Wendell Cox has been making the same argument in any paper that will publish his screed.  He may be right, but I would prefer that he come at the issue from a position based on economics and not on libertarian dogma as he does.  Cox definitely does not represent Wall Street, by the way.  He's with a libertarian think tank located somewhere in the heartland.

The Wall Street Journal, under Bancroft family control, always was conservative bordering on libertarian in its opinion section.  I can add that in the news pages it was and still is one of the best newspapers published in the U.S.  Since the sale to Rupert Murdoch, the WSJ has crossed the border and now is almost extreme in its strident advocacy of libertarian causes.

I think you give the WSJ too much credit, anmccaff, when you suggest that it perhaps is trying to present some "balance."  The WSJ is about as subtle as a sledge hammer.  Whether I agree with or not is immaterial.  I at least respect that it says what it means and at times that's refreshing.  By the way, there is just enough fact in Cox's screed that some people will sound like Rush Limbaugh ditto-heads in their zeal to say: Right on, Wendell, right on."  I won't be in that claque.

I'm curious.

Do any of the readers of this blog have any substantive criticisms of the article?

In essence, I don't--though the author really didn't touch on demographics, which I view as the underlying reason why passenger rail (conventional or HSR) has limited applicability in the US.

Wow!  Well said, anmccaff.  You have saved me the effort of posting a comment in response to Bill Freeto's post.  Yes, I do have criticism of the article.  I consider it dishonest.  Cox offers no data to support his anti-HSR rant, just the usual libertarian rhetoric.  Nothing wrong with libertarian rhetoric, of course, as long as you recognize it for what it is.  At the risk of being repetitive, anmccaff makes a very strong point when he comments about railroads being forced to compete with subsidized modes.  

Some of you may have missed the latest from the DOT budget introduced Monday.  Now, the freight railroads are supposed to pony up some $50 million annually to pay for FRA safety inspections.  Anyone know if airlines pay FAA for check rides?  Ever see a FMCSA inspector riding in the cab of an 18-wheeler?  FRA safety inspections are for the purpose of ensuring that railroads comply with rules and regulations.  There certainly is no real, measurable benefit to the railroads.  Talk about unfunded mandates, this is another $50 million the railroads won't have to put into their planned maintenance - which just might contribute to rail safety.

A final thought on "Wall Street Weighs In."  Whether the society provides HSR is a political decision.  That's why we have a representative form of government, so the society, through its elected representatives, can decide how much, if any, HSR it wishes to pay for.  Cox and a few of his acolytes remind me of children having a tantrum.  Just stamp your feet and shout no.  Even where Cox is right, he comes at the issue from an ideology and not from a rational discussion of public policy.

Anmcaff:

You write: "Yes. it treats the question of potential rail subsidies as a stand-alone, ignoring the fact that the competition may have received a greater level of effective subsidy over time.   Other aspects of transportation aren't expected to pay their way; about the only segment that does is passenger cars and light freight on the Interstates, and possibly busses and some express services as well."

Given that the actual (not potential) subsidies are for intercity passenger services, any effective subsidies for trucks is not at issue.  Passenger rail advocates are mostly hoping to take passenger cars off the highways.  And if it's your position that passenger cars pay by and large pay their way, it would seem that you are actually in agreement with the article on that point.

For the sake of argument, let's say that air travel doesn't "pay its way."  If that's the case, there are two basic alternatives: 1) reduce or eliminate the effective subsidies for air, enabling alternative modes to compete on an equal footing, or 2) pile subsidies upon subsidies by throwing money at passenger rail.  Passenger rail advocates always seem to take the latter approach.  But if passenger rail is so superior to the other modes on its own merits, why not work instead to eliminate the exisiting governmental interventions dislocating the market?

But I would question the extent to which passenger air travel is truly subsidized.

You mention security.  Two issues there: 1)security could be handled much more effectively at lower cost if the Feds were not involved and the airlines were truly free to handle it as they see fit.  (Think profiling.)  2) if and when passenger rail increases, it will also face the same security issues--terrorists will start to target the trains, both as passengers and along the right of way.  Thus, the costs/subsidies of security for airlines will also be a factor for passenger trains.

To paraphrase one of your statements, Larry, I would say instead that "[many/most passenger rail advocates] remind me of children having a tantrum. Just stamp your feet and shout [“I want it, I want it, I WANT it!!]" (In this analogy, the kid saying "no" is the one who doesn't take kindly to the other bully trying to steal his toys.)

Just look at how frequently some of them resort to ad hominem arguments and emotionally charged smear labels when anyone dares to question the value, necessity, or legitimacy of their grand plans.

anmccaff is perfectly capable of responding for himself if he chooses.  Bill Freeto says some provocative things in what may be an ongoing discussion.  One can hope.  Taking the last thing first, security, a refresher of the memory.  Prior to 9/11, there was screening and security at all airports.  It was, in fact, paid for by the airlines, which contracted with the lowest priced provider.  The 19 hijackers on 9/11 sailed right through metal detectors and other then-current screening systems at Newark, Boston, and I think JFK.  TSA is no bargain, but at least its screening is not provided by the low-priced contractor.

