“Around the world, high-speed rail is not a pipe dream of the distant future, it’s happening right now, and it’s been happening for decades. And thanks to President Obama’s vision, high speed rail is coming to America.”
-Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood
In September 2010 President Obama officially announced his plans to improve the transportation infrastructure within the United States, a promise that he had been reiterating since his first campaign in 2008. Now, the proposals may come to fruition in two desired stretches. The scope of the administration’s aspirations has been diminished as several state legislatures have refused federal money to build high speed rails within their state. Nevertheless, the House of Representatives is debating over an additional $4 billion in funding for rail projects. Yet, without the agreement of all affected states what is left are several plans to build high speed rails across the Northeast Corridor, connecting New York to Washington, DC and in California to ultimately connect Los Angles to San Francisco. Both these projects require investment on a grand scale in terms of both finance and time.
As population centers continue to grow, an influx of new drivers will continue to congest the prime motorways between large cities. The taxing effort to keep up with the population increases will lie heaviest on airports and roads that would have to bear the brunt of inter-city transportation as they do now. Thus the Obama administration is seeking cooperation between the federal government and several states to invest in the development. The scope of the investment has generated an abundance of resentment to a national investment in funding a project targeting isolated locations on the two coasts. The Federal Railroad Administration says “implementing these corridor projects and programs will serve as a catalyst to promote economic expansion (including new manufacturing jobs), create new choices for travelers in addition to flying or driving, reduce national dependence on oil, and foster livable urban and rural communities.” The opposition claims the projects will go overbudget and be inefficient especially in the scarcely populated regions.
Ultimately, the variety of factors involved in determining the value of building a rail network depends on certain assumptions that are consistently subject to change. As is the case with most projections, the numbers tend to inflate as the details of the project emerge. In 2008, when voters in California first approved the measure to allocate $9 billion in bonds to fund the train, they were under the presumption that the total cost of the project would amount to $33 billion by its completion in 2040. Now estimates average out at $68 billion, with some ranging up to $96 billion. With the federal government contributing upwards of $3.5 billion, the remaining costs have validated many of the concerns. Nevertheless, the California legislature approved the funding for the project, albeit with only a 21-16 vote in favor.
A key argument in favor that the Brookings Institute points out is that a high speed corridor will reduce the stress on airport traffic that is bound to ensue in the coming years. In fact, 26 metropoliatan areas account for 75% of all airport traffic, and 94% of all internatinal travel arrives or departs from 20 of those metropolitan areas. In light of that it is important to note how often short trips, less than 500 miles are made from these hubs. The report notes that
“corridors of no more than 500 miles constituted half of all flights and carried 30 percent of all passengers in the most recent twelve month period starting April 2008. In fact, the metro Los Angeles/San Francisco corridor, stretching 347 miles, is the second busiest corridor in the country. “
Critics have called the project a “train to nowhere” as the first lines that will be built are across scarcely populated regions. The Central Valley Line which is the first of the rails to be built will go from Bakersfield to Madera with populations of 350,000 and 62,000 respectively. If the funding for the project dries out and connections to San Francisco or Los Angeles are not made the end result may be disastrous for a state known for its budget gaffes. California Republican Congressman Darryl Issa is adamantly opposed, stating “California high-speed rail was sold to voters as a grand vision for tomorrow but in practice appears to be no different than countless other pork-barrel projects — driven more by political interests and consultant spending than valid cost-benefit analysis, before more taxpayer money is sent to the rail authority, questions must be answered about mismanagement, conflicts of interest, route selection, ridership and other risks.”
With this knowledge, voters have turned on the project. Recent polling indicates that if they had another opportunity, 59% of voters would not be in favor of the project. Instead, momentum had been gathering for a “Plan B” approach to the impending transportation dilemma. The plan would improve on current railroads and build immediate connections to Los Angeles and San Francisco and negate the Central Valley line. The point is essentially moot though with chairman of the High Speed Rail Authority Dan Richard claiming “There are no legal, practical or contractual ways to move the money out of the Central Valley.”
