A NYT Discussion On HSR - Will It Happen? How? Why Not?

The New York Times editors are wondering if high speed rail is a practical consideration for the U.S considering recent political developments where it has become popular to reject federal rail funds, so they asked six experts to present their views.
October 15, 2010, 9am PDT | Irvin Dawid
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email Comments

The Times notes several recent events that cause one to rethink whether high speed rail will indeed develop, President Obama's initial $8 billion investment notwithstanding.

Gubernatorial elections could spell doom for HSR in four states similar to how New Jersey's new Republican governor rejected a $3 billion federal rail investment . Amtrak produces a $117 billion, far-reaching plan for high speed rail in the Northeast with no identified funding. And let's not forget how some cities appear to be engaged in endless litigation to prevent elevated tracks from going through their communities, even though the tracks already exist at-grade.

In order, read six very different perspectives:
1. "A Measured Approach Can Work" by
Robert Puentes, Brookings Institution

2. "Habits Are Hard to Change" by
Jan K. Brueckner, economist, U.C. Irvine

3. "Fast Trains Are Coming" by
Joseph P. Schwieterman, professor, DePaul University

4. "Infeasible and Not Cost Effective" by
Sam Staley, Reason Foundation

5. "An Investment We Have to Make" by Robert D. Yaro, Regional Plan Association

6. "Improve Existing Railroads" by
Keith T. Poole, political scientist, University of Georgia.

Thanks to David Underwood

Full Story:
Published on Thursday, October 14, 2010 in The New York Times - Opinion
Share Tweet LinkedIn Email