The Daily Caller68%
High-Speed Rail Is Not “Interstate 2.0” (Briefing Paper) 84%
By null null92%
9/9/2009, 4:00:00 AM
BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, False Dilemma, and Begging the Question, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 24.4% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 820 faulty-reasoning hits from 336 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.8% and a BS Rank of 84% (3,528 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.90% of the article peer group.
The administration has likened President Obama’s high-speed rail plan to President Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System.
Yet there are crucial differences between interstate highways and high-speed rail.
First, before Congress approved the Interstate Highway System, it had a good idea how much it would cost.
In contrast, Congress approved $8 billion for high-speed rail without knowing the total cost, which is likely to be at least $90 billion.
Second, highway users paid for interstate highways, whereas high-speed rail will be almost entirely subsidized by general taxpayers who will rarely use it.
Third, interstate highways connect all 48 contiguous states and major metropolitan areas.
The FRA’s high-speed rail plan consists of six unconnected networks that reach only 33 states and less than two-thirds of the nation’s 100 largest urban areas.
Fourth, the average American traveled 4,000 miles on interstates in 2007.
High-speed rail proponents optimistically estimate that the average American would ride the FRA’s high-speed rail system less than 60 miles per year.
Finally, interstate highways improved social welfare by increasing highway safety.
In contrast, far from saving energy and reducing pollution, high-speed rail would actually increase energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
For all these reasons, the United States government should not fund high-speed rail.
The $8 billion in high-speed rail stimulus funds should be invested in safety improvements, not in new trains and new routes that will add to future taxpayer obligations.
The administration has likened President Obama’s high-speed rail plan to President Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System.
Yet there are crucial differences between interstate highways and high-speed rail.
For all these reasons, the United States government should not fund high-speed rail.
The $8 billion in high-speed rail stimulus funds should be invested in safety improvements, not in new trains and new routes that will add to future taxpayer obligations.
Randal O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Best-Laid Plans: How Government Planning Harms Your Quality of Life, Your Pocketbook, and Your Future.
Speakers
1speaker8.6%attributed speech307writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Selected voice
100%flagged-word coverageRandal O’Toole
29 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.