Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) (Photo: Politico)

But Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's visit with Senate appropriators today was anything but humdrum, as Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) challenged him repeatedly to defend the White House's efforts on sustainable development and high-speed rail.

Bond cited a recent Wall Street Journal editorial by Wendell Cox, a conservative pundit who has penned laudatory literature for road lobbying groups, in accusing the Obama administration of frittering away taxpayers' money on high-speed rail.

LaHood fired back, remarking wryly that Bond's home state sought high-speed rail grants and publicly celebrated its $31 million haul. "I got calls on this every day from senators and governors" clamoring for an opportunity to build inter-city passenger rail, LaHood said.

Answering Bond's charge that the rail funding process was less than transparent, the U.S. DOT chief threw in a bold claim: "I don't know of one lobbyist that darkened our door with an application … that came to our door with the idea they were going to have some edge."

A November investigation by the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity found that more than 50 government entities and private companies have hired high-speed rail lobbyists, including the AFL-CIO, the Mayo Clinic, and overseas train manufacturers such as Siemens and Bombardier.

The sharpest exchange between Bond and LaHood came on the topic of walkable local development, which the U.S. DOT has worked to promote through $150 million in 2010 grants and an inter-agency partnership with housing and environmental protection officials.

"What is livability?" Bond asked LaHood, minutes after comparing the task of defining the term to defining pornography. (The origins of that reference are explained here.)

"Communities where people have access to many different forms of transportation, and affordable housing ... maybe they don't want a car, so they can walk to work or take mass transit to work," LaHood said, using the newly built-up neighborhood surrounding his office as an example.

Bond's reply summed up the challenge of crafting new federal transportation policy in an era marked by rural-urban-suburban culture clashes. "I've got a lot of constituents for whom livability means having a decent highway," he said. "They've got to drive between one town and another town."

LaHood gamely tried to put Bond's criticism in perspective, noting that highways received the lion's share -- $27 billion -- of the transportation funding in last year's economic stimulus law.

Yet Bond only dug in his heels, arguing that Americans had shown their eagerness to use roads and bridges but would not embrace rail or walkable infrastructure. "When did it become the responsibility of the federal DOT to build sidewalks?" the soon-to-retire senator asked, before LaHood that reminded him Congress set up dedicated funding for pedestrian improvements nearly 20 years ago.

The Port of Los Angeles was shut out of the stimulus' TIGER grant program. (Photo: USC)

Committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) noted in his opening statement that 77 percent of the stimulus' formula-based road and transit spending, or $26.4 billion, has been put out to bid by state officials.

"Although the [stimulus] has counteracted the increase in construction unemployment, Congress must continue to focus on job creation," Oberstar said. "Additional funding for highway and transit projects will immediately create and sustain needed employment."

Yet U.S. DOT deputy secretary John Porcari found himself fielding some tough queries from several Democrats.

Rep. Laura Richardson (D-CA), who represents the Los Angeles area, echoed Connecticut lawmakers in requesting a briefing on the rationale for excluding her district from the $1.5 billion in competitive TIGER stimulus grants that were awarded last week.

"To be very frank with you, sir, I find it hard to understand how you can fund port communities ... and find it hard to fund the largest one in the U.S.," Richardson said. The ports of L.A. and Long Beach collaborated on a package that sought more than $365 million from TIGER (short for Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery), but ultimately fell short.

Even as she expressed frustration with the lack of port grants, however, Richardson said she was pleased with the TIGER program's California winners.

"There was overwhelming demand" for TIGER funding from states and localities, Porcari explained, "and we look forward to next rounds of them." He added that the U.S. DOT plans to refine the reporting requirements for stimulus funding recipients going forward, noting that the administration's initial goal of maximizing transparency "turned into a bit of an administrative burden."

The second caveat raised by Democrats dealt with a problem often lamented by civil-rights advocates: minority and disadvantaged contractors' lack of access to transportation stimulus funds.

Rep. Corinne Brown (D-FL) also lamented the inevitability that "big guys get all of the dollars" in the federal contracting arena. Likening stimulus funding to "my grandmother's sweet potato pie," she quipped that "it's important that minorities and females get a slice."

Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) echoed Brown, calling for "a specific report" evaluating how states are complying with the stimulus law's proscription that 10 percent of transportation formula contracts be given to minority or female firms. That 10-percent requirement, Edwards said, really should be a floor and not a ceiling."

Porcari made no attempt to sugarcoat the administration's progress on the complaints of minority contractors. "It's clear that we have a lot of work to do on this," he said. "It's clear that some states are doing a better job than others."

Finally, Edwards, Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL), and other lawmakers made a pointed plea for the U.S. DOT to focus on "Buy American" rules for its high-speed rail grants as well as other infrastructure projects.

And Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA), for her part, urged Porcari to remember the unique position of low-income urban neighborhoods: "I need mass transit -- I don't need high-speed rail in my area," she said. "We only have bus transit."

Now that the Obama administration has awarded $8 billion in high-speed rail grants to more than two dozen states, with $2.5 billion more coming soon, why not keep thinking big when it comes to bullet-train expansion?

That's the ethos of a new report released today by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) calling for a New Deal-like public works juggernaut that would eventually connect all major cities located within 100 and 500 miles of each other. For a look at how such a system would remake the American rail map, check out the image above.

"The first step in building the network is to set a national goal with an ambitious time frame, just like we did for the Interstate Highway System or getting to the moon," U.S. PIRG senior analyst Phineas Baxandall wrote in a blog post unveiling the report. "We can link all our major cities by 2050, if we set our minds to it."

Given the political wrangling over the deficit that continues to paralyze Washington, however, it's worth asking how an ambitious rail program would be funded. The U.S. PIRG answers that question in several ways: First, the group calls for a dedicated revenue stream for inter-city passenger rail in the next long-term transportation bill, with local investments matched by the federal government in the same 80:20 ratio that highway plans receive.

"By financing transportation projects equitably," the report's authors write, "states will be able to make rational transportation decisions based on the needs of their residents, rather than on the chances of securing a lucrative federal match."

Secondly, the U.S. PIRG aims to put government support for Amtrak -- often derided by conservatives for its reliance on federal subsidies that also benefit road projects -- in perspective. When evaluated as a share of U.S. GDP, government investment of passenger rail looks stunningly low compared with other industrialized nations. The imbalance is visible in the chart below:

(Chart: U.S. PIRG)

From the U.S. PIRG report:

To begin to dig out of that hole, the federal government should invest steadily increasing levels of funding in passenger rail. We probably cannot hope to match the $300 billion China will be investing in its high-speed rail system between now and 2020, but we should endeavor to match the level of investment provided by other industrialized nations, as a share of GDP, in their rail networks.

White House budget chief Peter Orszag challenged employees to boost their walking last fall. (Photo: CSM)

The budget also proposes a $4 billion National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund, a rechristened National Infrastructure Bank that would use federal money to leverage private capital for large-scale projects improving the nation's built environment.

