Follow this blog:
RSS

Bloomberg: High-speed rail adds ‘equivalent of 1,900 miles of interstate’

By | January 27, 2011, 12:35 PM PST

The staff of New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg published on Thursday the statement he plans to deliver during testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

In it, there are some compelling statistics and anecdotes for the support of high-speed rail. (For which, as you might expect, Bloomberg is in favor.)

Take for example, this one:

As Chairman [John] Mica noted, New York’s clogged airports are responsible for flight delays around the country. If we want to reduce those delays, and keep this engine of growth driving the American economy, we need to unclog the fuel lines.

And the best way is via a high-speed rail line. High-speed rail would add the equivalent of about 1,900 lane miles of interstate – except, of course, this would be an interstate with a speed limit of 220 mph.

In his testimony, Bloomberg argues that HSR – specifically in the Northeast — would be an economic boon and “generate travel and tourism, raise property values and cut pollution and dependence on foreign oil” — not to mention reduce congestion.

In fact, he estimates that HSR would “generate more than $7 billion in economic activity and create about 100,000 new jobs by 2040.”

Despite U.S. president Barack Obama’s declaration that 80 percent of Americans would be served by high-speed rail within 25 years, Bloomberg said not enough action has been taken, specifically with regard to public-private partnerships.

He said:

That’s certainly a laudable goal – but the money isn’t there for it yet. So we ought to start with what makes sense economically right now. And at the moment, we’re not doing that.

Funding for high-speed rail projects has been divided across 36 states, spreading our money so thinly that we run the risk of achieving nothing at all. In fact, the current Federal plan allots just over one percent of all high-speed rail spending for the Northeast. That simply doesn’t make sense.

More of his points:

  • “Today, [the U.S.] invests just over two percent of our GDP in infrastructure. Meanwhile, Europe invests at twice that rate and China at almost three times it.”
  • The Northeast region’s population is expected to grow by 40 percent by 2050.
  • “Acela is the only profitable line run by Amtrak and the Northeast is the only corridor where there’s demonstrated high demand for high-speed rail.”
  • “High-speed rail could cost over $100 billion and take a generation to build.”
  • The U.S. “needs to make smart investments in 21st century transportation,” and “high-speed rail in the Northeast corridor is the smartest possible investment for a track to the future.”
What do you think? Realistic assessment, or a partisan approach to funding?

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
10
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+1 Vote
+ -
Terrible example.
Make a quick visit to Amtraks web site and look at the Boston to NY City schedule. You will see a whopping 18-minute difference between scheduled Acela service and the standard train service.

That is what a billion dollars of high speed train got the US taxpayer.

What do we get for $100 billion? 1 hour on a cross country trip?
Posted by Hates Idiots
27th Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Bloomberg: High-speed rail adds 'equivalent of 1,900 miles of interstate'
Acela is 20 year old HSR technology. To do HSR right, requires mag-lev trains. The best model to accomplish an HSR corridor is a public-private partnership. In Japan, JAL - Japan Airlines runs the bullet trains in Japan.

I believe the NE would do well with an HSR corridor as would other regions of the country. For this to be a good investment for the taxpayer it needs to be done right. Amtrak is a waste of time, it is a subsidized government owned train service. Amtrak is more expensive than air travel and is 3-6 times slower to a destination dependent on distance.

HSR corridors must be linked into commuter and light rail within cities. the HSR lines should connect major corridors and operate destinations on an express model, ergo not too many stops. Let the commuter and light rail link into the major population centers and let the HSR lines cover medium to longer distances.

The aviation and freight rail industries should look into this as well. It would increase their profit margins and reduce fuel costs.

