Trains in Spain mainly gain
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
e-mail this
share thisThe Obama administration has attempted to meld the national needs for energy security, cleaner air and job creation into a $13 billion plan to upgrade conventional rail service while developing high-speed rail.
It makes sense. Whether the administration can pull it off is far from certain, however.
Last week the Government Accountability Office issued a report that the administration's vision for high-speed rail lacks a reliable strategic plan to make it happen.
So far, about $8 billion has been targeted for high-speed rail. The GAO found that the Federal Railroad Administration does not have a well-defined role in planning high-speed rail development, other than actually distributing the money to a number of states that are competing for it.
To some extent, the GAO finding is not troubling because of the size of the country. As opposed to many other countries with high-speed rail, the United States is better suited, by geography and demographics, to regional high-speed rail projects. Prime candidates for projects are heavily congested corridors within states, such as San Francisco to San Diego.
Still, the administration is wise to look to national high-speed rail systems overseas for guidance on development here.
A recent New York Times business analysis of the burgeoning and popular Spanish high-speed rail system found a telling pattern. The trains are highly fuel efficient, moving eight times as many people as a short- to medium-range commercial jetliner on the same amount of fuel while emitting just a quarter of the carbon. But they do not make money.
In terms of public spending, however, airports and highways also do not make money. They all require public spending but are worth it as vital public infrastructure that facilitates vast amounts of economic activity.
The other lesson from the Spanish model is that $8 billion is just the opening investment. Spain anticipates pumping more than $70 billion into its system by 2020.
As high-speed rail advances, the administration will have to articulate a strategy to match its vision. The result here is likely to be similar to that just about everywhere else: Public investments in high-speed rail will produce broad social, environmental and economic benefits, but public subsidies always will be part of the equation.
3 posted comments