Saturday, April 10, 2010

Gas prices to return to $4 a gallon?

Yes, you read that right, the price of a gallon of regular gas may once more reach over $4, not due to lack of supply but the combination of fervent speculation and mushrooming demand.

It is true that gas prices are showing a steady, measurable march upward. While the trend suggests that $4/gallon gas is certainly possible, prices between $3 and $3.50 are more likely.

That is still pretty expensive.

Maybe you should schedule your vacation by train this summer?

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Amtrak on pace for another record year

It seems that the Obama Administration's investment in passenger rail is paying off as Amtrak reports it is on pace to a record-setting year for ridership. Even more surprising is that the increase in ridership is being seen both on corridor trains and long distance services.

Americans are learning that Amtrak is a fun, safe, clean and convenient alternative to the hassle of the airports and the drudgery of highway driving.

How high speed rail should be built: Part 1

When it comes to high speed rail funding, the Obama administration may be looking for progress in all the wrong places - but it is still possible for them to get on the right track.

It seems that the first grants for high speed rail are largely going to places where the use of intercity passenger rail and public transportation has not caught on. The Obama administration likely sees this as a way to educate new communities about the benefits of public transportation and to encourage them to build their own systems and support the use of their taxes to build out infrastructure.

However, if the Obama administration is serious about building a usable - and well used - national high speed rail system, there is only one place to start: the northeast corridor.

The northeast corridor is home to the most densly populated and the most transit oriented cities in the country and the Acela Express, the closest thing to a high speed rail line in the United States passenger rail system operated by Amtrak.

The Acela service connects Washington, DC, New York City and Boston via a 457 mile corridor that it traverses in around 7 hours. The train is capable of reaching speeds of over 150 mph but due to track conditions and the regulations of agencies which own portions of the route, the trains often run at less than half their maximum speed.

If 220 mph service was insituted along the corridor, travel times between the cities could be halves. Since its inception, the current Acela service has captured 40% of the travel market along the northeast corridor. 220 mph trains could lead to the demise of wasteful and inefficient shuttle flights between northeastern cities and allow for greater connectivity between businesses in the region. A person could live in a suburb of Boston and commute to Philadelphia to work without having to set foot in an automobile or an airport.

Amtrak has already studied the possibility of upgrading the operating speed of the Acela service - they have already invested in adding WiFi to the trainsets. Replacing or upgrading the Acela trainsets to increase their operating speed is also in discussion. Members of the Republican opposition in Congress have signalled some support for increasing the speeds while criticizing the funding decisions made by the Obama administration.

Furthermore, the cities along the northeast corridor - Boston, Providence, New London, New Haven, New York, Newark, Trenton, Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore and Washington - all have well developed transit networks to take people to and from rail terminals. The populations of these cities are well acclimated to using rail and public transit. 9.8 million riders use the Amtrak trains along the corridors annually.

Finally, if the Obama administration had made the wisest decision to start high speed rail development in the northeast, the next hubs of high speed rail would be established in Boston (pop 4.5 million), New York (pop 8.3 million), Philadelphia (pop 5.8 million) and Washington (pop 5.3 million).

Next time we'll explore what the next logical step after upgrading the northeast corridor would be - lines spoking out from those hubs.

Sunday, April 4, 2010

High Speed Rail Recover Funding: An Overview

In January the Obama administration committed $8 billion in recovery act funds to the development of a high speed rail system in the United States. It marks the first such investment since the Acela service was initiated on the Washington, DC to Boston corridor in December of 2000.

Rather than focus the money on a single line, the administration has decided to distribute the money among a number of projects as 'seed money' to initiate higher speed passenger rail service. Whereas in most developed countries futuristic trains carry patients over international boundaries at over 200 mph, in the United States the aim for many of these lines is to incrementally increase speeds to 110 mph.

The largest investment goes to California, which seeks to establish a comprehensive system between Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento, and Anaheim that stands apart in that it would actually reach speeds of 220 mph. The cost of such a system is estimated at over $30 billion - the Obama administration's modest investment of $2.3 billion would be only the beginning.

The Administration gave $1.25 billion to Florida to initate service between Tampa and Orlando. This project was seen as the most shovel ready - the state had reserved the median of I-4 as a high speed rail right-of-way for years. Florida had estimated a cost of $2.6 billion to build the line. The state plans future extensions to Miami and Jacksonville.

The third largest winner of economic stimulus funds for high speed rail is the corridor between St. Louis and Chicago, where the government hopes to increase top speeds to 110 mph and add additional trips between the cities. This line is part of the Chicago-hub midwest high speed rail plan that involves 110 mph corridors from Chicago to Detroit and Minneapolis as well as St. Louis. Eventually these three trunk lines would be increased to 220 mph service and new 110 mph lines would run to Omaha, Cleveland and Louisville.

The line between Minneapolis and Chicago got a major boost when $822 million in funding was granted to implement 110 mph service between Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The line between Chicago and Detroit will recieve $244 in improvements that include relieving congestion on the southeast side of Chicago that has plagued railroads for a century.

A new 79 mph service between Cincinnati and Cleveland will fill in a major gap in Amtrak's passenger rail network and put service on one of the most populated corridors in the country. The government dedicated $400 million to get this service up and running.

In the Pacific northwest almost $600 million has been dedicated to lay extra siding tracks and straighten the line between Portland, OR and Seattle, WA. The states hope additional round trip service along the corridor will be possible, as well as additional trains to Vancounver, BC.

The Southeast High Speed Rail corridor recieved $520 million to increase service speed and frequency between Raleigh and Charlotte and to relieve congestion between Washington and Richmond.

The remaining $512 million was distributed between projects in the mid-Atlantic, New England, Texas, and Iowa.

One thing jumps out at me from all these numbers - overwhelmingly these funds went to areas where a tradition of public transportation use does not exist. Though significant state investments in rail have been made in Illinois, North Carolina, California and Washington state, these funds are overwhelmingly going to places like Wisconsin, Florida, Missouri and Ohio where passenger rail use is an unproven x-factor at best.

The gamble the administration is making is that increased availability and speed will lure more users to these systems, and by providing seed money to geographically diverse regions they might instigate political and social interest in building out these systems.

I think this money would have been better spent elsewhere - I agree with the decision to spend it on rail, but not necessarily on these lines. In future posts I hope to discuss where this money would have been better spent.