Home › News ›

A Cost-Benefit Analysis for High Speed Rail

Posted by: franny.ritchie
Thanks to: Franny Ritchie
29 July 2009 - 1:00pm

In the first of a series of posts to the NYTimes' Economix Blog, Edward Glaeser explores the value of high-speed rail in the US.

"Large infrastructure projects are complicated things that all have hundreds of consequences, some good and some bad. It is easy to come up with good and bad side effects of high-speed rail: More people coming into a centralized train station might reduce long car trips associated with sprawling airports (that’s good), but increase congestion in the city (that’s bad).

"These ideas are so cheap that unless they are seriously quantified they have no place in the debate. Serious accounting, not clever debating points or soaring rhetoric, is the critical ingredient in good public decision-making."

Full Story: Is High-Speed Rail a Good Public Investment?
Source: Economix Blog: NYTimes, July 28, 2009
»

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Cost-benefit applies only to rail...?

Submitted by chrisinsobe on Wed, 07/29/2009 - 21:37.

Why do rail projects always need to be subjected to these kinds of cost analyses, but never highway projects...? Has suspicion about anything to do with rail transport somehow found its way into the genetic makeup of Americans born and raised in this nation's car culture...?

Bookmark and Share
“
Now, more than ever, Americans are clamoring to get out of their cars and have more transportation options than the car-centric approach first envisioned and deployed in the 1950s is providing.
”