Interstate High Speed Rail

After word War II ended in 1945, America’s highways, freight rail, passenger rail, airports, transit and seaports were the envy of the world. Due to the Vietnam War sapping federal funds, some of those advantages slipped by 1975. Today, only America’s airports, freight rail, seaports and new highways are among the world’s best. But it’s underinvestment in passenger rail and rapid transit exacts a heavy toll on daily commutes and intercity travel.

Amtrak System Map, Interstate High Speed Rail

Interstate High Speed Rail

America is the world’s richest country and has 21,400 miles of railway shared by freight rail companies, commuter rail agencies and Amtrak. It works very well for freight rail, but comes up short for passenger rail. Prior to 2009, the federal government invested only $6.2 billion to partially upgrade the 457-mile Northeast Corridor, plus an outrageously low $1 billion sprinkled elsewhere. That’s like giving one thirsty person a small cup of water, then asking 50 other thirsty people to sip from one small cup of water. Since passenger rail is not a good alternative outside the Northeast Corridor, highways became overburdened with solo-drivers and our large airports are congested with excessive regional flights.

Americans dual-preference for highways and aviation did not result from normal market events. They materialized because well-funded corporate opponents influenced governors, congresspersons and presidents to enact state and federal policy that crippled passenger rail and modestly built rapid transit, while lavishly funding highway and airport expansion. News media and public officials erroneously believed that:

• Interstate High Speed Rail across America is not cost-justifiable
• We don’t need High Speed Rail because widening freeways solves highway congestion
• We don’t need High Speed Rail because Americans prefer regional flights

Though fewer corporations oppose High Speed Rail (HSR) today, remaining opponents are powerful and determined. Opponents would have citizens, news media and politicians believe a dozen more anti-HSR arguments that are outdated, opinion misrepresented as fact, half-truths and lies. Understanding HSR enough to pass informed judgment about whether to build a comprehensive Interstate HSR System requires more than a short video or news article that lacks context and depth. For example, the video below includes many truths, but exaggerates when it says America has no HSR.

A brief intellectual journey is required to understand why America should have HSR lines operating in 19 states by 2030, form a 15,000-mile Interstate HSR System by 2040, then a comprehensive 20,000-mile Interstate HSR System by 2050. Part 1 of the narrative journey begins with the glory days when America had the world’s greatest passenger rail systems. If you are unfamiliar with that backstory, spend three minutes reviewing the American Passenger Rail History link below to understand how and why the nation let its urban and intercity passenger rail atrophy.

American Passenger Rail History

Let’s resume with other nations whose conditions caused them to pave the way forward in HSR development.

Railways, factories and offices in Japan and Europe were heavily bombed in World War II. When the war ended in 1945, they started rebuilds shortly afterwards. Since America’s railways, factories and offices stayed intact during World War II, it remained the world’s only superpower capable of major investment at home and abroad. In 1948, America’s $15 billion ($159 billion in 2018 dollars) grant in the Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe and built an export market for American goods. In 1952, America invested $2.2 billion ($21 billion in 2018 dollars) to help rebuild Japan, another export market for American goods.

Japan and Western Europe embraced their urban and intercity passenger rail, while adding highway and aviation infrastructure. Preserving a culture of passenger rail use enabled their citizens to envision the benefits of improvements to intercity and urban passenger rail meeting in Central Business District (CBD) train stations.

Which Nation Should Be America’s High Speed Rail Model

Under American-supervised occupation until 1952, post-war Japan entered a future with high gasoline prices and dependence on imported oil. To reduce that dependence, Japan’s leadership built nuclear power plants to generate electricity to a rebuilt electric grid. In its largest cities, that island nation expanded electric-powered rapid transit and upgraded train stations. By 1956, some space cleared by war bombing was used to ease railway curves. Over/underpasses were built at each railroad crossing between Tokyo and Osaka. Japan upgraded its intercity passenger rail to support electric-powered trains up to 81-106 mph.

Japan’s largest industrial companies developed more powerful electric train engines. With more electricity generation, more powerful electric engines and new electric rail infrastructure enabling faster passenger trains, Japan opened the world’s first HSR line during the 1964 Tokyo Summer Olympics. Top speed reached 130 mph over 320 miles between Tokyo and Osaka trains stations fed by rapid transit. Since electric trains do not emit fumes, the pleasant experience for travelers enticed them to gather in station cafes and retail stores. Japan also built a 4-lane intercity tollway system with a strict 62 mph speed limit and high tolls. The tollway system connected to narrow 4-6 lane freeways in large cities. Japan also built substantial aviation infrastructure.

