options and broaden the base of support for mobility.

So let’s call this game on account of darkness and wait for the specific discussions on a corridor-by-corridor basis, thanking the Obama Administration for opening up the range of options for that debate.

The administration has indicated that our curing our nation’s ailing infrastructure is a priority, and has revealed its forward-thinking stance by allocating $8 billion in the stimulus bill for high-speed passenger rail, as well as $5 billion in its proposed budget. This represents an important downpayment on a more modern transportation system that's a better fit for an oil- and carbon-constrained world.

China is currently on track to reshape its landscape through a $1 trillion public works program to expand its rail network, including high-speed intercity rail. While not all policy from China is transferable (as Mr. Roth points out), this is certainly an instance when it would be wise to follow China (and Europe’s, and Japan’s) lead.

We led the way, as Secretary LaHood writes, when government launched the Interstate Highway System. But this half-century focus for our transportation policy left other infrastructure projects behind. As a leading analyst of government programs put it when ranking the highway system among the nation’s 25 greatest endeavors of the last quarter of the 20th century: “…the success of this endeavor may help explain the failure of the federal government’s effort to strengthen urban mass transit. By building highways instead of mass transit systems…the federal government encouraged Americans to travel to and from work by car, thereby stimulating much of the urban sprawl that vexes commuters today, while diluting public support for urban mass transit. Thus does one endeavor’s success sometimes precipitate another’s failure.” The same could be said of intercity passenger rail. Especially in light of our entrance into what Tom Friedman calls the energy/climate era, now is the time to launch our next big transportation project: A rail network to complement to our world-class highway system.

As Mr. Orski and Mr. Poole point out, freight rail should factor into the discussion. Policy that increases both freight and passenger rail options entails many public benefits including enhanced mobility, energy efficiency, pollution reduction, economic growth and an improved quality of life. This is the platform for the OneRail Coalition, which includes AAR, Amtrak and NRDC and which brings passenger and freight rail stakeholders together, recognizing that the two agendas are not mutually exclusive, and in fact make good business sense. Adam Drake, a consulting engineer, points out (toward the end of this excellent articlein the Washington Monthly by New America Foundaion’s Philip Longman) that using the same train for passengers, express freight, and mail dramatically improves the economics of passenger rail.

Yes, there are significant upfront costs for the implementation of a high-speed rail system, but the long term cost consideration for highway maintenance and capacity building make a national rail system a smart investment. Take the lesson from a study sponsored by Virginia’s DOT. An investment of $10 to $12 billion in the Crescent Corridor – existing track in the Shenandoah Valley – over a ten to twelve year period would divert 30% of the growing truck traffic on nearby I-81 to rail. The more conventional solution of building more lanes would cost $11 billion and without tolls would exacerbate the existing congestion. Such highway spending also continues our dependence on foreign oil.

Moving forward, it is time to support construction of the second half of our transportation system: A world-class network of public transportation, including rail, to complement our impressive web of highways.

Passenger rail makes sense between major population centers in close proximity. And as efficiency improves, this alternative could take passenger vehicles off our nation’s highways and improve congestion along our nation’s busiest freight corridors.

But as this debate continues, we must not lose sight of our nation’s need to expand and repair the national highway system. Increased usage of passenger rail will not end traffic congestion. Dedicating taxpayer highway funds to increase traffic capacity around our nation’s worst bottlenecks is the most effective way to reduce congestion, saving commuters and freight haulers time and fuel. ATA estimates that if congestion in all 437 urban areas were eliminated, the reduction in truck CO2 emissions alone would be 45.2 million tons over ten years.

As Mr. Poole pointed out, the President’s $8 billion passenger rail investment in the stimulus package will most likely improve existing rail lines, currently shared by passenger and freight trains. Increasing the speeds of passenger trains could cause more competition for space between freight and passenger rail systems, further degrading the performance of both.

