HIGH SPEED RAIL

 

At a press conference on April 16, 2009, President Obama, Vice-President Biden, and Secretary of Transportation LaHood announced the Administration’s plan for a new national network of high-speed passenger rail lines, saying such an investment is necessary to reduce traffic congestion, cut dependence on foreign oil, and improve the environment. President Obama stated that the $8 billion allocated for high speed rail in the stimulus package is just a “down payment” on the overall package. In early May 2009, the Obama Administration released detailed FY 2010 budget recommendations for all federal programs. In addition to the $8 billion provided by the stimulus package, the plan forecasts five years' worth of $1 billion annual budget requests to be used to jump-start what is hoped to be a world class transportation system in this country.

 

As required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the FRA released its strategic plan in April 2009, describing the agency's vision for developing high-speed rail in the United States. The plan formally identified ten corridors,  all previously designated as high-speed rail corridors by several successive Secretaries of Transportation, as well as the existing Northeast Corridor. The ten designated high-speed corridors, together with the major cities served by each, are:

 

 

The BLET Legislative Department released its “High Speed Rail Position Paper” in the summer of 2009, which states that the BLET believes that the implementation of high speed rail could greatly benefit the membership and the country as a whole, with a few adjustments to the current strategy. The BLET wants to redefine the definition of high speed rail, which was established approximately 40 years ago. The current definition relates to passenger trains traveling 110 mph or faster. The BLET would like high speed rail to include intermodal freight operations at between 70 and 125 mph, which would greatly increase volume and revenue for the railroads. The BLET does not feel that passenger trains traveling in excess of 150 miles per hour should be allowed to commingle with freight operations and may not be supported by the freight railroads. The BLET believes that the use of temporal separation would allow freight and passenger trains to operate on the same track as an intermodal system and it would remove the question about which takes precedence on a particular line. The report states that “Temporal separation would provide a buffer so that freight cannot operate on the line at the same time as passenger rail, without decreasing the safety of either or the ability to thrive in a competitive market.”

 

The report goes on to state that the BLET believes there is a need to standardize any new system to create a seamless coast-to-coast network that can be integrated with the current freight and passenger rail service infrastructure. In addition, the BLET believes that, in order to ensure the safety of our nation’s citizens, there must remain a federally certified locomotive engineer in the cab of any high speed locomotive. The BLET also wants to ensure that all jobs created by the implementation of a high speed rail system are safeguarded and that all workers in the project are covered by federal laws relating to railroad workers. The BLET report closes with the following statement: “The bottom line is that high speed rail is the solution to resolving most of our passenger/freight railroad challenges in this nation.” (To read the entire report, go to RAIL_BLETProposal825.pdf).

 

After attending the June 2, 2009, Passenger Rail Forum sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration in Philadelphia, passenger rail leaders from the BLET and the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWED) were highly encouraged about the Obama Administration’s plan for high speed rail. At that forum, representatives from the federal government outlined the Administration’s national vision for passenger rail in the United States and how the recently allocated stimulus money will be spent to achieve those goals.

 

In July 2010, BLET Vice President & National Legislative Representative John Tolman was appointed as a member of the Advisory Board of the American High Speed Rail Alliance (AHSRA), an organization that advocates for the development and implementation of a high speed passenger rail network in the United States. Vice President Tolman will serve as a persuasive advocate for BLET members and all of rail labor. One of the goals of this group is to ensure workforce development initiatives that identify, train, and support American workers to design, build, operate, and maintain America’s high speed and regional passenger rail network. The group’s mission is similar to that advocated by the BLET in its high speed rail position paper and comments regarding the National Rail Plan.

 

In his speech delivered to delegates and attendees at the BLET’s National Convention in October 2010, in Reno, Nevada, IBT General President James P. Hoffa stated that “the future of high speed passenger and commuter rail in America is brighter than ever before, and that means more good jobs for members of the Teamsters Rail Conference.” However, not all are in favor of the plan for high speed rail in the U.S. Even before winning the election as Governor of Wisconsin in November 2010, Scott Walker had vowed to kill the planned 110-mph Milwaukee-to-Madison high-speed passenger train route that was to be funded with Wisconsin's share of $8 billion in federal stimulus dollars. Ohio Governor-elect John Kasich had issued a similar promise for a planned 79-mph line connecting his state's three largest cities, funded by $400 million in stimulus funds. In December 2009, the federal government took back almost all of the $1.2 billion from the two projects and it will be divided among other states to be used for their high-speed rail projects.

 

There are those who favor privatization of high-speed rail. In January 2011, the new House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica, who has been a critic of the high speed rail grants, stated that he wants to refocus the government’s efforts on projects that will get “more bang for the buck.” Although he states that he wants to shift more freight, as well as passengers, onto rail service to ease burdens on the nation’s highways, he believes that Amtrak’s plans for high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor will not get the job done as fast or as well as bringing in private investors. Representative Bill Shuster (R-PA) agrees with Mica on privatization. He feels that Obama’s grant program largely left out the Northeast Corridor, which he said was “perhaps the biggest missed opportunity” of the plan.

 

Amtrak President and CEO Joseph Boardman disagrees with Mica, stating: “It is critical for the Northeast Corridor to remain a public asset. Amtrak was created by Congress precisely because the privately owned railroads could no longer sustain the vital public service of intercity passenger rail, and no other operator or company is prepared to mobilize to take over the operation of the Northeast Corridor. Nor are they funded to cover the long-term capital and operating costs.”

 

Unfortunately, the high speed rail initiative suffered a serious setback as a result of the fight over federal budget cuts. On April 11, 2011, in a late-night budget deal made between Senate and House leaders, funding for high-speed rail for 2011 was zeroed out and $400 million of unspent funds that had been approved for 2010 were rescinded. The deal also cut Amtrak’s budget by $80 million.

 

So for now, President Obama’s dream of spending at least $500 billion building a high-speed rail network connecting most major American cities in the next 25 years is dead. The Congressional leaders who took high-speed rail out of the 2011 spending bill are not likely to put it back in to the six-year transportation reauthorization bill. Proponents of high speed rail feel that the elimination of the high speed rail initiative in this country puts us at a very real risk of falling behind other developed countries in economic output, mobility, and quality of life, including reduction of greenhouse gases through a realistic alternative means of travel.