The Benefits of High-Speed Rail in the United States

FROM THE WHITE HOUSE: President Barack Obama's vision for high-speed rail in the United States, as outlined on a map of the country.

Executive Summary

        Currently in the United States, traffic congestion and gas-guzzling vehicles, crowding our nation’s roads and bridges, have dramatically increased greenhouse gas emissions that, in turn, have worsened the effects of climate change. According to 2009 estimates in The New York Times, our current and most popular forms of transportation are wreaking havoc on the environment. “All told,” Harvard economics professor Edward Glaeser writes, “a 240-mile car trip produces 157 pounds of carbon dioxide.” (Glaeser, The New York Times, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/how-big-are-the-environmental-benefits-of-high-speed-rail/?_r=0) These estimates concluded that a similar domestic air flight trip in the United States amounts to 133.7 pounds of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Therefore, it is necessary for the sake of our warming planet to explore investment in more efficient public transportation. Such transportation ought to be both more economically and environmentally efficient and effective in order to lure American travelers into supporting and strengthening this kind of investment. Further, this investment must create a substantial number of jobs since the unemployment rate continues to hover above 7 percent, an unacceptably high number. As Professor Glaeser noted in August 2009, “trains reduce carbon emissions and the world should reduce its carbon footprint” while the “environmental and mortality benefits of rail are real.” (Glaeser, www.nytimes.com) Indeed, investing more resources into trains, as part of a broader national rail strategy for economic and environmental prosperity, ought to be considered by our nation’s policymakers. 

Statement of the Issue 

What role can more efficient public transportation in the form of trains play in curbing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating the effects of climate change in the United States? Inarguably, public transportation through trains could be a more efficient, cost-effective, and more environmentally friendly means of travel than driving a vehicle. An increasingly popular version of such transportation around the world is seen in the example of high-speed rail. In the several countries around the globe in which high-speed rail networks exist, they are incredibly speedy and provide tremendous economic and environmental benefits. 

American rail systems pale in comparison to that of many other countries, particularly in European nations like Germany and Spain. In many foreign nations, high-speed rail is becoming a central aspect of their economies and everyday life for citizens. For these countries, these rail systems are proving extremely effective at cutting greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the pace of travel for millions of people, and creating hundreds of thousands of secure jobs. In the United States, our rail system is currently largely based on Amtrak – a 42-year old government-backed service –that includes a high-speed component in the form of Acela trains. 

Despite the jobs and convenience that Amtrak has spurred for millions, it is insufficient – and, often for many, it is inefficient. Further, many more millions of Americans continue to use gas-guzzling vehicles, on congested highways, that pollute our air, emit greenhouse gases, and rack up bills at the gas station. Ultimately, it is crucial that a comprehensive nationwide high-speed rail network be established to service the needs of travelers across the country. Building such a system would surely be complex but the manpower, resources, and human will exist. At this point, the United States though needs the political will to make it a reality. 

For the American people, high-speed rail would be a crucial and huge investment. On the one hand, a high-speed rail network would create scores of new jobs, enhance the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, and inject new consumer demand into the economy. Consequently, the gross domestic product of the United States would certainly increase, while the economic benefits would persist in such a way that the country will see more robust long-term growth. On the other hand, high-speed rail provides vital environmental benefits that impressively tackle climate change. Indeed, if consumers opt for rail over airplanes or over vehicles, a sizable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would ensue. Given the speed of the trains in such a network, the results, in terms of helping ensure clean air for all of us, would be vastly superior to the current output of Amtrak. For the American people, creating a high-speed rail network would result in a significant return on our collective investment. 

Background 

Already, the United States has a national infrastructure of rail in place, most notably in the form of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation – popularly known as Amtrak – and, in the last several years, the U.S. has taken modest but vital steps in the direction of a national high-speed rail network. Even before the inception of Amtrak though, the United States boated a sophisticated rail system. During his four-year presidency from 1861 to 1865, President Abraham Lincoln laid the groundwork for the establishment of the first-ever transcontinental railroad in the country. Over a century later, in 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed into law the Rail Passenger Service Act to secure federal government investment in passenger trains as advocates for passenger rail were seriously concerned that the end of such travel was near. This legislation ultimately set the stage for several decades of federal spending fueled into Amtrak, a passenger rail service that began operations in May 1971. 

