Consideration of high-speed rail service in the United States

Trmpn. Res.-A. Vol. 23.4 No. 5. pp, 359-365. 1989 Printed in Great Britain.

0191-260749 $Xlo + .I,0 D 1989 Psrgamon Press plc

CONSIDERATION OF HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE IN THE UNITED STATES D AVID C. N I C E Department of Political Science, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99163 U.S.A.

(Received 29 April 1988; in revised form 22 February 1989) Abstract-A number of states have placed high-speed rail service on their institutional agendas in recent years. Analysis of why some states have been giving serious consideration to the possibility of highspeed rail service while other states have not examined economic and political forces. as well as the transportation problem environment and established transportation commitments. States paying serious attention to high-speed rail service tend to have large populations and large land areas, two of the most fundamental aspects of the transportation task environment.

INTRODUCTION

1977, pp. 13-15), as the Japanese and many EuroA combination of private decisions and public pol- pean electrified rail systems demonstrate. Although the national government has received icies has given the United States a transportation considerable attention for its actions regarding ensystem that is almost,entirely powered by petroleum ergy-related transportation issues, the states have fuels (Warren, 1982, p. 157). The high petroleum requirements of the transportation system have con- not remained on the sidelines. Their stake in the tributed to the decline in U.S. oil reserves since 1970 issue is an outgrowth of their longstanding, major (see World Almanac, 1983, p. 133) and fostered sub- responsibilities in the transportation field, as well as stantial U.S. dependence on petroleum imports. the localized effects of transportation systems (on Some observers regard that dependence as a source the latter point, see Allen and Vellenga, 1983, p. 17; of considerable vulnerability (Cochran, Mayer, Carr, Maze, Cook, and Carter, 1984, p. 17). One aspect and Cayer, 1986, p. 66). A major, prolonged dis- of the state role is active consideration of high-speed ruption in the supply of imported oil would seriously rail service. A number of states have given serious considerimpair the U.S. transportation system. A variety of strategies for reducing the petroleum ation to the creation of high-speed passenger rail requirements of the transportation system exist. They systems in recent years (Malone, 1986). The states include improving the fuel efficiency of oil-powered considering high-speed rail service are a fairly divehicles, development and production of non-petro- verse group, from New York and California to Florleum liquid fuels, conversion of oil-powered modes ida and New Mexico.? The technologies being conto electric power (not petroleum generated) where sidered are similarly diverse, from diesel-powered that is feasible, and shifting emphasis to transpor- service between Detroit and Chicago to bullet trains tation modes that do not require oil fuels. Public and even Maglev (magnetic levitation) service bepolicies regarding those options have been remark- tween Las Vegas and Los Angeles (for an overview of the options, see U.S. Passenger Rail Technologies, ably unstable in recent years (see Dye, 1984, pp. 184-194). Other longer-term options are being ex- 1983). Maglev technology offers the prospect of plored as welI, including noncontact electrification speeds of 250 miles per hour (Malone, 1986. pp. 42, 47-48). The following analysis will seek to explain rail and road travel and solar-powered vehicles. One strategy for reducing the petroleum needs of why some states have given serious consideration to the passenger transportation system involves placing high-speed passenger rail service while other states greater reliance on passenger rail service. Passenger have not. A potentially significant complication in this analtrains have comparatively high energy efficiency when passenger loads are high, at least at moderate speeds ysis is Amtrak’s efforts to provide high-speed rail (National Transportation Statistics, 1984, pp. 122- service in the Northeast Corridor. Although sched128). High-speed rail service, with its more rapid uled speeds on the Boston-New York se-went reacceleration and greater air resistance, though, would main modest (overall average speeds being approxcertainly require more energy than conventional imately 60 miles per hour, Boston-New Haven, and service. More important, however, electric trains just under 52 miles per hour, Boston-New York can utilize energy produced from coal, hydroelectric plants, or nuclear generators. The nation could protThe states include California, Florida, Georgia. Illinois, vide mobility while considerably reducing the need Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico. New York, Ohio. Pennfor petroleum (see Alston, 1984, pp. 18,35; Craven, sylvania, and Texas (Malone, 1986). 359