The $530 million request for the three-agency sustainable communities partnership, which got $150 million from Congress for the current fiscal year, would go directly to the U.S. DOT for "comprehensive regional and community planning efforts that integrate transportation, housing, and other critical investments," according to the White House budget office.

The administration requested $160 million in total for the two other agencies involved in the partnership, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

As promised to Congress in December, the White House also set aside funding for the implementation of its plans for a new federal role overseeing rail transit safety. The U.S. DOT would receive $30 million in today's budget to train new inspectors and help cities such as Washington D.C. come into compliance with minimum safety standards.

On the controversial question of the cash-strapped highway trust fund -- which is expected to run out of money this spring, not long after the expiration of the latest short-term extension to the 2005 federal transportation law -- the presidential budget maintains its insistence on waiting until 2011 to fix the nation's transport funding crisis.

In the budget's U.S. DOT section, the White House writes:

The current framework for financing and allocating surface transportation investments is not financially sustainable, nor does it effectively allocate resources to meet our critical national needs. The Administration recommends extending the current [federal bill] through March 2011, during which time it will work with the Congress to reform surface transportation programs and put the system on a viable financing path. ...

[T]he Administration seeks to integrate economic analysis and performance measurement in transportation planning to ensure that taxpayer dollars are better targeted and spent.

In a separate section of the budget dedicated to long-term fiscal analysis, the White House describes its $43 billion estimate for highway spending in 2011 as a placeholder, not intended to reflect the funding strategy "that the Administration and Congress necessarily should or will adopt for the long-term reauthorization" legislation.

"Rather," the budget adds, "its purpose is to accurately reflect the condition of the [highway trust fund] and recognize that, under current law, maintaining baseline spending" on highways will require more transfers of cash from the general Treasury.

The vice president takes the president's coat yesterday. (Photo: AP via Politico)

"We didn't pick this based on politics," Biden concluded to applause. "[W]e're picking the places that make the most sense, have the highest density, are ready to go."

Florida and California's rail bids undoubtedly came the closest to "true" high-speed rail, as seen in China and Europe. The Sunshine State aims to reach maximum speeds of 168 miles per hour (mph) on its Tampa-Orlando link, while the Golden State plans for its ambitious bullet train network to top 200 mph.

But was Biden right to say that yesterday's rail awards made no distinction between states with Democratic governors and states run by Republicans -- who could tout their role in snagging employment-rich train funding during future campaign seasons? At the request of a reader, Streetsblog Capitol Hill crunched the numbers ...

The high-speed rail grants are officially set to benefit 31 states in 13 corridors. But the bulk of the funding (all save $6 million in planning grants) went directly to 22 states, according to the White House's rundown of the program.

Of those 22 states, nine have GOP governors (GA, FL, CA, IN, MN, VA, VT, CT, and TX) and 13 have Democratic chief executives (NY, MA, IL, NC, WI, OH, MI, IA, ME, PA, OR, WA, and MO).

Overall, the lion's share of the $8 billion awarded yesterday was split almost evenly between Democratic- ($3.97 billion) and Republican-run ($3.84 billion) states.

No GOP governor aside from California's Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose state got $2.34 billion, and Florida's Charlie Crist, whose state took home $1.25 billion, received a rail award larger than $75 million.

Notable shutouts on the GOP-run side included Nevada, where Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) pointed a finger at Democrats after his state's rail application was deemed ineligible, and Georgia, where Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) was said to be wooing Biden for a leg up but ultimately got just $750,000.

Yet there appeared to be just as many Democratic-run states ruing their failure to win rail grants. Oklahoma came up empty after bidding for billions of dollars, while Kansas and Iowa were the sites of similar disappointment with the first round of funding.

On the whole, then, Biden's assessment of a politics-free process appears to be on target. Still, it remains to be seen whether members of Congress from those spurned states will take out their frustration on the rail program during this year's spending debates.

The largest share of the state's high-speed rail award, $2.25 billion, will go towards an Anaheim-to-San Francisco link that is expected to cost about $42 billion to complete.

Graphic: CHSRC (click to enlarge)

Smaller grants were given to improve service on the San Diego-Los Angeles Surfliner route, the Capitol Corridor route from Sacramento to the Bay Area, and to give trains new emissions control equipment.

The popular Capitol Corridor route will get a $29.2 million infusion -- including $6.2 million for the Sacramento Rail Relocation Project and $23 million will be allocated to "easing bottleneck conditions" between Davis and Sacramento.

"We can now move full speed ahead with these projects immediately, creating much-needed jobs, improving mobility options by enhancing Capitol Corridor intercity passenger train service and generating regional economic activity," Capitol Corridor Managing Director David B. Kutrosky said in a statement.

The White House grant is less than half the size of the state's initial $4.7 billion allocation, but the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) has the voter-approved ability to match the federal aid dollar for dollar.

U.S. High Speed Rail Association chief Andy Kunz praised the administration's decision to spread high-speed rail aid out among 13 different corridors, prodding states such as California to "get creative" and leverage other funding sources.

State are "all going to scramble, going to build their own money and support systems to get these things up and running," Kunz said in an interview.

Indeed, CHSRA chairman Curt Pringle hailed the funding decision, predicting that "it will benefit every single section of our planned high-speed rail system by moving this entire vision closer to reality."

California's case for White House rail money was also strengthened by bipartisan cooperation between Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and Democratic officials in Sacramento. Both sides of the aisle were elated at today's announcement.

The governor released a statement touting the upside of the state's shared approach. "California's leaders came together to support and submit one high-speed rail proposal and because of that, $2.3 billion will now flow into the California economy," Schwarzenegger said.

State Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg (D) used the moment to rally residents around continued investment in rail. "Today the federal government showed confidence in the promise of this state," he said in a statement. "It is up to us to deliver on that promise."

Meanwhile, Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA) -- who joined Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA) to craft California's first high-speed rail legislation 20 years ago -- called the funding announcement "a great first step for a program that I will continue to fight hard for in Congress in the months and years ahead."

Fighting for more funding will undoubtedly be key for California and other states facing budget crises even as they seek to build out inter-city rail networks in the coming years. Brian Stanke, executive director of the grassroots lobbying group Californians for High-Speed Rail, was already looking ahead to the next steps even as he hailed the state's victory. From his statement:

California is eligible for some of the $2.5 billion Congress appropriated last month for high speed rail, and we plan to lobby to convince the Administration to release these funds quickly. Congress also needs to ensure that the jobs bill under consideration includes several billion more for high speed rail in the near term. Additionally, we urge California's Congressional delegation to ensure the next transportation bill is passed this year and that it includes a sustainable, long-term funding source for high speed rail projects.

Bryan Goebel contributed to this report. 

But Florida will not be the biggest beneficiary of the administration's first rail rollout. The state taking home the most high-speed aid today is California, which snagged $2.25 billion to begin the process of linking Anaheim and San Francisco. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration had sought more than double that amount to begin its $42 billion rail project.

