Is the Policy Window Open for High-Speed Rail in the United States: A Perspective from the Multiple Streams

Model of Policymaking

Zhenhua Chen1

Published on Transportation Law Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, 2011 Summer

Zhenhua Chen is a PhD student in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University and currently working as a graduate research assistant under the supervision of Prof. Jonathan Gifford, in the areas of transportation policy. Mr. Chen was awarded the Graduate Student Best Paper Award of the 51st Transportation Research Forum held in Arlington, VA, March 11-13, 2010 for the paper named Analysis of Factors Affecting High Speed Train Ridership in the United States-the Acela Express Case Study. Before coming to George Mason University, Mr. Chen received his MA in Regional Economics from the Business School at Shenzhen University in China. The author appreciates the invaluable feedbacks from Professor Susan J. Tolchin, Professor Jonathan L. Gifford, Joan Bauerlein, and Junyang Yuan. The author also thanks the Transportation Law Journal editors and reviewers for their efforts on this article. 1

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1730267

ABSTRACT With the election of a new government, intercity passenger rail, which had faded for years, is now back on President Obamas agenda. Technological innovation has brought focus to high speed intercity passenger rail transportation. This new focus has revealed too many people who are tired of modern transportation problems, such as airline delay and highway congestion, a new hope for future travel. This paper will begin with a chronological introduction of the intercity passenger rail policy in the United States. John Kingdons Multiple Streams model (MS) is adopted to explore the roles of political streams in the processes of shaping the national strategic plan for high speed rail development. Three main questions will be answered through the analysis: (1) Why is High Speed Rail (HSR) on President Obamas agenda now?; (2) What role does HSR play in the US?; and, (3) what can be done in order to have such big infrastructure project implemented both efficiently and effectively over the long term and without facing the hurdles of a shift in the political tide.

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1730267

I. INTRODUCTION High-Speed Rail (HSR) also known as an intercity passenger transport, runs at a maximum speed of over 150 mph.2 Traditionally rail-dominated countries such as Japan, Germany and France use HSR to connect metropolitan and have achieved impressive social and economic successes due to their use of HSR. Countries such as Spain, Korea and China have introduced HSR into their transportation systems and are now also beginning to see the results of HSR after years of projects.3 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) of 1991, America had initiated creating a concrete HSR plan.4 The High-Speed Rail Development Act (HSRDA) of 1994 took further, clear steps to bring HSR to the United States.5 However, during Bill Clintons second term and during George W. Bushs first term, as President, HSR faded out of
There are a number of different definitions of high-speed rail in use worldwide. The most common definition is established by the UIC (International Union of Railways) and EC Directive 96/58, which defines high-speed rail as systems of rolling stock and infrastructure which regularly operate at or above 156.25mph (250km/h) on new tracks, or 125mph (200km/h) on existing tracks. The U.S. definition of a minimum speed for high-speed rail is lower than that used in Europe. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) defines high-speed rail in three different ways: l High-Speed Rail Express: Frequent, express service between major population centers 200600 miles (320965 km) apart, with few intermediate stops. Top speeds of at least 150 mph (240 km/h) on completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of-way (with the possible exception of some shared track in terminal areas). Intended to relieve air and highway capacity constraints. l High-Speed Rail Regional: Relatively frequent service between major and moderate population centers 100500 miles (160800 km) apart, with some intermediate stops. Top speeds of 110150 mph (177240 km/h), grade-separated, with some dedicated and some shared track (using positive train control technology). Intended to relieve highway and, to some extent, air capacity constraints. l Emerging High-Speed Rail: Developing corridors of 100500 miles (160800 km), with strong potential for future HSR Regional and/or Express service. Top speeds of up to 90110 mph (145177 km/h) on primarily shared track (eventually using positive train control technology), with advanced grade crossing protection or separation. Intended to develop the passenger rail market, and provide some relief to other modes. See A Version of the High Speed Rail in America for more information. Federal Railroad Administration. April 2009. p. 10. 3 The Japanese Shikansen, French TGV, and German ICE are thought to be the most successful High-speed rail worldwide. After the maturity of the high-speed rail technology, other countries also started to build their own high-speed rails through technology introduction. Currently, the Spanish high-speed rail AVE and Korean KTX high-speed rail is directly derived from the French Alstoms technology and the Chinese CRH high-speed rail systems is based on the high-speed rail technology from the Japanese Shikansen, French TGV and German ICE all together. 4 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240: 105 Stat. 1914 (1991). 5 The Swift Rail Development Act of 1994, Public. Law 103-440: 108 Stat. 4615 (1994).
2

the governmental agenda for more than a decade. In recent years the background of soaring gasoline prices and increasing concerns about environmental protection, it has become clear that HSR is an ideal alternative for future transportation. HSR has gained new attention in the United States nationwide. Furthermore, since the 2008 economic recession, job creation has become the first priority of the Obama Administration.6 The Obamas administration has given HSR a new task, creating jobs. In February 2009, just a few days after his inauguration, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed in which apportioned $8 billion dedicated fund designated for a national high-speed rail investment.7 In April 2009, the Department of Transportation announced the national strategic high-speed rail plan: Version for High Speed Rail in America, which includes 11 high-speed corridors designed to accomodate maximum speeds of over 120mph.8 One year later in January 28 2010, President Obama unveiled the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program, which included several initial selected projects that would be awarded federal funds.9

The original words are President Obamas first priority in confronting the economic crisis is to put Americans back to work, which can be found at the White House website at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/economy, (assessed Nov 28, 2010) 7 $8 billion capital assistance was planned for intercity passenger rail projects and rail congestion grants, with priority for high-speed rail. Public .Law. 111-5. Page 123 STAT. 208.(2009) 8 The ARRA requires within 60 days of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a strategic plan that describes how the Secretary will use the funding provided under this heading to improve and deploy high speed passenger rail systems. Public.Law. 111-5. Page 123 STAT. 208.(2009) As potential funding targets, the plan formally identified ten corridorsall previously designated as high-speed rail corridors by several successive Secretaries of Transportationas well as the existing Northeast Corridor. The ten designated high-speed corridors include: Southeast Corridor, California Corridor, Pacific Northwest Corridor, South Central Corridor, Gulf Coast Corridor, Chicago Hub Network, Florida Corridor, Keystone Corridor, Empire Corridor and the Northern New England Corridor. See A Vision for High-Speed Rail in America for more information, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. April. 16. 2009. 9 The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) received 259 grant applications from 37 States and the District of Columbia requesting nearly $57 billion in funding, far exceeding the initial $8 billion available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. In total, 79 applications from 31 States were selected for funding. Available at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/hsiprapplist.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010)
6

These changes in policy and funding show that unlike other countries, the idea of HSR in the United States has been on and off public and Presidential agendas because of different economic situations and political tides. Now supported by an innovative and ambitious President, the faded HSR seems on the verge of a come back and seems ready to get on the right track. Yet the answers to several fundamental questions are still unclear: Why is President Obama now pushing HSR instead of other alternative modes? What are the situational differences between the related HSR Acts that have passed during Obamas administration and that in the Bill Clintons term and first George W. Bush term? What role does HSR play in the United States and what can be done to implement these long-term infrastructure projects implemented efficiently and effectively? To answer these questions, it is necessary to understand the internal mechanism of agenda-setting in the policy making process by following paths of public policy theory, and then find a rational explanation for the policy outcomes. Many public policy theories have addressed the policy making process in different approaches, for example, the Pluralism Theory, Public Choice Theory, Critical Theory and Rationalism Theory.10 Another classic theory, also known as the Multiple Streams Model (MS Model), developed by John Kingdon in his book Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies, has been widely used for a variety of policy analyses. 11 Kingdon posits three relatively independent but intermittently coupled streams that constitute the policy process: problems, policies and politics.12 The political streams are constituted by political developments as conventionally-understood:
See Anne Larason Schneider and Helen Ingram. Policy design for democracy, University Press of Kansas, c1997. See John Kingdon. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies 2nd edition. Longman, (2003). 12 The Multiple Stream has been commonly used to analyze many different kinds of policy issues. See Athearne Jeremy. Note from a French perspective, International Journal of Cultural Policy, 12:1,1-15, (2006).
11 10

public mood, pressure group campaigns, election results, partisan or ideological distribution in Congress, and changes of administration.13 The problem stream is composed by external events that impose themselves on the decision-makers attention, whether through mechanisms of indicators, focusing events and feedback.14 The policy stream is constituted by the accumulation of competing proposals put forward by various policy communities.15 This stream comes to compose a policy primeval soup in which politicians and their advisors cast about for responses to events thrown up by the other two streams.16 The soup is stirred by policy entrepreneurs who are continually looking for connections between politics and policy making. 17 They are persistent and looking for policy window for action. 18 This paper concentrates on the MS model to analyze how these different streams interact with each other in the HSR policy-making process. The reason for adopting the MS model instead of other theories is because MS model provides with a better framework to investigate how policy outcome is shaped by different political factors. Additionally, a case study of Florida HSR is introduced specifically to explain how coupled activities of policy entrepreneurs influence the policy outcome when the policy window opens.
13 14

