Rail

Contents

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2 1.1 Definition …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 1.2 Types of High high speed Rail">speed rail ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 1.3 Historical Timeline ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2 1.4 High Speed Rail in United States…………………………………………………………………………………… 6 1.5 North East Corridor …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 9 2. Potential of NEC – HSR ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 10 3. Strategy of Amtrak …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 4. Recent Developments ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 4.1 NEC Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission ………………………………………………. 17 4.2 Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Program ………………………………………………………………… 17 5. Debate of High Speed Rail Project ……………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 5.1 Charges of elitism and social engineering: Untruthful attacks …………………………………………… 18 5.2 The unaffordability of high-speed rail ………………………………………………………………………….. 19 5.3 The lack of political and popular support for high-speed rail …………………………………………….. 21 5.4 The notion that rail corridors were being proposed and built to “nowhere;” ………………………… 21 5.5 Whether and why intercity and high-speed rail should receive a taxpayer subsidy ………………… 22 5.6 That intercity and high-speed passenger rail is old technology that is not transformational …….. 22 5.7 That even though high-speed rail has enjoyed success in Europe and Japan, it’s a transportation technology that won’t work in the U.S ………………………………………………………………………………. 23 5.8 That proponents of passenger and high-speed rail have overstated the benefits ……………………. 23 6. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24 7. Reference ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 26

The Essay on Canada Railway People Rail Train

When in life you have something established and something that is dependent in you life, it is hard to survive when it is gone. In Canada the VIA rail line is just that, established and a tradition in Canada. To take something such as this away would in fact devastate many different people. In northern Canada where there are no real roads or other forms of transportation except for the train, it ...

1

1. Introduction

1.1 Definition High-speed rail has different definitions in different countries. According to the International Union of Railways, the European Union defines high-speed rail as lines specially built for speeds greater than or equal to 250 km/h/155 mph, or lines that are specially upgraded with speeds greater than 200 km/h or 124 mph. (International Union of Railways., 2012) United States defines high speed differently. Emerging rail has speeds of 90 to 110 mph; Regional rail has speeds of 110 to 150 mph; and Express rail has speeds of at least 150 mph. (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 2011) 1.2 Types of High Speed Rail There are major four types which are found through the literature studies. Dedicated: Japan’s Shinkansen is an example of dedicated service with separate high speed tracks that exclusively serve high-speed trains. The system was developed because the existing rail network was heavily congested with conventional passenger and freight trains and the track gauge did not support the new high-speed trains. Mixed high-speed: Exemplified by France’s TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse), this model includes both dedicated, high-speed tracks that serve only high-speed trains and upgraded, conventional tracks that serve both high-speed and conventional trains. Mixed conventional: Spain’s AVE (Alta Velocidad Española) has dedicated, high-speed, standard gauge tracks that serve both high-speed and conventional trains equipped with a gaugechanging system, and conventional, nonstandard gauge tracks that serve only conventional trains. Fully mixed: In this model, exemplified by Germany’s ICE (Inter-City Express), most of the tracks are compatible with all high-speed, conventional passenger and freight trains. (Campos, 2009) 1.3 Historical Timeline

The Essay on Midwest High Speed Rail

MIDWEST HIGH-SPEED RAIL Where would America be without the train The train and rail are as much a part of American heritage as the land itself. The train connected the east to the west. Trains ushered in the industrial revolution of the later 19 th century. Trains not only ushered in industry, but also commerce America into the next century. The high-speed rail proposed to the Midwest will bring ...

2

1. 23 October 1903 – Germany – 45 Miles Allgemeine Elektricitäts-Gesellschaft – 130.6 MPH (Experimental)

2. May 15 1933 – Germany – Berlin to Dresden Fliegender Hamburger – 100 MPH – Stopped in August 1939

3. 1939 – USA – Chicago-Milwaukee Amtrak – Hiawathas – 100 MPH – Last Steam powered High Speed Train

4. 1955 – France – CC5100 French National Railway– 151 MPH – Electric Power

5. 1957 – 1991 – Japan – Odakyu 3000 – Tokyo – 90 MPH – Narrow Gauge

6. 1959 – Japan – Shinkansen – Tokyo – 160 MPH – Narrow Gauge – 1483 Miles – Great Success

3

7. 1978 – France – TGV – Paris – 168 MPH – Narrow Gauge (357 MPH in 2007)

8. 2003 – China – China HST – Qinhuangdao – Shenyang Passenger Railway – 124 MPH

9. 2004 – South Korea – Korea Train Express – Seoul to Busan – 217 MPH

10. 2007 – Taiwan – THSR – 214 Mi – 186 MPH

11. 2009 – USA – Acela Express – Boston to New York and Washington DC – 148 MPH

12. 2011 – China – CRH 003 – 5193 Miles + 1372 Mi + 1428 Mi – 168 MPH – Longest in World

