High-speed rail: Interview with Yoav Hagler

Timon Singh

US high-speed rail plans have been gaining traction over the past few weeks with California and Florida receiving $6 billion between them to kick start their individual projects, as well as President Obama throwing his support behind the scheme in his State of the Union address.

While the project has had its critics and detractors, it has also has its supporters. Among them is America 2050, a group dedicated to meeting "the infrastructure, economic development and environmental challenges of the nation as (the country) prepares to add about 130 million additional Americans by the year 2050."

“It shows an initial commitment to what is a national commitment”
-Yoav Hagler

US Infrastructure spoke to Yoav Hagler of America 2050 about the challenges of high-speed rail, the funding issues and why some people are still against it.

In his State of the Union, President Obama talked about how he was going to go to Tampa and how he was going to break ground for new high-speed railroad funded by the recovery act, But the money that he's putting towards high-speed rail in four separate states is only $8 billion with $6 billion of that being divided up between California and Florida. Do you think that's anywhere near enough money for a high-speed rail system in the US?

Well no, not ultimately. This has to be looked at as a 'down payment' for the entire system. To put it in context - a little bit - the California system is estimated to be in the range of $40 to $45 billion; so if you think of what you need to create a national network you need 8 to 10 of those. We're talking over the next generation an investment of about, say, $300, $400 billion dollars. Now, what this $8 billion does is that it provides seed money to several corridors around the country. It shows an initial commitment to what is a national commitment.

For so long rail investments from the federal government have really been confined to the Northeast and on the Northeast corridor, and although the Northeast corridor could use much more investment and needs a reliable source of investment, this is really an indication that there's a commitment for the first time in a national program. If you put it in some historical context, President Eisenhower signed the Federal Aid Highway Act in 1956 and provided money to get that going. By 1957 or 1958 all the money wasn't allocated and the system wasn't built. It took 30 years and the sustained investment to build that network out, and it'll take a similar investment this time around to build out the high-speed rail system.

Basically the cost, as you said, is estimated to cost anywhere between $40 to $45 billion with some estimates going even higher. Is that due to renovating current tracks that are already built or is it building a completely new system, and if so, isn't it easier just to build a completely new system rather than spending money on renovating existing railways?

Well, I think that there are - we can't use a one size fits all approach for high-speed rail around the country. There are certain corridors that are gonna be better suited for new European and Asian style high-speed rail, 200 mph plus, and that's the case with California. California is building a brand new system, but if you look at the particulars of the corridor, really their goal is to connect the major economies of Northern California and Southern California and compete with short haul air travel. And this is a corridor 400, 500, 600 miles in length, and you need that speed to maintain that average speed to get the trip times to compete.

There are other corridors in the Midwest and in the Northeast, for example, that could benefit greatly from an incremental approach. They don't need to build all new infrastructure, but compete with short haul air and auto travel with incremental improvements getting trip times up from 79 miles an hour to 90 miles an hour to 110 miles an hour and then 125 miles an hour and then above. The federal government sort of recognizes three levels of high-speed rail. HSR emerging, which is more than - 79 to 90 to 110. That's really meant to provide the initial investments and to begin to build the market.

And then HSR regional, which is up to 150, which the only current high-speed rail in the country that would fit that category is the Acela on the Northeast corridor. And then HSR express, which is the California system and the Florida system similar to the European and Asian styles. But again, it's more than top speed and it's even more than just average speed. It's about creating a network and creating these links.

There are a couple examples currently around the country with increases in speeds, modest speeds, and investments in corridors, such as Harrisburg to Philadelphia that increase the speed from 79 to 90 to 110, is one of the fastest growing corridors for ridership in Amtrak system. You also see that in the capital corridor from Sacramento the Bay Area. With incremental improvements you can get big increases in ridership. So again, it's not a one size fits all. It's about creating a network and networked approach.

As well as creating that network, you have to finance it; so with only $8 billion coming from the recovery act, a lot of the money's going to have to come from federal money and private capital. Do you think, at the moment, high-speed rail is a big draw for investors or do you think some people are still put off by the concept of such an expensive infrastructure project?

