Haney 1 Prentiss Haney Instructor Jane Blakelock English 2100 Section 91 29 April 2014 The Money Train: Are

e High-speed Rails right for the United States? In April 2009, President Obama announced his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which entailed billions of stimulus dollars allocated to help rebuild our post-recession economy through job creation, plus it also detailed a plan for a national high-speed rail network ("High-Speed Rail, Jobs, and the Recovery Act"). Using federal dollars from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the President stated that the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is awarding $8 billion to states across the country to develop Americas first nationwide program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service ("President Obama). But wait- what is high-speed rail? Over the years, there have been many different ways of defining what a high-speed rail is, but the answer most universally agreed upon was formed by the European Union. The EU defined high-speed rail, also known as HSR for short, as a form of transportation that, unlike traditional rail, can surpass speeds of 250 km/h ("General Definitions of Highspeed"). This system of transportation was a very significant innovation in train technology because its high-speed service could cut commute times between major cities by more than half. In 1964, the birth of high-speed rail had already set high expectations for cutting commuting times. That year, the Japanese unraveled their Shinkansen bullet trains. This train was the first of its kind to travel speeds up to 210km/h and by its first year, it cut 4 hours and

Haney 2 ten minutes off a seven-hour commute between Tokyo and Osaka (Yamaguchi and Yamasaki 5). During its first decade in Japan, ridership grew from 11 million to 135 million (Yamaguchi and Yamasaki 5). Since its success in Japan, high-speed rails have quickly risen in popularity and have been developed in various countries to link their major urban areas ("High-speed Rail"). Currently, China has the largest high-speed rail system in the world, according to The Associated Press ("World's Longest Fast Train Line Opens in China"). China and Japans HSR systems are just two examples for very successful systems. With all these successes, it would seem that HSR would be perfect for the economic viability of the United States, but this is not the case for America. There are many voices of opposition to the development of high-speed rail in the United States. Many believe that an 8 billion dollar investment is not one the United States is prepared to make for high-speed rail (Feigenbaum). In his speech On a Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, President Obama said, [we must] transform travel in America with [a] historic investment in high-speed rail. If investment is the key concern for advocates and people of opposition, then we must examine the benefits and drawbacks of such a large investment in our transportation infrastructure. The case cannot be concluded by simply stating that investment for high-speed rail is too expensive, or the investment in high-speed rail isnt worth the expense. In hopes to reach common ground on this issue, this paper will analyze if high-speed rail produces sufficient benefits to justify the large expenditure. As President Obama stated in his announcement, High-speed rail is the largest infrastructure investment since the interstate highway ("President Obama). The proposed HSR investment of $8 billion may look like a large expenditure for a transportation network, but when we examine our transportation history, we see that high-speed rail is generally a cost-efficient

Haney 3 system. To understand the impact that HSR would have in America, we must first review the interstate highway-- Americas largest transportation infrastructure both fiscally and physically. After the end of World War II, the United States needed to identify new methods of protecting our national security. President Eisenhower was particularly interested in the highway network development in Germany under Adolf Hitler. In 1919, he participated in a U.S. military trip from Washington D.C to San Francisco that took two-month to complete (Highway History). After that experience, he was convinced our nation needed a national transportation network. Upon his election to office in 1953, he began work on the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was the legislation that authorized a $25 billion interstate highway system that would span 41,000 miles across the United States, and the federal government would cover 90 percent of the cost (Highway History). The initial reasoning behind such an expansive network of highways was the protection of our national security, but the benefits of an interstate highway system reached far past national security. The highway system revolutionized the way we transported goods. Previous to highways, imported and exported goods were primary transported by railroad, pipeline, or by sea (Ross, Barringer, and Amekudzi 141). The air market had not been regulated yet, so it was not cost-efficient to transport goods by air. The highway system created new job markets such as truck drivers, expanded positions at federal/state departments of transportation, and added many road construction contracts. However, the Highway system wasnt met with open arms initially. The same issue concerning High-speed rail today plagued the passing of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, and its funding. President Eisenhower was not a fan of heavily subsidizing the interstate highway; he leaned more to the side of self-financing (Highway History). Initially, he

