Edit topic

Updated your discussion topic below.

Subject
Enter a subject for your topic. Maximum 150 characters.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Last week USA Today carried an op-ed piece by Randal O'Toole on President Obama's high and moderate speed rail plans.  O'Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.  Outlined below are some of the points that he made. The administration's high and moderate speed rail plans would cost billions of dollars but would do little to improve traffic congestion or the environment.  Studies in Japan and France have shown that high speed rail is not about serving the common citizen.  Instead it is used largely by foreign tourists and in-country elites.  Many if not most of the folks who patronize the Acela (business and first class accommodations only) appear to have better than median incomes or are traveling on expense accounts.  Most of the common folks are on the regional trains, buses, airplanes or in their cars. To date the administration has committed approximately $13 billion for moderate and high speed rail. This represents somewhere between 2.5 and 25 per cent of the estimated cost of these plans, although no one really knows how much the proposed systems would cost.        Investments in passenger rail will not cover the capital costs and in most instances will only cover a portion of the operating costs.  California wants half of the committed funds to build a high speed line from scratch, as opposed to most other states where the plans are to upgrade existing rail lines for moderate speeds.  If California is successful in getting significant federal funding for its high speed system, the other states will clamor for similar funding.  And that could drive the cost of the proposed rail improvement plans above $500 billion.  By comparison, according to O'Toole, the inflation adjusted cost to build the Interstate Highway System was approximately $425 billion.  Interstate highways cover all 50 states; the rail plans will only provide service to 33 states. Whether the proposals to improve passenger rail will reduce congestion is debatable.  California estimates that its high speed rail line would remove approximately 3.5 per cent of the cars from its highways.  Moderate speed rail systems would probably remove a smaller percentage.  As to the environmental arguments for faster rail service, Amtrak's diesel powered trains are only a little more energy efficient than cars.  Moreover, cars will become more energy efficient, especially in light of the new CAFÉ standards and the introduction of alternative fuel systems.  Also, significantly higher rail speeds will mean greater inputs of energy and pollution outputs.  O'Toole makes several points worthy of a rational response.  Most telling, in my view, is no where in the discussions for high and moderate speed rail have I read or heard a detailed, realistic proposal on how to pay for it.  Or a realistic estimate of the total cost of the build out or a completion date.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
E-mail Subscribe
Check the box below if you want to receive e-mail notifications when replies are made to this thread.

Receive notifications