Well, I think you have seen a lot of interest in the private sector from some of the major European and Asian rail companies ready to step up to the plate and build and operate these systems specifically in Florida. There was a proposal in the Midwest and in Texas for private investment, but what we see is that in most parts of the world what happens is that the infrastructure, the hard capital investments will come from the federal government and then a private operator can operate high-speed rail profitably. You even see that in the US.

Amtrak is often maligned as a drain on capital investment and a big money loser. But if you look corridor by corridor, Amtrak actually makes an operating profit on the Northeast corridor and loses money on some other corridors that the federal government forces them to maintain a national network. So we see even in this country it's possible to run an operating profit for high-speed rail.

A few months ago, I read an article that stated that the US had essentially reached a car saturation point, and car sales had essentially flat-lined and were beginning to dip. Due to road congestion, trains were in turn becoming much more popular so now would seem the time for a high-speed rail project to go into effect. But with car sales plummeting, why do you think there is still resistance to the idea of high-speed rail and why do you think those that are against it are against it?

I think that it's one of those things. It tends to be a political issue, and unfortunately when issues become political they tend to become polarized, but what we're trying to do is learn from our historical precedence. The build out of the interstate highway system in the middle of last century really laid the groundwork for 50 years of economic growth, and we're trying to do that again and depoliticize these investments. Infrastructure is a prerequisite for economic growth, and we've reaped the benefits of all the investments that we made, not just in transportation, but all across the infrastructure spectrum over the last century. And what we need to do is make the case for investing in our infrastructure yet again.

America 2050 started a few years ago for that exact reason, responding to sort of a handful of challenges: projected population growth, energy independence, a deteriorating infrastructure. And we're calling for a national infrastructure plan that will lay out these investments. Again, the $8 billion is a great start, but we're gonna need a lot more of that, and we're gonna need to sustain public interest and public support. If we rely on year-to-year appropriations, we're gonna be held hostage to the political cycle.

When these investments are popular, they'll be made, and when they're not popular they won't be made. That's a problem. One of the benefits that the interstate highway system benefited from was that early on they had a plan that laid out the investment strategy and had a dedicated funding stream to build it out. And I think that because of the capital required, we're gonna need to find that dedicated funding stream and not rely on year-to-year appropriations.

American's transcontinental railway was credited to bringing the country together, and America's railway services are crucial for the transportation of goods all around the country except it seems that they're one of the least well-maintained in terms of the money that goes into them. With the high-speed rail service a lot of it seems to be connecting to cities, city pairings; so Sacramento to parts of California. Would a transnational high-speed rail service be possible, and if so, do you think that would win more support for a program that would essentially cut down the use of basically transcontinental flight?

Well, I mean I don't think there's ever gonna be a market for high-speed rail from New York to Los Angeles. It's just too far, and it can be too efficiently traveled by air. What we need to do is invest strategically; high-speed rail really works best at this mega region scale about 100 to 600 miles across that connect these metropolitan areas with dense employment centers, growing populations, etc etc. And so the national network will arise from these individual mega region scale systems. And so, for example, there will be a Northeast system and a Midwest system and a California system. And it will eventually merge into a national network, but that doesn't mean that people will ever really be relying on it to go from East Coast to West Coast.

And then the fact that trains use ten times less CO2 than planes means that you'd be cutting carbon emissions by cutting down on short haul flights within those regions...

Short haul airport decongestion is a major driver of high-speed rail. In the New York region our three major airports are the three most heavily congested airports in the nation, and about a third of all of those flights are going to destinations within 500 miles.

So there's a huge potential market there. Likewise in California. There are about 500 daily flights between Northern California and Southern California; so there's this huge potential market to be tapped.

Yoav Hagler is an Associate Planner with the America 2050 program, which is creating an infrastructure plan for the nation's development in the 21st century. In this capacity, Mr. Hagler focuses his research efforts on national transportation policy and is involved in coordinating and planning a series of infrastructure forums titled "Rebuilding and Renewing America" in mega-regions across the nation. Mr. Hagler also acts as the coordinator for the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility, a coalition of more than 30 business and civic groups established to promote improved transportation links in the Northeast mega-region.