Supra note 10, at 145. Supra note 10, at 113. 15 Policy communities indicate specialists in a given policy that are scattered both through and outside of government. They are including committee staffs in Congress, staffs in Congressional staff agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office or the Office of Technology Assessment, and academic scholars, consultants, or analysts for interest groups. See John Kingdon. Supra note 10, at 117. 16 Policy primeval soup, as pointed out by Kingdon, refers to the formation process of policy ideas, alternatives and proposals in the policy community since this resembles a process of biological natural selection where molecules floated around in what biologists call the primeval soup before life came into beings. See John Kingdon. Supra note 10, at 117. 17 Kingdon defines the policy entrepreneur as advocates for proposals or for the prominence of an idea. See John Kingdon. Supra note 10, at 122. 18 The policy window refers to an opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their political ideas, or to push attention to their special problems. See John Kingdon. Supra note 10, at 165.
6

II. MULTIPLE STREAM MODEL Policy making is a complicated process because there are many actors involved, and their propositions and influences can have impacts on the policy making process.19 The involvement of many actors inexorably makes the policy outcome difficult to predict.20 Through a drastic oversimplification, public policy-making can be considered to be a set of processes, including (1) the setting of the agenda; (2) the specification of alternatives from which a choice is made; (3) an authoritative choice among those specified alternatives; and (4) the implementation of the decision.21 For the past forty-four years, the concept of HSR has been addressed and discussed among policymakers only at the agenda-setting and alternative stages, and has never reached the authoritative or implementation stages.22 However, this situation has changed since Barack Obama became the President of United States. Through two Acts, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) and ARRA, HSR has been pushed onto the national agenda and has begun to enter the authoritative and implementation stages.23 There must be a powerful strength behind this change for success. In order to understand the inherent driving force for this change, we will then follow John Kingdons MS model to explore different streams behind HSR policy.
19

In Kingdons book, policy actors are divided into two groups: participants on the inside of government, including the Administration, civil servants and Capitol Hill; Outside of government, which includes interest groups, academics, researchers, consultant, the media, election-related participant, and public opinion. Supra note 10, at 21. 20 Id. 21 Supra note 10, at 2-3. 22 From January 4, 1965 in the Annual Message to the Congress on the State of the Union by President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) who publicly addressed supports for high-speed rail development to February 17, 2009 when the passage of ARRA, the period is forty-four years. See details regarding LBJs speech at Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965. Volume I, entry 2, pp. 1-9. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, (1966). 23 See Public Law No. 110-432, Division B 501-502; and Public .Law. 111-5. Page 123 208 (2009).
7

A. Problems Stream What does the problems stream consist of in the HSR policy making process? Why is HSR raised? How do problems attain the attention of policymakers? According to Kingdons model, various mechanismsindicators, focusing events, and feedbackbring problems to governmental officials attention. 24 In the actual HSR policy making process, all these mechanisms have played roles in pushing HSR forward. Generally, HSR is addressed to solve contemporary transportation issues. As a new transportation mode, HSR is different from conventional passenger rail because of higher speed, better amenities, and higher reliability for on-time performance. Also, in terms of energy efficiency and social and economic impacts, HSR has a unique advantage over other transportation modes in medium-distance travel. 25 From 1990-2009, 73 bills have been

proposed in the House or Senate related to HSR and 8 of HSR related bills that have been passed.26 Problems for these bills to solve vary in terms of different time. In total, there are three major problems that HSR aims at: (1) improving the national intermodal transportation network; (2) providing transportation alternatives for energy savings and environmental concerns; and, (3)
24 25

Supra note 10, at 113. Normally, HSR is thought to serve distance between 100-500 miles distance, higher than 500 miles is dominated by air, and lower than 100 miles is preferred by automobile. See more comparison in High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan: Press Release and Highlight. p1, Federal Railroad Administration. April. 16. 2009. Additional study regarding the best service distance can be seen in Yoav Hagler. Where High-Speed Rail Works Best. Aug 2009. America 2050. 26 The 73 proposed high-speed rail related bill between 1990 to 2008 are H.R.3947, H.R.1087, H.R.1452, S.797, H.R.2102, S.1474, S.1493, HR 2761, H.R. 2878, H.R.2914, S.811, H.R.928, S.438, S.839, H.R.1919, H.R.4556(Law No: 103-331), H.R.4867, S.1318, H.R.2002(Law No: 104-50), H.R.3675, S.738(Law No: 105-134), H.R.2066, S.961, H.R.2169(Law No: 105-66), S.1103, H.R.2341, H.R.2400(Law No: 105-178), S.2063, H.R.3805, S.2307, H.R.4328(Law No: 105-277), H.R.2450, H.R.2666, H.R.2683, S.1496, H.R.3700, S.1530, H.R.3166, S.250, S.870, H.R.2329, H.R.2950, S.1991, H.R.4761, H.R.5216, H.R.396, S.104, S.1961, H.R.2571, H.R.2615, H.R.2378, H.R.2726, S.1409, S.1501, S.1505, H.R.3211, S.2306, H.R.1631, H.R.1713, H.R.2351, H.R.2992, H.R.3058(Law No: 109-115), S.1516, H.R.5965, S.294, H.R.4122, H.R.4123, H.R.1300, H.R.2095(Law No: 110-432), S.3700, H.R.5644, H.R.6003, H.R.6004.
8

creating jobs and stimulating economy prosperity. The first problem that HSR aims at is to improve the national intermodal transportation network. 27 As a new dimension of transportation infrastructure created to meet passenger transportation demand, HSR has been addressed as a way to enhance the national transportation system. Many indicators were used to reveal this problem. In 1965, in his remarks signing the High-Speed Ground Transportation Act, President Lyndon B. Johnson quoted socioeconomic statistics to point out the need for HSR development: In the past 15 years, travel between our cities has more than doubled. By 1985only 20 years awaywe will have 75 million more Americans in this country. And those 75 million will be doing a great deal more traveling...we must find ways to move more people, to move these people faster, and to move them with greater comfort and with more safety. 28 Later in the 1990s, highway and airport congestion became a more apparent issue for policymakers to tackle.29 A study was conducted to assess the feasibility of implementing HSR system as an alternative mode in the United States.30 At the request of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the National Research Council, operating through the Transportation Research Board, assembled a committee to assess the applicability of HSR technologies to meet the demand for passenger transportation service in high-density travel markets and corridors.31 The study result shows that HSR could be an effective alternative to auto and air travel in
See Anthony Perl, Integrating HSR into North Americas Next mobility Transition. Working paper available at: http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/publications/RCWP_Perl.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 28 See John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=27281 (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 29 See Michael Marien and Lane Jennings, 1989. Future Survey Annual 1988-89. Bethesda: World Future Society. 134-135 30 See examples, California High Speed Rail Authority, Moving California Forward: Californias High-Speed Train System, available at: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/news/MOBILITY_lr.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 31 See Brian Kingsley Krumm. High Speed Ground Transportation Systems: A Future Component of Americas Intermodal Network? Transportation Law Journal. 1994. Vol. 22. 309-326.
9
27

corridors where travel demands are increasing, but where increasing the capacities of highways and airports is difficult.32 Many studies have also shown that building an HSR system helps improve the national intermodal network and thus strengthen national competitiveness.33 For many years this was the issue that HSR bills addressed. The second problem that HSR addressed was providing an energy efficient alternative form of transportation that takes into account environmental concerns.34 This is especially true when the economy is under certain energy and environmental pressures. During 2007 and 2008, soaring gasoline prices undeniably facilitated the passage of PRIIA in terms of energy concerns.35 The main objective of PRIIA focuses on increasing support for intercity passenger rail, including Amtraks long-distance route and passenger line in the Northeast Corridor (NEC), and HSR corridors.36 Before the bill was submitted to Congress, two pivotal studies had been conducted to examine HSRs impact on energy and the environment. The first study named

See Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. In Pursuit of Speed: New Options for Intercity Passenger Transport, Special Report 233, Ch. 3, (1991) 33 See High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States, CRS report R40973, December 8 2009, p.14-19, available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40973.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). Also see U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of the Inspector General, Analysis of the Benefits of High Speed Rail on the Northeast Corridor, Washington, DC, June 26, 2008, available at: http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/HSR_Final_7-1-08.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). Also see U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration and Florida High Speed Rail Authority, Final Environmental Impact Statement: Florida High Speed Rail, Tampa to Orlando, May 2005, p. 1-7, 4-119, available at: http://www. fra.dot.gov/downloads/RRDev/florida_tampa-orlando_feis.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 34 See President Obama Delivers on American High-Speed Rail, addressed by Ray LaHood on January 28, 2010, available at: http://fastlane.dot.gov/2010/01/president-obama-delivers-on-american-highspeed-rail.html (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 35 In June 2008, the average gas price reached to a record high $4 per gallon, which is an important reason for policymaker paid attention on passenger rail. See David Randall Peterman, High Speed Rail (HSR) in the United States. Congressional Report for Congress, available at: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40973.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 36 See Federal Railroad Administration Overview, Highlights and Summary of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). (Public Law No. 110-432, Division B, enacted Oct. 16, 2008), March 10, 2009.
10

32

High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. concluded that the implementation of pending plans for the federally designated HSR corridors could result in an annual reduction of 6 billion pounds of CO2.37 The second study conducted by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission created by Congress indicated that intercity passenger rail consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger mile than airlines and 21 percent less energy per passenger mile than passenger automobile travel.38 In short, with the increasing demand for a sustainable, clean and efficient transportation system, the problem of energy efficiency and environmental concerns about the transportation system had been raised through many statistical indicators. These systemic indicators have helped a greater number of policymakers to become aware of the problem and have stimulated them to take the issue seriously.39 The third problem is the economic recession and high unemployment. To create jobs and stimulate economy is another important objective of the HSR.40 Although creating jobs through HSR projects has been addressed at different times, it did not receive a lot of attention until the recession arrived. Early on April 28, 1993, Secretary of Transportation Federico Pea introduced the Clinton Administrations proposal for a major new initiative in the advancement of high speed ground transportation.41 It was the first time that HSR was aimed at creating jobs and
37

See Joint 2006 study by the Center for Clean Air Policy and Center for Neighborhood Technology, available at: http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 38 See Vision for the future: U.S. intercity passenger rail network through 2050, prepared by the Passenger Rail Working Group for Commissioner Frank Busalacchi, National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, p. 9-10. The data that used is derived from Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 26, 2007. 39 This has been further discussed in the section of policy stream. 40 Supra, note 34 41 See Reed, Smith, Shaw and McClay, Clinton Administration Announces High Speed Rail Initiative, 3 One Track:
11

spurring economic growth.42 However, the proposal was stranded by one of the powerful opponentsthe transportation unions, which believed that the new HSR routes could result in layoffs or wage cuts for workers on conventional rail and bus lines.43 Compared to the recession in 2009, the economy situation in 1993 was much healthy. People do not have much interest in HSR if their jobs are secure, which explains why the idea of HSR is not as popular during economic growth as it is in recession. When most peoples jobs are threatened, any measures that can secure their jobs are welcomed. For that reason, during the 2009 recession, the HSR plan proposed by President Obama aimed at creating jobs came at a right time and right place, and indeed gained numerous supports nationwide. Reframing HSR as a means to achieve job creation is a wise resolution because it not only catered to the transportation unions, but also gained a wide range of constituents support. Not surprisingly, as a triggering event, the economic recession naturally facilitated passage of the ARRA of 2009, which is one of the most significant Acts that supported HSR including an unprecedented dedicated fund as high as $8 billion for the planned HSR corridor development.44 According to Kingdons theory, problems are often not self-evident from the indicators.45 Problems need a little push to get the attention of people in and around government.46 That push is sometimes provided by a focusing event like a crisis or disaster that calls attention to the

High Speed Ground Transportation Update 1 (Spring 1993). 42 Id. 43 See Krumm, Brain Kingsley (1994), High Speed Ground Transportation Systems: A Future Component of Americas Intermodal Network? Transportation Law Journal, Vol.22, No.2 309-326. Also see the original source by Jon Healy, High-Speed Measure Slowed in Its Tracks, Congressional Quarterly, July 31, 1993, at 2045. 44 Supra note 6. 45 See John Kingdon. Supra note 14, at 94-95. 46 Id.
12

problem, a powerful symbol that catches on, or the personal experience of a policymaker. 47 Fairly often, problems come to the attention of governmental decision makers not through some sort of political pressure or perceptual slight of hand but because some more or less systematic indicator simply shows that there is a problem exists.48 However, with a triggering event, the effects of problem can be exacerbated, putting greater focus on the problem.49 The three aspects of the problem combined together, not only the executive and legislative branch, but also general public have all been attracted to the business of HSR. B. Policy Stream In Kingdons theory, the policy stream represents a short list of proposals.50 This short list is not necessarily a consensus in the policy community on the one proposal that meets their criteria; rather, it is an agreement that a few proposals are prominent.51 Having a viable alternative available for adoption facilitates the placement of a subject high on the governmental agenda, and dramatically increases the chances for placement on the decision agenda.52 So does the HSR become more realistic? A detailed development plan and a clear project purpose can be very helpful for policymakers to make decisions. In order to gain legislative supports, HSR proposals were submitted with a variety of contents and focuses (See Table 1). Table 1 Proposed High-Speed Rail Bills from 1991-200853
47 48

Id. Id. at p 90. 49 Id. 50 Id. 51 Id. 52 Id. at 144. 53 Bills are selected through the legislation search bill engine from the Library of Congress website with a key word high speed rail. The classification method is based on the purpose of bills. A similar method has been adopted by Cameron Gordon in Congressional Response to Fragile Foundations: An Analysis of Congressional Infrastructure
13

Breakdown by Number Bill Type Authorization Corridor Planning Financing Energy Concerns Safety and Security Technology Economy Stimulation
* Some bills may contain more than one type.

Breakdown by % SENATE 43 33 34 57 20 75 14 HOUSE 57 67 66 43 80 25 86

Total 37 3 35 14 15 4 7

SENATE 16 1 12 8 3 3 1

HOUSE 21 2 23 6 12 1 6

* Authorization: includes authorizes appropriations, authorize Secretary of Transportation to establish special corporation, committee or agencies, to provide supports for HSR design and research. Financing: to provide direct financial assistance for HSR infrastructure. Corridor Planning: specific HSR corridor or route planning, service improvement. Energy Concerns: to promote energy independence by bolstering rail infrastructure. Safety and Security: to strengthen national security and improve intercity passenger rail safety, to prevent railroad fatalities, injuries. Technology: To encourage development of HSR related technology. Economy Stimulation: to provide support for HSR investment to restore the United States economy.

Among these focuses, the most dominate issues are authorizations and financing. An authorization is important in order to gain legislative support for HSR development while financing fuels HSR projects with funds to take off. These two elements are also keys to HSR development in the United States.54 Safety and security became much more focused especially after 9/11.55 Meanwhile, HSR proposals are also likely to be addressed when gasoline prices soar.56 This is the particular reason for the submission of the Program for Real Energy Security

Legislation since 1988, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090100, (assessed Sep 2, 2010). Congressional Research has proved authorization and financing are keys for HSRs development in U.S. See GAO-09-317 High Speed Passenger Rail: Future Development Will Depend on Addressing Financial and Other Challenges and Establishing a Clear Federal Role, March 2009, available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09317.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 55 See Van R. Johnston and Jeremy F. Plant, Rail Security After 9/11: Toward Effective Collaborative Regulation. Public Works Management Policy, 2008 13:12. 56 Studies have indicated a close relationship between gasoline price and intercity passenger rail ridership. When gasoline price goes up, people would more likely to choose passenger rail for median and long-distance travel. As a result, HSR bills would obtain more attentions. See Capitol Corridor Intercity Passenger Rail Service Business Plan Update FY2009-10 - FY2010-11, Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority. March 2009.
54

14

Act by Representative Hoyer Steny Hs Bill in 2007.57 In this bill a series of solutions to promote energy independence were proposed.58 These solutions included improving vehicle technology and efficiency, increasing the distribution of alternative fuels, as well as bolstering rail infrastructure.59 In particular, the bill added a specific section on creating high speed rail infrastructure bonds and providing tax incentives to bond holders in order to stimulate high speed rail development.60 One common objective for these HSR policy proposals is to build an efficient HSR system here in the United States. However, neither lawmakers nor the President have personal experience with HSR.61 Therefore when the idea of HSR is addressed, reactions from both Congress and the White House are very cautious. Under such a scenario, if HSR wants to be accepted, it must persuade policymakers to believe that HSR can benefit the nation. It seems that the long-term benefits, such as congestion alleviation, energy consumption reduction, are too far off in the future to see any practical effects. Consequently those tangible advantages that can be seen in a short term are preferred by policy communities in order to prove its feasibility.