Haney 4 proposed the Federal-Aid Highway Act bill in 1955, which included the project being funded by issuing 30-year bonds, and raising the Federal Gas Tax (Highway History). That version of the bill was voted down. It became abundantly clear that for interstate highways to exist, it must be heavily subsidized by the federal government. Again, this is the reason why the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 passed in congress with the provision of 90% federal government financing of the highway construction program. There were no other reasonable alternatives at that time. However, we mustnt believe that government subsidizes are inherently negative. The financial support from the federal government for the interstate highway created one of the most important transportation infrastructures of the 20th century. While there are many similarities among HSR and the interstate highway, we shouldnt overlook that the interstate highway still offers a variety of transportation modes such as singlepassenger vehicles, freight vehicles, buses, and passenger-owner vehicles. Because of the cost of operations and fixed routes on HSR systems, HSR would only be able to offer multi-passenger travel and limited freight operations. Another negative factor that hinders HSR is our American value of private property. Inherently, because of these values some people will always prefer to own their own 4-passenge vehicle rather than share a public transit train. For that reason, many believe that interstate highway is a more efficient use of public dollars because of its existing infrastructure and variety of modes of transportation that gives the freedom of choice to the individual. However, with the rising cost of maintaining and expanding the interstate highway system, continual large-scale investment in highways alone may not be creating the needed transportation solutions but only mudding through our larger mobility problems. For example, car congestion and pollution are causing alarming rates of air toxicants and other environmental

Haney 5 issues (2012 Public Transportation Fact Book). We must address these issues and more when deciding if HSR will be the solution to our transportation issues. Still, the highway network transformed how Americans lived their lives by creating mobility for jobs, to homes, and to leisure destinations. The interstate highway isnt just a system used to protect our national security, on the contrary, it has become a public good. We must identify when a program is a public good and is needed to positively advance the capabilities of our citizens and industries. If HSR is a public good, then our country must be willing to support it financially for the benefit of all Americans. The decision to build the interstate highway happened over 50 years ago-- now its time for the United States to reexamine our transportation needs, and make pragmatic decisions on what will move our country forward as a global leader in a greater magnitude than the interstate highway system offered us in the last century. As the world moves more towards globalization, our strategies must reflect global trends to stay competitive (Ross and Woo 53). High-speed rail is not only a fast means of transportation, but it is a system that connects regions together. In the second half of the 21st century, regions will be more important than cities. These regions will host large populations such as 10 million or more (Policy & Practice 2). Author Catherine L. Ross, transportation expert, has coined these regions as megaregions. Catherine L. Ross discusses in her many studies that the emerging 10 megaregions such as Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland and New York City- Washington D.C. areas will, in 2050, be the center of 80% of all economy activity in our country (Policy & Practice 2). Figure 1 shows in the darken areas where

Figure 1 Megaregions in the United States Source: Ross, Catherine (2009), Delineating existing and emerging megaregions, July. Funded by the Federal Highway Administration, USDOT.

Haney 6 these megaregions will be in the next 50 years. Most of the megaregions appear in the Northeast corridor and the Midwest. As far as distance, the most successful high-speed rail systems in the world have been within 400 miles of each stop. Since most of the megaregions will exist in the eastern side of the country, it is important to fully understand the impact mobility will provide megaregions in the future. To prepare for this shift, we must invest in our transportation infrastructure for system like HSR so that social activity and economic activity can thrive in these regions. Mobility is essential to the economic vitality of megaregions (Ross, Barringer, and Amekudzi 140). As discussed before, the highway network provided the mobility for national defense. Later in the 20th century, we saw that highways also boosted our economic advantage from the east coast to the west by expanding the freight movement. The freight movement in America is one of the effects of mass investment in transportation that increased national competiveness with global markets. Transportation developments such as the highway allowed for the free and efficient movement of goods across our country unlike any time before. Because of this increase in paved and connected highway systems, more than 60 percent of domestic commodities [are] moved by truck experts say (Ross, Barringer, and Amekudzi 142). In the near future, this number is expected to grow even further. However, the problem is our highways cannot handle the growing truck traffic. Barringer suggests that by 2050, our current freight networks will not be able to support severe levels of traffic congestion. Our highway system was never created to withstand the population and commuter traffic of 2014, it was designed to fit the needs of 1975 America (Highway History). Needless to say, we are a much different country now. We are much larger in population and more depended on cars. Building more lanes doesnt fix the issue of congestion. What we need is less cars on the road to decrease congestion. High-