Florida is set to receive $1.25 billion for Tampa-to-Orlando rail service, while Illinois is getting about the same amount to begin environmental studies on a Chicago-to-St. Louis route and improve speeds between Alton and Dwight to 110 miles per hour (mph).

Other states celebrating this morning include Wisconsin, which got $810 million for upgrades to trains between Madison and Milwaukee; North Carolina, winner of $520 million for improvements of service between Raleigh and Charlotte; and Washington and Oregon, which got $590 million to boost the rail link between Seattle and Portland.

House infrastructure committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) hailed today's first rail grants as "a transformational moment," adding: "The development of high-speed rail in the United States is an historic opportunity to create jobs, develop a new domestic manufacturing base, and provide an environmentally-friendly and competitive transportation alternative to the traveling public."

The president and Vice President Biden are set to officially announce the rail winners this afternoon. (A full list of all winning train corridors is available here.)

But after a process marked at times by parochial jockeying for funds and concern over whether federal aid would be awarded in too piecemeal a fashion, it was not surprising to see Republicans seize upon the potential pitfalls of the high-speed program.

Rep. John Mica (R-FL), whose district in Central Florida is among today's big winners, released a statement that started out on a positive note but quickly shifted to a scathing critique of the administration's rail vision for lacking maximum speeds that approach those in Europe and China, where bullet train passengers rocket along at 150 mph and faster.

“Even the first leg of the Orlando-Tampa route will be a slow-speed, short-stop line,” Mica said.  “The Midwest routes chosen will only achieve a top speed of 110 miles per hour and were selected more for political reasons than for high-speed service.”

Several of the rail upgrades receiving funds today are expected to improve top speeds to 90 mph or less, including the North Carolina project and an Ohio bid to start train service between Cleveland and Cincinnati.

Mica also decried the lack of any significant funding to improve Amtrak's northeast corridor, which he termed an "unfortunate hijacking" that would ensure service between Boston and Washington "remain[s] the slow-speed stepchild of passenger rail transportation."

In a knock at the northeast route's popularity with commuting lawmakers -- including, most famously, the vice president -- Mica added: "Keeping the Northeast Corridor as a private train set for a few select politicians will insure continued congestion in our nation’s most densely populated region."

The northeast region will receive $112 million in total today, including $38.5 million to build a new rail bridge in northern New Jersey that will create expanded commuting capacity in anticipation of the massive Access to the Region's Core tunnel connecting the region to New York City.

Mica was joined by Rep. Bud Shuster (R-PA) in his critical statement. Meanwhile, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) -- a major proponent of modern rail service along New York's upstate Empire Corridor -- had only good things to say about today's announcement although her region looked to miss out on the initial round of high-speed aid.

"In addition to creating construction and design jobs, the investment in rail will help the U.S. economy in a myriad of other ways, such as easing congestion on roads, reducing pollution and helping to bring development to different communities," Slaughter said.

Even as the White House gives its rail investment a deserved dose of pomp and circumstance today, advocates for U.S. high-speed train service continue to look to the future as a gauge of the administration's commitment. Congress' $2.5 billion appropriation for 2010 will need to be matched in future years, rail planners say, in order to make even one state's proposal a reality before the decade is through.

As the group America 2050 put it in a statement released before the winning states emerged:

We recognize that tomorrow’s funding announcement represents less than 5 percent of what will be needed to build a truly national HSR system. In 1956, President Eisenhower initiated the Interstate Highway System, which was built over several decades in partnership with the states through a sustained funding commitment and a dedicated revenue source by the federal government. To realize a national vision for high-speed rail, a similar funding commitment by the federal government will be required.

Late Update: Florida's rail bid has fueled an ongoing scrum between the state's conservative, Tea Party-aligned forces, which oppose the major federal role in the project, and lawmakers from both parties who have been more welcoming of the high-speed train cash. And today's in-person visit by the president is driving the stakes higher for Gov. Charlie Crist (R-FL), who polls show falling behind in his Senate race against GOP rail critic Marco Rubio.

As the TBO.com blog reports, Crist has decided to greet Obama at the airport when he arrives this afternoon but will skip the town meeting at which his state will formally receive rail money.

Freight upgrades made EDF's transport wish list for 2010. (Photo: TSA)

Most items on AASHTO's list are awaited with equal fervor by green groups and transit advocates, such as new high-speed rail grants and a congressional jobs bill -- but most state DOTs are unlikely to see eye to eye with transport reformers on the big issues, to put it mildly.

With that in mind, perhaps, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today released its own top 10 transportation to-dos.

The entire list is worth reading in full, while remembering that many of EDF's preferred changes have the best chance of becoming law if Congress moves forward with a new six-year transportation bill before the midterm elections. Two goals on the list are notable because they often get short shrift in the larger debate:

• Modernized, cleaner freight: Funding for a freight system that is efficient and provides environmental benefits. Our freight system is expected to grow 80% in the next 10 years, and we need solutions to reduce pollution and congestion. ...
• Pay-as-you-drive insurance: Let's incentivize reduced VMT and get PAYD in every state, so drivers can opt for an insurance policy that best reflects their lifestyle.

Rep. John Olver (D-MA), chairman of the House appropriations panel for transportation (Photo: MA Power Shift)

The final legislation omits the $5 billion the White House had sought for its proposed National Infrastructure Bank, with Appropriations Committee members noting in a statement that "due to the complexity of this proposal, it should be considered through the regular authorization process."

In addition, the new bill resolves a politically charged clash over allowing guns on Amtrak trains by removing language that would have threatened the rail network's federal funding if it did not allow firearms in checked baggage.

Instead, the House-Senate agreement requires Amtrak to report to Congress within 180 days on a weapons screening plan and to implement the policy within one year, while consulting with the Department of Homeland Security. The bill makes no mention of possible loss of federal aid.

The House and Senate bills varied widely in their treatment of high-speed rail, with the latter reserving $1.2 billion for bullet trains in 2010 while the former upped the ante to $4 billion.

Transportation reform groups and local planners had lobbied hard for the higher number but appeared to consider $2.5 billion an acceptable midpoint.

"While the figure is still short of the full $4 billion recommended by the House, it is a significant step in the right direction," Phineas Baxandall, senior budget analyst at the U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG), said in a statement. "It sends a clear message to the country that high-speed rail is on the move."

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) would receive $10.73 billion for 2010 under the new deal, more than the House-passed level. Washington D.C.'s Metro, facing fare hikes after a June crash that killed nine passengers, would receive $150 million for safety and maintenance.

The $150 million for the administration's inter-agency sustainable communities plan matches the White House request. The U.S. DOT also stands to receive $600 million for competitive, merit-based grants in line with the popular TIGER stimulus program, which is being eyed for this winter's coming jobs bill.

Finally, the new legislation also addresses the congressional investigation into Amtrak management's stormy relationship with its inspector general.

Language in the bill states that the U.S. DOT "shall not make grants for" Amtrak operating in the third and fourth quarters of 2010 until a member of the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency certifies that the rail network is collaborating successfully with its watchdog.

