January 29, 2010 11:46 am

High Speed Rail, Obama Screws Northeast

Obama had the right idea, the United States should be concerned that Europe and Asia have all figured out that moving people, goods and services, around cheaply and more conveniently is a good thing. He even said so in the state of the union address. But how is it that the Northeast corridor, the economic engine to all those federal programs gets 2% our of the huge massive $8 billion high speed rail plan? That would be a total of $200 million, of which Connecticut got $40 million. It is almost like Obama took a look at all those New England Democrats and said, I really wish you voted some more Republicans into office.

Overall, I’m pleased that California got �$2.35 billion. Building a high speed line between Los Angeles and San Francisco is a great start. California is vital to the success of the US economy. Likewise the $1.1 billion to Chicago in order to create the high speed St. Louis Chicago corridor.

But why is linking Tampa and Orlando worth 1.25 billion? Not enough people get to Disneyworld? Is there any economic output other than tourism and grapefruits coming from Florida these days?

The Northeast corridor between Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and Boston is the greatest economic corridor in the world. Yet every action and inaction of our government leaders has led to a transportation system that is as painful as possible. Look at the cars that commute to work in the corridor — single drivers in most of them. We have a sea of empty asphalt parking lots surrounding the slow speed train stations we do have and office parks located off highways that are perpetually congested.

Connecticut’s $40 million, is for new track between New Haven and Springfield. Congresscritter Rosa DeLauro hailed �it as “…this initiative will be building the infrastructure of the future. These funds have been a long time coming, and I look forward to their arrival and execution. These kinds of projects demonstrate the best realization of ARRA funds: we improve our infrastructure, create jobs, increase our connectivity and productivity, and literally strengthen our nation’s foundations.”

What about expressing some disappointment that the nothing was done for the productivity of the part of the state of Connecticut that actually generates all that productive tax revenue the rest of the state leaches off on? Why isn’t Jim Himes saying that he is disappointed that his district got nothing?

It’s easy to pick on the congresscritters, but let’s focus on where the real problem in the state of transportation within Connecticut is. Governor Rell has dropped the ball in restoring faith in the Coneecticut Department of Transportation. The legislature in Hartford has failed to address transportation infrastructure issue for years. Connecticut can’t compete with the Tampa-orlando corridor because there is absolutely no political leadership in this state that understands anything about how transportation impacts economic development.

Just take a look at Susan Bysiewicz’s latest report on the state of business–”Numbers released recently by my office show that slightly fewer Connecticut businesses shut their doors in 2009 than in 2008, while at the same time, the number of new businesses to start-up in Connecticut was 6.2% lower in 2009 compared to the year before.�The numbers were released as part of monthly totals of new business starts and stops compiled by the Secretary of the State’s office.�Though the numbers are far from ideal, they do show an economy that has rebounded slightly from the precarious position it was in one year ago.”

Actually no, the numbers show that Connecticut is still sucking wind and sucking at generating job growth. And the answer from Washington DC is clear — they don’t think we’d notice if they shovel cash for high speed rail everywhere else.

OLD TIMER

Who decides where the money goes ? Is each project reviewed at the federal level and money allocated there, or does an amount get allocated to the state and the projects getting funded are selec ted at the state level? Should we be blaming the president, or the governor ?

http://routefriend.com/ David Marcus

The states sent different proposals then the money was allocated at the federal level. If something wasn’t proposed, blame the governor. If it wasn’t accepted, blame the feds.

http://routefriend.com/ David Marcus

Of course, the challenge is that anything done in the Northeast gets very expensive very quickly. Everybody acknowledges that we would be the ideal market for high-speed rail but it would also require a mind-blowing amount of eminent domain acquisition and all the costs and court battles that entails. Even California’s expensive $45 billion line mostly follows existing rail lines. Connecticut’s lines are straight enough to support high-speed rail.

