Another voice against the unnecessary costs of high-speed rail

Last week I wrote a post wondering why some politicians, like our President, have an obsession with high-speed rail.

As my blog feeds to my Facebook page, we had a good discussion there about the concept, the funding and the alternatives.

Today, I came across Wendell Cox, writing in National Review, agreeing with me that high-speed rail is a budget-buster. He writes:

If the nation is going to reduce its out-of-control spending, the first step is to stop spending money on things we do not need. Despite President Obama’s call in his State of the Union speech for linking 80 percent of the nation by high-speed rail, it is hard to imagine a more unnecessary program.

For example, people who travel between Los Angeles and San Francisco — along the route planned for one of the nation’s first high-speed-rail projects — already have choices. They can fly, drive, take the bus, or travel by train. True, some would prefer to tax their fellow citizens so that they can have another choice, high-speed rail. But indulging this desire would be as legitimate as funding government grocery stores for people who prefer not to shop at their local grocery chains.

Cox provides details on cost overruns (as common as 80% and, in some countries, more than 200%), and environmental claims. I hope you'll take the time to read the entire article.

The obsession with high-speed rail

I don't understand it. I don't know why so many politicians are obsessed with putting high-speed rail across the United States.

I do believe it makes sense, including economically, in some areas of the country (like the East Coast or California). But it certainly doesn't make sense for Ohio, as I explained in this post:

In Ohio, we're having the on-going discussion about so-called high-speed rail.

I write 'so-called' because the latest proposal to spend $400 million in federal stimulus dollars would give us a system that connects only three of Ohio's major cities; costs more than $400 million to build; won't be 'high' speed as it is projected to be slower than actually driving; and, worst of all, will require Ohio taxpayers to subsidize it to the tune of $17 million a year! Oh - and that $17 million of taxpayer funds it will need is only if the rail system actually meets its ridership projections. And that's the supporters' own projection of costs!

Incoming Governor John Kasich is opposed to the plan and wants to use the $400 million for other transportation purposes. But the federal government is threatening to 'give' the money to another state if we don't do what they want us to do with it.

But in last night's State of the Union address (prepared remarks), President Barack Obama again pushed the idea:

"Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail. (Applause.) This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying –- without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.) As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway."

So we'll have 'access' ... but that does NOT ensure usage. In fact, people who already have access to rail do not use it for any number of reasons including schedules and price.

And at what cost? Well, in Ohio we know that the 'privilege' of access will cost taxpayers $17 million a year - on top of what the system itself is supposed to generate. That's a price that's too high.

But liberals just love this idea. In fact, our local paper still supports the idea for Ohio, conveniently ignoring the facts as well as the costs of the proposal.

Why - in spite of studies and data on rail projects which show such projects are boondoggles at best:

Over the past four decades, American cities have spent close to $100 billion constructing rail transit systems, and many billions more operating those systems. The agencies that spend taxpayer dollars building these lines almost invariably call them successful even when they go an average of 40% over budget and, in many cases, carry an insignificant number of riders. In a new study, Cato scholar Randal O'Toole uses the latest government data on scores of rail transit systems to evaluate the systems' value and usefulness to the public.

When you have individuals pushing an idea that we know cannot be self-sufficient, doesn't meet the projections for usage and requires billions of dollars over and above revenue to operate, a reasonable deduction is that they have an obsession with the idea.

Logic and reason are not being considered because, if they were, these people wouldn't be jamming the projects down our throats.

In spite of facts, figures, data, financial estimates, rider estimates, objections from states and individuals, they keep pushing the idea. One can only conclude that there must be ulterior motives we do not yet know. How else to explain the efforts of the President and many in Washington to insist on massive amounts of spending for high-speed rail? Especially when we're clearly broke?

Is it that they think they know better than we do? Is this part of the long-term effort to eliminate our reliance on oil? Is this a way to make us more dependent on government and government-run transportation? Do they just like it and are using the power of their offices on a personal preference?

I don't know - but I do know that if they succeed, it will cause us more harm than good.

I hope the governors will say no to the federal greenmail and that the new makeup in the House of Representatives says no to this unnecessary spending.

Fixing Transit and that 'evil' word: privitize

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, had a great article about how to fix transit problems that many think plague the United States. In Ohio, we're having the on-going discussion about so-called high-speed rail.

I write 'so-called' because the latest proposal to spend $400 million in federal stimulus dollars would give us a system that connects only three of Ohio's major cities; costs more than $400 million to build; won't be 'high' speed as it is projected to be slower than actually driving; and, worst of all, will require Ohio taxpayers to subsidize it to the tune of $17 million a year! Oh - and that $17 million of taxpayer funds it will need is only if the rail system actually meets its ridership projections. And that's the supporters' own projection of costs!

Incoming Governor John Kasich is opposed to the plan and wants to use the $400 million for other transportation purposes. But the federal government is threatening to 'give' the money to another state if we don't do what they want us to do with it.

Convoluted and completely lacking in common sense - I know. But, sadly, that is the way government works these days.

On a local level, voters just approved a renewal of the TARTA levy and Perrysburg is still trying to opt-out of that service because they believe they can provide a better service for the costs they're paying. Other communities are opposed to being forced to join the TARTA service area - or to have a county-wide sales tax fund the organization - because of problems they see in the operation, the service and the failed concept.

Which is why I thought this article from Cato was important to share. The transit needs in Los Angeles are much different from the needs in New York City - and those are much different from our needs here in Northwest Ohio. If we can get government out of the way, including not giving them our tax dollars for one-size-fits-all solutions, we'd all be better off.