Late Update: Transportation for America, which had joined U.S. PIRG in pressing for a $4 billion high-speed rail investment, released a statement hailing the agreement and its lead negotiator in the House. T4A co-chairman John Robert Smith said:

This $2.5 billion would not be possible without the efforts of Congressman John Olver, a friend of public transportation throughout his 18 years in Congress. We applaud Congressman Olver’s efforts and look forward to our continued partnership.

One of China's high-speed rail cars. (Photo: TreeHugger)

The deal involves a net gain for both parties. GE plans to share its low-emissions Evolution Series technology with CSR Qishuyan, China's biggest diesel locomotives company, while China's Ministry of Railways will license high-speed rail technology to GE.

And given American policymakers' concerns that U.S. "high-speed" trains will be too slow to compete with overseas models, it's worth underscoring that the GE-China deal has a target speed of 350 kilometers per hour, or about 220 mph.

The deal, which GE says could provide up to 3,500 U.S. jobs, requires 80 percent of the materials for high-speed rail construction and 100 percent of the assembly to come from American sources. From the statement issued by Tim Schweikert, president of GE Transportation China:

(Image: CA HSR Authority)

In California, freight railroad Union Pacific is negotiating with HSR planners over sharing right-of-way. In upstate New York, planners concede that proposed HSR trains may not reach Niagara Falls because of the hard bargain getting driven by CSX, the freight company that controls right-of-way.

So how can the White House's HSR plan avoid miring in local right-of-way struggles?

Urban studies professor and transportation expert Anthony Perl outlined his proposed solution today at the U.S. High Speed Rail Association conference. Perl's answer to the right-of-way conundrum: the "infrastructure condominium."

Perl's term may not roll off the tongue, but his concept is simple. Instead of freight railroads engaging in high-stakes dealmaking for rights-of-way, HSR planners would lease the rights to the track.

"Freight railroads can collect 'rent' for their rights-of-way," Perl explained today, "and can get involved in the operation end [of HSR] if they're interested. All they have to do is sign the right documents … and they'll get a check every month."

Perl, director of the urban studies program at Simon Fraser University, explains the concept further in his book Transport Revolutions:

In a railway infrastructure condominium, the right-of-way would be owned separately from the tracks, communications and signalling systems and electric power distribution equipment. ... The tracks occupying a railway condominium could remain quite segregated operationally, or some could be integrated into a common network. Rents could be paid to a ground-lease holder, which in many cases would be a private railway company that had previously owned the integrated tracks, signals, and right-of-way. These rents could be used to finance electrification of America's freight rail network, which could remain in private hands.

Perl acknowledged that his "infrastructure condo" would not solve all the difficulties facing the U.S. government's HSR buildout, and that the freight industry "would fight such an idea" given that their existing rail infrastructure stands to receive a major upgrade as part of the U.S. DOT's first round of HSR grants.

Still, with conservative critics predicting that the need to accommodate existing track ownership could turn into a "subsidy" for freight railroads, the prospect of reining in the freight industry's bargaining power -- while providing it a guaranteed source of revenue for rights-of-way -- could catch on in Washington.

When House transportation committee chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) recently accused his colleagues of lacking the "political will" to pursue long-term reform of infrastructure policy, he wasn't simply employing a D.C. rhetorical flourish. To understand what Oberstar meant, let's travel to Berlin for a moment.

A German-made high-speed rail car. (Photo: Spiegel)

Colby Itkowitz, CQ's crack transportation reporter, headed to the German capital for a story about the nation's thriving high-speed rail network -- and what the White House can learn as it pursues its own bullet-train vision.

What she found was a political system that funds highways and inter-city rail equally and treats mobility as a "basic right":

The government views access to transportation, no matter one's social or economic situation, as a "major basis of prosperity and quality of life," says Engelbert Lutke Daldrup, state secretary at the German Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Affairs. The goal, he says, is that transportation not be a hindrance in people's lives. Germany's 60-year-old constitution references the "establishment of equal living conditions" as an area where the government can legislate.

Not that Germany has provided a perfect example of a high-speed rail rollout. Itkowitz found that German lawmakers, much like members of the U.S. Congress, have succumbed to parochial concerns and clashed over putting rail stations in their individual districts. Moreover, the German rail network has not seen "a consistent trend" of development near rail stations, according to CQ's report.

But compare the German experience to infrastructure policy-making in America, where a sizable contingent of conservatives continues to push for the right to wholly opt out of the federal transportation system. High-speed rail has so far been a bright spot for bipartisanship, attracting legitimate support from both sides of the aisle, but much depends on how effectively the Obama administration distributes its first $8 billion for rail this winter.

CQ articles are normally available only to subscribers, but you can check out Itkowitz's full report from Berlin after the jump.

Berlin -- Across much of Europe, high-speed trains have changed the nature of inter-city travel and made it unnecessary to own a vehicle. To be sure, most people still own cars in Europe, but the key difference from the United States is that they don't have to.

A standout is Germany, where high-speed rail lines have been up and running for almost two decades and where Siemens, the leading manufacturer of the technology, is headquartered. Unlike some European countries that have invested their resources in a few dedicated high-speed rail corridors between major cities -- a model America is likely to emulate -- Germany has built a huge network of lines that interconnects the entire country.

The sleek Intercity Express bullet trains, better known as the ICE, speed through the German countryside at more than 150 miles per hour. These trains arrive and depart as scheduled -- it is Germany, after all -- and the spacious seats have pillow headrests. Separate, enclosed compartments are available stocked with toys like those you'd find in a doctor's waiting room for families with young children. In the dining cars, tables are covered with white cloths and waiters take orders from a full menu that ranges from snacks to entrees.

Such mobility is considered a basic right in Germany. The government views access to transportation, no matter one's social or economic situation, as a "major basis of prosperity and quality of life," says Engelbert Lutke Daldrup, state secretary at the German Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Affairs. The goal, he says, is that transportation not be a hindrance in people's lives. Germany's 60-year-old constitution references the "establishment of equal living conditions" as an area where the government can legislate.

Germany's success in implementing high-speed rail can largely be attributed to this philosophy -- one backed by financial and political commitment. Of the 12 billion euros spent annually by the German federal government on transportation, roughly equal amounts are spent on the national rail lines and on highways -- which translate to about $5 billion each, according to Daldrup. Compare that with the United States where the federal government invests almost $40 billion annually in roads and about $1.5 billion in Amtrak, the quasi-governmental passenger rail corporation.

To be fair, Germany's geography is far better suited to a national rail system. The country is slightly smaller than Montana and its major cities -- Berlin, Munich, Frankfurt and Hamburg -- are within a few hundred miles of one another. "Here, it is a conscious effort to strengthen railways. It's about 40 percent railways, 50 percent roads, and that's a political decision," said Thomas Hailer, managing director of the German Transport Forum. "Germans are still attached to their cars as a status system, but they are also rational. We see a certain saturation, the number of cars per household is stagnating while public transport is still growing."

