Let's begin by disagreeing with the conclusion of this article, written by Mark Moretti. Apparently, it's a guest opinion piece in the Newark Advocate.
He concludes that we prefer cars over mass transit because they offer us "freedom." I would venture to guess that sitting in gridlock is not the experience of "freedom." By the same token, abandoning our cars and riding trains is not, in itself, any more liberating than driving.
I would say that if the United States has the automobile deeply ingrained in its DNA as suggested by Moretti, mutations do happen and cultures do evolve. But that is not to say that high-speed rail is the panacea for all our current ills, whether highway gridlock, environmental issues, oil consumption, or unemployment. It isn't, any more than what's advertised on TV is the cure that they promise for what ails you (if you also diet and exercise, of course!).
Having gotten that point out of the way, Moretti makes some other telling points. Federal dollars are not "free," contrary to what the CHSRA would have you believe. It's our money and we don't want it spent now or this way!
Furthermore, the most we can expect from federal support, over and above all the rhetoric from Washington, is some selective "pump priming." They certainly won't pay for what this enormous ambition will actually cost. In that case, who will? And, therefore, what business does the government have to proceed with a national program that will cost over a trillion dollars that it cannot and will not spend? Are you not amazed that this very obvious fact seems to be relentlessly ignored?
While Moretti shifts the argument to Amtrak, which, by the way, has its own high-speed rail ambitions, the term "boondoggle" is totally appropriate. Amtrak has been on the federal heart/lung machine since its inception in 1971. And, it is a safe bet that this is a good predictor of what high-speed rail will require; endless, massive subsidies. While that may be arguably appropriate for urban and regional mass transit in high density population centers, it is certainly not appropriate in the more sparsely populated regions that don't really need an overpriced, luxury, premium train-ride for the well to do, and paid for by the taxpayers.
Another point that's well taken is the issue of population density. Even John Mica, the Republican Chairman of the House Transportation Committee, indicates that if any HSR is to be developed in the US at all, it belongs in the most dense region, and that's the Northeast corridor.
While California may no longer be the desolate wild West, it is still far more thinly populated that a high-speed rail requires to justify the development costs. The ridership issue, which has not yet been resolved, suggests that the CHSRA persists in forecasting numbers that are outrageously exaggerated. They need to do that in order to conform to the AB3034 requirement that their train, when operating, will produce a surplus revenue. And, all the facts and experience tells us that that's not going to happen.
The bottom line on Governor Kasich's rejection of HSR funds from Washington for his state, Ohio, is based on a reality that all yacht owners learn the hard way; it's not the initial purchasing costs that kill you, it's the upkeep. Or, to switch metaphors, this is a case where looking a gift horse in the mouth is absolutely the right thing to do, and then reject it.
=============================
http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20110123/OPINION02/101230308/1014/rss04
Rejection of money for rail service was right decision
Jan 23, 2011 |
MARK MORETTI
Gov. John Kasich's rejection of $400 million from the feds for passenger rail service in Ohio defied reason and all that is good and right, if the critics were to be believed.
Kasich was accused of wanting to ruin Ohio (odd goal if you just ran and won the Ohio governor's race), giving away free money (free money does not come from Washington), wanting to kill jobs (nonsensical), being anti-environment (par-for-the-course accusation for a Republican) and of failing to recognize the undeniable future of transportation in the state, country, world and, probably, the universe (if only all progress actually did, you know, progress).
It was not only a gutsy decision, it was the right one.
Like the guy in "The Graduate" who had one word for Dustin Hoffman's character, "plastics," when it comes to trains and government, there is one word, "Amtrak" -- read "boondoggle."
Robert Samuelson, writing in The Washington Post in 2009, noted that since 1971, the feds, i.e. America's taxpayers, have pumped $35 billion into Amtrak. "A typical trip is subsidized by about $50," he noted. Estimates are that Ohio's rail system would have needed about $17 million in subsidies annually for years.
But it's not just Amtrak.
Analyses and research on the accuracy of rider forecasts and cost estimates for rail infrastructure projects have found that a systematic problem and incentive to be optimistic might exist -- that is, actual riders are more likely to be lower than forecasted, while actual costs are more likely to be higher than estimated. That's not my opinion; it's a direct quote from a 2009 Government Accountability Office report on high-speed passenger rail.
Take California. In the planning stages since the 1990s, it has seen its Los Angeles to San Francisco annual ridership estimate retreat from 94 million to 39 million, wrote the Wall Street Journal in an editorial. "The experience of other high-speed rail systems suggests they'll be lucky if they get a quarter of that, and five million riders is more likely."
Another problem passenger rail has in the U.S. is population density. For Japan, it's 880 people per square mile, 653 in Britain and 259 in France, noted Samuelson. Here, it's 86. "Trains can't pick up most people where they live and work and take them to where they want to go," he said. "Cars can."
And that might be the greatest roadblock of all. Ignore the huge costs of high-speed rail construction and maintenance. Forget that the overwhelming majority of people will not use the trains. Lose not a minute of worry that money spent on trains might be better used on education or medicine.
We are a nation of car drivers. It's in our DNA. Why? Perhaps a longtime Car and Driver columnist and editor said it best. In one column years ago, he talked about sitting outside a shop while having coffee. From there, he looked upon a major roadway that carried heavy traffic.
Some people would look at the scene and see gridlock or confusion, he surmised. And what did he see?
"Freedom."
