Wendell Cox on High-Speed Rail

Transportation policy expert Wendell Cox recently argued that high-speed rail is not the “silver bullet” to all of the nation’s transportation problems. In fact, he said that high-speed rail is, “greatly overstated in terms of its potential,” expensive, will not achieve the environmental benefits its proponents tout, and ultimately will not reduce traffic congestion. Adopting the plan to simply build as many high-speed rail lines as possible would be exceedingly expensive, Mr. Cox argues, and would actually harm the transportation system because it would force passenger trains on to freight tracks, which would then slow rail transport and increase trucking traffic on the highways.

Mr. Cox’s arguments highlight why a NTPP approach to transportation policy is best. Rather than having a “blind” devotion to one mode like high-speed rail, a mode-neutral approach to transportation would allow MPOs and individual states to develop strategies to achieve desired outcomes in the most cost-effective manner. In this way, while the construction of high-speed rail might be the most cost-effective strategy to achieve a particular outcome in one metropolitan region, elevating one mode of transport over another wastes already-scarce federal funds in a time of grave fiscal constraint.

High Speed Rail

In New York, State Senator Malcolm Smith is pushing for a high speed rail between Albany and New York City. He argues that a high speed rail project would create jobs, improve the environment, and “bring the state together.” But what sort of planning and project evaluation did this project undergo? Would high speed rail foster economic growth over other modes? What are going to be the sources of revenue? What goals does high speed rail help attain other than “bringing the state together?”

These are the types of questions that the NTPP believes should be contemplated and answered in the planning stage. Rather than simply working towards constructing a high speed line, NTPP proposes that metropolitan regions should analyze what transportation projects would help them attain distinct goals like increased economic capacity, metropolitan accessibility, and national connectivity. So while the idea of high speed rail in New York sounds great, would the huge sums of money necessary to build and maintain that line be better spent on infrastructure improvements or driver education programs?

High-Speed Rail Money Should Be Spent on Actual High-Speed Rail

A disturbing trend has emerged in the debate about how to spend the billions of dollars that the stimulus package dedicates to high-speed rail (HSR). The trend is towards spending the money on marginal improvements to existing routes rather than true investment in new high-speed ones. For example, a recent panel of witnesses before a House Appropriations subcommittee argued that the money “would best be used on incremental speed increases for current routes.” The general reasoning behind this argument is that HSR is costly, takes years to build, and the returns are relatively uncertain. Therefore, improving existing train speeds from say 79mph to 90mph is the better way to go. If this is the route chosen, the money might as well not be spent at all.

The general concern about HSR is that it may not be the most cost-effective way to spend transportation money. That argument is, for now, irrelevant; the stimulus money is going to HSR in some form regardless. The more important issue at this point is, we could argue, more political: if the public is told that billions are being spent on HSR but all the money gets frittered away on marginal improvements to existing lines, the broader goal of actual high-speed rail will be tarnished. A marginal improvement to existing train service is not game-changing, and would do little to reinvigorate the mode. Moreover, true HSR offers travel, business, and quality of life gains that marginal improvements will never provide.

While it is true that HSR will not be seen within the next few years, that’s not a good reason to avoid making investments in it. Recognizing that stimulus money is intended for shovel ready projects, it may not be possible for all of the $8b allocated to be spent on HSR; but surely a significant amount can, and the priority should be to spend every dime that we can on actual HSR project development. Whatever money is left over can then be prioritized to more marginal improvements in select corridors with an eye to the future.

HSR can likely provide significant benefits in select corridors, and those corridors have already been generally identified. One corridor that is moving forward with HSR is the California route between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Investing the stimulus money in this corridor (or in real development of another corridor like the Northeast or Chicago) is one way to make sure that in the not too distant future the country actually has a viable example of truly high speed 220mph trains, not Amtrak trains that can go 90mph instead of 79mph.

In other circumstances and for other transportation modes the argument to make marginal improvements might be the prudent one. But when it comes to HSR, the bold course is the right one.

-Daniel Lewis