Today’s supply chain cannot operate effectively with schedule uncertainty. ATA forecasts that trucks will continue to increase their share of total freight tonnage to 70 percent by 2018 because businesses depend on the on-time delivery of inventory. Only about 20 percent of communities in America have access to rails, therefore funding that expands and repairs our nation’s highway system provides a greater amount of individuals a tangible return for their transportation tax dollars.

Many of us will agree that

“One sure-fire way of assessing how serious someone is about a new transportation project idea is whether they are willing to put their money where their mouth is”.

By that measure, the proposal to build High-Speed Rail (whatever that may mean) is less than convincing. It is taxpayers’ and road users’ money, not his own, that President Obama is willing to put into this project.

Nor is it convincing to be told that the Chinese are building a high-speed rail system. The Chinese decree that families should have only one child. Is that a reason for adopting such a policy in other countries?

To me, the most disappointing aspect of this decision is the lack of serious published analysis to support it. What will be the cost per passenger mile? How much of this will be paid by the passengers? What, if any, will be the environmental benefits? What will be the effect on road transport? On aviation? Will rail’s market share of passenger travel go up? Or down, as in Europe and Japan?

When a supporter of high-speed rail wrote that

“Many highway corridors around the country are prohibitively congested. If we offer travelers a more comfortable and convenient option, we could go a long way toward improving conditions on those routes.”

was he aware that, in Europe, not a single high-speed rail track built to date has had any perceptible impact of road traffic carried by parallel motorways? Has he considered the alternative of allowing road users to finance the expansion of those “prohibitively congested” highways?

Passenger rail may well take traffic from aviation. Is it the policy of this administration to use passenger subsidies to weaken transport providers which still pay their costs out of revenues?

It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this detour illustrates yet again that transport is too important to be left to the vicissitudes of politics, and that it should be provided by the market economy, on which we still rely for our food, water, electricity, telecommunications and other necessities.

As some of my fellow bloggers have pointed out, much of the $8 billion in federal money will end up supporting incremental improvements in existing rail infrastructure rather than building true high-speed lines in new alignments, as France, Spain and Italy have done. But incremental improvements could include separating freight from passenger traffic by adding new freight-only tracks in existing RR alignments--- similar to proposals to separate trucks from passenger cars by adding truck-only lanes in existing highway rights-of-way. I leave it to Ed Hamberger, Matt Rose, Frank Busalacchi, Peter Gertler and other RR experts to tell me whether adding extra trackage in existing RR alignments of the proposed high-speed corridors is a feasible approach. But if it is, the $8 billion dedicated to high-speed rail would surely go much further in advancing the cause of passenger and freight rail than constructing free-standing high speed passenger lines as California and some of the other corridor initiatives are thinking of doing.

Absolutely it’s worth it to build a world-class high-speed rail system in America – commuters want it, our transportation system needs it and our economy will benefit from it. But like the rest of the stimulus investments for transportation, it is just a down payment.

We shouldn’t be debating how we divide the current pie of limited resources between high-speed rail, freight rail or highways and bridges – America needs them all. In high-speed rail, as with the other transportation categories, America is falling behind because we have not been investing enough. Instead of dividing a pie that’s too small, we need to get a bigger pie.

Building a nationwide high-speed rail system is a bold idea, but it will only happen if we match that bold idea with equally bold resources. America did not get to the moon by deciding to go and then only providing enough funds to barely breach the atmosphere. $13 billion is a good start but a much greater investment is needed to get the job done.

We need to go “all in” on this idea along with our other critical transportation needs. America needs to be a country that leads the world not one that continues to fall behind. It is well past time to make a national commitment to build America. Building a nationwide high-speed rail system demonstrates that commitment.

I have been encouraged by the forceful action that President Obama has taken on national passenger rail policy. For decades, intercity passenger rail policy has been ignored in the mix of our national transportation priorities. The mode is underdeveloped and is uniquely positioned to serve the critical needs of reducing highway and airway congestion, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, supporting mobility options, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

The funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) is a down payment that none of us who have worked on rail issues ever envisioned. While the statutory requirement for creation of a national strategic plan for the use of these funds within 60 days is a daunting charge, a considerable amount of work has already been done. As a member of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, I convened a group of rail professionals to develop a staged approach to building out the nation’s passenger rail network. The Passenger Rail Working Group presented an approach to the Commission entitled Vision for the Future – U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Network through 2050. The Commission adopted this vision in its final report to Congress.

