Hop on the Bus, Greg, Jan, Bill, John, John, Mark * (and Gus)

The Quad City Times Editorial Board is bummed out at Governor Branstad for not giving them a toy train for Christmas.  They wanted a piece of the Amtrak boondoggle at great expense to Iowa taxpayers. We can’t decide if their attitude is engendered by obliviousness to economics or whether it was either an effete or infantile desire to ride the choo choo instead of the bus.

We have been disappointed with Governor Branstad’s willingness to promote tax payer funding, or mandates related to other boondoggles, wind and ethanol in particular, but we see no need to compound the problem for taxpayers, especially in light of needs for far more useful road and bridge construction and repair.

Here are some excerpts and links from our reading of more responsible tax-payer friendly policy advocates.

Randal O’Toole writing at the Cato Institute: High-Speed Rail The Wrong Road for America:

In the face of high energy prices and concerns about global warming, environmentalists and planners offer high-speed rail as an environmentally friendly alternative to driving and air travel. California, Florida, the Midwest, and other parts of the country are actively considering specific high-speed rail plans.

Close scrutiny of these plans reveals that they do not live up to the hype. As attractive as 110-to 220-mile-per-hour trains might sound, even the most optimistic forecasts predict they will take few cars off the road. At best, they will replace for profit private commuter airlines with heavily subsidized public rail systems that are likely to require continued subsidies far into the future.

Nor are high-speed rail lines particularly environmentally friendly. Planners have predicted that a proposed line in Florida would use more energy and emit more of some pollutants than all of the cars it would take off the road. California planners forecast that high-speed rail would reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions by a mere 0.7 to 1.5 percent—but only if ridership reached the high end of projected levels. Lower ridership would nullify energy savings and pollution reductions.

In short, high-speed rail proposals are high cost, high-risk megaprojects that promise little or no congestion relief, energy savings, or other environmental benefits. Taxpayers and politicians should be wary of any transportation projects that cannot be paid for out of user fees.

Wendell Cox writing at the Heartland Institute: When Is 45 mph “High Speed”? When Iowa and Feds Subsidize It

The federal government is again offering money it does not have to entice a state—Iowa—to spend money it does not have on something it does not need.

Iowa is being asked to provide state funds to match federal funding for a so-called “high-speed rail” line from Chicago to Iowa City. The new rail line would duplicate service that is already available.

Buses Are Faster
Luxury intercity bus service runs between Iowa City and Chicago twice daily. The luxury buses are equipped with plugs for laptop computers and with free wireless high-speed Internet service. Perhaps most surprisingly, the luxury buses make the trip faster than the so-called high speed rail line would, at 3:50 hours. The trains would take more than an hour longer (5:00 hours).

Cox had this to say in an article for National Review: High-Speed- Rail, Budget Buster

Among intercity transport modes, only Amtrak is materially subsidized. User fees pay virtually all the costs of airlines and airports, which (together with connecting ground transportation) link any two points in the nation within a day. The intercity highway system goes everywhere, and nearly all of it was built with user fees paid by drivers, truckers, and bus companies.

The research papers above are backed up with evidence not pipe dreams.  Yet locally such pipe dreams have spawned organizations licking their chops for wage and diversity requirements and other mandates in anticipation of construction. Those are only part of the reasons why cost projections for these projects are not worth the press release paper advocating them.  The alleged economic benefits are laughable.  Seriously, such a project is going to bring retail and tourist dollars to the Quad Cities from Chicago? Get real!  We will have subsidized day trips to Michigan Avenue for the likes of the QC Times editorial board.

More reading on higher – speed and high-speed rail can be found at these links:

Intercity Buses: The Forgotten Mode 

Increasing Passenger Rail Service Could Make Traffic Even Congestion Worse

The High Cost of High-Speed Rail

Is High-Speed Rail Worth Its Cost? 

Bad arguments for high speed rail: CO2 emissions     R Mall

* The listed names are the given names of the QCT Editorial Board.  Our apologies to Paul Simon for his song  – Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover

0

0