Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Secretary Ray LaHood exchange a handshake during yesterday's press event at Los Angeles Union Station. Photo: LA Streetsblog/Flickr

Delivering a “message from President Obama,” LaHood set the tone for a defense of the president’s vision for High Speeed Rail. “”High speed rail is coming to California,” Lahood began. “We will not be dissuaded by the naysayers or those that think that high speed rail is not the next generation of transportation.”

Later, noting that the President’s vision was larger than just a rail plan for California, LaHood talked of the California project as a model for the nation.  ”We believe the high speed rail corridor in California will be the role model for high speed rail in the country.”  Other rail projects won’t capture the country’s imagination as the California project.  For example, the proposed rail project in Illinois would increase rail speed from seventy to one hundred ten miles per hour.  California High Speed Rail will run at speeds up to 200 miles per hour.

Responding to complaints from Steve Gregory, a reporter from the conservative news talk radio station KFI, about the costs and ridership projections, Villaraigosa took the microphone to offer his own defense.  After noting that projections for Los Angeles’ subway and Bus Rapid Transit systems are both well above projections, he pointed both to local benefits of a statewide transit network and to the investments America has historically made in transportation over the decades.

“High Speed Rail in California is the natural extension of the 21st Century transportation system we’re building here.  For me, this is an easy one.  We need to get on this train.  We need to stand for the proposition that California needs to lead the way,” Villaraigosa opened.  ”Imagine if they had asked President Eisenhower to cost out the federal highway system in 2012 dollars.”

The Mayor’s verbal gambit to defend the $100 billion price tag for construction of the high speed rail line was seized on by Dan Richard, the executive director of the High Speed Rail Authority.  A recent report by the authority noted that the original $42 billion estimate for a project between Sacramento and San Diego was low.  Instead, a $100 billion estimate for a route between San Francisco and Los Angeles was more likely.  Richard noted that one third of the price increase was because current projections take into account inflation that is expected over the next thirty years of construction.

Despite the high cost projections for construction, Richard notes that the line will pay for itself during operations.

“All of our analysis shows that ridership will be strong.  Every high speed rail project in the world more than pays for its own operations,” Richard said in response to a question from a television news reporter.  ”Even under the most pessimistic projections, we bring in more money than it takes to run the system….none of us wants to launch a system that doesn’t have riders.”

If the goal of the press event was to change the debate on High Speed Rail from complaints about cost and management to a discussion of the benefits the line will bring, yesterday was a mixed bag.  While the press conference was featured on most nightly news telecasts, only one print publication, La Opinion covered the event.

On the way home from the press conference, I listened to Gregory’s coverage on the wildly popular “John and Ken Show.”  While Gregory stuck to playing unedited audio clips of the event, the shows hosts interrupted to lambaste the project as “the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars I’ve ever seen” and the Secretary as “a buffoon.”  At the end of the day, rail supporters were probably heartened by the show of political strength for the project, but the skeptics remained just as skeptical as ever.

The New York Times yesterday published a series of six opinion pieces debating the merits of the $90 billion High-Speed Rail plan that would connect Los Angeles to San Francisco. Attacks have intensified on the “bullet train” rail project in recent weeks, focused mainly on the projects gigantic $90 billion budget and a recent audit that called funding for the project “shaky.”  Meanwhile, Governor Jerry Brown has stood firm with his support for the project, there is some momentum to provide voters with a chance to repeal the bonding plan to support the project passed on a statewide ballot initiative in 2008.

Against this backdrop, it’s no surprise that four of the six writers at the Times’ website are questioning the value of the project. Streetsblog provides a summary of the six pieces after the jump, but for the full pieces visit “Room for Debate: Does California Need High Speed Rail.”

California Needs a Rail Project, but Not This One - Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design

Alexis makes the case that it’s not High Speed Rail that’s bad, but the current project and current Construction Authority.  Her closing paragraph pretty much describes the entire piece, “The real challenge is not finances or engineering or cranky neighbors. It is finding the political will to step back and figure out how to make sure public projects are designed for public benefit, not private.”

Dollars for Roads or Dollars for Rail - Emily Rusch, state director for CALPIRG.

CALPIRG has been leading the charge for High Speed Rail since before the bonding proposal passed in 2008.  Rusch swings for the fences, and hits the ball hard.  Her argument, that providing similar transportation capacity for roads or air travel would cost more than High Speed Rail.  In short, the fiscal numbers may be daunting, but not compared to the cost of building the same amount of infrastructure for other modes.

The Right Idea in the Wrong Place – Rick Geddes, associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University, a research associate at the Mineta Transportation Institute, and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Geddes argues that High Speed Rail is a lofty goal, but that it makes more sense in the Northeast Corridor (from Boston to Washington, D.C.) than it does in California.  Because there is already a rail demand for fast trains in the Northeast, and because land use and transportation plans have created better access to Downtown rail stations; High Speed Rail should be tried 3,000 miles from where it’s currently planned.

One Part of a Larger Plan - Shannon Tracey, Northern California field organizer for the Transportation for America coalition

“Does California need High Speed Rail?”  Noting California’s ambitious greenhouse gas plans and directionless statewide transportation planning, Tracey makes the case that California needs the rail line no matter the cost.  After all, there’s more ways to evaluate a project than just dollars and sense, and there are a lot of benefits to High Speed Rail.

We Need Rail Less Than We Used To – Bill Davidow, author of “Overconnected: The Promise and Threat of the Internet.”

