Question Two: Did each case support the USHSR funding approach?
When examining the three case studies side by side, France has clearly been most successful in terms of funding efficiency. The TGV was originally funded by the SNFC, a state-owned company with a separate budget. After the original success of the first TGV line, the RFF was formed to take the infrastructure debt away from the SNFC; also, the government and European Union began to support funding projects for additional lines.
Japan’s funding approach provides a lesson easily avoidable by the United States. As stated in the case study, the initial funding approach for the Shinkansen in Japan derived from Japan National Railways (JNR), a state-owned company under the federal budget. From 1964 until the 1987 privatization, all Shinkansen expenditures fell upon the
federal budget, leading to massive debt. The massive debt was only exasperated by the high implementation cost from the need for a high number of tunnels for the most direct route between city centers. Following the 1987 privatization, splitting the Shinkansen cost between the JNR and six regional private enterprises, a much more economically successful system was developed. The high initial cost of HSR projects provides merit for a public-private funding approach.
The German funding approach was similar to the French approach in that the cost was split between private enterprises and the government; however, the legal and political processes to approve funding led to slowed progress and ultimately much higher cost. Each German HSR project must be approved by both houses in parliament, and then reviewed by a separate governmental branch (EBA- Eisenbahnbundesamt, the federal railway office, which also functions as the rail regulator), for funding approval. This is a lengthy process that not only slowed the overall progress of the implementation and raised the cost, but also hamstrung the government to produce HSR results more quickly as time went on, regardless of quality.
Overall, valuable lessons can be taken from each case study when applying to the US plan. France has had the most successful funding approach with a mixture of funding, and just as important, an incremental implementation scheme as to not compile debt in a short amount of time. Japan has had success due to high ridership despite the poor initial funding approach, placing all debt on the governmental budget. Lastly, the German political system hampered and even raised the cost of the funding approach due to the political and legal obstacles.
Question Three: Did each case have a regional implementation scheme?
The implementation of HSR is best implemented with an incremental scheme, keeping the vulnerability of the system at a minimum. Once again, the French implementation proved to be the most successful compared to the other two cases. Not only did the implementation of the different lines occur incrementally over time, there were also strict demographic regulations in place for urban qualifications. The TGV was only developed in cities with high population densities, assuring a high ridership before the line even opened. As stated in the funding section, this strategy also led to political and economic support from the French government and the EU, once the economic benefits and potential were realized.
Originally, Japan was extremely aggressive with plans for Shinkansen implementation once the original 1964 line was deemed a success. However, JNR’s over committed attitude to producing HSR lines as quickly as possible led to the large accruement of debt. The Shinkansen lines were eventually implemented incrementally at a regional basis and deemed successful due to the high ridership, but only because of line selection. Like France, the Shinkansen lines were placed only along corridors between cities with large populations, allowing for almost certain strong economic returns despite the high construction costs.
The goal of the German ICE developers was not to implement the lines at the regional level; rather, the goal was to develop national lines developed for both HSR and freight travel as quickly as possible. The result of this strategy was the development of ICE lines in cities with low population densities, leading to lower ridership percentages and the need for more stops between major cities. Although the lines were developed
incrementally due to high construction costs, there were no demographic requirements, leading to a less successful HSR system compared to France and Japan.
Question Four: Did each case support other transportation sectors?
By implementing high-speed lines at the regional level (600 miles or less), France and Japan have been successful in both displacing and supporting the air and auto transportation sectors. From 1981 on, the TGV has been successful in diminishing air and auto travel at the regional level, while dominating the market share. Despite the competition and the intermediate range, France has been successful in supporting the air sector for long distance travel. There are numerous TGV stations located in airports, allowing for passengers to purchase one ticket for long distance flights, intermediate TGV travel, and local transit. However, there has not been a strong push by the TGV network to help support the auto sector.
