High-Speed Rail Can't Replace Cars | Newsweek The Smart List

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

The $8 billion is a HSR down payment. The final bill, some 20 to 30 years from now will approach that of the US Interstate Highway system. It could approach a trillion dollars. The Eisenhower National Defense Highway system was constructed in the 1950???s, 1960???s, and 1970???s; yet people tend to forget its true and continuing costs. Even with a complete system, some $40 billion in federal matching programs are poured into highways every year for maintenance and expansion. The FAA receives on average about $14 billion and they do not transportation a single passenger. The FAA provides only safety and navigation.

HSR will begin to diversify our national transportation infrastructure which is too centered upon highways and aviation. Passenger rail, not just that of the high speed variety, may provide a long term net transportation savings. Rail infrastructure and maintenance cost is much less expensive than highways and aviation.

The real question is, ???Should Amtrak be involved in High Speed Rail.??? It is not a question of cost but that of an overblown bureaucracy complete with monopolistic inefficiencies. Amtrak needs competition. The best way to introduce this is to introduce and promote new carriers. Unfortunately, there is no real direction away from Amtrak in the Federal Railroad Administration???s guidance for HSR. This has already been recognized by the Government Accountability Office. As the years progress, Amtrak should be forced into a competitive bid process.

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: More Than A Hybrid @ 09/19/2009 1:43:07 AM

I recently launched a website, www.morethanahybrid.org, to raise awareness on Global Warming. Please feel free to post a comment, become a fan on facebook and/or share with everyone you know. The People Who are Crazy Enough to Think They Can Change the World are the Ones Who Do.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: NorthFlyer @ 08/24/2009 9:55:08 AM

The $8 billion is a HSR down payment. The final bill, some 20 to 30 years from now will approach that of the US Interstate Highway system. It could approach a trillion dollars. The Eisenhower National Defense Highway system was constructed in the 1950???s, 1960???s, and 1970???s; yet people tend to forget its true and continuing costs. Even with a complete system, some $40 billion in federal matching programs are poured into highways every year for maintenance and expansion. The FAA receives on average about $14 billion and they do not transportation a single passenger. The FAA provides only safety and navigation.

HSR will begin to diversify our national transportation infrastructure which is too centered upon highways and aviation. Passenger rail, not just that of the high speed variety, may provide a long term net transportation savings. Rail infrastructure and maintenance cost is much less expensive than highways and aviation.

The real question is, ???Should Amtrak be involved in High Speed Rail.??? It is not a question of cost but that of an overblown bureaucracy complete with monopolistic inefficiencies. Amtrak needs competition. The best way to introduce this is to introduce and promote new carriers. Unfortunately, there is no real direction away from Amtrak in the Federal Railroad Administration???s guidance for HSR. This has already been recognized by the Government Accountability Office. As the years progress, Amtrak should be forced into a competitive bid process.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: babybaby0 @ 08/22/2009 10:54:03 AM

Most of the comments so far seem on target to me. First, high-speed rail is intended mostly as an alternative to air travel, not car travel. Second, 3.5% of all cars is a lot of energy consumption and pollution saved, so even that would seem worth it. As Morgan Giddings points out, you can't judge the worth of everything by its price.