German environmental priorities also seem different than those of Americans. The country has been a leader in fighting global warming and began working toward reducing its carbon emissions in 1990. Gazing out the window of a high-speed train in Germany one can view farms of wind turbines dotting the landscape. Sascha Nicholai, communications director for the German Railway Industry Association, said it's very important for Germany to show the world -- especially at December's U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen -- that it supports climate friendly technologies.

"In Germany you have a group of persons asking what kind of transportation is the most ecological," Nicholai said. "It's typical for the behavior of the German to see the environment is worthy, it has a special value in the German mind." For these reasons, Germans have been innovative in making rail transport both comfortable and convenient. For example, the German airline, Lufthansa, has partnered with some rail stations to allow air passengers to check in for their flights at the station if they are taking a train to the airport.

Lufthansa also has canceled some of its short-haul flights between cities. When a passenger attempts to book a flight on the airline's Web site between Frankfurt and Cologne, for instance, which are linked by a dedicated high-speed rail corridor, Lufthansa provides the schedule for the ICE train.

But German transportation experts are quick to point out that developing successful high-speed rail isn't a simple undertaking. According to Wolfgang Fengler, a university professor specializing in transportation technology, it takes Germany a minimum of 15 years to build a line and more than 30 years before the line turns a profit.

Germany has had political problems with too many lawmakers seeking to place stations in their hometowns. Not only do the added stops slow the fast trains, but there also hasn't been a consistent trend of regional development at every new station stop. "It's not a job to earn a lot of money in a short term to invest in rail," Fengler said. "But it's good for the society."

(Photo: Streetsblog LA)

Under the circumstances, one might think that lawmakers would pay extra attention to oversight over the high-speed rail spending. But that's far from the case, as a senior official at the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) told the House transportation committee yesterday.

Mark Yachmetz, the FRA's associate administrator for railroad development, noted that the stimulus allowed only "one-quarter of 1 percent" of the high-speed rail pot to be used on oversight as well as the logistics of evaluating applications from more than two dozen different states -- which have totaled $57 billion.

"We're using those funds up right now during application reviews," Yachmetz said. "If the situation isn't addressed, we're going to have significant problems when it comes to project implementation."

Yachmetz also observed that the stimulus law didn't provide for any new positions at the agencies in charge of setting up a national high-speed rail program. "We will handle the applications," he said, "but no, we don't have the resources we need for a mature program."

Members of the House committee appeared receptive to Yachmetz's call for help with oversight. But the potential legislative vehicle for any forthcoming FRA oversight aid remains to be seen.

Stephen O'Brien has been coaxing an oasis out of a most unlikely environment for a long time: the small green patches at either end of the ground level Mission Street frontage of the Transbay Terminal. He started back in 1958, when the old Key System train tracks that used to bring East Bay electric streetcars to the Transbay Terminal were being torn out. The Transbay Terminal in those days was a crucial commuter hub, bringing passengers from all over the East Bay. If you've ever ridden the F bus from Berkeley to San Francisco, you've ridden on the descendant of the same-lettered streetcar that once transported you from downtown Berkeley to downtown San Francisco just a minute longer than BART does today!

O'Brien is having his last day working his gardens at the Transbay Terminal today. His company's contract with Caltrans has ended, and he has been transferred to the State Building or the PUC building grounds. He's almost 80 years old and if he doesn't like his new posting, he'll probably retire soon. It'll be hard to match the half century he's spent cultivating the quiet, almost invisible oases at the Transbay Terminal. I heard about O'Brien from my friend Susanne Zago:

"Every morning I step out of the Transbay Terminal, one of the ugliest places I've ever been, and I notice this small green space as I leave. Sometimes it was completely trashed, but the next day I'd look in and it would be restored to its pristine condition. I looked at the trees, surprisingly mature, wondering what was planned for them as they build the new Transbay Center. I started asking around, and no one knew. One day I met this man who was in the space and it turned out to be Stephen."

July 20, 1953, Key System train awaits on platform in Transbay Terminal. (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library.)

Passengers boarding Key System train, June 8, 1948.

A natural oasis at 1st and Mission.

Beneath this 45-year-old pine lies a hidden patch of nature, nurtured for a half century by Stephen O'Brien.

A garden flourishes in a forgotten corner.

Stephen O'Brien knows what's going to happen. His 52 years of nurturing these garden spots will be bulldozed with the rest of the old 1939 Terminal, making way for the new tallest building in San Francisco and a multi-billion dollar transit center. The project has been gestating for years. I once had an office at 37 Clementina, which is only about a block away, and I remember the original plan in the late 1980s to bring Caltrain into the city center at 1st and Mission in order to connect to BART and MUNI, establishing a true regional transit hub. The Caltrain extension was deep-sixed by transit planners. Years went by, during which BART was extended to the airport and MUNI extended its N-Judah by building waterfront tracks around to 4th and Townsend (massively subsidizing the Giants' "privately financed" stadium). Now they've resuscitated the Caltrain extension, in order to bring High-Speed Rail into the center of downtown. The profligate waste of resources is breathtaking. But as long as engineering firms and contractors and building trades workers are all keeping busy, it's good for the economy right?

Anyway, as we go through our daily lives it's easy to not see the little patches of nature struggling to gain a foothold in the aptly named concrete jungle. I spoke to O'Brien on Wednesday and learned a bit about his long service at this deeply layered historical site. He told me when he showed up in 1958 there were just brown patches where today there is dense foliage and tall trees. I went to look for old photos at the Main Library's online collection, and as you can see from these pictures, the spots that Stephen has been maintaining have always been "green," albeit nothing like what he's helped them become.

In this December 27, 1939 photo taken in the first year of the Transbay Terminal's operation, you can see the two garden spots laid out from the beginning. (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library.)

By August 10, 1964, Stephen O'Brien had been watering and attending this garden for almost six years. (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library.)

October 8, 2009, just months before demolition.

O'Brien has an interesting history himself. He's got an Irish name but on his mother's side of the family, he has an English grandfather and a German grandmother. His English grandfather once owned a dairy ranch on the western slopes of Mt. Tamalpais before selling it off for $500! O'Brien grew up in Tomales Bay, and as a young man he jumped at the chance to purchase a lot in the newly subdivided Inverness back in the 1940s: $25 down and $25 a month until he'd paid off the $1,000 price. Today his lot is the only one left in Inverness that hasn't had a house built on it.

He told me about the barber who used to have his business inside the Terminal. After helping him sink his plumbing O'Brien got free haircuts for a long time. There used to be three different restaurants inside too, including the James Gray Company restaurant, and shoeshine and shoe repair were also thriving businesses there. Continental Trailways bus service once used the station in competition with Greyhound, just as other train lines once ran across the Bay Bridge along with the Key System, until the Bay Bridge was converted to motorized vehicles only.

