Kerry and Specter push for more high-speed rail

There's been a lot of talk in Washington and the media lately that one way for the federal government to give the economy a boost would be to start making massive investments in the nation's infrastructure. Such spending would both create jobs in the short term and give the U.S. the kind of infrastructure to build its economy around in the future.

In that vein, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would allow bonds to be issued to raise more than $23 billion for high-speed rail projects around the country. Some of that money -- it's not clear exactly how much -- could be used on the proposal to build a high-speed rail line in California. Here's a link to a story about the bill in the Boston Globe.

That is interesting, of course, since voters here earlier this month approved Proposition 1A, which allows the state to issue $9.95 billion in bonds to plan and construct a high-speed rail line. It's not nearly enough to finish the proposed line from Anaheim to San Francisco -- the California High Speed Rail Authority said recently the cost will be $33 billion; critics say it will be much more.

Still, the federal bill is worth watching. If it passes, it would arguably be a boost for passenger rail along some Amtrak corridors after decades of the nation making heavy investments in the nation's airports and highways.

The press release from Kerry's office is after the jump.

--Steve Hymon

The press release on the Kerry-Specter high-speed rail bill:

Kerry-Specter Bill Would Create Jobs, Stimulus, Infrastructure Investment

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Governor Ed Rendell Applaud National High-Speed Rail Initiative

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) introduced a bill to create new jobs by updating the nation’s crumbling infrastructure. The High-Speed Rail for America Act of 2008 would transform America’s outdated and underfunded passenger rail system into a world class system.

“At a time when our economy desperately needs a jumpstart, we need an effective national investment that puts Americans back to work,” said Sen. Kerry. “A first-rate rail system would protect our environment, save families time and money, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, and help get our economy moving again. The High-Speed Rail for America Act will help fix our crumbling infrastructure system, expand our economy, and match high-tech rail systems across the globe.”

“We must continue to focus our energies on building and maintaining a strong national passenger rail system in order to ease congestion of air and highway corridors connecting high-growth markets, as well as to meet energy and environmental goals,” said Sen. Specter. “The High-Speed Rail for America Act is an investment in our nation’s infrastructure and has the potential to provide tremendous economic opportunities throughout Pennsylvania and the nation.”

Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Joe Lieberman (I-CT.), Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), cosponsored the legislation.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell both voiced their support for the high-speed rail initiative.

“Creating a national high-speed rail network is an ambitious goal, but one that gets more urgent by the day,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “Investing in modern infrastructure is vital to the nation’s long-term economic and environmental health - and in the short-term, it would help put more Americans back to work. Many countries in Europe and Asia are investing in high-speed rail, and if our economy is going to remain competitive, we have to start catching up. Greater investment in our railways is a top goal of Building America's Future, the infrastructure coalition that Governors Rendell and Schwarzenegger and I created. I applaud Senator Kerry for tackling the issue head-on, and I strongly support his efforts to create the high-speed rail network our country needs.”

“This long-overdue national investment in high-speed rail would help to stimulate economic recovery while creating good jobs that cannot be outsourced,” said Gov. Rendell, one of the founding co-chairs of the Building America’s Future coalition. “Expanding our nation’s critical rail infrastructure will make our transportation network more efficient, reduce traffic pressure on our already busy interstate highways, and improve the environment.”

The High-Speed Rail for America Act of 2008 builds upon the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 which reauthorizes Amtrak and authorizes $1.5 billion over a five-year period to finance the construction and equipment for eleven high-speed rail corridors. It provides billions of dollars in both tax-exempt and tax credit bond and provides assistance for rail projects of various speeds. The bill creates the Office of High-Speed passenger rail to oversee the development of high-speed rail and provides a consistent source of funding.

Specifically, the High-Speed Rail for America Act of 2008 provides $8 billion over a six-year period for tax-exempt bonds which finance high-speed rail projects which reach a speed of at least 110 miles per hour It creates a new category of tax-credit bonds – qualified rail bonds. There are two types of qualified rail bonds: super high-speed intercity rail facility bond and rail infrastructure bond. Super high-speed rail intercity facility bonds will encourage the development of true high-speed rail. The legislation provides $10 billion for these bonds over a ten-year period. This would help finance the California proposed corridor and make needed improvements to the Northeast corridor. The legislation provides $5.4 billion over a six-year period for rail infrastructure bonds. The Federal Rail Administration has already designated ten rail corridors that these bonds could help fund, including connecting the cities of the Midwest through Chicago, connecting the cities of the Northwest, connecting the major cities within Texas and Florida, and connecting all the cities up and down the East Coast.

Comments

[Spokker]

We can do both, HSR and urban rail. Measure R passed. LA is getting their $30+ billion. We also have a rail friendly administration and we just might see a surge in federal funding for transit projects.

Sorry, but urban rail doesn't trump all else. Intercity rail is still very important. Enough airplanes, enough cars. Let's take steps to get off foreign oil now.