Davidow argues that the ability to transfer information over the Internet makes high speed travel less needed than in generations past.  Basically, Davidow’s argument is that people will use infrastructure such as this rail project when they want a more complete experience, but that business and other “need” travel will be reduced, impacting ridership forecasts.

A Waste of Money for Years to Come –  Richard White, Margaret Byrne Professor of American History at Stanford University, and author of “Railroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern America.”

The title leaves little to the imagination.  Because most of the traffic on California’s freeways are of a more local nature, High Speed Rail won’t address the most congested areas despite its large price tag.

Next Thursday the California High Speed Rail Authority is holding its monthly meeting in the Board Room at the Metro Headquarters Building adjacent to Union Station beginning at 10 a.m. The agenda is now posted online.

March of last year is when the Authority last met in Los Angeles. In the interim there has been a lot of strum and drang by critics yet the project continues plowing forward, most recently releasing a revised/more realistic 2012 draft Business Plan for comment.

Meeting items include “the outcome of the conceptual study of the Grapevine alternative” (#4) and an “update [to] the Board on Station Area Planning Funding Agreements and coordination activities with cities along the Central Valley initial construction segment and future initial operating segment” (#6). Those should result in some interesting Board discussions.

A useful overview of the status of the project was presented at this month’s meeting of the Board of the San Bernardino Associated Governments (item #17, pp.199-219). This includes analysis of the new Business Plan draft prepared by the Legislative Analyst’s Office and state Senate staff.

BTW, since I publicly worried who would succeed Alex Clifford as Metro’s high speed rail point person I’ll take this opportunity to note late March of last year Don Sepulveda was hired as Metro’s Executive Officer for Regional Rail. I’ve been impressed by his grasp of the issues on his plate as exemplified by the presentation he made in November to the annual meeting of the Train Riders’ Association of California.

Click on the report go visit the CAHSR website.

I am well aware a lot of folks are having serious sticker shock about this project. But the improved business plan seems to be attacked for merely doing what critics have long asked for — provide realistic estimates of costs, ridership and the likely timing of private investment. Plus many cities are reeling from the technology’s attributes resulting in many towns being impacted without the benefit of having a station.

All that said, I am not big on second guessing the authority unlike many other rail activists. Having the first segment in the Central Valley seems a reasonable approach, especially since it is a condition of the federal funding they have been awarded. And after many convulsions this latest news of a preferred route seems to auger the project getting back on track with support from those to be most effected.

I am not unaware this is just one step in a lengthy process. And that there are many more obstacles ahead. But I think those predicting loudly of late the bullet train is on life support are being premature.

The students from yesterday's CALPIRG event also love a fast train. Photo: Anne Ohliger/CALPIRG

Back then, most people thought of California High Speed Rail as the future of transportation for the state.  High Speed rail was imagined as fast quiet trains zooming through the country-side connecting the major cities and other attractions.  Over the last three years, High Speed Rail has taken a beating in the public, with accusations of incompetence and corruption hurled at the project’s Board of Directors.  Nationally, the idea of fast moving trains has become a political hot potatoe because President Obama likes the idea which means that Republicans have to hate it.

For example, these are two headlines that didn’t make the morning headlines roundup: With Little Hope for Near-Term Federal Support, California High Speed Rail Struggles, and Congress Is Broken and CHSR Pays the Price.

But yesterday at Union Station, on the same day that U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer announced a “mark-up” of legislation to renew the federal transportation funding package, a group of CALPIRG’s students rallied to remind voters, and the Senator, that High Speed Rail is a winning proposition for California regardless of what’s going on with the politicians and appointed members of the state CAHSR Board.

“As students, we know that our broken, outdated, and oil dependent transportation system needs to change,” said Josh Joiner, CALPIRG Students Campaign Leader.  ”With California’s population expected to hit 50 million by 2035, we can’t afford to just keep building more congested highways and airport runways that will cost us more money and keep us stuck in traffic, stuck on security lines at the airport, and ever more dependent on oil. Our transportation system alone consumes more oil than any country in the world besides China.”

Last week, the Senate voted against President Obama’s Jobs Bill, which contained $4 billion in funding for increased U.S. high speed rail capacity.  Part of today’s rally was to push for his provision’s inclusion  in follow up legislation to be considered by Congress in the coming weeks.

Students members of CALPIRG also asked passerbyers to snap a picture of themself holding an “I love trains” sign to Senators Boxer and Feinstein to show their support for High Speed Rail.  The good news is that both Senators have expressed support for High Speed Rail, and other forms of rail travel, in the past with Boxer releasing a press release every time USDOT gives more funds to the California project.

This map was created in 2009. It's sad that there are less lines being discussed now instead of more. Image;Green Options

One of the three complaints I hear most often about L.A. Streetsblog’s coverage is that we “don’t cover High Speed Rail” enough. Truth be told, there’s so many issues and projects happening locally that I haven’t had time to really dive into the issue, look at all the complexities impacting California’s project, and have anything really new to say outside of what is in the newspapers, radio, etc…

However, I’ve been enjoying a series on Infrastructurist about High Speed Rail that’s featuring printed works before and against High Speed Rail from different parts of the country and world.  If you’re not interested in what Zev has to say, and are interested in High Speed Rail, check out their compilations.

