The New York Times has now turned loose writers at two of its economics blogs to make weak arguments against the construction of high-speed rail lines.
I have been following Ed Glaeser's attempt to do a back-of-the-envelope assessment of the costs and benefits of a hypothetical rail line (catch up here and here). Now, Freakonomics' Eric Morris seems to want to get in on the act, via a lame post comparing the effects of high-speed rail with the fruits of "cash for clunkers."
Let me just begin by pointing out how utterly ridiculous this comparison is. The Obama administration's vision for high-speed rail essentially involves a multi-decade effort to significantly upgrade transportation infrastructure along several of the country's most economically important metropolitan corridors.
"Cash for clunkers," on the other hand, is a $3 billion, roughly two-month program of automobile purchase incentives.
Given this, it's hard to know what Morris is aiming to prove. That "cash for clunkers" makes for a better short-term stimulus? Okay, I'll accept that; high-speed rail is not going to provide much of an economic boost over the next 18 months.
On the other hand, the Kansas City Fed is warning that unemployment might not get below 6 percent again until 2018. If we're looking at a decade's worth of slack in the labor force, which is likely to be a better salve -- a major infrastructure investment program, or ten years' worth of "cash for clunkers"?
Over a longer time frame, the comparison between the policies ceases to be of much use. They're not remotely designed to do the same things. So instead, let's just talk about what each means for the environment.
On high-speed rail, Morris primarily refers to Glaeser's earlier post. That post shows emission savings from rail, despite Glaeser's improperly conservative analysis.
Morris
