Rapid rail would be a money-loser in Missouri, study says
Those spoilsports at the Show-Me Institute are throwing cold water on Missouri politicians’ dream of building a high-speed rail line. They’ve published a new study by Randal O’Toole that says a Kansas City-St. Louis linewould cost $875 million to build, post an operating loss of $60 million a year, and not produce any environmental benefits. Most of us, O’Toole says, wouldn’t get much for all of that money:
The average Missourian would take a round trip on high-speed rail once every six years. In actual practice, for every Missouri resident who rides high-speed rail once per month, 70 Missourians would never ride it.
He says the taxpayer investment would essentially subsidize travel for urban bankers, lawyers and government officials, whose employers would be willing to pay the premium fare. The investment can’t be justified on environmental grounds, either, O’Toole argues:
Far from being environmental saviors, high- and moderate-speed trains are likely to do more harm to the environment than good. In intercity travel, automobiles are already as energy efficient as Amtrak, and the energy efficiencies of both autos and airliners are growing faster than trains. The energy cost of constructing new high-speed rail lines would dwarf any operational savings. As the state of Florida concluded in 2005, “the environmentally preferred alternative is the No Build Alternative.”
O’Toole’s bottom line is that Missouri should take its share of the $8 billion Congress authorized for rail-oriented stimulus projects, but should spend it on smaller projects like safer crossing gates and better signals. Those may not grab as many headlines as high-speed rail, but they aren’t as wasteful either, he argues.
(3 votes, average: 2.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
David Nicklaus has covered St. Louis business for more than 25 years. His column appears three days a week on the Post-Dispatch business page. 
So?
Did anyone expect STL - KC to make money?
It’s an easy drive. The train would not matter much.
Now, what did this study say about STL - CHI.
I think that would be huge.
A much better option than spending 3 hours in airports for a 50 min flight.
I never could understand this. You can fly Southwest STL-MCI in under an hour for less than $150 R/T. Granted MCI is a half hour from downtown KC but the train would still take at least 1 1/2 hours and cost more than $150. Same goes for Chicago!
Finally, we hear the truth!!! I’d like for the government to finally do what is best for the taxpayer and that’s reduce the size of government and the taxes to pay for it.
I wonder if they also include the energy used to create the steel and grow the wood for the tracks.
What about STL-CHI? There are two proposals for this route: The states call for spending up to $700 million to boost train speeds from an average of 55 to an average of 75 mph. Think that’s enough to get a lot of people out of their cars? Probably not. The best (and probably optimistic) estimates are that it would carry well under 1 percent of travelers between these cities.
Other proposals call for building new tracks that would carry trains at an average of 130 mph. That would probably cost well over $10 billion. Either way, ticket fares are not going to cover operating costs, so state taxpayers will be on the hook for millions of dollars of operating subsidies.
On the other hand, there is Megabus, which costs as little as $1 and, more often, $10 to $20 to go from St. Louis to Chicago and gets virtually no subsidies. It is more energy efficient and produces less pollution per passenger mile than Amtrak. Why should we put private operators out of business with taxpayer-subsidized trains?
The jury is still out and the accusations are flying these days but does ANYONE want to support that those criss cross lines across our sky from either contrails or chemtrails are even remotely good for us or the environment? (crickets chirping) Yeah that’s what I thought.
Commercial airliners are publicly subsidized and ALWAYS have been. Cut off the airlines and improve the rail lines and perhaps the two can be allowed to compete on equal grounds. Till then this guy’s rants are just more corporate doublespeak.
The crickets are speaking up — contrails are just ice or water. As far as fuel efficiency is concerned, rail is only a slight winner over planes — see the Wikipedia page “Fuel efficiency in transportation.” And, of course, you actually have to get people on trains.
Pennywise, I can ride Chicago to StL round trip on Amtrak for $46 is I buy my tickets at the right time and keep it under $100 up til pretty close to departure date. I’d spend more than that on gas one way much less round trip. Eliminate the traffic headaches it is worth it. Time wise it is abotu same if your drive or take the train. I take this route several times a year.
Spend $10 billion and build the highspeed rail! Wouldn’t it be great to be able to get to chicago in 2 hours spend the day, watch the cards beat the cubs, and hop on a train later that night and be home in 2 hours? Do any of you remember when gas was so expensive you never wanted to drive anywhere? If any of you would do research and make informed comments you would see that they have the most energy efficient train ever ready for operation in france right now. It actually generates electricity as it slows and stops, sending as much as 30% of the energy it uses back into the grid. How about that all you train haters.
As has been commented on before in these blogs, high speed rail in this part of the country cannot work! There is no dedicated right-of-way for high speed rail, and the railroads sure as heck won’t give theirs up, which means it has to be bought. That right there makes it too expensive. Add in the lack of sufficient power grids, transmission lines, and river bridges, and you are talking about a ridiculous price tag. Then start talking all the environmental lawsuits that would come down on a project of this magnitude…
Anyone who thinks this can work must be in line to squeeze some money out if it.
“antiplanner” just curious, where did you get your statistics that buses have less pollution per passenger mile and are more energy efficient than passenger trains?