4

China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Spain have six of the most extensive high-speed rail systems in the world. The first trials to make high speed rails started as early as in 1903. The steam engines and the diesel engine high speed rails were tasted during the time frame of 1903 to 1950’s. The best effort to run the high speed rail was 1939’s Hiawathas in United States. The first practical high-speed rail line opened in Japan during 1964 Olympics. Europe’s first highspeed rail line opened in Italy between Rome and Florence in 1978. In Europe, each country’s national rail company operates high-speed rail service. These trains are also working cross country. For example, France’s TGV line also operates in Belgium. (David Peterman, 2009) The world’s first high-speed rail line – Shinkansen – built in 1964 between Tokyo and Osaka in Japan. This line was built in a corridor well suited to rail travel, and the train was built to expand capacity on an overcrowded route. Construction was financed with the financial loans from the World Bank and Japanese government. The success of this line encouraged expansion, and the Japanese government continued to build high-speed lines throughout the country. Partly as a result of large operating losses, Japan National Railways was privatized in 1987. Since 1987, extension of high-speed lines has continued, supported by the notion that infrastructure spending stimulates the economy. Some of the newer lines that end in smaller cities require Tokyo-bound commuters to transfer trains at least once. The current network is almost 1,500 miles of track with top speeds of 149–183 miles per hour, and more lines under construction. (Matsumoto, 2007) France built the world’s one of the really important mile stone in high-speed rail system. It is called as TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse) the first line opened in 1981, between Paris and Lyon. As of 2011, the French system had approximately 1,270 miles of high-speed rail line. As per to the French rail operating company its TGVs have taken over 90% of the combined air-rail travel market. France’s system has been expanded to Belgium, Germany, Italy and Switzerland. As of 2011, the French system is the longest in Europe at more than 1,250 miles and operates at top speeds around 200 miles per hour. (Endo, 2003) Spain has been spending huge money on rail than on roads since 2003. There is a huge investment coming in the high speed rail networks throughout the Spain. Some independent researchers say that the benefits of the Spain HSR are over estimated. The real benefits are not up to the cost of the project. (Peterman, 2011)

The Essay on High School and Star Spangled Banner

Banner, this will be quite the day! I'm so proud of you! " I state with pride. How many people have the opportunity to work with someone who is blind. My job is unique and I love it! Maycie has enhanced my life in so many ways and I have learned so much from her. Working with her has been one of my biggest life experiences. Today is a big day! Maycie will sing in front of her whole class and then ...

5

China is planning to develop the largest high-speed rail network in the world. China is already operating a huge network of about 8000 Miles. China is upgrading existing lines and building new dedicated high speed rail lines. Some upgraded lines will have speeds of 120 – 150 MPH – The highest speed is 186 MPH. China has plans to grow the network up to 11000 Miles within 2015. The only setback of the high speed rail lines in china that about 39 people were killed during 2011, as a huge populated country there is a possibilities to growing this number. There is a need to separate the high speed rail lines from the population. (Ghosal, 2012) 1.4 High Speed Rail in United States The United States has a long-running interest in high-speed rail (HSR).

The Essay on Conflict Regarding High Speed Trains

A major reason in favor of the construction of high-speed trains in America is to relieve airways and traffic congestion. First, delays at airports are costly. Larry Johnson, director of the Center for transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago, calculates that passengers lose more that twelve million hours each year in delays at O'Hare airport alone. In 1986, according to ...

A year after Japan introduced its now-famous Shinkansen HSR in 1964, the US Congress authorized $90 million under the High Speed Ground Transportation Act to develop and demonstrate HSR technologies. Europe and several countries in Asia followed Japan’s lead and introduced their own HSR trains in the 1980s. Europe now has more than five thousand miles of HSR lines, while Asia has more than six thousand. US has to an HSR project, Amtrak’s Northeast corridor Acela Express – a high-speed train running on rail tracks that restrict the train’s 150-miles-per-hour maximum speed to an average of about 84 miles per hour. In 1965, Congress passed the High Speed Ground Transportation Act, authorizing $90 million to develop and demonstrate HSR technologies as mentioned earlier. President Nixon signed the Passenger Rail Service Act in 1970, which created the National Rail Passenger Corporation (Amtrak).

Amtrak is a government owned corporation, which was created to preserve a nationwide network of passenger rail service. It also helped the private rail companies by allowing them to transfer their loss-making passenger rail services to Amtrak. But like the private rail companies before Amtrak and almost all intercity passenger rail operators in other countries, Amtrak continues to lose money on passenger rail service. This necessitates ongoing financial support from Congress—since its inception Amtrak has received a total of $36 billion in federal government subsidies, not counting contributions from states and cities. This makes Amtrak an ongoing source of controversy. Rail supporters urge more funding for rail while rail critics urge an end to federal support for passenger rail service.

6

The Essay on Higher Standards On Nys Regents

In the past few years, the New York State Board of Regents has upped the standards in all areas of academic study. While some of the standards are good for top notch students, other students who struggle, get the bitter end of the stick. This means that not all students are regents material, and may have a hard enough time trying just to pass. I am against the highering of the standards. Not all ...