(Still, if we had a line operating at speeds like China’s new Wuhan-Guangzhou, NYC and Boston would be an hour apart. Can you imagine?)

Tampa-Orlando is a less-than-ideal route. It connects two cities only 90 minutes’ drive apart. It doesn’t connect to downtown Orlando. Both cities have big car cultures with weak public transport connections. Still, it’s cheap to build and can be finished by 2014, so at least America will have an example of what high-speed rail looks like in the near future. Hopefully it will spur some infrastructure jealousy!

Chris Donahue

The larger problem with the Northeast, is the proximity of structures tot eh rail line. A high speed “bullet” train like they have in China would not be able to go full speed through long stretches of track as they are too close to homes and businesses. Ride Metro-North into NYC and see how close some buildings are. It would be unsafe to run a train that fast through that portion of the corridor.

turfgrrl

Chris Donahue: Just because we have decades of bad policy decisions with rail doesn’t mean we have to keep making them. In the 1960s, the federal government made a decision to build interstate highways that cleared right of way passages through the populated Northeast. We would admittedly have to do the same. And the basis for prioritizing the implementation in the Northeast is economic reality. There Northeast corridor, along with the Californian LA-SF corridor are the economic engines of the US. Investment then should be on whatever it will take to increase the economic output of these areas, and not subsidize areas where the return on investment will never be realized.
In the micro, this is the problem Hartford legislators face. They continually spend money in other parts of the state and let the economic engine of Fairfield County stagnate. Well now the revenues for the state overall are down. Huge problems abound.

Barry Amabo

While moving around people at a lower cost is a laudable goal, I haven’t really heard a public outcry to have a high speed train from New Haven-Hartford-Springfield. On top of that, there is not one train line operating in the U.S. that makes a profit and building them will become a permanent expense on the U.S. taxpayer. Not to mention that the federal funds don’t cover the actual costs to complete these projects and the additional monies would have to be collected from the states that are already cashed strapped. I don’t understand the creation of more federal/state programs when we are running budget deficits especially one projects that will not convert to any future profit.

turfgrrl

Barry Amabo: Yet it is also true that taxpayer money has been used to subsidize roads. Is there any road system that is profitable? The reality is that traffic congestion impends economic growth. We’ve been making a huge investment in roads, at the expense of freight and mass transit options. In today’s global economy, we are backwater country.

Barry Amabo

turfgrrl: The, to use the term thrown about by the current administration, “investment” in roadways has an impact on a vastly larger amount of people than any railway could ever hope to capture. Roadways are also much more valuable for even if we expand the freight railway system, it is the road system that delivers the goods to where consumers can purchase them. Roadways also offer something that this administration doesn’t seem to enjoy the concept of, which is freedom to move about as we choose. If you think taking tourist class flights are like being loaded into a cattle car, then wait until they force people to take trains. Also roadways are supported by taxes that are placed on the people that use them, usually in the form of gas taxes. While they don’t post a profit, they do help to offset larger taxes on people who don’t use our roadways. The global economy would then seem to need more plains and tractor trailers, than railway systems.

turfgrrl

Barry Amabo: You must not travel outside of the area because in reality the rail systems that move people faster, more conveniently and more cheaply result in roads that are used less and in fact increases the mobility and productivity of people since they are not stuck in cars on grid locked roads unable to do anything else.

As for gas taxes being used to support roadways, the reality is quite the opposite. The Connecticut gas tax for example does not go to roads, it goes to the general fund which means it gets used on whatever legislators deem a priority. This holds true for most of the states, and is in itself a problem. Toll roads are the best form of maintaining use and funding for that use on a more even par basis.

High Speed

Barry Amabo and turfgrrl,

“On top of that, there is not one train line operating in the U.S. that makes a profit and building them will become a permanent expense on the U.S. taxpayer”

Amtrak loses money on all of its lines but one — the Northeast Corridor. Maybe that’s the reason why the NEC got the least amount?