The administration has likened President
Obama’s high-speed rail plan to President
Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. Yet
there are crucial differences between interstate
highways and high-speed rail.
First, before Congress approved the Interstate
Highway System, it had a good idea how much it
would cost. In contrast, Congress approved $8
billion for high-speed rail without knowing the
total cost, which is likely to be at least $90 billion.
Second, highway users paid for interstate
highways, whereas high-speed rail will be almost
entirely subsidized by general taxpayers who will
rarely use it.
Third, interstate highways connect all 48 contiguous
states and major metropolitan areas. The
FRA’s high-speed rail plan consists of six unconnected
networks that reach only 33 states and less
than two-thirds of the nation’s 100 largest urban
areas.
Fourth, the average American traveled 4,000
miles on interstates in 2007. High-speed rail proponents
optimistically estimate that the average
American would ride the FRA’s high-speed rail
system less than 60 miles per year.
Finally, interstate highways improved social
welfare by increasing highway safety. In contrast,
far from saving energy and reducing pollution,
high-speed rail would actually increase energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
For all these reasons, the United States government
should not fund high-speed rail. The $8
billion in high-speed rail stimulus funds should
be invested in safety improvements, not in new
trains and new routes that will add to future taxpayer
obligations.
The administration has likened President
Obama’s high-speed rail plan to President
Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System. Yet
there are crucial differences between interstate
highways and high-speed rail.
First, before Congress approved the Interstate
Highway System, it had a good idea how much it
would cost. In contrast, Congress approved $8
billion for high-speed rail without knowing the
total cost, which is likely to be at least $90 billion.
Second, highway users paid for interstate
highways, whereas high-speed rail will be almost
entirely subsidized by general taxpayers who will
rarely use it.
Third, interstate highways connect all 48 contiguous
states and major metropolitan areas. The
FRA’s high-speed rail plan consists of six unconnected
networks that reach only 33 states and less
than two-thirds of the nation’s 100 largest urban
areas.
Fourth, the average American traveled 4,000
miles on interstates in 2007. High-speed rail proponents
optimistically estimate that the average
American would ride the FRA’s high-speed rail
system less than 60 miles per year.
Finally, interstate highways improved social
welfare by increasing highway safety. In contrast,
far from saving energy and reducing pollution,
high-speed rail would actually increase energy
consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
For all these reasons, the United States government
should not fund high-speed rail. The $8
billion in high-speed rail stimulus funds should
be invested in safety improvements, not in new
trains and new routes that will add to future taxpayer
obligations.
Randal O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.