The Obama administration recently pledged $8 billion for high-speed rail. While just a fraction of the overall stimulus package and just a drop-in-the-bucket of what is needed to build a real national high-speed rail network, the funds generated considerable hub-bub and outright jubilation among regionalists, environmentalists, energy efficiency advocates, and those who have long fought for improved U.S. rail transit. It also has encouraged a mad political scramble for funds as regions position for federal monies. In Canada, there is a mounting drumbeat for high-speed rail connecting Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, and Quebec cities and also for connecting Vancouver to Seattle.
For starters, here's a map of proposed U.S. high speed rail projects:
It's clear that the U.S. and North America lag far behind countries like Japan with its Shinkansen or France with the TGV on high-speed rail connectivity.
But how to base decisions on what routes get funded? How to avoid a purely political outcome and create a framework for investing in high-speed rail that makes the most economic sense?
There are many metrics - from population concentration to economic activity - which can be used to gauge the merits of high-speed rail routes. But my own research on mega-regions provides a potentially useful framework for thinking about where and how to invest in a national high-speed rail system.
Here's a map of North America's mega-regions.
The largest of North America's mega-regions is the great "Bos-Wash" mega-region initially identified by the geographer Jean Gottman. It stretches down the east coast corridor encompassing the east coast cities of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C., and is home to more than 50 million people and produces more than $2.2 trillion in economic activity. Its economic output is greater than that of the UK and France and more than double that of India or Canada. The second biggest, which Gottman dubbed "Chi-Pitts," covers more than 100,000 square miles and is home to 46 million people, producing $1.6 trillion in economic output. Taken together, America's mega-regions produce more than three-quarters of its economic output and the lion's share of its innovations (see the table below).
In the main, the proposed high-speed rail routes map pretty well to U.S. mega-regions. Given the fact that megas are dense and interconnected centers of population and economic activity, it makes sense to develop high-speed rail connections within mega-regions first, and later develop connections between contiguous ones, say for example down the east and west coasts or across the Great Lakes region.
The table below, compiled by Patrick Adler at the Martin Prosperity Institute, shows the distance between key cities and then compares the driving times (calculated on Google) to current top high-speed rail speeds (from Transportation Quarterly):
Philadelphia becomes a veritable suburb of NY, its commute time shrinking from nearly two hours to slightly more than a half hour. Washington-NYC and Boston-NYC become hour-and-a-half trips. San Diego becomes a bedroom suburb of Los Angeles. And commute times shrink considerably across Cascadias' main cities: The time to get from Portland to Seattle shrinks to just over an hour, while travel between Seattle and Vancouver is reduced to less than an hour. It would take just slightly longer than an hour and a half to get from Charlotte to Atlanta. And commutes between Dallas and Houston and Dallas and Austin shrink to an hour and a half or less.
Better high-speed rail connections promise considerable economic efficiency gains. And they also promise to relieve the psychological burdens of commuting by car. Research by behavioral economists like Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahneman finds that long car commutes are among the things that most adversely affect our happiness.
But there is an even bigger and more fundamental reason to connect our mega-regions through high-speed rail. As I recently argued in The Atlantic, our current economic crisis promises to powerfully reshape America's geography. There will be winners and losers, and a new economic geography will emerge in time.
Geographic expansion, as I noted there, is a fundamental axis of economic recovery and development. Recovery after the Long Depression of the 1870s was in part powered by the rise of the large-scale industrial city that grew up around raw materials, ports, and railroads, expanding outward along its early street-car lines. While many see the rise of Keynesian spending (particularly World War II spending) as key to U.S. recovery from the Great Depression of the 1930s, post-war recovery was propelled by the rise of another era of geographic expansion - the rise of the Sunbelt and the massive growth of auto-oriented suburbia. Demand for cars surged to move workers between home and work. And suburban houses all had to be filled with the refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, television sets, and consumer appliances rolling off America's assembly lines. This post-war auto-oriented "fordist" development model worked to ensure that mass production and mass consumption could grow together fueling the expansion of America's great golden era.
But fordism has come smack up against its limits. It's cheaper to produce many industrial goods off-shore, and the geography of post-war suburbia has been stretched to its breaking point. It may well be impossible for sustained recovery to come from breathing life back into the banks, auto companies, and suburban-oriented development model. A new period of geographic expansion - or what geographers term a "new spatial fix" - will eventually be needed to spur a renewed era of economic growth and development.
The history of capitalist development is the history of the more expansive and intensive use of space. Post-war suburbs, the rise of larger metropolitan areas, the development of multi-nodal regions with edge cities as well as downtown cores are part and parcel of this process of geographic development. It's a mistake to consider suburban sprawl a backward step (as some do), and to see only more compact urban style back-to-the-city development as a path to the future. The rise of the mega-region is the cornerstone of a new, more intensive and also more expansive use of space.
