Here’s How We Should Build Out A High Speed Rail Network
Sometimes it’s comforting to have a rigorous, numbers-based analysis tell you something you already pretty much know. In this case, most Americans understand that there are intercity corridors in this country that would be ideally suited for high speed rail investment. But the smart folks at America 2050 have done a great deal in advancing the national conversation by putting together a report (pdf) that ranks which potential HSR routes are the best candidates for investment–that is, which will have the greatest ridership demand.
The rankings are based on six factors: population, the size the local economy, distance between cities (with 250 miles being optimum), the quality of the local transit networks at each end, how bad the highway congestion is both cities (on the idea that this dissuades driving), and whether the cities are in a mega-region (more on that here).
Naturally, tops on the list was a NY-Washington DC link–probably as good a natural candidate for HSR as any route in the world. Six of the top 10 pairs, in fact, are overlapping segments on the larger Washington-Boston route.
Confusingly, that very route is today served by the Acela, which many people think is high speed because it looks like a high speed train, what with the pointy aerodynamic nose, fancy seats, Euro-style name and all. But in any meaningful sense the Acela is just a device to fool ourselves–rather like chewing gum when you’re hungry. It theoretically could go fast, but doesn’t do so because the tracks just don’t allow for it (except one little stretch blah blah — a taunting and meaningless exception).
Also in the top ten are LA-SF and, charmingly, the Dallas-Houston route that Edward Glaeser poopooed in his unimpressive “back of envelope” analysis over at the NYT’s Economix blog.
The top 25 are city pairs are:
It’s worth noting that the much slagged “levitating Mickey Mouse gambling train” route from LA to Vegas comes in a respectable #23. Current plans on that line would only connect Vegas to the High Desert hellhole and meth mecca of Victorville though — and we’re not sure that would rank quite as high (no offense, V’villians!).
The report proposes three phases of investment and construction, as shown on the map above. Top priority are the Northeast, California and a Midwest network. Next are Florida, an Atlanta to DC link, Dallas to Houston, Portland to Vancouver BC, and few others. Then there is a third tier of projects, including routes connecting Philly to Chicago, NYC to Buffalo, and Denver to Albuquerque.
Overall, America 2050 has made an important addition to the high speed rail debate, offering some empirical basis for ranking potential investments.
Frankly, though, the report also highlights for us it just how frustrating the situation is in the Northeast, and how charming it would be to have some brutally determined Robert Moses type in national government who could cut through all the crap, destroy lives when necessary with total impunity, and spend the $10 billion or so necessary to straighten shit out and make the Northeast rail corridor the crown jewel-class national asset it really deserves to be. (Well, we enjoy that modern day Moses stuff as a naughty fantasy, anyway.) Many people make the point that getting one world-class line that works in this country will win over as proof-of-concept residents of other regions. And they tend to suggest California should be that one. Which is fine except that the California project is still 15 years or so from impressing many people and is not quite as good a candidate as the Northeast. Really the way to jumpstart serious HSR investment in other regions would be to get real-life 150+ mph trains rolling between Boston and DC, and to make that happen in, like, four years. But that’s a post for another day!
September 17th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Your argument for semi-high speed (150 MPH) trains in the NEC is interesting because the NEC is a better high speed route than the one in California. However, upgrading it in 4 years seems unlikely because of the number of different entities that have to be coordinated. However any upgrades you make on the NEC are likely to make it more competitive.
California’s situation is different and unique. San Francisco and Los Angeles are 400 miles apart, at the outer edge of where HSR is viable and getting between them requires crossing 2 serious mountain ranges. Building 100-150 MPH rail between SF and LA doesn’t get enough ridership to justify the enormous expense of building the essential mountain segments ($2-3 billion each), so only building 220MPH+ HSR all at once pays off. California is also fortunate in that most the sensible incremental upgrades have already been done on other corridors in California and will serve to feed the HSR system, these already upgraded corridors include the Surfliners (LA-San Diego) the Capitols (San Jose-Sacramento) and the San Joaquins (Oakland and Sacramento to Bakersfield) which are the second, third and fifth busiest rail corridors in the U.S. respectively and combined carry about half as many people as the entire NEC.
