This House Would Create a National High Speed Rail System in the U.S.

Currently intercity travel within the U.S. tends to favour air travel. This is often due to the large distances between cities within the U.S. which mean that driving is not a viable strategy should there be time constraints on travel. However, air travel has significant constraints as well such as long boarding times. This causes problems for those people who frequently commute and high speed rail is set to solve these problems.

High speed rail provides a large number of significant benefits over air travel in this regard. This is because high speed rail can travel to city centres. Where airports, due to their size and the noise pollution they cause, are limited to the outskirts of a city, trains are not limited in the same way. As such, people can arrive in a much more central area, cutting large amounts of time off their journey.

Secondly, high speed rail has no limits on wireless communication or internet in the same way that air travel does. As such, high speed rail is significantly more useful for anyone who wishes to work on the journey.

Finally, the weather is incredibly problematic for air travel. This is especially true in the U.S. where a number of areas can be subject to unexpected snow or storms. By comparison, High Speed rail remains comparatively unhindered.[1]

[1] “Convenience of High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association. http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/convenience.html

High Speed rail is unlikely to work in the same way as air travel. Whilst some areas are more convenient, it remains a slower method of transport than air travel and with quoted prices for high speed rail it seems evident that the majority of consumers will simply continue to opt for air travel as it is a significantly faster method of travel to their destination. As such high speed rail will not provide significant extra benefits to consumers.[1]

Further, if the problem with air travel is the location out airports outside of city centres, then that problem is easily solved through the creation of better transportation methods between airports and city centres. With the time saved, a plane ticket that also encompassed a ride to the city centre would still be faster and would probably end up being significantly cheaper than a ticket on high speed rail.

[1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010 http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/12/11/1688825/jack-mobley-a-case-against-high.html

rovements to existing rail networks would ultimately fail to be viable as a replacement for highspeed rail. As British Transport Secretary (now reshuffled) Phillip Hammond states, "Opponents of the project have asked why we cannot simply upgrade our existing infrastructure to deal with this capacity challenge. But no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times and the transformation of our economic geography that a new high speed network would bring. Reliability would also deteriorate as we tried to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use lines. And another major upgrade to the West Coast Main Line would deliver years of disruption and huge economic cost."[1] Upgrading infrastructure may be an answer in some places, but not in all. There may not be the existing infrastructure to upgrade. The United States for example just does not have lines that could take both large numbers of passengers and the large amount of freight they already take. Moreover any upgrade of these existing lines would end up with a rail system which is uncompetitive with road and air transport, exactly why rail passenger transport ended in the 1930-50s in the United States despite having been running faster than Amtrak trains do today.[2]

Further, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, with one track for each direction. For the Eurostar the typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs).[3] Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people,[4] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road.[5]

[1] Hammond, Phillip. “High Speed Rail: the case for.” The Telegraph. 26/11/2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8160811/High-Speed-Rail-the-case-for.html

[2] “Ask Trains from November 2008”, Trains, November 2008, http://trn.trains.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/Railroad%20Reference/Ask%20Trains/2008/12/Ask%20Trains%20from%20November%202008.aspx

[3] Elefteriadou, Lily, “Chapter 8 Highway Capacity”, Handbook of Transport Engineering, 2004, http://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/mghpdf/0071450246_ar008.pdf

[4] U.S. Department of Energy, “Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle”, Fact #257: March 3, 2003, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2003/fcvt_fotw257.html

[5] High Speed Rail, Railsystem.net

The need for increased capacity on travelled lines can be addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, highways still can be expanded. Highways are much more versatile than rail services as they enable people to get from a single destination to another without any transfers. Given then that highways can be improved, it makes very little sense to not do so and improve the rail system later when this extra capacity created begins to fill up.[1]

Given that cities have different requirements of transport, it makes more sense to allow transport planning to remain decentralised. For example, California is creating a high speed transport system on its state budget because it has need, assuming that other cities do when their governing structures have not determined that is the case is irresponsible and unneeded.[2]

[1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010 http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/12/11/1688825/jack-mobley-a-case-against-high.html

[2] “On the wrong track: Why high-speed trains are not such a green alternative.” The Guardian. 29/04/2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/29/high-speed-rail-travel-europe-uk