New periods of geographic expansion require new systems of infrastructure. Ever since the days of the canals, the early railroad, and streetcar suburbs, we've seen how infrastructure and transportation systems work to spur new patterns economic and regional development. The streetcar expanded the boundaries of the late 19th and early 20th century city, while the railroad moved goods and people between them. The automobile enabled workers to move to the suburbs and undertake far greater commutes, expanding the geographic landscape still further.
Mega-regions, if they are to function as integrated economic units, require better, more effective, and faster ways move goods, people, and ideas. High-speed rail accomplishes that, and it also provides a framework for future in-fill development along its corridors. Just as development filled-in along the early street-car lines and the post-war highways, high-speed rail will encourage denser, more compact, and concentrated development with growth filling in along its routes over time. Spain's new high-speed rail link between Barcelona and Madrid not only massively reduced commuting times between these two great Spanish cities, according to a recent New York Times report, it has also helped revitalize several declining locations along the line.
It's time to start thinking of our transit and infrastructure projects less in political terms and more as a set of strategic investments that are fundamental to the speed and scope of our economic recovery and to the new, more expansive economic geography required for long-run growth and prosperity.
Richard Florida
Excellent blog post today.
I live in the midst of the Bos-Wash region and endured a hellish, 1 hour commute in this morning's rush hour (I only have a 7 mile drive from home to the office). I am not saying that an effective high speed rail network would have made a difference today, but we do need to get more cars off of the road - especially the commuting to an from work. We all see the single driver commuting to his or her job daily - I am one of them - is it any wonder that traffic is as bad as it is?
A high speed rail plan promotes public transit and encoruages more commuters to get out of their cars, among the many other benefits noted in Dr. Florida's post. It can't come soon enough.
You drive 7 miles?? It's only a 45 minute bike ride. Instead of saying "we need to get more cars off the road" how about getting YOUR car off the road and letting other people worry about themselves?
Interesting analysis. I do wish you addressed whether "high-speed" rail or simply "rail" is really what is needed. Perhaps another time?
Regarding HSR, the fundamental question that is not being asked is "what is HSR intended to replace, and why?" Is it short haul flights? Long drives? Commutes?
For HSR to operate quickly and efficiently it requires dedicated pathways with few stops. More like an airline model than a commuter train. For example, for the Philly-NYC trip to be that quick, Newark and Trenton NJ would need to be bypassed, and thus they would get no economic benefit. This is the same affect that highways had on small towns in the 50's - if you didn't get an "exit" you withered and died. In addition, nobody NEEDS to commute to NYC from Philly! To what problem is that a solution worthy a $20B or so investment?
As a regular rider of the Bos-Wash corridor Acela train, I believe medium-speed rail (as the Acela is) provides 90% of HSR benefits at a fraction of the cost and disruption (don't forget that new, adequately isolated and secure HSR tracks will be just as destructive to urban fabric as elevated highways were). And ressurrecting our abandoned regional rail, light rail, and streetcar/trolley infrastructure will cost relative pennies and leverage benefits even greater.
HSR is fine for what it is - glamorous and sexy and "futuristc", but in this discussion its a hail mary pass when the country just really needs a first down....
Thank you as usual for a perceptive analysis of our opportunities for high-speed rail in our mega-regions. I couldn't tell how far south Bos-Wash came in Virginia, but I think it is important to extend the region south of Washington to Richmond and east to Hampton Roads, given the fact that Richmond would become a close-in suburb of Washington DC and Hampton Roads traffic congestion could be eased with high-speed rail. I only hope that I will live long enough in good health so that I may use this logical mode of transportation in my own region!
We have an embarrassingly awful 3rd-world rail system. From Atlanta, to visit my sister in Birmingham, it's a 3 hour drive or a 4 hour train ride. With the trains common in western Europe, that would be a 2 hour train ride.
Some people argue that building a railsystem is expensive, but it beats the alternative, which is to continue trying to expand airports. Rail is ideal for those middle distance trips - a long distance to drive, but (factoring in 2 hours at the airport) competitive for rail. Take some of those short flights off the runways, and we don't need another new runway.
By the way, it's not "Char-lanta" - it's "Atlanta-lotte". The major city gets top billing.
Hence, Bos-Wash. ;)
I am a big proponent of HSR and have been one for years. However, HSR cannot stand alone, it is part of an integrated transit plan. The main hubs and stations will be designed as integral centers of commerce whereever they are located. In addition, the local rail, light rail, commuter rail, busses, and yes, even cars, are important as people need to be able to get to the HSR hub. I live north of Chicago, currently I can take the Metra into Chicago in about 30 minutes (not bad on a local train for 20 miles at rush hour). However, the intercity options from Chicago are abyssmal, better than nothing, but not much. Currently the 9 states in the midwest are requesting $3.4bil of the HSR stimulus money, but I am afraid that this is simply going to "upgrade" certain routes, likely Chicago-St. Louis, Chicago-Milwaukee-St. Paul, and Chicago-Detroit. The end result will be faster Amtrak, but not sufficiently fast to truly draw people from the airlines as the new Madrid-Barcelona HSR has done.
