NewGeography.com blogs

"Spend first, answer questions later." So concludes a critical editorial in the January 12 edition of the Washington Post, commenting on California's proposed $43 billion High-Speed Rail program. The Post editorial, along with a January 11 article in the New York Times (both of which we reprint below), are emblematic of the increasingly skeptical press and public opinion concerning the fiscal and economic soudness of the Obama Administration's high-speed rail initiative. "It's unclear that the public benefits attributed to high-speed rail...would outweigh the inevitable operating subsidies," observes the Washington Post, confirming the conclusions already reached by the states of Wisconsin, Ohio and Iowa.

Other states and their freight railroad partners seemingly are having similar second thoughts, judging from the parties' lack of progress in reaching cooperative track-sharing agreements. Conspicuous among them is the state of Florida which has been promised a $2.4 billion federal grant to build an 84-mile "high-speed" line from Tampa to Orlando. That line, by all evidence, is too short to produce any meaningful time savings over car trips along a parallel interstate freeway. Moreover, as the New York Times article points out, the proposed line has scored among the lowest in terms of projected ridership in a study of the nation's high-speed rail corridors recently published by America 2050, a national urban planning initiative (www.America2050.org). Its authors cited the low population and employment density of the cities at either end of the line (and a lack of internal transit distribution systems, we might add) as the reason for low ridership estimates and the line's low score. The article notes that "the report represents another blow to the Florida high-speed rail network after a report from the Reason Foundation found the project could cost Florida taxpayers $3 billion."

As the Washington Post editorial observed, "The president has a vision of a national high-speed rail network almost as grand as the interstate highway system. We have our doubts about the ultimate feasibility of this vision, in part because in much of the country passenger rail can't compete with car travel by interstate highways." The editorial could also have noted one other fundamental difference. Pres. Eisenhower's ambitious plan for the interstate highway system was placed on a sound fiscal basis by being backed by a user fee (aka the gas tax). Mr. Obama's high-speed rail vision, on the other hand is funded by a one-time $8 billion federal stimulus grant with no visible source of continued support. Indeed, the high-speed rail initiative faces little prospect of sustained congressional funding, it has yet to show evidence of attracting private capital, and it exposes the taxpayers to continued operating subsidies,as Amtrak experience suggests.

No wonder Pres. Obama's vision is increasingly being questioned, even by the mainstream media.

Last week NYT columnist and economist Paul Krugman wrote a very popular column pointing to Texas' revenue shortfall and declaring it an example of the failure of conservative government.  I found the whole piece a muddled mess and dismissed it, but you can't believe the notes I've gotten from people requesting a response.

The thing is, I don't really get his point. The bad national economy was going to cut state revenues no matter what. Is he saying we'd be better off if we had a fat government with easy cuts, instead of a lean government with tough cuts?  How much sense does that make?

The nice thing about delaying my response is that others have already made great cases against the column (saving me the work).  Kevin Williams at the National Review is a bit sarcastic for my tastes, but makes several great points - the main ones being:

Bill Watkins here at New Geography also lays into Krugman's fuzzy thinking:

"People are not as stupid as many Nobel Prize winners might think; they move for opportunity, not just for cheap houses or low-paid work."

Then he comes up with a great new acronym:

"A business moves to or expands in a region based on a whole host of reasons. These include available infrastructure, resource availability, market size and location, labor supply and costs, worker productivity, facilities costs, transportation costs, and other costs. Those other costs include what I call DURT (Delay, Uncertainty, Regulation, and Taxes)."

Conveniently, the Wall Street Journal made the case for Texas' growth and opportunity the next day:

WSJ.com - Opinion: The Great Lone Star Migration

Today one out of 12 Americans lives in Texas—the same proportion that lived in New York City in 1930.

...Finally there is Texas. In 1930 there were (rounded off) six million people in the Lone Star State versus 13 million in New York. In 1970 there were 11 million in Texas and 18 million in New York: Each had grown by about five million. But in 2010 there were 25 million in Texas and 19 million in New York.

Back in the 1930-70 period, liberal political scientists hoped and expected that America would become less like Texas and more like New York, with bigger government, higher taxes and more unions. In one important respect—the abolition of legally enforced racial segregation—that has happened. But otherwise Americans have been voting with their feet for the Texas model, with its low tax rates, light regulation and openness to new businesses and enterprises.

Today one out of 12 Americans lives in Texas—the same proportion that lived in New York City in 1930. Metropolitan Dallas and metropolitan Houston, with about six million people each, threaten to overtake our fourth largest metro area, San Francisco Bay (population about seven million), in the next decade.

That doesn't seem to be much of an indictment of Texas' approach to governance...

That's not to say the next budget is going to be easy.  A lot of hard tradeoffs will have to be made.  But it's pretty clear Texas is a very far cry from being a failed state.

According to the 2010 Census population data for the United States, the Midwest region was the slowest growing of the four Census regions, at a 3.9% increase overall. South Dakota led the Midwest for population with an increase of 7.9%, while the lowest was the battered state of Michigan at -0.6%. These numbers seem to suggest a shift from the Rust Belt to the Great Plains.

