Taking the long view on high-speed rail

In the recent debate over high-speed rail, a lot of consideration has been given to the “last-mile” problem. The idea is that most cities are not dense enough or do not offer good enough transit to allow for transportation of the vast majority of passengers needing to travel to parts of the metro area other than that immediately in the vicinity of the train station. This is a legitimate concern.

A possible solution to this problem is better interagency cooperation to allow for better intracity transit connections. My hometown of Fort Worth has combined the train station serving both Amtrak and the commuter rail between Fort Worth and Dallas with the hub/transfer point for its bus system. A similar arrangement exists in Greensboro, NC. Putting the transit hub at the rail station does open up a far greater number of destinations throughout the city for rail passengers.

This probably doesn’t adequately solve the last mile problem, however, given the poor transit service overall in most cities, Fort Worth included.

However, there’s reason to believe that land use could intensify significantly around train stations if appropriate investments in train service are made (see a good post on this at the Transport Politic, who beat me to this idea). In Fort Worth, the rail station is located at the edge of downtown, in or near what may be referred to as the “zone of discard,” near a lot of vacant lots and surface parking. This is likely the case in many cities, given the effect of rail lines on land use (i.e., their tendency, in the past, to attract relatively large warehouse and industrial land uses). Many inner cities across the country are marked by these uses, many of which have been left vacant by shrinking industries. In addition, obviously, they usually lie adjacent to a large, pedestrian-friendly downtown area full of shops, offices, and restaurants, and sometimes even residences. Thus, redevelopment is a real possibility around these stations, with the additions of hotels and office space being likely. While not taking care of the last-mile problem, it would serve to pull travelers to destinations and amenities near rail stations to high-speed rail. It might also improve transit a little, in that it would conceivably create one more area of dense activity in the inner city and encourage increased or more frequent transit connections to that locale.

Related to this, investments in rail overall may not be immediately justifiable, as Glaeser showed in his cost-benefit analysis of a hypothetical line between Dallas and Houston. However, when one takes the long view it’s quite possible they could pay off in the long run, in that they break patterns of path dependency (read a post on this at Austin Contrarian). Such patterns are why they don’t compete well with road investments right now, and may blind us to increasing returns on high speed rail further down the road.

My guess is that any cost-benefit analysis over a longer time horizon would paint a far different picture of high-speed or other kinds of rail. For instance, Glaeser has used a 30-year depreciation schedule in costing out the capital outlay necessary for his hypothetical rail line (which is to say, in his analysis, each year’s costs includes 1/30th of the total cost of constructing the line, including inflation). While this is common in the development field, it may not be the appropriate approach for what would basically be a piece of public infrastructure. Another salient point is that a train trip is far different from one by plane or car, in that almost all of the travel time is useful. This adds to its appeal for people whose time is very valuable (some of whom work or live in the aforementioned downtown areas), those with unconventional or erratic schedules or work habits (think “creative class”), or those who just want to enjoy travel more. In my opinion, Glaser pretty heavily underestimates this point (he says the need to arrive at an airport early may add an hour, and largely neglects the idea of people switching to train travel from driving).

Furthermore, high-speed rail is a step in the right direction in terms of planning on a regional scale. “Megaregions” throughout the country appear to be increasing not just in size but in importance. High-speed rail initiatives have required collaboration between leaders of metropolitan areas between states, which will likely become increasingly necessary given the number of economic and social connections between mid-size to large metro areas 200 to 400 miles apart. It may also encourage efficient economic linkages by providing another viable, stable travel choice between metro areas (for example, a company with higher-level functions in one metro area and its back-office functions in another city 250 miles away).

While it’s no godsend, high-speed rail certainly has potential to reshape travel and become a meaningful, viable alternative for significant parts of the population. In light of this, calls to cancel plans for funding high-speed initiatives seem misguided; attempting to create the best possible rail system through discussion and analysis would be far more beneficial for the country’s urban areas.