High-speed rail is a fast track to government waste

The Washington Post ^ | February 14, 2011 | Robert J. Samuelson

[CedarDave]

Vice President Biden, an avowed friend of good government, is giving it a bad name. With great fanfare, he went to Philadelphia last week to announce that the Obama administration proposes spending $53 billion over six years to construct a "national high-speed rail system." Translation: The administration would pay states $53 billion to build rail networks that would then lose money - lots - thereby aggravating the budget squeezes of the states or federal government, depending on which covered the deficits.

There's something wildly irresponsible about the national government undermining states' already poor long-term budget prospects by plying them with grants that provide short-term jobs. Worse, the rail proposal casts doubt on the administration's commitment to reducing huge budget deficits. The president's 2012 budget is due Monday. How can it subdue deficits if it keeps proposing big spending programs?

~~ snip ~~

It's a triumph of fancy over fact. Even if ridership increased fifteenfold over Amtrak levels, the effects on congestion, national fuel consumption and emissions would still be trivial. Land-use patterns would change modestly, if at all; cutting 20 minutes off travel times between New York and Philadelphia wouldn't much alter real estate development in either. Nor is high-speed rail a technology where the United States would likely lead; European and Asian firms already dominate the market.

Governing ought to be about making wise choices. What's disheartening about the Obama administration's embrace of high-speed rail is that it ignores history, evidence and logic. The case against it is overwhelming. The case in favor rests on fashionable platitudes. High-speed rail is not an "investment in the future"; it's mostly a waste of money. Good government can't solve all our problems, but it can at least not make them worse.

[CedarDave]

A case can be made for fast, frequent commuter rail in crowded urban areas where further highway expansion would not do much to reduce congestion. But in this instance states will be left to pay immense operation and maintenance costs of the infrastructure. A factual, well thought out opinion piece.

[kbennkc]

I would prefer nationwide system of bicycle paths with small hostels along the routes, where people could stay with out charge. Stay free mini pads.

[LonelyCon]

I kind of maybe disagree on this one, but could still be convinced either way. I do see construction and maintenance of public thoroughfares as a proper government function. The US benefitted greatly by building the Panama Canal. The Eisenhower Interstate System allowed for commerce to flourish. Users pay for the highways through gas taxes (inefficiently, I think it should be “miles X weight = fee”). Government-built airports serve private air carriers and charge landing fees to those carriers for their services. Why do people always say that railroads should make money? Highways don’t make money. Airports don’t make money. They’re public goods that benefit everyone. Maybe the government should build high-speed-capacity rail lines and then let private companies operate on them. Some companies that serve customers well will succeed, others that do poorly will fail.

[Cicero]

Nice to see the Compost making a little sense once in a while. Although I notice that they blame this on Joe Biden the scapegoat instead of the real criminal-in-chief.

[bill1952]

>I would prefer nationwide system of bicycle paths with small hostels along the routes, where people could stay with out charge.

Which would be co opted by hoards of homeless.
Bums on wheels

[bill1952]

Why do people always say that railroads should make money?

Gee I dont know.
Maybe because we don’t need another bottomless pit of government union employees sucking down hundreds of billions of dollars a year in taxpayer funded losses while serving almost no purpose?

[screaminsunshine]

I think the best thing is to pass everything Obama wants by 1 vote.

[CedarDave]

Translation: The administration would pay states $53 billion to build rail networks that would then lose money - lots - thereby aggravating the budget squeezes of the states or federal government, depending on which covered the deficits.

That is generally the case -- the administration uses federal monies to build it and the state's have to come up with the money to operate and maintain it. Most services run deficits though none as bad as New Mexico's Rail Runner, I expect.

The Rail Runner (AKA Richardson's Railroad) took about 1/2 billion dollars to build and currently has fares paying between 9% and 14% (depending on the time periods covered) with the feds, state and locals paying the difference. Come July 1, fed money disappears, the state has a $400 million dollar deficit and local taxpayers are unlikely to make up the difference in more taxes. Bottom line is that its infrequent service if not its existence is in jeopardy.

