President Obama’s proposed $53 billion in additional spending for “high-speed rail” (on top of a previous $10 billion) is a testimony to the power of adjectives.
If it were labeled “plain old rail travel,” it would lack the pizzazz but would be far more accurate. Understating costs, overstating benefits, and lots of supersonic rhetoric are the selling points for high-speed rail.
The “high speed” adjective evokes thoughts of bullet trains speeding at 150 mph, 200 mph or more. The reality of Obama’s plan is — at best — the 85 mph that is the average speed of America’s fastest train, the Amtrak-run Acela.
When Obama claims his trains would reach 100 mph and more, he’s talking about peak speed reached only for short stretches, not the average.
How about pollution savings? The supposed environmental benefits of rail travel depend on an apples-to-oranges comparison. Auto emissions on highways are no worse than rail emissions. Rail has an advantage only if you compare long-distance train trips with car emissions from stop-and-go driving in the city.
An exhaustive Department of Energy analysis by Oak Ridge National Laboratory concludes, “intercity auto trips tend to be relatively efficient highway trips with higher-than-average vehicle occupancy rates — on average, they are as energy-efficient as rail intercity trips. Additionally, if passenger rail competes for modal share by moving to high speed service, its energy efficiency should be reduced somewhat — making overall energy savings even more problematic.”
The lack of energy or pollution savings leaves us with a key problem: high-speed rail subsidies are a huge expense with little benefit.
Rail travel is already heavily subsidized — often to the tune of hundreds of dollars per passenger — and Obama’s plan would increase these subsidies. Highways are subsidized as well, but according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, the fuel taxes that drivers pay cover highway costs.
Obama’s $63 billion in high-speed rail spending is just a drop in the bucket, though, when compared to the hundreds of billions — if not trillions — his ultimate plan would require (to “give access” to 80% of the country).
Except for our coastal areas, most of America lacks the population density that makes rail feasible in places like Europe, Japan and China. President Obama’s political support is centered in our large cities, which would benefit from high-dollar rail subsidies.
But trains — just like airplanes — won’t take you directly from your home to your destination. They can only take you between airports or train stations. You must find other means to get to and from the stations. Only automobiles can take you all the way from start to finish — and without stopping multiple times along the way.
That’s why the percentage of Americans who travel by rail has been declining, despite the heavy subsidies trains receive. Airlines handle almost 100 times as many domestic passenger miles as Amtrak, and our roads handle almost 800 times what Amtrak does.
People prefer cars because they offer time-saving convenience and the flexibility to carry you to precisely where you want to go. Our government should recognize this, instead of spending billions of our tax dollars trying to tell us that we’re wrong.
Former Congressman Ernest Istook chaired the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. He is now a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
