Petra -

"You get what you pay for" is not "end of story", nor even the beginning, as your high-speed rail friends want me (and others) to pay for what they get.

Gabriel

Let us separate the House Republicans’ dim view of Amtrak for a moment from the fact that the Northeast is the busiest passenger rail corridor in the nation, serving more than 250 million intercity and commuter passengers a year in a megaregion that produces 20 percent of the nation’s GDP. It is also the only corridor where passenger trains travel at speeds of greater than 125 miles per hour (albeit for only 17 percent of track miles). On 66 percent of the track miles, trains travel at speeds greater than 110 mph.

Of course, it should be designated as a high-speed rail corridor! It’s the only high-speed rail corridor we’ve got!

The importance of this decision is that Amtrak can apply to the federal government for funding to address the backlog of state of good repair needs on the corridor, which total approximately $9 billion today, according to the Northeast Corridor Master Plan. Previously, Amtrak had to partner with individual states to make investments, and there are 9 different states along the mainline NEC – not all of them focused on prioritizing intercity rail investments. That same Master Plan estimates that a total of $52 billion is needed to provide capacity for 59 percent growth in passenger ridership by 2030 and make the modest trip time improvements.

Yes, it takes a lot of money to maintain or replace 100 year old track infrastructure, like the Canton Viaduct built in 1835, the movable Portal Bridge (1906) and Connecticut River Bridge (1907), the Susquehanna Bridge (1906), Pelham Bay Bridge (1907), or the Baltimore and Potomac Tunnels (1873). This is the infrastructure on which we run a 21st century economy, and helps to explain why our trains don’t go as fast as the ones in Japan, China, France, or Spain.

Every discussion of investing in the Northeast Corridor’s infrastructure does not need to be a referendum on the future of Amtrak. Those 100 year bridges need to be replaced whether the corridor is owned by Amtrak or Goldman Sachs. Ownership also has no impact on the Corridor’s limited capacity. Ownership does not change the need to make long-overdue investments in the physical infrastructure of the Corridor.

You get what you pay for. End of story.

It makes sense to designate the Northeast Corridor as a high-speed rail corridor because it is the only high-speed corridor the country is likely to have for the foreseeable future. All the rest of the Obama Administration’s high-speed rail program is the planning community’s favorite dish, pie in the sky. More, the Northeast Corridor has shown its ability to attract patronage, which justifies further investment. Higher-speed trains will come incrementally, as higher ridership supports greater capital investment.

At the same time, it is unrealistic to talk about spending tens of billions to create a whole new Northeast Corridor where trains could run at 300 kph or more over most of the route. Land acquisition costs in built-up portions of the Northeast Corridor make this too expensive. New segments could be built in open country, somewhat like the TGV, but this applies mostly to the Washington-New York segment. There isn’t much open country along the New York-Boston portion.

Remember that Amtrak owns most of the Northeast Corridor. If Amtrak gives it up, who takes it? The states are broke. The Pennsylvania Railroad? I’m all for it, but I’m not certain how well the stock would sell.

William S. Lind
Director, The American Conservative
Center for Public Transportation

Does it make sense to designate the Northeast Corridor as a high-speed rail corridor? Emphatically yes! As Jack Kinstlinger pointed out, it is the second most densely populated corridor in the world. It's the most heavily traveled and congested corridor in the nation. It connects four major metropolitan areas all of which have well developed urban mass transit networks that would help to distribute trevelers to their ultimate destinations. If there is one corridor in the nation that deserves high-speed rail, surely it's the Boston-to-Washington corridor.

Does it make sense to designate Amtrak as the architect and implementor of the vision to re-engineer the present system into a true 21st century high-speed rail system? And does it make sense to make Amtrak the recipient of a large chunk of the $2.4 billion federal grant?

The latter is a separate question and one that should be the heart of the debate.

Without question, the Northeast Corridor should be designated as a high-speed rail corridor. According to a study by America 2050 entitled, “High-Speed Rail in America,” the Northeast is the densest and most economically productive of the U.S. mega-regions and produces about 20 percent of the nation’s gross national product. It is estimated that the Northeast will add one million new residents in the coming years placing additional demand on a transportation network that is already suffering from congestion. In fact, the Northeast is home to the nation’s most congested rail corridor and has one of the highest volumes of rail travel in the world. Clearly, it is a sweet spot for our nation’s high-speed rail effort. Designating it as an HSR corridor will have a significant impact and create value in the region.

The Federal Railroad Administration has laid out clear guidelines for who can compete for federal monies. However, we do need to keep an open mind about how these monies (and other sources for funds to be identified) can be used to pay for the design, operation, maintenance and finance of high-speed rail services in the Northeast and elsewhere. Certainly, Amtrak has done an outstanding job and is an important and experienced passenger rail provider – Amtrak currently operates and maintains Acela, the only high-speed rail service in the U.S. We should ensure that all interested and capable parties are invited to participate and/or partner so that, as a nation, we have the best team in place to develop the next generation of high-speed rail in America.