The current Administration has aggressively advocated for HSR in the US. President Obama repeatedly raised the issue during his 2008 Presidential election campaign. After entering office, he was quick to set aside $8 billion for HSR in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) that was passed during the economic recession in 2009. This fund is quite low as the total investment in need is quite high as $500 billion. These steps are loud in promoting HSR but US has no clear on HSR development. Current efforts are very ad hoc at both the federal and state levels and lack clearly defined goals. A stable source of funding is needed for the multibillion dollar investment in HSR. (U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration, 2011) Section 1010 of the 1991 ISTEA Act set aside $5 million annually for elimination of hazards at railway-highway crossings at five high-speed railway corridors. The Act defined high-speed rail corridors as locations where trains could attain maximum speeds of 90 miles per hour, or greater. The first five HSR corridors were designated as a result of stipulations included in the Surface Transportation Efficiency Acts. (ISTEA, 1991) Later, in June 1998, six additional corridors were authorized under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) leading to the current eleven designated US HSR corridors.

7

Figure 1. High Speed Rail Corridors

One of the routes to which Amtrak devoted substantial resources was the northeast corridor (NEC), from Washington, DC to Boston. According to the Federal Railroad Administration, by 1997 Amtrak had spent up to $3.3 billion on improvements to the northeast corridor. In November 2000, Amtrak rolled out their Acela Express trains, with an inaugural trip from Washington, DC to Boston. The Acela train is the closet the US has to a functioning HSR.

8

1.5 North East Corridor Since the 2010 release of The Northeast Corridor Infrastructure Master Plan and A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak has continued to advance Northeast Corridor (NEC) program planning and stakeholder

outreach along the Corridor. The NEC is a cooperative venture between agencies. Amtrak Amtrak and owns various the state track

Figure 2. Northeast Corridor Source: AMTRAK – July 2012

between Washington and New Rochelle, New York, a northern suburb of New

York City. The segment from New Rochelle to New Haven is owned by the states of New York and Connecticut; Metro-North Railroad commuter trains operate there. Amtrak owns the tracks north of New Haven to the border between Rhode Island and Massachusetts. The final segment from the border north to Boston is owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The NEC, which closely parallels Interstate 95 for most of its length, is the busiest passenger rail line in the United States by both ridership and service frequency. Branches to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and Springfield, Massachusetts, though not considered part of the Northeast Corridor, see frequent service from routes that run largely on the corridor. Much of the line is built for speeds higher than the 79 mph generally permitted on U.S. tracks. This allows Amtrak to operate higher-speed rail service, such as the intercity Northeast Regional and Keystone Service trains that go up to 125 mph, as well as North America’s only high-speed train, the Acela Express, which runs up to 150 mph on several sections in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Acela covers the 225 miles between New York and Washington, D.C., in less than 3 hours, and the 229 miles between New York and Boston in less than 3.5 hours. Under Amtrak’s $151 billion Northeast Corridor plan, which aims to roughly halve travel times by 2040, these trips would take just 94 minutes.

9

2. Potential of NEC – HSR

The Northeast Mega region is characterized by a series of dense urban centers stretching from Boston to Washington, DC. At the geographic center of the mega-region, New York City is also the mega-region’s population and economic hub. New York leads the nation in both population and employment. Density near center city train stations is particularly high in the Northeast relative to other regions in the country. Seven north-eastern cities are among the top ten nationwide for population. Despite this generally favorable profile for intercity rail, the cities and metro regions in the Northeast, with the exception of greater Washington, DC, tend to have slower projected growth rates as compared to metro regions in the South and West, providing fewer opportunities for rail investments to shape future growth patterns in these already densely developed regions. Nonetheless, the Northeast Mega-region is projected to add 18 million additional people by 2050, creating the opportunity to attract a large number of new jobs and residents to places served by expanded high-speed rail and connecting regional rail services.

Figure 3. North East Corridor – Population density Source: High speed Rail in America: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy

10

The Northeast leads the nation in transit connectivity. The five largest cities in the Northeast mega-region account for 80 percent of the total rail transit ridership (subway and light rail) in the nation. These metro regions also top the list in people living near transit. In the 25-mile region around New York City, more than 7 million people live and more than 3 million people work within a ½ –1 mile radius of a rail transit station. Philadelphia, Boston, and Washington, DC have between 25 to 30 percent of their population and 20 to 35 percent of their employment near local transit systems. These cities also have among the highest commuter rail ridership in the country and the most population and jobs located within 2 miles of commuter rail stations. All of the major cities on the corridor have regular commuter rail service. These systems combine to carry more than 300 million passengers in 2009 or 75 percent of the nation’s total commuter rail volume. The current intercity rail service in the Northeast is the most developed and extensive in the nation. Ridership on the mainline Northeast Corridor was 9.9 million in 2009, accounting for more than one-third of Amtrak’s total national ridership. The Keystone, Empire, and New England branch lines carried 3 million additional annual riders, while connecting western Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and communities in New England to the mainline corridor. Unlike most of the national network on which Amtrak operates, the entire Northeast Corridor is under public ownership, the majority of which is owned by Amtrak itself. The major challenges facing the Northeast Corridor are capacity constraints and the need to bring the existing infrastructure to a state of good repair at a cost of $8.8 billion. Although ambitious trip time goals were set decades ago, inconsistent and inadequate funding has meant that the Metroliner and later Acela programs have never lived up to expectations. Today, Amtrak service on the corridor represents the only example of high-speed rail in the United States, achieving a top speed of 150 miles per hour. However, the average speeds between the major cities on the corridor fall well short of European and Asian counterparts.

