More High-Speed Hijinks

I found the smoking gun on the real reason so many Republicans not only oppose subsidies for high-speed rail, but any funding for conventional passenger rail. It's been smoking for two years, but it's still hot. Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, rhetorically asked in 2009, "Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?" Ohio depends largely on auto-related jobs. So getting Amtrak is not about wasteful spending, it's not about government mandates, and it's not even about government control of mobility - Amtrak, as Paul Fussell noted in 1991, "does, after all, cut into the very profitable business of selling cars."

Airlines used to oppose subsidies for Amtrak because it cut into the similarly profitable business of selling plane tickets, but more and more airlines support Amtrak as a transportation alternative to clear the skies of so many airplanes, the congestion from which is making air travel more uncomfortable than it already is. But even the real reason for killing Amtrak, as expressed by Representative Jordan, doesn't hold water. President Obama is committed to a diverse transportation sector that includes railroads, aviation, and highways, and in that spirit he bailed out two domestic car companies to save the very jobs Jordan says a fully funded national passenger railroad would destroy. Jordan displays obvious ignorance of Germany, the country that invented the superhighway, with its well-maintained autobahns and its quality public transportation, including the InterCity Express (ICE) high-speed rail system.

In the new Republican House, congressmen who are actually more responsible for this issue are more sympathetic to Obama's long-term plan to put high-speed rail within reach of 80 percent of Americans by 2035. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee John Mica (R-FL) and Representative Bill Shuster (R-PA), who oversees a subcommittee devoted to railroads, endorse Obama's plan provided it includes private funds and focuses on only a couple of rail corridors. This would help by showing how effective high-speed rail can be in generating economic growth and improving the quality of life, encouraging other parts of the country to follow suit. But the bureaucratic hassles among state and local agencies that have to be navigated before any tracks can actually be set cause enough of a problem for high-speed rail advocates without the mostly Republican opposition.

I once noted that not all Republicans oppose modernizing our passenger rail system. It's only too bad that most of those who support it aren't in Washington.