One of the information sources I follow regularly comes from the Reason Foundation. Pro-HSR advocates tend to reject the Reason Foundation for its Libertarian leanings, rather than for its explicit expertise on high-speed rail. Be that as it may, I take my learning from whatever sources educate me with plausible reliability.
Using these two article entries today (below) as a springboard, I want to state my current overview thinking about all this. Just what is going on with HSR?
It comes down to a political issue. It is a manifestation -- not of addressing the many transit and transportation problems this nation has -- but of two opposing political philosophies.
A. The Democrats: One professes that the federal government, despite its massive debt, must bail out the nation from it's economic stagnancy. That means, those states that are economically on the brink of bankruptcy must have federal stimulus funding to bail them out. And if there is a marketable "vision" like high-speed rail to put federal dollars behind, so much the better. That's why we will never hear Democrats, even as they may agree about the inadequacy of the CHSRA, condemn the project. They will say that they believe in it "in principle." They will persist in supporting it. It is the President's vision and he has thrown down the gauntlet with his state of the union speech. All Democrats must toe this party line if they know what's good for them in terms of their careers. High-speed rail is a grand gesture. It is also an empty gesture, but that doesn't mean anything since the whole point is to move federal funding to the states, regardless of justification.
B. The Republicans: The Republicans have their agenda. They wish to defeat this president in the next election and keep him a one-term president. They are ideologically not Keynsians. (Borrow and spend) They are Milton Friedman followers and advocates of "free markets." (Let the banks fail) That means, if the private sector is not interested in developing this massive HSR infrastructure project, the too-large-government has no business doing so either. Furthermore, our deficit and debt are far too large to be throwing such large amounts of money into an incompetent government bureaucracy. They want to downsize government, not increase it with an expanded Amtrak. By defeating HSR, they believe they will defeat one of the President's costly legacy/vision projects and look like they are working to reduce the deficit.
So there are actually two conversations taking place. One is about the train and it's shortcomings or benefits. The other -- and more important one -- is about politics and money. One party wants the government to spend as many dollars on HSR as possible, even if it has to be borrowed. Furthermore they want these funds transferred to the States (or shall I say, deserving states).
The other party doesn't want to spend taxpayer dollars but wants to reduce the deficit, while reducing taxes. They oppose mega-projects unless, of course they are military related. They resist government expansion but believe in private sector freedom and expansion.
High-speed rail is merely the label on these funding maneuvers. Therefore, China is yet another factor in the jockeying within the global economy whereby the US seeks to re-affirm and maintain it's planetary supremacy or "exceptionalism."
As a Democrat; I want the HSR project terminated. Not because is supported by the Democrats, or hated by the Republicans. I want it terminated because it's a very bad idea. This blog is a vehicle for making the reasons for this termination clear.
==================================================
Reason Foundation's Sam Staley writes, "How relevant are China’s investments in infrastructure to the challenges of U.S. economic competitiveness? Unfortunately, if China’s commitment to high-speed rail is a benchmark for the kind of commitment President Obama believes the U.S. must make to remain competitive, we may be learning the wrong lessons.
First, China’s transportation spending is very specific to its circumstances and its investment in high-speed rail should not be seen as independent of its need to develop a comprehensive transportation network. China eclipsed Japan last year to become the world’s second largest economy, but this achievement is not as significant as it might appear. China’s per capita income (adjusted for purchasing power) still ranks 93rd worldwide according to the International Monetary Fund. China’s economic development is about the same level as the United States was back in the 1920s. And China’s Gross Domestic Product per person is only about 16 percent of that of the US...In the U.S. rail advocates envision the trains replacing cars and planes.
Meanwhile, China’s investment in rail is not seen purely as a substitute for other means of traveling between cities and provinces...In 2008, U.S. airplanes logged 583 billion passenger miles. The entire Amtrak system accounted for just 6 billion passenger miles. Even if high-speed rail were to double the number of riders, its market share would be paltry compared to air travel.
Thus, the prospects for high-speed rail to compete effectively for a meaningful level of travelers in the U.S., unlike China, is fundamentally limited, a conclusion implied in the massive ongoing subsidies required to simply keep the U.S. train systems operating once they are built."