In Japan, the 1964 implementation of the Shinkansen allowed for regional market share dominance from the very beginning due to the lack of an established air sector in the country. The size of the country has allowed the Shinkansen to dominate the overall regional transportation sector. Also, the mountainous geographic layout along with the high population density in cities allows for high-speed rail to have advantageous traveling abilities that the other two sectors do not have. However, by sticking at the regional level, the Shinkansen has supported the other two sectors by allowing for long distance flights and short distance car travel. There is also an even stronger push in Japan for increased auto transportation compared to other countries; the major bridges of the Seto Ohashi (1987) and Akashi Kaikyo (1998) have been constructed to promote road travel.
Instead of having the choice between supporting or dominating the other two transportation sectors, the German ICE has been preoccupied with simply staying in competition with air and auto. For air competition, there is an ever-growing preference towards air travel due dropping air ticket prices, high rail traffic (ICE and freight), and the many stops the ICE trains must make due to low population density. The lack of a speed limit and highway tolls are also contributing to lower ridership percentages for the ICE compared to the TGV and Shinkansen; making the auto travel option at the regional level more convenient than in other countries.
Overall, supporting the other two transportation sectors throughout a given country is vital to the overall success of its economy. France and Japan have both remained within the regional level for high-speed rail travel, leaving air for the long distance and cars and other forms of local transit for short distance travel. Germany has struggled to compete with the other two sectors due to the high amount of traffic on the rails from the freight service and the high number of stops between major urban centers.
Question Five: Did each case develop transit-oriented development?
When it comes to transit-oriented development, connecting the high-speed systems to local transit systems and local economy in a close proximity, France and Japan are far above Germany. France has focused on connecting the TGV to the local transit systems throughout the country; as stated above, since 1985, France has
implemented 20 light rail city tram systems in and outside of Paris, with most of them directly connected to a TGV line. Also stated above, the TGV stations located in airports connect international travelers to the train. France has established transit-oriented development thoroughly through connecting the TGV to both local and long distance travelers. Japan’s city-centered rail stations have made transit-oriented development come naturally. Shinkansen has always been thoroughly connected to local transit such has suburban railway, subway, bus, and taxi services.
As for Germany, the lack of transit-oriented development has once again come down to the lack of ridership and low population densities in urban centers. The low populations require more stations due to the dispersed people; therefore resulting in lower ridership percentages. This combination has led to a lack of transit-oriented development in the lower populated centers. However, in the largest city, Berlin, the transit-oriented development is well established with local transit and local businesses surrounding the ICE station. These case studies provide further merit as to why HSR should only be developed in higher populated cities in order to fully enhance transit-oriented development around the station.
Question Six: Did each case develop a mixed rail infrastructure?
In the examination of infrastructure, each case study provided different results, revealing important lessons to be applied to the United States. France has developed a system of mixed rail in a different form; instead of allowing conventional trains to run on designated the high-speed track, they simply made the high-speed trains compatible for
conventional lines. France proved to have a successful system since the newer lines were designated strictly for the TGV trains; however, the TGV trains could travel onto conventional lines at slower speeds if needed, resulting in a minimum number of stops and increasing reliability. Not only has the TGV system been cost effective in terms of cost per mile, it has also proven cost effective due to its ability to connect to other European lines, enhancing economic gains.
Japan has developed a monorail infrastructure system with high-speed designated lines and Shinkansen trains. Allowing for mixed infrastructure would be cost effective in most countries; however, due to the extremely high population density of Japanese cities, there was no need for mixed infrastructure. As stated above in the Japan case study, three additional characteristics led to a cost effective monorail system. First, in order to create the most direct path between city centers, many tunnels were required, creating the need for new track to be laid. Second, frequent earthquakes, heavy rains, and weak ground on the plains are safety risks. Using conventional, aging lines at higher speeds is a safety hazard that cannot be risked. Third, with Japan’s high environmental regulations in terms of emission and noise pollution standards, new upgraded infrastructure became the most cost-effective route. These factors, along with the high population density of the cities, led to a monorail system.