H.R.5965, Program for Real Energy Security Act. (2007). this bill authorized capital investment grants to improve intercity passenger rail service (Sec.502, Sec.244). 58 Id. 59 Id, at Sec.301, Sec.401-403. 60 Id.. at Sec.524, Sec. 525. 61 Only until recent years when high-speed rail was promoted by President Obama, many top governmental officials begin to seek for first-hand experience on high-speed rail in other countries. For instance, President Obama expressed he wanted to study Chinas HSR during his November 2009 visit, available at: http://www.usatoday.com/money/world/2010-02-08-fasttrain08_ST_ N.htm (assessed Sep 7, 2010); In May 2010, after a HSR tour in Japan, US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood then visited Europe. After inspected French TGV systems and rode Spanish HSR, he said he had learnt a lot about the HSR systems, available at: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jDs5_AbwZmRyOi4k5cPqHp_cLJFA (assessed Sep 7, 2010); Also in May 2010 during a visit to China, the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi together with a bipartisan delegation had an opportunity to visit one of Chinas HSR plant in Tianjin, available at: http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=1807 (assessed Sep 7, 2010).
15

57

One of the major tangible advantages of developing HSR in the United States that has been advocated is economic stimulation and the creation jobs.62 Figure 1 shows the relationship between numbers of proposed HSR bills and economic situation. From 1991 to 2008, there were a total of three periods when HSR bills were widely focused. Interestingly, years with more HSR proposals submitted were primarily during economic recessions. The first year was in 1991 when the economic recession caused high unemployment, massive governmental deficits and slow GDP growth. In 1991 alone, 11 HSR related bills were submitted, among which 7 were Magnetic Levitation development bills.63 The second recession happened in the early 2000s, particularly from 2001 to 2003. Again, 2003 is another year that has more HSR bills proposed. At that time, most of the bills directly addressed economic stimulation and creating jobs with a strategy of increasing transportation infrastructure investment.64 The Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century, proposed by
Supra, note 5. The 11 bills include H.R.3947,High Speed Surface Transportation Development Corporation Act of 1991(FL-Rep Jim Bacchus); H.R.1087,High Speed Rail Transportation Policy and Development Act(WA-Rep Al Swift); H.R.1452,National Magnetic Levitation Research and Development Act of 1991(NJ-Rep Robert G. Torricelli); S.797,Baltimore-Washington Corridor Magnetic Levitation Transportation System Demonstration Act of 1991 (MD-Rep Barbara A. Mikulski); H.R.2102,Greater Pittsburgh Magnetic Levitation Transportation System Demonstration Act of 1991 (PA-Rep Joseph Kolter); S.1474,Mag-Lev Transportation Construction Loan Guarantee Pilot Program Act (NV-Sen Harry Reid); S.1493,High Speed Surface Transportation Development Corporation Act of 1991 (FL-Sen Graham, Bob); HR 2761,(NY-Rep Robert J. Mrazek); H.R. 2878,Magnetic Levitation Research, Development, and Construction Act of 1991 (CA-Rep Leon E. Panetta); H.R.2914,Baltimore-Washington Corridor Magnetic Levitation System Demonstration Act of 1991 (MD-Rep Benjamin Cardin); S.811,High-Speed Rail Transportation Act of 1991 (SC-Sen Hollings, Ernest F). 64 In 2003, 11 passenger rail related bills were submitted to Congress. Among these bills, 5 of them targeted expanding railroad investment, 3 of them had direct proposed for anti-recession and 2 of them focuses on national defense. The 11 proposed bills include H.R.396,Emergency Anti-Recession Act of 2003 (OR-Rep DeFazio, Peter A.); S.104, National Defense Rail Act (SC-Sen Hollings, Ernest F); S.1961, American Railroad Revitalization, Investment, and Enhancement Act of the 21st Century (SC-Sen Hollings, Ernest F.); H.R.2571,Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century (AK-Rep Young Don); H.R.2615, Rebuild America Act of 2003 (IL-Rep Costello, Jerry F.); H.R.2378,Railroad Safety Reform Act of 2003 (MN-Rep Oberstar, James L.); H.R.2726, National Defense Rail Act (IN-Rep Carson, Julia); S.1409, Rebuild America Act of 2003 (CA-Sen Feinstein, Dianne); S.1501, Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act (AZ-Sen McCain, John); S.1505, American Rail Equity Act of 2003 (TX-Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey); H.R.3211, Passenger Rail Investment Reform Act (AK-Rep Young, Don).
63 62

16

Representative Young Don on June 24, 2003, required the establishment of an authority for states or interstate compacts to issue $12 billion in federally tax-exempt bonds and $12 billion in federal tax-credit bonds for infrastructure improvements in high-speed passenger railroad infrastructure.65 Although ultimately this bill didnt raise congresss attention, it did show that promoting HSR as one way of the economy recovery strategy helps promote HSR in Congress.66 Figure 1. High Speed Rail Related Bills Submitted to the Houses and GDP Growth from 1991-200867

* Includes all proposed High-Speed Rail and Maglev bills

The third wave of HSR proposals associated with economic recession concerns began in 2008. Compared with prior two recessionary years, the number of HSR bills proposed was not as significant; yet these bills did show more realistic development plans that also increased their tangibility and likelihood of passage. For example, the H.R.6003 Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 concretely articulated federal appropriations of funds for an HSR

H.R.2571, Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century, Sec. 2-4. (2003). This bill never became law. After being introduced to the 108th Congress on Jun 24, 2003, this bill has only been referred to the House Committee Transportation and Infrastructure and the House Committee Ways and Means. 67 Bills are selected through the legislation search bill engine from the Library of Congress website with a key word high speed rail. GDP data is from the National Economic Accounts of Bureau of Economic Analysis.
66

65

17

corridor development plan. 68 It also provided with measures to promote private sector development of the Northeast Corridor and other potential high-speed rail.69 On October 16, 2008, another related bill, the H.R.2095 Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2008 was passed and signed into law and expressed a clear statement of the federal governments role in the national HSR development.70 With a detailed HSR legislative guideline, the final passage of ARRA on February 17, 2009 was connected with PRIIA, and linked the HSR to the purposes of economy stimulation and job creation.71 From the multiple HSR policy proposals during 1991 and 2008, it demonstrates that in the United States, the idea of building HSR system becomes more likely to meet the short-term objective of stimulating the economy and creating jobs rather than long-term objectives. Because the long-term benefits of HSR such as alleviation of congestion in other modes, reducing energy consumption and boosting regional development not only depend on the system itself, but also on other external variables such as traffic deviation from other modes, source of electricity generation and the density of urban areas crossed, the actual effect of outcomes becomes hard to predict.72 Comparatively, its short term benefits are much more solid for policy communities to focus on. Therefore in the policy stream, many proposals tend to link HSR with short-term
68 69

