☆ GOP prez candidates don't see eye-to-eye about federally funding CA's High-Speed Rail
Image by John Tewell
Republican presidential hopefuls analyze if California's High-Speed Rail—costly and seemingly incongruous with local workforce needs, but potentially helpful to eliminate natural monopolies in the private sector—should or shouldn't receive a federal bailout. An Opp Now exclusive featuring: Steve Laffey, Walter Clapp, Rollan Roberts, and John Anthony Castro. View the first series article, from Libertarian prez candidates, here.
Steve Laffey, past mayor of Cranston, RI:
There should be no federal bailout for California's disastrous and tragic HSR boondoggle. Anyone with any common sense, an HP 12C calculator, and a map would have known this project would never get off the ground, and it never did. And it never will. People like cars. Maybe CA will someday embrace the fact that the market has already decided, people like cars. Cars powered by Gas/Diesel take families where they want to go, point to point for over 500 miles before needing to refill in under five minutes. If people wanted to be herded like cattle to one location and then walk or run to where they want to visit, I am sure that is what would have been built years ago. The market has decided that rail is great for commerce, not for people. Why not just listen to the “invisible hand of Adam Smith.” I do.
Walter Clapp, attorney, inventor in cyber and grid security:
A withdrawal of federal funds is not a federal bailout. But the federal government should not contribute any funds to a California rail project. I support a state-led interstate underground tunnel system that would bridge water, electricity, transportation, and national defense needs between the states.
Utilities like interstate tunnels can present the problem of a natural monopoly. They are natural in that the physical space will not hold, and the market will not support competing infrastructure. Natural monopolies end up as private companies regulated by commissions, regulated by state and federal legislatures. Think PG&E. These entities don’t allocate capital well. Instead, three layers of bureaucracy regulate. PG&E would be better off government/consumer owned—then there could be one layer of elected representation between the customers and the CEO, instead of three.
Until we can all live “off-grid,” natural monopolies will be a necessary paradox for libertarians to tackle.
Rollan Roberts, businessman, past government advisor on entrepreneurship:
It is the responsibility of the DoT to support smart, safe, affordable infrastructure projects that improve the mobility of American citizens. It is an abusive violation of fiduciary duty for the DoT to fund pipe dreams, quite literally in this case. Florida's HSR has experienced significant cost overruns and lack of riders as well because it simply does not meet consumer needs. Private enterprise is better suited for addressing most transportation needs (Greyhound, airlines, Uber). Federal DoT invests in interstates that allow small businesses to thrive and fuel American commerce.
The United States must quit copying what works for other countries and start innovating the next transportation revolution beyond railroads and railways. Government has never been the innovator— American entrepreneurs are. One of the great challenges of entrepreneurship is user adoption. We can't force our products on consumers. With the best products, you don't need to.
John Anthony Castro, attorney, law firm owner:
If we left everything to the private market, we would have never had railroads in the West or an Interstate Highway system. The ability to travel is a matter of national importance that exceeds the importance of the private market. Not only should the CA HSR be bailed out if needed, but I would go further and say that airports in the U.S. should be de-monopolized to increase competition, drive down prices for consumers, and promote free market activity.
Follow Opportunity Now on Twitter @svopportunity
Opp Now enthusiastically welcomes smart, thoughtful, fair-minded, well-written comments from our readers. But be advised: we have zero interest in posting rants, ad hominems, poorly-argued screeds, transparently partisan yack, or the hateful name-calling often seen on other local websites. So if you've got a great idea that will add to the conversation, please send it in. If you're trolling or shilling for a candidate or initiative, forget it.