High-speed rail is dead in America

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

If you live in Los Angeles, Orlando, Cincinnati, Chicago, Milwaukee, Raleigh, or any number of other U.S. cities, chances are you’ve read a news story that started something like this: “Imagine stepping on a train in [your city] and stepping off in [another major city] just two-and-a-half hours later. This dream could become a reality in the next [unrealistic number] years, thanks to plans for a national network of high-speed rail lines.”

Well, you can stop imagining it now. High-speed rail isn’t happening in America. Not anytime soon. Probably not ever. The questions now are (1) what killed it, and (2) should we mourn its passing?

There was a brief burst of enthusiasm around the future of high-speed rail in January 2010, when President Obama announced $8 billion in federal stimulus spending to start building “America’s first nationwide program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service.” Since then, however, the project’s chances of success have been heading in one direction: downhill. First, Tea Party conservatives in Florida and wealthy liberal suburbanites in the Bay Area began questioning their states’ plans. Then, just as Joe Biden was calling for $53 billion in high-speed-rail spending over the next six years, a crop of freshly elected Republican governors turned down billions in federal money for lines in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. Finally, Republicans in Congress zeroed out the federal high-speed rail budget last month. (To understand why conservatives hate trains, see my colleague Dave Weigel’s story from earlier this year.)


Though Republicans’ outright rejection of high-speed rail is short-sighted, so were many of the plans themselves. Rather than focus on the few corridors that need high-speed rail lines the most, the Obama administration doled out half a billion here and half a billion there, a strategy better-suited to currying political support than to addressing real infrastructure problems. Spread across 10 corridors, each between 100 and 600 miles long, Obama’s rail system would have been, at best, a disjointed patchwork. The nation’s most gridlocked corridor, along the East Coast between Washington, D.C. and Boston, was left out of the plans entirely. Worse, much of the money was allocated to projects that weren’t high-speed rail at all.

The Europeans define high-speed trains as those that travel at speeds of 155 miles per hour or more (or 125 mph for tracks that are upgraded, rather than newly built). Wisconsin’s proposed $823 million Milwaukee-to-Madison line was to reach 110 mph, at most, in between stops in cities such as Brookfield and Oconomowoc. Ohio’s version was even slower, with trains on an upgraded freight-rail track topping out at 79 mph. With stops, the trip from Cincinnati to Cleveland would have been significantly slower by rail than by car. Who would ride such a thing? Former Ohio governor Ted Strickland, a Democrat, bemoaned the jobs that would be lost when his Republican successor killed the project. But at a cost of $400 million, this was job creation of the sort that John Maynard Keynes himself would have eyed skeptically. Florida’s $2.4 billion Tampa-to-Orlando line made more sense, but it was no surprise that Republican Gov. Rick Scott nixed it in February. By that time, high-speed rail had already become a punch line among fiscal conservatives.

For all that, a line in California, connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco, still seemed to stand a chance. Unlike its counterparts elsewhere in the country, the California line would be true, dedicated high-speed rail, with trains running up to 220 mph. It would connect two metropolises of seven-million-plus people that are just far enough apart to make a drive unappetizing (six hours sans traffic) and a plane hop unwieldy. And the plans were already in place; the state had been working on a high-speed rail line for decades and lacked only the money to execute it.

It was, it seemed, the perfect showcase for the Obama stimulus. This was more than just
digging holes in the ground—it was putting people to work building something that the country needed anyway. Not only is California’s Interstate 5 congested and getting worse, but air traffic between San Francisco and Los Angeles is beginning to be a problem as well. Without high-speed trains, the state will need to build more highways, more airports, or both. But for a state that recently passed a law limiting greenhouse gas emissions, electric trains make far more environmental sense. And they’re popular—the state’s voters had approved a $10 billion bond issue for the rail line even before Obama announced his own high-speed plans. So what went wrong?

