High-Speed Pork - Why fast trains are a waste of money.

Somehow, it has become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help “save the planet.” They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already-overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs—schools, defense, research.

Let’s suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has already committed $10.5 billion, and that’s just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government. What would we get for this huge investment?

Not much. Here’s what we wouldn’t get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse-gas emissions, air travel, or oil consumption and imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why.

High-speed intercity trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles per hour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of less than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or less with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched to trains, the number of airline passengers, about 2 million a day, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel savings would be less than that; even trains need fuel.

I see you! ;)

(From comments)

Willie Green

Robert Samuelson should be well aware that the true “high speed rail” technology that he’s writing about (up to 250 mph) is primarily electrically powered. And since the vast majority of electricity generated for the grd does not come from petroleum based resources, would represent a major reduction in petroleum consumed for transportation.

Since it would be ludicrous to assume that Robert Samuelson is ignorant of these facts, one can only conclude that this column is written as political disinformation on behalf of Oil Interests.

It’s time for the American People to stop accepting such corrupt “journalism” from our major media outlets.

Today, 11:24:48 AM

I ran the numbers. The only profitable shinkansen is the Japanese one from Osaka to Tokyo.

Assuming that Americans have the same train habits as the Japanese (a huge assumption), the highest corridor with the same per capita population per mile is Boston - Washington with 60 percent.

SF - LA is a longer distance than Osaka to Tokyo, fewer people and works out to only be about 20 percent.

I am glad to finally see some sober analysis.

High speed rail makes sense under some situations.

To start with, the US transportation system needs a redesign, and rural high speed rail makes much more sense as part of this.

Rail is a very efficient form of transport for cargo. It is second only to ships for getting goods moved at least cost and energy used. The further the distance, the more efficient rail gets.

Right now, America’s airport system has two major problems. The first is that it is located in population centers, and the second is that it transports both passengers and cargo.

To get around this, ideally we need a second set of airports built *away* from population centers, in rural areas, and surrounded by very large buffers to prevent development around them. These would be exclusively to move cargo, and by doing so, they would reduce traffic at passenger airports significantly, to everyone’s advantage.

But since it is desirable to have these cargo airports out in the boonies, you need to then transfer their cargoes to another form of transport, to move it to urban areas.

Since cargo hubs would be far fewer, each hub would probably service several States, and *here* is where high speed rail would come into its own. If a population center was not too far away, trucks would be best. But if it is in the hundreds of miles, high speed rail would be a quick way to move cargo from the air hub to a closer truck hub.

And because high speed rail would connect from the air cargo hub to several cities, it would also be a convenient way to connect cargo transfer directly between cities.

So all together, it forms a comprehensive system with optimum efficiency for the each distance the cargo must travel.

It reduces the number of planes flying over metro areas, by limiting them to passenger transport.

It uses high speed rail in rural areas, so it does not have to slow down because of people in the area. And it uses trucks for short haul in and out of populated areas.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.