Going Nowhere Fast

Posted on February 18, 2011 by JtowneJeff in Articles

President Barack Obama recently submitted his proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 to Congress, while a new Republican-majority House threatens to slash it to pieces. Republicans have said that nothing is sacred; they will cut Medicare and Social Security funding if needed, they’ve said. But one aspect of the budget, although small in comparison to the $1.5 trillion total, has been almost invisibly from public scrutiny: the proposed High Speed Rail Project. In this year’s State of the Union Address, President Obama set a goal of connecting 80% of Americans via high speed rail in 25 years. Since then, Vice President Joe Biden announced $53 billion in proposed funding over the next six years.

Perhaps you’ve heard of the successes of the high speed rail in places like France, Japan, and more recently, China. Trains that travel in excess of 200 miles per hour. A fuel economy rating of 6600 miles per gallon. A single train line carrying the equivalent of a 10 lane highway. And perhaps you though that it sounded too good to be true. You were right.

First, let’s compare America’s current infrastructure and natural terrain to what is found in European and Asian countries where the high speed rail has been rather effective. America’s infrastructure, as a whole, was modeled on personal vehicle transportation. Roads and highways connect us to one another. Two-hundred years ago, when America was just coming into its own, the major form of transportation was horse and buggy. As the years passed, trains were used to connect towns and cities to one another, but as the automobile emerged in the early 1900’s, Americans took a strong liking to owning their own vehicle and being able to come and go as they pleased. The countries of Europe, most notably in the West, and Japan, are far smaller and more compact, geographically speaking, than America. Their cities have smaller streets and are closer to one another, and, aside from the Northeast Corridor, are more densely populated. And few countries anywhere in the world have as diverse a terrain as America. All of these facts lead to the discovery that the personal automobile as a means of daily transportation is far less practical in places like France, Germany, England, and Japan.

President Obama’s budget for fiscal year 2012 has allotted $8.046 billion for discretionary spending by the Federal Railroad Administration. That’s more that triple the amount given to the FAA, and over nine times the budget for the NHTSA. Only the Federal Highway and Federal Transit Administrations have a larger budget than the FRA. After funding salaries for FRA employees, the vast majority of the budget is slated for planning and development for a high speed rail infrastructure. In fact, very little high speed rail is expected to be completed by 2015, and what is completed will only be upgrades and improvements to existing standard train lines, with no new construction before 2016. The state of Maryland alone has already received $60 million from the federal stimulus program for planning the repair of Amtrak’s B&P Tunnel, just south of Baltimore’s Penn Station. And Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley is already lobbying Department of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for more.

While Maryland Governor O’Malley is pushing hard for more federal funds, along with governors of other traditionally blue states like California and Illinois, three republican governors have turned away federal funds for projects in their own states. The governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, and most recently, newly-elected Governor Rick Scott of Florida, have all declined federal funds for their states. Ironically, they all stated the same reasoning. Scott projects cost overruns of nearly $3 billion in Florida, money that taxpayers in his state would be liable for. John Kasich of Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin also foresee overruns nearly equal to the projected federal funding for their states. Individual studies in all three states found that the Federal Railroad Administration’s projected ridership was far greater than likely, and that ridership was unlikely to cover the operating expenses once the trains were running. That would leave the states on the hook for even more costs. Additionally, the plans presented to each states had another caveat: if the projects fail, the states would be required to return the federal funds. “The truth is that this project would be far too costly to taxpayers, and I believe the risk far outweighs the benefits,” says Gov. Scott.

But what are the benefits of high speed passenger rail travel? For starters, oil. Or rather, a lack of oil. The high speed trains in other countries and the trains we would need in America are powered by electricity. it is true that if more people rode an electric train instead of driving that gas-guzzling SUV everyday, the U.S. would become less dependent on oil as an energy source. However, there are currently only two forms relatively efficient electricity production in high use in America: coal and nuclear power plants. And sadly, the current administration wants to see an early death to both of them. Which means we would see a lot more windmills and “farms” of giant solar panels in order to fuel these new trains. Not only do solar and wind farms rely on nature for their success, they also require much more real estate than a more traditional power plant. Add to that the almost complete lack of existing wind and solar farms, and you’ve got yourself another huge taxpayer funded federal program, being implemented and enforced to support the first program.

Building a national infrastructure of high speed rail would create tens of thousands of jobs for Americans who want to work. Jobs would be created for building the infrastructure itself, for building the trains, for maintaining the trains and tracks, for training those entering the field, and so on. True, many jobs would be created under this program. But let’s assume that this program really catches on. As demand for work in the railroad industry grows, demand for work in the automotive industry would shrink. Mechanics would find themselves unemployed and changing careers. Parts suppliers for the auto industry would fall by the wayside. Salespeople and every other job at dealerships would have nowhere to go except back to school. Factories would close. Because a single high speed train can carry up to 600 passengers, there would be far fewer trains needed than automobiles needed. So for every train built and put into commission, as many as 200 to 300 cars would be scrapped, along with all of the jobs that helped put those cars into service.

“High speed rail is the most convenient and comfortable of transportation on earth,” touts the U.S. High Speed Rail Association on it’s website, www.ushsr.com. Let’s look at some of their examples. “High speed rail offers easy access to downtown areas.” This is a very true statement. But what happens when you get off the train and are still a mile and a half from your final destination? You could walk and be subjected to the elements of rain, snow, wind, blistering heat or bitter cold. Or you could wait for a taxi. Or perhaps you’re fortunate enough to live in one of the few American cities that has a decent existing light rail network. “There are little or no delays when traveling by train.” As long as your schedule coincides with the train’s schedule. And what if the unthinkable happens and a train derails or collides with another? Then you are left facing an hours-long delay, if not longer, before the trains are running again. Not to mention that most of the city-to-city train lines, outside of the largest corridors, in the current program are slated to be single-track lines, with only “extended passing sidetracks.” “Train stations will feature rapid boarding with no security lines.” O.k., for now. It would only be a matter of time before the TSA got their hands on the train stations. And then we would have to face everything we hate about flying every time we got on a train.

There are, however, some true advantages to traveling via high speed rail. You can text your little thumbs off on the train and not cause the train to wreck. You can have a beer or two before boarding your commuter train home without having to worry about swerving off the track. You can read the newspaper (what’s that), go over business notes, or download a new book for your Kindle, too. But at a total price tag estimated at somewhere between $1.5 and $2 trillion for a national infrastructure, at taxpayer expense, is it really worth it? Is “going green” more important than being able to go whenever you want to? Are France and China countries that you really want America to keep up with?

Share with your friends