This is insane.
Now, I like high speed trains. I started to ride the (not so) high speed Acela to New York after I wrecked my car in 2006. I started riding it to Philly after the American air transport system suffered a nervous breakdown last summer. In France, I loved the TGV ride from Lyon to Paris, and when Amma and I go to London in June we intend to ride the Eurostar to somewhere just for the sheer coolness of it. And while I opposed Florida's ill-fated and soon-reversed decision to build an HST, I think that a route between San Francisco and San Diego is an excellent idea.
But an Argentine train from B.A. to Rosario (and eventually Córdoba) is crazy. 12 percent of city-dwellers lack access to improved sanitation. The ports are a mess. The Buenos Aires commuter rail and subway system, while improving, are in drastic need of both renovation and expansion. Streets need to be paved, water systems hooked up, schools built. There was nothing on which $3.7 billion could be spent for a higher social return?
I suppose that the only good thing that can be said about the project is that it proves that investors really do have short memories. I haven't been able to track down the terms of the financing deal, but any deal is impressive in a country that essentially repudiated 65 percent of its foreign debt in 2005.
I strongly supported that repudiation, by the way. But developments since then have been disappointing.
I feel somewhat the same about San Juan's light rail. Might revise it if they finally re-extended it to the rest of the island, but it doesn't really seem to go anywhere useful in SJ.
Maybe it's just me.
Posted by: Michael | May 06, 2008 at 08:43 PM
The San Juan subway is probably an even bigger white elephant.
Am I wrong about the HST? As always, I'm open to counterarguments.
Posted by: Noel Maurer | May 06, 2008 at 08:56 PM
You just don't get it! This will definitely show to the world that Argentina is indeed a first world country. This reminds me of Menem's own pet project, a rocket to travel to Japan in just 3 hours.
Given all the urgent and serious problems Argentina faces right now, I cannot find a sound reason to endorse this project. As a political strategy, it seems clear that a major infrastructure project will immortalize the new president while attempting to shift public attention away from more pressing matters.
Posted by: Leticia | May 07, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Well, los Brujos were very good, back in the day. So there is an upside to the "Train to Nowhere."
Posted by: Noel Maurer | May 07, 2008 at 05:19 PM
Lety, I'm trying to understand the politics behind the project, and I'm having trouble. Does Kirchner (either one) or the P.J. believe that this sort of prestige project will win them votes in the 2011 election? If so, why? If not, why are they building it?
Posted by: Noel Maurer | May 08, 2008 at 10:45 PM
Question: Is there enough traffic--and enough likelihood of a shift to train traffic--between those cities to actually make the plan financially viable?
Posted by: Randy McDonald | May 09, 2008 at 12:56 AM
Good to hear from you, Randy! I've been looking, and I haven't yet found anything resembling a serious cost-benefit analysis. The Economy Ministry estimates 7500 passengers per day, but I have no idea what that projection is based on.
Posted by: Noel Maurer | May 09, 2008 at 01:38 AM
That's a bit stunning. The past generation's worth of discussion of a Windsor-Québec high-speed railway have hinged on whether or not there'd be enough users to justify the cost.
Has there been _any_ discussion about the viability of a high-speed train route in Argentina before this announcement?
Posted by: Randy McDonald | May 09, 2008 at 10:06 PM