D. C.

360

City), the New York-Washington, D.C., segment has maximum speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour and an overall average scheduled speed exceeding 84 miles per hour on the fastest run (Amtrak National Train Timetables, 1988). States already served by the New York-Washington segment (New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland) may already be receiving sufficient high-speed service and, consequently, may have less need for state action. However, none of those states has more than five stations served by the current Amtrak system (Northeast Corridor), and all of the stops within those states are quite concentrated geographically: none of the stops within a single state is more than 62 miles from another stop in the same state. In addition, two of those five states are among the group exploring high-speed rail service on their own, a pTOportion much higher than the nation as a whole. All of the states in the Corridor, then, may still need additional high-speed service. POLICY AGENDAS

Policy researchers have long known that agenda stating, the process of selecting issues to receive attention, is a critical phase of the policy making process (see Bachrach and Baratz, 1970, pp. 6-9; Cobb and Elder, 1972; Crenson, 1971). Problems that fail to reach the political agenda are unlikely to be acted upon, at least in any deliberate fashion (Peters, 1986, p. 39). The institutional agenda, which includes issues receiving serious attention from public officials or agencies (Anderson, 1984, p. 48; Cobb and Elder, 1972, p. 86), is particularly crucial in that regard. A problem that concerns some segment of the public but has not reached the attention of public officials is unlikely to be resolved by government. High-speed rail service, which for present purposes will be service with a scheduled average speed of 90 miles per hour or more, has reached the institutional agenda in 11 states, although the nature of the recognition given the issue varies from state to state. Some states have created task forces or authorities, some of which include private sector representatives as well as public officials. Activity in other states is concentrated in state transportation departments, particularly in planning staffs, or in state legislative committees. Private organizations have also helped to direct officials’ attention to the possibility of high-speed rail service in some states (Malone, 1986). High-speed rail service is regarded as on the institutional agenda if it has been given active study or consideration by a public body, such as a legislative committee or public authority, or by a joint public-private body, such as a task force. INFLUENCES ON THE AGENDA

A variety of factors might help to determine whether high-speed rail service reaches the institutional agenda. The literature suggests that the avail-

NICE

ability of economic resources, political forces, the problem environment, and the dynamics of individual policy arenas may all shape the agenda-setting process. Economic forces

Policy research has concluded that the availability of economic resources affects many policy decisions (Dye, 1966). Where available resources are straining to meet existing program commitments, officials may be reluctant to open the door to additional costly programs. Affluence can provide the means for studying possible new initiatives as well as the capability for financing them if they are adopted (Walker, 1969, p. 833). The high-speed rail systems under consideration involve substantial investments with price estimates of up to seven billion dollars (Malone, 1986, p. 42). This perspective suggests that wealthier states should be more likely to place highspeed rail on the institutional agenda, for officials have little to gain from raising expectations that the state cannot afford to fulfill. In a related vein, states with larger tourist industries may be more likely to consider high-speed rail service (see Malone, 1986, p. 49). Two considerations may be at work. First, to the degree that tourists use the high-speed rail system, their ticket revenues will, in effect, permit the state to export part of the cost of the system to nonresidents. Second, a high-speed rail system may facilitate tourist access for individuals who are unable to fly or drive and serve as a hedge against highway and airport congestion (for evidence of a similar tendency for state subsidies of Amtrak service, see Nice, 1986, pp. 56.5 566). An alternative possibility, however, is that states may perceive a high-speed rail system as a mechanism for promoting economic growth (Malone, 1986, pp. 42, 47). Available evidence indicates that transportation investments do facilitate economic development (Dye, 1980). In this view, less affluent states and states with smaller tourist industries may pay greater attention to high-speed rail service as a means for promoting economic growth and tourist industry expansion. The evidence supports the first line of argument rather than the second (see Table l).t Only 10% of fThe ooint biserial correlations in Table 1 and other tables are calculated directly from the individual state values on each independent variable and are, therefore, unaffected by the categorizations (high and low per capita income, for example) used in the tables. The maximum value of the point biserial correlation tends to be depressed, however, when the dichotomous variable is unevenly distributed, as in this analysis (see Schmidt, 1979, pp. 167169). When Tables l-4 are revised to include all the states on the New York City-Washington, D.C., corridor among the states interested in high-speed rail service, the general patterns remain quite stable although some of the relationships are slightly stronger.

