Dive Brief:
- With two high-speed rail projects under construction in the U.S. and many others in the planning stages, a study published Monday by New York University's Marron Institute of Urban Management cautions that “domestic high-speed rail’s future depends on acknowledging that existing institutions and practices have not produced the desired outcomes.”
- The study, based on interviews with 66 experts in the field, makes five recommendations for the federal government, industry, universities and project leaders at the state and local levels to accelerate the process of implementing high-speed rail projects.
- “There is an opportunity to transform intercity travel and American cities” by following the recommendations laid out in the report, the study concludes.
Dive Insight:
“We at Amtrak are entirely supportive of this [study],” said Andy Byford, senior vice president of high-speed rail and development at Amtrak, calling into a webinar held about the report Monday. Byford added that Amtrak will publish its high-speed rail strategy by the end of July.
The study focuses on projects that meet the International Union of Railways’ definition of high-speed rail: new lines that allow speeds of at least 155 mph. That includes the California High-Speed Rail Authority’s Los Angeles-San Francisco project, Brightline West’s Las Vegas-Southern California line and Texas Central’s proposed Dallas-Houston route.
“We’ve been trying to develop high-speed rail in the U.S. for a long time. We have not really succeeded,” Eric Goldwyn, study author and a professor of transportation and land use at the Marron Institute, said during the webinar.
The study’s five recommendations call for the federal government to commit to long-term funding and staffing, for the industry to adopt technical standards set by the U.S. Department of Transportation; for stronger ties among universities and industry; for project sponsors to invest in staff to develop and manage well-defined projects; and for separating the planning process from environmental reviews.
“You need a real federal commitment to doing this,” Goldwyn said. The report notes that earlier efforts to promote high-speed rail under the Clinton and Obama administrations failed to gain ongoing support. Passenger rail lacks long-term funding through mechanisms such as the Highway Trust Fund, he said.
Regarding the final recommendation, Goldwyn said that internationally, planning is independent of permitting. In the U.S., however, the typical process under the National Environmental Policy Act requires a federal agency to include a range of alternatives that accomplish the proposed project’s goals. According to the study, this results in “Allowing the threat of litigation to delay project schedules, initiate an unending cycle of design changes, [and] embolden third parties to tack on betterments to project scopes.”
Project planners need to be able to separate those processes, the study says, which will require “support from governors, state legislatures, and the federal agencies awarding billions of dollars in grants to construct nationally significant projects.”