Stimulus, state funds, and private partnerships need to work together to fund not only the rehibilitation of the once great american rail system, but a true 200+mph HSR so that we can drive or walk the 2-5 miles to catch a local bus or rail and be in the HSR hub in under an hour and at our final destination, 200-400 miles away, in 1-3 hours. This can be done and despite the anti-government naysayers whose current song is anything involving Amtrak or the government will fail by default, people will use HSR to get to meetings, vacations and weekends with friends in neighboring cities.
High speed rail is here, lets keep working to guarantee it is implemented properly to quell the unfounded pessimism so prevalent today.
That map you post isn't really proposed projects -- it's more like proposed corridors, and it's quite dated. This is a much more accurate and current map of proposed HSR projects:
http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/04/20/a-map-of-proposed-high-speed-rail-projects-in-the-us/
Excellent post. I am saddened though that Nashville - where I live - still resides outside one of the Mega-Regions and of course has not rail of any sort connect it to Atlanta or any other larger region. If Florida's theory is true, will we be left behind? What would it take for us to be included in one of the larger regions? Will trains ever connect us to these other regions?
The National Association of Railroad Passengers has been pushing to expand Amtrak's network of conventional trains -- while favoring every effort to speed them up as well.
The NARP site has a map of snazzy flash map of their vision for future service, including Nashville.
http://www.narprail.org/cms/index.php/resources/more/the_map_of_narps_vision/
Here is something I have been toying with for a while. I've changed it a little here and there since I posted this one but the gist is the same more or less...
http://img171.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hsrnetworkjx3.png
You ask "How to avoid a purely political outcome". The only answer can be: don't let politicians decide!
Interesting map NikolasM. Much better take on a "network" than the government plan which obviously just spreads $8B around to appease as many constituent groups as possible.
It really illustrates the difficulty of the problem (do you really need an HSR line going through Jonesboro,AR?) and the opportunities - Denver to San Fran is just begging for a connection to complete the trans-continental HSR route, but building it would be a real challenge!
I'd be very interested to see the price to build this out with "conventional" and MSR (Acela-class) as opposed to HSR. That could come later where demand warrants.
This is nice, but what we should really be building is a modern transportation infrastructure: http://www.ruf.dk/
WHY oh WHY can we not have a couple of decent cross-country high-speed trains? God forbid we link these high-speed rails they are all separate islands. I like the idea of taking a fast train from SF to NYC or LAX to ATL that would be useful if I never had to deal with an airport and it's indignities. Or in fact some decent NORMAL speed trains crossing the country on a regular schedule? Yet apparently instead of upgrading the rails & routes we already have, let's go off and build new tracks to places like Tampa. This is what we call a boondoggle.
Mexico City wasn't in your table.
With the connection GA is working on between Atlanta and Savannah, we may soon see the Piedmont mega region ("Char-lanta") merge with Florida.
Interesting that in this entire discussion that cost is never mentioned. Who is going to pay for all of these shiny trains? Will NIMBYs actually allow a TGV like train to travel at top speeds? What about the cost of building the track? Maintaining it? Doesn't all of this warrant some kind of cost-benefit analysis?
This is worth considering: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10170
For all the Yap about transportation needs, expense and ROI, it is obvious we need true innovation with respect to approach. People will always need commercial face time with one another but no where near what we have been accustomed to prior to the current electronic surrogate age. (Video texting, conferencing etc.)
The primal question being ..."Do we all need to be physically AT work 5 days a week?" Well now, is the demand vs payoff scenario what it at first seems?
We likely WANT this glamorous transport but don't really NEED it. On the other hand, product distribution dictates the demand and payoff without the Want criteria. ie: I don't think many types of consumer goods require a quiet, smooth, clean surrounding in which to travel.
The many sizable economic drawbacks, as articulated above, are very real and not surprising are directly related to creature comforts. In short, HSR is very applicable (a.k.a. affordable, profitable, do-able) for product distribution but not for people moving. Billions of dollars budgeted for human transport frills will doom an otherwise prudent and effective scenario for a "goods to market" commercial money maker. One big challenge dealing with 'freight only" is the 'one way empty'. Hell' it would be no fun at all without some adversity to prompt regulatory variables.
Let's grasp the "E medium" and squeeze all the convenience it can afford us and finally leave the daily rush hour waste-stream behind. Granted, it will not fit everyones occupational needs but probably serve up enough thrift to effect sizable economic/environmental benefit.