361

High-speed rail service in the United States Table 1, Economic factors and high-speed rail interest Per capita income. 1982i $10,400 or lower High-speed rail interest

High Low

10% 90

(2) (19)

10,600 or higher 31% 69

(9) (20)

100 100 Gamma = .62; point biserial correlation = .15. Spending by tourists, 1982;

High-speed rail interest

High Low

$3.S billion or less

$3.9 billion or more

(3) 8% 92% (34)

62% 38%

(5) (5)

100 100 Gamma = .90; point biserial correlation = .51. t World Almanac, 1983, p. 116. $ World Almanac, 1983, pp. 607-63 1.

the less affluent states have placed high-speed rail service on the institutional agenda. but 31% of the more affluent states have (“high interest” states have placed high-speed rail on the institutional agenda; see footnote on p. 360). States with larger tourist industries are much more likely to display serious Interest in high-speed rail service as well; however, the tourism-high-speed rail connection is only found for total tourism spending. When tourism spending is measured per capita, the relationship essentially vanishes (data not shown). That pattern suggests that either the total size of the tourist industry, not its size relative to the state’s population, is critical or state population is influencing state interest in the issue. The latter possibility will be examined shortly.

innovations, consideration of additional innovations is likely to be less traumatic-indeed, additional innovations may come to be expected (Walker, 1971, pp. 369-370). Where officials and the public cling tenaciously to past practices, by contrast, consideration of relatively bold initiatives is likely to be discouraged. Officials in those states may fear the criticism that bold initiatives may trigger and may believe that major changes have so little chance of passage as to be unworthy of consideration. A final political factor that may shape the agenda is interparty competition. Where the parties compete on fairly even terms, officials are under greater pressure to bid for votes. Consequently, competitiveness encourages the raising of issues for public attention (Schattschneider, 1960, pp. 12, 16). Officials in POlitically competitive environments. then, may have a greater incentive to give attention to high-speed rail service, which could create jobs, enhance mobility, and create favorable publicity for the state. The evidence provides modest support for the political perspective (see Table 2). High-speed rail service is more likely to reach the institutional agenda in states with relatively liberal opinion climates, as indicated by public opinion surveys that asked respondents to identify themselves as liberals, modTable 2. Political characteristics and high-speed rail interest Electoral conservatism:

High-speed rail interest

High Low

.I7 or lower

.1X or higher

28% 72%

12% 88%

(9) (23)

(ii;

100 100 Gamma = - .47; point biserial correlation = - .17. Savage innovation ranking2 Bottom 20

Political forces

Political factors also shape political agendas in several respects. First, public views regarding the appropriate scope of governmental activity may encourage or discourage giving consideration to various issues (Anderson, 1984, p. 51; Cobb and Elder, 1972, p. 93). Ideological conservatism, with its emphasis on limiting governmental activity (Sargent, 1981, pp. 6%67), is likely to discourage placing high-speed rail service, with its considerable cost and prospects for competing with private transportation firms, on the institutional agenda. Liberalism, with its broader view of public responsibilities, may increase officials’ willingness to consider the option of high-speed rail service. In a related vein, innovativeness may shape the institutional agenda. The American states vary considerably in the speed with which they adopt new programs (Savage, 1978; Walker, 1969). Where public officials and the general public are accustomed to discovering, adopting, and implementing policy

High-speed rail interest

High Low

15% 8.5%

(3) (17)

Top 28 29% 71%

(8) (20)

100 100 Gamma = .39; point biserial correlation = .04. Party competition$ One-party and modified oneparty High-speed rail interest

High Low

15% 85%

(4) (23)

Two-party 30% (7) 70% (16)

iz-100 Gamma = .43; point biserial correlation = .03. +Wright, Erikson, and McIver. 1985; pp. 478-480. Scores are unweighted; Nevada score is adjusted. High scores denote conservatism. N = 48 due to missing data. $Savage, 1978; pp. 216-217. Top-ranked states are quicker to adopt to new programs. N = 48 due to missing data. BRanney, 1976 p. 61.

