Reality Check for High-Speed Rail
A recent edition of the Economist had an interesting article on America’s railway system and the possible negative consequences of introducing real high-speed passenger rail transport in the United States. While I am not in total agreement with the article, it raises a few key points I think are important.
On the Cheap
The “go it on the cheap” approach that seems to be the current plan we have to develop high-speed rail for most regions of the US has the potential to negatively effect freight rail service. The country has been divided into various regional high-speed corridors where high-speed passenger trains are expected to run. Most plans call for the upgrade of current rail lines to accommodate higher speed passenger trains. Most of these passenger trains will operate on track currently owned and operated by one of the major freight railroads. Passenger trains traditionally have the right-of-way to other types of rail traffic (like freight). Therefore, track-sharing may effect performance times and service performance for existing freight rail service. The design and construction of entirely new lines, although more expensive, would allow high-speed passenger traffic to operate without effecting the existing freight system. Sadly, the current plans call for only two new lines to be constructed; the California system and the Florida system. For the other regions, the plans call for Acela-like service across existing lines. This means tilt-trains (or other similar technology) operating over existing track with average speeds of only about 68 mph over the route (compare that to the average speeds in France of about 173 mph). Acela is nice but it’s not the TGV.
Better than Nothing
Notwithstanding the first point, even an Acela-like service between major cities in the US would be a major improvement over the current passenger rail system here in the US. And the fact that this service operates over an existing system does not necessarily mean that freight rail will be negatively effected, if the required upgrades are made and the service is planned correctly. The railroads currently operate their own form of Acela-style “high-speed” rail – intermodal service. And not surprisingly, you don’t hear the railroads complain about that service effecting their other operations. As the article states, a large segment of the railroads’ business involves coal and other bulk commodities (grain, chemicals, etc.). These trains are transported on relatively slow trains over long distances. Just look at the map in the article and notice the dark lines moving across the Upper Midwest toward the East Coast. That is bulk coal coming out of Wyoming and grain traffic from the Heartland. But as the article suggests, the railroads also provide intermodal service. Intermodal trains often consist of pre-loaded trailers, placed in well rail cars and shipped at speeds comparable to Acela-type service. Railroads market intermodal service by providing guaranteed service standards and charging higher rates than for bulk transport. The railroads can get high margins for this type of service and they are really trying to expand it. So, when I hear the railroads complain about passenger trains effecting their service I remind myself that they seem to be able to handle the growing intermodal traffic just fine.
Free Land by the Truckload
I am sure some criticism of such a passenger rail system will be based on the argument that the federal government is essentially “forcing” private freight railroad companies to accommodate 
passenger rail run by a government funded monopoly. First, it should be noted, Amtrak pays for use of private track. Also, while the railroads are private companies, they receive and have historically received their fair share of subsidies. The federal government in particular has been extremely generous to the railroads over the years. For example, under the Pacific Railway Act of 1862, the federal government gave away 10 square miles of public land for every mile of track built by a private railroad company. Passed during the Civil War, this law was meant to encourage the construction of the country’s first transcontinental railroad. And it worked, but not without help from the federal government. From 1850 to 1871, the railroads were given over 175 million acres of land which is about 1/10th the entire area of the current United States and is equal to an area bigger than the State of Texas. And before you think that such grants occurred a long time ago and were given to companies that are long dead and buried; remember this, one of the greatest recipients of land grants under this program was the Union Pacific Railroad, now the largest railroad in United States.
What Can We Expect?
So, what should we expect? What will high-speed passenger rail look like in the United States in 25 years? The answer is, of course, it depends on where you live. For example, here in Texas, the answer is likely that nothing will have changed. As Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood put it, Texas still can’t “get its act together.” Given the politics in this state and TXDOT’s historical aversion to anything other than highways, I doubt we will see anything in Texas in our lifetime. Sad but the most likely scenario.
But that doesn’t mean that other regions of the country won’t have great systems. The California High-Speed Rail System which, as mentioned earlier, plans to operate along newly constructed rail lines to be used exclusively for rail transit, will break ground in 2012. Anticipated to take 8 to 11 years to become fully operational, the system will have trains capable of reaching 220 mph. It is estimated that a trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles will take approximately 2 hours and 30 minutes. Compare that to a current drive time of about 6 hours and 30 minutes.
Florida will have a similar system with high-speed trains linking Tampa, Orlando and eventually Miami and the rest of South East Florida. Trains will operate at speeds up to 168 mph. The initial line (from Tampa to Orlando) will run along existing right-of-way along the interstate highway. Construction is projected to start next year with projected operation of this initial segment in 2015. This will make the Tampa to Orlando line the first “true” high-speed rail system in the United States.
Sadly, the Florida and California systems will likely be the exception, not the rule for high-speed rail here in the United States for the foreseeable future. As mentioned earlier, the bulk of high-speed rail development in this country will involve upgrading existing lines to handle new Acela-like passenger rail service. In the Midwest, several lines are being upgraded to improve service and increase speeds. The Chicago to St. Louis line is being upgraded with the long-term plan to eventually allow for speeds up to 110 mph. Service between Milwaukee and Madison Wisconsin is predicted to be ready by 2013, again with speeds up to 110 mph. Service between Chicago and Milwaukee and service between Madison and Minneapolis/St. Paul will also be upgraded, with the later seemingly in the very early stages.
