Anyone working in congested metropolitan regions on long-term planning understands that improving passenger rail services is critical to our future mobility and economic growth. In the coming decades we will have a shortage of intercity and national capacity to move people and goods. Rail, properly networked with the other modes, offers a practical and cost beneficial solution in many corridors.

Unfortunately, the nation today continues to pay for years of neglect of Amtrak and passenger rail more generally. Thankfully the past Congress (through finally reauthorizing Amtrak and rail programs) and the current Administration have put rail back on the policy table. This has been a catalyst for many states, freight rail companies, Amtrak and others to work together on practical solutions, the benefits of which will be delivered for years to come.

Most of the critics (including many on the Hill), citing the supposed inefficiencies of HSR, rail or individual projects, are hard to take seriously as they have criticized Amtrak and other programs for years while sitting on their hands while money was shoveled out for many projects they favored that were not cost-beneficial and didn't address our core transportation issues.

Instead of their voices, we should listen to groups such as the BPC, Eno, AASHTO, APTA and the Chamber that are focusing our attention to transport policies that meet the needs of passengers and shippers while addressing energy and environmental concerns. Our collective chore is to get policymakers to put partisan rancor aside and get on with the task of incrementally building a 21st Century transportation policy.

While Washington fiddles, communities, regions and private enterprise continue to innovate and put together practical transportation solutions. Now if we could only get Washington to go along..

Steve Van Beek

There is no better time than now to recommit ourselves to the goal of developing a modern, 21st century high-speed rail system. The prompt asks if it makes sense for the country to “take a break” on high-speed rail projects. Can you imagine where we would be today if President Eisenhower had waited for a ‘better time’ to begin building the nation’s interstate highway system?

The Administration’s high-speed rail initiative is a forward-looking undertaking that recognizes that building this system will take decades. In that time-frame the American population is expected to grow by at least 100 million, roadway congestion will increase, fossil fuels will become scarcer, and environmental concerns will require the use of greener, more energy efficient modes of transportation. High-speed rail fits that bill.

An important point for policymakers to understand is that this is not an either/or debate, despite the naysayers’ attempts to position it this way. This is a debate about developing a modern transportation network – a network that incorporates all modes of travel and provides Americans with more options.

Just as importantly, high-speed rail systems have been proven to be huge drivers of economic growth and development nationally and internationally. For each $1 billion invested in high-speed rail, 24,000 jobs will be created. Nationally, that will amount to more than 1.3 million jobs over a six year period – but only if we can commit ourselves fully to these projects. And in addition to the hundreds of thousands of construction jobs, many more permanent manufacturing jobs will be created to support these systems and their infrastructure by exporting rail components to countries around the world.

If we truly want to kick-start our economy, protect the environment, and improve quality of life, then high-speed rail can provide the answer. These benefits are well known to legislators from both parties. Now that we have found a solution to these issues, we cannot shirk the responsibility for political expedience – now is the time to act.

All of the comments so far have missed the central point in the high-speed rail (HSR) debate: that it is not the merits of high speed rail that are the issue but the Obama Administration’s handling of its HSR initiative. It’s the flaws in the Administration’s approach and its misleading rhetoric, rather than the appropriateness of HSR technology, that are the key reason why the press and public opinion have turned skeptical and why Congress, on a bipartisan basis, has refused to fund the program two years in a row. The Administration’s inept handling of the program was the focus of a December 6 hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I thought our exchange about high-speed rail could benefit from taking a fresh look at the Committee’s conclusions.

Hearing Highlights Missteps in Administration's High-Speed Rail Program

December 6, 2011

Washington, DC – Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Members and

witnesses outlined growing concerns with the Obama Administration’s high-speed

rail program. Although sold by the Administration as a high-speed rail program,

over $10 billion in funding has been scattered to projects across the country

under the program, with the very real possibility that no high-speed rail

service will result.

"Since the passage of the Stimulus, the President’s high-speed rail program has

gone completely in the wrong direction," said Committee Chairman John L. Mica

(R-FL). "Before the Stimulus, I worked to include language to create a blueprint

for the development of U.S. high-speed rail in the 2008 Passenger Rail

Investment and Improvement Act. And I was optimistic when the President made

developing high-speed rail a priority and included $8 billion in funding in the

Stimulus.

