This list ignores the nation’s ongoing current account blow-out and the substantial risk exposure that comes from dependency on imported oil. It is impossible to take serious advantage of the primary energy savings benefit of Rapid Rail, in shifting diesel road freight to electric rail freight, without a national system. And it is difficult to justify making an investment in the hundreds of billions of dollars without gaining the ability to move goods and people between different regions of the country without reliance on oil-based transport.

And I believe that the phrase “makes economic sense” should read, “makes commercial sense”. In many smaller population centers that receive rail services because it is “politically expedient, the reason it is politically expedient is because the rail services are more important to the economies of those centers. Denying them the benefits in terms of speed and punctuality and frequency of service that they could receive very economically as a side-effect of the electrification of freight rail and establishment of a national Rapid Freight grid would be both unsound as economic development policy and politically inexpedient.

(a) FRA regulations are modified to make a range of freight and passenger rail services feasible in terms of operating cost, in addition to keeping heavy freight competitive.

(b) the focus is on improving service quality (speed, punctuality, frequency) in metropolitan statistical areas, where it makes economic sense, rather than nationwide, which is merely politically expedient.

(c) true HSR corridors (186mph+) can be utilized not just for passenger service between major population centers but also for onward direct service to secondary destinations on tracks that may or may not be shared with selected types of rail freight to maximize utilization rates for the expensive infrastructure.

It seems to focus on what is missing from what we already have, which is funding.

The Midwest Hub has its commission, participating from most states in the envisioned system … but nowhere near enough money to finalize the alignment, do the economic and environmental impact statements, and get a project in shape ready to be given the go ahead. Ditto a range of single-state systems, which have more or less formal structure inside their state DoT and more or less of their system with official DoT HSR corridor designation … the Ohio Hub, the Empire Corridor, the Keystone Corridor. However, the funding is some minor bottleneck removal or upgrade in support of existing Amtrak services (eg, the Philadelphia to Harrisburg section of the Keystone Corridor).

Indeed, given the existing scattered plans and preliminary studies and State Legislature working parties and commissions, a single OHSR providing these range of state and multi-state projects and commissions with assistance is likely to be our best hope to have a coherent set of standard, with a common loading gage and electrical standard for true HSR and a common loading gage and electrical standard for Rapid Rail quote-HSR-unquote systems.

Regarding “By spending more money for super HSR the bill implies that states would do well for themselves if they prioritized investment in fast corridors, not just upgrades of traditional track which would allow 110-mph service.” … it recognizes the fact that true HSR costs more. If Ohio was given a choice between funding 25% of a $2b Rapid Rail system and funding 25% of a $10b true HSR system, there’s no doubt that it would opt for the Rapid Rail system.

Dedicating money to true HSR ensures that one or more true HSR projects are funded … dedicating money to quote-HSR-unquote Rapid Rail ensures that some of the HSR money can reach a majority of the states in a form that they can derive some benefit from.

This does confirm my own belief that the Kerry bill doesn’t provide enough money to meet the full HSR needs of the nation, but it is an excellent start. A key question is reauthorization in 2014. We may be in a very different place politically and economically, which could make reauthorization difficult. At the same time if we have a bunch of projects already funded and under way, it becomes harder for a future Congress and White House to strip funding. Doesn’t mean there won’t be efforts to do so…

I agree with you about the centralization issue. Does it suit our national needs to have basically multiple HSR systems around the nation, with different standards and different technologies? Kerry’s bill seems to understate things here as well.