In the Pacific Northwest, service between Seattle and Portland will see a significant upgrade with potential speeds up to a surprising 150 mph. While that sounds pretty high for passenger service over existing freight track, perhaps such speeds could be reached with the right amount of investment. Service improvements on the Portland to Eugene line seem to be in the more early stages.
Projects are also planned to better connect the Mid Atlantic states to the North East. Track upgrades are planned between Charlotte and Raleigh, North Carolina with eventual plans to connect to Richmond, Virginia and eventually Washington, D.C. and the rest of the existing Northeast Corridor. Top speeds between Charlotte and Raleigh are expected to reach 90 mph.
Conclusion
America is behind in rail transit; way behind. Even modest improvements and upgrades can make a difference. But to build a viable system, it is going to take a long-term investment. Sadly, we as Americans have recently been pretty averse to infrastructure investment. This matters. We have become a country of collapsing highway bridges and regional blackouts. If we want a real high-speed rail transit system in this country, we need to step up and devote the resources needed to make such a system work. The alternative is longer airport delays and more traffic jams on our roads. It’s time this country caught up.
Thoughts?
8 Comments
Permalink
I can’t confirm or refute if passenger rail has the right-of-way over other types of rail traffic; however, I can show some statistics that account for why Amtrak’s 2 routes in Texas experience delays: from TxDOT’s Texas Rail Plan, Draft 1.0, Chap. 4:
- On p 4-22: Amtrak’s Heartland Flyer route, 91.46% of the minutes of delay are due to the host railroad: Delays from freight trains (37.36%), Temporary slow orders (30.05%), etc.
- On p 4-31: Amtrak’s Texas Eagle route, 79.2% of the minutes of delay are due to the host railroad: Delays from freight trains (31.34%), Temporary slow orders (25.75%), etc.
This leads me to believe that passenger rail should not run on tracks shared with freight in order to maintain timeliness.
Another fact I learned when I attended the Texas Rail Plan public meeting earlier this month: the maximum speed of a passenger train on any tracks in Texas is 110 mph. So any high-speed rail is going to require new tracks in TX.
Permalink
Dean,
A 2008 Department of Transportation investigation found that (outside the North East), the freight railroads seemed to regularly violate rules granting passenger trains preference over other rail traffic. That being said, the investigation also found that the preference rules were unclear enough for the railroads to argue that they were not violating the standards. The rules were updated since to better define those preference rights.
But generally I agree that passenger rail should not run exclusively on rail shares with freight traffic. But again, this will require a much greater investment than we are seemingly willing to make at this time.
Permalink
Passenger trains already died once. According to newspaper accounts at the time, they left orders to not resuscitate.
Bringing them back to life would serve no useful purpose and would cost us hundreds of billions we don’t have.
Let them rest in peace.
Permalink
Passenger trains are alive and well in the Northeast. They are a vital piece of the regional transportation infrastructure. They fill a void for medium distance travel that makes air travel impractical (especially with increasing security measures and wait times) and travel by car a chore (especially with increasing traffic). When I lived in Washington, I took the train to NYC often because it was the most convenient way to travel that distance. Having to get to the airport an hour or more for your flight plus constant delays going in and coming out of LaGuardia made rail travel the quicker option. And now with all the extra fees and charges the airlines are hitting everyone up for…no thank you.
As the population of this country grows, we must develop the infrastructure to meet the demands of the growing population. That costs money but it also increases productivity, increases trade and generally improves the quality of life for residents. Rail transit must be a part of that infrastructure. It’s about time we as a country opened our eyes to that fact.
Permalink
I have ridden Amtrak from Houston to El Paso. The trip took thirty hours because the passenger train had to wait on the siding while freight trains were allowed to pass. There was even a two hour wait on the siding less than three miles from the station in El Paso. Freight trains most decidedly have the right of way over passenger trains. I don’t believe that passenger and rail should share the track after that trip. If that makes passenger rail not cost effective, so be it, take a bus or a plane.
Permalink
I think it is clear from the report that the freight railroads have not been properly granting preference rights to passenger trains as required by federal law. But, point taken that, as a general rule passenger rail should have its own dedicated track, at least for most of the route.
On another point, I would consider a train trip from Houston to El Paso as generally outside the target distance feasible for rail. Such a distance is probably better served by plane.
Permalink
176 million acres is equal to only seven percent of the current land area of the USA. Your estimation is fifty percent too high, but I understand how everyone prefers a nice round number.
Permalink
By my numbers, it is about 9 percent of the total contiguous United States. When you only take into account the land area of the contiguous United States, it is about 9.2%. But, I should have been more clear that I was referring to the contiguous United States.
That being said, the land given to the railroads is still an area larger than the entire State of Texas and, undoubtedly one of the biggest corporate welfare grants in the history of this country.