Famed psychologist Abraham Maslow said: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

Many high-speed rail (HSR) opponents believe that HSR supporters think this way, harboring the notion that HSR should link every possible U.S. destination without regard to size, distance, or any other critical factors.

Nothing is further from the truth. HSR advocates believe HSR is one superb answer to one particular circumstance.

HSR is the right tool for the job of transporting large numbers of people from one densely populated major urban area to another—but only when those areas are the right distance apart and the travel demand market has the right characteristics. And it does everyone a disservice to misrepresent that view.

“Give us the tools and we’ll finish the job,” bellowed Winston Churchill in a wartime broadcast. I always took those words to heart. You see, I worked my way through college as a contractor. I learned that having the right tool for the right job means everything. Being somewhat particular, I had all of my tools organized into different toolboxes. And I had a lot of different toolboxes!

Though each toolbox cost a small king’s ransom, I could not have succeeded without having the appropriate tools for each job. Imagine trying to trim down a door with a chisel instead of a plane. Transportation is no different. 

Different transportation modes have different applications. A bus serves a very distinct function from a light rail vehicle or a commuter rail car; they are not interchangeable. The public must understand that we get this.

We also know HSR is no panacea. It is an extremely important tool in the transportation toolbox, a tool that has been absent in the American landscape—to our country’s detriment. But it’s time to change that. It is time to add HSR to America’s toolbox, not because we need that tool represented, but because it’s an essential tool to get a specific transportation job done. 

“High-speed rail is the most effective way to increase intercity capacity,” states a report from the University of Pennsylvania School of Design and Department of City and Regional Planning (“High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Megaregion: From Vision to Reality,” Spring 2011). “While not suited for all trip types, it is the most competitive mode for those trips ranging between 100 and 500 miles in length. For those trips shorter than 100 miles, the automobile is most competitive, and for those trips longer than 500 miles, air is the most competitive.”

The report continues: “Currently, we rely too heavily on the automobile and airplane to fulfill a travel demand for which they are not best suited—trips between 100 and 500 miles—putting unnecessary strain on an already overextended system. By implementing a new mode of travel, HSR holds the promise to not only fulfill a transportation need that is not being satisfactorily met, but also to alleviate the strain on the other major modes in the transportation system, thus creating a more efficient and balanced overall network. High-speed rail represents an opportunity not only to introduce a new mode into the transportation system that would assume a role not previously filled, but also an opportunity to bring balance and optimization to other existing modes, including aviation.”

Though only one tool, HSR can accomplish multiple tasks. Providing business, intercity, and even vacation travel among major city centers, HSR also serves to relieve congestion on other transportation modes.

One need look no further than the U.S. Northeast Corridor to see its value in that regard. According to the Penn report: “Intercity travel within the Northeast Megaregion by road, rail and air networks faces substantial congestion that results in longer travel times and reduced reliability. . . . The Northeast Megaregion features the four most delay-prone airports in the nation—Newark, LaGuardia, JFK, and Philadelphia—as well as the nation’s most congested stretch of highway on Interstate 95. Of the top 10 most congested metropolitan areas in the United States, New York, Washington, Boston, and Philadelphia rank 2nd, 4th, 8th, and 9th, respectively. . . . Across these networks, the rail system has the greatest potential to add the most capacity in the most cost-effective manner.”

HSR is not only the best tool for the job; it is the only tool that can do these particular jobs effectively and efficiently.

Not convinced? OK, let’s look at aviation. At present, aviation facilities are at or over capacity in many routes and corridors. As a result, there are considerable delays. Consider the “2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure” published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Aviation and airports received a D grade, with the report citing “volume” as the cause for nearly a quarter of the delays experienced by travelers. So, why not just add capacity? 

At the moment we are not building many brand-new airports, or for that matter even adding runways. Aside from rigorous environmental regulations that can encumber any endeavor as large as an airport, in many cases there simply isn’t enough land available near major city centers, especially in the Northeast.

As the Penn report says: “To expand aviation capacity, large amounts of available land would be needed to add new runways or build new airports. In more than 50 years, only one new Greenfield airport has been built in the United States, and this, Denver International, required a land area twice the size of Manhattan.”

What about highways and roads? The ASCE report card gave roads a grade of D minus and noted: “Next to safety, congestion has become the most critical challenge facing our highway system. Congestion continues to worsen to the point at which Americans spend 4.2 billion hours a year stuck in traffic at a cost of $78.2 billion a year in wasted time and fuel costs—$710 per motorist.”

The situation in the Northeast is no different: “Expanding capacity on Northeast highways would also require large amounts of land and incur substantial costs. A recent report by the I-95 Corridor Coalition estimated that annual expenditures of approximately $25 billion would be required to meet projected capacity needs through 2035. Additionally, because many highways in the Northeast run through dense urban areas, expansion would require significant land acquisitions that would be practically and politically difficult.” 

The advocates of HSR labor under no delusions. Implementing a robust HSR system—the kind of comprehensive system that will achieve the goals of congestion relief and effective transportation—will not be easy, cheap, or without challenges. But HSR is simply the right tool for the job of providing efficient mass transportation to connect major urban centers and regional transportation hubs spaced between 100 and 500 miles apart—while relieving congestion on existing transportation modes. When it comes to fulfilling that kind of need, there aren’t any other tools available that can do the job as well. 

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” Sadly, HSR opponents presume that HSR advocates think this way, proposing their favorite tool as the only available solution. This is not true. High-speed rail is simply the best tool available—perhaps the only tool—to solve a specific piece of the transportation and congestion crisis in this country. And it does everyone a disservice to misrepresent that view.

Photo by Kevin Allen An Amtrak Acela train on the platform at Washington’s Union Station. Amtrak is continuing to move forward with high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor.