High Speed Rail

For the second time this week, the "Room For Debate" section of The New York Times is tackling an area of interest for planners. This time, High Speed Rail in California is up for debate by a series of contributors.

Facing strong headwinds from citizens, legislators, and analysts, Governor Jerry Brown threw his unequivocal support behind the state's proposed high speed rail project in his annual State of the State address.

Tim Sheehan investigates the lessons -- both successes and mistakes -- that can be learned from Spain's 20-year history with high speed trains.

President Obama's 25 year vision for a nationwide revolution in High Speed Rail is stuck in the station.

For those who missed it, Friday brought the end to the influential infrastructure focused blog -- The Infrastructurist

If California doesn't start work on high speed rail by September, 2011, it will lose $3 billion in funding. If California does start work without securing future funding, it could end up with a $6 billion track to nowhere.

Architect Peter Calthorpe lays out a forceful argument for the lower costs and higher benefits of constructing high speed rail versus expanded highways to serve the state's growing population and economic development.

A 'peer review' committee advises that the legislature should refuse to authorize funding for the first phase of California's high speed rail project, citing a "immense financial risk" for the state.

Atlantic Cities offers a review of ten of the worst urban transportation failures to take place in American cities in 2011.

Per a USDOT press release on Monday, Secretary LaHood has OK'd an additional $928.6 million in funding for California high speed rail, keeping the funds out of reach from state Republicans who'd rather the money go to highway construction.

According to preliminary reports on the new business plan, the California High Speed Rail Authority's new estimate for the 800-mile system will be $98.5 billion - initially pegged at $43 billion, and will take an additional 13 years to build.

On Tuesday, the California High-Speed Rail Authority announced that the cost of the project has tripled to nearly $99 billion, and federal funds for it don't exist yet--prompting some legislators' support to fizzle.

If the lack of funding doesn't kill it, lawsuits in northern, southern, and now central California might just do it. California Watch analyzes the lawsuits facing the CA High Speed Rail Authority in the three regions of the state.

This post from The Infrastructurist looks at recent arguments for and against high speed rail projects in the U.S. through the lens of spending.

Officials in Malaysia and Singapore have high hopes for the high speed rail link planned between the two countries.

California's high speed rail project has been criticized for starting its first section in the state's central valley and connecting to small towns. But this piece argues that's exactly the right way to do it.

A compromise high speed rail approach for the Peninsula to have the train use the existing Caltrain corridor without elevating or widening it may have mollified some Peninsula HSR opponents but stirred opposition by Central Valley HSR advocates.

A $1.3 million ridership study produced by transportation consultants for the State of Florida made the case that high-speed rail would have made money from day one -- too late, because Gov. Scott has already killed the project.

As states return money aimed at high speed rail projects, officials from North Carolina are hoping to scramble up some of this newly available funding to augment existing projects.

Writing for Metropolis, Karrie Jacobs bemoans America's slow pace of growth in transportation infrastructure, and blasts efforts as being too "incremental".