Since then, Amtrak, which “operates a nationwide rail network” across 46 states, has grown in popularity far beyond what the Nixon administration initially anticipated. (Amtrak.com) Indeed, the administration’s predictions in the early 1970s also vastly underestimated the amount of federal support Amtrak would receive over the next several decades. For Fiscal-Year 2012, Amtrak received $466 million for operations in addition to another $950 million for capital projects. The overall revenue of the train service for that same time was estimated at nearly $3 billion. From the fall of 2011 to late 2012, Amtrak boasted that over 31 million passengers rode aboard its trains – a new record for the service. (Amtrak.com) 

 In fact, one of Amtrak’s most well-known and most loyal passengers for decades is a man for whom the Amtrak Wilmington station is currently named: Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. As a United States Senator from Delaware for 36 years, Biden rode the train home every single day from Washington, D.C. to Wilmington, Delaware to spend time with his family after long days at work in the Capitol. Consequently, as a senator, Biden became one of the strongest defenders in Congress of ensuring significant annual federal support for Amtrak. As Vice President in the Obama administration, Biden has maintained his pro-Amtrak posture, using his influence to ensure that the administration remains committed to seeing Amtrak continue to succeed and grow. 

Vice President Biden is the leader of the administration’s effort to implement President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the $826 billion federal stimulus package that the President signed into law on February 17, 2009. (Grunwald, The New New Deal, 256-66) The ARRA contains substantial amounts of vital funding, in the form of various projects and other investments, not only for Amtrak improvements but also for the initial stages of development of what is truly sorely needed in this country: a national network of high-speed rail. Given the stinginess of a Congress that demanded the federal stimulus package be below the $1 trillion level and that recently has restored to austerity rather than Keynesian spending to inject consumer demand and because of Republican governors refusing federal money for rail projects, the administration’s high-speed rail plan and Amtrak investments that are part of ARRA are not nearly as ambitious as they could be or ought to be. 

Statement of Interest in the Issue 

The Recovery Act funding though is a crucial first step though because high-speed rail means thousands of new jobs for American workers, an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions which means cleaner air for all Americans, and more efficient, swifter, and less burdensome travel experiences for American travelers. “[High-speed rail] could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car,” President Obama extolled in his 2011 State of the Union address, “[and] for some trips, it will be faster than flying – without the pat-down.” (Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address, 1/25/2011, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address). With regards to the economic impact of high-speed rail, the Congressional Research Service endorsed its high potential, finding that “there is no doubt that high-speed rail projects create employment in planning, design, and construction.” As the CRS noted, in California alone, 100,000 “construction-related jobs each year during the building phase” could be attributed to high-speed rail projects in the state. (Congressional Research Service, The Development of High-Speed Rail in the United States, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42584.pdf). The long-term effect is more tremendous as the Federal Railroad Administration attests in its estimate that high-speed rail will ultimately “provide a steady market for revitalized domestic industries producing…rail, control systems, locomotives, and passenger cars.” (Vision for High-Speed Rail in America: Federal Railroad Administration, High-Speed Rail Strategic Plan in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L02833). 

The environmental benefits for the American people are real as well, as noted by experts like Urban Studies and Political Science Professor and Transport Revolutions author Anthony Perl. “If we are serious about reducing oil’s considerable risks to global prosperity and sustainability,” Perl told CNN in November 2011, “we [should] not miss the opportunity offered by high-speed rail to decrease transportation’s oil consumption.” (How green is high-speed rail? Mark Tutton, November 19, 2011, http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/18/world/how-green-is-hsr/). A comprehensive January 2006 study by the Center for Clean Air Policy and the Center for Neighborhood Technology found that a national high-speed rail network in the U.S. would mean “29 million fewer automobile trips and nearly 500,000 fewer flights [thus resulting in] a total emissions savings of 6 billion pounds of CO2 per year.” (High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S., January 2006, http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf) The importance of attaining these benefits for the United States is that it would mean a transition away from the most costly and environmentally dangerous carbon emitters – primarily, large vehicles jamming highways and enormous airplanes circling the skies –that are currently polluting the planet and taking a toll on our country. In its April 2009 report on the President’s vision for high-speed rail in America, the Obama Transportation Department asserted that the U.S. highway and aviation systems “face mounting congestion and rising environmental costs…[such as the fact that] the Nation’s current transportation system consumed 70 percent of our demand…and contributes 28 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.” (fra.dot.gov) 

