The Cost of Dreaming

High speed rail is mostly a pipe dream in the U.S. and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

I'd love to see 200mph trains on dedicated rights-of-way zipping thousands of travelers between major cities, but I've long feared that the enthusiasts behind high-speed rail are actually doing a disservice to expanded rail passenger service.  A new study of 30 European Union transport projects, which includes many passenger rail projects, forecasts huge cost overruns and lengthy delays. The study, which should give pause to fans of U.S. high speed rail, cites "poor project management, planning difficulties, changes in project specifications, lawsuits and lack of funding," according to the Financial Times.

Those are the same problems that will obstruct any large new rail project in the U.S. Ask any railroad that's tried to build a new line or freight yard.

We would be better served in the U.S. to improve and expand existing passenger rail infrastructure and services. Adding to the current passenger rail network, increasing connections and train frequency on existing lines, adding track capacity, modernizing equipment and improving service will bring more passengers to trains -- thus reducing highway and airline congestion along with greenhouse gas emissions -- at a far lower cost than pipe-dream high-speed rail projects.

Comments

[Martin Engel]

Mr. Zukowski, I could not agree with you more. As an opponent of the California High Speed Rail, my colleagues and I have watched in horror as the rail authority has promoted what is in fact a highly self-serving agenda to the voters of our state with claims that border on the nonsensical. They project development costs in the neighborhood of $40 billion. That alone would make it the most expensive infrastructure project in the history of the United States. However, this is, as research has amply demonstrated, a low-ball number and we have the right to expect realistic costs in the $100 billion neighborhood. Then, the initial bond measure on this November’s ballot calls for $9.95 billion. (Why does everything cost $19.95 instead of $20. even?) They claim an additional private investment will be $10 billion and additional funds from federal earmarks will include $9 billion more. That totals $28.95 billion. Oops, $11 billion or more short. Watch out, taxpayers.

They claim 117,000,000 annual riders in 2030. That is over one third the present population of the United States. America, you better start getting in line. They claim ticket costs for a one- way ride from SF to LA will be $55. That will be in 22 years from now. Can one predict the price of anything 22 years from now?

You can see where this is going. They, the rail promoters, are selling us snake oil. Wait, there’s more. The lead contractor will be Parsons Brinckerhoff, a company with whom one of the rail authority directors has a long and close relationship. You know, Parsons Brinckerhoff, of Boston Big Dig civil law suit fame, fined around $ 500 million for their shenanigans. The Big Dig was priced at $3 billion and ended up costing $15 billion.

Finally, California has real urban and regional transit needs in both the Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin. That’s where the gridlock is. All these funds would be so much better deployed creating comprehensive and integrated multi-modal transit systems in those two population areas. What California doesn’t need is a pork-barrel boondoggle connecting north and south.