As for the economics of passenger service, repeating, repeating, passenger service doesn't make money anyplace in the world.  Only in Japan and France does it cover more than operating expense.  Bill Free-to is correct that passenger service is not competitive with trucks.  It really isn't competing with airplanes, either, but does compete with the private automobile.  That said, the real economic analysis has to get to studies of peak-hour traffic, complete costs of alternatives, and things like that.  HSR never will replace the automobile.  It may lessen highway congestion to a degree - a degree that might change the economics of building more beltways, more lanes, etc.  I don't know, but I do know that there are legitimate cost-benefit studies that can be done and that factor in existing tax structures, effective subsidies, etc.  I only urge one and all to try to remain rational and not condemn HSR from a purely ideological position.  Those of us who are of a certain age, as the expression goes, can remember that the original Metroliner contract with the old PRR called for 150 mph capability and 2 1/2 hours between NY and DC.  It achieved the speed and slightly exceeded the time.  PRR merged with NYC, it then went broke, and was succeeded by Conrail.  Meanwhile, the Metroliner equipment got old, suffered poor maintenance; the roadbed was badly maintained and the Metroliner got slower and slower.  No one will ever know what the service might have been.  If good enough, perhaps more people would have accepted higher fares.  I'm not arguing that it ever would have earned a profit, but the societal cost almost certainly would have been lower and the benefit-cost ratio more acceptable.

This discussion truly points up the results of not having a comprehensive national transportation policy.  Truckers and their shipper customers want to increase their maximum gross vehicle weight allowed on federal-aid highways from the current 80,000 lb. to 97,000 lb -- WITH NO INCREASE IN USER CHARGES AND FEES! despite the fact that they already are subsidized by not paying their allocable share of highway construction and maintenance costs.  And while discussing cross subsidies, let's remember that autos don't show up so well, either.  Yes, they pay an "allocable" share, but the fact is that all highway funding sources don't come anywhere close to paying what is needed.  Our Tea Party and libertarian friends, of course, don't think anyone should pay anything for government services.  Hell, I'd expect railroads to support that idiotic approach; eliminate highway spending and the railroads and their private rights-of-way will be the only functioning transportation in our society.

Also, let's get over the myth that the airlines would handle security better than the government.  TSA may be the poster child for dysfunctional government agencies, but the airlines did handle security prior to 9/11 - and they really f****d that one up, didn't they?  

Passenger rail subsidies?  anmccaff has it right that losses of mail and express to trucks stripped the passenger trains of the revenue necessary to keep them in business.  Passengers never paid enough in fares to sustain the service.  And when the Penn Central bankruptcy scared the hell out of the Congress, there were a few options: subsidize the railroads; nationalize passenger service; and let the whole thing go.  The public (your remember them, don'y you?) made it clear it wanted passenger trains.  Conress wouldn't subsidize the railroads because they had been pilloried and cast as the bad guys abandoning trains in the first place, so that was politically undoable.  That left nationalization, and the Nixon Administration simply couldn't deal with that, so Amtrak was created as an artificial "income-based solution."  Congress then underfunded Amtrak for the past 40 years and now we get to listen to rants from our libertarian friends about Amtrak sucking billions of tax dollars, etc.  The entire NE Corridor could have been rebuilt and handling high speed operations for under $1 billion back in 1971.  The money wasn't provided and now we're looking at something in the neighborhood of $10 billion to do the Corridor properly.  I doubt if the freight railroads would take passenger service back now, even if you said jpretty please with sugar on it.

Automobile travel cost around $9000 annually per household. This may be a private rather than a public subsidy, but it is a subsidy nevertheless. (Transportation is not free.) In a region of, say, one million households, that's $9 billion annual cost for household-related transportation.

Sorry, but I don't believe the cost of operating a private automobile is subsidized.  Yes, it is a cost, but it only is supbsidized if someone else is paying for it.  As long as the motorist pays the fees and taxes, etc., the $9,000 annual cost is just that - a cost. Federal Highway Administration and other studies conclude that private automobiles pay their allocable share of highway construction and maintenance costs, so where is the subsidy?   Big trucks receive a subsidy because they do not pay their allocable share of highway construction and maintenance costs.  We all have seen the stickers on the backs of 18-wheeler combinations that say: This vehicle paid $6,000 in highway taxes last year."  You never have seen one that also says" and used $10,000 worth of highways last year."  Airlines receive a subsidy from taxpayers because they do not pay the entire cost of the air traffic control system or of the construction and operation of many airports.