Euro Envy

Conservatives have continuously tried to figure out why liberals could possibly want to sink money into projects like bullet trains. What could be the reason for wanting to build high-speed rail in an car-crazed culture like ours?

Is it because trains would be more cost-efficient? Well, conservatives like to present statistics that, to them, clearly contradict the idea that trains cost less in the long run. As David Weigel reported in Slate.com, conservatives like to point out that Amtrak received, for example, $2.2 billion in federal subsidies in 2010 and carried 28.7 million people, at about 13 cents per passenger, with some annual cost estimates pegged closer to 30 cents. Highways got $42 billion in funds in the 2010 fiscal year with many more people using them, for a cost at 1 to 4 cents per driver. The estimate puts costs at between 1 cent and 4 cents per driver. Weigel points out, though, that Amtrak riders bear more of the burden for the railroad's costs, with 62 percent of Amtrak's operating expenses coming from fares, with the motorists bearing less than 50 percent of the burden of the cost of highways through gas taxes and tolls.

Conservatives also cite the cost overruns of building the lines, with transportation consultant Wendell Cox estimating that the canceled Florida high-speed project would run over budget at a cost of up to $2.7 billion with taxpayers bearing the burden. In canceling the Ohio rail project, Governor John Kasich cited a $12 billion difference between the construction costs and the operating costs that he said would be made up in new taxes, because it was unrealistic to expect enough riders to cover enough of the gap. Then conservatives have to deal with the reality that rail transit lines, when offered, build up a sustained ridership over time. While they may never make money, neither do police departments; like the police, mass transit is a social good. Amtrak ridership, by the way, was at an all-time high in 2008, dropping somewhat the following year in part, no doubt, due to the recession.

Nevertheless, despite the obvious reasons why liberals support high-speed rail, the right keeps believing that trains are a wasteful boondoggle. What's the right's explanation, then, for why liberals want a high-speed rail network for the United States? George Will, of course, suggested that liberals are assaulting the personal freedom offered by automobiles by forcing people to take mass transit and follow timetables around which to plan their personal lives. But Wendell Cox sees a different reason . . ..

"A lot of this has to do with Euro-envy," he says. "People like to talk about how much better Europe is . . .. The fact is that we live in a dispersed society, and there's no set of circumstances where people are going to leave cars and take rail transportation."

"Euro-envy?"

Okay. You got me. I'm envious of French, German, and Spanish citizens who can travel through their countries at over 200 miles an hour without any of the bother or inconvenience of driving to a city and finding a place to park once they get there. I'm jealous that they can relax and enjoy the trip instead of getting caught in traffic jams while we toodle along on a passenger rail system that is archaic, underfunded, and threadbare. There - I've said it - I envy Europeans!

But hey, why stop there? I envy the Brits for having a multitude of public radio stations at a time when Republicans want to shut down NPR! I'm jealous of their single-payer public medical insurance while we labor under a health care "reform" law that makes us buy insurance from private companies without a public option! I'm jealous of the fact that French kids know more about philosophy than American kids know about geography! I envy all the gun restrictions in the U.K. that make the seediest parts of London safer than the nicest neighborhoods in New York! I'm jealous of the Europeans's lower infant mortality rates and their lower incarceration rates! I envy the fact that the Germans have three times as much vacation time as we Americans! Do I have a bad case of Euro envy?? You better believe it!!

By the way, I have to clarify something I said last week about the BBC's music radio stations; yes, there are five of them, but two of them broadcast on digital audio broadcasting, which cannot be received with an ordinary radio. Digital audio broadcasting (DAB), a high-quality broadcasting system, has been used and tested in several countries, and it was introduced in Britain in 1990. The British achieved 65 percent coverage of listeners with DAB by 1997, and a majority of broadcasters were using it as of 2006. And here in the United States? We have high-definition radio, which is less technologically sophisticated and less widely available than DAB in Britain.

Yes. I'm jealous.