On the opposite end of the country the circumstances differ substantially. With almost 20% of the population located in one densely populated region of the country, the cost per rider diminishes significantly in the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak has a plan to create a $151 billion high speed line that will shorten travel time by half. A trip to Boston from New York will take just over an hour and a half. Compare that with the over three and a half hour trip it is currently then there is great incentive to complete this project. Amtrak President Joseph Boardman obviously agrees, he says “The current corridor between Washington and Boston is old and crowded, with highways, airports, and railroads that are unable to handle growing population and demand, without ambitious rail expansion, the region’s economy will be stifled.”
The project does come with its own flaws, most notably the high price tag. Amtrak is scrambling to find financiers for the project since even by their own report “current Federal, state, and local transportation investment programs are insufficient” and that fare hikes for current service would be one likely option. To compensate for the distinctions in how much added value the project would provide, Amtrak was found to have smudged the numbers some. A report by the Amtrak Office of the Inspector General found that they significantly overinflated the added value of adding new rail cars onto the existing routes. Yet, some states are still inclined to invest in the project in collobaration with the private and federal efforts. Pennsylvania sought pass a bill that ultimately got voted down that would have appropriated $75 million toward the project.
The Northeast corridor line is currently America’s most highly-developed high-speed rail corridor, having benefited from over $4 billion in direct Federal funding under the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project that had its roots in the High-Speed Ground transportation Act of 1965 and the railroad restructuring legislation of the mid-1970s. Bills have continued to make it into state legislatures about
Some are hesitant to support the transformation due to the public funding required to operate the lines. Claiming that if the project was profitable, private industry would already have invested in the project. However, the recent USPIRG study finds that “All high-speed rail public-private partnerships require substantial public investment. In fact, no modern high-speed rail line has ever been built with only private capital. In several recent and current European high-speed rail PPP’s (Private Public Partnerships), the public sector has been responsible for more than half the capital cost of the high-speed rail line.” Though in their report they also found numerous risks or faults involved with invoking public finance, including:
• Higher costs for capital, as well as costs related to the profits paid to private shareholders.
• Heightened risk for the public once a project has begun, due to the ability of private-sector actors to hold projects hostage and demand increased subsidies or other concessions from government.
• The costs of hiring and retaining the lawyers, financial experts and engineers needed to protect the public interest in the negotiation of PPP agreements and to enforce those agreements over time.
• Loss of control over the operation of the high-speed rail line, which can result in important transportation assets being operated primarily to boost private profit rather than best advance public needs.
• Delays in the early stages of a project, as government and private partners engage in the difficult and complex task of negotiating PPP agreements.
Paul Kennedy, a Harvard economist wrote a series of editorials about the merits of high speed rail for the country. To be complete he as many others have noted the positive environmental and employment factors involved in the construction of these lines. But, he also brings about a larger qualm that Americans have toward rail. He says:
“there is the American obsession with the automobile, and with aircraft. Given the sheer spread of the country, this once seemed to make a lot of sense and still does for many journeys today. Air travel is a fantastic conqueror of distance, and for decades car ownership has been synonymous with American individualism and love of the open road.”
The convoluted process behind the enormous nationwide undertaking involves a complicated political process. Coordinating funding between the federal, state and private level makes it a time consuming project. Given that the timeline for full implementation stretches for upwards of 15 years makes the marketing of its value less tangible in a political climate less apt to approve more federal spending. Nevertheless if the project does come to full fruition it can be a major step forward in the modernization of public transit.
About BillTrack50 – BillTrack50 offers free tools for citizens to easily research legislators and bills across all 50 states and Congress. BillTrack50 also offers professional tools to help organizations with ongoing legislative and regulatory tracking, as well as easy ways to share information both internally and with the public.