A Vital Plan to Utilize High-Speed Rail from Boston to Washington Will Bring the U.S. Much Needed Economic Benefits

In a column that appeared in the Washington Post, former mayor of Providence, Rhode Island and the past director of the Rhode Island Economic Development Corp., Joseph R. Paolino Jr. advocates the development of a high-speed Acela train route that would connect Provident with Boston. Such a construction program would provide a high-speed connection that would run from Boston to Washington. Paolino makes his pitch by observing that: "Putting millions of Americans to work and rebuilding our frayed infrastructure are Barack Obama's most pressing priorities when he takes office. He should start by creating a high-speed rail link between Boston and Washington." Paolino reflects on a past experience he shared with then-governor Dukakis to relate that a once promising dream should be revitalized: "More than 20 years ago, in 1988, I traveled as mayor of Providence, R.I., with then-Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis on a new high-speed Amtrak train from Providence to Boston. Our trip took less than half an hour. Unfortunately, the early hopes we all had for high-speed rail in the Northeast have yet to be realized." Paolino drives home his plan by suggesting: "Instead of patching yet another rail line, we should take a step back and consider the best way to contribute to our economy and meet our long-term transportation needs. It is past time to give the Northeast a 21st-century transportation system. High-speed rail could cut in half the travel time along the corridor -- the best high-speed systems in Europe and Asia travel at twice the effective speed of Amtrak's fastest Acela train -- and invigorate the metro economies of Boston, Providence, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington." Paolino urges decision makers to fully asses the benefits of his plan and: "Consider the economic and environmental benefits: During the construction phase, a project of this magnitude would put tens of thousands to work. The faster trains would draw travelers from automobiles and airlines, as they do in Europe and Asia. The London-to-Paris run, via a tunnel under the English Channel, has captured 70 percent of the public-transit market between those cities. Similar demand in the Northeast would significantly reduce gasoline consumption, as well as highway and airport congestion, and it would improve air quality." The reality of our current high-speed rail capabilities according to Paolino are: "... high-speed in name only. The Acela travels between Boston and New York (including its stops in Providence and a few other locations), on average, at only 61 miles per hour. For travel between New York and Washington, the average is 79 miles per hour." That means that America is failing to operate it's high-speed rail system at woefully less than intended speeds. Paolino explains that: "By contrast, the fastest Eurostar train between London and Paris averages 136 miles per hour, including stops. It takes only two hours and 15 minutes to go the 307 miles from London to Paris, compared with 3 1/2 hours for the 215-mile trip between Boston and New York." What Paolino is arguing is that the United States has dropped the ball in the sense that we really do not operate a true high-speed line and have been surpassed by nations of lesser means. The difference is that the English and the French designed a workable plan and carried it through; gaining vast economic benefits along the way. The United States on the other hand has failed miserably to enable the Acela to be an real high-speed train line because we failed to carry out the necessary planning and construction projects that would have turned a dream into reality. To make maters worse for the United States chances of claiming a world leadership role in high-speed rail systems is explained by Paolino that: "Investments in high-speed rail are accelerating outside the United States. In Europe, Travel & Leisure magazine reports, 16,000 miles of new high-speed service is in the works. Passengers should be able to hop from Madrid to Lisbon in two hours. In Asia, China plans a high-speed link between Beijing and Hong Kong that will cut the travel time by half." There is no reason why the United States should not be able to show the world the path to high-speed transportation by trains other than a lack of political will and determination. The benefits to our economy; especially during a time of economic sluggishness, would be immense. Paolino lamentably points out that: "In the Northeast, the Acela rarely gets to test its top speed, 150 mph, between Boston and New York. Because of limitations on the right of way, the Acela is only 20 to 25 minutes faster on that route than the quickest conventional trains. The full potential of high-speed train travel will never be realized on a 19th-century rail infrastructure that has been only modestly improved over the years." Paolino explains the processes that would be necessary: "To accommodate high-speed rail, many areas of tracks in the Northeast Corridor would have to be widened, straightened or even relocated. If trains are to go faster than 100 mph, there would have to be much greater separation between the trains and any nearby pedestrians or motor vehicles. Bullet trains and slow-moving freight trains may not be able to share the same tracks. New tunnels, trenches or bridges could be needed." Paolino realizes that: "Constructing a system for high-speed rail will be expensive, but these are not normal circumstances. Obama takes office next week amid the worst economic crisis since the Depression. Large public investments and innovation are key to reviving the economy and putting people back to work. High-speed train service on the Northeast corridor would be an excellent place to start moving our citizens, and our economy, into the 21st century." How can anyone truly disagree with Paolino's much needed and bold plan to reestablish American leadership in high-speed rail lines?