O'Brien was in the basement a few years ago and saw that the vast underground space was still as good as new. Nevertheless, it's all coming down soon. He noted that the rebuilding of the Fremont Street ramps from the Bay Bridge had probably saved his gardens for an extra seven or eight years. The gnarly pine tree closest to First Street was saved from a nearby State Building, when O'Brien transplanted it from a discarded planter. It's grown to be 20 feet tall and while it's oddly shaped there's no denying that is seems to be thriving with its roots in the ground! The twin pines at either end of the Terminal were planted more than 45 years ago and though they've grown rather tall, they're dwarfed by the skyscrapers that have continued the southward march from downtown. O'Brien told me about the various birds, LBB's, gulls, hawks, and pigeons that have made this mini-habitat a resting spot. Varieties of butterflies have found a home here too.

The eastern end of the Terminal plaza.

The Millennium tower dwarfing the 45-year-old pine tree at Fremont and Mission.

To the west, this ungainly monster dominates a hearty pine tree that was saved from a discarded planter by Stephen O'Brien.

Who remembers that the highrise in the photo above was built on the site of the old arcade known as "Fun Terminal"? The same "Fun Terminal" that gave its name to the seminal album by local rockers The Mutants back in the early 1980s?...

Fun Terminal! Right across 1st Street from O'Brien's Garden back in the 1970s-80s.

Stephen was philosophical about losing his half-century's work. It makes him sad, of course. O'Brien's gardens have survived in surprised juxtaposition to the changing neighborhood that surround them. Easy to overlook, his gardens are larger examples of the persistence of nature even in a highly built environment. For those of us who haven't noticed the garden spots as we've scurried by, preoccupied with the day's work or the domestic dramas ahead, their imminent disappearance (they will no longer be maintained, but should stand for a few months more at least) might serve as a cautionary note. Shouldn't we stop and smell the flowers? And shouldn't we honor the essential work of the invisible toilers in our midst, people like Stephen O'Brien who has selflessly and without ulterior motive kept these little patches of urban greenery flourishing for decades? Stop by today and say thanks to Stephen O'Brien!

In 1953, pigeons had the roost of the lawn... (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library)

Going, going, ...

November 1965 view looking southeast over the Transbay Terminal. (Photo courtesy San Francisco History Center, SF Public Library.)

Terminal History

San Francisco’s Transbay Terminal was built in 1939 at 1st and Mission Streets as a California Toll Bridge Authority facility in order to facilitate commuter rail travel across the lower portion of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge.  It was paid for by Bay Bridge tolls, which were then 50 cents per automobile.  At the time, the lower deck of the Bay Bridge was not only used for automobile travel, but also hosted two rail tracks on the south side. The rail portion was run principally through the Key System.

The Terminal was designed to handle as many as 35 million people annually with a peak 20-minute rate of 17,000 commuters that were transported in 10-car trains at headways of 63.5 seconds. In its heyday at the end of World War II, the terminal’s rail system was transporting 26 million passengers annually. After the war ended and gas rationing was eliminated, the Terminal’s use began to steadily decline to a rate of four to five million people traveling by rail per year. In 1958, the lower deck of the Bay Bridge was converted to automobile traffic only, the Key System was dismantled, and by 1959, the inter-modal Transbay Terminal was converted into a bus-only facility, which it currently is today.  (from the Transbay Center website)

Image: CAHSRA

In a statement, the governor said, "Recovery Act funding for high-speed rail will go further and create more jobs in California than in any other state in the nation – because we have pledged to match it dollar-for-dollar." Using US DOT job creation numbers, the governor's office estimates that the full $4.7 billion would create 130,000 jobs throughout the state.  The dollar-for-dollar local match referred to in the statement would come from the $9.95 billion Proposition 1A bond voters approved in last year's election. Local, state, and national political representatives are rallying throughout the state today to show support for the ARRA request, with a regional event at San Jose's Diridon station.

According to a CAHSRA fact sheet, the $4.7 billion would be spent accordingly:

• $980 million for San Francisco to San Jose, including station improvements, grade separations, electrification and safety, and state-of-the-art "positive train control" in an upgraded, shared alignment with Caltrain.
• $466 million for Merced to Fresno, including right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures and track.
• $2.18 billion for Los Angeles to Anaheim, including high-speed train facilities at Los Angeles Union Station, Norwalk Station and the Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center; right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures, tunneling, and track work.
  
• $819.5 million for Fresno to Bakersfield, including right-of-way acquisition, grade-separations, utility relocation, environmental mitigation, earthwork, guideway structures, track relocation and new track.
  
• $276.5 million for preliminary engineering and environmental work in all system segments including Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire, Los Angeles to Palmdale and Bakersfield, Sacramento to Merced and the Altamont Rail Corridor.
  

They may sound like villains in the next Transformers movie, but "megaregions" are a vital aspect of U.S. life these days. The vast majority of the nation lives in one of the 11 inter-city clusters identified by America 2050 in its new analysis of the future of high-speed rail, making megaregions the best potential sites for rail development.

But with $8 billion in economic stimulus money to distribute, and as much as $4 billion in the pipeline for next year, which area should the Obama administration focus on first?

America 2050 seeks to answer that question with an independent system that scores city pairs for their HSR potential based on six criteria: metro area size, distance, connections to local transit, economic productivity, congestion, and proximity to one of the 11 megaregions.

The results, if not surprising, point to a rational process of phasing in HSR construction. City pairs in the northeast corridor spanning from Washington to Boston dominated America 2050's top 10, with the northern-to-southern California route also ranking highly.

But in the effort to rely on empirical data, the group's HSR rankings do not acknowledge two factors that are likely to influence the final decision on which rail corridors to fund.

The first, inevitably and unfortunately, is political clout. Many members of Congress have already started lobbying in favor of their home-state HSR proposals, and state officials are already grappling with how seriously to accommodate local resistance to rail planning.

As Jebediah Reed observed, the monumental challenge of getting HSR right can make one long for "some brutally determined Robert Moses type in national government who could cut through all the crap." Without such a figure on the scene, however, it's worth looking at which megaregions have the political muscle on the federal, state, and local levels to coax industry players -- not to mention local voters -- into getting behind new rail lines.

On that political front, the midwestern cities that did not make America 2050's top 10 appear to have a leg up. The $8 billion for HSR was added to the stimulus by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, an Illinoisan, on behalf of the president, an Illinoisan. The Transportation Secretary spearheading the current HSR push is Ray LaHood, an Illinoisan, and his Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) chief is Joseph Szabo (yep: an Illinoisan).

The midwestern HSR proposal also has well-positioned advocates in Congress and governors actively promoting the economic potential of an eight-state network. It seems reasonable to suggest that the Great Lakes megaregion, as America 2050 dubbed it, should be ranked in the top 10.

The second factor rarely noted in America 2050's analysis is right of way; namely, the difficulty of negotiating with freight railroads over control of existing tracks and with local governments over sites for future track construction.

Right of way is one of the major obstacles that has prevented Amtrak's Acela trains from reaching their ideal "top speed" of 150 miles per hour on all but a few occasions, and while the northeast corridor is the most heavily traveled passenger rail route in the nation, it is also riddled with potential right of way claims from seven freight railroads and eight local commuter railroads. (Some midwestern HSR advocates, by contrast, have suggested a plan that uses existing rights of way.)

