FOLLOW THE MONEY.

I have to wonder if the best thing the government could do for high-speed Passenger Rail would be to go away.

[Former deputy secretary of transportation John] Porcari continued: “If you wonder why America’s transportation system is configured the way it is today, I would urge you to follow the money.” He then mentioned a situation he faced when he was Maryland’s Transportation Secretary. There were three options for increasing capacity between Baltimore and New York City: “Add air capacity between BWI Thurgood Marshall airport and New York, with 90% federal funding for runway and taxiway capacity improvements; v. Add highway capacity on I-95 to New York, with 80% federal funding; v. Add passenger rail capacity, with zero federal funding.” In other words, he explained, “I had to find either 10%, 20% or 100% of the project funding from the state’s transportation trust fund, depending on the transportation mode I chose. For that 215-mile segment, a passenger rail trip makes far more sense than driving or flying, yet passenger rail capacity was the least likely alternative to be selected. If you wonder why we have the unbalanced transportation system we have today, follow the money.”

The state is that grand fiction. If there's a massive Federal match, go for it, and build it. Worry about rebuilding it later.

Uncle Sugar might have built that road for you, but you're still on the hook for the maintenance.  That's not exciting, although it's not exciting in the way that a bridge collapse, or the failure of the best Passenger Rail network, is.

Amtrak [president William] Flynn said: “One of the questions Amtrak is often asked is why the United States does not have faster or more high-speed trains like most European countries in corridors where that would make sense. The answer is simple: money. Unlike these countries, the United States has chosen to primarily invest in highways and aviation rather than rail.” He added: “From the mid-1930s, when lightweight streamlined trains were introduced, until 1959, the United States had the fastest trains in the world. Passenger trains serving corridors like Chicago to Minneapolis, some pulled by steam locomotives, operated at speeds of 90-100 mph. They offered frequent service, with trip times that would be competitive even with today’s driving times, on rail lines shared with freight trains,” but “[i]n the 1950s, that began to change. As European countries and Japan started investing in improved and higher speed passenger rail service, the United States opted instead to build interstate highways and airports. The federal government’s decision to invest in cars and planes rather than passenger rail contributed significantly to the precipitous decline in intercity passenger rail service that resulted in the creation of Amtrak.”

Flynn also noted that the Highway Trust Fund became insolvent in 2008. In addition, he called for a “trust-fund-like structure” for funding rail, and added, “If we funded highways the way we fund passenger rail today, we’d all be driving on dirt roads.”

There are parts of the country where the roads are reverting to dirt.  I'm pleased to note, though, that Someone In Authority is calling attention to what the investor-owned railroads were doing until all the public money started going into roads and airports (all of which are now "crumbling infrastructure.")

The most encouraging developments in Passenger Rail, though, are the private projects.

P. Michael Reininger, CEO of Brightline Holdings, LLC, called for more private-sector participation in developing [high speed rail]. His company operated Brightline trains in South Florida until the COVID-19 virus hit (and they expect to resume operations later this year); is building a line to Orlando Airport; and is developing Brightline West between Las Vegas and Southern California.

Reininger summarized his program this way: “First, our business model parallels the most successful models from around the world, while applying American ingenuity to our different context and circumstances. Second, multiple benefits to customers, economies and communities accrue from the introduction of transportation investments such as high-speed rail. And third, this subcommittee can initiate steps to incentivize greater participation by the private sector to multiply the effects of public-sector investment and overcome hurdles that have inhibited progress to date.” He said that the Brightline model targets city pairs that are “too short to fly and too far to drive.”

Reininger also announced that Brightline West would go to Los Angeles, rather than merely to the general region of “Southern California.” He said: “Brightline West, the company’s first expansion outside Florida, will connect Las Vegas to Los Angeles. Starting with a convenient station on Las Vegas Blvd., Brightline West will connect to L.A. via Rancho Cucamonga with an inline station in the Victor Valley.”In later questioning, Philip Washington, CEO of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or “Metro”) said that such a connection is feasible. An agreement of that sort between Brightline and L.A.’s local railroad Metrolink to provide direct service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles could expand the nation’s passenger rail network to a new and busy destination city, while potentially serving as a model for other such projects through a Public-Private Partnership (P3).

That's good news. A fast train between Las Vegas and somewhere in the vicinity of Victorville is not quite a winning proposition; one that uses existing rails to get into metropolitan Los Angeles has possibilities, particularly if there's a case for financing a fast line through the mountains to get the Bakersfield service and the Las Vegas service on a common set of fast rails, rather than hacking over Cajon Pass the way the freight lines do.

The Texas project, also a private initiative, is not as far along.  Some of the more imaginative technologies get some attention, but diesel trains good for 125-140 mph running might well be the way to go, at least for now.