$71 billion high-speed rail bill would fund only 125-mph routes

A Republican-sponsored bill to be introduced this week in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee advocates spending $71 billion to develop true high-speed passenger lines, the Washington Post reported on Friday.

In several ways, the measure is a dramatic shift from the $12 billion High Speed Rail Investment Act that has 178 representatives as sponsors.

First, the money would be enough to fully fund construction of the 11 high-speed corridors envisioned by the Transportation Department, based on Amtrak’s estimates. Unlike the HSRIA, however, the GOP bill would allow states – not the federal government – to select what routes should be built.

It would allow the funding to flow only to routes where sustained 125-mph speeds are planned and grade crossings eliminated.

And it would virtually cut Amtrak out of the process.

Although some of the money would be available to upgrade Amtrak’s deteriorating Northeast Corridor, Amtrak by design would be barred from bidding to build high-speed routes. It would, however, be allowed to operate high-speed lines built by the states.

"This likely is an attempt to satisfy Amtrak critics who believe its problems are due to mismanagement, rather than chronic, deep, long-term lack of funding,” the National Association of Railroad Passengers said in response to the Post story by reporter Don Phillips.

Cutting Amtrak out of the process removes a thorny political obstacle to passage of a high-speed rail bill, since several key Republicans oppose giving more money to the financially strapped railroad.

But by requiring the states to shoulder more of a financial burden, it’s possible that if passed, the latest high-speed bill would bring political action without meaningful action from the states.

The states would face less cost, risk and responsibility if the bonds were issued by Amtrak, as envisioned in the HSRIA.

What the bill, sponsored by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, would do:

Provide funding for upgrading freight lines to accommodate sustained 125-mph service, including the elimination of all grade crossings.

Funding would be limited to construction and infrastructure.

Some $36 billion would be provided via state tax-exempt bonds; another $35 billion would be available through direct loans or loan guarantees.
The Transportation Department would have to approve all high-speed projects.

What the bill would not do:

Fund the construction of new corridors dedicated solely to high-speed passenger rail, such as those in France where the TGV runs.

Provide money for locomotives or other equipment.

Fund lines that would boost speeds to 90 mph or 110 mph, such as the proposed Midwest High Speed Rail Initiative that would link Chicago with cities in seven other states. The Midwest initiative presumably would be eligible for funding, however, if it abandoned its incremental approach to high-speed in favor of 125-mph operation.

Increase Uncle Sam’s contribution to high-speed rail projects beyond what was proposed in the High Speed Rail Improvement Act.

Reaction to the bill has been positive, even among supporters of the HSRIA, the Post reported. Passenger rail advocates are taking a wait-and-see attitude.

“We’re always glad to see proposals to spend significant amounts of money on passenger rail,” Ross Capon, executive director of the National Association of Railroad Passengers, told Trains.com. “But we certainly need to see the details before we see how happy we should be about this proposal.”

Indeed, the devil will be in the details and in how high the bill sets the bar for high-speed proposals.

For instance, the Boston-New York leg of the Northeast Corridor – where Amtrak’s Acela Express hits 150 mph for short stretches – potentially would not have qualified for funding based on the bill’s requirement of sustained 125-mph running on lines with no grade crossings. A handful of crossings remain on the route, and speeds are held below 90 mph between New Haven, Conn., and New York City.

“While this bill addresses many key components of our nation’s transportation infrastructure, it is missing the most important component: funding,” said Rick Harnish, executive director of the Midwest High Speed Rail Coalition, the advocacy group backing the eight-state effort for higher-speed rail in the region.

The measure, he explains, seems to lack a revenue stream to pay off the state bonds. And that may scare off states that are contemplating high or higher-speed rail systems.

“I’d like to see speeds of 125 mph-plus, but that’s going to take a really serious financial commitment,” Harnish said.

Absent that commitment, the incremental approach to high-speed rail has already proven it can produce benefits. California and the Pacific Northwest, he points out, have experienced greatly increased ridership simply by offering sustained 79 mph operation with reliable and more frequent service on key corridors. Making improvements to allow faster operation – say 90 or 110 mph – can produce many of the benefits of true high-speed rail at a fraction of the cost, Harnish said.

I've added this Amtrak site of possible high-speed routes. However; the final choices will be made by the states themselves. (We can just hope that Amtrak will run the majority of them!) http://amtrak.com/press/hsr-corridormaps.html

------------------
Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth.
-Mr. Toy