Attention California. Is this message getting through to anyone?
I like his phrase, "If high-speed rail is initiated in areas where it is economically justified. . . . " Where, Prof. Geddes, might that be? Prof. Geddes finishes this thought by saying, ". . .then private industry will willingly share in this investment in the future."
I agree with the professor, and insofar as we have seen no tangible interest from the Wall Street community, I suspect that they, having done their due diligence, haven't found any areas where HSR is economically justified.
And that's been the central problem right along. The High-Speed Rail project in California doesn't pencil out. That's why it isn't, as Prof. Geddes says, realistic.
Although he points to the Northeast Corridor, which just received $800 million for Amtrak upgrades, he also talks about attracting private investment and I would need that explained in some detail. Merely stating that there presumably are "places where it makes sense" doesn't make sense. Prof. Geddes also speaks about meeting "real market needs." I would want to learn more about that as well.
The fact is, we still do not have a comprehensive analysis of why we need high-speed rail, especially on economic grounds, either nationally or in our state of California. Given the costs, the need ought to be drastic, critical, urgent. That need has not yet been demonstrated. Perhaps because it can't.
=================================================
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/576673
U.S. High-Speed Rail Objective Is Not Realistic, Says Transportation Expert
Released: 5/11/2011 9:00 AM EDT
Source: Cornell University
Newswise — Richard Geddes, associate professor of policy analysis and management at Cornell University and author of “The Road to Renewal: Private Investment in U.S. Transportation Infrastructure,” comments on the Department of Transportation’s recent allocation of $2 billion for high-speed rail.
Geddes says:
“High-speed rail is a commendable policy objective, but it’s time to get serious about how to pay for it. At currently estimated construction costs of at least $50 million per mile, the roughly $10 billion in federal funding allocated thus far represents only a small down payment, or about 200 miles total.
With additional federal funds frozen and state budgets stretched thin, public-private partnerships will be essential to affording the monumental costs of building, operating and maintaining the types of true high-speed rail found in other countries, where speeds regularly exceed 150 miles per hour.
“It’s time to focus our high-speed rail investment on those places where it makes sense. The Administration and state entities should focus their efforts on attracting private investment, and on ensuring that the systems built meet real market needs. The Northeast Corridor, which stands to receive nearly $800 million of the funds awarded today, could be a model for this type of partnership.
“Taxpayers alone can’t afford to shoulder the enormous costs of true high-speed rail. If high-speed rail is initiated in areas where it is economically justified, then private industry will willingly share in this investment in our future.”
Contact Syl Kacapyr for questions about Cornell's TV and radio studios.
