3

Economics · Environment/Energy · Taxes

Derailing the High-Speed Rail Announcement by Biden and Obama

Yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden — the country’s most famous Amtrak rider — announced that President Obama wants to spend $53 billion on high-speed rail over the next six years. The Obama administration says doing so will improve transportation and create jobs.

Heartland’s Budget & Tax News derails the president’s thinking with a piece by Wendell Cox titled “High-Speed Rail ‘Low Ball Express’ Raises Taxpayer Concerns.” (Cox is Heartland’s senior fellow in urban growth and transit policy.)

Cox notes:

“You know something is up when a Washington Post editorial advises the Obama administration to do a ‘reality check’ on its plans for high-speed rail. From the beginning it included more slow-speed than high-speed rail, and now both components of the plan could be in trouble.”

The Post editorial noted that Wisconsin and Ohio voters in November elected governors who pledged to end rail projects that had already received substantial federal funding. Both governors have declined further federal rail money.

Cox also shows problems with high-speed rail proposals in California, Florida, and Illinois, and mocks the “fairy tales” government officials have been telling regarding investment from overseas:

“Proponents have been mouthing fairy tales about French, Chinese, or Japanese investment in the system,” Cox writes. “Can they be so naive as to believe French or Japanese taxpayers will pay for a high-speed rail system in California? In fact, any such ‘investment’ would be loans and would have to be paid back. Around the world, virtually all private investment for high-speed rail has been either lost or bailed out by taxpayers.”

For this and other reasons, writes Cox, taxpayers and governments in other nations are having doubts about their high-speed rail spending:

“The international news is barely any better. The Chinese government is now reviewing the wisdom of its huge expenditures on high-speed rail, as a result of a critical report from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

“In England, as in California, communities are resisting a proposed high-speed rail line. Cost overruns have been routine, as have been revenue and ridership shortfalls relative to the always-rosy projections.”

Read Cox’s full take-down of high-speed rail here.

Tags:

Steve Stanek

— Steve Stanek

Steve Stanek is a research fellow at The Heartland Institute and a former managing editor of two Heartland publications, "Budget & Tax News" and "Finance, Insurance & Real Estate News." Stanek's articles have appeared in numerous local, state and national publications since he began writing for Heartland in 2003, and he has been a frequent guest on local and national radio and television programs discussing government budget and regulatory issues.

  • Chris

    Well, high speed trains are expensive, that’s for sure. And they are not always useful, too, if the local topology is not helping.

    All I can say is, that in Germany where I live, going from Cologne to Munich takes approx. 4:45 hours by high speed train (ICE), and that even includes slow sections.
    Doing the same route by car is about 6 hours in reasonable traffic, and you know we do drive fast on our Autobahns already.
    Going by air plane it’s a 1:10 hour flight, adding 1-hour check-in and getting from and to the airports on both ends, you are looking into about 4 hours, while the train has the advantage of pretty good mobile / internet coverage throughout and ending up in the center of the city.

    So, even if a high speed train is expensive at first, it really is a convenient, fast and efficient way to travel between metropolitan areas. Especially in California, where the trains could easily speed through flat central valley, topology is on your side.

    Or, wouldn’t even be a sleek Mag-Lev train mounted in the middle of Highway 5 be an exciting alternative?
    With its 268 mph, you could make SF to LA in under 2 hours. Without the need for a check-in.

    Just saying.

    Chris

  • Vested

    Yeah. Let’s spend some more money. That’s a great idea. Why didn’t we think of that before.

  • Chris

    Well, infrastructure is always expensive and for politics it’s tough to explain why we should invest now while benefits come later.

    But in the end it should all be economics, right? Not spending money in infrastructure now will turn out to become more expensive when oil prices skyrocket and no alternatives are available.

    Existing MagLev trains are profitable or are getting there (example: Shanghai train: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_%28transport%29#Economics )

    At the same time, they pose a competition to other ways of transportation, like aircraft and car, and help reduce prices per passenger in all areas.

    I enjoy having the choice between different, efficient ways of transportation here in Germany, and it helps businesses and individuals to be successful.

    But you’re probably right, public transportation is not too popular anyways, so why bother. ;)

    Chris

Donate-Flag
Every Dollar Counts!

×