Comments on: The High Cost of High-Speed Rail http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/the-high-cost-of-high-speed-rail.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:56:48 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: David Stokes http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/the-high-cost-of-high-speed-rail.html/comment-page-1#comment-4081 David Stokes Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:38:18 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=8179#comment-4081 Andrew, TRUE high speed rail around the United States would cost in the trillions. With a "T." All to serve a small part of the transportation market. Even if that part of the market rose substantially it would still require huge subsidies, just like high speed rail in Japan and Europe (apparently excluding France.) More importantly, nobody is really proposing true high-speed rail right now(Thank God). They just want to do very expensive incremental upgrades to get the trains moving to 110 top speed, much less as the average speed. I would propose that Lambert Airport is just as convenient for the majority of St. Louisans as the downtown rail station. But that goes right into one of Randal O'Toole's main points - that high speed rail delivers heavily subsidized transportation to the people who need the subsidy the least. That would be the people who work downtown and travel from city to city, like lawyers, bankers, and government workers. Andrew,
TRUE high speed rail around the United States would cost in the trillions. With a “T.” All to serve a small part of the transportation market. Even if that part of the market rose substantially it would still require huge subsidies, just like high speed rail in Japan and Europe (apparently excluding France.)
More importantly, nobody is really proposing true high-speed rail right now(Thank God). They just want to do very expensive incremental upgrades to get the trains moving to 110 top speed, much less as the average speed.
I would propose that Lambert Airport is just as convenient for the majority of St. Louisans as the downtown rail station. But that goes right into one of Randal O’Toole’s main points – that high speed rail delivers heavily subsidized transportation to the people who need the subsidy the least. That would be the people who work downtown and travel from city to city, like lawyers, bankers, and government workers.

]]> By: Andrew Bolin http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/the-high-cost-of-high-speed-rail.html/comment-page-1#comment-4023 Andrew Bolin Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:58:47 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=8179#comment-4023 Dave, your assessment is not fair. If rail was up to date, more people would ride and less public funding would be needed. Rail France is now making a profit. The compounded public funding needed to even out rail with highways would be in the hundreds of billions. I contest that we charge tolls on interstates and use the money that went to highways to rail for a decade then make all transportation market driven. Also a true HSR trip (220mph) from CHI to KS would be around 3.5 hours, and the flight is 1:25 in the air. Don't forget security and driving to and from the the airport. At least rail stations are generally centrally located. Dave, your assessment is not fair. If rail was up to date, more people would ride and less public funding would be needed. Rail France is now making a profit. The compounded public funding needed to even out rail with highways would be in the hundreds of billions. I contest that we charge tolls on interstates and use the money that went to highways to rail for a decade then make all transportation market driven.

Also a true HSR trip (220mph) from CHI to KS would be around 3.5 hours, and the flight is 1:25 in the air. Don’t forget security and driving to and from the the airport. At least rail stations are generally centrally located.

]]> By: David Stokes http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/the-high-cost-of-high-speed-rail.html/comment-page-1#comment-3982 David Stokes Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:06:49 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=8179#comment-3982 Larry, Thank you as well for your comment. First of all, I fully support much greater use of tolling on highways and bridges to move away from road subsidies toward increased direct user fees. But the gas tax does do a decent job of making sure the people who drive pay for the roads, and I have no objection to increasing the gas tax if necessary. But with road subsidies, 100% of the people pay for something that 98% of the people regularly use and which benefits 100% of us (delivery of goods on trucks, etc.) With rail, 100% of the people pay for something that only a very small percent of the population uses and benefits from. (Freight rail, as compared to trucks, is one of the least subsidized transportation markets.) I have no objection to the $8 million a year Missouri gives to Amtrak, nor the $40 million they are now spending on upgrades to the current route (not part of a high-speed rail plan), because I think the benefits of that outweigh the costs. But when we get into a new, bells and whistles high-speed rail plan, I think the costs greatly outweigh the benefits. Who in their right mind is going to take high-speed rail from Kansas City to Chicago (one of the major proposed routes, going through St. Louis) when the trip will still take you about 8 hours and you can fly there in an hour and twenty minutes? The answer is hardly anyone. Larry,
Thank you as well for your comment. First of all, I fully support much greater use of tolling on highways and bridges to move away from road subsidies toward increased direct user fees. But the gas tax does do a decent job of making sure the people who drive pay for the roads, and I have no objection to increasing the gas tax if necessary.
But with road subsidies, 100% of the people pay for something that 98% of the people regularly use and which benefits 100% of us (delivery of goods on trucks, etc.) With rail, 100% of the people pay for something that only a very small percent of the population uses and benefits from. (Freight rail, as compared to trucks, is one of the least subsidized transportation markets.)
I have no objection to the $8 million a year Missouri gives to Amtrak, nor the $40 million they are now spending on upgrades to the current route (not part of a high-speed rail plan), because I think the benefits of that outweigh the costs. But when we get into a new, bells and whistles high-speed rail plan, I think the costs greatly outweigh the benefits. Who in their right mind is going to take high-speed rail from Kansas City to Chicago (one of the major proposed routes, going through St. Louis) when the trip will still take you about 8 hours and you can fly there in an hour and twenty minutes? The answer is hardly anyone.

]]> By: Christine Harbin http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/the-high-cost-of-high-speed-rail.html/comment-page-1#comment-3981 Christine Harbin Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:23:04 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=8179#comment-3981 Thanks for the comment, Larry. By focusing on HSR, my intention was not to imply that it's the only mass transportation program in the USA that relies on taxpayer subsidies. Roads are funded through additional sources such as gasoline taxes and tolls, which function more like user fees. My point is that there are more cost-effective ways to provide mass transportation than HSR. Dave Stokes made a post on this blog on this subject today. I agree with your statement that there needs to be reasonable ridership to warrant such public investment. The proposed project in Missouri would not have this ridership. In Mr. O'Toole's recent paper, he found that the average Missouri resident would only use it only once every six years. Thanks for the comment, Larry.

By focusing on HSR, my intention was not to imply that it’s the only mass transportation program in the USA that relies on taxpayer subsidies. Roads are funded through additional sources such as gasoline taxes and tolls, which function more like user fees. My point is that there are more cost-effective ways to provide mass transportation than HSR. Dave Stokes made a post on this blog on this subject today.

I agree with your statement that there needs to be reasonable ridership to warrant such public investment. The proposed project in Missouri would not have this ridership. In Mr. O’Toole’s recent paper, he found that the average Missouri resident would only use it only once every six years.

]]> By: Larry http://www.showmedaily.org/2009/10/the-high-cost-of-high-speed-rail.html/comment-page-1#comment-3974 Larry Thu, 29 Oct 2009 12:05:32 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=8179#comment-3974 As if our roads are not subsidized? Who pays for their upkeep and repair. Who pays for their expansion? Who paid for the Eisenhower era Interstate Highway build? Not even do tolls cover the total cost using the Pew standards of accounting -- which I think is the best approach. Admittedly we shouldn't have HSR everywhere, there needs to be reasonable ridership to warrant such public investment, but come on stop the picky, naive point of view that rail is the only U.S. mass transportation system that is subsidized. As if our roads are not subsidized? Who pays for their upkeep and repair. Who pays for their expansion? Who paid for the Eisenhower era Interstate Highway build? Not even do tolls cover the total cost using the Pew standards of accounting — which I think is the best approach. Admittedly we shouldn’t have HSR everywhere, there needs to be reasonable ridership to warrant such public investment, but come on stop the picky, naive point of view that rail is the only U.S. mass transportation system that is subsidized.

]]>