There are four parts to the series:

• Part 1: Megan McArdle v Europe
• Part 2: Richard White in the New York Times v at Steven Harrod CNN
• Part 3:  Zhao Jian at USA Today v Michael Scott Moore at Miller-McCune 
• Part 4: Philip Longman at Washington Monthly v The Economist’s Gulliver Blog

Amtrak's overhead wires will get an overhaul on the Northeast Corridor, thanks to federal funding just announced by the USDOT. Photo: NAMTI

House Transportation Committee Chair John Mica (R-FL) will be happy to see that the biggest winner is the Northeast Corridor, which he considers to be the country’s best chance for successful high-speed rail. (He’s not the only one that thinks so, either.) The NEC is getting $795 million to increase speeds from 135 to 160 mph on critical segments, with more than half of that going to Amtrak to upgrade the signaling, tracks, and overhead wires to allow trains to run faster.

It’s a good test for Amtrak, which has been criticized by top political leaders recently as a “Soviet-style” rail service that isn’t competent to run an efficient, 21st century system. “It will show whether they’re capable of pulling off the next-gen vision proposal that they’ve put forward, which we’re very excited about, but it’s an extremely ambitious project,” said Petra Todorovich of America 2050. “We’ll be watching.”

Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island also get help with their sections of the Northeast Corridor. Todorovich says the grant to the NEC is “overdue” and she’s pleased with the recognition that the greatest need for rail improvement is concentrated in this corridor.

Detroit gets some good news with the announcement of a $404 million grant for 110-mph service to Chicago. For a depressed city like Detroit, connectivity to the region’s biggest economy can only be a good thing.

The “Buy American” lobby has reason to be happy, too, given the $336 million investment in U.S. manufacturing of locomotives and rail cars for California and the Midwest. And California got another $300 million to extend the current 110-mile segment another 20 miles through the Central Valley.

“These projects will put thousands of Americans to work, save hundreds of thousands of hours for American travelers every year, and boost U.S. manufacturing by investing hundreds of millions of dollars in next-generation, American-made locomotives and rail cars,” Vice President Joseph Biden said in a statement.

USDOT received nearly 100 applications for Florida’s rail money, affirming the groundswell of support and desire among states to expand rail alternatives throughout the country, despite some high-profile rejections by Republican governors.

Many people criticized the administration’s initial high-speed rail map for spreading too little money too thinly around the country. The focus on the Northeast Corridor and California, the powerhouses of rail potential, will go a long way toward addressing those concerns. Some may question the utility of the investment in Detroit, but the Chicago-Detroit corridor got high marks in America 2050’s report on rail potential [PDF] earlier this year. It’s the number two regional air market in the Midwest, showing a strong demand for travel between the two cities. And nearly 12 million people live within 25 miles of the major nodes of the corridor, many of them with good access to public transit, which strengthens the usefulness of intercity rail.

Still, even some high-speed rail supporters are skeptical. “This allocation is another defeat for a true high-speed rail approach and a victory for incrementalism,” said Scott Thomasson, economic and domestic policy director for the Progressive Policy Institute. “The funding for it so thin that we can’t build that critical first line to show it can work in the U.S.”

Indeed, there is still some money in this announcement sprinkled lightly throughout the country. Minnesota gets $5 million for groundwork to establish high-speed service between Minneapolis and Duluth. North Carolina’s getting $4 million for an environmental analysis on the Richmond to Raleigh section of its planned high-speed corridor. Eugene, Oregon gets $1.5 million to analyze overnight parking tracks for their trains.

Overall, transportation reformers are greeting USDOT’s announcement warmly. “This is good news that Americans can feel proud of,” said U.S. PIRG’s Phineas Baxandall in a statement. “These projects will take us away from dependence on $4 gas. Investing in these routes will mean more efficient and convenient travel, fewer people stuck in airports, and fewer dollars wasted widening highways and adding runways.”

House Appropriations Chair Hal Rogers (R-KY). Image: Mindfully

The House Appropriations Committee has released details [PDF] on the budget agreement between the two houses, including more information on the agreed-to $38.5 billion in cuts. Where we’d heard before that high-speed rail was getting a $1.5 billion haircut, down to the $1 billion for 2011 that President Obama had originally requested, it turns out now that that last billion dollars is being cut too. And to add insult to injury, they’re also zeroing out $400 million of rejected Florida rail funds (technically cutting funding from 2010), bringing the grand total of HSR cuts to $2.9 billion.

This is a big blow to one of the president’s signature projects, with which he was planning on “winning the future.” It further clouds the outlook for his $53 billion proposal for high-speed rail over the next six years, starting in 2012. These budget cuts, of course, are for FY2011, before the $53 billion was to start, but please believe the Republicans aren’t looking for a massive increase in rail money for next year either.

TIGER, which had appeared to be safe, is getting $72 million cut from its $600 million budget, and the Appropriations Committee eliminated all funding for “planning, preparation or design” of projects eligible for TIGER funding. For now, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities appears to be safe.

Meanwhile, New Starts transit funding, already slated for $280 million in cuts, is now getting $502 million cut from its $2 billion budget, with another $128 million coming out of Amtrak grants for capital improvements and debt service. They’ve also cut $3.1 billion in highway contract authority that had not been obligated, as opposed to the $2.5 billion cut announced Friday night.

U.S. PIRG developed the video with FunnyOrDie.com, where people can basically post anything they think is funny and viewers vote on whether or not it’s funny enough. The high-speed rail video is “a way to reach new audiences and build excitement for high-speed rail projects around the country,” according to Phineas Baxandall at U.S. PIRG.

Meanwhile, the Regional Plan Association yesterday released a less funny but still worthwhile video called “Why Build High-Speed Rail in the Northeast,” making the argument that projected population growth makes rail investment an imperative.

Vincent Kartheiser, who plays Pete Campbell on the hit series “Mad Men”, and Rich Sommer, who plays Harry Crane, have teamed up with U.S. PIRG to make a video about high-speed rail. In it, Campbell suggests an ad campaign for trains, which Crane finds ridiculous — trains make so much sense; why would you need to sell them?

Why Build High-Speed Rail in the Northeast? from Regional Plan Association on Vimeo.

As Damien has noted the California High Speed Rail Autjority is coming to L.A. this week, specifically to the Metro Board Room (3rd floor of the Taj Mahal, as some of us like to call the Metro Headquarters Building). Wednesday afternoon its Executive/Administrative Committee is meeting at 1 p.m., followed by the Finance Committee at 2 p.m. and the Operations Committee at 3:30 p.m.

Then on Thursday starting at 9 a.m. the Board is meeting; its agenda and the various reports being presented are available online.

Besides the alignment updates being presented the meeting is significant for Southern California because it will be the first since Alex Clifford left his role as Metro’s high speed rail liaison. It was in 2009 that Metro CEO Art Leahy appointed Alex Clifford (then General Manager of Metro’s Gateway Cities Service Sector) to be Executive Officer (EO), High Speed Rail for the agency. In that capacity Clifford provided executive direction to project management staff and consultants to facilitate the implementation of High Speed Rail (HSR) projects, including planning and implementing the Los Angeles to Anaheim, Los Angeles to Palmdale and Los Angeles to San Diego HSR corridors. The position also had responsibility for representing Metro for the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN), Amtrak and Metrolink service corridors (Per agenda item #24 heard at the Metro Board Sept. 24, 2009 meeting).

Clifford was an ideal choice for the position due to his unique qualifications. He spent eight years serving on the Riverside City Council (1991-2000) and in that capacity represented the City of Riverside on the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and was elected chairman for two consecutive years. He also represented the City of Riverside on the Riverside Transit Agency for eight years. Clifford also was appointed by the RCTC to represent Riverside County on the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA/Metrolink) and served as chairman for two consecutive years. His other transportation experience included the Intercity Rail Joint Powers Authority, the RCTC/SANBAG California High Speed Rail Subcommittee and the California/Nevada Super Speed Train Commission (Per a Metro press release announcing Clifford’s appointment to being General Manager of the Gateway Service Sector). A balance of technical knowledge and political savvy helped Clifford calm the waters when various local jurisdictions started to rebel at the potential magnitude of the impact of constructing the high speed line.

So where did Clifford go? To be the new head of Chicago’s Metra System (their equivalent of Metrolink, albeit serving nearly 8 times the ridership — 42,000 for Metrolink versus 307,000 for Metra). The Chicago Tribune describes him as quickly taking action to begin shaking up the agency by posting a message on Metra’s website promising reform and soliciting input from riders with a survey.

Clifford’s task is to pick up the pieces in the wake of a scandal in which longtime Executive Director Phil Pagano was caught engaged in financial improprieties and last May committed suicide by walking in front of one of his own agency’s trains.

Obviously Clifford has a lot on his plate at his new job.

And where does that leave Metro in dealing with bullet train issues? I have to think it will be difficult to find someone with the skill set and background Clifford brought to the task. And I’ve heard no hint how far the search has progressed for Clifford’s successor.

I believe High Speed Rail is a federal boondoggle, as I said more than a week ago. This morning I communicated to Secretary LaHood that as long as Florida remains on the hook for cost overruns, operating costs and paybacks in the case of default, I will vigorously oppose this project.

Since that time, Secretary LaHood has extended his own deadline for coming up with a way to alleviate Florida’s risk on High Speed Rail. While I appreciate his continued efforts to keep the project alive in Florida, it is important to note that I have yet to see any proposal that accomplishes my goal of eliminating risk to Florida’s taxpayers.

From earlier this afternoon:

Will Rick Scott reconsider his decision to forego high-speed rail in Florida? Photo: Orlando Sentinel

Florida Gov. Rick Scott has asked the Department of Transportation for additional time to reconsider his decision to return $2.4 billion in federal funding for high-speed rail in the state.

Scott was given an extension last week by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, while the two parties worked on ways to minimize the risk involved for the state of Florida. The governor had been given one week to reconsider his decision, one that was criticized by fellow Florida Republican John Mica, chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

According to reports from a local newspaper, state transportation officials have floated the idea of making Amtrak or a private company responsible for any potential cost over-runs, one of the concerns cited by Gov. Scott in his refusal last week.

LaHood made the following statement this afternoon on the situation:

“This morning I met with Governor Rick Scott to discuss the high speed rail project that will create jobs and economic development for the entire state of Florida. He asked me for additional information about the state’s role in this project, the responsibilities of the Florida Department of Transportation, as well as how the state would be protected from liability. I have decided to give Governor Scott additional time to review the agreement crafted by local officials from Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, and to consult with his staff at the state Department of Transportation. He has committed to making a final decision by the end of next week. I feel we owe it to the people of Florida, who have been working to bring high speed rail to their state for the last 20 years, to go the extra mile.”

Rep. Mica released a statement expressing his support for the continued talks:

“I am pleased an agreement has been reached between Governor Scott and Secretary LaHood to extend the timeframe for consideration of additional alternatives for the Florida rail project. I hope a sub-grantee arrangement can be structured that will salvage part or all of the project in a viable way that will protect Florida taxpayers from financial risk.”

In a previous statement, LaHood had said Florida’s money would be transferred to other states. The high-speed rail line would have connected Tampa at Orlando and would be the nation’s first, true high-speed rail line.

