---

BY PETER AKKIES

In print | Published November 11, 2010

It’s been over a week since the midterm elections, and I have yet to read how Repub-licans, who are now portrayed as being in the driver’s seat despite controlling only one branch of Congress, are planning to improve America’s infrastructure.

Specifically, I’m not familiar with the general Republican stance on high-speed, inter-city railways. But considering Republicans’ general inclination to slash spending and refusal to raise taxes it seems that, at least on the state level, they will not support plans to introduce high-speed rail services. Democrats, and particularly the White House, should propose to invest in high-speed rail — funded by an increase in fuel taxes.

First off, I don’t blame America for not having a rail system as developed as Europe’s. Because the American economy and American society are more tightly integrated than countries within even the European Union, there is a more pressing need for long-distance travel that is well suited for airplanes and less so for trains.

Since everything in America is generally bigger than in Europe, including towns and roads and distances between home and work, the fact that Americans drive their cars more often is also partially defensible.

(Yes — a 2003 study published in the American Journal of Public Health journal showed that Americans are much less likely to walk or cycle for even the shortest of trips, those of only one or two miles, and much more likely to take the car, than Europeans are. But I digress.)

For these reasons America has not invested in its rail network for passenger travel in decades and is now lagging behind.Calls to improve high-speed rail are frequently illustrated, especially in popular magazines such as Time, with comparisons to less advanced economies that are investing tremendously in high-speed rail.

The implication is: if China can afford to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to create a national high-speed rail network, why can’t we? Here again, I’m willing to give the American government some slack. After all, the Chinese government has, let’s just say, fewer bureaucratic obstacles to deal with when deciding to build such railways and to gather the money for it than American lawmakers do.

So far so good then. It’s understandable why America hasn’t yet invested much in high-speed rail. But right now, when the American economy is still doing poorly and when the unemployment rate still hovers around 9 percent, it is an excellent time for the Obama administration to push to invest in fast trains, despite near-certain Republican opposition.

If you’re not convinced that America needs high-speed rail in at least the major economic “corridors” across the nation, let me briefly go over the main benefits. If you’ve ever flown with a non-American airline, you’re likely to agree that American airlines are stingy and not very friendly.

They could use some competition from fast inter-city trains. Trains are more comfortable for passengers, who can more easily work or relax compared to the crowded seats in an airplane.

Passengers who would normally take the car now don’t have to worry about parking it in an expensive parking lot in the city and can arrive refreshed rather than tired from a long drive. Of course, there are also the environmental benefits such as noise reduction and lower CO2-emissions. All in all, it’s a good deal.

There is, I think, some difference in attitude toward public transportation between Americans and Europeans. While I don’t have numbers, it’s safe to say that Americans love their cars more than Europeans do.

So there tends to be somewhat more support for public transportation in most, if not all, European countries than in the United States.

But let’s not pretend that Europeans don’t like cars — if traveling by car were cheaper and if the roads weren’t so congested, even more Europeans would travel by car rather than by public transport, despite negative consequences for the environment, noise in cities, etc.

Europeans are more prone to travel by public transport because it’s available and because driving by car is just so much more expensive than it is in the United States.

Cars themselves are more expensive, but the real reason is of course the much higher gas taxes in European countries.

To give an example, the tax on gas in The Netherlands would have been the equivalent of $3.5 per gallon in 2007, in addition to a 19 percent sales tax over the entire amount that applies to almost all consumer goods in the economy. (Since 2007, the gas tax has not significantly changed.) Compare this to the United States, where the average tax on fuel was 47 cents on the gallon in 2009, according to the American Petroleum Institute.

I mention the gas tax for two reasons: first to dispel the myth that Americans couldn’t be pressured into taking public transport more often. Second, and more importantly, raising gas taxes would be an excellent way to gather funds to invest in high-speed rail projects.

Republicans will never agree to this, you say, and they have the power to block such a proposal. Perhaps — but Republicans are blocking virtually all non-right wing legislative proposals of any sort at the moment, so I don’t believe that Republican non-cooperation should be a constraint on Democratic policy proposals. Regardless, there is a bargain to be made.

The President, then, should approach the Republican Party and outline his plan to invest in high-speed rail across America.

He should propose to mildly increase the fuel tax to pay for significant investments in high-speed rail, which will provide an alternative to flying and driving cars, be more environmentally friendly, help business by creating faster links between different economic hubs and provide jobs at a time when unemployment is still high.

To do this he will need Republican help in state legislatures to get around bureaucratic obstacles that might make it difficult to decide precisely where to build rail lines, how much to compensate land owners and such.

In return he can offer Republicans cooperation on an issue such as energy independence, for instance by pushing Democratic lawmakers to support the construction of additional nuclear power plants.
If Republicans oppose, the President can lay the facts down quite simply for the American people: He tried to make a deal in both parties’ favor, but Republicans will do nothing but oppose.

With increased power in Congress comes increased responsibility. You know the story.

Peter is a junior studying abroad in London this semester. You can reach him at pakkies1@swarthmore.edu.

---

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »