WINNING THE FUTURE? WHO NEEDS THAT?
(In response to Zach Levin-Epstein’s April 28 column, "The Republican Party line — derail Obama.")
Although rail may provide some short-term jobs, what does it do in the long run? Look at light rail projects across the country and you will see that ridership is well below the projected levels.
Once the construction is over you will be left with a burden on taxpayers to maintain and operate the rail. In addition to the maintenance and operation cost, if the projected ridership is not met, ticket prices will rise, thus deterring people from using the rail.
If it was so beneficial you would see developers and rail companies providing the services on their own, but since they aren't it is obvious the financial benefits are not there. If you look back to the 20s when rail was most successful you would see that private developers mainly funded them.
Not only can the federal government not afford to pay for these rail lines, but also the cost is so high per person that it simply doesn't make sense.
Cities will experience zoning problems deterring developments around the rail. It will burden people with maintenance and operation costs.
Of course it's "cool" or "modern" to have high-speed rail, but at the end of the day it is a poor way to "win the future," whatever that means.
The money would be much better spent developing bus rapid transit within metro areas that would have a direct effect on a far greater amount of people and cost less to both construct and maintain than rail.
Nicholas Keller
Undergraduate
