High-Speed Rail in America: A Poor Investment or Merely Found Wanting?

Introduction

The debate over the viability of high-speed rail (HSR) in America has raged for years. While some argue that it can be a transformative investment, others, including those on the right and the left, point out significant challenges. This article explores why high-speed rail might not be a wise investment in the United States, focusing on issues such as construction costs, competition from air travel, and the specific challenges faced in California.

High-Speed Rail vs. Other Modes of Transportation

One of the primary arguments against high-speed rail is that it only proves profitable on a limited number of routes. According to many experts, high-speed rail could only be truly profitable on two specific routes in the U.S.: the Los Angeles to Las Vegas line and the Eastern Seaboard. Even the latter is less dependent on HSR as it already has a profitable conventional rail system that meets the needs of many travelers.

Construction Costs and Why They Vary

Infrastructure projects in the United States are known to be far more expensive to construct compared to projects in other countries. This high cost is attributed to various factors, including blame thrown at unions by the right wing and criticism from the left aimed at professional consultants. Additionally, the influence of federalism plays a role in adding to the complexity and cost of these projects.

Challenges in Implementing High-Speed Rail

California as a Case Study: A Cautionary Tale

The experience of the California High-Speed Rail (CA HSR) project serves as a prime example of the challenges that can arise. From the outset, it has been plagued by numerous issues:

Cost Overruns and Incompetent Contractors: The project faced significant cost overruns and issues with incompetent contractors. The engineering consulting fees were also unnecessarily inflated. Litigation and Environmental Impact: The project faced substantial delays and increased costs due to excessive litigation on matters related to eminent domain and stringent environmental impact reports. These issues escalated the overall cost of the project and further delayed its completion. Economic Inefficiencies: The project saw the former president of the High Speed Train corporation receiving annual salaries of over $200,000, which is only made worse when the project itself never got off the ground. It's crucial to question the financial and economic rationale that led to such a poorly managed project. Initial Private Funding: The original plan involved private bond monies to build the system along the I-5 corridor. However, local municipalities fought against this, leading to the rerouting of the project and a substantial increase in costs. No Clear Funding Source: Today, the only apparent funding for this project comes from carbon taxes charged to utility ratepayers. The project has been pushed out over 30 years, with only a small section of track completed in Kern County, best known as the "train to nowhere."

Given these issues, it becomes clear that the failure of the California High-Speed Rail project is not simply due to poor management or misallocation of funds, but rather a combination of multiple systemic and financial challenges.

Conclusion

The case against high-speed rail in America, particularly as exemplified by the California project, suggests that it may not be a wise investment at this time. While there may be specific corridors or markets where high-speed rail could be beneficial, the overall cost and practical challenges make it a challenging proposition. As the debate rages on, stakeholders must carefully consider both the economic and logistical aspects before investing in such major infrastructure projects.