The project was oversold from the beginning, with projections of 100 million riders per year and healthy operating profits—yes, profits, on a railroad—leading to skepticism even among those inclined to support it. Along with the usual conservative opponents, the wealthy liberals living along the railroad’s proposed path in Palo Alto and neighboring cities—sufficiently motivated by the prospect of trains roaring literally through their backyards—began to uncover holes in the financing scheme as well. Rather than take them seriously, the rail line’s bullheaded backers attempted to steamroll the opposition, branding them NIMBYs and “rotten apples.” Sure, they were NIMBYs, but it didn’t make them wrong. And when they leveraged their connections and media savvy to get state lawmakers, academics, and journalists like me to investigate, the findings that came back damaged the project’s credibility.

Under pressure to come up with more realistic projections, state rail authorities admitted last month that the project would take twice as long to build as they’d originally claimed, attract fewer riders, and cost twice as much. The honesty was welcome, but it came too late: A poll released this week showed the public has turned against high-speed rail altogether, with nearly two-thirds saying they’d like a chance to reconsider.

Some will point out that California’s high-speed rail plan still isn’t dead, exactly. (It’s “more of a zombie,” one blogger quipped.) State officials, backed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, have concentrated their efforts on building just one leg, from agricultural Fresno to dusty Bakersfield, as a sort of desperate foot-in-the-door tactic. They still have the Obama adminstration’s support. “We are not going to be dissuaded by critics,” transportation secretary Ray LaHood said this week. "We are only at the beginning of this multi-generational process—the simple fact is that the transportation challenges that are driving increased demand for rail are not going away." That’s true, but the chances that California—or the country—will meet those challenges now look dim.

The modern federal government isn’t good at solving long-term problems (if it ever was). Most Republicans don’t believe the government should solve problems. They believe big government, in fact, is the one of the only problems that can’t be solved by the free market. Democrats, as seen in the failures of all of these railroad projects, err by assuming that the government can solve problems more effectively than it realistically can.

Ultimately, high-speed rail’s backers weren’t as staunch as its detractors. Barack Obama and congressional Democrats put their political lives on the line for health care, addressing an immediate problem whose consequences were personal and visceral. The nation’s outdated infrastructure is a major dilemma but one that doesn’t feel as pressing to most voters and legislators. It’s our children’s problem now.

If there’s a silver lining to high-speed rail’s spectacular failure, it’s that these trains were outdated years ago. Even if all went according to the Obama administration’s plans, the nation’s rail network would have remained meager and backward by comparison to those in Japan and China. Those countries are already building trains that run via magnetic levitation. Suspended a few inches above a guideway, maglev trains fly through the air at speeds greater than 300 mph, with minimal wear and tear. At this point in their development, maglev tracks are dauntingly expensive to build. But those costs might well come down by the time America is ready to get serious about its transportation infrastructure. At this rate, there seems to be plenty of time.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/high_speed_rail_is_dead_in_america_should_we_mourn _it_.single.html

[Veovis]

So it goes...

[Q]

Too bad the US will remain a third world country when it comes to public transit for the forseeable future.

Wait, scratch that, even China is majorly investing in highspeed rail, including maglev lines.

[citizen of industry]

Asinine. I haven't had to drive a car in years. I can walk 15 minutes to the station, then I have my choice of dozens of lines that can take me anywhere I want in Tokyo metro, and several high speed trains that can take me to other regions of Japan where I can then transfer to local lines. There are no traffic jams, you can sleep or read or listen to music or play games on the train. High speed trains beat the hell out of airplanes. There is tons of legroom, you can transfer to local lines in the center of the city you are going to and don't have to worry about commuting from the airport. And they are cheaper. What the hell are they thinking in the US? Japan was like this decades ago. I understand the country is big and an east to west line is a challenge, but north-south lines in the east and west coast areas seem feasible and convenient to me.

[Q]

I understand the country is big and an east to west line is a challenge, but north-south lines in the east and west coast areas seem feasible and convenient to me.