Germany has developed the most traditional mixed rail infrastructure for the ICE: lines that are compatible for both high-speed and freight trains. As stated throughout the paper, this infrastructure has led a much less successful system compared to France and Japan. First, the need for freight lines across the country led to development of high-speed lines in areas with low populations where they were not necessary. This has led to
frequent stops and slow trip times. Second, the mixed infrastructure has led to higher implementation costs. And third, the mixed infrastructure has led to more rail traffic on the ICE lines, also resulting in slower trip times. The United States can learn from the successes of France and Japan, while also learning from the mistakes from Germany.
Summary
This section has compared each case study to the list of questions related to the United States high-speed plan. There are numerous points of each study that provide insight into the strength of the current US plan. The following section will provide a summary of the lessons learned that can be used in regards to the United States HSR plan. Some lessons learned are in direct correlation with the current plan, while others vary and provide further insight into important HSR issues.
Lessons Learned
Lesson One: Develop a mixed funding approach
Based on the funding lessons provided by the three case studies, there is strong merit for the United States to keep the mixed funding approach they have in place. The current structure calls for regions to submit applications for governmental funding grants; the plan also provides DOT cooperative agreements. This approach allows for a mixture of private spending, matched by government agreements and further bolstered by grants. This approach avoids placing too much financial pressure on either sector. France has been and continues to be successful in their mixed funding approach; also, Japan has been able to relieve much of their financial pressure once the privatization and mixed approach took hold.
Germany provides a valuable funding lesson in the political sense; the United States cannot have an over-extensive funding approval system. The German approval system has proven both timely and costly due to the need for both houses of parliament to approve implementation plans. The United States plan calls for the Department of Transportation to review each regional application, entrusting the department to make the right decision. There is no need for Congress to pass each and every application of high-speed lines; the DOT will provide the proper insight and review in a timely fashion. Overall, USDOT has developed a thorough mixed funding approach with a sound and timely review procedure.
Lesson Two: Develop incrementally at the regional level, with demographicrequirements
The most important lesson that the three case studies provide is the need for implementation only in cities with high population densities. Germany has shown that the development in cities with low population densities leads to low ridership, frequent stops, and high costs; therefore, there is merit for HSR lines to only be developed in cities with populations of a minimum of 500,000 people. This provides the largest potential for a high ridership contribution.
Another lesson provided by the case studies is that US HSR lines should only be developed at the regional level, with distances no longer than 600 miles. The DOT plan calls for implementation between the 100 and 600 mile range; based on the cases, this is an appropriate range, allowing for the support of the other transportation sectors while displacing the unnecessary short flights and long car trips. Each region of the United States should be treated likes its own country in the European Union in terms of implementation strategy; however, these basic implementation strategy requirements for all would lead to a better HSR system on the whole.
Finally, it is important for the HSR systems to be developed incrementally. The geographic size of the United States will require large economic investments from the federal government for each region. If there is a large total investment in a short amount of time, the amount of financial pressure that will fall upon the DOT will be similar to that of the Japanese debt set backs. Therefore, it is important to implement the projects incrementally, developing the regions with the most promising plans and demographics
before the others. This strategy will present a clear window for the DOT to evaluate the successfulness of the initial implementation projects, reducing the vulnerability of collapse.
Lesson Three: Support Air and Auto by staying at the regional level
When it comes having a comprehensive transportation system in a nation as large as the United States, there is no “silver bullet” technology that can dominate cost effectively over all distances of travel. In other words, HSR cannot look to dominate short, intermediate, and long distance travel; therefore, HSR implementation should support the air and auto sectors by remaining at the regional level among cities with high populations.
Air and auto are both large contributors to the overall US economy; neglect of these sectors from DOT would be an ineffective way to answer the transportation energy problems. Long distance HSR may not be able to compete with air due to slower speeds and ticket pricing. Also, Americans have developed a cultural norm of individualized car travel; to neglect that sector could result in a poor HSR system. Therefore, each region developing HSR travel in between highly populated urban centers would provide the highest potential to develop the most cost effective transportation system.
