Transportation: California’s high-speed train wreck – latimes.com.
An artist's rendering of the proposed San Jose stop on the $43-billion high-speed rail line. (California High-Speed Rail Authority / Bloomberg)
The Los Angeles Times supports the concept of high-speed rail in California, only taking apparent issue with the politics of this proposal. The problem with this stance is, everything about high-speed rail in the United States is political. If high-speed passenger rail was economically viable, then existing commercial railroads would invest in it. Freight rail is poised for spectacular growth, because unlike passenger rail, there is a market for freight rail. Railroads in the U.S. have invested money in technology and equipment in anticipation of increased volume. Conversely, there is not enough demand, either now or in the foreseeable future, to make high-speed rail profitable. Even as gasoline prices continue to climb, Americans still prefer driving their cars to taking the train.
High-speed passenger rail has the potential to reduce carbon emissions and petroleum use, but in order to do so, it must present a pratical alternative to travel by car. As of now, it is still not seen that way by most Americans. Ironically, freight rail offers a reduction in fuel consumption and emissions right now, via increased use of intermodal transit.
Comments