H.R.6003, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Sec.501-Sec.504 (2008). Id. 26106. See John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available at: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=77470 (accessed Aug 30, 2010). 70 The Bill authorized federal assistance for high-speed rail corridor planning activities and directed the Secretary to establish a high speed rail corridor development program. See Public Law No. 110-432. Sec.501 (2008). 71 In Sec.501 of PRIIA, Public Law No. 110-432 (2008), it articulates revision the high-speed rail assistance program to authorize federal assistance for high-speed rail corridor planning activities. It also authorizes appropriations through FY2013 for such activities, which has provided a solid foundation to for the $8 billion high-speed rail appropriations from ARRA, Public .Law. 111-5. Page 123 STAT. 208. (2009). 72 See Gins de Rus. The Economic Effects of High Speed Rail Investment, Discussion Paper 2008-16. October 2008, available at: www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/discussionpapers/DP200816.pdf (accessed Aug 30, 2010).
18

tangible objectives so that it can become more likely to float to the top of the governmental agenda. C. Political Stream In the MS model, flowing independently along the problems and policy streams is the political stream, composed of such things as national mood, pressure group campaigns, election results, partisan or ideological alignments in Congress, and changes of administration.73 The emergence of HSR is mostly pushed by two major components of political stream: ideological alignments in Congress, as well as a turnover of administration. In the United States, the idea of HSR stands for a new dimensional perspective that aims at solving contemporary transportation problems, such as congestion relieving, greenhouse gas reduction.74 However, because of the unpredictable social and economic outcome and tremendous capital cost, Republicans and Democrats have formed different standpoint regarding governments role in HSR spending. For a long time, Republicans represent a conservative ideology on government spending.75 They believe government spending on HSR is too risky to be affordable.76 On the other hand, Democrats who generally represent a liberal ideology preferred increasing government spending on HSR to spur development and achieve better connection among city centers. 77 This ideological discrepancy can be tracked at the recent usage debate of HSR stimulus money in
John Kingdon. Supra note 14, at 162. See Remarks by the President and the Vice President on a Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, April 16, 2009 75 See R Hamill, M Lodge, F Blake, The breadth, depth, and utility of class, partisan, and ideological schemata, American Journal of Political Science, 29(4):850-870, (1985). 76 See Daniel C. Vock, Stateline Staff Writer, Republicans fight Wisconsin high-speed rail, available at:http://www.stateline.org /live/details/story?contentId=512734&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Sta telineorgRss-Indiana+(Stateline.org+RSS+-+Indiana) (accessed Sep 14, 2010) 77 Id.
74 73

19

Madison, Wisconsin, where Democrats propose the new state office building near Wisconsin State Capitol to be one of the first new station stops on a high-speed rail network paid for primarily with federal dollars while Republicans oppose that idea for the concern about runaway government spending.78 From a broader view through the party investigation of HSR and Maglev related bills proposed from 1991 to 2008 (See Table 2), it clearly shows that the ideas of HSR and Maglev are more likely to be addressed by Democrats than Republicans in Congress.79 Consequently, the shift of the political majority in both Congress and the administration directly affects the viability of HSR proposals on the governmental agendas. Table 2. Proposed High-Speed Rail and Maglev Bills from 1991-200880
Breakdown by Number Bill Type High-Speed Rail Magnetic Levitation Total 65 8 REPUBLICAN 23 1 DEMOCRAT 42 6 Breakdown by % REPUBLICAN 35 14 DEMOCRAT 65 86

In American political history, there are two periods when HSR became part of the governmental agenda. The first period started with the passage of ISTEA in 1991 and the passage of Swift Rail Development Act in 1994.81 The second period started in late 2007 with the passage of the Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2008 until the present.82 In the first period, the 103 rd Congress was dominated by Democrats in both Houses.83 For the transportation
78 79

Id. Table 2 demonstrates that high speed rail related bills that proposed by Democrat are 30 percent higher than Republican; Magnetic Levitation that proposed by Democrat are 72 percent higher than Republican. 80 Bills are selected through the legislation search bill engine from the Library of Congress website with a key word high speed rail. The classification method is based on the purpose of bills. A similar method has been adopted by Cameron Gordon in Congressional Response to Fragile Foundations: An Analysis of Congressional Infrastructure Legislation since 1988, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1090100, (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 81 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law 102-240; Swift Rail Development Act in 1994, Public Law 103-440. 82 Railroad Safety Enhancement Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-432. 83 In the 103rd U.S. Congress, the Party standings in the Senate was switched from 57 Democratic Senators and 43
20

infrastructure bills during 1989 and 1996, 8 HSR proposals and 6 Maglev proposals were submitted to Congress.84 More interestingly, all the proposals were submitted by Democrats.85 In the second period, the national economy went from prosperity to a recession. Because of the uniform ideological distributions in the Houses, a variety of HSR policy proposals were submitted and awaiting a policy window opening. Another important political stream component also appeared and helped facilitate the passage of HSR bills. That is the change of administrations. Now HSR is back on the governmental agenda, and this is basically attributable to the new unified rail leadership.86 President Obama, as one of the active HSR advocate in this country, collaborated with a long time rail user, Vice President Joseph Biden, and a new Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, to speed up the national HSR development process to an unprecedented stage.87 Started in 2008, America suffered a severe economic recession, which once caused the
Republican Senators on the opening day to 53 Democratic Senators and 47 Republican Senators, indicating a Democratic dominated Senate in the 103 rd Congress. In the meantime, Party standings in the House of Representatives were switched from 258 Democrats and 164 Republicans on the opening day to 256 Democrats and 177 Republicans, also indicating a Democrat dominated House of Representatives. 84 The 8 HSR proposals include H.R.3947, High Speed Surface Transportation Development Corporation Act of 1991 (FL-Rep Jim Bacchus), H.R.1087, High Speed Rail Transportation Policy and Development Act (WA-Rep Al Swift), S.1493, High Speed Surface Transportation Development Corporation Act of 1991 (FL-Sen Graham, Bob), S.811, High-Speed Rail Transportation Act of 1991 (SC-Sen Hollings, Ernest F.), S.438, High-Speed Rail Incentives Act of 1993 (FL-Sen Graham, Bob), S.839, High-Speed Ground Transportation Development Act of 1993 (SC-Sen Hollings, Ernest F.), H.R.1919, High-Speed Rail Development Act of 1993 (MI-Rep Dingell, John D.), H.R.4867, High-Speed Rail Development Act of 1994 (CA-Rep Schenk, Lynn). 6 Maglev proposals include H.R.1452, National Magnetic Levitation Research and Development Act of 1991 (NJ-Rep Robert G. Torricelli), S.797 Baltimore-Washington Corridor Magnetic Levitation Transportation System Demonstration Act of 1991 (MD-Rep Barbara A. Mikulski), H.R.2102, Greater Pittsburgh Magnetic Levitation Transportation System Demonstration Act of 1991 (PA-Rep Joseph Kolter), S.1474, Mag-Lev Transportation Construction Loan Guarantee Pilot Program Act (NV-Sen Harry Reid), H.R. 2878, Magnetic Levitation Research, Development, and Construction Act of 1991 (CA-Rep Leon E. Panetta), H.R.2914, Baltimore-Washington Corridor Magnetic Levitation System Demonstration Act of 1991 (MD-Rep Benjamin Cardin). 85 Id. 86 Plant Jeremy F., High-speed rail: and idea whose time has come? Passenger rail policy is being revisited at all levels of government and globally--with innovative strategies and methods to ensure its success. Jun 22, 2009, the Public Manager. 87 Id.
21

unemployment rate to reach 10.2 percent, and tens of thousands of businesses shut down.88 In order to get the economy recovery as soon as possible, the ARRA was passed on February 17, just one month after President Obamas inauguration.89 In this Act, an $8 billion transportation infrastructure investment was dedicated to HSR, something that had never been done before.90 As the first African-American President, Barack Obama was thought to be a revolutionary in American politics.91 Moreover, he seems to have greater interest in innovation and more courage to take on challenges than his predecessors.92 Because of this, he seeks new alternatives to solve old problems. On the unveiling event of the national HSR plan on April 16 2009, Mr. Obama said: What we need, then, is a smart transportation system equal to the needs of the 21st century. A system that reduces travel times and increases mobility. A system that reduces congestion and boosts productivity. A system that reduce destructive emissions and creates jobs.93 Meanwhile, Vice President Joseph Biden and Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood have helped President Obama push HSR as well as implement the HSR. In fact, as a long time train user, Biden was in charge of the oversight role for infrastructure expenditure from the Obama stimulus package that intends to help counteract the ongoing recession.94 Also, it shows that

The 2009 annual unemployment rate was 9.2%, and later it reached to 10.6% in January, 2010, the highest level in decade. 89 The original bill H.R.1 was introduced in House on January 26, 2009, after passed in both Houses, it was signed by President Obama and became Public Law No: 111-005 on February 17, 2009. 90 Supra, note 5. 91 See Horace Campbell , Barack Obama and Twenty-first Century Politics: A Revolutionary Moment in the USA, Pluto Press (2010) 92 Id. 93 Supra, note 56 94 Scherer, Michael. "What Happened to the Stimulus?". Time. Available at: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,190 8167-1,00.html (assessed July 8, 2009).
22