The current Amtrak system is an invaluable resource; it comprises the backbone of our national passenger rail network, providing mobility choice in the 46 states it serves. Passenger rail service is continually expanding as states recognize the opportunity that passenger rail offers to its citizens. California, the Cascades corridor, the Midwest corridor, and North Carolina are just some of the examples of states offering corridor services, at their own expense, building rail segments off the backbone Amtrak system. The states tend to make good investment choices as they are careful not to commit their state transportation funds to projects that will not work. The result has been increased ridership in the state corridors year after year.

The states are also in a good position to work with the institutional actors – freight railroads, Amtrak, commuter rail lines, and state legislatures – to make more passenger rail service happen. I believe the allocation of the $8 billion in ARRA funds to the state corridors will help expand passenger rail services where services are most needed. The states know how to work with the federal government, we know how to build and manage projects, and we will be a resource and partner to USDOT in this effort.

Most states need to negotiate with freight rail lines to expand their passenger service, and this has not always been an easy negotiation. The nation needs to build adequate rail capacity so that passenger and freight rail can both grow and flourish. We are confronted with the challenge of government investment in privately owned freight lines. The public sector will need to justify its investments in private freight lines based on associated public benefits. This will ultimately be an accountability issue, and we must assure the public that we our using their tax dollars wisely. The states have used various approaches to work through these issues, and we can share best practices in order to learn from one another.

It is important that we focus on what can be accomplished now with a longer term strategic vision. The President’s key focus for economic recovery funds is to create jobs now and make down payments on future national priorities. These twin goals clearly apply to the funds for which US DOT will identify a purpose in its strategic plan. In the Passenger Rail Working Group report, we identified three key service levels:

o Speeds up to 79 miles per hour (mph) – shared track with the freight railroads. Cost per mile is approximately $4 million;

o Speeds between 79 and 110 mph – some shared track with freight rail lines and some additional sidings and double tracking. Cost per mile is approximately $7 million; and

o Speeds greater than 110 mph – separate right of way. Cost per mile is approximately $35 million.

The list of ready-to-go projects submitted to Congress by the States for Passenger Rail Coalition, which I chair, would fall primarily into the first two categories. High-speed projects that require special right-of-way would fall, in my view, into a longer time frame with much of the focus now on planning and engineering. To best show the promise of passenger rail to our citizens, it will be important for the passenger rail ARRA funds to be applied to as many projects as possible that expand service over the stimulus timeframe.

Rail equipment is an issue that must be addressed before real expansion can occur. Amtrak is looking to purchase new rolling stock, as are many states. Equipment purchases take three years from order to delivery. The European and Asian passenger rail experience is not only about fast trains; it is also about riding in a modern train car.

A couple decades ago, the United States had many domestic rail producers. Now there are only a few producers. A stable, dependable federal revenue source is what is needed to attract rail manufacturers to the United States. We have an unprecedented opportunity to attract rail car manufacturers back to this country and, with that, provide real manufacturing jobs to our citizens. However, like other investment opportunities, we need to aggregate our needs as separate states and Amtrak and assure that we are strategic and offer companies a real source of orders to invest in companies in the United States.

For the short term, these are the issues that I believe are key to developing a strategic approach for the deployment of the recovery and reinvestment funds. Beyond that, it may be helpful for the Obama Administration to pull together a team of rail experts to provide support in the creation of a long-term passenger rail vision. When this nation made a commitment to building the Interstate Highway System, the Eisenhower Administra­tion and the Congress agreed on a ten-year implementa­tion plan. We need a similar effort to create a 21st century passenger rail system.