Haney 7 speed rail provides this solution. By developing high-speed rail systems in megaregions, you are not only creating passenger trains, but also freight trains. Freight trains will use the same tracks as passenger trains, but provided a faster way to transport goods between regions. High-speed rail serving as freight trains alleviates the congestion of trucks on the highway (Ross, Barringer, and Amekudzi 150). Additionally, it cuts down on the pollution caused by trucks. Companies will benefit by the speedy transportation of their goods and the public will benefit with better air quality and less traffic on the highways. In the United States, high-speed rail is a strong contender not only for global competiveness with the reimaging the freight movement, but because it also reduces our dependency on fossil fuels (Ross, Barringer, and Amekudzi 151). Economic competiveness is not only reliant on the movement of goods, but also on the movement of people. Evidence shows high-speed rail will increase the connectedness of our economy in megaregions through the movement of goods, but it will also create an opportunity for bringing talented people together faster. For example, in Ohio, if HSR was to connect Cincinnati-Columbus-Cleveland, it would create the likelihood of multicity, multi-organizational partnerships. Senior managers, academics, and engineers would be able to connect with each other in a day as well as return to their home town in the same night (Levine). This level of connectedness will lead to innovation, revitalization of urban cores, and economic development around rail stations. It could particularly help med-size cites like Dayton who low-cost of living could attract more residents since they are quickly connected to every major city in Ohio. In med-size cities, high-speed rail could ignite the urban core and spark the needed investment in rust-belt cities such as Dayton. High-speed rail provides many solutions to our transportation needs in theory. However, in practice, there are huge road blocks in the implementation of HSR in American cities and

Haney 8 states. President Obama may have made major steps for the historical investment in HSR, but he did not provide the answer for cross-jurisdictional disputes that stall out the process of HSR implementation, even in communities that mostly support the transportation solution. This issue will only become harder to mediate as our cities move towards regionally-focused economies. Two-thirds of Americas population will exist in Megaregions, not cities, by the mid-century (Policy & Practice 4). This means that social and economic interactions are increasingly taking place in areas beyond traditional jurisdiction lines, and to recognize this change, we must adapt or modify our current social and economic patterns to stay relevant and competitive, especially for the development of HSR (Ankner and Meyer 167). Traditionally, our country opposes strong government ideas and wants their own private property respected. Unfortunately, this is true, in regards to collaboration around HSR systems by our local and state governments. Like private property, states and local governments want their programming dollars and transportation ideas to stay private, or to only benefit their residents and industries in their locality. This lack of regionalism creates a major issue since high-speed rail is usually not a single-jurisdiction system. It is a system that spans many local and state jurisdictions. Authors William D. Ankner and Michael D. Myer write about the institutional challenges related to establishing a massive transportation system such as highspeed rail. One the major challenges they identify are the cross-jurisdictional cooperation. It is nearly impossible to implement a HSR system where there is no regional cooperation. However, when organizations work together, transportation development can be successful. For example, the highly successful Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T), commissioned by the European Union. TEN-T is charged to promot[e] free flowing goods and people throughout the Union, and the authors argue that ambitious organization models similar to TEN-T is what

Haney 9 creates successful megaregional transportation systems (Ankner and Meyer 176). TEN-T is successful because the European Union understands there needs to be a regional approach to transit needs. The Obama Administration also understands this logic, but because of United States weak government ideology, we are not able to make regionalism happen for High-speed rails sake. Strategic regionalism, cooperation and public-partnerships are three tactics the United States should use to implement high-speed rail, as Ankner & Myer suggest. However, they believe that federal support is the most important element along with regional cooperation for successful development megaregional transportation systems. The clearest example, the failure of California HSR, shows the challenges caused by the lack of regionalism and how it can manifest into strong opposition against High-speed rail when not kept at bay. Along with cross-jurisdictional disputes, there are more strong oppositions to HSR in America. The fundamental reason why the opposition by many state governors, scholars, and transportations experts such as Baruch Feigenbaum exists is because they believe that high-speed rail is too expensive to build. Regardless of the economic and social benefit outlined in megaregions section of this paper, many experts still believe there are a number of factors such as environmental factors, mobility factors, economic development factors, and social factors that could contribute to the failure of high-speed rail in the United States. These factors mounted with the extreme cost of building high-speed rail have many experts calling HSR economically unfeasible (Brannon and Lowell). Even though each factor is of true concern when developing a successful HSR system, advocates have creative solutions to debunk many of these factors. The primary argument against high-speed rail is its cost. If we pay close attention to our nations history and the history of most developed nations, it has shown that most of the major public works projects funded by the government has had large expenditures, but they have also