362 D. C. NICE erates, or conservatives. States with a history of being states from raising the issue of high-speed rail serrelatively quick to adopt new programs of all types vice. (Savage, 1978; states were scored according to how In a similar fashion, high traffic volume is more long it took them to enact a number of new programs likely to result if the state’s population is relatively in the mid-1900s) also are more likely to give serious concentrated in metropolitan areas or is otherwise consideration to high-speed rail service. Finally, concentrated in a limited number of areas. Constates with relatively competitive political parties, necting a substantial proportion of the residents of indicated by relatively close elections for governor a rural, sparsely populated state via high-speed rail and by both parties having large shares of seats in would require a very large and expensive system, the state legislature, are more likely to give serious much of which would carry little traffic. In addition, consideration to high-speed rail service. The rela- rural states tend to have relatively high levels of tionships are not as strong as were found for ecohighway spending because a dispersed population nomic characteristics, however. requires a proportionally larger road system per person (Albritton, 1983, pp. 407-409). That may leave The problem environment fewer transportation dollars for other initiatives. The nature of the problem environment also inOverall, more metropolitan and densely populated fluences the agenda-setting process (Anderson, 1984, states should be more likely to place high-speed rail p. 50; Peters, 1986, pp. 46-47). That may be par- service on the institutional agenda (for similar tendticularly true for transportation programs because encies regarding other transportation programs, see many aspects of the transportation problem envi- Albritton, 1983, p. 409; Nice, 1987, pp. 386-387). ronment can be readily measured and because the One other aspect of the problem environment that implications of many of those aspects for the trans- may affect the agenda status of high-speed rail serportation system have been fairly well established. vice is state area. In a geographically small state, As a result, officials are reasonably likely to know travel from one point to another is unlikely to be where to look for signs of unmet transportation needs very time consuming even at moderate speeds. In a and to be able to find relevant proposals to address large state, the greater distances place a higher prethose needs. Moreover, transportation is a clearly mium on speed to keep travel times reasonable (on recognized responsibility of state governments, a cir- the importance of travel times, see Talley, 1983, pp. cumstance likely to enhance officials’ concern for 111-122; U.S. Passenger Rail Technologies, 1983, transportation problems. pp. 29, 33-35). Geographically large states should, The economics of high-speed rail transportation therefore, be more likely to consider the possibility suggest that several aspects of the problem environof high-speed rail service. ment may influence whether high-speed rail proOf course, two or more smaller states could conposals receive serious attention. Rail transportation ceivably be interested in a joint route that is comparatively large. To date, however, state interest in is generally regarded as having relatively high fixed high-speed rail is heavily oriented toward single-state costs (Harper, 1982, p. 222). It is most appropriate, therefore, where traffic volume is likely to be high routes (Malone, 1986, pp. 44-45). That tendency (U.S. Passenger Rail Technologies, 1983, p. 30). A may reflect the reluctance of state officials to commit state with a relatively large population can generate heavily to a project that requires the sustained cosubstantial traffic volume even if only a small pro- operation of neighboring states-cooperation that is portion of the population uses the high-speed rail not always readily achieved (see Nice, 1986, pp. 569system. By contrast, a state with comparatively few 570). Geographically large states offer the promise residents is unlikely to produce sufficient traffic vol- of containing an entire route within a single state ume to justify the high fixed costs of a high-speed and, consequently, are less likely to be restrained rail system. States with larger populations should be by fears of uncooperative neighbors. The evidence indicates considerable consistency more likely, therefore, to place high-speed rail on between the problem environment and the agenda the institutional agenda. Of course, a large but very dispersed population would not be a very good can- status of high-speed rail service (see Table 3). States that have placed it on the institutional agenda tend didate for rail service, but states with large poputo have larger populations, relatively metropolitan lations also tend to have relatively concentrated popand dense populations, and comparatively large land ulations as well, a matter that will also be examined areas. The relationships are considerably stronger separately. More populous states also have the advantage of than were found for political characteristics. being able to spread the cost of the system over more Administrative structures and taxpayers. As noted previously, a number of the competing commitments systems being considered are projected to cost well over a billion dollars. To the degree that customer A final potential influence on the agenda status revenues do not cover the cost of the system, a def- of high-speed rail service involves the established administrative structures and policy commitments in inite possibility, a state with a relatively small popthe transportation field. Administrative arrangeulation could face a very heavy burden per taxpayer. That prospect may discourage officials in smaller ments shape officials’ perceptions of the problems

363

High-speed rail service in the United States Table 3. The problem environment and high speed rail interest State population, 1980t 5.3 million or lower High-speed rail interest

High Low

5% 95%

(2) (35)

5.5 million or higher 69% 31

I:;

i&i100 Gamma = .96; point biserial correlation = .69. Percentage metropolitan, 1980$ 79% or lower High-speed rail interest

High Low

6% 94%

(2) (32)

80% or higher 56% 44%

(9) (7)

100 100 Gamma = .91; point biserial correlation = .40.