Here is the summary of the article:

America's experiment with government ownership of urban transit systems has proven to be a disaster. Since Congress began giving states and cities incentives to take over private transit systems in 1964, worker productivity — the number of transit riders carried per worker — has declined by more than 50 percent; the amount of energy required to carry one bus rider one mile has increased by more than 75 percent; the inflation- adjusted cost per transit trip has nearly tripled, even as fares per trip slightly declined; and, despite hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies, the number of transit trips per urban resident declined from more than 60 trips per year in 1964 to 45 in 2008.

Largely because of government ownership, the transit industry today is beset by a series of interminable crises. Recent declines in the tax revenues used to support transit have forced major cuts in transit services in the vast majority of urban areas. Transit infrastructure — especially rail infrastructure — is steadily deteriorating, and the money transit agencies spend on maintenance is not even enough to keep it in its current state of poor repair. And transit agencies have agreed to employee pension and health care plans that impose billions of dollars of unfunded liabilities on taxpayers.

Transit advocates propose to solve these problems with even more subsidies. A better solution is to privatize transit. Private transit providers will provide efficient transit services that go where people want to go. In order for privatization to take place, Congress and the states must stop giving transit agencies incentives to waste money on high-cost transit technologies.

The complete policy analysis is here.

Strickland is the real 'cheerleader for failure'

A Google search will show multiple links to the headline "Strickland Lashes Out at Critics of Rail Plan," which is what Governor Ted did two days ago, calling opponents of his plan "cheerleaders for failure."

I don't believe the Governor understands the meaning of the term 'failure' if he really believes what he said.

From the WSPD News website:

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland is lashing out at critics of the state's plan to use $400 million in federal stimulus money for a startup rail service, calling them ``cheerleaders for failure.''

Strickland said Tuesday he's tired of people who attack every idea that comes along and always look for something negative to say.

The governor says that's not the way to move Ohio forward.
...
Strickland says other states would have rejoiced to receive $400 million in federal funding.

Just a reminder: this plan that Strickland is so fond of will cost more than $500 million dollars, so getting $400 million from the feds just means the state has to come up with another $100 million or so in order to get it built. Ohio doesn't have that money - at least, not without giving up something already planned in the capital budget.

I've written previously about the operational costs of the rail plan, pointing out that the Governor's own report says the system will cost $29 million a year to operate, but is only projected to have $12 million in revenue - meaning the Ohio taxpayer will have to pay $17 million a year just to run the system once its built.

See that? This rail plan requires the taxpayer to pay nearly 60% of the yearly costs while those who ride it will only have to pay 40%. Do we really want to spend our limited tax revenues on such a boondoggle? Aren't there more important things already being cut out of the state's budget because it doesn't have enough money to break even? And Gov. Strickland thinks this is a good idea?

Talk about failure! I can think of nothing that so qualifies as a massive failure than to rejoice over a system that will cost us so much money to operate.

Obviously, it's not a good idea. But that won't deter a bunch of politicians who've already backed it and begged for money from the federal government (meaning you and me and every other taxpayer) to build a system that won't even come close to breaking even.

So what's a governor to do? Demonize the people who are using logic and reason and sound fiscal analysis by calling them "cheerleaders for failure."

Sadly, the only cheerleader for failure in this instance is Ted Strickland. The rail plan is a fiscal drain on a already tapped-out state. To continue to push it in spite of the financial reality is certainly not the "way to move Ohio forward."

High-speed rail a waste of money, report says

This just in from Buckeye Institute:

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, June 24, 2009

High-Speed Rail a Waste of Money, Says Report

COLUMBUS - The Obama Administration's proposed high-speed rail plan will cost $1,000 for every federal income taxpayer, yet the average American will ride high-speed trains less than 60 miles a year, says a new report from the Buckeye Institute. The report estimates that the average Ohio resident will take a round trip on high-speed trains only once every 19 years. The report can be found at http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/highspeedrail.pdf.

On Wednesday, June 17, the Federal Railroad Administration released criteria for state applications for high-speed rail projects. The new report warns that the cost of these projects could grow to be hundreds of billions of dollars with very little public or environmental benefit.

The federal government is proposing to build true high-speed rail lines - with trains going faster than 120 miles per hour - only in California and Florida. In Ohio and most of the rest of the country, it is merely proposing to upgrade existing freight tracks to boost top Amtrak speeds from 79 to 110 mph.

Trains with a top speed of 110 mph will have average speeds of just 55 to 75 mph. Not only will that attract few people out of their cars, says the report, such trains will actually be less energy efficient and more polluting than driving.

"High-speed rail is an idea whose time has gone," says Randal O'Toole, a Cato Institute senior fellow and the report's author. "It is bad for taxpayers and bad for the environment."

Premium fares and a downtown orientation means that the main people riding these trains will be bankers, lawyers, government officials, and other high-income people who hardly need subsidized transportation. Not only will each federal income taxpayer pay $1,000 for someone else to ride the train, that passenger probably earns more than the average taxpayer.

The administration has compared its high-speed rail plan with President Eisenhower's Interstate Highway System. But interstates were paid for entirely out of gas taxes and other user fees, not general taxes, and the average American travels on interstates 4,000 miles per year. By comparison, general taxpayers will pay for the cost of building and much of the costs of operating high-speed trains that will be used mainly by a wealthy elite.

The report urges Ohio to use its share of federal high-speed rail stimulus money for safety improvements such as grade crossings and signaling systems, but not for new trains that will obligate taxpayers to pay millions of dollars in annual subsidies.

The Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions is a nonpartisan research and educational institute devoted to individual liberty, economic freedom, personal responsibility and limited government in Ohio.