I love trains. Taking the train is preferable to me than flying but I am rapidly losing my enthusiasm for High Speed Rail. More and more it is shaping up as gigantic boondoggle and throwing good money after bad.
Obama proposes to spend $53 billion more over the next six years to give " 80 % of Americans access to high-speed rail." Access many do not want or need and which the overwhelming majority will NEVER use. The $53 billion is on top of $8 billion in Stimulus money and $2.4 billion in various enticements to 23 states.
Several states, including Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio have already rejected federal incentives. Florida alone turned down $2 billion to begin a high speed rail project. Florida's line would have run for 84 miles parallel to I-4 between Tampa and Orlando based on a preposterous projection of 3 million passengers per year ! That's roughly how many folks ride Amtrak's Acela in the Boston- NY- DC corridor. Just a cursory examination and comparison of population figures for the two areas makes the Florida projection a pathetic absurdity.
The governors of Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio do not want their states to be on the hook for the inevitable tens of billions in cost overruns and operating subsidies. Not a single passenger line in this entire country is able to operate without substantial operating subsidies. Governor Walker questioned the wisdom and desirability of running a rail line parallel to I-94 between Milwaukee and Madison. Governor Kasich did likewise for a line duplicating I-71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati.
In contrast, those fiscal geniuses in California, led by the ever-loopy Jerry Brown, think it's a great idea to run a 616 mile line between San Francisco and San Diego. There are supposedly 39 million people willing to pay MORE money to travel SLOWER than a plane ! And then do WHAT when they arrive ? Take a cab ! Or get on a bus . The projected cost has already gone up from $33 billion to $42.6 billion.
A recent study by Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute has splashed a LOT of cold water in a LOT of faces concerning these proposed HSR projects. Including mine. He points out that these projects connect large urban downtown areas. Only 7 % of Americans work in these areas and 1 % live there. He also notes that: " The average intercity auto trip today uses less energy per passenger mile than the average Amtrak train. " Worse yet, HSR will not displace enough cars to reduce congestion. China's high speed trains are priced far beyond the means of the average Chinese. France and Japan have exactly ONE ( 1 ) profitable line each.
Most telling of all, if repeat IF , there really was a future in HSR, where is the PRIVATE investment ? Obviously, nobody can see a future revenue stream that remotely justifies the hundreds of billions in investment required.
On top of everything else, all the arguments favoring HSR really don't hold much water upon serious examination.
Improve the climate ? Less energy is used by cars for similar trips. Remember HSR is designed for INTER - city travel, NOT INTRA -city.
Enhanced national security ? Nobody can figure that one out.
Increased competitiveness ? Who knows of any Japanese, Chinese or French HSR rail company chomping at the bit to build such a system in the U.S. ?
Reduced congestion ? Inter-city travel is NOT congested.
Rational land use ? Huh ? Another head scratcher.
Nothing said argues against increased INTRA-city and suburban mass transit. In fact, the three aforementioned governors asked to trade in their share of Federal HSR funds to improve mass transit and highways within their states and were told that other more amenable states ( California ) would get the money.



Reply With Quote



Bookmarks