Will Rick Scott reconsider his decision to forego high-speed rail in Florida? Photo: Orlando Sentinel

Scott was given an extension last week by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, while the two parties worked on ways to minimize the risk involved for the state of Florida. The governor had been given one week to reconsider his decision, one that was criticized by fellow Florida Republican John Mica, chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

According to reports from a local newspaper, state transportation officials have floated the idea of making Amtrak or a private company responsible for any potential cost over-runs, one of the concerns cited by Gov. Scott in his refusal last week.

LaHood made the following statement this afternoon on the situation:

“This morning I met with Governor Rick Scott to discuss the high speed rail project that will create jobs and economic development for the entire state of Florida. He asked me for additional information about the state’s role in this project, the responsibilities of the Florida Department of Transportation, as well as how the state would be protected from liability. I have decided to give Governor Scott additional time to review the agreement crafted by local officials from Orlando, Tampa, Lakeland and Miami, and to consult with his staff at the state Department of Transportation. He has committed to making a final decision by the end of next week. I feel we owe it to the people of Florida, who have been working to bring high speed rail to their state for the last 20 years, to go the extra mile.”

Rep. Mica released a statement expressing his support for the continued talks:

“I am pleased an agreement has been reached between Governor Scott and Secretary LaHood to extend the timeframe for consideration of additional alternatives for the Florida rail project. I hope a sub-grantee arrangement can be structured that will salvage part or all of the project in a viable way that will protect Florida taxpayers from financial risk.”

In a previous statement, LaHood had said Florida’s money would be transferred to other states. The high-speed rail line would have connected Tampa at Orlando and would be the nation’s first, true high-speed rail line.

Florida Gov. Rick Scott is expected to kill high-speed rail, again. Photo: Tampa Bay Online#

Take Chris Christie of New Jersey. How many times did he say no to the ARC Tunnel before it was finally over? And now Rick Scott of Florida has killed the Florida high-speed rail project deader than dead.

He announced a week ago that he was rejecting $2.4 billion in federal stimulus money for a high-speed line to run from Orlando to Tampa. Everyone from DOT Secretary Ray LaHood to Rep. John Mica to Sen. Bill Nelson and countless Floridians have tried to change his mind. They tried to allay his fears about the state’s financial exposure. They promised that private investors would take over the risk and local governments would manage the project. Mica proposed scaling back to a 21-mile line from the Orlando Airport to the Convention Center and Disney World.

But Rick Scott won’t budge.

Scott’s press office won’t say when he’s expected to make the announcement, but local Florida papers are already announcing, based on anonymous tips, that it’s all over.

Even without an official announcement, Twitter lit up with frustration over Scott’s decision.

“Rick Scott Throws Florida Under The Train.”

“Scott is tone-deaf. Disastrous for Florida.”

“This was a political move not a business decision.”

“Can’t believe he turned down the money for the rails. That would have brought jobs to fl and would have helped!”

“#Floridians officially embarrassed! California, you’re welcome!”

“Enjoy the money and the jobs, California and New York. Signed: Rick Scott”

Sen. Bill Nelson said, “A wise man’s quote favored by President Kennedy was that ‘an error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.’ Well, today, Rick Scott made one heck-of-a mistake.”

Transportation Chair John Mica has "extreme reservations" about the administration's new plan for HSR. Image: Orlando Sentinel

“This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio,” Mica said in a statement.

“With the first $10.5 billion in Administration rail grants, we found that 1) the Federal Railroad Administration is neither a capable grant agency, nor should it be involved in the selection of projects, 2) what the Administration touted as high-speed rail ended up as embarrassing snail-speed trains to nowhere, and 3) Amtrak hijacked 76 of the 78 projects, most of them costly and some already rejected by state agencies,” Mica added. “Amtrak’s Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service.”

They say the committee plans to investigate how previous funding decisions were made, charging that rail routes were selected “behind closed doors” as a “political grab bag for the President,” despite “the Administration’s pledges of transparency.”

“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result and that is exactly what Vice President Biden offered today,” Shuster said. “Rail projects that are not economically sound will not ‘win the future.’ It just prolongs the inevitable by subsidizing a failed Amtrak monopoly that has never made a profit or even broken even. Government won’t develop American high-speed rail. Private investment and a competitive market will.”

Like we said – don’t count those 53 billion chickens before they’re passed by Congress.

"Amtrak Joe" announced the administration's plan for investing in high-speed rail this morning. Photo: Brendan Polmer/CNN

To Vice President Joe Biden, high-speed rail isn’t just another administration initiative. He’s Mr. Amtrak. He gets it. Biden says he’s made 7,900 round trips between Wilmington and Washington on Amtrak. If each of those trips had been reduced by 10 minutes, he says, he would have had 55 more days to spend with his family or working.

So the vice president was a fitting ambassador to travel to Philadelphia’s 30th Street Station with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to announce a six-year plan to build a national high-speed rail network that will, the administration says, reach 80 percent of Americans within 25 years. The plan he outlined today would devote $8 billion to rail development next year.

“In the next 40 years, the United States is expected to increase in population by 100 million people,” Biden said. “Seventy percent of all people in America now live within 50 miles of the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. You know how congested we are now. What happens with 100 million more, a significant portion of them along our coasts?”

Each day, he said, six times more people take a train than an airplane to get between Washington and Philadelphia. And more than twice as many people take the train between New York and Washington than fly. “How many more slots can the Philadelphia airport open?” Biden asked. “Airways can only take so much traffic in the lanes.”

