Fast Trains Sound Nice, But Who Will Ride?

IBD Editorials ^ | September 23, 2011 | Staff

[Kaslin]

Boondoggles: How can we tell if Congress is serious about reining in spending? A clear-cut, permanent defunding of high-speed rail would be one sign. But the pipe dream won't quite die.

Sometime soon — or so we'd like to think — the fast-train fad will fizzle out, the victim of fiscal sanity and critical thinking.

Just this week, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee controlled by Democrats actually voted to give high-speed rail nothing at all in the new fiscal year.

That got our hopes up. Then the full Appropriations Committee mixed the message by approving $100 million for the program, which is a far cry from the $8 billion sought by President Obama.

That pittance was a symbolic victory for the rail fans. It was a rebuke to the Republican-controlled House, which is trying to kill Obama's high-speed rail scheme once and for all. For those who think that sleek trains will somehow revolutionize transportation in America, it keeps the dream alive.

It also continues to dangle the temptation of federal funds — if not in 2012, maybe later — in front of states that should not be taking the bait. California, especially, would spare itself enormous future pain if it were to ditch its ambitious high-speed rail plan now, before starting to build lines that almost no one will use.

A clear sign from the feds that no further money is coming for that purpose, now or ever, would make the state's decision easy. Voters have authorized $9 billion in bonds to build the system, but these don't come close to meeting construction costs, which the state's non-partisan Legislative Analyst office has pegged at $67 billion for just the first phase, from Orange County through Los Angeles to San Francisco.

[kearnyirish2]

Here in Newark NJ people don’t want to walk three blocks through the natives, never mind miles. They know better, despite the news blackout (pardon the pun).

[hinckley buzzard]

That's why it makes sense in Japan, South Korea, China, much of Europe, and certain corridors in the USA (e.g. the Northeast Corridor between Richmond, VA to Boston, MA). Interestingly, Chicago is one place where high-speed rail especially makes sense

Well, it might "make sense" but it doesn't make cents, as there is only one profitable line in all the ones you propose, that is Tokyo-Osaka. Nowhere else in the world does highspeed rail support itself profitably.

[Sonny M]

I'm over in NYC, a big part of that deal, was the idea of moving freight. It would have helped jobs wise, but the only benefit would have been in NYC, there would have been absolutely nothing to gain for NJ. Moving cargo, into NYC is fine, but why should New Jersey pay to help create jobs in NYC ?

FWIW, the folks I know in Jersey who do commute to NYC, have always said, they would despise the trains, they will drive, deal with traffic and all that, rather then ride the train in. Some of them actually would rather cab it then ride in, that says alot.

[kearnyirish2]

“I’m over in NYC, a big part of that deal, was the idea of moving freight.”

I see; that makes sense, but was left out of the public discussion (and I could see why).