“Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway. . .”
This was what the President said about high-speed rail Tuesday evening in his State of the Union speech. You would think that he knows what he's talking about. Who convinced him about this malarkey? Half the time it takes to travel by car? Does that include waiting in line at the car rental when you get off the train? Faster than flying? 220 mph by train vs. 550 mph by air? And, by the way, what does he mean by "high-speed?" 79 mph? 100 mph? Because that's the plan for the "HSR" Illinois rail network centered in Chicago.
All this is the same vacuous hyperbole that we have been hearing for a long time from the rail promoters and their politician croneys who stand to benefit royally from the anticipated cash flow. If what's going on in California can be called "routes are already underway" the President is certainly putting a very optimistic spin on a situation that is full of conflict and doubt. And, the shovels won't hit the ground for another two years.
It should be pointed out that the President didn't say how all this was going to be paid for. Cost estimates for building out all eleven high-speed rail corridors in the United States -- to reach those 80% of Americans -- hover around one trillion dollars but will doubtless rise, as they always do, when "facts on the ground" begin to surface. (Cost per mile: $80 to $100 million. 10,000 miles for the eleven national HSR corridors.)
The history of rail in the United States is one of private freight and passenger operators providing passenger service mostly at a loss -- a loss leader. In 1971, the rail companies were delighted to be able to relinquish the budget busting passenger service to the government which created Amtrak to continue such service -- at a loss. What's the point? Passenger rail in the US is a money loser, not a money maker. High-speed rail won't be any different. Expect high costs, including operating costs, and low productivity, such as ridership and revenue return.
From those words in the President's State of the Union speech, we are asked to believe that the federal government intends to connect the entire country with something like a single trolley car network, only faster. All our major cities; all connected by high-speed rail. Obviously, either none of this has been thought through, or that's not what he actually meant.
The picture his words painted are a glib "vision" without substance. Since it is claimed that high-speed rail optimally serves routes between 100 and 500 miles, it makes no sense that routes greater in distance should be built out in such an expensive way. That means, there can't be a single connected network, but there will be many disparate HSR segments scattered here and there across the US.
Before we concur with such sweeping and vague assumptions -- and it will be paid for with our money -- we are entitled to have a much more concrete and substantive analysis. What we've been given up to now is standard sales & marketing boilerplate.
So, the President is advocating the creation of a trillion dollar+ high-speed rail service that will require permanent subsidies to operate. Has he, or his knowledgeable staff, or the Secretary of Transportation and his knowledgeable staff taken full-cost accounting factors into account in the aggressive promotion of this program? So far, they have tossed modest amounts, a billion here, a billion there, earmarked pork at politically friendly congressional districts and states. Call it pump priming or seed money. Unfortunately, no one knows who will pick of the tab for the real construction costs.
Talking like JFK and the moon mission will not produce the desired results unless the President is prepared to put our money where his mouth is. And that hasn't happened. And, it won't happen.
