• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • High-Speed Rail: More Mickey Mouse Stimulus Spending

    The failures of President Barack Obama’s $862 billion stimulus are legend, but the $8 billion the Obama administration will waste on high-speed rail is particularly galling. The New York Times reports today:

    The drive from Orlando to Tampa takes only 90 minutes or so. Despite the short distance, the Obama administration awarded Florida $1.25 billion in stimulus money to link the cities with a fast train to help kick off its efforts to bring high-speed rail service to the United States.

    Proponents of high-speed rail worry that the new line, which is scheduled to be up and running in 2015, might hurt rather than help their cause, if it comes to be seen as little more than an expensive way to whisk tourists from Orlando International Airport to Walt Disney World, which is slated to get its own stop.

    Heritage fellow Ron Utt has written extensively on why high-speed rail is such a financial disaster:

    In 2008, Amtrak’s inspector general published an analysis of government subsidies to passenger rail in Europe and compared them to Amtrak’s subsidies. One purpose of the review was to address the contention that passenger rail in other countries, especially HSR, operates at a profit (i.e., without subsidies). For 1995-2006, the study found that the governments of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, and Austria spent “a combined total of $42 billion annually on their national passenger railroads.” The $42 billion that these six countries, which have a combined population of 269 million, spent on just passenger rail in 2006is roughly proportionate to the $54.8 billion (most of which was funded by user fees) that the government of the United States (population of 309 million) spent on all forms of transportation, including highways, rail, aviation, water transport, and mass transit.

    To put the European commitment to passenger rail in perspective, rail ridership (high speed, conventional intercity, and metropolitan commuter rail) in these six countries accounted for just 7.9 percent of all surface transportation modes on a per passenger, per billion kilometer basis. This suggests that these countries received a poor return on their money given that more than 90 percent of passengers in these countries chose other travel modes– mostly auto–despite the subsidies.

    In addition to the $8 billion the Obama administration is wasting on high speed rail, Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN) wants to blow another $50 billion on HSR over the next five years. That’s a lot of trips to the Enchanted Kingdom on the taxpayers dime.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to High-Speed Rail: More Mickey Mouse Stimulus Spending

    1. CD, Wisconsin says:

      Mr. Oberstar is from Minnesota – great post though!

    2. Pingback: Garage Storage Products | Garage Door Repair

    3. Karl Dahlen, WI says:

      Respectfully, Oberstar is from Minnesota. We will stay with Paul Ryan, thank you.

    4. Ted, California says:

      I have long wanted to see the kind of comparison like Ron Utt's put into an article on HSR. Nice job. Did you know the CHSRA board and Assemblywoman Galgiani told the LAO that all foreign HSR systems operate without subsidy? I'm fairly certain the LAO didn't buy that, but they have yet to do more than slap them on the wrist. I can't believe the gall of the CHSRA board members and others. This is just one of many, many lies designed to mislead the ignorant. Thanks for helping put foreign HSR further into focus.

    5. BobinMA, Georgetown, says:

      hahahahahahahaha!

      You guys are a riot.

      Conn, you got one too many "n"s in you name.

      Your economic fundamentalism is out of date, but then again it never DID work for regular people.

      Only for the economically advantaged.

    6. Pingback: Canon 50d Review » An Informal Review Of The Canon EOS 50D

    7. Ernest M. Fazio says:

      Mr. Conn appears to be correct. I believe all of these HSR installations are subsidized.

      The American Maglev 2000 design is a lot less costly to build than any of the HSR designs as well as the Maglev that was built in China.

      The inventors Danby and Powell developed the Maglev 2000 since that time, and as a freight carrying train is very profitable.

      As a passenger only carrier the Maglev 2000 may still require a small subsidy, but no where near the amount of subsidy needed for the HSR or for the substandard system we now have -see http://www.magneticglide.com

    8. Pingback: Moe Lane » Stimulus not even filling potholes.

    9. Pingback: Stimulus not even filling potholes. | RedState

    10. Pingback: Morning Briefing for July 20, 2010 | RedState

    11. Pingback: Stimulus not even filling potholes

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×