The EU, which is of comparable size to the US although a bit smaller I believe, has made a priority of trans-Euro highspeed rail for the last few decades. Although it sometimes is a flop (the plans are executed at the national level, so there is suboptimal international cooperation, which is a stupid situation really), there is at least continental coordination and prioritization of some sort.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Asinine. I haven't had to drive a car in years. I can walk 15 minutes to the station, then I have my choice of dozens of lines that can take me anywhere I want in Tokyo metro, and several high speed trains that can take me to other regions of Japan where I can then transfer to local lines. There are no traffic jams, you can sleep or read or listen to music or play games on the train. High speed trains beat the hell out of airplanes.

Expensive as all fuck though after the 1983-1987 policies and eventual privatisation of Kokutetsu (and also the conversion of the Tokyo Underground Eidan to the new Tokyo Metro company in 2004 has effectively stalled all future expansion plans). Japan is quite unusual in that local services are still in decline with there still being closure proposals and conversions to bus services - even parts of the mainlines have been sold off as they are no longer profitable for the major companies to instead be subsidised by local city governments and municipalities that wish to maintain services - such as parts of the Kagoshima Mainline after the completion of the Kyushu Shinkansen).

Commuter prices were subsidised to about 90% in the Kokutetsu times to encourage local traffic, and prices have now risen dramatically with the privatisation and wholesale slaughter of Kokutetsu operations (firing of about 100,000 workers 1984-1987; ironically, the disgusting cuts made meant that, when it was privatised, the entity had become profitable; typical example of tacit state-support for private industry; it became profitable because the central government took over most of the debt, and later on even more of the debt was taken off the JR Group and taken over by the Government).


The EU, which is of comparable size to the US although a bit smaller I believe, has made a priority of trans-Euro highspeed rail for the last few decades. Although it sometimes is a flop (the plans are executed at the national level, so there is suboptimal international cooperation, which is a stupid situation really), there is at least continental coordination and prioritization of some sort.

Too bad that one of the requirements of the act intended to increase interoperability is privatisations and separation of operation and networks, which makes for bad timetabling and cohesive operations. It would have been preferable with a regional international railway body with regional offices in assorted regions/countries as needed (could easily be extended as needed in the future, as well, say, if there was a revolution, to allow for a global inter-operational body).

[citizen of industry]

Expensive as all fuck though after the 1983-1987 policies and eventual privatisation of Kokutetsu (and also the conversion of the Tokyo Underground Eidan to the new Tokyo Metro company in 2004 has effectively stalled all future expansion plans). Japan is quite unusual in that local services are still in decline with there still being closure proposals and conversions to bus services - even parts of the mainlines have been sold off as they are no longer profitable for the major companies to instead be subsidised by local city governments and municipalities that wish to maintain services - such as parts of the Kagoshima Mainline after the completion of the Kyushu Shinkansen).

Commuter prices were subsidised to about 90% in the Kokutetsu times to encourage local traffic, and prices have now risen dramatically with the privatisation and wholesale slaughter of Kokutetsu operations (firing of about 100,000 workers 1984-1987; ironically, the disgusting cuts made meant that, when it was privatised, the entity had become profitable; typical example of tacit state-support for private industry; it became profitable because the central government took over most of the debt, and later on even more of the debt was taken off the JR Group and taken over by the Government).

Yep, too expensive and I'm violently opposed to the privatization of JNR and am a supporter of the reinstatement of the 1,047, and those unions still fighting it. I completely agree with your assesment. But in this case the technology itself isn't guilty. The US, IMO, is decades behind most of the rest of the world in public transportation. The public transportation is unbelievably pathetic. And having to buy a car, pay for gasoline, parking, repairs, insurance etc. is more expensive even than JR. And the highway infrastructure is also decades outdated and pathetic, so there are always traffic jams. I surprised even in the capitalist system there isn't some company that would see this as a profitable enterprise, and that the government would reject it. Probably because it might reduce profits in the oil industry.