The Northeast corridor, as well as California and some Midwestern states are moving forward with high-speed rail because they have determined that HSR fits into a multimodal transportation solution. Other states and regions need to judge for themselves if high-speed rail is a good fit for them. The nation is in the beginning stages of its discussion of high-speed rail and we are bound to experience some twists and turns in the debate but, it is a discussion that will benefit from many voices with a variety of viewpoints.

Amtrak’s high-speed service in the Washington-Boston Northeast Corridor already provides important transportation and environmental benefits. The benefits would be enhanced by Federal investment improving the infrastructure to permit an increase in the average speed of the service.

The Corridor has the characteristics which have led to the success of high speed rail in Europe and Japan: high population density, major population centers within 200 miles of each other, a strong economic base, and a good network of transit and regional rail to connect with high speed rail.

Amtrak’s Acela service in the corridor has already been a great success, capturing 2/3 of the air/rail traffic in 2010. This is a substantial increase from Amtrak’s 1/3 share of this traffic in the year 2000. Amtrak’s high-speed service in the corridor generates an operating profit. Were it not for the 10 million passengers a year Amtrak carries in the Corridor, the high levels of congestion in the air and on the highways would be even worse. Acela service also improves the environment and increases the efficiency and competitiveness of business in the region.

Although Acela trains can attain speeds of up to 150 mph, the corridor’s rail infrastructure will not permit these speeds over some sections. The problems include antiquated electrical supply systems, tracks that need to be straightened, and the need to add tracks to accommodate the commuter, regional and freight lines which also use the Corridor. As a result of these problems, average speeds in the corridor are in the 80 mph range rather than the 110-120 mph generally associated with high-speed rail.

Amtrak has recently prepared two analyses of the costs of improving the infrastructure. One study finds that an investment of $52 billion over 20 years would keep the system in a state of good repair and fund improvements to the infrastructure. This level of investment would enable Amtrak to reduce travel times substantially, for example the current 2 hours 45 minutes from Washington to New York would be reduced to 2 hours and 15 minutes. It is important to bear in mind that not all of the $52 billion would go to improving the system; perhaps as much as $20 billion would go for maintenance and replacements needed to keep the system performing at existing levels.

A second study shows that realization of greater improvements would require developing a new track system, which would be likely to cost more than $100 billion. On a system of dedicated trackage, average travel time between Washington and New York could be reduced to 96 minutes.

As has been pointed out frequently, the level of federal investment required for improved high-speed rail in the corridor would not be excessive compared to the massive investments the federal government has made in developing our highways and aviation system.

Today’s Prompt correctly notes that many Republicans are opposed to any federal investment in High Speed Rail. Some would support federal investment in the Northeast Corridor if it were part of a plan to give the private sector responsibility for managing the infrastructure and/or providing service.

Amtrak’s success in the Corridor to date suggests that private-sector control is not essential to the continuation and improvement of high-speed rail service in the Corridor. While private-sector investment might be helpful, it cannot be relied upon. At this time, there does not appear to be a strong interest in the private sector. The 2008 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act set up a process for DOT to evaluate and support private-sector proposals for high-speed rail in eleven corridors that included the Northeast Corridor. Eight proposals were submitted, including proposals for Florida, the Midwest, California, and Texas. No proposals were submitted for the Northeast Corridor.

For now, any improvements in high-speed rail in the Corridor will have to be supported by federal investment.

The Northeast Corridor is the seond most dense in terms of population in the world, second only to the Tokyo-Osaka corridor that has been blessed with superior fatality free Tokaido-Shinkansen high speed rail service operated profitably for over 40 years by the for profit Central Japan Rail Corporation.It is the only corridor in the US that resembles much of Western Europe with a major downtown every 50 mile or so.Clearly, frequent, reliable high speed rail service-over 200 MPH - in the Northeast over dedicated right of way separate from the current Amtrak operation will be profitable and decongest highways and importantly, decongest critically congested East Coast airports by diverting short haul air passengers to rail.The prospects are so attractive that significant private capital will be attracted , a public private partnersghip should lead the effort which may or may not involve Amtrak.

To those who prefer the "user pays" principle for financing transport, it makes no sense "to designate the Northeast Corridor as a high-speed rail corridor". If Representative Slaughter and Senator Lautenberg want improved rail service in that corridor why do they not raise the funds from their own states? Or privately? Do they not know that the federal government has run out of other people's money to spend?

There may be data showing that rail service along the NE corridor does, or could, cover all its costs out of revenues, but such data have not been made public. Might the proponents please show us some?

However, whether the service can, or cannot, be profitable, does not justify yet another assault on taxpayers' pockets. Is not support of this service by prominent legislators profoundly disturbing? Or just what we have learnt to expect?