This is more apparent when considering CNN Money’s list of the top 100 best cities to live in for 2010. Four cities represented the Dakotas on this list while only one city, Ann Arbor, stood for Michigan at number 46. The four cities from the Dakotas were Bismarck, ND at 74; Sioux Falls, SD at 77; Fargo, ND at 86; and finally Grand Forks, ND at 97.

The odds seem to be against the growing state of South Dakota when compared to the once-great Michigan. Michigan has 32 Fortune 500 companies (the largest being GM, Ford, and Dow), a notable IT strength, three well-known universities (University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and Wayne State University), and is one of the biggest leaders of industrial research and development. However, Michigan’s weaknesses lie in its disintegrating manufacturing industries whereas South Dakota has attained a more promising outlook.

South Dakota’s major city is Sioux Falls in Lincoln county, which has been named one of the “best counties to find a job” with a 67% increase in job growth in the last decade. Sioux Falls has been named one of the “best places to start a business” by CNN where operating a business costs an estimated 45% less there than it does in New York City. It also boasts a crime rate that is half the national average, is home to offices of many financial giants including Citibank and Wells Fargo that come to the state for its slackened usury laws and positive banking regulations, and has some of the region’s leading hospitals. A determined arts scene and a strong retail sector round out the package.

Can Sioux Falls be compared to the crumbling Detroit? When considering Sioux Falls to be the major hub of its region (the most proximate major cities are Omaha and Minneapolis, both over 150 miles away) it’s no wonder that many people are flocking there to be a part of its thriving economy that can’t be found for miles. Detroit, on the other hand, is a homogenous product in a competitive market. Other Rust Belt cities find themselves in a corresponding situation, offering a similar lifestyle while depending on declining industries.

Could these awful events in Tucson really forge a national “cooling off period?”

Many would make the case that American tragedies are exploited by media and government elites to manipulate public sentiment.

But even if that’s true, I believe there is an American community that grieves, celebrates and grows together.

Despite my dedicated opposition to George Bush, for example, I was moved four years ago by his memorial speech after the Virginia Tech massacre.

Americans look to the president for comfort.

In November ’09 I watched President Obama’s reaction to the Fort Hood shootings and was appalled by his dispassionate affect.  I criticized him in my blog for sounding like a white house staffer reading a prepared statement.

I want and expect Obama to console Americans over the next several days and not just to gain political advantage. 

But to make us feel less confused.  (I was unsettled by the way cable and the internet went into overdrive seconds after the rampage: weekend tv anchors stumbling through worthless conversations with elected officials and over-the-top instant online analysis).

This is a time for the country to rise above political differences.

And this is an opportunity for Barack Obama to show all Americans that he is – after all – one of us.

This first appeared at laborlou.com

Despite the rejection of high-speed rail in many states, Illinois is trying to revive it. The Illinois Department of Transportation recently made a cooperative agreement with Union Pacific and Amtrak to fund passenger rail improvements for its line from Chicago to St. Louis with a $1.1 billion federal high-speed rail grant. The project, to be completed in 2014, would make transit more efficient between the two cities, but as many other states have realized, the numbers indicate that this efficiency is not worth the cost or the trouble.

The high-speed trains set to carry passengers 284 miles from Chicago to St. Louis would do very little to drastically change the commute experience. When the Illinois Department of Transportation first applied for this grant one year ago, they claimed that the trains would cut travel time between the cities from 5 hours 20 minutes down to 4 hours 10 minutes. However, current estimates now put the trip time at around 4 hours 32 minutes. As with every high-speed rail proposal, it seems, planners set the bar too high and end up either spending more than the public bargained for or overestimating the benefits of these billion dollar projects. How efficient will high-speed rail be if it costs more than people can afford and does relatively little to enhance the commute?

Union Pacific’s terms in the agreement are not settling for riders either. According to CEO Jim Young, the company’s priority is “to protect Union Pacific’s ability to provide the exceptional freight service our customers need and expect,” and not necessarily passenger rail operations. Not only that, but there are no consequences stipulated in the agreement for if the railroad fails to meet on-time performance standards for passenger service, stipulations withdrawn from the initial agreement by the Federal Railroad Authority. High-speed rail was advertised to the public who would be paying for it with tax dollars and the divergence of their tax dollars from the state’s other pressing needs, but those developing the system do not seem as concerned with this large pool of customers.

Local governments all over the country are recognizing the flaws with high-speed rail projects and are starting to act. The incoming governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have cancelled plans for a high-speed rail line while Florida governor Rick Scott doubts the cost effectiveness of what Michael Grunwald of TIME magazine calls a “glorified Disney shuttle.” Many inside and outside of California have also vehemently voiced their opposition to the “railroad to nowhere,” a line that would connect Corcoran and Bakersfield and would be the first costly step in its overall plan to connect San Francisco and Anaheim. Since projects are stalling in many other states as well, it might be worth it to take a second look at the necessity of high-speed rail at the present time.

The influx of Republicans into Congress along with this local opposition may pressure the Obama administration to cut back funding for high-speed rail and work on fixing the deficit. However, this high-speed rail grant for Illinois shows that the federal government is not about to abandon the pipe dream yet.