The Post: Not Even Loans for High‐Speed Rail
The Washington Post is somewhat of a bellwether of public opinion on high‐speed rail. Back in 2009, when President Obama first proposed to build a high‐speed rail network, Post editorial writers were all for it as a way of reducing congestion. Then in 2010, the paper published an op‐ed by a National Geographic travel writer who argued that the “benefits of high‐speed rail have long been apparent to anyone who has ridden Japan’s Shinkansen trains or France’s TGV.”
By 2011, though, the Post was having second thoughts. In January of that year, the paper argued that the nation should “hit the brakes” on the California high‐speed trains, the only true high‐speed rail project in Obama’s plan (since Florida dropped out). (This editorial led to a letter expressing the opposite view from Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood.)
In February 2011, the Post argued that joining China, France, and Japan in a high‐speed rail race would be joining “a race everyone loses.” Then in May, the Post again hammered the California project in light of new reviews questioning both the claimed costs and benefits of the project. “Somebody, please, stop this train” the paper added that November.
Yesterday, the Post even opposed just loaning federal money to a private high‐speed rail company. A private company wants a $4.9 billion loan to help build a rail line from southern California to Las Vegas. But the memories of Solyndra and other solar companies getting federal loans, giving huge amounts of money to executives, and then going bankrupt may be too recent. The Post even understands opportunity costs, noting that, “As for jobs, any that the Vegas train creates will come at the expense of alternative uses of the money,” a reality not always recognized by journalists.
The Nevada group, which is backed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, may get its money, although that money would come from a fund that has never been used for this kind or size of project before. But any expectation by Californians that D.C. pundits will support more federal funding for even a modified high‐speed rail plan must be considered wildly optimistic.