High Low

Less than 94

94 or more

11% 89%

36% (8) 64% (14)

(3) (25)

100 100 Gamma = .65; point biserial correlation = .OI. State area11

High-speed rail interest

High Low

Less than 41,000 square miles

41,000 square miles or more

(0) (15)

I::;

10:;

E _ 100 100 Gamma = 1.0; point biserial correlation = .13.

speed rail service. Multivariate analysis

Population per square mile, 19808

High-speed rail interest

1971, pp. 159-165). A state that devotes considerable funding and attention to highway programs may be less likely to devote serious attention to other transportation concerns. A comparatively inexpensive highway system may leave more resources available for other types of transportation initiatives. Analysis is consistent with both expectations (see Table 4). None of the states that lack a state department of transportation has placed high-speed rail service on the institutional agenda. (The point biserial correlation was not calculated for this relationship because both variables are dichotomous.) In addition, states with relatively low levels of spending for highway construction and maintenance are more likely to give serious consideration to high-

tWorld Almanac. 1983, p. 199. #Bureau of the Census, 1982, p. 16. P World Almanac, 1983, p. 198. [IWorld Almanac, 1983, p. 434.

that they face and the range of appropriate solutions that merit consideration. Administrators are generally likely to recognize problems and ‘proposals that are likely to enhance or maintain the importance of their agencies and to avoid problems and options that threaten their agencies (Edwards and Sharkansky, 1978, pp. 120-122). If the main state transportation agency is a highway department, it is likely to direct attention away from nonhigh,way transportation concerns. A state department of transportation with responsibility for a variety of transportation modes is likely to encourage a broader perspective and, consequently, increase the attention that is paid to nonhighway transportation issues, such as highspeed rail service (Nice, 1983, pp. 590-591). As noted earlier, transportation issues may compete for attention and resources (Albritton, 1983, p. 409), just as policy issues in general compete for attention (Cobb and Elder, 1972, p. 4.5; Crenson,

Conclusive multivariate analysis with such a skewed dependent variable is essentially impossible, but an interactive model based on two components of the problem environment is able to account for variations in the agenda status of high-speed rail service with a high degree of accuracy (see Table 5). If we predict that states with a population of 5.5 million or more and an area of at least 41,000 square miles will give serious consideration to high-speed rail service and that states lacking one or both of those traits will not, fully 94% of the states behave as predicted. An alternative model based solely on population is able to achieve comparable predictive power. The eight most populous states in the country have all placed high-speed rail service on their institutional agendas, but less than 10% of the smaller states have. A number of other models were examined, but Table 4. Transportation structures and commitments and high-speed rail interest Did state have department of transportation?f Yes

No High Low

High-speed rail interest

0% 100%

(0) (10)

100

2;: 100

I;;;

Gamma = 1.0. Highway expenditures per capita$ Less than $161.10 High-speed rail interest

‘High Low

41% 59

(9) (13)

More than $161.10 9::

(ii;

100 100 Gamma = - .80: point biserial correlation = - .27. fAs of 1981 (Book of rhe Stares, 1982, p. 470). $As of 1979 (Book of the States, 1982, p, 366).

D. C. NICE

364

Table 5. Predictive models of high-speed rail interest Model A: Was state population 5.5 million or higher in 1980 and state area at least 41,000 square miles? No High-speed rail interest

High Low

5% 95%

Yes (4’s{

100

90% 10%

I;{

100

Gamma = .99. Model B: Was state population 9.3 million or higher in 1980? No High-speed rail interest

High Low

7% 93% 100

Yes (3) (39)

100% 0 100

t;;

Gamma = 1.0.

none could equal the predictive power of the models in Table 5. Some other specifications do achieve high

levels of predictive accuracy, however. If states that have 80% or more of their populations in metropolitan areas and land areas of at least 41,000 square miles are predicted to place high-speed rail service on their institutional agendas, only four states fail to behave as predicted. In a similar fashion, if states with at least 5.5 million residents and comparatively liberal electorates (scores below .22 on the Wright, Erikson, and McIver index) are predicted to give serious consideration to high-speed rail service, all but four states behave as predicted. In general, the most accurate models include at least one component of the transportation problem environment. The analysis generally confirms the importance of the task environment in determining the agenda status of high-speed rail service. All four indicators of the task environment are strongly associated to the bivariate level with whether high-speed rail service has reached the institutional agenda, and the other state traits that are relatively strong predictors of high-speed rail’s agenda status are also heavily influenced by the problem environment. States with larger populations tend to have higher levels of tourist spending. Thinly populated, rural states are the least likely to have a department of transportation and tend to have above-average levels of highway spending (on the latter point, see Albritton, 1983, pp. 407-409). The problem environment, then, underlies all of the strongest relationships in this analysis. DISCUSSION