11

Figure 4. Rail Network – North East Region Source : Amtrak Ridership data : 2009

Although Amtrak currently captures nearly two-thirds of the rail/air market starting and ending in New York and Washington, DC, airlines still carry more than 1 million annual passengers on this route, which includes interlined travellers connecting to their final destinations. New York is also the top domestic destination for flights of less than 600 miles from Toronto and Montréal, with 700,000 and 300,000 annual passengers respectively. Many of the nation’s most congested airports are located in the Northeast Mega-region. The three major airports in the New York metropolitan area have an average on time arrival performance of 68 percent, the worst of any major metropolitan area. Other airports in the Northeast are also among the nation’s worst performers, such as Philadelphia with 74 percent and Boston with 76 percent of air trips arriving on time. The Northeast Megaregion’s roads are also choked with congestion. Interstate-95, the

12

primary intercity route that parallels the Northeast Corridor, is one of the most consistently congested interstates in the nation. Fifty-seven percent of the highway between New York and Washington, DC operates at over 75 percent of the design capacity during the peak hour, causing major delays, especially in the major urban areas. This congestion is even higher on the northern half of the corridor with 69 percent of the highways operating at over 75 percent of the design capacity. (FHA, 2006) High-speed rail has several other advantages over automotive and plane travel. The following are claims made by HSR supporters found during literature review: (David Peterman, 2009) Environmental: HSR uses one-third the energy of air travel and one-fifth the energy of automobile travel. Further, HSR will help reduce the $700 billion-a-year oil purchase trade deficit. HSR will reduce global warming by decreasing U.S. oil consumption and emissions. It will also end wars for oil and reduce our dependence on costly military operations. Economic Development: Planning, designing and building HSR will create many green jobs. HSR may therefore spur economic development and the creation of some jobs, particularly around high-speed rail stations. HSR is reliable and operates in all weather conditions. It can spur the revitalization of cities by encouraging high-density mixed-use development around stations. HSR can link cities into integrated regions that function as a stronger economy. HSR routes can increase tourism and visitor spending.

13

Figure 5. Traffic Congestion and Air Traffic Flow Source: Federal Aviation Administration 2009

Safety: Each year, 43,000 people die in car accidents. Rail is a safer form of transportation than road, and building HSR service will increase safety. Mobility: High-speed rail will reduce congestion on highways and at airport runways by shifting travel patterns. This can provide extra mobility without costly new capital expenditures. Trains will travel on uncongested rails faster than cars and with fewer delays than airline travellers. High speed rail can deliver more passengers per hour than roads and runways at a lower cost. High speed rail stations are more likely to be multi-modal, offering connections to other travel modes. Reliability: HSR increases the reliability and redundancy of the transportation system. Many different types of events, including floods, snowstorms and hurricanes, can dramatically disrupt a transportation system. Building redundancy into any system entails added costs, but the

14

availability of alternatives tends to make the system as a whole more reliable during unusual events. Time Savings and Security Delays: HSR offers time savings since travellers arrive in the city centre instead of the periphery. Train travel does not have the rigid security of aviation. This reduces total trip time as travellers do not have to include extra time to go through security. Comfort and Convenience: Rail is a more comfortable and convenient way to travel than plane. Rail stations are located downtown, closer to the city centre than airports on the periphery. Trains feature more comfortable seats and more leg room. Productivity: High-speed rail allows people to work during their trips on laptops and cellphones. Meeting space is also available on many trains. With better reliability and more frequent service, overnight stays are often not required. High-speed rail also allows travellers to take trips at the last minute or make changes to their schedule without large penalties. More Compact Development: High-speed rail can create more transit-oriented development (TOD).

TOD creates compact, walk-able communities adjacent to train stations. High-speed rail combined with regional rail will increase TODs and help residents save time and money. During the literature review we also found certain counterparts which states that the above benefits are over calculated and thus we found certain arguments completely contrasting to the above statements, which are quite important to quote. Those counter arguments are as follows. (Feigenbaum, 2013) Environment: HSR creates more pollution than it prevents because building a HSR line is very energy-intensive. The California Air Resources board estimated there are many more costeffective ways to improve the environment than building HSR between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Economic Development: HSR does not create much new development; it merely redirects development from one area to another. Safety: While HSR is relatively safe, most potential rail passengers travel by an even safer mode—aviation. Thus HSR is unlikely to increase transportation safety.

15

Mobility: HSR is also unlikely to improve mobility since most of its potential passengers already travel by air. Moreover, aviation congestion will decrease significantly with the forthcoming implementation of the Next-Gen air traffic control system. Choice: There is some value in providing travellers a choice of mode. However, customers can already choose between a low-cost bus, a fast plane or a personalized car trip. Is another choice necessary? Spending an equivalent amount of funds on aviation or highways could do much more to solve America’s transportation problems.