Trains are the most sustainable and green form of transportation. Electric high speed rail is the most energy efficient of all trains. This is because trains have significantly high capacity but have very low power requirements in order to work by comparison to the number of passengers that they carry. Although this is to some extent dependant on how the power is generated the Eurostar (where power comes from French nuclear plants) emits only 11g GO2 per passenger kilometre from London to Paris compared to 180g for a car containing 1.2 passengers and 150g for a short haul flight.[1]

A national high speed rail system would be the centrepiece of a sustainable America, and would significantly reduce congestion and America’s dependence on cars and the oil that fuels them. This would result in large cuts to carbon emissions. Any new system could be powered by renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal in order to make it even cleaner.  High speed rail could be integrated in to a sustainable network including local commuter rail and tramways so providing public transport networks that solve serious mobility, energy, environmental, economic, health, and social problems simultaneously.[2]

[1] Pearce, Fred, “Greenwash: Time for rail to raise its game and cut emissions”, Greenwash guardian.co.uk, 22 January 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/22/greenwash-train-travel

[2] “Sustainability.” US High Speed Rail Association. http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/sustainability.html

Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment.[1]

[1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009 http://reason.org/blog/show/the-pragmatic-case-against-hig

Currently intercity travel within the U.S. tends to favour air travel. This is often due to the large distances between cities within the U.S. which mean that driving is not a viable strategy should there be time constraints on travel. However, air travel has significant constraints as well such as long boarding times. This causes problems for those people who frequently commute and high speed rail is set to solve these problems.

High speed rail provides a large number of significant benefits over air travel in this regard. This is because high speed rail can travel to city centres. Where airports, due to their size and the noise pollution they cause, are limited to the outskirts of a city, trains are not limited in the same way. As such, people can arrive in a much more central area, cutting large amounts of time off their journey.

Secondly, high speed rail has no limits on wireless communication or internet in the same way that air travel does. As such, high speed rail is significantly more useful for anyone who wishes to work on the journey.

Finally, the weather is incredibly problematic for air travel. This is especially true in the U.S. where a number of areas can be subject to unexpected snow or storms. By comparison, High Speed rail remains comparatively unhindered.[1]

[1] “Convenience of High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association. http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/convenience.html

High Speed rail is unlikely to work in the same way as air travel. Whilst some areas are more convenient, it remains a slower method of transport than air travel and with quoted prices for high speed rail it seems evident that the majority of consumers will simply continue to opt for air travel as it is a significantly faster method of travel to their destination. As such high speed rail will not provide significant extra benefits to consumers.[1]

Further, if the problem with air travel is the location out airports outside of city centres, then that problem is easily solved through the creation of better transportation methods between airports and city centres. With the time saved, a plane ticket that also encompassed a ride to the city centre would still be faster and would probably end up being significantly cheaper than a ticket on high speed rail.

[1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010 http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/12/11/1688825/jack-mobley-a-case-against-high.html

rovements to existing rail networks would ultimately fail to be viable as a replacement for highspeed rail. As British Transport Secretary (now reshuffled) Phillip Hammond states, "Opponents of the project have asked why we cannot simply upgrade our existing infrastructure to deal with this capacity challenge. But no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times and the transformation of our economic geography that a new high speed network would bring. Reliability would also deteriorate as we tried to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use lines. And another major upgrade to the West Coast Main Line would deliver years of disruption and huge economic cost."[1] Upgrading infrastructure may be an answer in some places, but not in all. There may not be the existing infrastructure to upgrade. The United States for example just does not have lines that could take both large numbers of passengers and the large amount of freight they already take. Moreover any upgrade of these existing lines would end up with a rail system which is uncompetitive with road and air transport, exactly why rail passenger transport ended in the 1930-50s in the United States despite having been running faster than Amtrak trains do today.[2]

Further, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, with one track for each direction. For the Eurostar the typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs).[3] Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people,[4] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road.[5]

[1] Hammond, Phillip. “High Speed Rail: the case for.” The Telegraph. 26/11/2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8160811/High-Speed-Rail-the-case-for.html

[2] “Ask Trains from November 2008”, Trains, November 2008, http://trn.trains.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/Railroad%20Reference/Ask%20Trains/2008/12/Ask%20Trains%20from%20November%202008.aspx

[3] Elefteriadou, Lily, “Chapter 8 Highway Capacity”, Handbook of Transport Engineering, 2004, http://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/mghpdf/0071450246_ar008.pdf

[4] U.S. Department of Energy, “Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle”, Fact #257: March 3, 2003, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2003/fcvt_fotw257.html