Lesson Four: Include transit-oriented development into HSR proposal
France and Japan have provided valuable insight into how an interconnected high-speed rail system to local transit, long distance transit, and local economies can enhance ridership and economic gains. In contrast, Germany has proven that lower population
densities will result in a lack of transit-oriented development and a lack of economic potential. Therefore, there is merit for each region to be required by the Department of Transportation to include transit-oriented development plans that will enhance connectivity to local transit systems and local economies. The requirement of these plans could provide the largest opportunity to produce the most cost effective solution to the question of the enhancements a high-speed train can provide a community and region.
Lesson Five: Do not implement infrastructure using both high-speed and freight The successes of France and Japan, along with the failures of Germany, have
provided valuable lessons on HSR infrastructure. One of the main pillars for success of a high-speed train system is reliability; based on the case studies, a mixed rail infrastructure using HSR and freight on the same tracks reduces the HSR reliability due to increased traffic. This infrastructure has also proven to be more costly. Therefore, using the same lines for freight and high-speed should not be permitted in the US.
Each region of the U.S. is different in terms of demographics and geography; therefore, each region should decide which infrastructure is best. The TGV infrastructure may provide merit in regions with a high amount of conventional lines in place; this would allow for the high-speed trains to run on their designated lines and conventional lines if need be. In areas with higher population densities, there may be merit for a monorail system similar to the Shinkansen lines. Overall, the lessons from the case’s make it clear that a system of designated lines may be the best option for the US high-speed train systems.
Conclusions
Limitations of the Study
There are three limiting factors of this study that need to be taken into account. First, this study is a mere prediction of what the US HSR implementation will be like based on the implementation plan and the case studies. Although France, Japan, and Germany reveal valuable lessons, providing examples and great successes and failures, there exist societal differences between the case studies and the US that should not be ignored.
Second, the time and resources that have been allocated towards this study have limitations. Due to the nature of the requirements, the time allotted for study has been limited compared to what other research opportunities might provide. Also, the lack of resources in terms of funds and collection methods is a limiting factor.
Third, and in direct correlations with the lack of time and resources, the collection of information came from secondary sources, resulting in the reliance of accuracy of information in what other authors provided.
Overall, the limitations of the study are kept to a minimum because of the strength of internal and external validity from conducting a multiple case study. The multiple case study improves internal validity by adding multiple countries of study to examine the success of each implementation strategy; examining multiple countries strengthens the questions that are posed. This in turn strengthens the external validity by making the
study more generalizable to other countries if the study were continued; allowing for the same questions to be examined regardless of the nations high-speed system.
Future Research
There are many opportunities for continuation of research directly branching off this project. With further time and resources, some future studies that would prove valuable include: a pricing analysis to examine the price competitiveness of HSR compared to flights and car travel; an ecological footprint analysis including the environmental impacts of a high-speed train; a study on the different fuel sources that can be used to power a high-speed train, including renewable sources; and last, a continuation of the multiple case study by examining additional countries that have implemented HSR. These additional aspects of research would provide further comparative questions to be applied to the analysis if the US implementation plans, resulting in the strengthening of the high-speed system as a whole.
Final Comments
It is important to understand that this project was not established to create a comprehensive implementation plan for high-speed rail in the United States; rather, this project intended on observing the depth and quality of the current implementation strategy and making additional recommendations by comparing it with France, Japan, and Germany. Overall, after the comparisons, there are some clear successes of the US plan, along with some failures. The successes include the regional implementation strategy in cities with moderate to high population density; however, the plan lacks a
specific required population number. DOT was also successful in developing a mixed funding approach with the cooperation of private and public expenditures. Lastly, the plan was successful in the continuation of support for the air and auto sector, with an attempt to enhance transit-oriented development.
Upon completion of the case studies, the analysis provided insight into two major holes of the US HSR plan. First, with partial funding being placed upon the government, it is vital for HSR to be developed incrementally; developing all regional projects in a short amount of time will result in a drastic financial burden for the US government. Second, the plan states that an eventual national HSR system will be completed; however, there isn’t a need for a HSR system from coast to coast. The travel time and ticket prices will not be competitive with air, resulting in a large waste of resources on track in low populated regions. With the recommendations stated above implanted into the DOT plan, HSR has the opportunity to be an economic, social, and environmental success in the United States.