If we want to build strength into the NEW country, then we had better be posturing our thinking with strength in mind.
Of course all I.M.H.O.. Later THX.
In addition, nobody NEEDS to commute to NYC from Philly! To what problem is that a solution worthy a $20B or so investment?
>>
This really needs to be addressed. One of the most prominent diseconomies of life in the "Bos-Wash corridor" is the yawning gap between where the jobs are and where the affordable housing is. The MARC has revolutionized the ability of entry-level professionals to actually buy a home (in Baltimore) while nurturing a career (in the District of Columbia). Likewise, truly rapid transit between Philadelphia and NYC would allow ambitious people to pursue grown-up NYC careers while being able to have a middle-class stake-- their own home with a yard perhaps, in Philadelphia. People are CRYING OUT FOR THIS. Yes, it is not a need, in the sense that living with your wife and a newborn in a studio apartment in Brooklyn is still human existence, but the lion's share of what governments provide to modern-day Western citizens are wants, not needs.
I know people who take the train from Baltimore to DC.
The distance is far less than Philly-NY but the relative populations are far lower too.
Do you really think it is important to take other people's money and subsidize yuppies living in Baltimore or Philly?
Why do people write stories like this?
It is absurd to think that the US is anything like Japan. OK, the US is kind of like France or Germany but it isn't really.
Let's talk about Japan.
How many non-poor people in New York do not have cars?
How many non-poor people in Philly don't have cars? Close to zero?
Baltimore? DC? Even fewer.
How many non-poor people in Tokyo do not have cars?
I have lived in Tokyo and only drove cars when I went on vacation to small towns. I never needed a car in Nagoya, Hiroshima, Kyoto, or Osaka.
Why do I only care about non-poor people and their cars? Because the poor people are not going to be taking a high speed rail.
HSR is a great idea and can factor in as a useful component of a holistic transit approach. The reduction of long car commutes and short airplane trips are worthy aims.
But to truly connect regions, there needs to be strong transit in the individual Metropolitan areas themselves. It's easy to speak of "Mega regions" in academic terms and the need to tie them together, but there needs to be a practical use for the rail systems. I lived in NYC for 20 years, and I encountered very few people who had even visited Philadelphia, much less had any interest in commuting there daily. Before we connect large cities to each other, we need to connect large cities with their own surrounding suburbs which will alleviate more immediate and tangible commuting needs.
The Portland, OR region is an excellent example of transit serving a Metropolitan region. A single transit system is used within Portland and also in the surrounding suburbs, tying the region together. That has to be the first step - HSR would be a subsequent development. There would be no point in getting dropped off at city X, only to have no way of getting to your exact destination. Car-related 'solutions' such as Park-and-Rides only offer an awkward compromise - there needs to be effective regional transportation on both ends of a larger HSR system.
1)As Rockfish pointed out, the travel times listed leave no time for intermediate stops. So either travel times are going to be longer than you have stated or a lot of those folks in flyover country just won't even bother with the train.
2) A lot of the time savings implicit in train travel lies in people not having to deal with airport security. Eventually there will most likely be a train-centered terrorist attack. Quite possibly the consequent security increase could make our train stations as bad as airports. But maybe not, European train stations are still much more open than airports... but how many billions am I willing to bet that train stations will stay that way?
3) Finally, how many of these destinations will require travelers to have a car to get around town? (Charlanta I'm looking at you.) Would an average traveler choose to ride a train 300 miles and then rent a car at his destination.... or would he decide it would just be cheaper to drive in his own car? I don't know the answer, but it seems an obvious question and is not even addressed.
People "commute" between Barcelona and Madrid (in the way "commute" is customarily used in the US, not as a synonym for "travel")?
Wow. How could someone come up with an analysis of HSR and ... split Cali in two?!
California, the state that once had the world's 4th largest economy until its association with the rest of the lagging US dragged it down to 8th or 9th; California, which sends 10s of billions of dollars a year to the federal government that it doesn't get back in services, meaning it is forced to support all those economically unviable "welfare states" (you know who you are).
I mean, how could Chicago and Pittsburgh (where?), at 463 miles apart, be lumped together as a mega-region and SF-LA, just 381 miles apart and in the same state, NOT be so designated? Someone's doing some stretching, methinks.
Anyway, unlike in the rest of the US, Californians don't need to wait for Obama. Our voters already approved a HSR system via ballot initiative in 2008. Yes, it's a somewhat underfunded initiative, but it's a start. Reuters reports: "California, with billions of dollars in voter-approved funds and extensive planning, is laying tracks for national high-speed rail implementation." And Californians weren't silly enough to create two separate "mega-region" train systems, instead uniting the state with CaliHSR.