That does not mean, of course, that bringing HSR to the northeast cannot be accomplished by relocating certain tracks and hammering out a deal that transfers rights of way to the new bullet train system. Still, an independent metric for rating right of way difficulties would have made America 2050's rankings even more informative.

Yet on the whole, the group's analysis offers a useful and clear-eyed method to make tough choices between HSR proposals. One hopes the FRA might keep a copy on hand alongside its own far more muddled series of criteria for evaluating rail.

Now, others have already begun to do this. California has released a lot of documentation and research related to its decision to construct a high-speed rail network. At a more casual level, Chris Bradford and Yonah Freemark have shown that simply by making a few reasonable assumptions, the stripped down models used by Ed Glaeser produce results that are far more favorable to rail investment.

But I think it's worth stepping back and considering the decision to build HSR in context. The biggest problem I have seen with critical arguments is that they ask the wrong question, namely, given current conditions could a single HSR line be profitable.

That's not the way to make these decisions, and indeed, if we had been making decisions like that all along, much of the country's existing infrastructure would never have been built. So let's see if we can't arrive at a better understanding of the question to which some of us believe HSR is the answer.

In this country, we do not build transportation infrastructure for profit. Perhaps this is upsetting to the libertarians among us, but that's how it is and how it should be.

Rather, we build transportation infrastructure because we recognize that mobility is vital for the economic, social, and political life of the country. The question then becomes, what criteria does government use to build new infrastructure? What is government trying to accomplish?

To a significant extent, these decisions are not wisely made. Local governments often plan new roads based on what developers want and what federal funding is available to them.

Planners often make plans that attempt to figure out where growth will be or should be, and their advice is occasionally heeded. Limited cost-benefit analyses and environmental impact statements figure in decisions but are rarely binding.

The point is this -- the decision to build a new highway or a new airport is rarely the result of a rigorous analysis of the totality of costs and benefits, to individuals, taxpayers, and society.

That doesn't mean that we should feel good about building rail whether or not it makes economic sense. It does mean that the existence of highways and non-existence of HSR should not be taken as evidence of any kind of intrinsic economic goodness on the part of highways.

So, having said all of that, let's set out a few key facts for consideration. First, current infrastructure appears to be inadequate. Roadway congestion in America is quite costly. The Texas Transportation Institute has estimated annual congestion costs around $80 billion.

That works out to annual costs of approximately $10 billion for Los Angeles, $8 billion in New York, $3 billion in Atlanta and Dallas, $2 billion in Philadelphia and Boston, and so on down the line.

These numbers are open to dispute; congestion costs are difficult to estimate. But it is clear that significant amounts of valuable time and fuel are wasted everyday due to crowded conditions on highways and city streets.

Congestion is worsening in large metropolitan areas, and serious congestion costs can be found in progressively smaller metropolitan areas. Airline delays have also gotten progressively worse in recent years, particularly in our largest metropolitan areas.

Now, congestion at airports and on roads can be reduced by increasing the cost of using those modes. Congestion declined with increases in the price of oil in 2007 and 2008. Unfortunately, the economy's dependence on oil meant that high oil prices contributed to the onset of a serious recession.

It's also worth noting that increases in the price of oil and decreases in driving and flying took place alongside increases in usage of transit and rail. This reflects that rail is a substitute for highway and air travel, and that increases in the cost of the latter will boost demand for the former.

A third piece of information: the American population is forecast to grow by over 100 million people over the next four decades.

Currently, the Census Bureau projects that the United States will be home to approximately 440 million people in 2050, about 133 million more people than currently reside in the country. Based on recent trends, it seems likely that most of those people will live in the country's metropolitan areas.

Based on these pieces of information, it seems clear that if nothing is done, congestion will continue to increase. Ultimately, this will lead to a steady reduction in mobility within and between the nation's metropolitan areas, with negative consequences for economic activity and social welfare.

The question, then, is this: what should be done about this state of affairs?

One potential answer is what you might call the no-build solution -- no new capacity of any sort will be built. Governments might choose several options within the no build solution; they could truly do nothing, or they could choose to ration demand by pricing roads and airport slots.

In either case, however, the cost of traveling by road or air would rise. This could be reflected as an increase in time cost or monetary cost or both.

However the increase occurs, recent experience suggests that the rising cost of travel by car or plane will lead to an increase in demand for substitutes. In the absence of action, then, demand for transit and rail will be enhanced (and cost-benefit analyses should reflect this).

Note: I'm not mentioning oil prices at all here. It's not easy to predict where prices will go tomorrow to say nothing of four decades down the road.

It does seem likely, however, that oil price volatility may increase in coming years (and has already increased since the placid days of the 1990s). In that case it's worth considering the value of an acceptable substitute to driving and flying. The better consumers can adjust to swings in oil prices, the less economic damage such swings will do.

Now, what if we choose to build new capacity? This, it seems obvious to me, is the most likely policy course. Governments will react to complaints about growing congestion as they always have -- by building more capacity.

The question then becomes what kind of new capacity should be built. Glaeser and others have attempted to show that high-speed rail does not pass a simple cost-benefit test. I'm inclined to disagree with their assessment, but to a certain extent, that question is beside the point.

Government is going to build more capacity. Given that, what is likely to be the best investment, all things considered?

Available alternatives, as it turns out, are not all that attractive. Roads do not appear to pay for themselves any more than railways do. Receipts from the federal gas tax come close to covering federal highway expenditures, but gas is used on highways and non-highways alike, indicating that at the federal level, highways are subsidized.

A more detailed analysis by the Texas Department of Transportation led to the development of the Asset Value Index, which was used to gauge the life-cycle cost of Texas roads, highway and non-highway.

According to the Texas research, none of the state's roads paid for themselves, taking into account all relevant taxes and fees. In some cases, gas tax rates would have to be $2 per gallon or more before a piece of infrastructure would break even. Obviously, a gas tax at that level would correspond to increased usage of substitutes, like rail and transit.

Environmentally speaking, rail infrastructure is a much better option than new road or air infrastructure. Ed Glaeser concluded that there are positive environmental gains from building rail, and he was comparing rail to the no-build alternative.

If one assumes that some kind of new infrastructure will be built, then the case for rail becomes more compelling still. Life-cycle emissions for rail are considerably lower than those for driving options.

They're lower than flying options as well, and rail compares most favorably to life-cycle emissions for small planes, which are most common on the short routes that would be in direct competition with intercity trains.

Glaeser did cite research out of Britain as a reason to be wary of the life-cycle emission benefits of high-speed rail, but even there rail comes out fairly well.

The research, a Booz Allen Hamilton study commissioned by the UK Department for Transportation, shows that on routes where rail currently has a low market share (which describes most of the routes being considered for HSR service in America) rail can produce significant emission savings, even taking construction of HSR systems into account.

What's particularly notable about this is that it compares HSR construction to a no-build option, rather than a world in which air services are expanded to alleviate airport congestion.