Pre-existing Policies 

Nations around the world are already moving full steam ahead with high-speed rail and discovering such benefits for their economies and for the environment. In fact, in several European and Asian nations, significant investments in high-speed rail have already been made.  “In Europe, high-speed rail,” CNN reported earlier this year, “has come to stand for ease and efficiency.” (Can Europe get its high-speed rail network together?, April 16, 2013, http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/16/travel/europe-high-speed-rail-business-traveller/) The United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy, among other countries, all enjoy exceptionally large and expansive high-speed rail networks.

 All told, high-speed trains in Europe account for nearly 7,000 kilometers of rail – a number that is expected to grow to 17,769 km in the coming years. This infrastructural investment – estimated by the International Union of Railways – has meant robust job growth in European countries that have counted on this industry to prop up their weak economies. The cooperation of the public sector with the private sector in establishing high-speed rail in Europe has produced an experience for the continent that EuRail dubs one of “fast and comfortable travel” for millions of Europeans. (EuRail, http://www.eurail.com/trains-europe/high-speed-trains) Meanwhile, in China, Time magazine noted that there has been $300 billion invested for a decade-long projected of building 16,000 miles of high-speed tracks – significantly more than the U.S. has injected for similar projects. (Time, High-Speed Rail’s Job and Energy Benefits to the U.S., Bryan Walsh, January 29, 2010, http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1957575,00.html) In Spain, the Congressional Research Service notes, the “high-speed rail network is seen as a way of improving mobility with less environmental impact than automobile or travel.” (www.fas.org)  

While Europe’s extensive high-speed rail system ought to be the ideal model for what a national high-speed rail network should look like in the United States, President Obama’s proposals and the investments his administration has already made in the Recovery Act are a solid step in the right direction. In the spring of 2011, Obama’s Department of Transportation, then run by high-speed rail advocate and former moderate GOP Congressman Ray LaHood, directed “more than $2 billion in Recovery [Act] funds…for development of high-speed intercity rail service…to 15 states.” (Recovery Funds Nation’s First High Speed Rail Service, http://www.recovery.gov/News/featured/Pages/High-Speed-Rail.aspx.) In total, the Recovery Act includes $8 billion worth of federal investment – with an additional $2.5 billion provided by Congress in 2010 – for the first ever high-speed rail services in the U.S. Overall, the administration has invested $20 billion in passenger rail projects. (Recovery.gov) 

Policy Option 

This funding is part of what the Obama White House calls a vision for “up-front job and economic impact…[and] lay[ing] the groundwork for a nationwide infrastructure expansion that will spur economic growth in communities across the country, provide faster, and more energy-efficient means of travel, and establish a new industry n the U.S. that provides stable, well-paid jobs.” (High-Speed Rail, Jobs, and The Recovery Act, http://www.whitehouse.gov/high-speed-rail) Indeed, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) described the Recovery Act grants as a “down payment” – language Vice President Biden has used as well – that is part of President Obama’s larger vision of investing in high-speed rail projects that will “yield tangible benefits to intercity…infrastructure.” (fra.dot.gov) 

This policy track is the most visible and high profile proposal for high-speed rail in the United States and it is one we should continue pursuing. Already, in California, a high-speed rail project funded by the Recovery Act is being built to connect San Francisco to Los Angeles – an initiative that Michael Grunwald described as the “bigge[st] thing being done in this country.” (Grunwald, The New New Deal, p. 410) According to the administration’s projections of Recovery Act spending, high-speed rail lines are being built to connect Chicago and Detroit, to the tune of $404 million, while $600 million was “awarded to connect Eugene and Portland, Oregon to Seattle, and eventually Vancouver.” These cities are among several places such as the Northeast Corridor, Maine, Massachusetts, and the upper Midwest that are benefiting from the stimulus high-speed rail funding. (recovery.gov) Further, The Huffington Post noted this month that “thanks to [Recovery Act] improvements in North Carolina, service on the Charlotte to Raleigh line will ultimately double” while Obama’s hometown of Chicago is now connected to St. Louis and Detroit with lines that “allow trains to reach speeds of 100 miles per hour.” (Obama’s Vision For High-Speed Rail Is In Danger of Stalling Out, Sam Stein, December 5, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/obama-high-speed-rail_n_4386422.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037) 