"Unfortunately, the vast majority of the projects selected by the Administration

are not high-speed at all. This bait-and switch gives high-speed rail in the

U.S. a bad name," Mica continued. "In March 2011/2010, GAO reported the

Administration’s project selection process lacked transparency, and we don’t

fully understand why projects were chosen. We’re funding slow-speed projects all

over the country, most of them for Amtrak, that will not result in high-speed

service. $3.6 billion – more than one-third of the $10.1 billion that has gone

to projects – was turned back by states. The one project funded that offered the

most hope for achieving high-speed, the California project, appears to be in

disarray. In fact, the Committee will hold a hearing specifically to review this

project next week.

"We need one high-speed rail success, and our country’s best opportunity to

achieve high-speed rail is in the Northeast Corridor," Mica concluded. "Now that

federal funding for this program has been stopped, we have an opportunity to

learn from those mistakes and make the needed changes to develop at least one

truly successful high-speed rail corridor in this country."

"I support high-speed rail where it makes sense, but the President’s vision of

providing 80% of Americans with access to high-speed rail service is unnecessary

and isn’t going to happen," said Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials

Subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster (R-PA).

"Instead of finding one place to do high-speed rail, and do it right, the

Administration has spread the money too thinly all over the country. Because of

this misguided approach, we’re not getting any high-speed rail. The only result

will be a wasted opportunity.

"I urge this Administration to reevaluate what it’s doing with this program, and

to move its high-speed rail efforts in a new direction," Shuster added. "We can

develop high-speed rail in this country, but only where it makes sense. And

nowhere makes more sense than the Northeast Corridor."

Witnesses testifying at today’s hearing included Ken Orski, a former federal

transportation official and transportation policy consultant. Orski highlighted

the Administration’s missteps in implementing its purported plan to develop

high-speed rail in the United States.

"The Administration’s first misstep, in my judgment, has been to falsely

represent its program as ‘high-speed rail,’ thus, conjuring up an image of

bullet trains cruising at 200 mph, just as they do in Western Europe and the Far

East," Orski stated in prepared testimony. "It further raised false expectations

by claiming that ‘within 25 years 80 percent of Americans will have access to

high-speed rail.’ In reality the Administration’s high-speed rail program will

do no such thing. A close examination of the grant announcements shows that,

with one exception, the program consists of a collection of planning,

engineering and construction grants that seek incremental improvements in

existing facilities of Class One freight railroads in selected corridors used by

Amtrak trains."

Orski continued, "The Administration’s second mistake, in my opinion, has been

to fail to pursue its objective in a focused manner. Instead of identifying a

corridor that would offer the best chance of successfully demonstrating the

technology of high-speed rail, and concentrating resources on that project, the

Administration has scattered its nine billion dollars on 145 projects in 32

states, and in all regions of the country.

"Ironically, the Northeast corridor, where high-speed rail has the best chance

of succeeding, has received scant attention. And yet, this corridor is probably

the only one in the nation that has all the attributes necessary for effective

nd economical high-speed rail service," Orski stated. ...

Whether or not high speed rail is deployed in the US, and indeed how our rail and other modal assets are enhanced in the coming years, is a matter not so much of concrete, steel and shovels--though these will of course have their place in ensuring both public and private sector infrastructure enhancement. Rather, it is a matter of how the assets that exist now and those that are built months, years, decades from now are integrated not just as part of the physical transportation network, but equally as part of the digital ICT network that will infuse our transportation system to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of trains, buses, ferries, aircraft, personal cars--even bicycles and pedestrians. The key to this "second convergence" lies not only in major "ground up" undertakings like new high speed rail lines and equipment, but in how technology enablement occurs in even the smallest of ways . Whether it is an operations and information center that tracks train schedules and delays in better real time for the benefit of both train operators and passengers, an open payments e-ticketing system that allows seamless nationwide and global system use across rail systems and other modes with personal mobile devices, or a digital video/sensor monitoring system that ensures trains operate safely and securely at any speed. This incremental transformation can begin today, and indeed is already in progress across the US as it is around the world. It is only a question based on economic reality and fiscal prudence at what pace and in what directions the change continues to progress.

Two years after President Barack Obama announced awards of $8 billion to states across the country to develop high-speed intercity passenger rail service, the program has become the target of unceasing ideological rhetoric.

Increasingly, vocal critics of high-speed rail continue to ratchet up the volume of their criticism. I say: enough already! All sides need to take a break from the rhetoric and listen to the substance and facts about the development of high-speed rail in America.

Sound arguments in favor of high-speed rail could fill volumes, but proven benefits of high-speed rail are simple.