References
Annual Report 2005. (n.d.).. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from
http://www.westjr.co.jp/english/english/company/con02/library/annual/2005/c06. html
Arduin, J., & Ni, J. (n.d.). French TGV Network Development. JRTR.net. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr40/f22_ard.html
BBC NEWS | Europe | French trains 'hit by sabotage'. (2007, March 21). BBC News -
Home. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7105045.stmBilous, A. (1997, February 28). Railways' operating functions and network
responsibilities to be split. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Retrieved January 26, 2012, fromhttp://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/1997/02/inbrief/fr9702113n.htm
Briney, A. (2009, July 26). High Speed Trains - Overview of High Speed Trains.
Geography Home Page - Geography at About.com. Retrieved May 16, 2011,
from http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/highspeedtrains.html
Campos, J., & Rus, G. d. (2009, March 18). Some stylized facts about high-speed rail: A
review of HSR experiences around the world 10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.008: Transport Policy | ScienceDirect.com. ScienceDirect.com | Search through over
10 million science, health, medical journal full text articles and books.. RetrievedFebruary 21, 2012, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X09000109
Claussen, Eileen and Peace, Janet (2007). Energy Myth Twelve-Climate Policy Will Bankrupt the U.S. Economy: Energy and American society - thirteen myths. Pew
Center on Climate Change.
Dutzik, T., Schneider, J., Baxandall, P., & Steva, E. (n.d.). A Track Record of Success High-Speed Rail Around the World and Its Promise for America. U.S. PIRG Education Fund. Retrieved January 10, 2012, fromwww.studentpirgs.org/sites/student/files/reports/A-Track-Record-of-Success-
US.pdf
Edmonds, Jae, Scott, Michael, Roop, Joseph, and MacCracken, Christopher (1999).
International Emissions Trading and Global Climate Change. Pew Center
On Global Climate Change.
Gleaves, S. D. (n.d.). High Speed Rail International Comparisons. Scribd. Retrieved
February 21, 2012, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/39653990/High-Speed-Rail-International-Comparisons
Gourvish, T. (n.d.). The High Speed Rail Revolution: History and Prospects. Webarchives.gov.uk. Retrieved January 29, 2012, fromwebarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110131042819/http:/www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/
rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/historyandprospects/pdf/report.pdf
Grunwald, M. (2010, July 19). Bullet Trains: Obama Spends Billions on High-Speed Rail
-- Printout -- TIME. Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com. Retrieved April 3, 2012, from
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2002523,00.html Hansen, J.: 2005a. A Slippery Slope: Climate Change. 68, 269-279. [online]
www.columbia.edu/~jehl/hansen_slippery.pdf, accessed July 2006.
