Ray LaHood, speaking earlier this year (photo by thisisbossi via Flickr)
The U.S. Transportation Secretary, Ray LaHood, still wants to connect 80 percent of Americans to high speed rail by 2036. That’s the goal that President Barack Obama laid out in last year’s state of the union. But since then, the governors of Florida and Ohio followed Wisconsin’s governor in halting their states’ projects, and congress made no new allocations of high speed rail funds going forward.
The President made no reference to high speed rail in his 2012 State of the Union address Tuesday night.
Even so, LaHood told reporters after an appearance at the Transportation Research Board Wednesday: “High speed rail is a priority for President Obama and it’s a priority for the administration, and we’re going to continue to make progress. We’ve made a lot of progress. We’ve allocated over $10 billion. That’s a pretty good leap in a three year period.”
LaHood pointed out that the DOT had allocated nearly $1 billion to the Northeast corridor, “which is what members of Congress have been clamoring for.” (That would refer to House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chair John Mica, who poo-pooed initial administration allocations for high speed rail that gave little to Amtrak’s Northeast corridor.)
Asked if he still was working on connecting 80 percent of Americans to high speed rail in under a quarter century, he said, “that’s our goal.”
(LaHood also expressed doubt on the chances of a surface transportation bill passing congress this year — article here. )
Here are his full remarks:
“We’ve made ten billion dollars worth of investments. We’re going to continue our efforts to implement high speed rail.
We’re going to continue our efforts with our partners. We have great partners all over the country. W e have a great partner in Michigan in the governor. e have a great partner in California in the governor we have great parters in the Midwest whether it be Michigan Illinois, Missouri. We have great partners on the Northeast corridor.
If you look at the money we’ve invested over the last 18 months — almost a billion dollars in Amtrak on the Northeast corridor – which is what members of Congress have been clamoring for. We listened to them and we made those investments.
High speed rail is a priority for President Obama and it’s a priority for the administration, and we’re going to continue to make progress. We’ve made a lot of progress.
Three years ago there was not one penny spent for high speed inter-city rail. We’ve allocated over 10 billion. That’s a pretty good leap in a three year period.”
Does he still want to connect 80 percent of Americans to high speed rail by 2036?
“That’s our goal.”
Oh, please give me a break!
Ray LaHood couldn’t railroad his way out of a wet paper sack, even if he _wanted_ to – and Obama, through his policies, has already set rail-based passenger service (re)development back at least one generation.
Even the billions of dollars LaHood mentioned are grossly inadequate when discussing true High Speed Rail; that fact is becoming clear to everyone. As may already be happening in California, honest-to-goodness, new-from-the-ground-up H.S.R. services (which really aren’t being proposed in most cases) will likely cause heart-stopping cases of sticker shock.
A major problem – which the administration is STILL ignoring – is that there is no satisfactory, generally accepted definition of “High Speed Rail” at the U.S. D.O.T. or its F.R.A. The “H.S.R.” term has been bantered about, misused and abused until it is no longer a phrase which inspires confidence amongst the populace; rather, Obama’s (and his minion’s) insistence on referring to ALL passenger train proposals as High Speed Rail (or the even less technically precise “Higher Speed Rail”) makes everything they do a potential target of derision. Even otherwise good ideas become a laughing stock!
Barack Obama should have been honest from day one, stressing how one learns to walk before learning to run and how there is not a single example of a nation which developed true H.S.R. operations prior to establishing a comprehensive network of conventional passenger trains!
He didn’t and we’re all paying the cost.
I am disgusted.
Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas
“Perhaps, as a starting point, it’s time for us to define ‘high-speed rail’ once and for all.
“Although U.S. politicians tend to have a field day with this issue, gleefully making things up as they go along, we can reach a reasonable conclusion.
“I realise Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has said ‘there is no definition of high-speed rail’ (during a speech at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois) and that many might argue his statement is true – at least in the regions under his purview. Still, he was referencing international technologies at the time, which made his comment unjustifiable.
“It is far better to rely upon David Briginshaw, Editor-in-Chief of the International Railway Journal (as quoted in the August, ’09 issue of Railway Age) for a definition: ‘What exactly do we mean by high speed rail? The baseline is normally regarded as 125 miles-per-hour.’
“Please note that Mr. Briginshaw translated his lower speed threshold from Metric to English measurements in order to reduce potential confusion!
“Now, is that 125 m/h figure reasonable in the U.S., given current standards?
“Well, C.F.R. 49 defines transition from Tier I to Tier II equipment standards as occurring at 125 m/h.
“The point at which the F.R.A. begins absolutely prohibiting all grade crossings under any circumstances is at Class 8 track. Class 7 trackage ends at 125 miles-per-hour.
“The International Union of Railways defines H.S.R. ‘on existing trackage’ as starting at 125 m/h (literally at 200 km/h). [H.S.R. on new, dedicated infrastructure begins at 250 km/h.] Members of the U.I.C. include Amtrak, the A.A.R., and the U.S. D.O.T.’s own F.R.A.!
“Question: why wouldn’t the F.R.A. accept the official definition of H.S.R. as adopted by an organisation of which they are a member? The only logical reason is politics, which is no basis for a technical definition!
“Secretary LaHood may possess various reasons why it’s in the administration’s best interest to play games with semantics. That’s his (and his boss’) business. But, for the sake of consistency and preciseness, it is unreasonable to embrace any minimum speed figure of less than 125 miles-per-hour for true H.S.R.!”
From my column, “High Speed Rail is not the starting point”
http://myprogressiverailroading.com/blogs/gblatham/archive/2010/06/30/high-speed-rail-is-not-the-starting-point.aspx
Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas
“Passenger trains in these United States – the sort of which, today, would be considered ‘corridor’ runs – were operating at ‘higher-speeds’ during the 1930s! Furthermore, the first passenger train to exceed 100 miles-per-hour set its record in 1893! …
“Here in Dallas, our service to Houston was once quite enviable. Quick reading of a mid-century [Official Railway] Guide can make a profound impression: multiple daily trains – safe, dependable, comfortable – each operating on an approximate four hour carding. Even now, such timing would be competitive with the always difficult and sometimes excruciating drive along Interstate 45. Offer such trains to an iPod and MP3 crowd, along with the current-day equivalent of traditional on-board amenities such as dining, club-lounge and parlor observation cars, and you probably couldn’t schedule enough daily departures to satisfy the demand! …
“…what is the best solution? Understanding the danger of oversimplification…, my advice would be a return to what once was. Presuming the passenger train is restored as an integral part of the U.S. transportation network, the best approach I can imagine would be to reestablish as many of the main line routes and services as possible, based upon my Grid and Gateway concept…, creating what might be compared to an Interstate Highway system-style national railway network.
“It won’t take 110 mile-per-hour top speeds to make all this work, either. Witness the successes in places like North Carolina, Illinois, California and the Pacific Northwest! Concentrate upon removing the worst bottlenecks (slow speed areas, delay-prone interlocking plants, inadequate terminal facilities) and you’ll find a far more reasonable approach to trip time efficiency. After all, Amtrak’s Acela, with a top speed of 150 m/h, is greatly hampered by such slow spots – to the point where its best average terminal-to-terminal speed is but 86 m/h.”
From my column “The myth of ‘Higher Speed Rail’”
http://myprogressiverailroading.com/blogs/gblatham/archive/2010/07/09/the-myth-of-quot-higher-speed-rail-quot.aspx
Garl B. Latham
Dallas, Texas