Opinion
High-speed spending may not result in much transit
EDMOND — How would you like to pay $1,000 so that someone — probably not you — can ride high-speed trains less than 60 miles a year? That’s the question the Federal Railroad Administration effectively asked in June when it invited states to submit proposals for spending $8 billion of stimulus money that Congress allocated to high-speed rail.
Soon after Congress approved this $8 billion, President Obama and the FRA grandly announced their “vision” for high-speed rail in America. Except in California and possibly Florida, they aren’t talking about bullet trains. Instead, in Oklahoma and 30 other states, they are merely proposing to upgrade existing freight lines to run trains at top speeds of 110 miles per hour — which means average speeds of 55-75 mph.
What the FRA did not say is how much this plan would cost, who would pay for it, who would be likely to ride the trains and whether the benefits would justify the costs. However, based on projections made by California, Florida, New York and other states, we can estimate the answers to these questions.
California wants very fast (top speed of 220 miles per hour, average speed of 145 mph) trains from Sacramento to San Diego, which will require all-new construction. The total cost is estimated to be at least $52 billion — and the state expects federal taxpayers to pay for half of it.
The FRA’s plan for Florida calls for 125-mph trains (average speed of 85 mph) between Tampa and Miami via Orlando. The estimated cost is $11 billion, but the state of Florida itself is unenthusiastic about the project.
Upgrading the 7,500 route miles in 31 other states to 110-mph standards will cost nearly $27 billion, for a total cost of close to $90 billion. Since about 90 million file and pay federal income taxes each year, that’s about $1,000 per taxpayer.
That’s only the beginning. Cost overruns are practically certain; based on similar rail projects, they are likely to add 40 percent to the total.
Taxpayers also will have to cover operating losses: Amtrak currently loses $28 per passenger in it 90-mph corridor from Los Angeles to San Diego, and $84 per passenger in its 110-mph corridor from Chicago to Detroit. Amtrak expects the states to cover most of these losses.
The FRA plan also has huge gaps, such as Dallas to Houston, Jacksonville to Orlando, and the entire Rocky Mountains. Once states start building high-speed rail, expect local politicians to demand these gaps be filled at your expense. And don’t be surprised when the government asks for billions more in 30 years to rebuild what will then be a worn-out system.
What would we get for all this money? Proponents of high-speed rail predict that, if the FRA’s system is completely built, it will carry Americans 20.6 billion passenger miles a year in 2025. That sounds like a lot, but, given predicted population growth, it is just 58 miles per person.
For comparison, the average American travels 4,000 miles per year on the Interstate Highway System. Unlike high-speed trains, which would be paid for entirely out of general tax dollars, interstate highways were 100 percent paid for out of user fees such as taxes on gasoline, tires, and trucks.
Oklahoma’s portion of the FRA plan — a line from Tulsa to Oklahoma City continuing south towards Dallas — will cost at least $840 million, or $230 for every Oklahoma resident. At a $28 loss per passenger, Oklahoma will have to spend about $24 million more each year covering the trains’ operating losses — and that’s an optimistic number. For that, the average Oklahoman will take a round-trip on the train only once every 24 years.
Most of the rest of your $1,000 will go to California’s bullet train. Even this train will do little to relieve congestion or save energy; mainly it will just fatten the wallets of rail contractors.
This expensive rail system is not change we can believe in. Oklahoma should use its share of the $8 billion in rail stimulus funds for safety improvements such as grade crossings, not for new trains that will obligate taxpayers to pay millions or even billions of dollars in additional subsidies.
RANDAL O’TOOLE (rot@cato.org) is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of “High-Speed Rail: The Wrong Road for America.” This column was distributed by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (ocpathink.org).
- Opinion
-
-
Edwards book missing some perspective
During his run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2008 John Edwards often spoke about the plight of the less fortunate in our society. At campaign events the former senator from North Carolina told of how American workers whose jobs had gone overseas as a result of globalization were unable to support their families and were now living in poverty.
-
Government purchasing process needs more transparency
In last week’s legislative update, I talked about how social media can be used as a feedback mechanism by businesses. I posited that state government should be allowed to take advantage of these same techniques, and I have heard from state officials how they need a clear set of policies to govern their actions in using social media projects.
-
Preparing for a Rainy Day
This year, Oklahoma faces one of the worst budget crises in our state’s history. The decisions that lie ahead for state leaders will be difficult, but I have no doubt that Oklahoma will weather this storm and emerge stronger.
-
HB 2914 could create jobs, expand economy
This last week the 2010 Legislative Session kicked off at the limestone palace on 23rd and Lincoln. While the Legislature will consider hundreds of bills in the next four months, there is one that is my favorite — HB 2914 by Rep. Danny Morgan.
-
Moving up in national testing scores
A long history of education reform is positively impacting our public schools, earning Oklahoma high marks on two recent national report cards. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “Leaders and Laggards” national report card in late 2009 gave Oklahoma an “A” (second in the nation) for “Technology” for the use of Web-based programs and computer-based assessments, which was one of six categories graded. Our state received a “B” in the “Data” category for our state’s educational data system, ranking 11th in the nation.
-
Staying alive: The legacy of Will Rogers
Recently, I received an e-mail from a theatrical producer in Chicago. David happily shared with me the script of a new one-man show set to premiere at a theater in suburban Oakbrook in late March. Ticket sales are going great, he reported. People are excited, and two matinee performances are already sold out. The subject of the production just so happens to be a gum-chewing, lariat-tossing, wise and witty cowboy by the name of Will Rogers.
-
For Oklahoma: Less can really mean more
While Oklahoma digs out from massive winter storms the governor and Legislature are faced with digging Oklahoma out of a severe fiscal crisis.
The governor in his state message vowed to protect education and Oklahoma’s most vulnerable. This is an immediate challenge, but solutions must go beyond protection to implementation of long-term reforms for Oklahoma’s future. -
Cities attempt to eliminate accountability notices
Little things can make a big difference. Printed public notices in newspapers are little things, but they make a big difference when keeping government accountable to citizens and taxpayers.
It is no surprise the Oklahoma Municipal League has introduced legislative proposals to eliminate printed notices in newspapers. -
Brotherly love just as important as prayer
You hear a lot about prayer these days and it brings a story to mind. There are several versions of this old tale drifting around in different cultures but they all have the same basic outline.
A certain farmer found himself harvesting a crop that exceeded his wildest expectations. After years of living on the edge of poverty, his ship finally had come in and he was on the road to prosperity at last. -
Can the president reconnect with Americans?
You could tell President Obama’s State of the Union speech was shaped by public opinion polls. That’s not necessarily bad, especially when it comes to a presidency that has been veering off track, and losing key political battles.
- More Opinion Headlines
-
Edwards book missing some perspective