President Obama's inclusion of high speed rail in his budget proposal signals that this Administration values the environmental and economic benefits that come from increased use of rail. As a member of the One Rail Coalition, the Association of American Railroads fully supports funding for both passenger and freight rail. Luckily, these are not mutually exclusive goals as many of the tracks over which Amtrak operates are owned by the freight railroads. As the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU approaches and we begin to look at ways to build a transportation system for the future, I urge everyone to keep in mind the following:

• Maximizing our rail system for intercity and commuter passengers and freight will create American jobs and boost economic growth. Each $1 billion in rail investment would create 20,000 domestic American jobs.

• Greater use of freight and passenger rail will increase energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve quality of life for all Americans. For every ton of freight moved by rail instead of highway, greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by two-thirds or more.

• Expanded use of freight and passenger rail can help improve our nation's highways too. A single freight train can do the work of 280 trucks -- and that means faster commutes, less gridlock and less pollution.

I applaud the Administration's commitment to an efficient, intermodally balanced and environmentally sound transportation system which includes expanded use of passenger and freight rail. America has the best freight railroad system in the world; there is no reason why we can’t have the best passenger rail system as well. Go to our Carbon Calculator to learn more about how shipping by rail versus road reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

High Speed Rail: A Promising Initiative

High speed rail has great potential in several of the identified corridors. Its potential is demonstrated by Amtrak's current service on the Northeast Corridor that now has over a 60% market share between Washington and New York and by several of the busiest corridors connecting the major urban areas of Europe. Many of these options in operation today provide outstanding levels of service and interconnect major city centers, airports, and mass transit systems.

Its future in the United States is likely to depend on the criteria that Steve Heminger and Peter Gertler have identified: (1) technical merit and market, (2) financial partnerships with state and local governments and businesses, and (3) a stable federal funding source. These reflect the fact that there is not an unlimited supply of federal dollars available and these corridors' feasibility will ultimately depend on monies they can raise from state and local governments and financial markets.

For funding, high speed rail advocates may want to look to airports as an example where much of the capital cost has been funded by federal ticket taxes (a portion of which is redistributed through the Airport Improvement Program) and Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs)--federal authorized, local ticket surcharges that help fund airport capital improvements. These provide stable long-term capital that airports leverage (together with parking and concession revenues) through the public finance markets to build infrastructure.

Putting on my intermodal hat, I sincerely hope that advocates recognize the potential of high speed rail to complement available airport capacity. In places such as Southern California, running truly high speed rail right to airports offers the potential to knit together the modes in a matter similar to much of Europe. For this to be effective, however, it must run right to the airport terminal as it does at airports such as Schiphol (Amsterdam) or Charles de Gaulle (Paris). It is easy to imagine in 2025, for example, Los Angeles' Ontario International Airport serving as a regional aviation facility in Southern California, where projections inform us that available airside capacity will be scarce.

Like so much of our transportation, putting passengers first in the way we plan and build infrastructure leads us to the right answer.

Steve Van Beek

One sure-fire way of assessing how serious someone is about a new transportation project idea is whether they are willing to put their money where their mouth is. By that measure, the Obama Administration is serious about high speed rail. The question now is: how serious is everybody else? For the $13 billion down-payment contained in the economic recovery package and FY 10 budget outline will only be meaningful if it leverages much greater funding commitments from state, local, and private sources.

In California, our voters passed a $10 billion bond measure in the November presidential election to construct a statewide high speed rail system. The first phase of the project is service from Los Angeles/Anaheim to San Francisco at an estimated cost of about $35 billion. The California High Speed Rail Authority hopes to secure at least $15 billion of federal funds, another $3 billion from local agencies, and about $7 billion from the private sector. In other words, the federal investment would leverage another 130% of funding from other sources.

That's the kind of business model we need to repeat around the country if we are to be successful in building high speed rail networks to serve key intercity travel markets. When it comes to high speed rail, the federal response should focus on helping those states and regions that are willing to help themselves.

