Sustainable Transportation Blog

For years there has been a relentless campaign against both light and heavy passenger rail transportation in the U.S.. In cities and states across the country when ballot initiatives to fund rail transportation are tabled there is invariably a heated debate fuelled by op-eds and position papers, many of which are drafted by fiscally conservative think-tanks such as the Reason Foundation. Rail opponents argue that rail will be too expensive, will not meet the needs of most Americans and will have a minimal impact on their ostensible goals, such as greenhouse gas reduction. Another common tactic is an appeal to faux populism:

"First, virtually nobody who’ll ride light rail could afford it if they had to pay the full cost. That’s right: people in rural Tennessee are paying for Charlotte to have a gilded trolley. Not only did the federal government have to kick in hundreds-of-millions of dollars for the project to have a chance of getting built, but everyone in town had to pay more for many of the things they bought. Even the state chipped in. This is a phenomenon known as 'concentrated benefits and dispersed costs' in which politicians and special interests collude to bring expensive goodies to an area in exchange for their votes, and then stick everyone else with the bill. (Thank you, Mr. Mayor.) "

While this is true as far as it goes, what rail opponents rarely acknowledge is that roads are also heavily subsidized, and no automobile driver comes close to paying the full cost for the roads on which they drive. Yet this argument remains a major element of the anti-rail arsenal, bolstered as it is by populist rage against government spending that continues to gain momentum, aided significantly by sympathetic conservative media, such as Fox News.

It is significant, therefore, that during the same week in which "teabagging" rallies took place across the United States, President Obama set out an ambitious program to build a national high-speed rail system. According to the Washington Post,

"Obama said that the money would be used for two things: to improve existing rail lines so that trains on them could go 100 mph or faster; and to identify and construct new rail lines in major corridors...In his remarks...Obama confronted critics who say the plans are too expensive, don't go far enough, or will shift resources away from the roads and airports. He dismissed all those concerns."

The CST concurs. Our position on Obama's proposal is completely supportive. If anything, he could be faulted for not asking for more. The proposed network will primarily be geared towards intercity travel, typically between 150 - 1000 km, so the speeds being proposed, while falling well short of Japanese standards, will be quite adequate to serve most destinations. We agree with the President that the arguments against it are easy to dispense with, even in lower density areas when high-speed rail becomes the prime mode of travel.

The proposal does however lack one major component: a continental strategy. Canada needs to take this opportunity to jump on the bandwagon. The time is right in every way - this is one of the best stimulus measures, it fits with current infrastructure led policy, offers existing and new industrial sector growth and is part of the natural evolution to low carbon travel (which incidently has large implications for utilities and renewables). The choice is the same - join in an emerging Advanced Green Economy (AGE) or sit on the sidelines.

However, President Obama and rail supporters across the nation (and continent) must now prepare for what will likely be an anti-rail campaign of unprecedented scale. Fiscally conservative analysts have been swift to post their responses: David Fredosso and Samuel Staley at Reason both argue that Obama's plans for high-speed rail will "go nowhere fast" primarily because, they argue, it will cost vastly more than he says it will, and will never be able to compete with air travel for cost and speed.

Like most megaprojects, American high-speed rail may well indeed cost much more than expected. However, Fredosso and Staley are basing their analysis on a very dubious assumption: that air travel will remain affordable -- to say nothing of even being viable -- into the future, when oil scarcity will probably drive most airlines out of business. In the rail debate to come, it will be essential to take a long view, rather than assuming present conditions will remain unchanged.

Trains are not an elitist form of transportation; they were once the primary means of long distance land-based travel for all levels of society. They only remain more expensive for lack of appropriate government subsidies equivalent to those lavished on roads and automobiles. The Obama announcement represents an opportunity to build a truly sustainable and socially equitable North American transportation system. However, to get there we may need to change the terms of this entire debate.

Michael Dudley and Arne Elias