Problems do not necessarily reach the policy agenda, and that is particularly true for the institu-

tional agenda. A problem may not be detected or may be regarded as beyond the scope of governmental responsibility. OfficiaIs may be preoccupied with other issues that consume all of their available time and energy. Some actors may consciously seek to avoid addressing some problems, possibly because of fears that recognition of a problem will lead to an undesirable decision or to the fracturing of a political coalition. Officials may be reluctant to address an issue for which there is no known solution (see Bachrach and Baratz, 1970, pp. 6-9, 47, 57; Cobb and Elder, 1972, pp. 4.5,93; Crenson, 1971, pp. 1.59181; Edwards and Sharkansky, 1978, pp. 88-109; Peters, 1986, p. 50). How, then, are we to account for the close correspondence between the problem environment and the agenda status of high-speed rail service? Several factors may help to explain the relationship. First, transportation is a long-established responsibility of state governments and one of the four largest items in the typical state budget. While the main thrust of state transportation programs in recent years has involved roads and highways, the states also have a long history of involvement with railroads (Black and Runke, 1975) and regulate most forms of intrastate passenger and freight transport. Problems are more likely to reach the policy agenda if they fall within generally recognized bounds of government responsibility or at least resemble established issues (Edwards and Sharkansky, 1978, p. 101; Peters, 1986, p. 47). Where the problem environment indicates that high-speed rail service is attractive, then, a response is likely. A second factor that may help to account for the close relationship between the problem environment and the agenda status of high-speed rail service is the relative ease with which many (though certainly not all) aspects of the transportation environment can be measured. When advocates of an issue or proposal cannot readily document the nature of a problem, they are likely to have difficulty gaining recognition of that problem (Edwards and Sharkansky, 1978, pp. 90-91). Distance, time, speed, fuel consumption, accident rates, and many other transportation-relevant phenomena can be measured in fairly straightforward ways. Transportation analysts are, therefore, often able to present specific information on the problem environment to decision makers. The problem environment-agenda status relationship is probably also reinforced by the fact that highspeed rail service involves proven technology. Although Maglev systems have yet to be used in regular passenger service, they have been tested successfully. The other systems have all been in regular service for several years (Malone, 1986, p. 43; U.S. Passenger Rail Technologies, 1983, chap. 2). The availability of feasible solutions generally improves the likelihood that a problem will be recognized, for officials are typically reluctant to raise an issue and then admit that they do not know how to resdlve it (Peters, 1986, p, 50). Bear in mind, however, that

High-speed rail service in the United States technical feasibility does not necessarily mean that a proposal will be successful in all applications. The

technical ability of the 5.5 miles per hour speed limit to save fuel, for example, has been limited in practice by widespread violations of the limit in many areas. A major issue in most of the current studies of high-

speed rail service, then, is whether it would receive a positive response from the traveling public. Of course, reaching the institutional agenda provides no assurance that an issue will be resolved or an initiative will be adopted. The Pennsylvania High Speed Intercity Rail Passenger Commission was terminated in August 1987 after four years of work, only to be revived by a national grant (“The Journal,” 1987a, p. 5; 1987b, p. 5). Road and highway programs are advocated and protected by a wide range of interest groups. from oil companies and the automobile industry to trucking companies and paving contractors (Hapgood, 1976). None of them is likely to be very enthusiastic about a proposal to spend considerable sums for a nonhighway transportation program. Firms that manufacture highspeed rail equipment have helped to spur interest in high-speed rail service in some states (Malone, 1986, pp. 47-48), but whether they can compete with the highway lobbies remains to be seen. Reaching the institutional agenda is an important step but is by no means the last step. The preceding analysis also indicates that, in spite of the apparent irrationality that sometimes seems to pervade the political arena, the criteria that transportation analysts regard as fundamental to transportation analysis do manage to make their presence felt (see also Albritton, 1983; Nice, 1987). Sensitivity to political and administrative complications is vital for transportation analysts, but the ability to document program needs remains essential. REFERENCES Albritton R. (1983) Subsidies: Welfare and transportation. In Politics in the American States. 4th ed.. 373-414 (edited by Gray V., Jacob H. and Vines K. Little. Brown, Boston. Alfe% 8. and Vellenga D. (1983) Public financing of railroads under the new federalism: The progress and problems of selected state programs. Transpn. J. 23, 5-19. Alston L. (1984) Railways and Energy. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Amtrak National Train Timetables (1988) National Railroad Passenger Corporation, Washington, D.C. May. Anderson J. (1984) Public Policy-Making, 3rd. ed. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. Bachrach P. and Baratz M. (1970) Power and Poverty. Oxford, New York. Black W. and Runke J. (1975) The States and Rural Rail Preservation. Council of State Governments, Lexington,