88

HSR is LaHoods top priority as Transportation Secretary.95 After the announcement of the national HSR plan in April 2009, he has been actively involved in allocating HSR money. Not only did he visit Spain to gain knowledge for HSR development in U.S., but he also had discussions with HSR grant applicant states in order to allocate the money to those most practical routes.96 In short, the change of administration was a key component in the HSR politic stream. According to the MS model, the agenda is affected more by problems and political streams, and alternatives are affected more by policy streams. 97 A policy window indicates an opportunity for policy entrepreneurs who are advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions.98 When policy windows open, policy entrepreneurs respond to a couple of these three streams together.99 Then, we will review on the specific case study of Florida HSR to explore how policy entrepreneurs couple the three streams when policy window opens. The Florida HSR case was selected because Floridas Tampa-Orlando HSR plan has been awarded $1.25billion in federal HSR grants and would likely be the first real HSR system completed in future.100 Moreover, study has shown that the most recommended places to have HSR are city pairs in the Northeast Corridor.101 Floridas success in winning the initial HSR grant even overshadowed the

95 96

Supra, note 67. Id. 97 See John Kingdon. Supra note 14, at 168. 98 Id. at 165. 99 Id. at 197. 100 The original federal funding request for Florida Tampa to Orlando High-Speed Rail Express project was $2.65 billions, which included construction of 84 miles of track, station improvements and acquisition of five train sets, to provide for 16 daily round-trips at 168mgh maximum and 100mgh average and the actual awarded fund is $1.25 billions. Compared with Californias over $40 billion requested level vs. the actual approved level of $2.344 billion, it is obvious that Floridas HSR projects has a more solid financial condition for completion of HSR project. 101 See Yoav Hagler. Where High-Speed Rail Works Best. Aug 2009. America 2050.
23

Northeast Corridor as the single developing HSR in the United States.102 This is not merely a solution to transportation issue; more importantly, it is the outcome of political gaming among different stakeholders. Through this case analysis, we can understand how HSR policy goals are achieved through the coupling activities of policy entrepreneurs in the United States. III. THE WINDOW OPENS FOR FLORIDA HSR The original idea of building HSR in Florida can be dated back to 1976103. For more than 30 years, lawmakers and state officials have ordered studies proposing a passenger system to connect big metropolitan cities in Florida such as Miami, Orlando and Tampa, including a 1984 report that said it was a necessity for the 21st century. 104 In 2000, voters approved a constitutional amendment mandating a high-speed rail system in the state.105 Yet Governor Jeb Bush led a charge to veto the amendment in 2004, which consequently killed the high-speed rail authority as well.106 However, Floridas rail advocates never gave up their hope for HSR. The Florida Department of Transportation has been actively preparing HSR proposals and waiting for another opportunity to come.107 In 2009, the passage of ARRA opened a window for

Floridas Tampa to Orlando HSR project was awarded for $1.25 billion, much higher than Northeast Corridors $706 million. Detailed about summary of application for the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program is available at: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/hsiprapplist.pdf (assessed Sep 2, 2010). 103 The Florida Transit Corridor Study that mandated by the Florida Legislature was conducted. It concluded that implementation of a HSR system operating between Daytona Beach and St. Petersburg is feasible if implemented in stages. 104 See Rail remains out of reach as Florida gas prices soar. May. 25 2008 Herald-Tribune, 9A 105 See Sec.19. Constitution of the State of Florida. 106 Id. 107 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has pushing HSR for more than three decades. The earliest attempt goes back to the 1970s. See more details in the Presentation made by FDOT Secretary Stephanie Kopelousos at Federal Railroad Administration High Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Workshop on May 21, 2009.
24

102

nationwide HSR advocates.108 A dedicated fund of $8 billion and $5 billion appropriations in the next consecutive five years will be spent on the national HSR plan.109 On April 16, 2009, the Secretary of Transportation announced criteria for applying the federal HSR fund.110 Then nine months later just after the State of Union, President Obama flew to Tampa and announced that Florida had been awarded $1.25 billion in HSR money.111 Although it didnt meet the $2.6 billion need for Floridas proposal, it has still demonstrated that the Florida HSR has grasped this opportunity and would most likely be the first state to have HSR implemented.112 Floridas HSR success did not happen by chance. In fact, its success does reflect how political factors play a tremendous influence in the outcome of HSR in the United States. At a time that both the problem window and political window opened, Florida HSR policy entrepreneurs actively coupled policy streams with problem streams and political streams, which helped their HSR dream become reality. A. Problem Window Probably the most obvious window for Floridas HSR is the economic recession. Florida is one of the states that were affected by the recession the most severely. The most recent

For the first time, the federal government has invested significant resources toward the development of high-speed rail in the United States, with an $8 billion allocation in the ARRA and $2.5 billion more in Congresss fiscal year 2010 budget. This has opened a great opportunity for state and interest group coupling their passenger rail projects with concrete federal financial support. See The Right Track: Building a 21st Century High-Speed Rail System for America, U.S. PIRG Education Fund, available at: http://cdn.publicinterestnetwork.org/assets/d2cbda5b0c2d2d23101a0a ef69daece6/ The-Right-Track-vUS.pdf. (accessed Sep 4, 2010) 109 Public Law 111-5 (2009). 110 A general selection criteria for projects and corridors are listed in Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, released by the Department of Transportation on April 16, 2009. 111 See Jeff Zeleny. At Florida Stop, Obama Announces Rail Investment, New York Times, Published January 28, 2010, available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html, (accessed Sep 4, 2010). 112 Id.
25

108

unemployment rate released in March 2010 was 12.2 percent, still higher than the national level of 9.5 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics113. Thousands of businesses were shut down.114 Putting Floridians back to work turns out to be the most urgent task the Florida government has to face.115 Under this condition, the HSR proposal has been reconsidered as an alternative to create jobs and is well suited to the public and labor unions current need.116 It has consequently further pushed the state government to take HSR seriously and put it on the agenda.117 When the ARRA was passed, Floridas economic situation had naturally stimulated the state to hook up with it. Another problem window open for consideration of HSR was the gasoline prices soaring to $ 4 dollars per gallon in 2008.118 The increasing gas price had scared many Floridians that their state transportation system had depended on the automobile too much.119 Alternatives had to be considered in order to face future energy crises. B. Political Window Not only did the problem window open, but the political window also opened at the same time. Barack Obama became the President of the United States and de facto a huge political
See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Summary, available at: http://www. bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm (accessed Sep 4, 2010) 114 Id. 115 See 2010 State of State Address by Florida Governor Charlie Crist, available at: http://www.flgov.com/2010_speech, (accessed Sep 4, 2010) 116 See Mark K. Matthews and Dan Tracy. Florida Getting Federal Cash for High Speed Rail. January 28, 2010, available at: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-01-28/news/os-high-speed-announcement-20100127_1_billion-for-high-sp eed-rail-high-speed-train-linking-orlando-white-house (assessed Sep 4, 2010) 117 Id. 118 See Lindsay Peterson. Back On Track published on June 22, 2008, available at: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/jun/22/22 0022/na-back-on-track/, (accessed Sep 4, 2010) 119 Id.
26
113

window opened for HSR in Florida. First, since President Obama strongly supports HSR in the United States, his cabinet members are all actively helping him carry out the national High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program.120 Shortly after his announcement of the vision for HSR in America on April 16, 2009, the Department of Transportation started dealing with a detailed plan for selecting qualified HSR project proposals nationwide.121 Since the initial announcement of designation of the Florida HSR corridor linking Miami with Orlando and Tampa in 1992, the Florida HSR corridor has been formally integrated into the national HSR plan. 122 Therefore, when a new intercity passenger rail program became part of the governmental agenda, Floridas Tampa-Orlando HSR corridor has naturally gained plenty of attention from the federal level. Second, Barack Obamas special individual tie with Florida has helped to support a policy preference to benefit his patrons. More precisely speaking, his final success in winning in Florida in the 2008 presidential election, which was largely attributable to Floridas I-4 constituents support, was an important factor.123 The I-4 corridor refers to the area that borders the 132 mile stretch of the I-4 highway.124 The west bound point starts at Tampa and the east bound ends at Daytona Beach.125 This area contains a huge population and is the most important political

Supra, note 67. See Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, released by the Department of Transportation on April 16, 2009, available at http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf (accessed Sep 5, 2010) 122 October 16, 1992. Secretary of Transportation Andrew H. Card, Jr. announces designation of the Florida high-speed rail corridor linking Miami with Orlando and Tampa. 123 See As I-4 Corridor Goes, So Goes Florida; Washington Times, January 28, 2008, available at: http://www.washingtonti mes.com/news/2008/jan/28/as-i-4-corridor-goes-so-goes-florida/ (accessed Sep 5, 2010) 124 Id. 125 Id.
121

