There are those who have expressed dismay at reports the high-speed rail provision of the stimulus bill was destined to build supertrains to carry gamblers back and forth between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Thankfully, they were woefully misinformed. Matt Yglesias cleared things up when he uncovered a legal analysis of the actual language from the bill:
The Stimulus Plan includes two provisions modeled after the [High Speed Rail] Act that finance high-speed rail development. First, the Stimulus Plan provides a $2 billion grant for high-speed rail projects that will remain available until September 30, 2011. The grant will be distributed among applicant states, interstate compacts, public agencies having responsibility for providing high-speed rail service and Amtrak for capital projects associated with inter-city passenger rail services reasonably expected to reach speeds of at least 110 miles per hour. The Secretary of Transportation will have discretion to award grants based on an extensive set of criteria, including the legal, financial and technical capacity of the applicant to carry out the project; compatibility with relevant national plans; and anticipated economic, environmental and transportation effects.
Sorry, Vegas. No earmark for you. Looks like Reid’s statement that a Los Angeles-Vegas route "could get a big chunk of the money" was more wishful thinking than act of Congress. This statement is no doubt causing further heartburn in Sen. Reid’s office now that it’s been embraced by the right as a supposed example of the pork that lards the stimulus package. In fact, according to the Sierra Club, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood has set up a new entity called TIGER (an acronym that just oozes efficiency, no?) to prioritize stimulus projects based on merit, rather than whim. Really.
Yglesias also uncovered this fantastic map of officially designated HSR rail corridors, some of which would presumably get first dibs on the money. Note the absence of a little green line between L.A. and Vegas:
So now we rail lovers can rejoice unencumbered by doubt and confident in our knowledge that the President really is a SUPERTRAIN fan.
For public transportation to survive, we all need to ... drive more?
Sen. Ben Cardin answers Grist’s questions on public transit and mountaintop removal mining
Washington Post features rail hack job from Robert Samuelson
Comments
View as Flat
BruceMcF Posted 7:11 am
17 Feb 2009
California and the Northeast Corridor are highly likely to get big shares of the $8b, but they are also very expensive to build ... California because their distances force them to starting out with a bullet train approach, and the Northeast because the Northeast Corridor is such a crowded, gadawful mess.
But that's OK, because out here in flyover country, a lot less money goes a much longer way. For example, while the first stage of California HSR from San Francisco to Anaheim via the Central Valley and the LA basin is $46b, the Triple C corridor in Ohio would give change back from $2b, launching the cornerstone of the much more extensive Ohio Hub 110mph Rapid Rail system.
Virtually Yours, BruceMcF
Energize America 2020
Permalink
christophersj Posted 10:45 am
17 Feb 2009
Not to mention drunk driving issues.
So lets see, a high speed rail between L.A. and Vegas would:
reduce CO2 emissions
reduce horrible particulates in the area
unsnarl horrible traffic jams
relieve drunk driving incidents from revelers coming back from Vegas.
Yeah, that would really be frivolous and something to be embarrassed about.
What is this? The Moral Majority Hour?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:05 am
17 Feb 2009
This map (or an almost exact likeness of it) has been around since the early 1990s.
Alot of it is based on current Amtrak routes. But really, it's more just wishful thinking than anything else.
Many of these corridors have no specific regional organizations to really push or advocate for their development ('cept California and a few others). And regional interest groups are key in directing money towards specific projects.
The money may go to lines that run similar to a few of these routes, but don't expect that this is what they're aiming for right now.
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 11:42 am
17 Feb 2009
I don't doubt that map has been around for a while - high speed rail almost had a heyday back when the Acela was born. But when your President insists on spending $8B on it, I think it's fair to say that it's now more than wishful thinking.
And christophersj, I know there's a case for Vegas-LA. I recall it was at one point "slated" to be the first maglev train in the US. And Matt Yglesias is on board with the general idea. But I'd really need to see a market study to be convinced it should be any kind of prority. Remember that HSR isn't going to be a cheap ticket - it's not commuter rail. The LV-LA sort of intercity rail seems like it would compete with air travel rather than car travel - in that way the route is more like BOS-DC than NYC-PHL. Anyway, I'm not categorically opposed - if they can get past LaHood's TIGER on the merits, then they deserve some money, too. But I'd like to see a Chicago based HSR system or SF-LA way before they break ground on the fast train to Caesars (sorry, I can't help myself).
Permalink
christophersj Posted 12:09 pm
17 Feb 2009
That exact path was used by:
Wooly Mammoths migration trail
Cattle drive trail from Texas to Chicago
Interstate Highway 35
A well traveled route.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:47 pm
17 Feb 2009
Permalink
Russ Posted 7:58 pm
17 Feb 2009
At most Vegas might hang on for a little while as an elite destination, and the rich don't want to ride trains.
As for yahoo weekend gamblers, if they really need their fix they'll build their own casinos. Already broke, how are they going to be able to even afford to drive there once gas prices resume their upward march?
Not to mention when they have to haul all their own water, since that Vegas tap will soon be running dry.
Permalink
rycarson Posted 3:49 am
18 Feb 2009
Obviously, some tweaking is necessary, but overall this map is a relatively decent high level discussion piece for HSR.
Permalink
RossBleakney Posted 4:23 am
18 Feb 2009
I also think that a high speed rail line from L.A. to Las Vegas makes a lot of sense. This distance is well within the "sweet spot" where high speed rail can be very popular. If the distance is too short, then folks will hesitate before getting out of the car (unless traffic is bad). If the distance it too long, then people will take a plane to save themselves the time. The L.A. to San Francisco run, for example, will have trouble competing with air travel, unless the trains move faster than 110 MPH. If the train moves faster than 110 MPH, then much of the environmental benefit is lost. There are other factors to consider (the increased comfort of a train ride for example) but the distance between L.A. and Las Vegas, as well as the nature of the travel (folks not necessarily needing a car at the other end) might save a lot of energy (from decreased car and air travel).
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:41 am
18 Feb 2009
A whole new economy could be created in Las Vegas with solar powered recycling of the uneeded hotels and casinos.
Great news on electrified rail though! I would prefer electrification of freight rail and passenger service on present tracks, then a longer term build out of ultralight high speed commuyer rail in tubes built into freeway medians, with HVDC super grid lines running underneath, between the commuter rail tubes (one in each direction).
Regular freight rail tracks could be HVDC corridors too. This plan eliminates NIMBY and right-of-way issues for electrified freight and high speed rail and HVDC all at the same time.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
dadofchen Posted 5:14 am
18 Feb 2009
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:27 am
18 Feb 2009
Isn't that the point though? HSR is supposed to compete with distances that would otherwise be (mostly) coveted by air travelers. Slower rail takes on routes with distances considered more easily drivable.
This what happened when Texas proposed HSR between Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin. It seemed like a great idea at first...so great that Southwest Airlines lobbied against it 'cause those Texas routes made up most of its profit at the time.
And killed it they did.
But with air travel so bogged down and so expensive these days (and yet still in great financial strains), now is the time to push for rail instead.
Permalink
Tom Laskawy Posted 11:41 am
18 Feb 2009
As for LA-LV, I just meant that we need to understand what the market is - will it take people out of cars or off planes? Without understanding things like that, you could build the thing and still see traffic jams leaving Las Vegas. As I said, if it gets through the TIGER process, I have no problem with that link getting funding. But at some point, these route systems will be considered for a greenlight of construction - and it will likely be only one. It's hard for me to believe that LA-LV should be the top priority in that case.
Permalink