“If you shut down Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor,” Biden said, “you’d have to add seven new lanes to I-95 to accommodate the traffic.” He then went on to cite the cost-benefit analysis of building rail instead of road. The construction cost for an average linear mile of one lane through the city of Philadelphia ranges from $40-50 million. And one new runway, like the one Atlanta just built in its Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, costs $1.3 billion.

“When you talk about the investments we’re making in rail, they pale in comparison to investment you’d have to make in runways or highways,” Biden said. “And that’s before you factor in the environmental benefit of taking cars off the road.”

In a press release issued immediately after Biden’s speech, the White House said, “The proposal will place high-speed rail on equal footing with other surface transportation programs and revitalize America’s domestic rail manufacturing industry by dedicating $53 billion over six years to continue construction of a national high-speed and intercity passenger rail network.”

Six years is also the proposed duration of the next transportation authorization, which Congress is planning to start working on once they finish the FAA reauthorization, currently debating. The president’s budget is due to Congress Monday. He’s already said it will include his ideas for transportation funding for the next six years. Consider this the opening volley.

The plan announced today would start with $8 billion in the coming fiscal year. But Republicans are taking a slash-and-burn approach to the budget, and administration priorities like high-speed rail are high on the list of potential casualties. Where will the money come from, now that recovery act money is gone and Republicans are trying (and failing, but still trying) to go back to 2008 levels for discretionary spending. The White House press release doesn’t explain how it intends to come up with the money, or get such a proposal through an axe-happy House.

Nevertheless, the administration proposal is a good start. The plan is to focus on developing or improving core high-speed corridors as well as regional and “emerging” lines with slightly lower speeds, laying the foundation for future high-sped service and connect to existing high-speed corridors. It’s designed to include the private sector, a key goal of Transportation Committee Chair John Mica. And for the first time, it will separate the accounts for new rail capacity and state of good repair, depositing $4 billion in each at the outset.

Don’t expect this plan to sail through Congress. But as the administration continues to articulate and refine its vision for transformational infrastructure investment, it sets a high bar advocates can press lawmakers to reach for.

Will this be the face of future high-speed rail service in Florida and California? Photo: aarchitect/flickr

The administration has doled out $10.5 billion so far for rail improvements around the country. Some of that is going to existing rail lines that Amtrak runs, such as the Cascade service in the Pacific Northwest, which is using federal funds to improve on-time performance, increase frequency of service, improve signaling, and slowly increase top speeds.

But the banner projects are new, next-generation high-speed lines in places like Florida and California. Service on those lines is being opened up to competitive bidding. Will Amtrak be part of it? And if not, will the nation’s 40-year-old rail giant fade into irrelevance?

Florida is expected to issue a call for bids any day now (assuming Governor Rick Scott doesn’t decide, in the end, to kill the project like his colleagues in Wisconsin and Ohio). The state only represents a prospective 2.4 million riders a year (compared with about 13 million on the NEC) but it’s enormously significant because Florida and California are the only new lines projected to run passenger rail service on dedicated tracks – not competing with freight trains.

Where intercity passenger trains compete with freight – in most of the country these days, excluding the NEC – “Amtrak can only run a handful of trains per day because they’re leasing space on a freight railroad that doesn’t keep the schedules,” said Petra Todorovich, an expert on high-speed rail with the nonprofit America 2050. “When [freight trains] fill up their cargo from the yard, then they leave the yard. So Amtrak is trying to run passenger trains on a schedule on tracks that are owned by a railroad that doesn’t keep a schedule.”

That’s why rail service in much of the country has been infrequent and unreliable and has been in a poor position to compete with private automobiles or air travel. Amtrak continues to run those lines as a public service, in many cases mandated by Congress – but they’re not profitable or efficient.

So a dedicated track for passenger rail in Florida and California presents a unique opportunity for rail to show off what it can do for other parts of the country, which haven’t historically had world-class train service.

Amtrak has teamed with French National Railway Corporation (SNCF), in partnership with Bechtel, to offer a bid to design, build, operate, maintain and finance the Florida line.

Amtrak recently brought on Al Engel, a leader in the field, to lead its new high-speed rail division. Todorovich says his hire, along with the creation of the division, sent a message that “Amtrak is going to go after these opportunities.”

“Amtrak is certainly disappointed that we aren’t a factor that’s built into every corridor,” Engel told Streetsblog, “because we do operate passenger services in Florida, and California is our second largest market. It would be unfortunate if a state had to proceed without the benefit of Amtrak’s involvement.”

Still, Engel says Amtrak is in a good position to win the contracts for the new high-speed lines. He points to Acela’s 10-year anniversary of “successfully operating and growing the market for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor.”

Amtrak's new HSR division head, Al Engel, speaking in Philadelphia's 30th Street Station about Amtrak's plans for HSR in the Northeast Corridor. Photo: Matt Rourke/AP

“We work with 16 different unions and deliver a very popular service, and our ridership statistics show that,” Engel told Streetsblog. “All that experience of working with labor, the operating equipment, the reservation systems, the marketing, all the different aspects of providing a successful passenger rail service in the United States – we can bring all that strength and all that experience to Florida, or California, or the Midwest.”

He added that Amtrak also has decades of experience working with the regulators at the FRA.

Amtrak’s critics have long said that the company is a money pit for federal funds. Republicans recently proposed (again) to eliminate funding for Amtrak. But Engel says it’s not a fair criticism.

“You have to compare different modes on an equal basis, which is never done. The aviation system is heavily subsidized,” Engel said. “We’re providing routes that are desired by those in leadership positions. We also are operating with agreements that were statutorily established in terms of our labor and the routes that we provide.” Besides, in the NEC, he said, Amtrak turns a profit, recouping 121 percent of its expenses.