120

27

swing area for election.126 Winning I-4 normally means winning the whole state since North Florida is largely the Republicans turf while South Florida is Democratic.127 It was thought to be the most important part of the most important state in the most important election.128 In 2004, the voters had heavily voted for Bush, which helped Bush win the state. In 2008 it swung behind Democratic candidate Obama, helping Obama win Florida by a 2.8% margin victory (see Figure 2). Obama is greatly indebted to Floridians. Because Florida was severely affected by the recession, he wanted to try his best to pay back his Floridian supporters and help them get back to work quickly. On January 28, 2010, just the second day after his State of Union, President Obama, together with Vice President Joseph Biden went to Tampa, Florida.129 In the Tampa town hall, he announced his firm support with a $1.25 billion down payment for the HSR project between Tampa and Orlando.130 As he said, the stimulus money would go to buy right-of-way, build track, and do engineering and environmental work which could create 23,000 jobs over four years. 131 Generally, because of the political connection with I-4 corridor constituents, President Obamas support for Florida HSR undeniably strengthened support for this proposal. Figure 2. Florida Statewide Election Result- 27 electoral votes132 100% of precincts reporting
126 127

Id. Id. 128 Patti Sharp, an Orlando-area director of America Coming Together, or ACT, said this to describe the political importance of I-4 during 2004 presidential election. See Candidate eye voters on Floridas I-4. available at: http://articles.cnn.com/2004-10-1 1/politics/campaign.florida.reut_1_persuadable-voters-puerto-ricans-swing-state?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS (accessed Sep 5, 2010) 129 Supra, note 90. 130 Id. 131 Id. 132 Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2008, U.S. Census Bureau.
28

2008 results John McCain Barack Obama Others 0.7% 48.4% 3,939,380 Votes

50.9% 4,143,957 Votes 60,888 Votes

2004 results George Bush John Kerry Others 0.8% 52.1% 47.1% 3,939,380 Votes 4,143,957 Votes 60,888 Votes

Third, Floridas geographic advantages makes it an exceptional place to build the HSR model that can help Americans get real experience with HSR and thus obtain more political support for it.133 Currently, the debate about building HSR system in the United States is focused on the high implementation costs versus unpredictable future benefits. 134 Normally, the HSR-related benefits are measured through ridership; the more riders, the bigger benefits it will generate.135 However, future ridership is projected based on current data, and the reality might be quite different since no one has ever experienced HSR and knows how good it could be. Consequently, the cost becomes the focusing point that creates major challenges. The key to make HSR successful is to establish a dedicated right-of-way so that running at a true high speed can be guaranteed to attract more riders. Unlike other countries, Over 60 percent of the land in the United States is privately owned and it is very difficult for government to buy

133

See the Presentation made by Nazih K. Haddad FDOT at the USHSR Conference on March 4, 2010. Slides are available at http://southeast.construction.com/southeast_construction_news/2010/extras/0309_RailAdvocates.ppt (assessed Sep 6, 2010) 134 Supra, note 72. 135 Id.
29

land for public usage.136 Because of the high cost of land, as well as constraints from Not in My Backyard (NIMBY), the cost of HSR turns out to be extremely high.137 This is why the Acela Express, which runs between the most population densely corridor, still cannot achieve a true high speed of over 120mph on average.138 It simply doesnt have a dedicated right-of-way, and it even has to run on a shared track with freight trains in some parts of NEC corridor.139 Building another dedicated right-of-way will face lots of constraints from NIMBY.140 Choosing Florida I-4 rather than other planned national HSR corridors as a starting point is basically because the proposed Tampa-Orlando HSR line will be constructed on the land between the I-4 which is owned by the federal government, so land-acquisition costs are minimal.141 Also because the land is almost flat in the I-4 corridor, the cost to build a HSR route will not be too high compared with other corridors.142 Such a low construction cost is likely to face less opposition both from legislators and the public and thus facilitate the Florida HSR plan become reality much faster. If the state and federal financing hold, the first phase of the railway is scheduled to be completed by 2015.143 In sum, after more than a decades waiting, both problem window and political window for
136

The figure represented the percentage in 2002, detailed information can be found at Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2002/EIB-14 137 See Reutter Mark. Bullet Trains for America?. Wilson Quarterly, Autumn2009, Vol. 33 Issue 4, p26-33. 138 See Reutter Mark. Fast Track to the Future: A High-Speed Rail Agenda for America. Policy Memo, January 2010. 139 Id. 140 Id. 141 See Mark Reutter. The Right Track: Improving President Obamas High-Speed Rail Program. February 17, 2010. Available at: http://www.progressivefix.com/the-right-track-improving-president-obama%E2%80%99s-high-speed-rail-program (assessed Sep 6, 2010) 142 See Michael Grunwald, Can High Speed Rail Get on Track? July 19, 2010. Available at http://www.time.com/time/magazin e/article/0,9171,2002523-1,00.html (assessed Sep 6, 2010) 143 Supra, note 90.
30

Floridas HSR opened. The soaring of gas prices during the economic boom made people realize the need to find an alternative transportation mode to face future energy issues, while the economic recession made people aware of the necessity of creating jobs and stimulating the economy. These events have captured the attention of governmental officials both at the state level and the federal level and thus triggered the opening of the problem window for HSR proposals. On the other hand, with a pro rail administration in office, Obama gives interest groups, legislators and agencies an opportunity to push HSR positions and proposals they did not have with the previous administration. Additionally, with a special political bond with the Florida I-4 constituents, as well as the regions unique topological advantages for HSR, the political window also opened for Floridas HSR. When the windows open, policy entrepreneurs began actively coupling the problem stream and political stream to policy stream, and ultimately facilitated acceleration of the HSR to become reality. C. Coupling by Policy Entrepreneurs In Kingdons theory, policy entrepreneurs are defined as advocates who are willing to invest their resourcestime, energy, reputation, money, to promote a position in return for anticipated future gain in the forms of material, purposive, or solidary benefits.144 The coupling activity by HSR policy entrepreneurs can be analyzed at both the federal level and the state level. One pivotal policy entrepreneur that pulled the HSR at federal level is Representative John Mica, who represents Florida's 7th congressional district where the proposed Tampa-Orlando HSR is located. As the highest-ranking Republican on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,
144

Supra note 10, at 179.

31

Mica has been collaborating with the Committee Chair Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) closely to promote HSR. 145 In March 2008, he proposed the H.R.5644 bill in order to provide for competitive development and operation of high-speed rail corridor projects in the United States.146 The bill proposed the secretary to set up criteria for selecting HSR feasible corridors which later was incorporated into the PRIIA and signed by President Bush into law.147 This was the first time that a concrete HSR implementation plan was made by law. Meanwhile, Mica also proposed the idea that federal money should be used to leverage other resources to support HSR projects.148 With a bipartisan pull at federal level, Mica helped pave the way for HSR coming to Florida. In addition, other members of Floridas congressional delegations were also active in coupling the state legislature with the White House by delivering the right information to each other. Because of their coupling activities, the state has obtained an opportunity to prove its seriousness about getting into the HSR business to the White house, and at the same time the White House could better know how Florida really thinks of HSR. One of the vital efforts was Congressman Alan Grayson, who showed he does know how to cater to the White House when it

145

After the Presidents announcement of $billion HSR grant in January 2009, Chairman James Oberstar and ranking member John Mica presented a blueprint for the next highway authorization bill, intending to provide $50billion for president Obamas vision of a nationwide HSR system. Available at: http://www.eenews.net/public/25/11394/features/documents/2009/06/18/docum ent_gw_02.pdf, (assessed Sep 6, 2010) 146 H.R.5644, To provide for competitive development and operation of high-speed rail corridor projects. Sec.1 147 The legislation Public Law No. 110-432, Division B incorporates key components of H.R. 5644, Sec.1-a,b, such as requiring the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) to solicit proposals for engineering, finance and development plans for high-speed rail (301), as well as requirement like creating a commission comprising state, local, federal, rail and rail labor stakeholders to evaluate HSR proposals by USDOT(501). 148 Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Republican Leader John L. Mica (R-FL) statement on the need for billions of dollars in pending high-speed rail investments in the United States to be wisely spent in order to develop the nations first true high-speed system in hearing on October 14, 2009
32

means getting something done for his Orlando district.149 In an interview, Grayson said that in order to find out what Florida needed to do, he asked White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel about the decision-making process.150 Emanuel told him that there was real concern in the White House that Florida was not fully ready for HSR, and that it might not be willing to spend any of its own money toward that end.151 Florida needed to show it was serious, and it did by bringing LaHood to Orlando in October 2009 for a public meeting with rail advocates.152 Grayson asked LaHood if he could ride with him to the airport and have a private discussion for the 45-minute trip.153 The visit was followed up with action in the state legislature.154 At the state level, state legislators are actively linking problems with prepared policy proposals. Since the announcement of $8 billion dedicated HSR fund, many states have been trying to get a share of it.155 Based on the requirement of PRIIA,, U.S. DOT has established a series of selection criteria for applications.156 One of the important requirements is that the federal HSR fund will be allocated to those states that are willing to provide state fund as well to finance the HSR project.157 The Secretary of transportation Ray LaHood once mentioned, State leaders have little chance at a federal commitment if they wouldnt put some of their own skin in