Very little of this will satisfy those who want to see how rail can earn a profit before moving forward. That's fine, and as the title indicates, this is just the beginning of the argument for high-speed rail.

But it's important to understand the context in which the rail decision is being made. America will be building new intercity transportation infrastructure in the coming decades, of that we can be sure. In many cases, the most attractive of available investment options will be high-speed rail.

High Speed Rail as envisioned running along the San Francisco Bay. Image: California High Speed Rail Authority.

The court found that the plaintiffs - the Town of Atherton, the City Menlo Park, the Planning and Conservation League, Transportation Solutions Defense and Education Fund, California Rail Foundation, and Bayrail Alliance - had two major legitimate complaints. The Authority failed to recirculate the Final Project EIR after learning that the Union Pacific Railroad would not allow high speed trains to share its right of way from San Jose to Gilroy, which means the train will have an impact either on the adjacent Monterey Highway or residents and businesses along the route, the court ruled.

The ruling, by Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny, also found that the Authority's claim "that mitigation strategies will reduce the vibration impact to a less-than-significant level is not supported by substantial evidence." On related complaints about noise and visual impact, the court ruled in the Authority's favor.

Stuart Flashman, the Oakland-based land-use attorney representing the plaintiffs, told The Almanac newspaper the Authority is "back to the drawing board" as a result of the ruling. In fact, the ruling may not give critics of high-speed rail much of a wedge.

"The assessment of our lawyers," said Authority Executive Director Mehdi Morshed, "is that the court decision is a minor issue and that it's not going to impact our schedule, that we can continue our work and not it's going to have an impact on our project-level work or our federal funding request."

Though the judge has yet to determine what the Authority will need to do to remedy the situation, Morshed does not anticipate it will set the project back. Even before the ruling, the Authority had "accepted the fact that we can't use the UP right of way," said Morshed. "We're proceeding accordingly. So the fact that they're saying, 'Well, how are you going to handle UP right of way,' is something we've been doing, so it's not something new."

The ruling is more problematic for proponents of alternative alignments along the Altamont Pass, I-280, and US-101, since the court sided with the Authority in their review of alternative routes. "We actually think it's a very, very good court ruling," said Morshed. "If you read it, the judge agreed with practically everything we did. All the issues that the people who sued us raised, the judge found them to be invalid. So, it's just these two issues that the judge said we need to do more work on, and we'll be happy to do that. But fundamentally, our big fundamental issue is, the judge agreed with us."

"For those who wanted us to basically give up on Pacheco and go back and look at Altamont, the judge didn't give them that."

Given how contentious the project has been with some Peninsula residents, of course, this is not likely to be the last skirmish. But for now, the Authority doesn't view the ruling as the major setback portrayed in some newspaper headlines this morning.

Dallas' DART transit system. (Photo: Light Rail Now)

In this week's post he responds to that complaint by saying he picked a "mythical" 240-mile span between Dallas and Houston "to avoid giving the impression that this back-of-the-envelope calculation represents a complete evaluation of any actual proposed route" -- which should lead one to wonder exactly what he's doing here.

He's unwilling to put his figures on the line as representing a complete analysis, and yet he's fairly immodest in detailing his conclusions. He at least owes his readers an assessment of what is being left out, how important it is, and how its inclusion might alter his findings.

Glaeser's analysis assumes no population growth -- he bases ridership on current metropolitan populations -- and no shift in mode share over time, despite the fact that both Houston and Dallas have rates of transit ridership well below similar-sized cities (suggesting that with growth, transit's share will increase) and are rapidly constructing new systems to facilitate greater transit use.

If one adjusts anticipated ridership figures to correct for these errors, and if one uses a more realistic figure for the value of business traveler time, then benefits appear to come quite close to or exceed costs of construction.

Today, Glaeser seeks to estimate the environmental and congestion benefits of high-speed rail, and he quickly stumbles into error once again. Once more, he fails to take into account population growth, despite that variable's crucial importance to this analysis.

Instead, he assumes that rail will merely poach riders from the ranks of current drivers and fliers. Not only does this miss that in the coming decades millions of additional travelers will move to the area, but it also ignores the effect of population growth on congestion costs at highways and airports.

Houston and Dallas are among the most congested of the country's largest cities, and growth in annual delays per traveler in Houston and Dallas has dwarfed increases in delays in peer cities over the past decade, rising by about 50 percent between 1997 and 2007 compared to increases of around a third or less for the country's other large metropolitan areas.

Rapid population growth is overwhelming existing infrastructure between the two cities. Even if the rate of population growth slows, significant new capacity will have to be constructed to prevent major increases in congestion costs.

In that case, one must either update the environmental analysis to include significantly higher congestion costs for roads and airports, or one must set the emission costs of new road and airport construction and set the numbers for new capacity against the emission costs of rail. Or one can simply do as Glaeser does, and ignore the whole issue.

Glaeser makes more mistakes as he goes on. He appears to use the fuel efficiency for passenger cars -- 22 miles per gallon -- even though nearly half of the nation's households vehicle fleet consists of light trucks, which average only 18 miles per gallon.

And he writes, "These estimates suggest that trains are green, which differs from the studies, which include the emissions from building the rail system, cited by Eric Morris at Freakonomics," when Morris' blog post shows nothing of the sort, and when actual assessments of life-cycle emissions demonstrate that rail is, in fact, very green relative to applicable alternatives.

The small errors are annoying, but the real problem is the series itself. This is simply not a credible attempt to understand the costs and benefits associated with construction of a high-speed rail system. Rather, it's a bunch of hand-waving concealing the fact that extremely unrealistic assumptions are being used to reach what are presented as fairly definitive conclusions.

A well-intentioned analyst would approach this project with some humility, and would take pains to inform readers of the many shortcomings of what is an admittedly "back-of-the-envelope" assessment. But Glaeser can't honestly account for the factors he omits and still reasonably claim that rail construction isn't justified by the numbers.

And so we get this. Next week, the exercise mercifully concludes. Perhaps in his final installment Glaeser will do more to recognize the failings of his approach.

The Senate's transportation bill, shepherded by senior appropriator Patty Murray (D-WA), provides $1.2 billion for the Obama administration's high-speed rail initiative -- $200 million more than the White House's budget request, but significantly less than the $4 billion that the House set aside for that purpose.

Highways, by contrast, got $41.1 billion from the House but $1.4 billion extra from the Senate, for a total of $43.5 billion in spending. Transit would get $480 million more than the White House requested, along with a $150 million infusion for the cash-strapped D.C. Metro system.

Senators matched their House counterparts on funding for the administration's inter-agency "livable communities" project, which is aimed at encouraging transit-oriented development. And the Senate outdid the House on rail safety, providing the $50 million in grants for technology upgrades that was sought by two senior Democrats after the D.C. Metro crashed  last month.

The Senate's total spending on both transportation and housing for 2010: $122 billion. The bill released today is expected to be merged with the House product sometime in the fall before heading to the president's desk.