Malcolm Kenton of the National Association of Railroad Passengers agrees that the Amtrak gets a bad rap.

“My view is that they have been under this survivor mentality – I mean, you can’t do a good long-range plan if you don’t know how much money you’re going to get year after year. You can only plan as far out as one year unless there’s a multi-year authorization.” The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 funded Amtrak though 2013, alleviating some of the problem Kenton referred to – for the time being.

Kenton says Amtrak is in a good position to compete for the high-speed rail contracts because of their long experience operating in the United States, their good relationships with the railroads, and the economy of scale. But he welcomes competition from other companies around the globe.

“If there’s competition to bring the fares down and for better customer service, that would be good for the passenger,” Kenton says. On the other hand, though, it could be detrimental “if the other operators don’t work with Amtrak on cross ticketing, so you wouldn’t be able to book through-tickets to a place that’s only served by a non-Amtrak line.”

The stimulus money for high-speed rail will create jobs and build needed rail improvements in this country, no matter who builds it. But if Amtrak runs it, it could help strengthen the struggling public company by adding new lines that are generating significant buzz.

But will Amtrak survive if it doesn’t nab these high-speed routes? Certainly Amtrak is going to fight hard for the chance to run them, but Engel didn’t seem to think it was an existential question. And he’s still hopeful that much of the federal money will find its way to Amtrak. He wouldn’t engage in “forecasting” but he said that while Amtrak was in a good position to compete in Florida, “California is going to play out very differently than Florida.”

NARP’s Kenton isn’t burying Amtrak just yet. “For the foreseeable future, they’ll have a lock on the long-distance national network trains which will tie these other corridors together by rail and provide an alternative to driving and flying even over long distances,” he said.

Engel said that even if the team Amtrak has put together in Florida isn’t victorious, Amtrak could still be brought on to help the winning team. And other observers see a role for Amtrak in partnering, at least, with whatever rail operator ends up running the lines.

And of course, billions of high-speed rail dollars are aimed at shoring up existing mid-speed corridors already operated by Amtrak, which will continue to be operated by Amtrak. Dramatically improved service on lines that have been long left for dead will arguably do as much to raise Amtrak’s profile as the headline-grabbing high-speed lines elsewhere.

President Obama made his long-awaited infrastructure push during his State of the Union address – with more information included in an accompanying memo released today (see below). This is what he told Congress:

The third step in winning the future is rebuilding America. To attract new businesses to our shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information – from high-speed rail to high-speed internet. [Applause]

Our infrastructure used to be the best – but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s infrastructure, they gave us a “D.”

We have to do better. America is the nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, and constructed the interstate highway system. The jobs created by these projects didn’t just come from laying down tracks or pavement. They came from businesses that opened near a town’s new train station or the new off-ramp.

Over the last two years, we have begun rebuilding for the 21st century, a project that has meant thousands of good jobs for the hard-hit construction industry. Tonight, I’m proposing that we redouble these efforts. [Applause]

We will put more Americans to work repairing crumbling roads and bridges. We will make sure this is fully paid for, attract private investment, and pick projects based on what’s best for the economy, not politicians.

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail. [Applause] This could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down. [Laughter, applause]. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.

Within the next five years, we will make it possible for business to deploy the next generation of high-speed wireless coverage to 98% of all Americans. This isn’t just about a faster internet and fewer dropped calls. It’s about connecting every part of America to the digital age. It’s about a rural community in Iowa or Alabama (focus on Grasley and Wyden, on Fox) where farmers and small business owners will be able to sell their products all over the world. It’s about a firefighter who can download the design of a burning building onto a handheld device; a student who can take classes with a digital textbook; or a patient who can have face-to-face video chats with her doctor.

All these investments – in innovation, education, and infrastructure – will make America a better place to do business and create jobs.

High speed rail proponents will cheer his support for their cause, which has been teetering in the face of serious opposition. But overall, Obama shied away from specifics on infrastructure. He didn’t return to his Labor Day push for a $50 billion “down payment” for infrastructure. He didn’t get behind a six-year reauthorization, though the administration did release a companion to the address, saying that a six-year transportation reauthorization would be rolled into the White House budget proposal. The memo also envisions “transformational investments such as an infrastructure bank.”

In his speech, Obama certainly didn’t advocate for a reform-minded transportation agenda that gets beyond the single-occupancy vehicle. And he didn’t address the people whose letters we featured earlier today, who find their mobility curtailed because of inadequate public transportation.

But were we expecting all that? This is kind of what we were expecting. It’s notable that Obama listed infrastructure third in a series with economic innovation and education, listing the strategies the country needs to use to return to its position as a global superpower. It’ll be up to advocates and supporters of sustainable, efficient transportation to keep pushing the administration – and, more importantly, Congress – for the kind of infrastructure investment and innovative reform the country needs.

The darkest reds are the places with the best chances for success with high speed rail. Courtesy of America 2050

Perhaps it goes without saying, but when you’re advocating for something, it’s not enough to make it happen – it has to succeed. If you get what you want and it’s a miserable failure, you’ve made matters far worse for your cause.

That’s the quandary some high speed rail advocates find themselves in now. Some ardent rail supporters have recently found themselves in the awkward position of arguing against the proposed Florida line, for example, fearing that such a line is doomed to low ridership.