[Os Cangaceiros]

In some parts of the USA the public trans is not bad...the NYC/Long Island area has a pretty consistent train/subway network.

For long distances, though, the options are very limited. I guess you're kind of stuck with Greyhound or Amtrak.

[dodger]

The railways need investment because they generate economic growth, enable people to travel comfortably and cause much less environmental damage than the alternatives. Rail is the cleanest, safest and best form of mass transport for the 21st century. If it is not to remain a pipe dream then we must do it, the other crowd can't or wont. The fact they will not do it has become a national disgrace alongside the miserable state of American infrastructure. It seems looking from afar that only the American working class has any interest in remedying American ills. I suppose I am indeed stating the obvious when I say how many drones will it cost to build a station or perhaps what number of Aircraft Carriers in cost terms, to build a world class railway from L.A. to Seattle? America badly needs to set to work give its people a future. ... Nothing Human Is Alien, in his excellent and timely post ticks all the right boxes for me!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Yep, too expensive and I'm violently opposed to the privatization of JNR and am a supporter of the reinstatement of the 1,047, and those unions still fighting it. I completely agree with your assesment. But in this case the technology itself isn't guilty. The US, IMO, is decades behind most of the rest of the world in public transportation. The public transportation is unbelievably pathetic. And having to buy a car, pay for gasoline, parking, repairs, insurance etc. is more expensive even than JR. And the highway infrastructure is also decades outdated and pathetic, so there are always traffic jams. I surprised even in the capitalist system there isn't some company that would see this as a profitable enterprise, and that the government would reject it. Probably because it might reduce profits in the oil industry.

There are a number of reasons that the U.S. is so behind: one must go back a long time to understand them fully. The geographic spread is, to begin, a factor; most american cities never were very dense, even in the old pre-autombile era, cities were ridiculously sprawled out because of the vast landmasses and the political decision to early on foster a tradition of home-ownership (beginning already with colonisation schemes such as the Homestead Act and so on).

Even in this era, railways were quite successful capitalist enterprises, the Pennsylvania Railway being the worlds most profitable company, but the low population densities, even in major cities, fostered a dramatic rise in car ownership, and combined with enormous costs of updating the quite extensive network (most of which had poor standards and had been poorly maintained and heavily worn during WWI) were prohibitive, and most fell into disrepair that continued with modest renovations until the second world war. Unfortunately there was never a cohesive network as the railways were always separate competing companies - not even bunched like the British Railway system was in 1923 to foster unity - and there were thus a lot of waste involved.

During the great railway death of the 60's and 70's, the hardest hit were the Northeastern railways of the United States, the PRR, New York Central and so on, who merged a year before bankruptcy. Those, unlike the railways that survived and thrived to some extent (Burlington Northern, Union Pacific and similar) served more passenger traffic and mostly short- and medium distance goods (whereas the others often handled transcontinental goods, which faced a lot less competition from roads) and this is what drove them into extinction, and their operations were eventually taken over by the state-owned railway company Consolidated Railroad Corporation, who later abandoned all passenger traffic and left it to Amtrak.

The American Association of Railways (AAR) enforces a number of strict regulations that further serves to make investments expensive as well. The United States does have an extensive railway network that is quite heavily utilised - it was second only to that of the Soviet Union's back in the day - but most of this is long-distance goods. Cities in the United States also have terrible local networks - many of the tramway systems closed and were replaced simply by buses, something which has never really been a success anywhere in the world.

As far as regards the highways and motorways of the United States - they are not congested because they are old and inefficient: they are crowded simply because the volume of cars are simply so high: the roads are far wider than anything on average anywhere else; the wide avenues that are so large that the actual city blocks are like islands in an asphalt ocean, and the motorways with their excessive lanes are without parallel, save perhaps shoddy modern Chinese city planning conventions; they are, it is true, to some extent out-dated and in need of refurbishment, but they are not small. There's simply too many cars. Many smaller cities even have their own aeroports, even towns with populations as small as under two-thousand; the subsidies for the air-traffic and road infrastructure are immense, and the railways never enjoyed anything like this level of state-support, and this unfair favouritism further helped ensure the dramatic decline of passenger railway traffic in the United States.