[5] High Speed Rail, Railsystem.net

The need for increased capacity on travelled lines can be addressed in a number of ways. Firstly, highways still can be expanded. Highways are much more versatile than rail services as they enable people to get from a single destination to another without any transfers. Given then that highways can be improved, it makes very little sense to not do so and improve the rail system later when this extra capacity created begins to fill up.[1]

Given that cities have different requirements of transport, it makes more sense to allow transport planning to remain decentralised. For example, California is creating a high speed transport system on its state budget because it has need, assuming that other cities do when their governing structures have not determined that is the case is irresponsible and unneeded.[2]

[1] Mobley, Jack. “A Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Merced Sun Star. 11/12/2010 http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2010/12/11/1688825/jack-mobley-a-case-against-high.html

[2] “On the wrong track: Why high-speed trains are not such a green alternative.” The Guardian. 29/04/2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/apr/29/high-speed-rail-travel-europe-uk

Trains are the most sustainable and green form of transportation. Electric high speed rail is the most energy efficient of all trains. This is because trains have significantly high capacity but have very low power requirements in order to work by comparison to the number of passengers that they carry. Although this is to some extent dependant on how the power is generated the Eurostar (where power comes from French nuclear plants) emits only 11g GO2 per passenger kilometre from London to Paris compared to 180g for a car containing 1.2 passengers and 150g for a short haul flight.[1]

A national high speed rail system would be the centrepiece of a sustainable America, and would significantly reduce congestion and America’s dependence on cars and the oil that fuels them. This would result in large cuts to carbon emissions. Any new system could be powered by renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal in order to make it even cleaner.  High speed rail could be integrated in to a sustainable network including local commuter rail and tramways so providing public transport networks that solve serious mobility, energy, environmental, economic, health, and social problems simultaneously.[2]

[1] Pearce, Fred, “Greenwash: Time for rail to raise its game and cut emissions”, Greenwash guardian.co.uk, 22 January 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/22/greenwash-train-travel

[2] “Sustainability.” US High Speed Rail Association. http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/sustainability.html

Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment.[1]

[1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009 http://reason.org/blog/show/the-pragmatic-case-against-hig

Owing to the extremely high speeds of high speed rail, should there be a problem with the trains the chance of a catastrophic accident is greatly increased. This is because there would be no reaction time for the driver. Further, should there be a derailment the impact of the crash will be significant greater owing to the speed of the train.

Should these accidents occur, the damage to the trains will obviously be catastrophic, but also the damage to the lines themselves will be incredibly significant. Should there be an accident and it is likely that if enough time passes there will be, the entire rail system in the area would require years to be able to regenerate. After the Hatfield Crash in the UK large sections of the whole network were shut down for up to a year.[1]

[1] Pook, Sally and McIlroy, A.J., “’Danger’ rail lines may be closed’, The Telegraph, 21 October 2000, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1371197/Danger-rail-lines-may-be-closed.html

This is simply untrue. Yes, if a crash occurs it is likely to be significantly more dangerous than a crash at lower speeds, but this is also the case with cars travelling between cities on highways and even more so with aeroplanes. Exactly because a high speed crash can be so catastrophic high speed rail systems have very high safety standards.

The Japanese Shinkansen high speed rail system is famously safe. During 46 years of commercial operations having taken 7 billion passengers there have been no passenger fatalities or injuries due to train accidents such as derailment or collision.[1] It is also not the case that damage to the track will take the rail system out of operation for years. The Tohuko Shinkansen restarted operations only 49 days after the Tōhoku Earthquake.[2]

[1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/financing_costs.aspx

[2] “How Japan’s Rail Network Survived the Earthquake”, Railwaytechnology.com, 28 June 2011, http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature122751/

The economic investment required for a high speed rail system to be implemented in the U.S. is substantial. Currently, the American deficit is at a level that is bad enough that S&P has downgraded the rating on American debt. Given that this is true and that the public spending required for high speed rail is substantial and a situation is caused where the American government would have to increase the flow of money out of its coffers. Even the lowest estimates by the California High-Speed Rail Authority are around $45 billion and it is likely to be much higher.[1] As such the deficit level within the U.S. could stand to increase from a system that would not provide benefit for another five years at least, if it provides benefit at all. At this time, investment in such an area is not needed when the result of such investment could be greater repayments on American bonds that reverse any economic benefits that the system stands to give.[2]

As such, extra spending within the current economic climate needs to show significant long term benefits as well as show at least some signs of being able to immediately help the economy, otherwise there is too great a risk that comes from extra public spending.