3. Strategy of Amtrak

Since the integration of the Master plan and 2010 HSR vision reports, Amtrak has been working on ways to make improvements to the existing corridor and advance the implementation of a next-generation HSR network in the NEC. A key part of these efforts was to find ways to achieve meaningful near-term improvements in existing high speed NEC service. High speed Acela Express trains presently run hourly weekday service between Washington, D.C. and Boston, MA with an average speed of 84mph. By comparison, a minimum of 6 non-stop Shinkansen high-speed trains run hourly weekday service between Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan at an impressive average speed of 137mph. However, even with these speed and service limitation, Acela Express ridership has increased steadily in recent years with peak period trains often sold out. Over the past year, the Amtrak has begun to more clearly define the steps needed to advance the high speed rail line network as proposed in the report they released. The goal was to establish a stair-step phasing strategy that demonstrated how this large and complex system could be developed over the next 30 years. These phasing efforts also looked at ways to achieve meaningful incremental improvement to existing amenities, increased service frequency, train seating capacity and advance ticketing procedures. They expected that these combined effects would generate new ridership and revenues, like we said before, expose more of the public to the benefits of improved rail service, and provide near-term mobility and economic benefits to corridor residents and business. In turn, these benefits could help build the solid financial performance and public support necessary to generate the required levels of public and private inbestment to further NEC service.

16

4. Recent Developments

4.1 NEC Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission The NEC commission was established in September 2010, The NEC commission’s mission is to promote mutual cooperation and planning pertaining to the rail operations and related activities of the NEC, including the development of goals and recommendations for NEC service growth and improvement. 4.2 Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Program The Passenger Rail Corridor Investment Program will constitute a new look at the future of rail services and supporting improvement along the corridor and serve as a formal decisional process to align corridor users, stakeholders, and the public around what the NEC can and should become over the decade ahead.

5. Debate of High Speed Rail Project

This part is the summary of extensive criticisms and against voices that have been leveled over years not only to the Northeast Corridor but also on a national range that at the national efforts to improve intercity passenger rail and introduce true high-speed passenger rail in the United States. In this part, the criticisms have been categorized into basically eight groupings:         Charges of elitism, social engineering, and untruthful attacks; The unaffordability of high-speed rail; The lack of political and popular support for high-speed rail; The notion that rail corridors were being proposed and built to “nowhere;” Whether and why intercity and high-speed rail should receive a taxpayer subsidy; That intercity and high-speed passenger rail is old technology that is not transformational; That even though high-speed rail has enjoyed success in Europe and Japan, it’s a transportation technology that won’t work in the U.S.; That proponents of passenger and high-speed rail have overstated the benefits.

17

5.1 Charges of elitism and social engineering: Untruthful attacks In this point, the review of criticisms leveled at current national efforts to re-invigorate intercity passenger rail and develop high-speed passenger rail found several commenters who mimic one another in their assertions that high-speed rail is a conveyance of the elite and will have only limited consumer demand. Early in the April 2011, Steven Harrod, an assistant professor at the University of Dayton, writing for CNN.com, mentioned: “Much of the opposition to rail projects appears to stem not from economic arguments, but from fundamental cultural values on what ‘American’ transportation should be. A perusal of online commentaries about passenger rail stories reveals a curious linkage by writers between passenger rail and ‘European socialism.’ Never mind that the majority of European passenger rail operates on a commercial basis. Many critics of passenger rail emotionally identify it as an enabler of cultural values they fear.” A year ago, February 2, 2010, Michael Barone, suggested in the Washington Examiner “There is a central planners’ impulse in American liberals that loves rail travel: It allows credentialed elites to channel everyone else into a specific pathway. It’s fun to draw those lines on maps . . . It is an unfortunate fact that rail lines are hugely expensive and inherently incapable of adjusting to changing patterns of business and living.” In a similar vein, the economist Robert J. Samuelson (“High-Speed Pork,” Washington Post, November 1, 2010) stated that: “We are prisoners of economic geography. Suburbanization after World War II made most rail travel impractical. From 1950 to 2000, the share of the metropolitan population living in central cities fell from 56 percent to 32 percent . . . Only in places with great population densities, such as Europe and Asia, is high-speed rail potentially attractive.” There is no question that intercity passenger rail in the United States presently does serve the smallest share of riders among all modes of passenger transportation. In the Northeast Corridor, intercity trains enjoy a market share almost equal to the airlines, and nationally, ridership on Amtrak is at an all-time high. After years of being underfunded and competitively disadvantaged by other highly subsidized transportation modes, intercity passenger rail is making a comeback, much to the consternation of its critics.

18

Against the administration’s opinion that the high –speed rail is not only an initiation that offers the opportunity to rebuilt America’s passenger rail network in 13 corridors, as well as be sustainable and competitive with highway and air travel, but also could create more job opportunities in the design and construction processes and generate enough operating profit to subsidize others, some critics hold opposite opinions, for instance, On February 14, 2011 Samuelson, again in the Washington Post, argued that: “Somehow, it’s become fashionable to think that high-speed trains . . . will help ‘save the planet.’ They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause . . . . That there is something wildly irresponsible about the national government undermining states’ already poor long-term budget prospects by plying them with grants that provide short-term jobs.” In a Newsweek editorial on February 27, 2011, noted pundit George Will observed that: “Promotion of high-speed rail is an illumination of the progressive mind.” He supported his claim by quoting Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute: “A. High-speed rail connects big-city downtowns where only 7 percent of Americans work and 1 percent live, and B. High-speed rail will not displace enough cars to measurably reduce congestion.” George Will went on in the same editorial to proclaim: “According to the Washington Post, China’s fast trains are priced beyond ordinary workers’ budgets, and in France and likewise in Japan there is only one highspeed rail line that is profitable.” What’s worse, some of the critics considered the high-speed rail as the choice of only a small urban elite so it is not worthwhile to spend huge amount money on such a project that could only serve a small percent of people. 5.2 The unaffordability of high-speed rail The very first oppose action actually comes from government, In spring 2011, in line with Congressional consideration of the president’s 2012 budget proposal, “We can’t afford it” crowd launched a barrage of attacks against improved intercity and high-speed rail. As a further demonstration of the unaffordability of the passenger rail improvement and highspeed rail development initiative, some critics like to use Amtrak as target of their angst, warning that the end result of all this effort will be no better than what Amtrak presently provides. For