One final point, too many folks are dismissing this idea based on cost. This is why I say it cannot be a government only venture, it has to have buy in from some major private investment.
Posted by Energywolf
27th Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Bloomberg: High-speed rail adds 'equivalent of 1,900 miles of interstate'
High speed rail lines would be prime candidates for terrorists. One bomb (even a very small one) in the right place at the right time, and the system could be down for weeks or months, and many people could be killed. Security would be an expensive part of the whole system.
Posted by ted@...
28th Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Bloomberg: High-speed rail adds 'equivalent of 1,900 miles of interstate'
@ted
"RE: High speed rail lines would be prime candidates for terrorists" - Yeah, good point. Your theory makes such good sense... let's never do anything to better our country, way of living, and commuting because the terrorists might sabbotage it! BRILLIANT!
Posted by spek
28th Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Bloomberg: High-speed rail adds 'equivalent of 1,900 miles of interstate'
For many areas of the country HSR makes little economic or transportation sense due to its high construction & operating costs and slower service than existing alterntives (ie car or air). It may command enough ridership linking the major cities in the NE but at what cost? Beyond the high cost of land throughout the NE corridor the construction, operating, maintenance and security costs may make ticket prices unacceptable, unless of course it is government (read: taxpayer) subsidized. Several government OMB studies ( several in CA) have blasted HSR for economic reasons. And the terrorist concern is very real - not that we should not grow and advance because of terrorist fears, but from the additional costs of securing passengers at stations and every inch of rail line. It does not take much to de-rail a train traveling 220 mph, and as I recall Amtrak has a poor safety record on existing trains on the NYC - DC routes, traveling at much slower speeds. I am all for improvement and advancing infra-structure but it has to make economic sense without relying on endless taxpayer support.
Posted by HappiHenri
28th Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
Acela limitations
Acela, for much of its run, travels on the same rails as NE Corridor
freight trains. These freight trains beat up the track to the point
where the Acela must run at 1/2 of its maximum rated speed.

My assumption is that these new trains would run on a dedicated
line, perhaps not maglev, but at least not one that's being constantly
bent out of spec by heavy freight.
Posted by bradhansen@...
28th Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Terrorists and Bombs
Engineered plants detect bombs and environmental contaminants
"For wide spread monitoring, the color changes could be detected by a satellite."

http://www.smartplanet.com/technology/blog/science-scope/engineered-plants-can-detect-bombs-and-environmental-contaminants/6558/
Posted by spek
28th Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Bloomberg: High-speed rail adds 'equivalent of 1,900 miles of interstate'
If the Northeast wants a railroad, let them pay for it. For most of the US it has no appeal and therefore no incentive to send money to the Northeast. Make a realistic estimate of the fare required to fully support it and see how many passengers would want to ride it.
Posted by pauc1
28th Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
@energywolf..
Acela is capable of 150 mph. The train tech is not the problem.

The problem is they never upgraded the old express rails for dedicated high-speed service. So Acela runs at less than 40 mph for most of its trip on local rails shared with local commuter trains and cargo trains.

They also paid a premium for special leaning train cars to gain an extra 5 mph on curves they refused to straighten. So the trains cost an extra $300 million up front to gain just 5 mph on a few short miles of track.

For $300 million they could have bought out the needed landowners at more than fair market value and straightened out the tracks.

The trains would have cost less to buy without the leaning technology; the annual maintenance cost on the less complicated trains would have been substantially lower the trains would be running closer to their top speed for a greater portion of the trip.

Bottom line is for the same project costs they could have had lower operating costs and substantially faster service.

So the age of the technology is irrelevant in the case of Acela.
Posted by Hates Idiots
31st Jan 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Bloomberg: High-speed rail adds 'equivalent of 1,900 miles of interstate'
You might be interested in a view from Australia, which is the 6th largest country in the world but with only 3 persons per squ kilometre. Because the population in other asian countries is growing fast, there is a potential threat to our sovereignty if they start looking elsewhere for living space. To identify real sustainable population we are looking at moving out into the country, but we can only make that option viable with fast trains and broadband networks, to encourage diversification of corporate activity. The available payback time on railways is much longer than on roads and they are also potentially "green" because they can be solar powered or hybrid.
Posted by jimw@...
31st Jan 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!