Debate continues over high-speed rail

Analysts look at land use, CO2

Steve Hawley, Aug 25, 09.

Harvard economist Edward Glaeser concludes his four-part New York Times series on high-speed rail, arguing that it would provide significant environmental and social benefits, but not enough to offset its operating costs. Streetsblog’s Ryan Avent disagrees with Glaeser’s methods and conclusions, arguing that his assumptions are short-sighted and overly simplistic and that high-speed rail will affect urban land use and population growth in coming decades.

In part three of his series, Glaeser uses a hypothetical Dallas-to-Houston line and concludes that high-speed rail emits about three-quarters less greenhouse gas emissions compared to cars or planes. By his calculations, one person making the 240-mile trip would generate roughly 157 pounds of carbon dioxide by car, 134 pounds by plane, and just 32 pounds by high-speed rail. Glaeser estimates that if the rail line generates no new travel, each trip would eliminate 113 pounds of carbon emissions per passenger. Rail travel between the two cities would also reduce traffic accidents and congestion, resulting in a total benefit of $21.63 million annually.

In part four, Glaeser argues that high-speed rail would not significantly alter land use patterns or urban growth, noting that Amtrak’s Acela line has not reversed Philadelphia’s population decline and that commuter rail has not changed land use in Atlanta. In fact, he asserts, a high-speed rail line could exacerbate sprawl by encouraging people to settle in cheap, outlying areas. Overall, he concludes, the social and environmental benefits of high-speed rail do not offset the operating costs.

Streetsblog’s Ryan Avent, however, disagrees with Glaeser. Avent notes that ridership could easily increase because both Houston and Dallas are rapidly expanding their rail systems. He also argues that Glaeser ignores any time-saving benefits of high-speed rail, which he says would make the costs and benefits roughly equal according to Glaeser’s calculations.

Avent also states that land use is highly dependent on city government policies:

If one builds a transit system and surrounds the stations with parking, then no, transit will not do very much to shift land uses. If one builds a rail line between cities that do not allow dense, mixed-use development patterns, well then those patterns won’t emerge, it’s safe to say.

So an important question to ask is how land use patterns have shifted after construction of rail or transit, in places where governments have facilitated a shift.

Avent concludes that high-speed rail is not just a matter of redirecting current development, but shaping future development as Houston, Dallas, and the entire United States all grow significantly in coming decades.