19

example, on 2011 Valentine’s Day, Robert Samuelson, the economist we mentioned earlier, wrote in the Washington Post: “The administration would pay states $53 billion to build rail networks that would then lose money … thereby aggravating the budget squeezes of the states or federal government … Worse, the rail proposal casts doubt on the administration’s commitment to reducing huge budget deficits … How can it subdue deficits if it keeps proposing big spending programs? … Secretary Ray LaHood has estimated the administration’s ultimate goal— bringing high-speed rail to 80 percent of the population—could cost $500 billion over 25 years.” In attacking Amtrak, two of Mr. Samuelson’s main complaints were that: (a) Amtrak has historically low ridership, and (b) it produces no profits. Compared with other countries especially China, critics said that really remarkable thing about the Chinese high-speed rail initiative is that it is being used as a tool to promote economic development across the nation, making it possible for people in one part of the country to get to another part more quickly, more economically, and more reliably than by building more roads or relying on an unreliable national airline. The Chinese government intends to promote a higher living standard for ordinary Chinese workers. To that extent, the Chinese high-speed rail initiative is quite visionary … looking ahead to serve the needs of a future generation. The other amazing feature of the Chinese experience is that they were able to design, build, and make operational 5,193 miles of high-speed rail in just five years. In the United States, it takes nearly that long just to complete the environmental impact study for even the most meager of infrastructure projects. ‘We can’t afford passenger rail improvements’’, just like Thomas Sowell who wrote in the February 23, 2011 Albany (New York) Herald: “Nothing more clearly illustrates the utter irresponsibility of President Obama than his advocacy of high- speed rail. Spending for highspeed rail when the national debt is exceeding the total value of our annual output is world- class chutzpa. It is spending that is speeding us toward bankruptcy … High-speed rail is simply another set of lofty words to justify continued expansion of government spending … just like investment in education—a code word for more government spending.”

20

5.3 The lack of political and popular support for high-speed rail Ron Utt of the Heritage Foundation penned a guest editorial in the April 12, 2011 Innovation Briefs describing the campaign launched by this coalition that included the Heritage Foundation, the Reason Foundation, the CATO Institute among others. In part Utt wrote: “The success of this effort illustrates how a small number of dedicated people with limited money but lots of energy and commitment can take on powerful forces and bring them to heel.” Realizing this situation, it’s no wonder that the bulk of criticisms leveled at the passenger rail improvement initiative are so repetitive, sweeping in their terms, vilifying in their content, but lacking in either their veracity or substance. Examples of such statements (parenthetical statements added for clarification) include: “. . . Mr. Obama spread the money among 13 corridors around the country. But there is a problem: to the extent that the November 2 election was a referendum on those plans, voters rejected them . . . This blunt refusal to heed the fresh mandate of Ohio and Wisconsin (and later Florida) voters seems hard to justify. (Other governors have asked the administration to send the money their way) . . . If that happens, the story may have a happy ending—of sorts . . . Mr. Obama should have concentrated rail money there (in the Northeast Corridor) in the first place, rather than trying to spread it to areas of the country that may not need it and, we now know, do not want it.” (Washington Post editorial, November 17, 2010, “Not All Aboard: Mr. Obama vs. the States on High-Speed Rail”) “In 2008, (California’s) voters approved a $9.95 billion bond issue to pay about a quarter of the total projected $43 billion cost of a statewide high-speed system. Events since then, however, suggest that this grand plan is still a bit half-baked.” (Washington Post editorial, January 12, 2011, “Hit the Brakes: The Questionable Rush to Build a High-Speed Rail System in California”) 5.4 The notion that rail corridors were being proposed and built to “nowhere;” A Service Development Program is considered to have operational independence if, upon being implemented, it will result in a minimal operating segment of new or substantially improved high-speed or intercity passenger rail service that demonstrates tangible and measurable benefits, even if no additional investments in the same service are made. To be more specific, take the California as an example. “Theoretically the high-speed train could get you from Los Angeles to San Francisco in two hours and 45 minutes— the time it currently

