RosenbergOilAlternativesResearchAnnotation5

United States. Congressional Research Service. // High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States //. By David Peterman. 8 Dec. 2009. Web. 13 Apr. 2011.   **  2. Where does the author work, what else has s/he written about, and what are her/his credentials?
 * 1. Full citation. **

**      David Peterman, the coordinator of the project, is listed as an “Analyst in Transportation Policy” at the Congressional Research Service. Although it is difficult to find credentials for the author, he is found to have written extensively on transportation security for the Congressional Research Service through initiatives at the Department of Homeland Security ( []) , as well as on budgeting for Amtrak (  []) and transportation in general ([]). 3. What is the main topic or argument of the text? ** The piece primarily argues that the construction of high-speed rail networks is wrought with a great deal of uncertainty, and that many of its benefits may be either overstated or unclear in the context of the United States. 4. Describe at least three ways that the main topic or argument is fleshed out. ** In beginning its argument, the text opens with a comparison of high-speed rail projects in the United States to experiences abroad. In particular, two types of high speed rail service are delineated by the piece: upgrading existing infrastructure, and building entirely new rail lines. It is also noted that the level of usage and cost may depend on numerous other factors present within these nations. For instance, countries which have leveraged high-speed rail operations are found to have higher population densities, smaller land areas, lower per capita car ownership, lower levels of automobile use, higher levels of public transportation use/availability, and higher gasoline prices. In addition, government played a significant role in developing these networks abroad, while historically much of the rail network has been privately owned within the United States.
 * 
 * 

In addition, the piece also questions many of the benefits suggested by proponents of these projects. In terms of ridership, a 1997 Federal Railroad Administration report is referenced which suggests that most rail improvement projects would divert only 3-6% of intercity automobile trips, as opposed to 20 to 50% from air travel. In addition, in order to compete with other forms of transportation, it may be necessary to subsidize these rail lines to keep ticket prices low. In this sense, the authors question whether pollution reduction estimates will indeed reach the forecasted levels if ridership is lower than expected. Also, it is noted that many of these estimates do not take into account the emissions resulting from the construction of the rail network, as well as the generation of the electricity used in powering the trains if it does not come from “clean” sources.

Last, it is argued that current rail infrastructure in the United States is inadequate even for current needs, let alone upgrades for faster travel. As an example of this claim, it is noted that while Amtrak’s on-time performance was 85% in the Northeast Corridor, it was only 65% elsewhere. In this sense, large capital investments may be necessary to improve existing infrastructure before it can even be expanded to higher-speed applications.

** 5. What three quotes capture the critical import of the text? **   1) “The relative efficiency of HSR as a transportation investment varies among countries, as its level of usage is likely to depend on the interplay of many factors, including geography, economics, and government policies”      2) “However, much of the criticism of HSR is based on concerns about its cost-effectiveness in the near to medium term. This is of particular concern since HSR is likely to rely more heavily than other modes (automobile, air, and intercity bus) on general tax revenues as opposed to user fees/taxes, although the user fees/taxes that support those other modes may not cover their so-called externality costs (that is, costs that those modes impose on other people, such as environmental pollution and deaths and injuries due to crashes). The poor cost-effectiveness of HSR, according to critics, rests in large part on the nation’s geography, with lower-density urban areas that are much more widely spaced than are urban areas in much of Europe and Asia. “     3) “New York City is also the only city in the country where more residents (55%) do not own an automobile than do. In most other large U.S. cities, the percentage is between 10% and 25%... the Acela trains running to and from New York City on the NEC are the only Amtrak trains that reportedly cover their operating costs”    6. Explain how the argument and evidence in the text supports your research focus.   **  In considering the question of whether high-speed rail networks are feasible in the United States, it is important to consider both perspectives of the argument. Many of the claims of states such as California are contingent on an implicit assumption that these new rail services will divert consumers from substitutes such as planes, busses, and automobiles. However, this article raises doubts as to whether this will in fact be likely in many regions in which these lines have been proposed. In addition, it questions whether all externalities have been considered in assessments of pollution and other negative features of the projects, and as a result finds the cost to often be prohibitive in shorter-term time horizons, given that only two routes worldwide have succeeded in simultaneously covering their development and operational costs. 7. List at least two details or references from the text that will be useful to other members of your research group  ** 1) In Fiscal Year 2008, Amtrak had 28.7 million riders, who paid an average ticket price of $60.39. If a 10% tax were to be added to those tickets, it would have raised $172 million, which was more than the $164.5 million that states provided to the agency in the same year. However, the authors question whether such a measure will make a significant dent in what are likely to be expenditures on the order of billions of dollars in the development of high-speed rail options.
 * 
 * 

2) One estimate which is referenced states that the level of ridership necessary to justify the cost of high speed systems like what are seen in other countries is 6 million to 9 million riders in the first year of operation. This is then compared to what is seen on Amtrak’s Acela trains, which in 2008 carried only 3.4 million passengers in the Northeast Corridor (also the most densly populated one in the United States). It is also argued that given concerns of terrorism along high profile lines, there may be additional security requirements put in place which further diminish the competitiveness of this service relative to alternative modes of transportation.