America's economic competitors have developed thousands of miles of high-speed routes that will create better business connectivity while reducing oil dependence and avoiding billions of dollars in future highway or airport expansions. We are basically still at square one.

Just because early investments won't immediately erase America's huge disadvantage in this area does not mean that initial steps toward building a world-class rail system are futile. President Obama is far-sighted to make high speed rail "a signature issue" when so many of the benefits will only be recognized after the next presidential election.

In the meantime, there is ample short-term opportunity for high speed rail to generate jobs. The California High Speed Rail authority identified $1,150,400,000 in projects that could be commenced immediately though grade separations, station enhancements and crossings upgrades. These could happen well before the deadline for high speed rail investments in the stimulus. Billions in other identified investments including electrification and repair facilities could also be obligated quickly, and that's just California. The point is that high speed rail can create jobs long before our bullet trains become the envy of the world.

The sudden inclusion of billions of new funding for high speed rail was a surprise to just about everyone. Neither the House nor Senate bill had anywhere near this level of funding. No hearings were held to discuss the pros and cons of this "down payment" or the ultimate cost of the full plan.

Therefore, it is important that Lisa has brought this issue up so we can begin a real debate. In the absence of a real debate, an enormous sum of money could be spent upgrading our system for relatively (to Europe and Japan) low-speed 110 mph trains.

To help the debate along, it is important that the Administration, other passenger rail advocates, and critics answer some critical questions about the ultimate high-speed rail plan before investing hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.

(1) Where is the money coming from to fund the ultimate HSR plan?

(2) Why has passenger rail declined while other passenger modes absorbed nearly all of the trips? How much would it cost for the President's plan to reverse this trend?

(3) How much federal funding should be spent per passenger (or passenger mile)?

(4) What are the alternatives to HSR?

I suggest starting with the last question first by doing a quick comparison of rail to private motor coach transportation. It is a good mode to compare because a HSR investment would presumably take passengers out of buses and onto rail.

First, lets look at the environmental comparison. A Union of Concerned Scientists report (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/greentravel_report.pdf) notes that motor coaches are the best green travel option for short, medium, and long distance travel for solo travelers, couples, and families. Motor coaches provide service to many times the number of rail passengers and are cost-effective in many times more communities than rail. They require no operating subsidies and have minimal capital costs for depots.

Compared to any other transportation mode, the federal cost per passenger mile to build and/or operate HSR would be staggering. I invite rail advocates to come up with actual numbers on this that are open to critical review.

Third, since passengers can only travel to the few destinations where the railroad actually goes (and true high speed rail must elimate most local stops), highway and aviation modes will always have an obvious advantage: You can take non-rail modes anywhere in the country. No matter how much money the federal government could spend, these realities aren't changing.

Finally, at some point, the economy will improve and some budget discipline and spending restraint will be needed. The timeline and costs involved for the full HSR project are completely counter to any notion of eventual spending discipline. Could "user fees" be instituted for rail passengers to cover the federal costs in the way that user fees are collected on motorists and air passengers? Research is needed to determine what the appropriate user fee would need to be.

With an unlimited supply of money and no competing needs, HSR would be a wonderful addition to our transportation network. Many are nostalgic for a by-gone era of 19th century intercity passenger rail transportation or are confounded as center-city tourists by European HSR that operate over small distances compared to what is required for the U.S. But the reality is that HSR is neither a realistic or fiscally responsible option for our country and other modal alternatives are better for almost any data metric.

We have enormous transportation needs and they need to be addressed in a way that will benefit the most people at lowest possible costs. HSR simply cannot compete under any budget constraints.

We have seen many communities lose commercial air service over the last two decades, and we expect this trend to continue, based on the likely future costs of energy. We need to have alternatives to the old model of commercial aviation serving each and every community.