I say that the California system is the best situated to be upgraded for the following reasons
1) ONLY HSR will provide meaningful benefit due to California’s topography
2) The California system is already far along in planning and has a more or less complete EIR
3) California’s voters have graciously provided $10 billion to build it
4) The so called second phase parts of California HSR (extensions to Sacramento and San Diego) are already well served by rail*
5) California’s current intercity equipment is currently capable of 110 MPH operation with signaling upgrades, meaning that fast feeder lies will be easy to provide.
*San Jose is not currently well served by the Capiotls, but will have hourly service by the time HSR actually makes it ther.
September 17th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Chicago-Columbus over Chicago-Minneapolis? Atlanta-Charlotte completely off this list?
September 17th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I love this emphasis on mega regions (not least because I live in the biggest one and CT stands to gain 2(!) lines). I think I need to study up a bit more though, because it still seems strange that Boston to Baltimore would have more in common than Pittsburgh to Philadelphia. And seeing Bridgeport show up is quite strange; it carries no weight in its own state and surely New Haven (where I presume a large HSR support yard would need to be built) or Stamford should have been listed instead.
I do have some problems with this plan, though. There’s no real mention of international connections save for Portland-Seattle-Vancouver. Might New York-Montreal, New York-Toronto, Chicago-Detroit-Toronto, or even something like San Antonio-Monterrey score higher than many of the 50 corridors listed in the study. If so, this would affect the phasing of lines (and maybe spread costs as well). Upstate New York, for example, could become a phase 1 line if linking two of the Anglo world’s three largest financial centers is deemed more important than Chicago-Toledo.
The next step should be to plan out a lower tier system around the country. This will be necessary in allowing isolated places like Salt Lake City build their rail infrastructure, and also prevent places like Wyoming from trying to force government funding of an extension from Denver to Cheyenne instead of Richmond to Norfolk.
September 18th, 2009 at 1:13 am
Perhaps Pres. Obama could do a Lincoln – appoint a USArmy general (Corps of Engineers ?) as a rail czar with eminent domain power over the Northeast Corridor. In parallel he would designate that corridor as a Federal District – taxes and fees would be paid to Uncle Sam with a pass-through to Amtrack. Since the local governments have been part of the Gordian Knot situation cutting them out would simplify things. Yes, they would scream very loudly but the “promote the general Welfare” phrase in the US Constitution gives Uncle Sam a “Teddy Big Stick” (GRIN !).
Also, a warning to those who think they can stop the steel ribbons through ANY kind of sabotage. It’s already a federal crime to interfere with a railroad line physically.
September 18th, 2009 at 2:57 am
The guy at The Transport Politic has some good methodological criticisms of this plan, and a good map of his own: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/17/establishing-objective-realistic-assessment-tools-for-planning-an-effective-high-speed-rail-network/
Basically, America 2050 makes the mistake of not considering city pairs closer than 100 miles apart (ruling out New York – Philly, for one), and considering 250 miles the “optimum” distance, when ridership will probably be higher for shorter trips, max being around 50 to 150 miles.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:42 am
Looking at that map, it seems a little silly not to extent Chicago-Louisville all the way to Atlanta, or St. Louis to Oklahoma-Texas. Unless they’re assuming that Northerners and Southerners don’t mix.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:58 am
The New York State DOT considered upgrading the NYC to Montreal line. The current travel time by train is about 12 hours. I am not making this up. I’ve done the drive in 6-7 hours. Anyway, it was determined that it would be impossible under environmental regulations to upgrade the train line in the Adirondaks to make it useful, and so further efforts were abandoned. The Adirondaks were also the area in which several winter travelers froze to death in their vehicles when those vehicles were stranded in snow storms. The people who perished had cell phones to call for help, however environmentalists had blocked the construiction of cell phone towers along I-87 in the Adirondaks. You can take the train report right of the NYS DOT’s website, and you can google the news reports of the perished travellers. Anyway, you can draw lines on a map all you wnat, but I’d wager that in the year 2109, it’ll still take 12 hours for a train to reach Montreal from NYC.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:43 am
I like the Teddy Big Stick idea. Since an army general would be appointed, they could push the entire thing as a matter of national security, less oil usage and since the military is running the show, less interference from people who are against rail investment.
