America's Coming High-Speed Rail Financial Disaster

Ronald Utt of the Heritage Foundation has released his critique of the USDOT's $8 billion HSR grants: America's Coming High-Speed Rail Financial Disaster. Here's a brief summary of Dr. Utt's position:

The FRA report listing each of the HSR awards and the brief justification for each award actually reveals how little benefit the FRA can find in each of these projects relative to their cost. This deeply flawed outcome makes one wonder what could possibly have transpired during the FRA decision-making process to produce this multi-year, multibillion-dollar commitment to obsolete technology.

It's hard to discern what Dr. Utt sees as the solution for the nation's transportation problems, other than appearing to suggest that cars and airplanes deserve more funding:

Most taxpayers will continue to travel by more cost-effective and largely self-financed modes, such as cars and airplanes. They will also find that government will continue to shortchange their preferred transportation choices, notably autos and airlines, to pander to key constituencies: environmentalists, rail hobbyists, and labor unions. Given that more than 20 percent of federal transportation funding already goes to transit, which serves less than 2 percent of passengers nationwide, the federal government is quite capable of squandering even more money on additional low-value and underutilized transportation projects such as HSR.

Dr. Utt covers the globe to find examples of bungled HSR schemes and in the section detailing the French experience he makes this observation:

Although the entire French passenger rail system receives an estimated annual government subsidy of approximately $10 billion (compared to the annual estimated subsidy of $22.8 billion for the somewhat larger German passenger rail system, which also includes an HSR component), the HSR service between Paris and Lyon--one of 11 TGV lines and 267 miles of the system--is believed by some to be one of only two HSR routes in the world that generate enough revenue to cover both capital and operating costs.

I would ask Dr. Utt to provide a comparable list of the highways and airports that generate enough revenue to cover both their capital and operating costs.

Back in the 1950s and 60s it was possible to build highways to almost anywhere. But mostly due to that road construction boom of 50 years ago, our suburbs and exurbs have grown to the point where it's almost impossible to solve today's transportation problems by building more roads. Not only is there no real estate available for highway building in the most congested areas, but the cost of building those fantasy highways would most likely be more expensive than railroad building and when completed, the new highways would likely be just as congested as the roads they replace.

Just like the other HSR haters, the Reason Foundation, and the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation gets funding from Exxon Mobil.

Vincent wrote:Not only is there no real estate available for highway building in the most congested areas, but the cost of building those fantasy highways would most likely be more expensive than railroad building and when completed, the new highways would likely be just as congested as the roads they replace.

Somehow they find the land for road projects ... but when a rail project needs a new ROW? You better hope there is space next to a road or along an abandoned or underused line.

Thinking rural here, but why is it when a road need upgrading between two cities new alignments more common than widening existing highways but when the government talks of upgrading or even adding high speed rail service the new line must follow existing ROWs? This kind of limited thinking helps kill plans for HSR.

Even ideas for freight bypasses of cities are shot down because of a lack of an existing ROW (or the NIMBYs not wanting increased rail traffic).

There's a huge model-train display taking up valuable floor space at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago.

Another example of civic leaders pandering to their rail-hobbyist constituents.

"...Another example of civic leaders pandering to their rail-hobbyist constituents."

Umm...isn't that the idea of a representative democracy? Civic leaders do what their constituents elected them to do.

While anyone who reviews the material I submit to this forum must acknowledge I hold that short distance rail passenger service between and through population centers is what 21st century passenger rail is all about, I'm prepared to recognize the "$8B for HSR" for which Dr. Utt is evidently opposed, is simply representative of "the ways of Washington'.

In short, if our duly elected representatives are going to commit $4B to an HSR project within Florida (that may or may not be completed and if the latter may or may not provide economic benefit to the region) in order to get that support, the largess must be passed around. At least in this instance, the largess to Kansas, where there is virtually no market for any kind of HSR and not much of one for additional 79mph service through much of the State at 0dark30, i.e. resurrect the "Texas Chief on the cheap", has been limited to a $250K 'study'.

BiZzAr0 wrote:Just like the other HSR haters, the Reason Foundation, and the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation gets funding from Exxon Mobil.

Now there is an unfounded conspiracy theory. I sincerely doubt that the oil industry is lobbying for HSR, but they probably aren't lobbying against it either. Basically, the HSR debate has become so highly politicized, that some the most dubious advocates, namely in California, have made blatant misstatements and have resorted to fear tactics. The simple truth is that HSR has the most potential in markets that already have highly competitive passenger rail - which basically means the NE Corridor.

Hardly a conspiracy theory- Exxon gives money to these groups and others. Easy enough to track down even if the research they do wasn't so obviously spun their way.

It's the Heritage Foundation, after all, a conservative think tank that is anti-government involvement in anything except national defense. What would you expect them to posit regarding Amtrak/HSR?

As a blanket rebuttal to many of posts above, the "arguments" presented are classic ad-homenim attacks, questioning the motive of the arguer and ignoring the argument. The bias of an arguer does not affect the validity of an argument.

justalurker66 wrote:Somehow they find the land for road projects ... but when a rail project needs a new ROW? You better hope there is space next to a road or along an abandoned or underused line.
Thinking rural here, but why is it when a road need upgrading between two cities new alignments more common than widening existing highways but when the government talks of upgrading or even adding high speed rail service the new line must follow existing ROWs? This kind of limited thinking helps kill plans for HSR.
Even ideas for freight bypasses of cities are shot down because of a lack of an existing ROW (or the NIMBYs not wanting increased rail traffic).

Rural areas get serviced by rural highways, they don't necessarily get service by trains.