Haney 10 been projects that have revolutionized our country. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956, which established our interstate highways, is that larger public works project in our countrys history (Highway History). As mentioned before, the investment and implementation of a nation-wide interstate highway system revolutionized how we transport goods, delivered services, and commute for business or leisurely purposes. Coupled with the expense of HSR, there are a number of claims that opponents to HSR have deem as further evidence as to why HSR will not bring a sufficient benefit in America. In his article High-Speed Rail Is Too Costly, Libertarian Baruch Feigenbaum recognizes that sky rocketing cost of building high-speed rail concludes that HSR cannot be our only transportation solution. Understanding our fiscal uncertainty as a nation, he believes that the United States cannot commit to one-single larger scale capital project in hopes that it will make good on its returns. High-speed rail attempts in California serves as the primary example of how even in a supportive state legislator for high-speed rail, strong opposition can still derail the process through the use of economic feasibility studies, ballot initiatives, and cross-jurisdictional disputes. Feigenbaum, in his article, urges us to search for alternatives to high-speed rail such as, [for] far less money, we could create a world-class highway and aviation system with first-rate bus and airplane service and far more flexibility. Still, the research shows that a strategic approach to high-speed rail is feasible and ideal for Americas transportation needs. Any transportation solution developed will need to fit the needs of our diverse nation and accommodate our needs in the future. Our country must prepare to compete in a globalized economy and not allow our current transit infrastructure to hinder our progress. Weighing the pros and cons of high-speed rail, it is a

Haney 11 costly investment for our nation as opponents argued, but it seems to be a necessary investment when evaluating our nations future needs. There is no doubt that we need to think about global competiveness and the movement of money in our country when developing long-term transportation solutions. If megaregions do emerge, as predicted by Ross in her studies, we need a transportation system that is focused on the connectedness of goods and people; high-speed rail provides both of those services. Additionally, America has many successful models in the world to guide our development of the system. We must not be afraid to commit to a transportation solution that will change our mobility habits in America. High-speed rail will have to be heavily subsidized no matter how we decide to fund it. It is our nations job to provide programs for the public good. High-speed rail is needed for the economic future of our nation and the public good.

Haney 12 Works Cited 2012 Public Transportation Fact Book. APTA.com. American Public Transportation Association, Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. Ankner, William D., and Michael D. Meyer. "Investing in Megaregion Transportation Systems: Institutional Challenges and Opportunities." Ed. Catherine L. Ross. Meganregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2009. 166-90. Print. Brannon, Ike, and Elizabeth Lowell. "Derailing High-Speed Rail." Regulation 35.3 (2012): 4-6. Business Source Complete. Web. 30 Jan. 2014. "General Definitions of Highspeed." - UIC. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. Feigenbaum, Baruch. "High-Speed Rail Is Too Costly." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (n.d.): n. pag. Reason.org. 14 June 2013. Web. 6 Feb. 2014. "Highway History." The Greatest Decade 1956-1966. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014. "High-Speed Rail, Jobs, and the Recovery Act." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. "High-speed Rail." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 02 Sept. 2014. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. Levine, Myron. Why Governments InterveneThe Case For Government Action: Market failure, externalities, free riders and collective action problems, protecting the commons, and concerns for justice, equality and the domain of rights. Public Policy Analysis. Wright State University, Dayton. 9 May 2013. Lecture.

Haney 13 "President Obama, Vice President Biden to Announce $8 Billion for High-Speed Rail Projects Across the Country." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. Ross, Catherine L., and Myungje Woo. "Identifying Megaregions in the United States: Implications for Infrastructure Investment." Ed. Catherine L. Ross. Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2009. 53-80. Print. Ross, Catherine L., Jason Barringer, and Adjo A. Amekudzi. "Mobility in the Megaregion." Ed. Catherine L. Ross. Megaregions: Planning for Global Competitiveness. Washington D.C.: Island Press, 2009. 140-65. Print. Ross, Catherine L. "Policy & Practice: Transport and Megaregions: High-speed Rail in the United States." Town Planning Review 82.3 (2011): 341-356. Print. The White House. Office of the Press Secretary. President Obama, Vice President Biden to Announce $8 Billion for High-Speed Rail Projects Across the Country. Http://www.whitehouse.gov/. N.p., 28 Jan. 2010. Web. 27 Feb. 2014 "World's Longest Fast Train Line Opens in China." Associated Press. Associated Press, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. Yamaguchi and Yamasaki. "High-Speed Inter-CityTransport System in Japan." International Transportation Forum (n.d.): n. pag. Print.