• Cost savings compared to plane travel, particularly if you’re going a relatively short distance.
• Stable fares compared with airline pricing.
• Fewer security hassles.
• Consumer-friendly baggage policies.
• The proximity of most train stations to America’s downtowns.
• More travel choices and reduces our dependence on both planes and automobiles.
• Congestion relief for the nation’s highways and airports.
• Lower our national energy bill and reduce dependence on foreign oil.

The interstate highway system, which galvanized our nation in the 50s and 60s, had its share of ideological critics, too. What would our country be like today if we had listened to them?

High-speed rail continues to move ahead with strong support. In the Northeast Corridor intercity trains enjoy a market share almost equal to the airlines, and plans for high-speed passenger rail service are on track. Projects are moving forward in the Southeast including Virginia and North Carolina, and in Illinois and Michigan in the Midwest.

We need to set aside the ideological din of high-speed rail opponents and listen to the quieter voices of fact and reason. To guarantee the long-term vitality of our transportation system, economy and mobility, high-speed rail must be part of America’s transportation system.

Investment in the most beneficial intercity passenger rail projects can bring both short-term and long-term economic returns -- construction and construction-related jobs right away and improved access to permanent jobs and greater labor market mobility in the long-term. These returns were described in some detail in a report by Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Martin Wachs, "Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Investments and Economic Growth," released by the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project in January 2011.

Certainly, the "right" intercity passenger rail projects woud fall into the category of transportation investments that could bring short- and long-term returns. However, the Obama Administration continues to struggle with the effects of having originally oversold the President's "high-speed rail" initiative. The initial marketing of this program suggested that America should strive for a national system of bullet trains, like those of Japan, France, Spain, and China. It remains highly unlikely, however, that such a national system is achievable in any reasonable period of time, if ever. The environmental, social, and financial costs of constructing such services on new rights-of-way (ROWs) in the most densely populated and urbanized regions of the country, that is, in those areas in which there are markets for such services, would seem much too high, and the possibility of insurmountable community and local opposition appears much too likely.

However, incremental, and substantial, improvements to existing ROWs in urbanized regions -- improvements that promise faster, more frequent, and more reliable intercity passenger rail services -- can be undertaken and promise great benefits. Such investments could be undertaken rather quickly, producing construction jobs very soon. Indeed, plans for manyof these projects have been discussed for many years and have waited only for adequate investment capital and for the adoption of new forms of governance and management to be initiated. Moreover, the "right" investments would occur where there are markets, thus minimizing the need for continuing large operating subsidies.

The successes of President Obama's initiative (for example, the promise of improved passenger rail services between Detroit and Chicago, between Chicago and St. Louis, in the Pacific Northwest, and along the Northeast Corridor) are likely to come from such incremental improvements to existing ROWs and services. The funds invested in these projects derive from recent appropriations under both economic recovery and regular FRA programs. These investments make a great deal of sense, even in the context of the fiscal challenges facing the federal and many state governments. Indeed, those transportation investments that promise economic benefits and real returns are essential to the nation's economic recovery and growth.

Unfortunately, the incremental improvements to existing rail lines and the successes that have been achieved under the current so-called "high-speed rail" program have been largely overlooked, in the context of a program that seemed to promise much more and that cannot realistically be pursued, in light of both extraordinary costs and constrained resources. Instead, let's celebrate what we can achieve.

High speed rail is definitely in America’s future. Our congested roads and airports and dwindling sources of oil make it eminently clear that a new, environmentally friendly and green technology that can move passengers and freight at speeds exceeding 200 MPH must ultimately become high priority. But where and when should it start is a good question.

Currently there is no high speed operation in the U.S. and most Americans are not familiar with its advantages. Europe and Asia abound in examples where high speed rail is operated safely and successfully. We in the U.S. need at least one successful operation to get the ball rolling. Florida had been a possibility until derailed by politics. California has problems but its project still makes sense in that the most costly and disruptive option to improve mobility between the SF and LA areas is to do nothing and let congestion reach unacceptable levels. Ultimately the North East Corridor offers the best potential for profitable high speed rail operation.

A respite until the economy improves and the nation regains its appetite for investment may be a wise course.

"What", Fawn asks, "would make policymakers more receptive to high-speed rail?"

We all like to travel by train, particularly when the journeys are from station to station. As train users tend to come from the higher income groups, willingness of travelers to pay all the costs of their rail service would influence those policymakers who prefer to redistribute wealth from the richer to the poorer.

One reason that high-speed rail costs are so high is that rail systems have to cover all their "track" costs. So another way to make policymakers more receptive to high-speed rail would be to invent a high-speed rail system that could share its track with other fee-paying users.

