The benefits of a future U.S. high-speed rail system, as well as possible impediments to financing and building such a system, were addressed at a May 4 panel discussion on Capitol Hill convened by the APTA and the Environmental and Energy Study Institute.

The panelists, speaking before a packed room, agreed on several points: high-speed rail service will enjoy a high level of ridership; it will provide significant economic benefits; and, so far, long-term federal capital investment is the critical missing piece of the puzzle.

Speakers cited reliable ridership studies showing that, given sufficient access, automobile users will switch to high-speed rail. Dr. Alex Metcalf, president of Transportation Economics and Management Systems, noted that such projections are kept within an accuracy range of around 20 percent, thanks in part to a system of healthy vigilance among the competitor firms that conduct such studies.

“In our business, it’s very tough, and there’s a lot of quality control going on,” said Metcalf, who formerly served as chief economist for British Rail. “The thing that worries me most,” he continued, “is that gas prices won’t rise as they’re forecast to do. We’re supposed to have come through the biggest recession since the 1930s”—yet the price of oil remains around $100 per barrel.

Even so, dedicated funding is imperative, said Patrick Simmons, rail division director for North Carolina DOT: “To build large-scale capital projects, you need dependable funding over a long period of time.”

At the same time, “the culture of American government is very risk-averse,” said Kevin Brubaker, deputy director at the Environmental Law and Policy Center.

One question that remains unresolved is pricing, according to the panelists. “There’s no common agreement” on the best strategy, said Dr. Emmanuel S. “Bruce” Horowitz, principal at ESH Consult.

On one hand, Amtrak’s Acela charges up to $1 per mile, he noted. However, the political pressure to ensure that high-speed rail is within the financial reach of as many riders as possible may mean that lower fares, more in line with conventional commuter rail—on the order of 20 cents per mile—will be the norm, at least at some times and on some routes.

Horowitz cited the need to break “a common misperception” that existing high-speed rail systems around the world have been built without governmental investment. Although some systems cover operating costs, none cover the cost of capital.

The Federal Railroad Administration made reforms in the late 1990s that will prove helpful to high-speed rail, said Metcalf. They allow proposals for high-speed rail to use a “positive operating ratio” and “positive cost-benefit ratio,” rather than establish profitability, noted Metcalf.

At the same time, there was discussion among the panelists about the cost of providing very high-speed service, at speeds attained by systems in Asia and Europe, alongside increases in ridership and other benefits.

Simmons noted that the recent federal investments in high-speed rail, although significant, are still far short of the investments made by other countries. “While $10.5 billion is a lot of money, the Chinese will spend that amount [on high-speed rail] in the next six weeks,” he said.

Petra Todorovich, director of the America 2050 Regional Plan Association, shared this viewpoint. “It frustrates and angers me that our elected leaders have not faced up to the fact that they’re going to have to raise the gas tax,” said Todorovich.

Despite the challenges, the panelists were optimistic about the future of high-speed rail. “People want to ride trains, and they will,” said Simmons. “It’s a hit. It’s a winner.”

« Previous Article

Return to Top | Return to Main

Next Article »