In President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union message the other day, he made no mention of building high speed trains or rail lines in America. Contrast this with his 2011 State of the Union message in which he confidently predicted before a large viewing audience, “Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.” Not sure if the President’s attempt at humor received any laughs, but unfortunately political and financial realities – certainly not a laughing matter at this point – stand squarely in the way of achieving his ambitious vision.
High speed rail enjoys support from many quarters, including the White House, the US Department of Transportation, the US High Speed Rail Association, the US Conference of Mayors, and even Governor Jerry Brown of California. The Congress, however, particularly Republicans, may not be too enthusiastic about this type of infrastructure project, citing potential cost overruns and the need to cut spending to deal with national deficits. In fact, without renewal or extension, legislation authorizing current funding for high speed rail planning and development may expire in 2013.
In a culture that revolves around cars and planes, does America need high speed rail and can America afford to build several high speed rail lines and not just a single demonstration line? Can money be better spent shoring up America’s roads, bridges, highways and existing rail lines, most of which are in urgent need of repair or upgrading? What is the most cost effective course of action for America? With population growth as a backdrop, answers to these questions will literally shape America and how its infrastructure will look for the rest of this century.
High speed rail is intriguing from a technological standpoint, but without a viable funding or financing mechanism, the price tag to make it a reality may indeed be prohibitive. Based upon my experience with train travel in the US and abroad, I am in favor of high speed rail, but it must make economic and environmental sense. It must require careful planning and it must be suitable to the region in which it will be built. Half-hearted attempts will be wasteful of taxpayer money. Americans like to be the leading technological innovators and utilize the latest technologies in all pursuits. But let’s be honest. High speed rail, Acela notwithstanding, is one area of technology in which the United States is a late-comer and technological laggard. Overseas, countries such as Japan and France have now enjoyed high speed rail for decades. To speed connections within that large country, China has already built more miles of high speed train tracks than any other country on earth, all accomplished in less than a decade.
The US Department of Transportation defines high speed rail as trains running on average over 125 mph. The US Railway Administration defines it as over 117 mph. Anyway you look at it, America has only one high speed train running at this time, the Acela train, running between Boston and Washington D.C. On some stretches of the line, it runs at close to 150 mph, but it generally averages only 80 mph due to clearance rules and train tracks unable to accommodate the train’s potentially higher speeds. The line does not function like a true high speed rail line.
What are the potential benefits or advantages of high speed rail?
- Save Time and Convenience. Time advantages compared with cars. High speed trains go faster and if the line is functioning properly, there are no stoppages and certainly no traffic jams. Traveling between cities from point A to point B is simply faster.
- Reduce Carbon Emissions.
- Huge potential to take people out of cars and put them in trains leads to substantial reductions in the carbon footprint over time. Fewer cars on the road can add up to large carbon emissions reductions over time. The day when electric cars dominate the road has not arrived and there are bound to continue to be traffic jams unless smart traffic systems become a widespread reality.
- If electricity to power the trains can come from clean, renewable energy sources, this too has the potential to substantially reduce carbon emissions in the future.
- Efficient Transport. Overall ability to transport more people, goods and material in a more efficient and timely manner compared to cars and trucks up to a certain distance. We recognize air travel is generally superior and more cost effective in this regard over distances of over 600 miles or more.
- Job and Industry Creation. Building high speed trains and associated infrastructure carries the potential to be a source of significant job creation; the spark to stimulate new industries; and spur economic activity and growth along the lines and connected stations.
- Relieve Highway and Air Traffic Congestion. Potential to take cars off the road and encourage people to take train trips for distances up to 600 miles instead of flying.
- Cost and Comfort.
- High gas prices may convert drivers into train passengers where high speed trains are available.
- Depending on how the trains are designed, high speed rail can be potentially cheaper and more comfortable compared to airplane flights regardless of class.
What are the negatives or potential problems with high speed rail?
- Economic and Financial. High fixed costs to build. Where will finance come from? Finance will be required literally for decades to see the project to completion. The federal government cannot be relied upon to provide all construction costs. In 2010 Amtrak issued a report stating that construction of a Northeast corridor would cost well over $100 billion dollars. In California, the California High Speed Rail Authority released a report in 2011 indicating the cost of a high speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco would be in the neighborhood of $100 billion. It is imperative that high speed rail must be built in areas with high passenger traffic to recoup cost and investment. It would not make sense to build a high speed line from Oklahoma to Montana for example.