[1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/financing_costs.aspx

[2] “US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade.” BBC. 06/08/2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428930

Within an economic climate that is in recession, the best way to avoid recession is to increase public spending. This is because the extra jobs created through public spending stimulate the economy. This is because the spending results in the employment of a number of people who otherwise would have remained unemployed and on a lower wage. As such, these people are more able to consume and more able to spend their money on consumer goods.

In this way, the economy is pushed out of recession as this initial wave of spending means that the people who sold the products to the consumers now have more money themselves to spend elsewhere.

Whilst this is fairly basic Keynesian analysis of the markets, the reason that the spending here is not susceptible to causing inflation and hence negating the effect is that markets take time to adjust to stimuli. The inflation rate will only increase appropriately once the market has reacted to the stimulus. As such, the initial year or two following a stimulus results in a temporary boost to the economy and then results in inflation later. Given that the recession is likely to be over in two years, dealing with inflation in the future is something that the economy can handle in response for a stimulus that might push it out of recession.[1]

[1] “Keynesian Economics.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

The issue with high speed rail is that it is a case of a government providing what is essentially a private good. The market that will use high speed rail will be people who wish to commute between cities quickly, generally rich businesspeople. As such, the market for such a product is incredibly niche. Further, the price of high speed rail will still be higher than plane and the journey times between most cities that aren’t very close together already will still be longer. As such, it seems that there is an incredibly small market for such a product. The reason a market for this product does not exist already is that no private company could ever make a profit from the product owing to the low demand among consumers for it.[1]

Therefore, the only way to make the product work would be to ensure that the product is significantly cheaper than the competition. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be through large subsidies for train use, meaning that high speed rail would continue to make a net loss for the U.S. government for years to come.

Further, any benefit in terms of jobs created for people in local communities will be incredibly low, for example with automatic barriers very few staff are needed at stations. Instead for the same amount of money, the government could easily implement policies which placed solar panels in every home, allowing them to generate and export their own power. Whilst this wouldn’t create jobs, it would increase income for people in the area and would likely help the environment to a significantly greater extent.[2]

[1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009 http://reason.org/blog/show/the-pragmatic-case-against-hig

[2] “High-Speed Rail and the Case Against Private Infrastructure.” The Atlantic. 16/07/2010 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/high-speed-rail-and-the-case-against-private-infrastructure/63097/

The US High Speed Train Association has found a significant number of benefits for high speed rail that mean that it would be beneficial regardless of its success as a business.

Firstly, high speed rail would foster transport oriented development:

"Transit oriented development (TOD) is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, compact, liveable, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. TODs can be stand-alone communities, or a series of towns strung along a rail line like pearls on a string. TODs are the integration of community design with rail system planning. High speed rail is the backbone of a rail-based transportation system. When combined with regional rail, light rail, metro systems, streetcars and trams, a complete and integrated rail network is achieved enabling easy, fast mobility throughout the system. Coordinating and encouraging compact, mixed-use development around the rail stations completes the system by enabling people to live, work, and play along the system without the need for a car much of the time. Together, these save time, money, energy, and lives."

And further, high speed rail would also help businesspeople be more productive:

"High speed rail delivers fast, efficient transportation so riders can spend less time traveling and more time doing business. High speed rail delivers people quickly to their destinations in city centers. Fast boarding times, no security delays, and no waiting for baggage (or lost bags) adds up to much less time spent getting to and from meetings. Adding to these savings, there's also little or no down time - people can be far more productive and efficient during a trip on a train, than flying or driving, and return to the office sooner with a shorter turn-around time. High speed rail allows people to continue working the entire trip using laptops and cell phones. Flexible meeting space is available on the train. Because of the reliability of trains and the reduced total trip time, an overnight stay is not always required - saving additional time and money. High speed rail offers great flexibility to plan last minute trips, purchase tickets on short notice, and make changes to schedules without huge penalties."[1]

And further to all of this high speed rail also frees up existing rail lines for other purposes, such as freight services as well as for commuter services, helping people in the economy to a significant extent. Given that this is true, it seems prudent to subsidise high speed rail even if it is costly as a business. Further, the motor industry already sees incredible subsidies in the U.S. and does not provide nearly as much social benefit as high speed rail is likely to.

[1] “Productivity Gains with High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association. http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/productivity.html