21

takes the Acela to get from Washington to New York. That would be nice—except then you’d have to get to wherever in the metro LA or Bay Area that you wanted to go, and the chances are it would be an hour or more drive from the train station. Only a small percentage of LA-bound travelers are headed to downtown LA and not that much higher a percentage of Bay area-bound travelers are headed to downtown San Francisco.” Said by Michael Barone in the Washington Examiner (“Is High-Speed Rail the Answer?”, February 2, 2010), which reveals that to the current state of both roadway and airway congestion in California, and the lack of options for building more highways and airspace to accommodate the current and expected demand for mobility and access in the Los Angeles/San Francisco corridor. 5.5 Whether and why intercity and high-speed rail should receive a taxpayer subsidy For some reason these critics believe that passenger rail improvement is an all-out assault on America’s decades-old love affair with highways and automobile. And now, with the nation facing serious national security issues revolving around foreign oil supplies, soaring energy costs, serious environmental concerns, and overly congested roadways and airways, America is in dire need to re-integrate and rebalance its transportation system. Intercity and high-speed passenger rail is critical to that highly integrated system. And talk about a drag on taxpayers, what could be worse than to continue the myth that the 18.6 cents per gallon gas tax is paying the full cost of building and maintaining the nation’s roadways. Is it any wonder that many taxpayers are frustrated or jaded over government-sponsored transportation initiatives? They are being grossly misled by critics who have no qualms about distorting the facts. 5.6 That intercity and high-speed passenger rail is old technology that is not transformational One of the odder criticisms of the current high-speed and intercity passenger rail improvement initiative is that it is old technology and there is nothing transformational about it. Randal O’Toole of the CATO Foundation (June 18, 2009) argues: “The FRA high-speed rail plan does not include parts of the nation like Dallas to Houston, Jacksonville to Orlando, or the Rocky Mountain West (although one can eventually expect requests from those areas to build what will then be outworn technology).” It is not at all clear why the author chose to single out these particular areas, unless it was to promote some sort of wedge issue. In the first instance, these

22

suggested corridors have not been designated by Congress as high-speed rail corridors as have the 12 (including the Northeast Corridor) in the president’s initiative. Secondly, none of the states in which these corridors might someday exist have requested funding under the president’s current high-speed rail initiative. It may well be true that if and when these states request support, it will be for conventional passenger rail service, or there may be a newer, more advanced technology than the high-speed rail technology with which we are becoming familiar today. 5.7 That even though high-speed rail has enjoyed success in Europe and Japan, it’s a transportation technology that won’t work in the U.S Against ‘A Due Diligence Report’, the critics argued that intercity passenger rail, and especially high-speed rail is too revolutionary, and will not work in the United States. Take for example this statement from “A Due Diligence Report”: “High-speed rail systems operate in a number of countries overseas. The state of California is proceeding with its HSR plan based on assumptions that are appropriate to European and Asian environments but generally hold little applicability in the state.” Another criticism of “A Due Diligence Report” is that considerable market differences exist with conditions in United States being far less favorable to the potentials success of high-speed rail system. The reasons might be attributed to the population densities in urban areas, size of central business districts, extent of connecting transit systems, distances between urban areas, and the degree to which a train-riding market existed prior to HSR service. Financially, it is not clear that the world’s HSR systems have typically covered their operating and capital costs without subsidies—a determination that would be appropriate in a due diligence process for commercial HSR proposals in any nation. This viewpoint was identified by Diana Furchtgott-Roth (“Cut, Don’t Promote, High-Speed Rail,” Washington Examiner, February 10, 2011) and Thomas Sowell 5.8 That proponents of passenger and high-speed rail have overstated the benefits Apart from the arguments that high-speed rail should be pursued on an evolutionary basis and the administration’s proposal is old technology and transformative, the criticism was proposed that the benefits of the high-speed and intercity passenger rail initiative are overstated.

23

In the ‘Due Diligence Report’ the authors and their colleagues regularly argue that the benefits of the intercity passenger and high-speed rail initiative are vastly overstated by passenger rail proponents because the authors misconstrued the constructive intentions of the “Mega-Projects” authors. In addition, the critics argued the benefits of the system includes that it would cost less to build up the high-speed systems than other ways to serve increasing population in California with less environmental problems and be more safe could not be achieved currently. Another charge: “In California, the overwhelming majority of HSR trips are likely to require a car at one or both ends to complete the trip in a reasonable time and with reasonable comfort.” (“A Due Diligence Report”) On a related front, “A Due Diligence Report” states: “CAHSRA’s ridership numbers are overoptimistic because almost no one will ever choose HSR over driving for shorter, commuter-like trips (under 100 miles).

At the same time, they claim that the low-speed Northeast Corridor is instructive for projecting what CAHSRA ridership might look like.” Continuing its attack on ridership estimates, “A Due Diligence Report” charges: “CAHSR will divert a total amount of highway traffic equivalent to only 175 lane-miles of capacity.“ “Based upon an examination of the market and the international experience with ridership projections, it appears that the CAHSRA 2030 ridership projections are absurdly high. It is likely that the HSR will fall far short of its revenue projections, leading to a need for substantial additional infusions of taxpayer subsidies.” Potential benefits cited are job creation, decreased traffic congestion, reduced dependence on oil, increased rural development, and a potentially rich new market for rail equipment makers. Proponents of high-speed rail have exaggerated its benefits. Much railroad equipment is imported. Transportation jobs can be created through expansion of highways, using private funding from tolls rather than taxpayer dollars. And additional high-speed rail is unlikely to ease traffic congestion, because traffic congestion occurs within cities, rather than outside them.

