Money Woes Threaten High-Speed Rail

(AP)  The $8 billion in stimulus cash awarded to 13 high-speed rail corridors across the United States may seem like a windfall for advocates, but there's a catch: The money isn't enough to finish any of the major projects.

State coffers are dry and federal spending is being cut back, so it's unclear who, if anyone, will pay the rest of the multi-billion dollar bill.

Many states have been vague about how they would pay their part of the bill. But experts say most are counting on the federal government to cover at least half of their costs over the next few decades - a hope that may clash with President Barack Obama's recent pledge to curb spending.

Optimists point to the 2011 federal budget Obama proposed Monday that seeks $1 billion more for high-speed trains on top of the $8 billion he announced in stimulus money last week. There's another $2.5 billion tucked away in the 2010 federal appropriations bill that has been approved but not yet allocated.

A proposed $500 billion, six-year federal transportation reauthorization bill includes $50 billion for high-speed rail. But that generous sum was included before Obama began talking about cutting spending, and it seems unlikely to win approval in its current form.

Even if it came through, that money hardly covers the proposed price tag of the 13 high-speed rail corridors, which are estimated to cost at least $60 billion and possibly more than $100 billion over the next decade or two. Those cost estimates also don't include the hundreds of million of dollars it could cost each year to operate the networks - costs that states typically pick up.

It also might be hard for states that are grappling with huge budget shortfalls to justify spending more on high-speed rail while education and health care are on the chopping blocks, Pattison said.

Illinois, Florida, California have by far the most to win if the money does keep flowing - and the most to lose if it doesn't. Those three states were given the bulk of the federal stimulus money.

Chicago would become the hub of an eight-state network, which, in all, won a third of the $8 billion in stimulus money.

Florida is getting $1.25 billion for a new high-speed track that would run from Tampa to Orlando, then later from Orlando to Miami.

A planned California network is by far the most ambitious. It received the second largest slice of the stimulus pie, $2.3 billion, to begin work on an 800-mile-long, high-speed rail line tying Sacramento and the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego.

The problem is that both California, Illinois and Florida face yawning budget deficits. So anything short of a sustained federal commitment over decades could stick them with construction and then operating bills they can't pay.

Even without a solid plan to fund the rail projects, high-speed train advocates haven't stopped from thinking big. Some envision creating a true high-speed rail system like the ones in Asia and Europe that could cost $1 trillion.

[robinspp]

Spend all the money for eating. We do not need road, rail or Airport. We can live like a cave man, that will save our tax payers money.

[robinspp]

Move forward not backward: other countries are developing and improving the facilities, why not USA? Alternate transportation will eliminate the oil consumption; we import oil from foreign countries. That money can be wisely spent in USA.

[Cyber998]

If you don't think high speed rail has any value consider that all of the world's most important financial centers are all on high speed rail lines.

Tokyo, London, New York, Frankfurt, Shanghai, Paris.

The evidence does suggest that an extensive rail based mass-transit system helps facilitates significant long-term economic power. The railroads in the above cities may have cost them billions, but those cities generate trillions which is very rare in cities which don't have extensive rail-based mass-transit systems.

[endurorob_5]

Billions spent on something that Americans typically will not use and soemthing that will require yearly tax payer subsidies to keep running. We have roads and bridges, soemthing that people do use, all over this country crumbling and they want to spend billions on another train system.

[aubfmet]

The man in San Francisco won't have to drive 75 miles to get to his job. He might also save time if he moved a little bit closer.

[Justme8811]

Here's a novel idea....why we quit spending billions and billions "throwing it away if you ask me.....and get the debt paid off. After the economy recovers that look at maybe the trains etc...

[retiredgustav]

I have a better idea. Lets stop being the policeman of the world and get out of Iraq and Afganistan. We will have plenty of money then.

[wjksea]

Because people are either unemployed and/ saving what they have. Banks are not lending. The government is the last consumer spending left. It's an excellent time to rebuild our antiquated infrastructure and repair the economy and get it moving. The gentry would like to sit on their hands and count their money but this is not the way of a nation with a future.

[kmrunner122]

How about fixing the 2/3s of bridges in this country that are at the point of being dangerously unsafe. There are some jobs for you. A HUGE high speed rail project will only benefit a few big companies and not provide enough jobs. Let me see the study that says enough people will use it to make it worth half a billion dollars.

[rwsmith29456]

You speak for me, kmrunner122. So much of our infrastructure is dilapidated trash. There is plenty of work out there that needs to be done.

[askagain]

kmrunner122 and rwsmith29456 - Add my vote, too. There was something on the news today about some states going back to gravel roads because the cost of asphalt has become so prohibitive. This sounds like we are going backwards. How can we consider high speed rail when we can't afford to fix our roads properly? And why is the cost of asphalt so high? Could it have something to do with environmental laws? We are just digging a bigger hole for ourselves as a nation.

[likeitbe]

Of course the money is insufficient. It was never intended to be anything more than kneejerk grandstanding for Obama. What the money WILL do is make Obama's cronies, who set up bogus companies to "build" these things very wealthy people.

Maybe Obama can get his buddies at Halliburton in on the job. He's still throwing them millions every month to support his bogus wars, even though he pretended to abhor them during his campaign.

[askagain]

High speed rail will never be able to pay for itself. We have the Metro system in the Washington, DC area. It is not high speed rail but it is mass transit. It has been around for over thirty years. The fares are high, the equipment is very old, and money goes into it instead of roads. How cost effective will it be? Just look at AMTRAK.

[retiredgustav]

Maybe it won't pay for itself, but how much would it cost if we didn't have it?

[wjksea]

I think we should get rid of all paved streets. They cost the taxpayer trillions to build and billions more to maintain. Look how much the airports cost taxpayers. How about the football and baseball stadiums. These things just cost taxpayers so much money it's unbelievable.

[payasyougo]

"Money Woes Threaten High-Speed Rail"
----

Money woes threaten our country.