ICE high-speed train Germany. (n.d.). Eurail - Travel Europe by Train with your Eurail Pass | Eurail.com. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from
http://www.eurail.com/planning/trains-and-ferries/high-speed-trains/ice KYUSHU SHINKANSEN KAGOSHIMA ROUTE, KYUSHU, JAPAN. (n.d.). Omega
Centre. Retrieved February 2, 2012, fromwww.omegacentre.bartlett.ucl.ac.uk/studies/cases/pdf/JAPAN_SHINKANSEN_ 2P_080911.pdf
Kagiyama, R. (n.d.). Japan’s High-Speed Rail System Between Osaka and Tokyo and Commitment to Maglev Technology: A Comparative Analysis with
California’s High Speed Rail Proposal Between San Jose/San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies. Retrieved January 12, 2012,
from www.transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/education/alumni/capstones/2000kagiyama.pdf
Lee, Y. S. (n.d.). A STUDY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND ISSUES CONCERNING HIGH SPEED RAIL (HSR). Transport Studies Unit Oxford University Centre for the Environment. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from
www.tsu.ox.ac.uk/pubs/1020- lee.pdf
Lim, L. (2011, September 26). From Progress To Problem: China's High-Speed Trains: NPR. NPR: National Public Radio: News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts: NPR. Retrieved November 9, 2011, fromhttp://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140703132/from-progress-to-problem-chinas-
high-speed-trains
Miller, J. (n.d.). Amtrak, Off Track. Boston University. Retrieved May 16, 2011,
from http://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/opinion/amtrak.htm
Morgan. (2010, March 30). China’s High Speed Rail Boom – a New Era of Mobility. JP Morgan. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from
www.jpmorgan.com/.../Satellite?...China’s_High_Speed_ Rail_Boom Najafi, F. T., & Nassar, F. E. (n.d.). Comparison of High-Speed Rail and Maglev
Systems. Civil Engineering Database | ASCE. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?101428
Nuclear Power in France | French Nuclear Energy. (n.d.). World Nuclear Association | Nuclear Power - a Sustainable Energy Resource. Retrieved February 11, 2012,from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
Obermauer, A. (n.d.). National Railway Reform in Japan and the EU: Evaluation of Institutional Changes. Japan Railway and Transport Review. Retrieved February 4, 2012, from www.jrtr.net/jrtr29/pdf/f24_obe.pdf
Okada, H. (n.d.). Features and Economic and Social Effects of The Shinkansen. JRTR.net. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from
http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr03/f09_oka.html
Rignot, E. and Kanagaratnam, P (2006). Changes in Velocity Structure of the
Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 311: 986-990.
Romm, Joseph (2007). Energy Myth Four-The Hydrogen Economy is a Panacea to the Nation’s Energy Problems: Energy and American society - thirteen myths. Center for Energy & Climate Solutions.
Selcraig, B. (2010, August 16). A Track to the Future | Miller-McCune. Smart Journalism. Real Solutions. Miller-McCune.. Retrieved May 16, 2011, fromhttp://www.miller-mccune.com/politics/taking-high-speed-trains-into-the-future-
20305/
Sovacool, B. K., & Brown, M. A. (2007). Energy and American society - thirteen myths.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Stanley. (2011, May 15). Chinese High Speed Rail on the Economic Fast Track. Morgan Stanley Blue Paper. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from
linkback.morganstanley.com/web/sendlink/webapp/BMServlet?file=ceucd172-3o3v-g001-8670-d8d3855a5600&store=0&user=9zqukidmp0v-
1&__gda__=1431656706_55518d370c7b6c221beab9a29647da9b.
Summary of Energy Independence and Security Act | Laws and Regulations | US EPA. (2011, March 2). US Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved April 21,
2011, from http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/eisa.html
Taniguchi, M. (1992). High Speed Rail in Japan: A Review and Evaluation of the Shinkansen Train. California High Speed Rail Series, 1. Retrieved January 9, 2012, from http://www.uctc.net/papers/103.pdf
TGV Map of All the lines. (n.d.). tgv reservation: timetable, maps and tgv tickets reservation on bonjourlafrance.net. Retrieved May 16, 2011, fromhttp://www.bonjourlafrance.com/france-trains/tgv-map.htm
USDOT. (2000). Assessment of Risks for High-Speed Rail Grade Crossings on the Empire Corridor. United Stated Department of Transportation. Retrieved October 18, 2011, from www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/research/rdv0005.pdf
USDOT. (2009). Vision for High Speed Rail in America. United States Department of Transportation. Retrieved September 18, 2011, from
www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf
US High Speed Rail Association. (n.d.). US High Speed Rail Association. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from http://www.ushsr.com/ushsr.html
Velicogna, Isabella and Wahr, John (2006). Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica: Science 311: 1754-1765.
Vickerman, R. (n.d.). The Annals of Regional Science, Volume 31, Number 1 – SpringerLink. SpringerLink - electronic journals, protocols and books.. Retrieved January 12, 2012, from
http://www.springerlink.com/content/1adwcth72mq3l5jr/
Yin, Robert K.. Case study research: design and methods. 4. ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.: Sage, 2009. Print.