In some parts of the USA the public trans is not bad...the NYC/Long Island area has a pretty consistent train/subway network.

For long distances, though, the options are very limited. I guess you're kind of stuck with Greyhound or Amtrak.

Even the New York Underground is in a dire situation; like many other systems in the U.S. it is dramatically underfunded and abused regularly by politicians, and for countless decades it has been in need of a major wholesale modernisation; what with the flooding due to insufficient pumping systems, infestations and the gloomly lit stations and bad ventilation systems. The Second Avenue Line was planned already in 1940 but still has a long ways to go; and the mistaken decision from the late 40's until 1973 to demolish the Second and Third Avenue Elevated Lines despite that the replacement underground line had yet not even been built was a serious error. The budget problems of the city once more has forced cut back on services, both buses and the metro, much like in the 80's.

Washington D.C.' underground is probably the best and most well-executed such in the United States. The Boston area underground and commuter railway system is also fairly decent as far as such go in North America, but is, like the New York services, also in a need of modernisation and major reconstruction, which is unfortunately unlikely to occur within the immediate future to the extent needed.

[Agathor]

In some parts of the USA the public trans is not bad...the NYC/Long Island area has a pretty consistent train/subway network.

For long distances, though, the options are very limited. I guess you're kind of stuck with Greyhound or Amtrak.

I was shocked by the condition of the New York subway when I went to Manhattan last summer. The trains looked like they had been in use since the 1970s; the tickets are verified with a comically archaic and unreliable stamping system, rather than magnetic strips, or, god-forbid, oyster cards. Most of the stations have no overpasses, so if you accidentally get on the wrong platform you have to return to the street and re-enter the station, which usually means buying a new ticket. There is no air conditioning, so the heat can be suffocating in summer.

I assume that this is just how a country that has never had a social democratic government looks. All of the public transport looks like it was designed very reluctantly and grudgingly.

It made the circle and district line look like a space station. I mostly walked.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The thing about the overpasses is definitely true. I always made sure that I walked unto the right platform whenever I took the subway.

Anyway, I never had any problems with the subway system there, including figuring out where stops were located. I utilized it a lot, too, since I went to school near NYC, and also the LIRR train system.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I agree with most of what you say, but


the tickets are verified with a comically archaic and unreliable stamping system, rather than magnetic strips, or, god-forbid, oyster cards.

Are you talking about a Long Island train or Amtrak or something? You swipe into the subways and buses with a magnetic Metrocard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroCard_%28New_York_City%29) here. They've been in use since the early 90's, and exclusively since 2003.

They're nowhere near as good as the rechargeable smart cards in use in places like Korea (example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-money)), but they're not hand stamped or anything like that.

[socialistjustin]

I don't have a problem with the routes and times with public transport, just the increasing costs passed onto working people. In Las Vegas the price of a 24 hour pass has increased by 100% in the last few years from $2.50 to $5.00. While we do get decent service, it's still a huge increase.

Of course this has nothing on NYC. I remember going there in 2007 and being surprised to find out I had to pay like $7.00 for an all day pass. It's no wonder some people ask for a swipe at the gate from people who already have a card.

[zimmerwald1915]

Are you talking about a Long Island train or Amtrak or something? You swipe into the subways and buses with a magnetic Metrocard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroCard_%28New_York_City%29) here. They've been in use since the early 90's, and exclusively since 2003.
It sounds like he's talking about parts of the LIRR. On many lines the rolling stock is mostly M7s which have been in use since the seventies. Some of the stations do not have overpasses, though since tickets are indeed taken by hand rather than swiped that doesn't lead to the same re-entry problems he's talking about (it's an inconvenience to have to re-enter rather than excuse to be ripped off).