Texas is finding out high-speed rail isn’t easy

Get daily news updates from CleanTechnica by email or follow us on Google News.

Recently, the federal government awarded Amtrak millions of dollars to build a high-speed rail line between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston, the state’s two largest metropolitan areas. The $64 million in funding should get previous plans back on track, but it won’t make Texas trains run faster.

California’s struggles mocked by Texas

California’s high-speed rail project, originally proposed as a landmark infrastructure project linking San Francisco and Los Angeles with intermediate stations, has become emblematic of the state’s struggles to undertake ambitious public works projects. Since being approved by voters in 2008 with a budget of $33 billion, the project has ballooned in cost and is now expected to exceed $100 billion, and significant delays have put the timeline for completion well beyond original expectations. The story reflects the problems that plague large infrastructure projects in the United States: a confluence of unrealistic cost estimates, political interference, and myriad technical challenges.

Land and route have been major obstacles. Political considerations have led to changes to the project’s route, which was meant to be simple, resulting in a less efficient route through the western Mojave Desert, adding cost and complexity. The detour is just one example of how projects have been shaped by political forces that often prioritize local interests over efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Such decisions not only increase financial burdens, but also extend the schedule, as each change requires new environmental impact studies, engineering evaluations, and community consultations.

The environmental and engineering challenges are similarly daunting. California’s diverse topography, from earthquake zones to the Central Valley’s subsidence zone, necessitates expensive solutions like elevated tracks and extensive tunneling. These modifications are necessary, but they significantly increase costs. Moreover, the project’s approach of beginning construction in the sparsely populated Central Valley, while economically beneficial for the region, delays construction of more complex and costly sections closer to urban centers like Los Angeles and San Francisco, which are the cities that stand to benefit most.

Lack of funding has also been a significant bottleneck. Despite voters initially approving the bond measure, the cost of the project has soared and is outpacing available funding. Federal support has been inconsistent, and while recent allocations have alleviated some of the gap between what is needed and what is available remains large. This funding gap has resulted in a piecemeal approach, with only sections such as Merced to Bakersfield likely to be completed in the near future, putting the full vision of a statewide high-speed rail network in doubt.

Conservatives (including Texans) have ridiculed the project, saying it proves California’s big-government approach is the source of delays and inflated costs. Ted Cruz, for example, has questioned the overall spending and direction of the project, and Greg Abbott has been skeptical of the cost. But they have avoided outright ridicule, given Texas’ struggles to build a private rail system. Others have been less hesitant.

According to the NYP, California’s high-speed rail line cost $11 billion to build and took about three years to complete.

1,600 feet. pic.twitter.com/1SvnaTaZ3Y

— unusual_whales (@unusual_whales) May 11, 2024

Texas hasn’t done anything in 10 years.

As I noted earlier, Texas politicians are hesitant to offer harsh criticism because they know that their state’s private approach also didn’t work.

The legal battle typified by the Texas Supreme Court’s eminent domain decision reveals fundamental tensions between private development interests and property rights, both of which are important to Texas politics. The decision upholding Texas Central’s eminent domain was seen as a victory, but it also highlighted deep-rooted opposition among some landowners and lawmakers, and highlighted how the state is divided over visions for its future transportation environment.

Financially, the project’s costs, which have ballooned from original estimates to more than $30 billion by 2020 and potentially even higher, point to a common infrastructure pitfall: underestimating the complexity and expense of such an endeavor. This financial inflation, combined with the reluctance of private investors and the state’s refusal to fund the project, has put Texas Central in a precarious position, forcing it to rely on federal grants, a partnership with Amtrak, and international interest, notably from Japan, to keep the dream alive.

Politically, the project has become a battleground. Some see it as a step toward a more sustainable future with less reliance on highways and air travel, while others see it as economic inefficiency and an unnecessary expansion of government power. A lack of broad political support, especially at the state level, has been a major obstacle, with critics arguing that the project’s benefits do not justify its costs, or that it benefits the few at the expense of the many.

A recent injection of federal funding for Amtrak’s participation and support from the Japanese government appears to have given the project a boost, but recent reports suggest that no earth is planned to be excavated until the 2030s. Strong opposition continues from politically influential local landowners, despite the inability to prevent forced land acquisition, and from businesses. 70% of the land still needs to be secured.

The sad truth: it’s not easy anywhere

While it may be fun to criticize California, Texas, and perhaps the entire United States for not yet building high-speed rail, the reality is that no country has ever had any trouble building one.

In Japan, the project was plagued by cost overruns, delays, engineering challenges and funding difficulties. When Taiwan (a former Japanese colony that gained de facto independence after World War II) adopted the technology, it faced the same challenges and setbacks, forcing it to abandon its original plans for a public-private partnership.

More recently, China built a world-famous high-speed rail system but has never paid for it; only a fraction of the lines are profitable, others struggle to maintain and run frequent services, and the promise of economic boosts from regional rail has largely gone unfulfilled.

Rather than writing all these projects off, it might be wise to be more realistic about high-speed rail: While it’s not a project that often generates profits, the indirect benefits of reduced emissions and easing congestion on major interurban highways make it worth the costs.

Featured image: Map of proposed high-speed rail routes in Texas. Image courtesy of Texas Central.