High-Speed Rail Losers

February 12, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Late last month, President Obama announced the recipients of an $8 billion plan to develop high-speed rail throughout the country. In his State of the Union address, the president touted Tampa, the site of one of the plan's biggest grants: $1.25 billion to begin construction of a high-speed line connecting Tampa and Orlando. "There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information," he said.

[See What Obama Could Bring to the Tea Party.]

But there's a wrinkle in the president's announcement: Most of the $8 billion is not going to high-speed rail. Amtrak's Acela Express, which covers the Northeast and is considered the only true high-speed passenger line in the United States, can reach speeds up to 150 mph. Of the more than 10 regions of the country receiving money under Obama's new plan, only California and Florida will receive funds to build new high-speed rail lines. Most of the remaining funds will be dedicated to upgrading existing rail lines. Many of these lines are not high-speed and travel at speeds of less than 100 mph.

[See Breaking Down Obama's Budget.]

The problem is that true high-speed rail is expensive. The administration is "being criticized because they're not putting all of the money in the superspeed trains," says Ross Capon, president of the National Association of Railroad Passengers. But making such expensive investments requires focus on just a few corridors—regions where there is a plan for rail service. "What we've seen from these [high-speed rail] investments across the world is that countries make one big investment," says Robert Puentes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. "The advice was, pick one or two corridors and invest wisely." Instead, the administration is "spreading the peanut butter thinly all over the place," says Puentes.

Distributing the money widely might be part of the administration's strategy to keep as many constituencies happy as possible. "If the money only goes to a handful of places, you're effectively thumbing your nose at an awful lot of state departments of transportation, most of them already having trains running," says Capon.

Even with a larger number of rail lines getting funds, some places got left out. Certain parts of the country that the federal government had designated as possible high-speed rail corridors got little or no money. Other areas received far less than they were expecting or requested from the federal government.

The decision to give Florida funding for high-speed rail "raised some eyebrows," says Puentes. But the state government and local businesses had made plans for the new train in ways that other areas had not, such as acquiring land. "The point with Florida is that this is the one place where something approaching a European high-speed rail could be up in the next four to five years," says Puentes.

The following regions are those that were passed over for high-speed rail funds or got much less than they expected. Essentially, Obama sent a message to these parts of the country: If you want high-speed rail, you need to work harder for it.

1. California. The Golden State received the largest amount of money from Obama's plan: $2.3 billion. The state wants to build a high-speed line more than 800 miles long between San Francisco and Southern California. But the money allocated is only a fraction of what is needed to make that dream a reality. After all, Florida got more than $1 billion for a line that is only about 80 miles long. The plan is a "slap in the face" to California, says Randal O'Toole, senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He argues that while the California line is officially estimated to cost $45 billion, "most rail projects have gone 40 percent over budget," so that number could be much higher.

2. Rocky Mountains. The large, expansive states in the Mountain Time Zone are pretty tough to traverse with passenger rail. Colorado has submitted a proposal to change that: a high-speed line that would link Denver to New Mexico. But the project did not get any federal funding with Obama's announcement. "The one that stands out to me is the Intermountain West and the utter lack of any kind of awards there," says Puentes.

Tags:
transportation

Reader Comments Read all comments (30)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Every industrialized nation in the world already has, or is rapidly building high speed rail. We are going to get blind-sided by rapidly rising oil prices coming much sooner than we think ($300 per barrel in 9 years!). If we don't get moving quickly on this important national project, we will all watch America sink to 2nd and 3rd world status because we won't be able to afford to operate our transportation systems, and we will be in a permanent depression with no way out. By that time we will be too broke to build anything, and no one will want to lend us money.

Borrowing money from the Chinese to run a war that gets us absolutely nothing of benefit as a nation has to be the dumbest move anyone can make. Not only has this nearly ruined our nation, drove us into huge debt, and a recession, but we gain absolutely nothing from it, and we will still have to pay back the Chinese!

Borrowing money from the Chinese to build a national rail system that gets us off our dangerous dependence on oil and delivers us a 21st century transportation system capable of operating on renewable energy is the smartest thing we can do. We will then be able to save billions of dollars every year and have money to pay back the Chinese and still advance our nation.

Mike of NY 11:09AM February 18, 2011

Progress in the future of safe, energy efficient transportation is indeed an ongoing business. The jobs that are generated by this progress will help our country survive to the next century. We can overcome by agreement of the majority of the voters any obsticals to this progress. Think of the future with out change. Can we afford not to? Any proposal to economic stability should be welcomed and supported; our democracy depends on this.

Diane McLeod SH of GA 11:09PM July 21, 2010

Transportation Transformation Impossible

Competition with the personal conveyance and trucking makes this a subsidy-ridden program. I wish it was otherwise but too many things trying to be done at once and too many things getting boosted by the stimulus or taxpayer support in one way or another. Many are simply putting lipstick on pigs, you know what I mean, where there is a dressing up of old systems and maintaining of paradigms. Then there are the BNRS acquired by BH that will be a regional freight hauling competitor and a possible electrical/hybrid vehicle infrastructure. Maybe it is getting planned for implementation but who knows with the airheads that are disconnected with the future realities and influenced by very short-focused interests only wanting their pockets lined with easy money while costs skyrocket and infracstructure suffers. Unfortunately that includes bureacrats and public employees as much as the corporate/financial/insurance interests. I've tried to promote better integration of mass transportation and believed that retooling of the automobile industry would be idea to support this. However, there isn't much faith that my sensible idea will overcome the inertia of an unsustainable system.

Frank N. Blunt of CA 8:32AM March 13, 2010

Most Connected Company

Sponsored by Dell.

Find out how America’s best companies are succeeding by tapping big data, mobile solutions, social media, and crowdsourcing to adapt and compete in an increasingly connected world.

See the companies »

advertisement

Slide Shows

Is Your Portfolio Ready for a Double-Dip?

With the looming threat of a double-dip recession, investors should position their portfolios to protect themselves from another downturn.

Latest Video

advertisement