3 Reasons Why Obama's High-Speed Rail Will Go Nowhere Fast

President Barack Obama has pledged $8 billion in tax dollars to build a national network of high-speed rail—trains that can carry passengers at speeds in excess of 150 MPH.

But the Supertrain fantasy was a mistake back in the 1970s, when it gave rise to one of the most expensive—and rotten—TV shows in history. And it's just as much of a wreck in the 21st century for at least three reasons:

1. The lowball costs. CNN estimates that delivering on the plan could cost well over $500 billion and take decades to build, all while failing to cover much of the country at all. Internationally, only two high-speed rail lines have recouped their capital costs and all depend on huge subsidies to stay in operation.

2. The supposed benefits. "We're gonna be taking cars off of congested highways and reducing carbon emissions," says Vice President Joe Biden, an ardent rail booster. But most traffic jams are urban, not inter-city, so high-speed rail between metro areas will have no effect on your daily commute. And when construction costs are factored in, high-speed rail "may yield only marginal net greenhouse gas reductions," say UC-Berkeley researchers.

3. The delusional Amtrak example. Obama and Biden look to Amtrak as precedent, but since its founding in 1971, the nation's passenger rail system has sucked up almost $35 billion in subsidies and, says The Washington Post's Robert J. Samuelson, "a typical trip is subsidized by about $50." About 140 million Americans shlep to work every day, while Amtrak carries just 78,000 passengers. There's no reason to think that high-speed rail will pump up those numbers, though there's every reason to believe its costs will grow and grow.

"Supertrain 2010" was written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts. Approximately 3 minutes.

For iPod, HD, and audio versions, and for links to the information above, go to http://reason.tv.

And subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live!

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• reason.tv
• reason.org
• reason.com
• reason foundation
• reason magazine
• barack obama
• obama
• joe biden
• biden
• amtrak
• rail
• high speed rail
• bullet trains
• stimulus
• transportation
• meredith bragg
• nick gillespie

[sierracuban]

YOU JUST WAIT........When gasoline soon goes to 5 to 10 dollars per gallon you will BEG for trains, fast or slow........You simple minded people......It is no wonder our nation is sinking into a third world status.......

[iphner43]

these are by far the worst arguments against high speed rail on youtube.

every time people fill up at the tank, those 'cheap' fuel costs are heavily subsidized by the government, around $2 billion/yr. end the subsidies and enact a windfall profits tax on the oil companies to help cover some of the cost. what you need to think about here is the long term benefits. not 5-10 or even 20 years, but 50 to 100 years down the road. you're a luddite moron if you can't understand the cost/benefits here.

[historyboy08]

@WestSkier11 They can be if Congress properly utilizes funds for Amtrak. Already people can go from Seattle to Portland quicker than flying and without the unionized perverts feeling everyone up.

[historyboy08]

It makes more sense to build more roads and modernize airports? common! even if we did that, tax payers are still going to have to pay into it for maintenance. Why should I have to pay my well earned tax dollars for airlines who already steal out of the American people's pockets? Railroads have shaped this country since the signing of the Pacific Railroad Act of 1862. High speed rail service is the only way we're ever going to be in competition with other countries over in Europe and in Japan.

[Applachia0928]

@Trooper40below Don't forget the state of Michigan, we now have high speed rail from Chicago to my hometown of Kalamazoo. Soon, it will be to Port Huron and Pontiac.

[Applachia0928]

@JessMenu Gas will never come down to 1 to 2 dollars. Not in this economy.

[squarecracker]

They're not necessarily against high speed rail, their against people who don't want it paying for it. If people were truly informed on the how expensive fossil fuels will inevitably become, they would advocate it. But not the FEDERAL government paying for it...because they have no risk of failure, and the public is on the hook for any losses. This happens in the private sector as well, rail is a natural monopoly. Somone will eventually be able to make money providing good public transportation.

[Icdean86]

@DylanHutsonTV He shows a steam engine as a diesel in the clip...Ha

It takes 10 diesel engines to produce what 1 gas engines produces in emissions.

[Icdean86]

@WestSkier11 Agree..Increase rail freight, Reduce long haul highway trucks, and Increase highway safty.