High-Speed Rail: a Conservative Appraisal

High-Speed Rail: A Conservative Appraisal

By William S. Lind and Glen D. Bottoms

Prepared For:

1710 Rhode Island Avenue, NW, Suite 1200

Washington, DC 20036-3007

FOREWORD

As the authors, we wish to convey heartfelt appreciation and thanks to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) for making this study possible. The willingness of APTA to fund a study that might not view the possibilities of high speed rail in this country with quite the same vision articulated by this fine organization is quite laudable. This is a testament to APTA’s commitment to consider a universe of ideas that would bolster public transportation, both urban-centered and intercity passenger service, in different, but feasible approaches. In a way, this recognizes the diversity of ideas, sometimes turbulent and controversial, permeating the political spectrum in this country. Consequently, it should be strongly stated that the ideas and recommendations contained in this study are those of the authors and not APTA. We wish to extend special thanks to Art Guzzetti, Vice President, Policy, at APTA for his patience, endearing optimism and clear vision in advising us on our journey through the land of high speed rail. The term high speed rail evokes strong feelings and, no doubt, our study will do the same. We should note that we have added our own special insertneither funded nor supported by APTA on high speed rail in California, which states our assessment as well as strong viewsand recommendations on this project.

Again, we are deeply indebted to Art Guzzetti and APTA for making this study possible. We know that Art and the other good people at APTA join us in seeking the best possible intercity rail system for this country, one that is effective, efficient and affordable while enhancing the mobility of every American. Just how to get there is, of course, the locus of the debate.

Table of Contents

Introduction…………………………………………………1

High Speed Rail in the United States..……………………...4

SPECIAL INSERT [NOT APTA FUNDED]
Two Ways Forward for High Speed Rail……………….....1
California: A Command Approach Stumbles (and Raw Politics Intervene)…..…………..………..………………...3

Doing it Right: Three Conservative Examples……….…….1

The Cascades Corridor………………………….……..1

The Hiawathas………………………………….…….10

The Downeasters……………………………………..11

Doing it Wrong: Two Conservative Examples…….…..….14

Public-Private Partnerships…………………..……………17

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008

(PRIIA) and the Future of Amtrak…………..…………....19

Conclusion: Steady and Slow does it………..…………….20

Endnotes…………………………………………………...22

Introduction

In 2009, President Barack Obama proposed building a national system of high-speed passenger trains, a network dense enough to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail. The President’s proposal began a healthy debate on whether high-speed rail was desirable or practical in this country,

Is it desirable? Yes. Is it practical? No, at least not the way the Obama administration may want to go about creating it.

In this study, we will propose a conservative alternative to high-speed rail, an alternative that is both desirable and practical: higher-speed rail. What is the difference? Higher-speed rail focuses not on top speed, which is expensive, but on average speed and travel time. It grows incrementally, rather than being created out of nothing at vast cost. Its goal is to provide people a desirable alternative to driving, not to compete with the airplane.

What is high-speed rail? The generally-agreed international definition is electrically-powered passenger trains running mostly on dedicated tracks that attain a top speed of at least 250 kilometers per hour, which is roughly 150 mph. The first such line in the world was Japan’s Tokaido Shinkansen (literally New Trunk Line) connecting Tokyo with Osaka, which opened in 1964. The Tokaido Shinkansen, which today carries 386,000 people daily, has never had a fatal accident.[1] Now running at a top speed of 180 mph (300 kph) and covering the 320 miles between its end points (Tokyo-Osaka) in 2 hours and 25 minutes, the Shinkansen has been successful in every respect, including financially. Not only does it make an operating profit, it has earned enough to pay its original construction costs in full.

The Shinkansen’s success spurred the development of high-speed rail in other places. Thirteen countries now have more than 8,000 miles of high-speed rail in service, with another 18,000 planned world-wide.[2] In Europe, Spainis building a system that will be within reach of 90 percent of the population (living within 50km (31miles) of a station)by 2020. Passengers on Spain’s high speed network (Alta Velocidad Española- AVE) get theirmoney back if trains arrive more than five minutes late. France is probably Europe’s technological leader in high speed rail,with more than 500 French-designed TGVs(Train a Grande Vitesse- “Trains of Great Speed”) running on 1,185 miles of track. New lines will have trains running at speeds of up to 200 mph. A specially-prepared TGV set a new record for trains in 2007, achieving a top speed of 357 mph.[3]

Experience in other countries makes it clear that high-speed rail is desirable. Trains magazine wrote in April, 2011:

Whenever high speed rail begins connecting large cities, it quickly becomes the preferred means of travel. . .

