Mixed signals?

By Huw Thomas

As the administration unveils its plans for high-speed rail, Huw Thomas investigates whether the reality can live up to the rhetoric.

On 10 May 1869 at Promontory Summit in Utah, a gathering of railway workers, railroad owners and a handful of reporters bore witness to one of the pivotal moments in the development of the modern United States. As the final spike was driven in the nation's first transcontinental railway line, a new chapter of history opened. This period would see the departure of the slow and often dangerous wagon train, previously the most common method of traversing America's vast interior. In its place was a means of transport that allowed goods and people to cross the country at far greater speed and in far greater comfort. This new ease of movement united East and West as never before and was a key driver of economic growth in the years that followed.

Since it's 19th century heyday, the train has faded in significance. The arrival of interstate highways and ever cheaper air travel has reduced the popularity of riding the rails. Now however, moves are afoot to bring back the golden age of rail, with support coming straight from the top. As part of the Obama Administration's $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the President has set aside $8 billion, plus an annual $1 billion over the next five years, to finance a new high-speed rail network. It's evidently a plan with major ambitions. "By making investments across the country, we'll lay a new foundation for our economic competitiveness and contribute to smart urban and rural growth," President Obama stated when announcing the scheme. "We'll create highly-skilled construction and operating jobs that can't be outsourced, and generate demand for technology that gives a new generation of innovators and entrepreneurs the opportunity to step up and lead the way in the 21st century. We'll move to cleaner energy and a cleaner environment, we'll reduce our need for foreign oil by millions of barrels a year, and eliminate more than six billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions annually - equal to removing one million cars from our roads."

Announcing details of where the stimulus money would be going in Tampa on 28 January 2010, the president reiterated the need to look forward in how the US approaches transportation and also asked an important question. If HSR can be a success in Europe, Japan and China, why shouldn't the same be true in America?

So often the leader in transportation technology, from the first powered flight to the first mass-produced automobile, the US is lagging far behind much of the rest of the world when it comes to high-speed rail. Japan began operating its Tōkaidō Shinkansen as far back as 1964. Even then this train was capable of carrying passengers between Tokyo and Osaka at speeds of 130 mph. Europe soon followed suit, France's TGV network being perhaps the most well known high-speed system. Today, the continent is crisscrossed with high-speed lines, with even the notoriously reticent UK now boasting one of its own.

Spanish lessons

But it is Spain's Alt Velocidad Espagnola (AVE) that provides the most striking inspiration for an America seeking to reinvent its rail system. A little over 20 years ago, Spain had no high-speed lines. Today, its network stretches to 990 miles, with a further 1200 under construction and another 1000 in the planning stage. This rapid development has obviously been enabled by a huge amount of government investment, but it is already proving its worth. The ability to travel from Madrid to Barcelona in less than three hours, without the hassle of passing through airport security, has shown itself to be a big draw for inter-city travellers. Passengers on this route surged by 28 percent in 2008. In the same period the number of people taking domestic flights within Spain dropped by 20 percent.

In light of figures like this, pursuing high-speed rail for America seems like a no brainer. However, the project has drawn considerable criticism from certain quarters that dispute both the need for HSR and the wider economic benefits its is designed to bring. "Many of the justifications for high speed rail just are inconsistent with the reality, not only of the built environment in the United States, but also the potential demand," says Sam Staley, Director of Urban Growth and Land Use Policy at the free market supporting Reason Foundation. "There's a lot of rhetoric about the benefits of high speed rail which really are not very well connected to the actual impacts."

The most significant hurdle to setting up a European-style HSR network in the US is a simple matter of scale. The distance between Madrid and Barcelona is little over 300 miles. Between New York and Los Angeles, that figure is a shade under 2500 miles. Not even the most futuristic train could compete with air travel over such an expanse. Obviously, there is no suggestion that new HSR investments will attempt to recreate rail's glory days of transcontinental travel. Rather, attention will be focused on transit corridors in areas of comparatively high population density. The hope would be that HSR would offer a viable alternative to short-haul flights and their myriad irritations. President Obama painted an arresting picture of America's HSR future when he announced the plans. "Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city," he said. "No racing to an airport and across a terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America."

But some remain to be convinced. Despite the positive impacts HSR has had elsewhere in the world, there is a concern that the America is just too different for those effects to be felt here. Compared to Europe for example, the US's built environment is considerably less dense and more decentralized, something that is reflected in the nation's travel patterns. "In most urban areas in the US, we're really talking about midsize cities that have pretty decentralized employment and residential patterns, which don't lend themselves to the kind of development impacts that you see in Europe or in countries that are less wealthy," Staley says. "We simply don't have the densities you see in Japan or Taiwan, and over the period of time in which we would amortize the financial investment in a high speed rail network, we will not have those kind of densities. Even in Europe, the Channel Tunnel can connect London and Paris within an hour and a half. Outside the northeast corridor we simply don't have those concentrations." 