Excluding aviation, those factors helped Japan limit imported oil as its population grew. But Japan’s hyper-dense population, high oil costs, slow tollway speeds and lower percentage of car ownership were too dissimilar from America to be a good model for conditions that Amtrak Northeast Corridor HSR would operate under.

After World War II, Western European built more railroad over/underpasses. Their diesel-powered trains on intercity passenger rail ran up to 81-112 mph. Beginning in 1968, Italian and French railway companies accelerated R&D for their intercity passenger rail to achieve higher speeds.

Italy had modest population density, half of America’s Median Household Income, modest car ownership and imported most of its oil. Drivers often exceeded the 81 mph speed limit of Autostrade Tollway System. Italy opened Europe’s first electric-powered 155 mph HSR line between Rome and Florence in 1979, but it was plagued with maintenance issues until 1986. Rome and Florence airports were not very congested by regional flights between them. Rome had small Metro Rail and Commuter Rail systems, while Florence had no Metro Rail. Those factors initially limited HSR patronage success and Italian appetite for HSR expansion. Though Italy engineered the best tilting train by 1988, the Pendolino, Italian HSR would not be a good model for America’s first HSR project.

In 1973, France had significant population density, about 70% of America’s Median Household Income, high car ownership and plenty of regional flights. Autoroute Tollway System permitted 81 mph on 4 to 6 lanes that drivers often exceeded. Though greatly dependent on imported oil and expensive gasoline, Parisian families frequently drove over 400 miles south through Lyon and Valence to the Mediterranean. More factors gave the French government confidence to invest the 2018 equivalent of $6.2 billion in their first HSR line.

France maintained Lille-Paris-Lyon-Valence-Marseilles passenger rail corridor after World War II. In 1954, abandonment of Southeast Asian wars allowed the French to divert more taxes to transportation infrastructure and nuclear power plants generating electricity. Paris and Lyon, France’s two largest cities, were only 274 miles apart without a large mountain range between them. In the 1970s, Autoroute often clogged from Paris and Lyon to Marseilles and other Mediterranean cities. Lyon had a former defense plant convertible to a train station with run-thru tracks to southern France. Paris had large Metro Rail and Commuter Rail systems. Lyon had popular Commuter Rail and Tram systems and its Metro Rail system opened in 1978.

Emboldened by those factors, the French designed Ligne a Grande Vitesse (LGV) for Train a Grande Vitesse (TGV), a light-weight High Speed Train (HST). All LGV require under/overpasses to completely separate railway from roadway. Outside urban areas, LGV routes were made straiter with short tunnels and viaduct as needed. LGV was engineered to have premium tracks for smooth rides. Only well-maintained TGV would run on them and track maintenance would be stringent.

In 1981, electric-powered 168 mph TGV started between Paris and Lyon. Though Japan’s HSR climbed to 155 mph by then, the faster TGV captured global imagination. A few years later, TGV was upgraded to 186 mph. Train frequency rose and Coach Fares lowered. More Paris-Lyon travelers switched to TGV. French CBD train stations integrating TGV, Commuter Rail and Metro Rail increased retail, hotel and tourism activity. TGV success inspired the French to vote for LGV expansion north & west from Paris and south from Lyon.

By 1993, LGV routes opened from Paris to Tours, Paris to LeMans, and Paris to Lille. Outside though corridors, regional flights to the rest of Europe were congesting large airports and lengthening travel times. A ride to airport, collect boarding pass, luggage drop-off, security check-in, boarding, origin runway taxi, flight, destination runway taxi, un-boarding, luggage pick-up, taxi or shuttle to CBD ballooned regional flight travel times from 2.5 hours to 3.5 hours. As alternatives to flying, travelers anxiously awaited the Channel Tunnel opening in 1994 for Paris-Lille-London HSR service and LGV expansion from Lille to Brussels in 1995. Combined with a brilliant safety record, French TGV had proven HSR operating success in conditions closer to those in America’s Northeast Corridor.

America’s Lackluster Adoption of High Speed Rail

There were many signs that the Northeast Corridor should started aggressive HSR development by 1975-76. Its population density and median income levels were higher than any corridor in France, Italy, United Kingdom and West Germany. Like the rest of America, the Northeast Corridor’s transportation vulnerability was exposed during the 1973 OPEC Oil Embargo (and again in 1979). Tourism, a staple of NYC, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston and Baltimore economies, cratered during each embargo. Those signs convinced President Ford, Congress and governors to invest $1.9 billion in 1976 to modestly upgrade NYC-Newark-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington rail corridor by 1984. Since top speed would only return to 110 mph in a few stretches and too many railroad crossings and 75-100 year bridges & tunnels would remain, the investment should have been five times larger.

