A couple of things.
First, there is a long list of things most Americans would prefer not to "catch up" to the rest of the world on, and with good reason. On the other hand, the same can be said with equal justice about the peoples in other countries. We are different, as are our countries and institutions. Argument by analogy is weak, but attempts to analogize nations are the weakest.
Second, let's stop this business about planes landing at airports for free and truckers driving their trucks at no cost while the railroads have had to go it alone. When railroads were being built they were heavily subsidized by the people who wanted them to come to their towns. Most of these gave these subsidies in the form of land, which the railroads quickly converted to money once their lines were built. There were other inducements as well. This to induce the construction of a private, profit making utility to connect these towns to the rest of the country. The same is true of airports. But the use of airports is not a net loss to the local governments that have built and maintain them. Landing and other fees paid to the largest 100 airports, not all, just the largest 100, amounted to $42 billion in 2004. In addition to this, the cities collected parking fees, taxed restaurants and hotels in the vicinity, and charged concession fees for on premises amenities. As far as truckers were concerned, they pay their share, too. According to the American Trucking Association, truckers are paying something at or over $35 billion a year to the state and federal governments to use the roads. I can't find estimates of how much money flows into government coffers as a result of the synergistic effects of the trucking and passenger transportation industries, but I suspect it is large. This sounds like plenty of money to take care of things to me. To the extent that it is not, it is because large chunks of this revenue are wasted on boondoggles, if California is any example.
Contrast this with the projected, sparkling new California HSR. Not only will it connect nothing to nothing after phase one (San Fernando Valley to Merced?, would someone please describe with particularity what exists on this route justifying the cost? I'm familiar with that route and can't think of a thing) but it isn't really going to connect anything to anything when it is finished. Not only is it going to ruin a great deal of some of the best farmland in the US, but the billions in wealth will be squandered to do what? Maybe to transport a few dozen college students and retirees, assuming they have some reason to go where this HSR is going, who wouldn't be driving their cars and trucks, if they have any, on the roads to go to spots on the HSR route anyway. And instead of producing a nice revenue stream for the state for its upkeep, as airports and roads do, it will have to be heavily subsidized, to the tune of G-d knows how many billions a year, from day one of operation just to be operated and maintained. This will all come out of the pockets of the people of California, almost none of whom live or work within many thousands of acres of the HSR.
It is difficult to discuss HSR without violating the Code of Conduct, but the reason for that is the most powerful refutation of the supposed need for it. It is all political, not economic. This toy train with an enormous price tag doesn't need a subsidy. It needs a reason to be.
Bernie