Of course, rubber-tired cars and buses already have this capability, so high-speed buses use only small fractions of the capacities of the freeways they use. This is one reason that Fawn can travel by bus from Washington DC to New York for about $20, while having to pay about six-fold for the Amtrak service, which may even be subsidized.

We’re not sure who’s in a coma in Washington, DC, but we can tell you that the rest of the country woke up long ago to the value of passenger rail. Ridership on Amtrak’s many long-distance lines are at all time highs, and state-sponsored lines in Illinois, Virginia, and Michigan are seeing double-digit growth. From October 2010 to September 2011, more than 30 million trips were recorded on America’s intercity passenger rail lines.

Using more than $9 billion in federal investment, states are focusing on improving the passenger experience by building a system that is more reliable, offers more frequent and faster service, and creates real travel options. Given that the nation’s population will increase significantly in the years ahead, we must offer alternatives to the passenger vehicle to avoid more gridlock on our highways. Intercity passenger rail is one way to do this.

And greater mobility isn’t the only benefit. We already know that rail is energy efficient. But the revival of passenger rail is sparking significant economic development just when it is desperately needed. New or renovated rail stations are becoming hubs of activity. In Brunswick, Maine, restaurants, retail shops, medical facilities and an inn are springing up around the new station. City officials in Pennsylvania are singing the praises of passenger rail as new or enhanced stations along the Keystone line bring more dollars into their boroughs.

Passenger rail is also stimulating new manufacturing, as Amtrak and several states begin purchasing locomotives and passenger cars made in America – part of a requirement for receiving federal funds. But like any great, game-changing endeavor, it takes time to plan for such an enormous undertaking – time to do it right – a goal I am sure is shared by the American public. The interstate system wasn’t built in two or three years nor was America’s transcontinental railroad. We should expect no less in building a robust passenger rail network.

The Federal Railroad Administration suggests that the states and Amtrak will spend almost $1.5 billion in the first six months of 2012 on passenger rail projects, with plenty of work left to be done through 2014 and beyond. These investments in passenger rail are focused, community-oriented, and targeted to rail corridors that will serve the public for generations to come. When it comes to the development of a national passenger rail network, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

The American Bus Association (ABA) believes our industry, motorcoach transportation is a much more viable solution than high speed rail to move millions of people safely each year between urban centers.

Intercity buses are the solution that saves money, provides hassle-free travel, fills in gaps by connecting to other travel modes, offers mobility to millions of rural citizens residing far from air and rail hubs, and which are re-deployable to anywhere that's paved.

Buses are here today and readily available as the simple solution that saves money. Motorcoach ridership has soared to more than 720 million passenger trips annually. Private intercity buses account for more passenger trips than the domestic airlines in some years.

For those that have not been on a modern motorcoach lately, many have free Wi-Fi, plug-ins for computers and other electronics, luxury seats and other amenities that are comparable or exceed the comfort level on planes and trains.

In addition, intercity buses can be routed to meet unexpected traveler demand at a moment's notice, such as is often the case during holidays. And they are tailored for the role of connecting to planes, trains and intra-city transit buses or light commuter rail.

The much-touted idea of spending on new High-Speed Rail (HSR) service, conversely, is cost-prohibitive given the billions of tax dollars it would require to buy the rights of way, lay the tracks, and subsidize the operational costs it would demand if and when it's ever built. That's in addition to the $1.2 billion Amtrak already receives from the federal government.

Several private bus lines compete successfully in the market for travelers within the Northeast corridor of the United States between Boston and Washington – at a fraction of the price of an Amtrak ticket, and with times that compare favorably with rail, air and personal autos.

Now with more double decker motorcoaches on the road, each motorcoach, either a single or a double decker can take between 55 and 80 single-occupant autos off of congested highways, mitigating congestion, reducing emissions and saving fuel, which bolsters U.S. energy security.

No less than the Union of Concerned Scientists have reported that motorcoaches are also the greenest way to travel in the organization’s "Getting There Greener" report.

The recent resignation of California’s leading high speed rail officials and the public’s concerns over the nearly 100 billion dollar program are another reason why lawmakers in Washington need to rethink high speed rail. There are better alternatives and motorcoaches are one of them.

Buses beat high-speed rail in terms of affordability, flexibility, and mobility, saving money and benefiting society. The transportation future can be less expensive, cheaper, more efficient and cleaner than ever. And that future is not far away. It's actually here today. It's called the bus. And America is riding on us.