[Ken Alpern]

Well, there's more than one way of looking at it:

1) This high-speed rail could allow a much smoother, faster alternative for all those who travel for business and pleasure between Northern and Southern California, as well as make things less congested on the I-5

2) Even more important than the LA-SF connection, this is beneficial for those partial trips (Palmdale-Union Station, Middle California to SF or LA) which is arguably much, much, MUCH less talked about than it should because these trips might be the biggest ridership factors

3) Finally, MetroRail and Metrolink and CAHSR are not mutually exclusive, and they all feed into each other the way freeways and surface streets do (which also aren't mutually exclusive)

[Damien Goodmon]

Ian:

Right now, for the state, it unfortunately is an either-or. We're looking at a $24 billion budget deficit. And again, the feds are in a different category all together.

And I will say LA Metro is FAR more important than CA HSR. I don't think it's even close. I doubt there's any evaluation (economic impact, health impact, quality of life impact) in which spending $20 billion on LA urban rail wouldn't have a greater impact than spending $20 billion on CA HSR.

$20 billion today in LA yields 100-130 miles of primarily grade separated rail.

[Damien Goodmon]

Todd:

There are plenty who can talk about CAHSR's expected ridership and ticket prices, and many more who are critical of their estimates. I don't currently know the numbers, I'm using generalities. I will say however that there is revenue, but there's also expenses (operational costs).

Nonetheless, in that portion of the post I was trying to convey that our priority in California should be serving people's daily traffic problems, as opposed to their desires for an albeit cool high-speed choo-choo that would not be as utilized, and is not as necessary as an expansive urban rail network in Southern California.

I mean even at the federal level, I'd rather see the money go into the New Starts program. I'm not saying we shouldn't have both, and the feds unlike the state can comfortably fund both. I'm just saying TODAY the pressing need is for urban transit investment, which has a daily impact on people's lives.

[Ian Leighton]

@Damien Goodmon

I'm sure you're familiar with the benefits that HSR & urban mass transit bring in TOD, more livable communities, etc. This also means HSR would also help LA Metro by providing higher demand and even some financing to expand the system.

It's not an either-or choice -- we have to work on all fronts. Put it this way: we can't simply say that LA metro is more important than CA HSR, because when oil runs out, would you rather be walking or biking across town, or across the state? Everything here is essential.

[Carey Campbell]

This is great news.

It is exactly what the Independent Green Party of Virginia has advocated for many years with candidates on the ballot like Gail "for Rail" Parker for U.S. Senate in 2008.

The Indy Greens motto, "More Trains, Less Traffic", put Michael Bloomberg on the ballot for President in 2008.

Now let's re-route that $25 billion bailout from Detriot into nationwide high speed rail today!!!

[David Galvan]

Regarding the Kerry/Specter bill: What a great thing! I'd imagined we'd see some major infrastructure spending coming from Obama and the new Congress, but I didn't expect the current congress to make much headway on it. Of course, this bill has only just been introduced. . . it hasn't passed yet. But still, this is encouraging.

That said, $23 B is not alot to spread around the whole country. The CA HSR authority was hoping to get $10 B from the fed on its own.

[Damon Tordini]

Florida could be a good candidate for high speed rail. The main section could go up the coast from Miami to Jacksonville (through Orlando), while a spur could go off westward to the Tampa area.

[Todd K.]

Damien! I've wondered what has become of you.

As for your objections, if we you use your numbers, 30 million Californians x 4 trips per year x 100$ per trip = 12 billion dollars in revenues per year. If California is able to use it for a 100 years that would be 120 billion dollars. Let's just say building it would cost 50 billion dollars and operating cost for 100 years another 30 billions dollars, high-speed rail is still worth it.

Of course, you are right that we still need to pay for more for regional transportation [not just subways:),], but Californians have a need for both.

[Damien Goodmon]

The joke regarding high-speed rail through Los Angeles is that after people get off the train at Union Station they'll have to go to a rental car facility to get around LA!

My point is this, I'd rather see just half of the high speed rail money that they say they'll need for a high speed rail line in CA (which most people would AT BEST use 3 or 4 times a YEAR) instead spent on built expanding a 21st century urban rail network in Southern California that hundreds of thousands if not millions of commuters can and would use EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Additionally, why not fund it through something other than a general obligation state bond? If the train is supposed to eliminate the need for airport expansion in the state, if that is it's major purpose, then why aren't we simply moving the $10 billion that's supposed to go toward LAX expansion to the high speed rail instead? Why issue the bonds, and tie up so much rail capital money in the state for the next 30-40 years. Again, that money is more pressingly needed locally.

I long for the day that people get over the fascination of choo-choos and building projects for the sake of building projects and start taking our traffic crisis seriously.

[Dan W.]

Terrific!

I'm hoping a Northwest grid between Seattle and Portland and Eugene is considered.

[Dana Gabbard]

The Midwest proposed grid and the needs to fix the Northeast corridor to me provide a framework for a national coalition among the various proposed high speed rail projects to draw the votes needed to pass this bill or one similar to it. Certainly the prospects for the California project look brighter given these factors.