In 1978, the investment shortcoming prompted President Carter to propose investment that would make the entire Northeast Corridor (Boston-Providence-New Haven-NYC-Newark-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington) a world-class HSR route like those operating in Japan and under construction in France. Unfortunately, Congress did not back his vision. Nor did the next Presidents, Reagan and Bush I, have interest in the project.

Skip forward to 1993. Interstate Highways returned to 65-75 mph speed limits, traffic congestion and highway toll stations in NYC-Washington corridor limited drivers to 60 mph average speed. Such low speeds helped Amtrak Metroliner survive while averaging about 70 mph in NYC-Washington corridor. The Clinton Administration’s U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) referenced France’s TGV as the model for Amtrak HSR. Given Northeast Corridor’s Metroliner established base-level demand, coupled with higher Median Household Income and higher population density than France’s HSR corridor, Clinton’s USDOT reasoned that Northeast Corridor HSR should attract high ridership, despite America’s lower oil prices.

Corridor Distances & Metro Area Populations (millions) When Amtrak HSR Project Began, 1993

523 Miles: Brussels (1M) – Lille (1M) – Paris (9M) – Lyon (2M) – Valence (1M) – Marseilles (2M) = 15M Pop.
457 Miles: Boston (5M) – New Haven (500K) – NYC (17M) – Philadelphia (6M) – Baltimore (2M) – Washington (4M) = 34M Pop.

To help emerge from economic recession in 1993, Clinton’s USDOT announced that federal stimulus funds would upgrade Northeast Corridor HSR to 165 mph top speed. That was lower than TGV’s 186 mph because Amtrak high speed trains would need to safely tilt and slow often in ultra-curvy segment between southeastern Connecticut and NYC. The tilting mechanism limited top speed in strait-aways.

In an age when car and jet cultures dominated America, powerful opponents in the American Highway Users Alliance (Highway Lobby), feared that a successful electric-powered HSR System would reduce oil consumption, regional flights, car rentals, intercity bus rides, tire purchases and highway widening. So the Highway Lobby influenced Congress to approve a petty fraction of needed Northeast Corridor HSR funding. Think tanks were hired to mislead news media and the public to believe the under-funded HSR project should deliver TGV-like service. Clinton’s USDOT also made critical misjudgments about how HSR project funding would be allocated. As a result, the public expected “Champagne Taste on Beer Money.”

When the Amtrak HSR project fell short of TGV-like service, passenger rail critics multiplied. If the backstory interests you, click on the Amtrak Acela High Speed Rail link below.

Amtrak Acela High Speed Rail Progress

New Opportunity For Interstate High Speed Rail in America

American rail routes are mostly owned by freight rail companies and to lesser degree, by commuter transit agencies. By law and contractual agreements, freight rail companies and commuter transit agencies lease track access to Amtrak at low fees. At less than few daily runs per route, freight trains can often travel in opposite directions on the same track at 30-60 mph. Freight rail companies operate well under those conditions, so they have little economic incentive to upgrade railway for higher speed. Most commuter rail operates at 60-80 mph speeds on 1 or 2 tracks in urban-to-suburban corridors. There are many places where autos, people and other animals cross tracks. Commuter and Amtrak trains slow there. Commuter transit agencies want upgrades for higher average speed, better safety and schedule dependability, but don’t have extra funds lying around.

By 2000, Amtrak owned about 300 miles of Northeast Corridor track where over/underpasses, bridges and tunnels completely separate railway from autos, people and other animals. Without more funding to upgrade the entire corridor, Amtrak HSR, called “Acela”, was hampered by repetitive Slow Zones. Not long after President George W. Bush (Bush II) took over, he pounced on Amtrak’s shortcomings and nearly killed its funding outside the Northeast Region.

Despite those challenges, a positive narrative emerged. Business travelers noticed that Acela HSR produced shorter NYC-Newark-Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington travel times and better on-time performance than flying. Boarding/unboarding was faster. Acela had wider leather seats, increased legroom, electric outlets at each seat and WiFi well First Class air travel and intercity buses. That made Acela more productive nd comfortable than other modes of travel. After the 9-11-2001 terrorist event, all travelers placed greater value on the absence security-check hassle via Amtrak.

Another positive narrative emerged by 2006. Acela and Northeast Regional, the other Northeast Corridor HSR train with more intermediate stops, increased their combined frequency to trains every 30 minutes during peak hours. Amtrak Northeast Corridor HSR entered operating profit that year.

