Out of Control Policy Blog

The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail

Reason Foundation has been spending a fair amount of time criticizing high-speed rail initiatives proposed by states such as California and the federal government. Much of the criticism by our analysts as well as others focuses on the fiscal impacts, the poor design of the proposed corridors, and the unwise tactics of proponents that gloss over the many, many problems these initiatives face if implemented in the U.S. Reason Foundation's contribution can be found in its "Due Diligence" report on the California initiative and in our commentaries. Randal O'Toole has made several contributions to the discussion, and his most recent report can be found here.

While these criticisms all have merit, we can't lose sight of the fact the biggest reason high-speed rail won't work in the U.S. is that it doesn't make sense as a project funded from general tax revenues. High-speed rail is not a public good and it's not mass transit. It is corridor transit. At best, it's a niche market serving a highly specialized, relatively wealthy, and narrow customer base (high-income business travelers with expense accounts and tourists). It won't relieve urban traffic congestion and its contribution to improving air quality (or reducing carbon dioxide emissions) will be negligible because it won't carry enough riders to make a big difference. These factors undermine high-speed rail justificatons based on public good arguments.

That said, a more important factor may be more straightforward and direct: Certain preconditions are necessary for corridor transit to work, and they don't exist in the U.S. Most fundamentally, intercity rail needs to connect major urban downtowns or large employment centers that are close together--withing a couple hundred miles of each other. (In this respect, the emphasis on density per se is misplaced; the key is the density of the destinations.)

We simply don't have that many large downtowns in the U.S. We have several midsize metro areas, but the downtowns are mere shadows of their former selves and contain a very small minority of the region's job base. High-speed rail is doomed to failure under the best of circumstances because it simply can't generate ridership. Spain and Europe is an interesting case in point: high-speed rail connects very large urban centers with populations in the millions that are closely connected as the "bird flies": London-Paris, Paris-Brussels, Paris-Lyon, Hamburg-Berlin, Florence-Rome, Madrid-Barcelona. Many of these cities are also very large: London and Paris both boast populations greater than 10 million. Rome, Berlin, Madrid, and Barcelona have populations between 2 million and 5 million. 

In the U.S., Chicago is a metro area of close to 10 million, and its downtown population is about 500,000, but Detroit's entire city is below 900,000 and Cleveland's citywide population is below 500,000. The U.S. has very few corridors that fit the criteria necessary to sustain serious and viable high-speed rail. So, ideology aside, a national network of high-speed rail simply doesn't make sense.

In theory, a corridor linking Chicago and Detroit might make sense (or Los Angeles and San Francisco, or Boston and Washington, D.C.), but the value of this service should be evident in consumer demand--ridership at high enough levels to pay for itself. We should also remember that while fiscal objections are legitimate ones, few would object to these proposals if they paid their way. If users are willing to pay for the benefit they receive, I doubt we would see much resistance anywhere.

The problem, of course, is that high-speed rail in the U.S. is promoted as an end in itself, with unrealistically high expectations, and based on the erroneous idea that somehow this narrowly targeted niche transportation "choice" is a public good. It is not. It's a private good masquarading as a public good.

My most recent column critically evaluating Spain's system as a model of the U.S. can be found here. Bob Poole's writing is prolific, but this article outlnes a useful critique of the national proposal.

Samuel Staley is Research Fellow

« I Stand Corrected--No State Dept.… | Main | What to Do With the… »

Comments to "The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail":

Randall Scott | June 22, 2009, 8:08am | #

Very good points about why CA HSR is not feasible. It's rather fairly simple to see why, but the politicians & mass public think it will be "neat."

As for emissions/passenger-mile (could be less or more), in comparison to the total for CA, it's negligible. It could be analogized to a person trying to lose weight by switching from regular cola to diet.

The projection of ridership is incredibly high, equivalent to each person in the urban areas served, to make 2 round trips per year. It would take more than 30 million riders/year (10 times the Acela ridership, which has 50% more people in the region at half the distance) at $100 tickets, just to pay the interest.

This rail will easily cost more than $100 million/mile, meaning the whole hog will cost around $100 billion. For reference, the BART extension (to San Jose) is thrice that price per mile at 1/3 the speed.

If this goes thru, it will take a little over a decade to realize the huge mistake & maybe rationality will eventually prevail for the future. CA & the nation will be bankrupt by then.

We will soon see disaster with BO his & pro-big gov, surrender attitude, bankrupt the nation, anti-freedom policies. In 1-2 years, the misery index will be over 23 (inflation + unemployment). Add debt as 100% of GDP in 2 years.

We & the next generations cannot afford this luxury of HSR. Why should the nation & even non-riders, pay for this private good to go from LA to SF?

F.K. Plous | June 22, 2009, 5:30pm | #

It ill-behooves shills for the auto and highway industry to lament the loss of the downtowns they spent 60 years trying to kill, nor do they make their case more credible by using worst-case examples like Detroit and Cleveland to stand in for all U.S. cities, healthy or sick. Not every U.S. city has been hollowed out, and all but most serious cases are filling up again--and will fill up faster with good passenger-train service restored. If I were the Reason Foundation I would not try to stand in the way of the future or to continue pretending that in an era of peak oil America will continue to sprawl out into ever-more-distant auto-dependent suburbs. Even without the transit and corridor rail systems we need, reurbanization already is well under way and the great postwar fantasy of infinite happy motoring is imploding. These trends will only accelerate as auto transportation becomes less tenable and as the 20-somethings continue to learn from the mistakes of their parents and grandparents. I live in Chicago, and all around me I see bicycles, rising transit ridership figures, a forest of new urban townhouses and multiple other warrants of an urban restoration that has barely begun. When I read Reason Foundation propaganda, I see old men lamenting an idealized suburban past. When I look around, I see young people building an urban future. Sorry, RF. It's over.

netdragon | July 1, 2009, 1:44am | #

Nonsense. Atlanta to Charlotte to DC is a very viable cooridor.

Furthermore, the trains will pick up a lot of what is currently handled by connector flights. Why? Because people would rather a convenient train station than a two hour wait at the airport. Let's say it takes 3 hours to get from Atlanta to Charlotte on high speed rail. Compare that with having to get to the Atlanta airport 2 and 1/2 hours early then having an hour and a half flight. It's a no brainer.

Also, high speed rail is needed to relieve Atlanta's airport anyway.

I'm sorry Chicago is off in nowhere-land where Milwaukee is the only close city, but don't talk for the rest of the nation.

Out of Control Policy Archives