Nation needs more high-speed rail, report says

Transportation studies frequently show up in my e-mail box. Most aren't very interesting, but occasionally a provocative one arrives.

Such is the case with a new study from the Progressive Policy Institute that calls for an expansion of high-speed rail in the U.S. as an alternative to flying and driving. The report was written by Paul Weinstein Jr., a visiting fellow at Johns Hopkins University.

The study makes a few recommendations that may grab your attention:

1. Put high-speed rail in densely populated corridors.

2. The study mentions several: California's major cities (that's a drawing of the state's proposed system above, in the Tehachapi pass area), the Northeast U.S. (D.C. to Boston, where high-speed rail partially exists), Minneapolis-Chicago-St. Louis-Detroit, Tampa-Orlando-Miami and San Antonio-Dallas-Houston, among others.

3. Funding would come from a national $5 tax on rail tickets, state investments, cap-and-trade greenhouse gas taxes and fees charged to freight trains to use the high-speed rail network during off hours.

It's a thoughtful study that, I think, offers some intriguing ideas by emphasizing corridors and funding -- assuming, that is, high-speed rail makes sense in the U.S. As for funding, Californians will be voting Nov. 5 on Prop 1A, a $9.95-billion bond to begin a high-speed system here, although it's still unclear exactly how much rail will be built with that money.

-- Steve Hymon

Drawing: California High-Speed Rail Authority
 

Comments

[Tony Fernandez]

We could really use the federal government's help with this. They stepped up and built us an interstate highway system. When will they step up and build us a network of high-speed rail? A tax on planes would be great, but I don't see it happening since the feds have been bailing out airlines for quite a while now.

[Nikhil N]

We really need to move, nationwide, on building high speed rail. Many of our airports are congested, climate change needs action, and building highways is never a long-term fix. High speed rail, at least for our dense urban corridors, would be the solution to all of these things. California should lead the way as it has with many other issues. European nations that have built high speed rail have seen tremendous success.

Ian brings up a good point - why should there be a tax on low-carbon train travel? How about increased gas taxes? Or, more directly, heavy tolls on the intercity highways that the rail route would parallel?

[Rob Dawg]

$9.08 billion buys nothing. No exaggeration, no hyperbole. Prop 1A is explicit that no spade of dirt will be turned until the rest of the money is identified. The assumptions are that the Feds will step up with tens of billions and the "private" sector will donate land (UPRR) and money (developers) to participate.

Don't get me wrong, should Prop 1A actually beat the odds and win the first thing will be to spend at least $2.5 billion. At that point the lawyers take over as the expected 80% match funds fail to materialize.

[Ian Leighton]

My only dispute is with the $5 on rail tickets --

We should be taxing the more carbon-intensive travel option (how about $5 on plane tickets?) and subsidizing and building more rail. You shouldn't penalize people who are already emitting less carbon.

That would make so much more sense.

[Spokker]

"although it's still unclear exactly how much rail will be built with that money."

The longer we wait the less track that money is going to buy.

We should have had an opportunity to vote for this in 2004. There is a cost of waiting. Business plans need to be done over. Environmental impact assessments become outdated. Corridors are screwed with by other agencies.

Then there are the lawsuits, which will probably eat into how much impact that money can have.

We should break ground on this project as soon as possible.