In Case You’re Just Joining Us: The High-Speed Rail Debate
Posted on Friday October 15th by Eric Jaffe
So far the debate over high-speed rail has split rather predictably along party lines. Conservatives tend to bemoan its cost. Liberals tend to praise its progressiveness. But every day a few new qualifying voices enter the fray. The New York Times recently gathered half a dozen commentaries on the subject, while the National Journal voiced nine expert thoughts. To help navigate this landscape of opinion we’ve assembled a basic guide to the points, counterpoints, and neither-points of the great bullet train debate.
Against HSR
Opponents of high-speed rail usually begin—and often end—by asking about the money. Citing concerns over financing, several Republican candidates for governor have threatened to halt rail projects. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie actually did cancel the ARC transit tunnel (for a few hours, anyway). Wisconsin candidate Scott Walker (he of NoTrain.com) recently called high-speed rail “yet another example of President Obama’s failed stimulus policies that are bankrupting our nation.” A recent review of California’s high-speed rail concluded that the line can’t support its own costs: ridership forecasts are too high, and operating expenses too low. Charles Lane cites “Amtrak’s consistent money-losing” in arguing that cars, buses, and planes carry travelers more efficiently, and at lower cost. Along those lines, Randal O’Toole says interstates provide 4,000 miles of travel per American, whereas high-speed rail would give 300 “at best.” One of several reasons why high-speed rail “will likely fail on its own lack of merits,” argues Sam Staley of the Reason Foundation, is that America is simply too vast—filled with “sparsely populated areas” unsuited for bullet trains.
For HSR
Those in favor of high-speed rail see the light at the end of the tunnel. As Ezra Klein points out, now is a prime time to invest in infrastructure—with cheap construction costs and borrowing that’s “never been lower.” True, trains don’t always pay for themselves, concedes Paul Krugman, but cars also drive on roads maintained by tax dollars. A permanent trust or bank for rail money might correct this long-standing funding imbalance, says Andy Kunz, head of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association. Anyway, economics don’t tell the whole story. High-speed rail can “ease the pressure” on roads and airways, says a new bipartisan report. A balanced transportation system protects the environment and ensures “that future generations have the ability to move freely,” writes AltTransport. It also reduces dependency on foreign oil, reminds Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon. Besides, if Amtrak’s latest figures reflect true behavioral change—this year it set records for riders and revenue—then rail’s time may finally have arrived. As for traversing the vast United States, Robert Yaro contends that “70 percent of Americans” live in a dense megaregion “perfectly suited” to bullet trains.
Middle of the Tracks
Still others stray a bit from the master storyline of good versus evil. Economist Jan Brueckner recognizes that much is appealing about high-speed rail but also knows that transportation “habits are hard to change.” Keith Poole of University of Georgia believes a better solution is “improving existing rail lines in cooperation with the freight railroads.” Robert Puentes of the Brookings Institute says that we should build high-speed rail in some cases, but a better general question is “how we are going to make the transition to a low-carbon economy and what type of infrastructure investments help get us there?” High-speed rail is all well and good, says Peter Pantuso, head of the American Bus Association, but boosting the “intercity bus industry … makes economic, environmental and policy sense” too. The last word, of course, goes to Bob Dylan:
Don’t say I never warned you
When your train gets lost
Amen.
infrastructurist.com |