High speed rail, however that is defined, can be an effective and affordable alternative to commercial air service, particularly for shorter commuter routes. Rail service is an effective and affordable alternative to air travel in the Washington, D.C. to New York Northeast corridor. We need to grow additional passenger rail corridors one by one and create a system of passenger rail that reduces energy consumption and supports major urban centers such as Washington D.C., Atlanta, and New York, as well as mid-sized communities such as Richmond, Virginia, Charlotte, North Carolina, and Memphis, Tennessee.

Absolutely, it’s a worthwhile investment, if spent wisely. The $8 billion in stimulus and proposed $5 billion being considered over five years in the FY10 budget is a total of $13 billion more than has previously been anticipated.

This commitment of federal investment and leadership for the development of High Speed Rail (HSR) is a “game changing” event that can lay the foundation for the most significant national investment in public infrastructure since President Eisenhower’s vision to build a national interstate highway system. Even the sobering GAO Report on High Speed Rail released in March 2009 recognizes the benefits of HSR to the “riding” and “non-riding” public with a clear message that its success depends on significant federal funding and leadership.

The stimulus and proposed FY10 monies clearly will not be sufficient to fund the construction of all, or even most, of the 11 designated FRA HSR corridors and others being considered—California’s program alone is estimated to cost in the order of $40 billion. However, these monies will provide a significant opportunity to advance the development of these projects as permanent federal funding is secured, possibly as part of the new Transportation or Greenhouse/Carbon Authorization bills.

In addition to these monies supporting critical design and engineering and other works necessary to progress these corridors for “project readiness” in time for the new authorization bills, these funds can be used to construct portions of HSR corridors currently being proposed such as upgrading the Milwaukee to Madison section of the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative to110 mph or the Albany to Buffalo section in New York State or, fast tracking more than 300 grade separations required on the California program. These monies will fund significant jobs now and infrastructure improvements to our communities for generations.

The investment must not be wasted on bogus projects, programs and superficial studies. I support the GAO’s finding and recommendation that a national strategic vision of how HSR fits into the national transportation system and clear guidance for the development of tools and systems to assess its visibility will ensure this funding be spent wisely, and future generations will look at this Administration’s HSR program as visionary and game changing.

Do I believe in President Obama's high-speed rail initiative?

The short answer is, "Yes, I do. Profoundly."

President Obama's vision of robust, high-speed rail service offers Americans increased mobility. And, throughout our history, increased mobility has contributed to economic growth and enhanced quality of life.

This is a transformational initiative. We simply can't build the economy of the future on the transportation networks of the past.

When we laid a transcontinental railroad in the 1800s, that system became a symbol of American pride and innovation. In the 1950s we built an interstate highway system that was the envy of the world. Building on the ingenuity of the Wright Brothers we built an aviation system that is the global gold standard. However, now Japan, China, and Europe all have the kind of high-speed rail systems that can offer us valuable benefits if we apply rail technology to our busiest intercity corridors. Frankly, we have some catching up to do.

What HSR does for us

There are enormous opportunities here.

Enhanced mobility and increased transportation options.

The primary modes of intercity passenger travel now are highway or air, and both our roads and our airspace are challenged by costly congestion. And driving a car doesn't allow a driver to use the time for work or recreation the way train travel does. With train stations largely within cities, access is simpler. That direct access to our intercities is very much consistent with our focus on creating livable communities.

Improved environment and reduced dependence on foreign oil.

Rail offers the flexibility of using renewable domestic fuels and more sustainable resources to power intercity travel. This could reduce the impact of oil prices on rail travel costs. And, HSR is cleaner, creating a lower burden on our environment.

Reduced stress on already congested highway corridors.

Many highway corridors around the country are prohibitively congested. If we offer travelers a more comfortable and convenient option, we could go a long way toward improving conditions on those routes.

Increased good-paying jobs for the long-term.

We're building a new industry with new technologies, new efficiencies, and new materials. We'll need skilled workers to build these systems. But, more importantly, we'll need skilled workers to operate these systems once built. So, we're not just helping the economy recover. We're providing more mobility. We're taking better care of the environment. And, we're starting to build the economy of the future.