See Ryan Grim, The Huffington Post. 2010. How Florida Cashed in On High-Speed Rail, available at: http://www.huffingt onpost.com/2010/02/10/how-florida-cashed-in-on_n_454467.html (assessed Sep 7, 2010) 150 Id. 151 Id. 152 Id. 153 Id. 154 Id. 155 Supra, note 8. 156 Supra, note 89. 157 Id. at p13.
33

149

the game.158 In order to grab this opportunity, policy entrepreneurs have tried to create the best conditions for the federal moneys arrival. Florida Governor Charlie Crist is one of these policy entrepreneurs who have been pushing the State Legislative to support HSR. As the result of many efforts, the Florida Rail Act (HB.1B) was passed on December 8, 2009. 159 Florida lawmakers endorsed a commuter train for Central Florida, agreed to pay more for commuter rail service in South Florida and potentially improved the state's chances of winning federal funding for high-speed rail.160 Governor Crist, who personally lobbied lawmakers on the legislation (HB.1B), called the outcome of the special session a brave and historic step to transform Florida's futurenot only as it relates to transportation in our state, but also for the employment and economic opportunity of our people.161 Although there might be a cost for lobbying the HSR, these coupling activities can help policy entrepreneurs acquire much larger political benefits if the couplings have been successful.162 Another key policy entrepreneur is C.C. Doc Dockery, who has been pushing HSR for 28 years. 163 Started in 1982, he helped establish the Florida High-speed Rail Commission to
Supra, note 121. Florida House Bill No.1, HB.1B. was passed at 27-10 votes on December 8 2009 and approved by Governor on December 16 2009; Chapter No. 2009-271. The bill has provided concrete requirements for the state government to take part in the passenger rail development process, such as creating Florida Statewide Passenger Rail Commission to monitor passenger rail systems, advising DOT concerning rail service and constructing, maintaining, repairing, operating and promoting high speed rail system, etc. 160 See Lloyd Dunkelberger, Ledger Tallahassee Bureau. Fla. Legislature Backs Rail Deal, available at: http://www.theledger. com/article/20091208/NEWS/912085033/1338?tc=ar (assessed Sep 7, 2010) 161 Id. 162 Lobbying cost of high speed rail includes expenditure that spent on hiring lobbyist, inviting policymakers to give speeches, hosting high speed rail conference, etc. 163 See Janet Zink. Dockery cheers Obama for making his rail dream come true. January 29, 2010. available at: http://www.tam
159 158

34

explore a bullet train for the state.164 He felt so strongly about the states HSR needs that he refused to sit idly in 1999 when Governor Bush took office and put the brakes on plans to build a system connecting Florida's five major metropolitan areas.165 In 2000, Dockery spent $3 million of his own money persuading voters to pass a constitutional amendment requiring construction of the system.166 And in 2001, he worked to draft legislation creating the Florida High Speed Rail Authority. 167 Dockery served on that authority, which completed environmental and ridership studies, identified routes and selected a contractor to build and operate the system.168 Although in 2004, the amendment was repealed by voters at the urging of Governor Bush, the Florida High Speed Rail Authority has never stopped its function of pushing HSR forward.169 Through numerous studies, the Florida HSR has been supported with a more solid technical foundation, which later directly facilitated the Tampa-Orlando HSR Corridor and met DOTs selection criteria for applying for federal funds and finally succeeded.170 In sum, because of the economic recession and the emergence of Obama administration, the windows for HSR have truly opened for HSR proposals and advocates. One of the most significant opportunities for HSR is in Florida. Compared to the total $3.6 billion investment cost,
pabay.com/news/localgovernment/dockery-cheers-obama-for-making-his-rail-dream-come-true/1068978 (assessed Sep 7, 2010) 164 Id. 165 Id. 166 Id. 167 Id. 168 Id. 169 Id. 170 The DOT establishes criteria for selecting qualified HSR projects to get this grant. In order to be eligible for federal funding support, the study was re-evaluated and completed October 2009. Required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), all the proposed HSR plan must ensure potential system impacts to the natural and built environment have been assessed and any potential impacts will be mitigated. The NEPA process includes preparing an environmental impact statement, and the completion of the NEPA process is a Record of Decision (ROD) by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
35

the $1.25 billion award which takes up approximately 35 percent of total cost is apparently the highest ratio funded HSR project that is underway.171 It also shows that the Florida HSR will most likely be the first true HSR service in the United States in the near future.172 Although many people still doubt whether the money has been allocated correctly to support Florida HSR, the reality has proved Florida rail advocates are indeed running ahead.173 Because of the policy entrepreneurs persistent coupling activities, three elementsproblem, proposal, and political receptivityare all coupled in a single package, and thus achieved the HSR success in this country. IV. CONCLUSION In this study, we followed John Kingdons Multiple Stream Mode to recode different political factors that affect HSRs agenda setting into three streamsproblems, policy and politics. The findings show that in the United States, HSR is primarily addressed as an alternative to provide sustainable median distance travel service over a long-term, while in the short-term it aims at creating jobs and stimulating the economy. The idea of HSR hasnt just emerged in recent years. On the contrary, it has been promoted by rail stakeholders, as well as Democratic lawmakers for almost a half century. Many kinds of planning, preliminary studies and policy proposals have been prepared, waiting for a big window to open. It is, however, the recent

171 172

Supra note 7. Supra note 90. 173 Read the following articles regarding doubtful perspectives on Florida HSR: Cheryl K. Chumley, Florida Rail Unlikely to Attract Riders, Environment & Climate News, May 2010, available at http://www.heartland.org/environmentandclimate-news. org/article/27392/Florida_Rail_Unlikely_to_Attract_Riders.html (assessed Sep 7, 2010); Liam Julian, The Trouble with High Speed Rail, Policy Review, No.160. March 24, 2010.
36

economic recession as well as the transition of the federal government administration that finally opened the window for HSR. The short-term objective of the current national HSR promotion is much related to political reasons than other reasons. Under such scenario, those states with substantial political advantages such as Florida, California, have naturally waited in the front of the line to gain federal support. Moreover, as the catalysts in the process of policymaking, policy entrepreneurs coupling activities have further advocated connecting their prepared proposals to politics and problems, which finally helped achieve their political outcome. The initial award of $1.25 billion federal fund for Floridas HSR corridor project has proven that their success is largely attributed to contributions of HSR policy entrepreneurs. To conclude, the promotion of HSR in the United States is more a product of the American political game than the demand of transportation mode. Whether current HSR policy will truly make President Obamas national HSR strategy plan become reality is still hard to predict since the currently open windows for HSR may close soon. It is undeniable that current proposals for HSR from the legislative perspective are more likely to be seen as solutions for job creation and as a way to stimulate the economy. However, this perspective may be risky if only the short-term objective is addressed. It is reported that the whole national HSR system would cost no less than $500 billion.174 Compared to this figure, the current $13 billion ($8billion plus pledged future $ 5 billion) HSR fund is only a seed. The goal of creating jobs may be achieved through the

U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood unveiled the figure when he remarked New high-speed trains will link 80 percent of Americans within 25 years, at a cost of about $500 billion on August 10 2010, available at: http://www.philly.com/ inquirer/world_us/20100811_LaHood_sees_bright_future_for_high-speed_trains_in_U_S_.html (assessed Sep 7, 2010)
174

37

ARRA in the short term, yet whether the long term objective of building a cost effective HSR system can be achieved is still unknown. However, there is one thing obvious: If a truly efficient and reliable national HSR system is desired in the United States, more consideration should be put on the long-term objectives instead of the short-term. The implementation of an efficient national HSR system should not solely depend on political and problem windows. Furthermore, it must also be technically and economically feasible. This means the current focus of HSR development should be on fundamental research instead of any hasty on-site construction. This research should include concerns about long term project funding, corridor route planning and design, ridership forecasts, cost-benefit estimations, operation and management design, and national HSR publicity campaigns. Only by eliminating irrational political reactions to HSR can it help the America get on the right track for future mobility, both stimulating the economy and achieving a new era of sustainable transportation.

38