Today, the Obama Administration rolled out its plan for high-speed passenger rail in the United States. It identified 10 corridors targeted for high-speed rail service amidst comparisons to European and Japanese passenger trains. Here is a map of the proposed corridors.
First, let me state that I have long been an advocate of passenger rail service. Not only do I believe that there are all sorts of social, economic, and environmental benefits that will accrue from great rail travel, but rail travel is simply more civilized. I have studied rail issues since ConRail assumed the bankrupt carcasses of Penn Central and the other Northeastern railroads. I have fought to preserve train stations such as North Western Terminal in Chicago. I have traveled nearly every route on Amtrak – and routes that Amtrak no longer serves.
U.S. Passenger Rail Service in 1962
So, it is with a heavy heart that I must express considerable misgivings with the Obama High-Speed Rail Plan. The most fundamental flaw is that it is piecemeal. It seeks to build a high-speed passenger rail system within a rail network that is woefully antiquated except for the Northeast Corridor. It must appeal to as American public that hasn’t traveled on passenger trains for two generations. And it will have to negotiate with private rail corporations that are skeptical about expanded passenger rail service.
That’s why we need a national rail initiative like the Interstate Highway Act of 1956. I have seen more high-speed rail corridors proposed, studied, debated, and forgotten over the past thirty-five years than can be counted – Ohio 1986, Florida 1976, Texas 1987, the Midwest states 1979 – and most recently, the California funding authorized in the 2008 referendum. Do you honestly think that California can afford it right now? And, by the way, the corridors unveiled today are hardly new. They’ve been sitting around at the Department of Transportation for at least four years.
A quick look at the map above will also show you a political difficulty with the High-Speed Rail Plan. It doesn’t address rail needs of many states that have very sensitive senators and representatives. I count seventeen unserved states. That’s 34 senators – 17 of whom are Democrats. A national rail initiative also addresses the political realities that have stymied rail plans for years. Harry Reid ain’t gonna like it that Tulsa has high-speed rail service, but Las Vegas does not.
And another look at the map causes some serious head scratching – both for what is there and for what isn’t. Why is there a double corridor in California, neither of which conforms to the California High-Speed Rail plan? Why isn’t there a connection between South Florida and Jacksonville and to the rest of the system? Why is there a high-speed corridor between Texarkana and Little Rock, but not between Pittsburgh and Cleveland?
In fact, there are very few links in the system. Granted, high-speed rail service will have the greatest patronage from passengers traveling 300 or fewer miles. At an average speed of 100 mph – slow by TGV standards – a three-hour rail trip is competitive with air travel and superior to highway times. But interlocking systems generate additional passenger traffic geometrically given the additional possible city pairs – even within the 300-mile range. In addition, many passengers will opt for longer trips than 300 miles, if available.
Yet another look at the map will show that the underlying map is the Amtrak system. I am grateful that Amtrak saved a kernel of the American passenger rail system since its inception in 1971 and has continued to offer excellent passenger service in the Northeast Corridor despite Congressional threats on an annual basis. But, Amtrak cannot be the agency under which a high-speed rail system operates. Amtrak carries the baggage of decades of horrendous service – not always Amtrak’s fault. Amtrak will be tough to market to the various states as well as to the American public outside of the Northeast.
And then there is the rail ownership pattern in the United States. Except for the Northeast Corridor which is owned by Amtrak, the rail lines over which passenger trains operate are owned by private rail corporations – CSX, Norfolk Southern, BNSF, and Union Pacific for the most part. When the private railroads turned over their money-losing passenger service to Amtrak in 1971, they agreed to provide expedited service to Amtrak’s trains. Those agreements have long been forgotten. Amtrak trains have regularly been six, eight, even twelve or more hours late. There is no incentive for freight rail carriers to have passenger trains on their tracks – and the faster the trains are the more conflicts they produce. Thus, there is yet another reason for a national high-speed rail system.
Here is what high-speed rail in the United States requires:
- A national system under public control – articulated between a national rail authority and state rail authorities – much like the Federal Highway Administration and state DOTs. High-speed rail requires dedicated, independent tracks.
- A tiered system that provides passenger rail service to all states. (Including the Alaska Railroad and an Inter-Island Fast Ferry for Hawaii) This would include true high-speed corridors, express-speed corridors, and connecting service. A true national system has the potential to garner support like the current highway lobby.
- A funding structure also similar to Interstate Highway funding with the majority of funding coming from federal sources and a sufficiently long time frame to ensure completion of the entire system.
I do not believe that this is a case of the best being the enemy of the good. Nearly four decades of attempts have shown, over and over, that state initiatives lack the funding and scope to succeed as governors and legislatures shift party control and priorities. Regional plans have foundered even more quickly – with any single player scuttling the plans because of state rivalries.
We have the opportunity to develop high-speed rail alternatives in the United States that will set the pattern for transportation for the next half-century. Much as the Interstate Highway Act of 1956 ushered in an era when the automobile reigned unchallenged, a national rail initiative has the potential to relegate the automobile to local trips. Here, truly, is an opportunity to create jobs, build livable communities, and travel in a more environmentally sustainable manner.
We should not let it pass us by.