What ARRA's $8 billion gets us

As the President has said, we would have loved to see more done on high-speed rail in the recovery package, because it's the right direction for us to go in. But, we could not credibly claim that all of the investments necessary for HSR are short term enough to be in a recovery package, as opposed to be part of our broader transportation bills and budget. So the ARRA money is a downpayment to jump-start what will be a world-class passenger rail system. The Federal Railroad Administration is in the process of finalizing a plan and related guidance for inter-city passenger rail grants from the $8 billion the ARRA provides.

I'm a believer.

As it achieves its primary purpose of increasing our mobility, high-speed also rail contributes to economic growth and leadership, energy independence, and environmental stewardship. Do I believe in those goals? You bet.

Inter-City High Speed Rail? Not Necessarily

It’s unfortunate that President Obama has made inter-city high-speed rail his “signature issue” in transportation. The $8 billion inserted into the stimulus bill at the last minute has created expectations for Japanese-style bullet trains on 11 long-planned corridors, but those hopes are likely to go unrealized. Moreover, by promoting expanded passenger rail service in these corridors, this policy may hinder many people’s hope of shifting more long-haul freight from truck to rail, as an energy-saving and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction policy.

Let me explain the problem. True high speed rail (HSR) that goes 150-200 mph requires entirely separate rights of way with no grade crossings, shallow grades, very broad curves, and no 60 mph freight traffic. That’s what Japan, France, Spain, Germany, and Italy are doing, and the taxpayer cost is many billions per line. Former Amtrak CEO Alex Kummant, in 2007 House testimony, estimated that an exclusive HSR corridor between New York and Washington would cost $10 billion—exclusive of new right of way (in some of the most expensive urban areas in the country). So it’s laughable to think that $8 billion (even if supplemented by the $5 billion more the Administration proposes over the next five years) could provide more than a small down payment on 11 real HSR corridors, most of them far longer than the 200+ mile New York to Washington one. The proposed California HSR is estimated by its proponent to cost $50.2 billion, but a recent Reason Foundation “due diligence” report put the more likely cost at up to $81.4 billion (see here).

So in fact, what the new federal funding will mostly be used for is upgrades to the existing shared passenger/freight tracks, aiming to get Amtrak trains up to speeds of 90 to 100 mph rather than today’s 60 or 70 mph. But that raises the question of getting the best use out of America’s existing railroad infrastructure. While it’s possible, with lots of passing sidings and expensive signaling systems, to operate both fast passenger trains and slower (and much longer) freight trains on the same trackage, the performance of both is hindered. U.S. freight railroads still have serious difficulties attracting time-sensitive freight, because rail freight takes so long (an intermodal trip from Tacoma to Columbus or Cincinnati takes 7 to 12 days) and is so uncertain (i.e., from 7 to 12 days!). Today’s high-tech, just-in-time logistics system cannot operate with such long times or with large schedule uncertainty, which is why so much freight moves by truck instead of rail.

In contrast with the United States, European countries over the last 50 years have opted to use their railroad networks primarily for passenger service (except for the new, separate HSR lines). If you compare goods-movement in Europe (the 27 EU countries) and the United States, you find that as of 2005, rail carried only 10% of all freight ton-miles in Europe, compared with 41% in the USA. Trucks in Europe handled 45% of ton-miles, compared with 30% here. That different mix of goods transport (other categories include pipeline, inland waterway, air freight, and coastwise shipping) has consequences for GHG emissions. In response to my query, Wendell Cox pulled together preliminary estimates of goods-movement GHGs for Europe and the United States and posted them here. (These are preliminary estimates, and Cox welcomes feedback.) What they show is that the GHG intensity of goods movement in Europe averages193 grams/ton-mile compared with 155 grams/ton-mile in the United States. In other words, the current U.S. policy of using its railroad network mostly for freight is “greener” than the European policy of using its network primarily for passenger service.

Thus, by putting more 100 mph passenger trains on existing railroads, we risk thwarting the hoped-for shift of more freight from truck to rail.