Letter
Trains Don’t Have a Monopoly on Subsidies
Published: April 30, 2011
To the Editor:
Re “Fast Train to Nowhere,” by Richard White (Op-Ed, April 24), which argues against subsidies for high-speed rail and the development of “lines in places where there is no demonstrated demand”:
All forms of transportation are subsidized. Air travel and car travel require a large army in the Middle East to assure a source of fuel. The next generation of air-traffic control will rely on GPS satellites, as do many automobile travelers, and these satellites are paid for by the Defense Department. And who knows what other tax breaks and financial assistance are given to the various companies that support automotive and air transportation.
We should remember that every person who travels by high-speed rail is not flying in an airplane or driving a car. While this may make the auto companies and airlines unhappy, it makes life easier on all the people who do choose to drive or fly. Preventing traffic jams and delays at airports and reducing the cost of fuel (through reduction in demand) fully justify subsidies.
The fact that investors don’t want to invest in high-speed rail, or anything else that will not see returns on investment, is meaningless. The government — that is, the people of this country — have to look further into the future than investors enamored of the potential high profits from social networking.
With air and ground transportation approaching gridlock, high-speed rail is the only way to ensure that people will be able to go where they want to in a reasonable amount of time.
MICHAEL PALUSZEK
Plainsboro, N.J., April 24, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/lweb01train.html?ref=opinion