But which corridors would be destined for success? America 2050, a nonprofit that advocates for infrastructure investment to prepare for future population growth, has provided a new tool for advocates who want to make sure they’re pushing projects with the best potential to succeed. Its new report, “High Speed Rail in America” [PDF], could help guide the process of expanding rail in the future.

America 2050, as an organization, focuses on what it calls “megaregions” – defined as “large networks of metropolitan areas” – where it expects the most population growth to take place. This research focuses on those megaregions as the places with the greatest likelihood for high levels of ridership.

Here’s what the report authors found:

• High-speed rail works in very specific conditions, primarily in corridors of approximately 100–600 miles in length where it can connect major employment centers and population hubs. Such corridors exist primarily in the nation’s 11 megaregions, where over 70 percent of the nation’s population and productivity is concentrated.

• Some of the best opportunities for attracting ridership are in corridors of less than 150 miles, such as New York-Philadelphia, Los Angeles-San Diego, and Chicago-Milwaukee.

• Very large cities are potentially powerful generators of rail ridership. The presence of a very large city on a corridor with medium-size and smaller cities has greater impact than connecting medium cities of the same size for generating ridership.

• Composition of the workforce within a metro region may have significant implications on regional intercity travel. People who work in knowledge industries, such as those in the financial sector, tend to travel more for business than those in industrial sectors.

See the table to the right for America 2050’s predictions for the best chances for high speed rail success. Not surprisingly, short, medium, and long corridors in the country’s primary megaregions fare the best. And that Florida line? It ranks well, but not at the top.

The report authors say Florida’s “population, employment, and transit characteristics” don’t make it a clear choice for immediate investment in high speed rail capacity, and they point to other factors that put the state at the front of the line for federal funds: “project readiness and public ownership of the right-of-way between Tampa and Orlando.” Note that those aren’t the factors America 2050 identifies as key for project success.

The report goes into detail about each region of the country to identify factors that could lead to success or failure as a high speed rail corridor. Check to see how yours rates. [PDF]

The Northeast – from Boston to Washington, or even all the way to Charlotte – is the best case scenario. It wins on every front “from population, density, employment, share of knowledge workers, to transit connectivity.”

Transit is a major factor for the success of inter-city rail. In order to persuade people to leave their cars at home, they need to know that they can move around easily without a car once they get to their destination. And density, in turn, is a major factor for the success of transit. The report argues for central business districts, accessible by transit, as essential for the whole model to work. Los Angeles’ 30/10 initiative, the report argues, makes it a better candidate for high speed rail. Transit also helps improve Portland-Seattle-Vancouver’s chances for success as a high speed rail corridor, though it doesn’t have the density that makes it a sure bet.

High speed rail has the capacity to take passengers away from short-jump air travel. According to the report, “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,” with other major offenders causing delays throughout the Northeast region.

Meanwhile, the report authors put their money on California as the country’s single best bet to divert short haul air travel to rail. “Rail trip times of less than three hours between Los Angeles and the Bay Area are likely to capture the vast majority of the point-to-point air travel between the two regions.”

With traffic jams par for the course on the region’s highways and airways, why couldn’t high speed rail take over as the clear choice for efficient, reliable, on-time travel in the nation’s busiest corridors?

DOT Chief Ray LaHood is pushing Florida to pursue plans to build high speed rail. Photo: Getty Images

Why run the op-ed in the Sentinel and not a national paper like USA Today or the New York Times? LaHood’s comments were pointedly directed at Florida Governor-elect Rick Scott, who is making noises about following his counterparts in Wisconsin and Ohio in rejecting federal high speed rail money. And the Sentinel is the paper of record in the 7th Congressional district, represented by incoming House Transportation Committee Chair John Mica.

Mica has long said high speed rail is only practical in the Northeast Corridor, where there is sufficient density. He didn’t even want the proposed rail line to go forward in his home state until a recent, unexpected infusion of federal money made the prospects suddenly more appealing.

LaHood won’t be deterred. In his piece in yesterday’s Sentinel, he says a national high speed rail system “will spur economic development and job creation along its corridors.” It will also, he says, integrate cities, ease congestions, reduce oil dependency and emissions, and boost the manufacturing sector through Buy American provisions.

Who can argue with that? LaHood acknowledges the “naysayers” but gets their talking points wrong. According to him, critics think high speed rail construction is moving too slowly.

In fact, many critics think it’s just in the wrong places. Or it’s too expensive. Or it’s not really high speed.

Ken Orski, author of the online newsletter Innovation Briefs, supports passenger rail but told Streetsblog in an interview that the political will is lacking “to sustain a high speed rail program over the number of years that would be necessary to make this vision a reality.” He’s also not wild about the administration’s approach of “dribbling out money among umpteen states and umpteen grants rather than concentrating them on one or two corridors.”

Orski says as long as passenger rail shares a right-of-way with freight rail – which doesn’t exceed 79 miles per hour – it won’t be truly high speed.

As for Florida’s proposal high speed line from Tampa to Orlando – the target of LaHood’s op-ed – Orski says it won’t work because there’s no transit system at either end to get riders to their final destinations. If people need to get in a car to get to and from the train station, they’ll just stay in their cars and drive the whole way.

That’s not how LaHood sees it. He’s making a full-court press to keep Florida on the high speed rail map. Another loss like Wisconsin and Ohio would be a major blow to the administration. “Florida is poised to become one of the first states with a true high-speed-rail line,” he wrote. “And President Obama has committed to creating or improving 4,000 miles of track as part of his plan for America’s next major six-year transportation legislation.”

He says a world-class high speed rail network is possible, if Congress, the administration and the states keep their eyes on the prize.