6. Conclusion

The United States is facing numerous challenges both foreign and domestic. Perhaps the most trying of these challenges is the unwillingness and/or inability to marshal the leadership and

24

innovative capabilities to address the faltering state of the nation’s infrastructure, especially its transportation infrastructure. The NEC is a vital component of today’s regional transportation network and the Amtrak have been doing to envision how the NEC can support the region’s growth and continued prosperity. In short, Amtrak believe that the NEC must be improved to accommodate more trains, operating at faster speeds with significantly reduced trip-times, and with improved service reliability in order to meet the long-term mobility and economic development needs of the region. If America is to once again have the world’s leading passenger transportation system and build a high-speed passenger rail network for the 21st century, it will be up to passenger rail advocates to seize the leadership, offer the vision, make the sacrifices to make it a reality, and respond aggressively to critics and their inaccuracies.

25

7. Reference

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (January 28, 2011).

CBO: Highway Account Faces Possible Insolvency Next Fiscal Year. Amtrak. (July 2012).

“The Amtrak Vision for the Northeast Corridor.” 34. Amtrak. (September 2010).

“A Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor.” Barone, M. (February 2, 2010).

Is high-speed rail the answer? . SF Examiner. Billings, Randy. (November 11, 2011).

Amtrak Downeaster rolls out electronic tickets, improved Wi-Fi. Sun Journal. Carroll, A. A., et al. (1995).

Safety of highway-railroad grade crossings: use of auxiliary external alerting devices to improve locomotive conspicuity. Chen, X. and M. Zhang (2010).

“High-speed rail project development processes in the United States and China.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2159(1): 9-17. Chen, Z. (2011).

“Is the Policy Window Open for High-Speed Rail in the United States: A Perspective from the Multiple Streams Model of Policymaking.” Transp. LJ. 38: 115. De Cerreño, A. L. (2008).

“The future of transportation in the northeast corridor, 2007–2025: Rail transportation.” Anticipating 2025 in Northeast Corridor Transportation.60. Editorials. (January 12, 2011).

“Hit the Brakes: The Questionable Rush to Build a High-Speed Rail System in California.” The Washington Post. Eurail high-speed trains. Http://www.eurail.com/trains-europe/high-speed-trains Federal Subsidies to Passenger Transportation. (June 13, 2009).

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Field, David. (December 22, 1998).

Amtrak chooses one of its own as president, CEO. USA Today. Ghosal, V. (2012).

“High-Speed Rail Markets, Infrastructure Investments and Manufacturing Capabilities.” Glaeser, E. L. (2009).

“How Big Are the Environmental Benefits of High-Speed Rail?” New York Times. 12.

26

Gourvish, T. (2010).

“The High Speed Rail Revolution: History and Prospects.” High Speed Two Ltd, United Kingdom. Gruber, John; Solomon, Brian. (2006).

The Milwaukee Road’s Hiawathas. Voyageur Press. ISBN 978-0-7603-2395-3. Harrod, S. (Aprial 21, 2011).

“Riled about rail: Why all the anger over high speed trains?” CNN. Herren, H. (1974).

The Distribution of Empty Wagons By Means of Computer. An Analytical Model of the Swiss Federal Railways. Hinds, K. (2013).

“Feds Posit Ambitious Plan for Northeast High Speed Rail.” WNYC. Http://www.raileurope.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1552 Jones, William H. (May 12, 1979).

Americans Rediscover The Train; Trains are rediscovered. Washington Post. (D8).

Loving, Jr., Rush. (March 2009).

Trains formula for fixing Amtrak. Trains. Luberoff, David. (Noember 1996).

Amtrak and the States. Governing Magazine. Nussbaum, P. (2012).

“Amtrak’s high-speed Northeast Corridor plan at $151 billion.” O’Toole, R. (2010).

“high-speed rail.” Downsizing the Federal Government. Orski, K. (November 17, 2010).

A rail reality check that President Obama should heed. Innovation NewsBriefs. 21. Peterman, D. R., et al. (2009).

High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States, DTIC Document. Roth, D. F. (February 10, 2011).

Cut, don’t promote, high-speed rail. Washington Examiner. Samuelson, R. J. (Febuary 14, 2011).

“High-speed rail is a fast track to government waste.” The Washington Post. Samuelson, R. J. (November 1, 2010).

Calif. rail project is high-speed pork. The Wsahington Post. Sowell, T. (February 23, 2011).

Reckless Spending. Albany (New York).

Szep, Jason. (June 12, 2008).

Q&A with Amtrak President Alex Kummant. Reuters. Todorovich, P., Daniel Schned, Robert Lane (2011).

“High Speed Rail: Internatiosnal Lessons for U.S. Policy Markers.” 64. U.S. Department of Transportation. (2013).

“National Transportation Statistics.” U.S. Department of Transportation. (April 2013).

“NEC Future: A Rail Investment Plan for the Northeast Corridor.” Utt, R. d. (April 11, 2011).

The Death of a High-Speed-Rail Program. Innovation Briefs.

27

Wald, Matthew L.; Don Phillips. (December 23, 2006).

Surprising Forecast for Amtrak: Growth. The New York Times. Wicker, Tom. (May 3, 1985).

In the Nation; Young David’s Tantrum. The New York Times. Will, G. F. (February 27 2011).

Will: Why Liberals Love Trains. Newsweek.

28