Planning and Building Large-Scale Projects in the United States: California High-Speed Train Project Case Study

Abstract

In April 2009, President Obama outlined a vision for investment in an efficient network of high-speed intercity passenger rail services connecting major population centers from 100 to 500 miles apart. The U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) is working in partnership with individual states to plan and develop these high-speed and intercity passenger rail corridors that range from upgrades to existing services to entirely new rail lines exclusively devoted to 150 to 220 mph trains. This program of investments in rail transportation is a large-scale undertaking only matched in scope by the building of the interstate highway system. The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways took more than 30 years to be substantially completed. The highway building program benefited in the early years of its development from general political consensus, substantial federal involvement and partnership with the states, and the vocal and active advocacy of the program by President Eisenhower and all subsequent Administrations. Similarly, the true potential of a fully integrated high-speed intercity passenger rail network will not be achieved unless the same political consensus, federal-state partnerships, dedicated funding, and active involvement by President Obama and future Presidents is realized. This paper explores the planning protocols, environmental regulations, and political challenges facing high-speed rail program development in the United States by examining the experiences and sharing insights gained by two senior project managers working on the California high-speed rail project. It is concluded that the building of a true network of high-speed rail services in the United States has been unable to replicate the extraordinary achievement of the interstate highway system in the same time frame because of statutory and regulatory environmental requirements and the lack of political will and consensus.