Whatever the Japanese term for “boondoggle” is, it fits the latest attempt to bring to America magnetic levitation trains, which still make no financial or practical sense — even with, as The New York Times reports, Japan's government offering “to cover several billion dollars in costs.”
That offer — as bad a deal for Japanese taxpayers as maglev always has been for U.S. taxpayers — is an indication of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's desperation to boost Japan's economy and high-tech standing. He's pitching a new maglev system that's reached a record 350 mph in tests but faces deep, familiar-sounding skepticism at home about cost and demand.
The Northeast Maglev, a Washington, D.C., company, wants to combine Mr. Abe's offer with public — U.S. taxpayers, beware! — and private funding for such a New York City-Washington maglev line. Its advisory board fittingly includes “Fast Eddie” — former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell.
Abe has offered a free guideway and propulsion system between Washington and Baltimore — about 40 miles, too little distance for record speed to mean anything. And if the rest of the line isn't built — a likely scenario — that 40-mile stretch would be merely a curiosity.
There's a reason why Northeast Corridor high-speed train proposals, maglev or otherwise, have gone nowhere since Amtrak's 150-mph Acela debuted in 2000: They fail commonsense cost-benefit tests — even with a multibillion-dollar “sweetener” from Japan.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.