Kentucky. Book of the States (1982) Council of State Governments, Lexington, Kentucky. (1982) Bureau of the Census Rtatistical Abstract. Washington. D.C.

%!,A, 23:5-8

365

Cobb R. and Elder C. (1972) Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Johns Hopkins. Baltimore. Cochran C., Mayer L., Carr T. and Cayer N. (1986) American Public Policy, 2nd ed. St. Martin’s, New York. Craven E. R. (1977) Electrification and Railroad Organization and Operations. In Railroad Electrification: The Issues, 13-15. Special Report 180. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. Crenson M. (1971) The Un-Politics of Air Pollution. Johns Hopkins, Baltimore. Dye T. (1984) Understanding Public Policy, 5th ed. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey. Dye T. (1980) Taxing, spending, and economic growth in the American States. J. Polit. 42, 1085-1107. Dye T. (1966) Politics, Economics, and the Public. Rand McNally, Chicago. Edwards G. and Sharkansky I. (1978) The Policy Predicament. Freeman, San Francisco. Hapgood D. (1976) The highwaymen. In Inside the System, 3rd ed.. 249-259. (edited bv Peters C. and Fallows J.). ’ Praeger, New York. Harper D. (1982) Transportation in America, 2nd ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. “Journal, The.” (1987a) Passenger Train J 117 (September), 4-5. ‘*Journal, The.” (1987b) Passenger Train J. 120 )December), 4-5. Malone F. (1986) High-speed rail: The economics behind the dream. Rail. Age (April), 42-52. Maze, T. H., Cook A. and Carter M. (1984) Restoring rail service along the old Chisholm Trail; The Oklahoma brokerage approach. Transpn. J. 23, 15-23. National Transportation Statistics. (1984) U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. Nice D. (1986) The states and Amtrak. Transpn. . 0. - 40, 559-576.

Nice D. (1987) The states and passenger rail service. Transun. R. 2lA. 385-390. Nice D.’ (1983) Amtrak in the States. Policy Stud. 1. 11, 587-598. Peters B. (1986) American Public Policy, 2nd ed. Chatham House, Chatham. New Jersey. Ranney A. (1976) Parties in state politics. In Politics in the American States. 3rd ed., 51-92, (edited bv“Jacob H. and Vines K). Little, Brown, Boston~ Sargent T. (1981) Contemporary Politic1 Ideologies, 5th ed. Dorsey. Homewood, Illinois Savage R. (1978) Policy innovativeness as a trail of American states. J. Polit., 40, 212-228. Schattschneider E. E. (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New York. Schmidt M. (1979) Understanding and Using Statistics, 2nd ed. D.C. Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts. Talley W. (1983) Introduction to Transportation. SouthWestern, Cincinnatti, Ohio. U.S. Passenger Rail Technologies. (1983) OTA-STI-222. Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C. Walker J. (1969) The diffusion of innovations among the American states. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 63, 880-899. Walker J. (1971) Innovation in state politics. In Politics in the American States, 2nd ed., 354-387 (edited by Jacob H. and Vines K.). Little, Brown, Boston. Warren W. (1982) Changes in America intercity rail transportation, 1950-1980. Transpn. Q. 36, 145-160. World Almanac (1983) Newspaper Enterprise Association, New York. Wright G., Erikson R. and McIver J. (1985) IMeasuring state partisanship and ideology with survey data. I. Polit. 47.469-489.