High speed rail lines also require less space than highways and can handle more people. Figures from the International Union of Railways show that a double-track rail line 82 feet wide uses one-third the space of a six-lane highway (three lanes in each direction would require 246 feet) and has the capacity to handle 700 more people per hour . . .

Finally, high speed rail is an economic driver . . . In Lille, on the Paris-London route, the mayor insisted the high speed rail line come right through the city center - - with a station of course. The train transformed the city. The arrival of the Eurostar changed Lille from one of the most economically depressed cities in France to one of its most successful.[4]

Beyond all the policy issues, high speed rail simply offers travelers a better experience than do either flying or driving. Unlike on aircraft, the seats are large and comfortable, with plenty of leg room. Taking the train is much faster than driving, and you can use your time to work, read or relax. Travel again becomes a pleasure instead of an ordeal. As Trains editor James G. Wrinn wrote of Germany’s ICE high-speed train, a train that is beautiful inside and out,

Rolling between Neuremburg [sic] and Munich, I watched out the window as we briefly paced and then quickly left behind vehicles traveling on a parallel four-lane highway. These trains put a smile on my face: They’re quick, nice, and frequent enough to challenge the car.[5]

Would high-speed rail be good for America? Absolutely. What’s not to like?

High-Speed Rail in the United States

That said, the fact of the matter is that the conditions necessary to build high-speed rail and have it be successful do not yet exist in the United States, outside the Northeast corridor. That corridor, which connects Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, currently hosts America’s only high speed trains, Amtrak’s Acelas. Unlike high-speed rail in the rest of the world, the Acelas only run at 150 mph for about 35 miles (between Boston and New Haven) of their total 457 mile run. Their average speed is just 80 mph between Washington and New York. By international standards, the Northeast Corridor is high-speed rail in name only.[6]

But the Northeast Corridor does meet the central condition to build true high-speed rail. What is that condition? Density of existing passenger rail service.

Every other country that has built high-speed rail already had a dense network of conventional passenger trains. In fact, they built high-speed rail because of capacity constraints on existing lines. That was true from the Shinkansen onward.

Japan’s network of narrow gauge lines was so filled to capacity that Japanese engineers and railroad managers determined they could achieve much faster travel times by building a set of standard gauge high speed lines alongside existing rail lines within cities and on as straight a route as possible between cities.[7]

France, China, Italy and other countries that have joined the high speed rail movement faced similar situations: they had to build new tracks because existing passenger lines were maxed out. China has just announced plans to build parallel dedicated segments for freight and passenger services to alleviate congestion.

A dense network of existing passenger trains means a market for passenger trains already exists. More, the conventional trains serve as feeders and distributors for the high speed trains. Many high speed trains actually run for part of their route over conventional tracks at lower speeds. To build high speed rail in corridors where there is little or no existing passenger service is to make icing without the cake.

In America, only the Northeast Corridor currently meets all the conditions for high speed rail. Northeast Corridor trains now carry 750,000 people daily and 75% of the Washington-New York Air-Rail market (up from 37% in 2000).[8] The corridor has serious capacity constraints (most of it sees extensive commuter train service as well as Amtrak). It has sufficient density of service, including passenger trains that feed into the corridor, to justify true high speed rail. Clearly, if America is to get on the high speed rail bandwagon, as it should, the Northeast Corridor is the place to start.

Unfortunately, building true high speed rail from Boston to Washington (and possibly on to Richmond and Charlotte) runs up against another obstacle. At present, we do not have the money. Amtrak estimates the cost of building high speed rail and upgrading the corridor from Washington to Boston as $151 billion (capital spending from 2012 through 2040 at 2011 dollars).[9] With 40% of the federal budget now borrowed money and the national debt soaring, conservatives cannot justify adding another $151 billion to the debacle. Debt crises normally end in roaring inflation, and as much as we know high speed rail would benefit the Northeast, it’s not worth 1920s Weimar-style inflation.

This is not to say that high speed rail cannot be profitable. It almost always is. Most high speed rail lines in other countries more than cover their operating costs from revenues.[10] Over time, they are able to earn enough to pay their cost of construction as well.

