But it’s not high-speed rail.
Despite the praise being heaped upon the idea of high-speed rail by certain segments of the population, Obama’s high-speed rail plan remains a terrible idea. Indeed, the fact that it’s a recycled plan from 2005 may just be as close as it comes to being environmentally responsible. And even the new “high-speed” segments are not going to make rail travel competitive with airlines and automobiles.
To fly from DC to Chicago takes two hours. By rail? 17 and a half. There are those who would counter that people would be taking the train for the shorter hops, like the drive I’m doing every other week now from Philadelphia to Harrisburg to avoid having to take the short-hop flight. The high-speed train would cost around $200 round-trip. It costs me less than $20 in gasoline to make the round-trip myself in a full-size Chevy Impala. And I have the added benefit of having a car at my destination allowing me to come and go at my own leisure.
For bulk freight, rail is fantastic, but for transportation it just doesn’t make sense. For short distances it’s no faster than driving yourself, much less convenient, and more expensive. For long distances it’s far slower than flying (and more expensive).
I know this is all stimulus spending and not infrastructure spending, but wouldn’t it make more sense to take that same money and put it towards things that will actually get used? Things like highway upgrades and airport expansion? Heaven knows that there are enough delays out of airports like Philadelphia and Chicago that they could benefit from a few new runways.
I remember criticizing high-speed rail waaay back in Mrs. Yates’ LEAP class. That was, what, 1997? The reasoning for high-speed rail in the U.S. haven’t improved much since. About the only place that high-speed rail makes sense is between large metropolitan areas that are close to each other. (Subways and train systems within a city are very economical as well). And there has to be enough regular traffic using the train system to make it worth the infrastructure investment.
Europe and Japan are perfect examples of how high-speed train systems can work well. But the U.S. isn’t like Japan or Europe. We’re way too spread-out for trains to be good for much between cities other than freight (as you mentioned). I have yet to see an argument for high speed rail in the U.S. that makes much sense. I think we as a country want one to avoid feeling left out. Because that’s about the only real reason for building one, and not a very good one at that.
Comment by Curtis — Monday, 20 April, 2009 @ 13:51