California needs a big chunk of the money, but the NEC needs to be upgraded to 150mph, nearly the entire length. This is the most important rail line in the country and it needs to be upgraded as such.
September 18th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Ted,
Well said. I actually had a sentence in the piece mentioning a rail czar but cut it at last second because didn’t want to get bogged down in this recent controversy about all Obama’s czars. But, hells yes.
Also – as one reader already noted, I highly recommend checking out Yonah’s take on this over at thetransportpolitic.com — offers a couple of very smart critiques, including of the way distance was considered.
Jebediah
September 18th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Jebediah Reed observed, the monumental challenge of getting HSR right can make one long for “some brutally determined
September 18th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Here is my contribution to what a national north american network should look like:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/300/hsrmapfrom2050base.jpg
September 18th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
By all means have a rail czar, but make sure it’s a senate-confirmed position to maintain credibility over the project, especially with the dollar amounts being talked about.
Re: the army approach – didn’t the highway system start out as a troop-movement system?
September 18th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Joe,
I’m not sure of the exact history of the interstate system, but I do know that Eisenhower modeled it after the Autobahn, which was built to move military equipment efficiently. Promote rail in the same aspect. The anti-public transit/rail opinionated people love anything that heaps vast amounts of money on security and military related issues, so as long as it is pushed in that manner, it has a better chance for success; at least in my opinion.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I would emphasize military efficiency over statist visions of military-industrial overlords dominating the transportation system.
Also, no thousand-dollar hammers, please.
September 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
I concur, especially when you use the term “Military-Industrial Overlords”. Let’s stick with efficiency and patriotism.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
For those who haven’t studied the “Late, Great Unpleasantness” (aka US Civil War) two things made a huge difference in the Union army’s performance :
1) top quality rails (solid steel vs. iron-strap-on-wood); and
2) a rail czar to coordinate troop and supply movements as well as kick the ass of any railroad company that got in the way. Some of the foreign observers were Prussian and the lessons they learned had an impact in the Franco-Prussian wars that followed. Some of that carried forward to World War II and Korea.
I remember seeing a pair of maps of the French rail network pre-/post-1944. The before map was like a lace mantilla or dense spiderweb. The after map was a shattered mess with large gaps in the network. Yes, it’s hard to blow up a bridge with strategic bombers – it’s a skinny target. But when a flock of tactical bombers – e.g. Jugs (P-47 Thunderbolts) – show up and dive bomb they’re not going to miss. Afterwards they’ll go looking for some trucks or rolling stock to bust with fifty caliber (.50 in.) or twenty mike-mike (20 mm). I really ought to go looking for some books on the reconstruction of the rail networks in France and Germany from the late 40’s through the 1960’s. There might be something we could use in those accounts.
P.S. The “Teddy” in my earlier post was a punning reference to Pres. Theodore Roosevelt and an anglic way of saying “very”.
September 18th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Yes, the process has to be federalized. Just as bad as the localities with wild enthusiasm and no place to go–think Denver, are the places in a Libertarian coma, where HSR might as well be science fiction–think Phoenix. Put the locals in advisory capacities and listen carefully to them, just don’t let them control the process.
Siting and environmental fights have to be sped up–not eliminated, just accelerated.
Federalizing the process is the only practical way to build ties to Canada or Mexico. Doing so would be a huge benefit of HSR.