Reply to Message

Please allow me to make a few points from your points:
Trains are a big capital cost. They require track and rolling stock. Track means right-of-way, so we?re not just talking about financial capital but political capital as well.

(I agree.)

Trains also have ongoing costs people underestimate in calculating fares. Maintenance, cleaning, policing. Some of these costs are easy to avoid, again for political reasons, but putting them off is a false economy.

(Good, you?re two for two!)

What trains mainly offer are enormous savings in energy costs. It costs 20 times more energy to get you around in a car than on a train. But you bear the costs of the car yourself. Train costs must be shared.

(Hmmm, three for three?.what am I doing here?)

This is why America does not have many trains moving people anywhere. Americans don?t like long-term plans. We don?t like sharing costs. It all smacks of socialism and central planning.

(I couldn?t have said it better myself--although I do detect a small pejorative).

But that?s not an economic argument. It?s a political one.

(Uh..ohhh? You seem to think that economics and politics are discrete concepts. My own worldview informs me that the political argument is just one aspect of economics.)

There is plenty of market demand to sustain high-speed train service in major population corridors, and light rail within cities that will reduce pollution and total energy demand. What is lacking is a willingness to share risks, an unwillingness born of politics.

(Not to mention economics?)

That is reflected well in the Obama stimulus, which put $8 billion into high-speed train planning. The money was spread around the country, reflecting the desire of Congresscritters that everyone get a taste.

(Congresscritters? I like it! ...but not the taste.)

And that?s the boondoggle. A single high-speed inter-city link could cost $12 billion. Maybe more. Economists like Edward Glaeser of Harvard believe this cost can?t be made up, and the Obama stimulus money is butter spread over too much bread to make a dent in the capital required to do the job.

(Boondoggle! YES!!! And your point is?)

Rather than spreading $8 billion or $12 billion around the country, a fraction of that money could have been spent within one year ? the intent of the stimulus ? to come up with a priority list of routes. Which make the most sense, in terms of traffic and possible economic payback. Then create mechanisms to build them, and throw what money remains in that pile.

(Where to start. Okay, I really do like the ?fraction? part. I guess my problem starts when the government starts setting the ?priority list of routes?. But if Charleston WV gets a subsidy for light rail, all those Congresspersons from Houston TX will insist on seven times as much! They?re just counting heads, you understand. The simple facts are that (1) Charleston is hemmed in by mountains and there are only two directions for the rail to go, and that (2) Houston is wide open and seven times as many people go every which way. But all that gets lost somewhere in the trillion-dollar budget.
And when you say, ?throw what money remains in that pile??you are kidding?aren?t you?)

The problem here isn?t economic. It isn?t technical. The problem is political. And it starts with the attitude ?no, we can?t.?

(Regardless of your attitude?and even if you do confuse the economic and the political?the correct answer is: ?No, we shouldn?t!?)
Cliff Raymond
Sugar Land, Texas