 With regards to the existing Amtrak stations in the U.S., ARRA has been vital as well. As Michael Grunwald noted in The New, New Deal, “the Recovery Act is already renovating train stations in cities like Portland, San Jose, St. Paul, and Wilmington.”  (Grunwald, The New New Deal, p. 413) These renovations include security and network improvements and upgrades that have strengthened Amtrak, including at our very own Union Station in Washington, D.C. However, these initiatives are modest as Time magazine rightly noted that the $8 billion in the Recovery Act is “just a tiny percentage of what it would cost to significantly overhaul the country’s rail system.” (Time.com) 

Advantages and Disadvantages 

As the Federal Railroad Administration noted in 2009, Obama’s proposals for high-speed rail would produce significant environmental benefits such as an annual reduction of 6 billion pounds of carbon dioxide, an estimate independent aforementioned clean air organizations used in a 2006 report as well. (fra.dot.gov) Further, Environment America estimated that a national network the President is pursuing would mean 125 million less barrels of oil a year. (http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1957575,00.html) 

Ultimately, there will be skeptics of high-speed rail no matter what. In The Guardian, Alfred Twu though does a superb job of addressing some of these critics’ most frequent qualms. He tackles what he calls the “myth” that trains “will cost too much and won’t make money” by noting that even in the United States, the high-speed component of Amtrak, Acela trains, make more than enough in ticket sales to outstrip the costs of the operation. (A US high-speed rail network shouldn’t just be a dream, Alfred Twu, The Guardian, February 6, 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/06/us-high-speed-rail-network-possible.) 

Of course, any kind of network like this one needs to get the physics components right in order to protect against hazards like injurious or deadly accidents. The unfortunate accident in Spain last summer highlighted this issue. “The rails themselves,” The New Yorker asserted in July, “must be carefully designed to handle the physical forces imposed upon them by multi-ton trains moving at high velocity.” Indeed, as the news magazine noted, banked curves must be at “just the right angle” to “spread the forces more evenly between a train’s inner and outer wheels.” Further, the “minimum curve radius” ought to be at an appropriate size to ensure that people stay in their seats as a train takes wide curves. An appropriate balance is necessary to ensure the safety and security of passengers or else their lives will be at risk. “The smaller and tighter the curve, or the faster the train,” The New Yorker noted, “the greater the centrifugal force.” However, overcoming these issues ought to be “relatively easy,” as the news magazine correctly claimed. (The Physics of High-Speed Trains. The New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/07/spanish-train-crash-the-physics-of-high-speed-rail.html.)

Recommendation 

Including but beyond President Obama’s vision, what we need is the kind of comprehensive national network that Alfred Twu designed in his US High Speed Rail Map in February 2013 for The Guardian, as seen in the above photograph. (theguardian.com) This map is even more expansive than Obama's vision and rightfully so. Twu has experience in the field of rail as he boasted that he “worked on getting California’s high speed rail approved” in the 2008 referendum in his state. His map envisions an expansive network that connects cities across the country as part of one, large high-speed rail system that accounts for 20,000 miles of track. As Twu insists, there are great “environmental and economic benefits” to such a network and as such, he notes the vast number of jobs this system would create and the fact that high-speed rail costs $40 billion to build for the entire nation whereas annual oil imports are ten times that amount. (theguardian.com). The country that built the first transcontinental railroad and established Amtrak – and even sent a man to the moon – ought to reach for the stars and dream big. The United States has the potential, the capacity, and the public support for a national high-speed rail network. The benefits are real and tangible, for our economy in terms of badly needed job creation and for our environment in tackling threatening climate change. Let’s get to work.