So far, only the first high speed lines to open have generated enough revenues to cover their original construction costs. This is a function of both time and the populations they serve. France’s first high speed line (Paris-Lyon) took 12 years to pay for itself from the start of operations and many of today’s fast routes have not been open that long, or they serve cities smaller than Lyon. . . The original forecast for the Paris-Lyon TGV line had a rate of return of 12 percent, though the line ultimately posted a 15 percent return. Still, no other French line has achieved that high a return. The second-oldest TGV route, Atlantique (Paris-Tours/Le Mans) has reached 7 percent and is well on its way to fully paying for itself.[11]

The facts that, on the one hand, the federal government does not have the money to build true high speed rail, and on the other, that high speed rail makes enough profit to pay for both its operating and, over time, capital costs, points to something conservatives like: public-private partnerships. That is already happening in other countries. The French government paid just 30% of the capital cost of building TGV Atlantique; the rest was private money (and the government will get its 30% back). Britain, which privatized its rail passenger service under Margaret Thatcher, took another possible public-private partnership approach to building high speed rail:

The United Kingdom’s only high speed line (connecting London to the Channel Tunnel) was built by a government-owned company at a cost of around $7.5 billion, but has just been leased for 30 years at $3.3 billion to a private consortium. . . At the end of the 30-year lease, the government can auction the concession all over again, meaning that over 50 to 100 years, the government’s original investment could be recovered possibly several times over.[12]

We will look again at public-private partnerships later in this paper. But so far, no private entity has stepped forward to build and operate high speed rail in the U.S. Does that mean we can do nothing? No. It means we face a choice, a choice between “best” and “good enough,” between true high-speed rail and higher-speed rail. Not surprising, we would choose the latter, restoring passenger rail to its former glory in a deliberate, incremental fashion.

* SPECIAL INSERT *

Two Ways Forward for High Speed Rail

If you take the train from Moscow to St. Petersburg, Russia, you will find that the track is almost perfectly straight. How did that happen? Supposedly, when Tsar Nicholas I was shown the initial plan for the railroad, he drew his sword, whacked a straight line on the map between the two cities, and said, “Build it like that.”

That represents the Pharonic approach. The Pharaoh decrees pyramids be built, and lo, they rise. It may take a couple of thousand years before they draw enough tourists to be profitable, but such matters are beneath the Pharaoh’s concern.

Could the Obama administration be takinga similar approach to high-speed rail? The President gave a grand speech calling for a national system that would serve 80% of the public. That would cost somewhere around a trillion dollars, give or take a few hundred billion (dependent on rate of inflation, timing of investments, etc.).

By the time the Congress was done, the President got just an $8 billion down payment. Some of that went to deserving projects that were really higher-speed rail. But the biggest chunk went to the Great California Pyramid, a project to build true high speed rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles. That growing corridor will likely someday support high-speed rail. But politics in Sacramento and in Washington have turned the whole thing into a first-rate farce, the equivalent of a pyramid intended to balance on its point. The real point of California’s project,

which we will look at below in more detail, is that the Pharonic approach does not work.

In contrast, the conservative way forward is to build incrementally on what already exists, gradually (and affordably) creating higher-speed rail. As ridership grows on a corridor, more trains are added and average speeds, but not necessarily top speeds, are raised. It costs far less, both in capital and for maintenance, to raise slow sections of track to the initial FRA speed limit of 79 mph than to try for “gee whiz” top speeds. The objective should be to make travel times competitive with the automobile, not to compete with airplanes. As business builds further, it may justify raising top speeds on some sections to the next notches on the FRA scale, first 90 mph, then 110. But speed increases should follow the market, rather than preceding it on the principle, “Build it and they will come.”

The conservative, incremental approach does work. It is how the rest of the world has gotten to true high speed rail. It is the only realistic way America will someday attain high passenger train speeds. In the meantime, it is working in a growing number of corridors in this country, where incremental improvements have brought large increases in ridership and revenue (see our Intercity Passenger Ridership Table on p. 19). We will look at three of those corridors below. In the meantime, it is worth taking a detailed look at the California debacle, to see how thatapproach went wrong.

California: A CommandApproach Stumbles (and Raw Politics Intervenes)

At present, like too many cities in our country, San Francisco and Los Angeles are connected by only one train a day, the Coast Starlight, which runs along the coast and continues north to serve Seattle. The schedule is leisurely, with the train taking just under twelve hours to cover 464 miles.

However, there is potentially another way to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles by train. The route runs through the Central Valley via Bakersfield, and part of it is already a successful and growing corridor. Hosting Amtrak California’s San Joaquins, this corridor now sees four trains a day between Oakland and Bakersfield, with two more running Sacramento-Bakersfield. Ridership has grown from 66,990 in 1974-75, the first full year of operation,to 1,144,616today (2011-12), and incremental improvements have raised the average speed between Oakland and Bakersfieldto 51 mph.