================================
Rail's just too risky for taxpayers
BY SAM STALEY, NATIONAL VOICE
January 23, 2011 12:05 AM
On the surface, Florida seems like a good candidate for high-speed rail. The state includes one of the nation's largest urbanized areas, Miami, as well as several midsize metropolitan areas with populations over 1 million, including Tampa-St. Petersburg and the global tourist mecca of Orlando.
Scratching below the surface, however, reveals a number of shortcomings to a possible high-speed-rail line that warrant significant, perhaps, even project-killing skepticism.
Unfortunately, much of the support for high-speed rail in the United States is based on hype and ridership projections that are little more than gut speculation. Rail advocates base estimates on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor's Acela high-speed train or those in Europe, Japan and, increasingly China. But none of these cases fits Florida very well.
Take Amtrak's Acela service. The trains' speeds top out at 150 miles per hour but average about 80 miles per hour. The passenger trains link four of the nation's largest urban areas: New York City (20 million people), Philadelphia (5.3 million), Boston (4.8 million), and Washington, D.C. (4.5 million).
Amtrak carries half of the combined air and rail traffic between New York and Washington, D.C., and 40 percent of the traffic between Boston and New York. Yet, the trains still require steep taxpayer subsidies to compete with largely unsubsidized air shuttles and a much cheaper and burgeoning intercity bus service.
Acela does cover its operating costs. No other U.S. intercity passenger-rail service comes close to covering its operating costs. But federal subsidies are needed to pay for Acela's capital costs such as new trains and track upgrades. Unfortunately, Acela's subsidized performance may be a "best case scenario" for the United States.
Contrast the Northeast Corridor with Florida's transportation challenge. The proposed high-speed-rail system would connect Tampa-St. Petersburg (2.5 million people) and Orlando (1.5 million), eventually making its way to Miami (5.4 million).
Thus, while the Acela links 35 million people in a 500-mile, nearly straight-line corridor, Florida's high-speed rail line would be a more circuitous 324 miles with only 10 million people in the major urban areas. Florida simply doesn't have the urban density and concentration of employment centers necessary to attract the riders needed to maximize the potential efficiency of high-speed rail.
Ridership forecasts are notoriously unreliable even in places that are far-more favorable for intercity train transportation. A new Reason Foundation report by Wendell Cox on Florida's high-speed-rail plan shows the London to Paris and Brussels Eurostar high-speed- rail line carries less than half its projected ridership. And Taiwan's high-speed-rail project is 44 percent short of projected ridership.
European economist Bent Flyvjerg and colleagues found that passenger-rail projects overestimated actual ridership by 65 percent on average. If ridership is being overestimated by 65 percent, the Reason Foundation report finds "the Tampa to Orlando high-speed rail line could incur operating losses of approximately $300 million in its first 10 years of operation."
An effective, intercity transportation network is crucial to economic competitiveness, but policymakers should not be lulled into thinking that a highly subsidized train line is efficient or the most practical alternative.
Roundtrip airfare from Tampa to Miami with a one-week advance notice can cost as little as $250, and automobile travel times are less than five hours. Drive times are less than four hours between Orlando and Miami. The high-speed-train proposal won't deliver passengers enough time or cost savings to compete -- unless the service is significantly subsidized by taxpayers.
The Florida high-speed-rail initiative will likely cost $10 billion under the very best of circumstances or, more realistically, closer to $20 billion if international and domestic experience is a guide. Gov. Rick Scott and the state Legislature should seriously evaluate the very real cost risks associated with this project before moving forward.
At the end of the day, high-speed rail carries significant risks for Florida taxpayers. Exploring alternatives such as expanded inner-city express-bus service and more frequent air access are likely to be far-more-efficient ways to improve travel that won't leave taxpayers with massive, ongoing debt.
Staley is Robert W. Galvin Fellow at The Reason Foundation and co-author of the book "Mobility First: A New Vision for Transportation in a Globally Competitive 21st Century."
Copyright © 2011 The Daytona Beach News-Journal