[Wayne07]

from the article:

Rail buffs argue that subsidies for passenger service simply offset the huge government support of highways and airways. The subsidies "level the playing field." Wrong. In 2004, the Transportation Department evaluated federal transportation subsidies from 1990 to 2002. It found passenger rail service had the highest subsidy ($186.35 per thousand passenger-miles) followed by mass transit ($118.26 per thousand miles). By contrast, drivers received no net subsidy; their fuel taxes more than covered federal spending. Subsidies for airline passengers were about $5 per thousand miles traveled. (All figures are in inflation-adjusted year 2000 dollars.)

[kabar]

Samuelson is one of the best economists around. He understands the issues and destroys the liberal spin on them. High speed rail is a loser in so many ways.

[kabar]

I suggest you read the entire article.

[Gondring]

I’m with you.

The subsidies on highways are high. People think that gas taxes pay for them, but that’s not true.

[WhyisaTexasgirlinPA]

Houston has a light rail that is something like 7 miles long - from the medical center back toward downtown. Basically it is the transportation for the janitorial staff at the hospital. They are now working on expanding it to the next section of ghetto west and east of that seven mile stretch of rail. I can't imagine that it will ever make enough money to pay for itself.

There was a comment in the local newspaper saying that years ago Houston had a trolley system, but that was replaced by the newer, more efficient bus system...now they want to go backwards to a glorified trolley system.

[wheresmyusa]

"A case can be made for fast, frequent commuter rail in crowded urban areas.."

Which is why Fedzilla wants to control land use. Rural dwellers are screwing everything up, and need to be "nudged" into the cities. Expect administration policies to reflect this heavily in the near future if we don't get these clowns out of power soon.

[BenLurkin]

ping

[goldstategop]

Most of the country is unpopulated. This isn’t Europe or Japan! Its not a good use of our scarce transportation dollars, which would better be spent building new freeways and upgrading and maintaining existing roads.

America was built around the automobile and the politicians seem to ignore its contribution to our history, economy and culture.

[goldstategop]

Remember that drivers pay taxes to keep roads in good condition. Rail passenger riders pay nothing to keep stock rolling and the track in good condition - there are simply not enough riders to do that so rail needs a government subsidy from the moment its operating. The people pushing it never mention rail will never make a real world profit. Not even Amtrak.

[Gondring]

In 2004, the Transportation Department evaluated federal transportation subsidies from 1990 to 2002.

Some places of the country actually have state and local roads...! </sarc> Most municipalities don't get a big chunk of gas-tax revenue like Chicago does, so the road upkeep has to be subsidized from other funds. The distortion is so egregious, I can't help but suspect Mr. Samuelson is being dishonest, not just that it's an error. Most traffic is not going on As the report he cites says...

Federal vs. State and Local

The current analysis reflects federal revenue and expenditure data only. An analysis including state and local revenue and expenditure data may show different results and would raise different issues of revenue and expenditure definition.

Also, note that this report was on subsidies for passenger transport, blending forms of transportation on the roads and disregarding freight. The actual subsidization of trucking by the federal government and auto drivers is not considered, either, though I recognize the discussion at hand is about passenger subsidies.

Also, they aren't accounting for the decline of roadways. "Crumbling infrastructure" is true...we are not maintaining infrastructure at a constant level, so there's a hidden subsidy by not accounting for those unincurred costs.

As long as trucking is so heavily subsidized, rail will be unable to compete.

[Munz]

gotta make sure that he can get us all to FEMA camps in record time you know.

[Thermalseeker]

People think that gas taxes pay for them, but that’s not true.

The taxes collected from gasoline would pay for highways, but that money is routinely looted by Congress and used for other "projects" that keep professional politicians in office. If you look at any of the studies that have been done on rail vs. highway transportation or rail vs. air travel there is no comparison in terms of efficiency. Rail loses every time.