Three more Amtrak lines built successful narratives. Amtrak Keystone line in Philadelphia-Harrisburg corridor was upgraded from 80 mph top speed and 6 daily diesel-powered trains to 110 mph and 13 daily electric-powered trains. Keystone attracted so many new patrons that its operating budget is near break-even and plans are advancing for 125 mph top speed, more daily trains and extension to Pittsburgh.

In California, patronage significantly grew when diesel-powered Amtrak Capital Corridor in San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento corridor increased to 15 daily round-trips and Amtrak Pacific Surfliner line in Los Angeles-Anaheim-San Diego corridor increased to 12 daily round-trips despite only 80-90 mph top speeds. Their patronage growth encouraged politicians to place a nearly $10 billion bond measure before California voters in 2008. Voters approved the building of a world-class HSR system. State transportation funds further improved Amtrak California routes as well.

President Obama Kickstarts More Interstate High Speed Rail

Sensing opportunity for similar transportation success, 37 governors and even more mayors of both parties adopted HSR and Amtrak upgrade projects. In 2009, President Obama received 259 state applications requesting $57 billion of USDOT funds for intercity passenger rail projects. Congress only authorized a fraction of that amount.

To his credit, President Obama doubled rapid transit investment and directed $13 billion of economic stimulus funds and $2.5 billion of normal USDOT funds towards HSR and other Amtrak projects over 2009-10. It was the largest ever federal investment in passenger rail. California also committed over $11 billion towards HSR and Amtrak projects. Several other states added $3 billion towards Amtrak projects. America’s first black president kick-started Interstate High Speed Rail amidst two Middle East wars and the Great Recession. His actions suggested a poetic bookend to President Lincoln, who authorized construction of the Transcontinental Railroad amidst the Civil War.

Since our 44,000-mile Interstate Highway System cost $1.5 trillion, President Obama knew that $6.2 billion of previous Northeast Corridor investment and $30 billion of new federal & state investment was only the kickstart to a comprehensive Interstate HSR System. In 2011, he envisioned another $53 billion/6 years of federal funding to attract more state, local and private funding to HSR projects that could open between 2015-25. Initial successes would make it easier for the next Congress and President to justify increased funding for HSR projects to open between 2025-35. If successful, President Obama would create a Interstate HSR System legacy similar to President Eisenhower for the Interstate Highway System.

More important than legacy vanities, Americans desperately needed jobs to emerge stronger from the Great Recession. Governors, mayors, labor unions, infrastructure builders and Chambers of Commerce warmed to HSR and other passenger rail improvements. Automotive industry and most airlines stopped their public opposition to HSR. Since the multi-year Surface Transportation Bill was coming up for congressional vote, Obama believed timing was right to expand Interstate HSR and rapid transit, while repairing Interstate Highway, bridges in particular.

Unfortunately, additional funding for HSR and rapid transit was never approved by Congress for President Obama to sign-off. What happened?

Interstate HSR Map, 2019

2019 U.S. Intercity Passenger Rail Map; source USDOT

Powerful oil & gas companies remained arch-enemies to electric-powered passenger rail and rapid transit, whose concurrent support for more green energy would reduce their profits. More than other members of the Highway Lobby, oil & gas companies influenced a majority of Congress to underfund surface transportation infrastructure — the root of highway & airport traffic congestion. Its why the Northeast HSR corridor did not get enough federal funding to reach TGV-like potential. Its why the world-class California HSR project is several years under construction, but hasn’t received federal funds since 2011.

There is some good news. The modest investment by Obama and several states paid off. A number of Slow Zones reduced and more daily Amtrak trains were added in the Northeast, California, Virginia, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Washington and Oregon. To the dismay of passenger rail critics, Amtrak, is approaching operating breakeven in 2020.

SUMMARY: Government & Highway Lobby Crippled America’s Transportation Alternatives

After World War II, federal, state and local governments lavishly funded airports, seaports and new highways. Since the slower speeds for successful freight rail remain unchanged, private industry pays for most of its upgrades to maintain excellence. America lost its way however, in two modes of transportation. The federal government over-regulated passenger rail without funding improvements to sustain speeds in excess of 100 mph. Local governments ripped out streetcar tracks that could have converted to rapid transit at a fraction of today’s cost. The Highway Lobby, dominated by oil & gas companies, convinced a majority of Congress to minimize support of rapid transit and muzzle support for passenger rail, even when some Presidents tried to improve them. Without adequate passenger rail and rapid transit alternatives outside NYC, too many airports and highways are overstressed.

In the next part of this series, see how Global Economic Competitors have dramatically overtaken America’s passenger rail and rapid transit infrastructure.

Go to INTERSTATE HIGH SPEED RAIL GLOBAL COMPETITORS

Return to HOME

Close Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.