- Political and Legal. The power of government to exercise eminent domain, land acquisition costs, moving people and property in areas already built up and other environmental issues. People and property may have to be moved, but some people will not do so willingly and will mount legal challenges. These actions may cause construction delays or derail the project, in part or entirely.
- Technical and Planning.
- If not built to exact engineering standards and properly tested, potential for mishaps exists.
- High degree of planning needed to properly construct lines and stations where it is most needed or will be used. In this sense, it is almost like playing a game of SimCity, where you plan the best layout for your city to maximize traffic flow (and score more points).
- Necessity for connecting high speed rail lines into other urban transportation hubs. High speed rail will certainly make it convenient to get from city and city. Once in the city, is the station directly connected to subways and buses or other forms of public transportation or will you need to jump in a car once you get off the train to get to your final destination?
- Social and Cultural. How easy a transition will it be to change people’s habits from driving or flying to taking the train? Americans, after all, love cars and planes. Perhaps it will be more be easy in the northeast where millions of people are already accustomed to traveling by train, but what about in southern California? The experience of Japan, France and other European countries may only be partially instructive here. China is a large country with a large population. Its boom in automobile use has corresponded with rapid growth in train ridership and generally all forms of transportation. In a large country such as the US, many Americans are married to their cars. Can high speed trains become an attractive transportation option to lure them away?
Apart from the California and Northeast region, the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative centered around Chicago has made steady progress, with funding from federal and state sources. It is conceivable the planned Chicago to St. Louis high speed rail line will become the first new high speed rail line to be completed and operational. However, given that the trains will be diesel powered and the lines will remain un-electrified, top speeds with only be in the neighborhood of 125 mph, modest in comparison to average high speed rail overseas.
California represents the area of the country ripe for building true high speed rail. In many pursuits – technological, social or environmental – California is often the pacesetter. The California High Speed Rail Authority issued a report late last year strongly endorsing plans to build high speed rail in California. Upon review of the plans, however, by the California high speed rail peer review group, plans to move forward are now at a standstill. In a response to the state legislature, the peer review group was not convinced by the proposition that the economic cost analysis asserting that the benefits of high speed rail outweigh the costs of construction, maintenance and operation. In its report, the rail peer review group indicated that long term funding is essential for a project of this nature. However, without clarity on this issue, and more detailed project management and risk analysis, the group recommended that the bond funds raised to finance the start of this project not be released at this time. The peer review group in its report turned down recommending release of bond funds to start the project, despite potential loss of complementary federal funding. Clearly, concern here is over the financing of the project, with cost projections having ballooned to almost three times initial estimates.
Project cost and financing is extremely important in an economically constrained business environment. In general, experience from other operational rail lines is not encouraging. Almost all rail lines, including Amtrak, are subsidized and dependent upon state and federal aid to operate. European lines are not profitable. Japan’s high speed rail lines are probably the only exception. Time will tell if China’s high speed rail lines become profitable.
In California, they are wrestling with the question of what is the best way to spend $100 billion to improve transportation? In light of the projected costs of high speed rail, recent polls indicate that a majority of Californians want to stop the project. Governor Jerry Brown supports high speed rail. In his state of the state address last week, he like President Obama in 2011, urged state lawmakers to release funds to begin the project despite the projected cost of nearly $100 billion and revised completion time frame, so that the high speed rail lines will not become operational until the 2030s. Whether Californians weighed down in state debt have the stomach to fund this project for the next generation remains to be seen. Californians must keep in mind, however, that population growth will only add more pressure to the congested highways, airports and infrastructure in California. Speaking of alternatives, Joseph Szabo, Federal Railroad Administrator, in the California High speed rail draft business plan stated, “With 20 million more people expected to be in California within the next 40 years, we can’t build enough highways and airport runways to accommodate the demand.”
With competing fiscal demands, and despite offers by the federal government to provide substantial start-up funds, an expansive and true high speed rail system in America looks like a pipe dream.
High Speed Rail Around the World
Rather than describe them as “bullet trains,” many of these trains could also be accurately labeled “missile trains” or “torpedo trains” given their design and shape.
South Korea
Taiwan
Japan
China
France
Spain
UK
Germany
Henry Kwong Energy Hub 