The need for speed

Amid all the talk, it is sometimes easy to overlook exactly what is meant by HSR. Compared with other systems, the technical specifications of the US's proposed routes seem rather underwhelming. Many of the projects to receive money in the first round of funding are aiming for speeds of around 110 mph. Florida's Orlando-Tampa line should reach 168 mph, while the projected Orlando-Miami route has aspirations of 186 mph. By contrast travelers in Spain can expect to hit speeds of 217 mph and in Japan can go as fast as 267 mph on lines that have been operational for years. Even if HSR takes off in the states, it's going to be a long time before it can catch up to its much quicker cousins around the world.

As a counterpoint to those who believe that the government is spending too much on HSR, there are many who believe that the funding is insufficient. While it is acknowledged that the $15 billion over the next five years is 'seed money', it is hard to see how the administration can hope to achieve its goals without investment that is higher by a considerable order of magnitude. Spain has already spent $30 billion on its network with a further $150 billion to follow over the next 15 years. China is going even further (see Eastern promise). Estimates of what it will cost for the US to achieve true high-speed range from upwards of $100 billion to as much as $700 billion. There is clearly neither the funds nor the political will to make such a big gamble. Perhaps the most worrying scenario is that we will end up with an inadequate system that will nonetheless cost billions of dollars at a time when public finances are stretched to breaking point.

But if HSR isn't the answer, where should resources go? "I think the numbers make it very clear," says Sam Staley. "Both in terms of congestion and mobility we are far better off spending that money on improving circulation and mobility within our major urban areas: Los Angeles, Chicago, almost the entire northeast corridor, New York City, Washington DC, Houston.  The focus really should be on a regional, on a metropolitan level. Those investments should be in putting the right capacity in the right place, and experimenting with new technology that allows us to optimize the use of the existing network, which means more use of tolling, distance and congestion based charging for roads, expanding new capacity, and in the right places with the right cities, transit investment."

Most defenders of HSR would counter that, rather than being one side of an either/or proposition, the kind of developments detailed above have to go hand in hand with the creation of a viable high-speed network. The argument can also be made that backing HSR is a long-term investment that will really begin to pay off in America's. Today, while air travel and gas is comparatively cheap, it will be harder to convince people to abandon short haul flights and the comfort of their cars. However, as sources of oil become harder to find, the costs of these forms of transport will inevitably rise. Might it not be better to start building an alternative now, rather than wait until it becomes a matter of urgency? There are many questions that still need to be answered about the exact shape HSR will take in the US, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be pursued. Government has spent something in the region of $200 billion bailing out failing banks, so $15 billion on a HSR system doesn't seem too big a price to pay.  The same sense of adventure that resulted in the nation's first transcontinental train line all those years ago should be encouraged. The challenges we face today are very different from those of the 19^th century, but that is no excuse for abandoning our ambition.

Right lines

Building an effective high-speed line between two locations requires several different criteria to be satisfied. Cities with larger populations are favored and distance between the two needs to lie somewhere between 100 and 500 miles. There also need to be existing transit systems that can be integrated with the new routes. GDP and urban density are also key factors. The list below details the 10 most suitable US city pairs for high-speed rail, based on these considerations.

1. New York - Washington

2. Philadelphia - Washington

3. Boston - New York

4. Baltimore - New York

5. Los Angeles - San Francisco

6. Boston - Philadelphia

7. Los Angeles - San Diego

8. Los Angeles - San Jose

9. Boston - Washington

10. Dallas - Houston

Source: America 2050

Eastern promise

Demonstrating the ambition that is cementing its place as the 21^st century superpower, China is also putting itself out in front of high-speed rail. Opening at the end of 2009, the Wuhan-Guangzhou (WuGuang) railway is currently the fastest passenger train on Earth. Previously a journey of  nearly eleven hours, the new train covers the 620 miles between Wuhan and Guangzhou in around three hours, traveling at speeds of over 235 mph.

It's an impressive achievement and one that is all the more striking when you consider that China's first high-speed rail line only opened in 2004. Should the WuGuang line prove a success the Chinese government plans to build another 8000 miles of high-speed lines in the next three years. On the face of it, China seems to offer an ideal template should the US really get series about high-speed. However, there is one major stumbling block: the price. The cost of the WuGuang project alone comes to some $16 billion, one billion more than has so far been earmarked for projects all over America. China will eventually spend $300 billion on its expanding high-speed system. Whatever its positive social, economic and environmental benefits, it is hard to see the American people sanctioning a similar expenditure on a 21^st century railway of its own.

HSR - The big winners

California - $2.344 billion
Preliminary work on CASHR, plus improvements to Capitol and Pacific Surfliner routes.

Illinois - $1.133 billion
Increase speed to 110 mph on Chicago to St Louis route, plus service improvements through Missouri to Kansas City.

Florida - $1.25 billion
Build 84 miles of new track between Tampa and Orlando with speeds of up to 168 mph.