Trains To Nowhere

Reason TV adds more fuel to the argument against high speed rail:

1. The lowball costs. CNN estimates that delivering on the plan could cost well over $500 billion and take decades to build, all while failing to cover much of the country at all. Internationally, only two high-speed rail lines have recouped their capital costs and all depend on huge subsidies to stay in operation.

2. The supposed benefits. "We're gonna be taking cars off of congested highways and reducing carbon emissions," says Vice President Joe Biden, an ardent rail booster. But most traffic jams are urban, not inter-city, so high-speed rail between metro areas will have no effect on your daily commute. And when construction costs are factored in, high-speed rail "may yield only marginal net greenhouse gas reductions," say UC-Berkeley researchers.

3. The delusional Amtrak example. Obama and Biden look to Amtrak as precedent, but since its founding in 1971, the nation's passenger rail system has sucked up almost $35 billion in subsidies and, says The Washington Post's Robert J. Samuelson, "a typical trip is subsidized by about $50." About 140 million Americans shlep to work every day, while Amtrak carries just 78,000 passengers. There's no reason to think that high-speed rail will pump up those numbers, though there's every reason to believe its costs will grow and grow.

Meanwhile, the St. Pete Times reports that Florida's share of this boondoggle is facing an uphill battle. Let's hope so:

What's less certain is whether officials will be able to keep the project's money, public support and construction on track to start running trains in 2015, its architects said Thursday during a national rail conference in Orlando...

President Barack Obama promised $1.25 billion in stimulus money to start the project — about half of what the state requested...

"We're going to need full funding for the project or we can't move forward," said Nazih Haddad, chief operating officer of the Florida Rail Enterprise, who discounted the chances of lining up private construction financing given the economy.

Does anyone wonder why no private, for profit concern has ever proposed a project like this? They haven't because it makes no financial sense, which makes the government - and taxpayers - the suckers of last resort.

Based on 2.1 million riders a year with $20 average fares, the Florida Department of Transportation says high speed rail's revenue could pay for its costs. However, even Siemens and other possible contractors are skeptical of those numbers.

So even the beneficiaries of this taxpayer funded white elephant are questioning the government's rosy projections. This insanity needs to be stopped now.

Central Florida Rail: Region's game-changer?

It sure is. But not in the way Alex Martins thinks. He is the Chairman of Central Florida Partnership and CEO of the Orlando Magic. But that doesn't make him immune from having misguided opinions:

High-speed rail can make the difference when it comes to our ability to compete on the global stage. Tampa Bay has a population of 3.75 million and Central Florida has a population of 3.46 million. As a combined super region, we are the seventh most-populated region in the country, and the 10th-largest economy in the United States...

...We know that you build a professional basketball team by making strategic decisions over time. Likewise, we understand that Florida is committed to building a safe and efficient multimodal transportation network to serve residents and visitors. High-speed and commuter rail are just the first links in the transportation system that will better connect our communities.

...I couldn't agree more. Growing up in the New York metro area, I used the rail system to attend sporting events and Broadway matinees. That system grew to become the easiest, most direct transportation source for work and play. From my experiences, I know that high-speed rail will be a real game-changer for Central Florida.

That last paragraph is where Mr. Martins' argument runs off the rails, so to speak. The New York transit system, like those in Boston, Chicago and elsewhere, were built in densely populated areas that came of age prior to the advent of the automobile. Dense suburbs grew up close to them as bedroom communities for those downtown areas. So it was relatively easy to place stations within convenient reach of large numbers of people.

And lets remember that those systems were started as private companies with money raised from investors who thought they could make a profit. No private concern will do that in Central Florida because it makes no economic sense.

The population density of the N.Y. Metro area is 2,792 people per square mile, whereas the Tampa Bay and Greater Orlando Metro areas are 521 and 494 people per square mile respectively. There is no way to have enough stops to make rail work conveniently or efficiently under those circumstances. How will people get to those distant stations and what will they do when they get to their destination? Answer: They won't bother. One only has to look to places like Los Angeles and Seattle, where taxpayer funded rail schemes have failed, to see what will happen here.

Additionally, most people in places like Central Florida commute from suburb to suburb, not a central downtown location. There's no way to easily get around those places without an automobile.

Simply put, this will fail to attract any significant ridership just as it has in other places that were developed around the automobile. People can complain about living in a decentralized area while enjoying its benefits as much as they want. But pretending you're something you're not in order to justify building a wildly expensive white elephant, just creates more problems while solving nothing.

Obama Railway

">President Obama arrived in Tampa today with federal taxpayer cash to build yet another railway that no one will use and cost far more than any benefits derived.

"Speaking at the University of Tampa, Obama called high speed rail "building our infrastructure of the future… We want to start looking deep into the 21st century. There is no reason why other countries can build high speed rail lines and we can't."

Well, we can build it but that doesn't mean we should. Rail projects like this have been built all over the country and have almost invariably suffered from low ridership and have required massive subsidies (federal, state and local) to keep them running. The main reason people don't ride them is population density.

Mass transit works in older, densely populated, vertical cities that came of age before the invention of the automobile e.g. Boston, New York Chicago. Much less track is needed to conveniently reach the amount of people required to make those systems viable. Not so in cities that have experienced most of their growth in the last century. The automobile allowed people to live further apart and on more land. Tampa, Orlando and most of Florida falls in that category and no rail system here can efficiently have enough stops conveniently close to make it an attractive alternative. Simply put: If you drive your car 10 miles to the Tampa station and ride to Orlando, what do you do when you get there? How do you get around that sprawling metropolis?

As for other countries with high speed rail, population density and other factors make them poor comparisons. Robert Samuelson explains:

"What works in Europe and Asia won't in the United States. Even abroad, passenger trains are subsidized. But the subsidies are more justifiable because geography and energy policies differ.

Densities are much higher, and high densities favor rail with direct connections between heavily populated city centers and business districts. In Japan, density is 880 people per square mile; it's 653 in Britain, 611 in Germany and 259 in France. By contrast, plentiful land in the United States has led to suburbanized homes, offices and factories. Density is 86 people per square mile. Trains can't pick up most people where they live and work and take them to where they want to go. Cars can.

Distances also matter. America is big; trips are longer. Beyond 400 to 500 miles, fast trains can't compete with planes. Finally, Europe and Japan tax car transportation more heavily, pushing people to trains. In August 2008, notes the GAO, gasoline in Japan was $6.50 a gallon. Americans regard $4 a gallon as an outrage. Proposals for stiff gasoline taxes (advocated by many, including me) go nowhere."

The only way to get people into trains they don't want to ride is through a combination of bribes through taxpayer subsidies, and force through heavy taxation of gasoline and air travel.

There's a reason why no private concern has ever proposed a project like this: It's an inefficient loser. If no one is willing to risk their own money on these boondoggles, then why should taxpayers do it through government force? This is just one more reason why government spending doesn't stimulate anything other than politician's careers.

More on this subject: American Thinker, Cato Institute, Reason.