Last week President Obama announced that he would provide $8 billion of funds to study and plan high-speed rail systems in the U.S. My state of California received $2 billion to study a high-speed train link between San Francisco and Los Angeles. This is to go with a $10 billion bond issue that state voters approved for feasibility studies and right-of-way acquisition. As an aside, California voters have been approving bond issues for anything and everything for the last two decades, but never considering how the bonds will be paid. Now the state is bankrupt and we are studying and planning a high-speed rail system, while squeezing our universities, releasing criminals (not such a bad idea for those convicted of victimless crimes), chopping existing mass transit, and firing teachers. Go figure.
But this is not what worries me the most. We are studying a high-speed intercity rail system, when all over California and the nation, while dramatically increasing fares and cutting back mass transit service. The Bay Area BART is laying off workers, increasing fares, and will probably have to cut services. The Sacramento area transit system is laying off workers, cutting service, and raising fares. Atlanta’s MARTA is raising fares, curtailing service, and laying off workers. The New York MTA is increasing commuter fares and cutting service. You get the picture.
The bullet trains in Japan are so convenient because of the excellent mass transit when you get to your destination. Mass transit is what makes the northeast corridor trains work.
Does it make sense to pay to plan and study high-speed train lines while the existing energy saver and public amenity that makes cities more livable — mass transit — is being dismantled? Why not support and improve existing mass transit first? How are we going to have great cities without a functional mass transit system?
February 1st, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Much as I love riding the TGV, I totally agree that fixing and improving local mass transit will be much more effective than high speed long distance rail in getting people out of cars.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I agree with the need for mass transit and its connection to making intercity rail work. And the cuts at the state and city level are depressing.
But I don’t agree that this is a reason to not push and study high speed rail. High speed rail, and for that matter improved Amtrac service, are interregional and (mostly) interstate capital investments with long term payoffs and as such appropriate for federal spending. Mass transit operating funds are the responsibility of local governments and perhaps states. Their suffering as a result of the super recession is damaging lots of institutions.
California’s self destructive tendencies are another subject, but I agree it’s crazy.
February 2nd, 2010 at 1:11 am
Is high-speed-rail solving yesterday’s problem? A few years back I was an “executive platinum” frequent flyer. My job has not changed. But now I fly once a year. The difference? The Internet!
February 6th, 2010 at 7:51 am
Martin, having lived over there, I agree that Japan’s train services are excellent, including the bullet trains.
In sharp contrast, despite not having had a big economic crunch (yet – I feel it will come) down here in Australia, we have followed the American example of underfunding public transit since the end of WW2, and Melbourne is a fine example of how NOT to do it.
As a place that likes to boast it was voted the world’s “most livable city” (back in 1990 or so), the State Government down there has been scrambling to catch up to the increased demand in patronage in the past decade.
Which brings me to an interesting thought. I wonder if having carbon taxes or trading schemes in place will be something that helps both urban mass transit and high-speed regional rail to get a boost beyond what the market can bear at the moment?