Have you ever noticed that the new highways are spaced just far enough from the old highways so two large commercial tracks lie in between.......

old commercial track
old highway
old commercial track
new commercial track
new highway
new commercial track

Rural landowners love to make money when forced to sell property for a brand new highway, and the highway land becomes much cheaper to buy when planners plot the highway so the old owners can sell plots of land on both sides of a new highway.

It costs highway departments more to expand an existing corridor than to buy a new corridor...
In Texas, when existing rural corridors are widen, TXDOT always pays to replace the displaced fences. TXDOT often pays more for the new fences than they do for the land.

Landowners can't sell plots of land adjacent to new rural rail corridors, unless they get lucky to be near a new train station, which will be few and far between on any new rural rail corridors. Most rural landowners have no potential to make more profits from the forced selling of a strip of their land. Subdividing their holdings means more expenses later, just maintaining the new fences........

Railroads corridors most likely will not be selected so rural landowners can make profits in the future subdividing and selling their land to others since trains are effected by grades, new rail corridors will be selected more in favor of what makes the train operate better......leaving some weirdly shaped parcels that could be difficult to sell or use.

So, there are very valid reasons you hear far more complaints from rural land owners when forced to sell land by the government between different types of transportation modes.

electricron wrote:

justalurker66 wrote:Somehow they find the land for road projects ... but when a rail project needs a new ROW? You better hope there is space next to a road or along an abandoned or underused line.
Thinking rural here, but why is it when a road need upgrading between two cities new alignments more common than widening existing highways but when the government talks of upgrading or even adding high speed rail service the new line must follow existing ROWs? This kind of limited thinking helps kill plans for HSR.
Even ideas for freight bypasses of cities are shot down because of a lack of an existing ROW (or the NIMBYs not wanting increased rail traffic).

Rural areas get serviced by rural highways, they don't necessarily get service by trains.

Have you ever noticed that the new highways are spaced just far enough from the old highways so two large commercial tracks lie in between.......

old commercial track
old highway
old commercial track
new commercial track
new highway
new commercial track

Rural landowners love to make money when forced to sell property for a brand new highway, and the highway land becomes much cheaper to buy when planners plot the highway so the old owners can sell plots of land on both sides of a new highway.

It costs highway departments more to expand an existing corridor than to buy a new corridor...
In Texas, when existing rural corridors are widen, TXDOT always pays to replace the displaced fences. TXDOT often pays more for the new fences than they do for the land.

Landowners can't sell plots of land adjacent to new rural rail corridors, unless they get lucky to be near a new train station, which will be few and far between on any new rural rail corridors. Most rural landowners have no potential to make more profits from the forced selling of a strip of their land. Subdividing their holdings means more expenses later, just maintaining the new fences........

Railroads corridors most likely will not be selected so rural landowners can make profits in the future subdividing and selling their land to others since trains are effected by grades, new rail corridors will be selected more in favor of what makes the train operate better......leaving some weirdly shaped parcels that could be difficult to sell or use.

So, there are very valid reasons you hear far more complaints from rural land owners when forced to sell land by the government between different types of transportation modes.

The costs of land procurement for railroad construction are almost irrelevant since very few entirely new right-of-ways have been built since the turn of the century. After the electric traction bubble burst, very few entirely new routes were built, and actually the railroad building boom had become a bust before the short lived interurban craze.

electricron wrote:Rural landowners love to make money when forced to sell property for a brand new highway, and the highway land becomes much cheaper to buy when planners plot the highway so the old owners can sell plots of land on both sides of a new highway.

An interesting theory, although the roads I'm thinking about don't have access to the land they cut through. Interchanges are too far away for the intermediate land owners to sell/lease their land for anything more than billboard space.

Somehow the government manages to buy a new ROW hundreds of feet wide for a road ... rail is stuck on the paths from the early 1900's.

Most rural landowners have no potential to make more profits from the forced selling of a strip of their land.

Forced is forced. Eminent domain doesn't care if the land is used for roads, rail or a more upscale business than the one being condemned. The value of the land is paid. It just seems more politically correct to take land for roads than for railroads.

new rail corridors will be selected more in favor of what makes the train operate better......

I'd like to see a new rail corridor. Do you know when the last time a new alignment rail corridor was built? It seems that only commuter transit gets to add new ROW ... and even then, the "new" ROW is often on road or railroad ROW. Where is the new ROW rail service?

just curious , we always hear about these conserative think tanks , opposed to hsr / amtrak , where are the liberal ones that may support it ??? .

justalurker66 wrote:Forced is forced. Eminent domain doesn't care if the land is used for roads, rail or a more upscale business than the one being condemned. The value of the land is paid. It just seems more politically correct to take land for roads than for railroads.
I'd like to see a new rail corridor. Do you know when the last time a new alignment rail corridor was built? It seems that only commuter transit gets to add new ROW ... and even then, the "new" ROW is often on road or railroad ROW. Where is the new ROW rail service?

You missed my point entirely. I'll agree the cost for the land of the corridor would be the same, whatever the transportation mode. It's the potential sale of neighboring land parcels where rural land owners make the most profits. And with new highways, they always plot the highways so landowners get to sell good land sized parcels on BOTH sides of the new highways. And believe it or not, most new highways being built in America today are NOT controlled access expressways. Being able to sell land on both sides of the corridor wouldn't necessarily be true with trains because train corridors are less flexible than highways; to grade changes, curvatures, path, etc.

Any true HSR corridor where the maximum speed of the trains is going to be 200 mph or higher, is going to need a brand new corridor. Very few old rail corridors in dense areas can be used because the curvature is often too tight for very high speed trains.

Look at Florida's proposed high speed rail line. FHSR is planning to build 150 to 180 mph trains within the I-4's median, not 200+ mph trains which need far wider curves. The same holds true with the Desert Xpress HSR train between L.V. and L.A. in I-15's median.