Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 78

Thread: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

  1. #1
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    I love trains. Taking the train is preferable to me than flying but I am rapidly losing my enthusiasm for High Speed Rail. More and more it is shaping up as gigantic boondoggle and throwing good money after bad.

    Obama proposes to spend $53 billion more over the next six years to give " 80 % of Americans access to high-speed rail." Access many do not want or need and which the overwhelming majority will NEVER use. The $53 billion is on top of $8 billion in Stimulus money and $2.4 billion in various enticements to 23 states.

    Several states, including Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio have already rejected federal incentives. Florida alone turned down $2 billion to begin a high speed rail project. Florida's line would have run for 84 miles parallel to I-4 between Tampa and Orlando based on a preposterous projection of 3 million passengers per year ! That's roughly how many folks ride Amtrak's Acela in the Boston- NY- DC corridor. Just a cursory examination and comparison of population figures for the two areas makes the Florida projection a pathetic absurdity.

    The governors of Florida, Wisconsin and Ohio do not want their states to be on the hook for the inevitable tens of billions in cost overruns and operating subsidies. Not a single passenger line in this entire country is able to operate without substantial operating subsidies. Governor Walker questioned the wisdom and desirability of running a rail line parallel to I-94 between Milwaukee and Madison. Governor Kasich did likewise for a line duplicating I-71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati.

    In contrast, those fiscal geniuses in California, led by the ever-loopy Jerry Brown, think it's a great idea to run a 616 mile line between San Francisco and San Diego. There are supposedly 39 million people willing to pay MORE money to travel SLOWER than a plane ! And then do WHAT when they arrive ? Take a cab ! Or get on a bus . The projected cost has already gone up from $33 billion to $42.6 billion.

    A recent study by Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute has splashed a LOT of cold water in a LOT of faces concerning these proposed HSR projects. Including mine. He points out that these projects connect large urban downtown areas. Only 7 % of Americans work in these areas and 1 % live there. He also notes that: " The average intercity auto trip today uses less energy per passenger mile than the average Amtrak train. " Worse yet, HSR will not displace enough cars to reduce congestion. China's high speed trains are priced far beyond the means of the average Chinese. France and Japan have exactly ONE ( 1 ) profitable line each.

    Most telling of all, if repeat IF , there really was a future in HSR, where is the PRIVATE investment ? Obviously, nobody can see a future revenue stream that remotely justifies the hundreds of billions in investment required.

    On top of everything else, all the arguments favoring HSR really don't hold much water upon serious examination.

    Improve the climate ? Less energy is used by cars for similar trips. Remember HSR is designed for INTER - city travel, NOT INTRA -city.

    Enhanced national security ? Nobody can figure that one out.

    Increased competitiveness ? Who knows of any Japanese, Chinese or French HSR rail company chomping at the bit to build such a system in the U.S. ?

    Reduced congestion ? Inter-city travel is NOT congested.

    Rational land use ? Huh ? Another head scratcher.

    Nothing said argues against increased INTRA-city and suburban mass transit. In fact, the three aforementioned governors asked to trade in their share of Federal HSR funds to improve mass transit and highways within their states and were told that other more amenable states ( California ) would get the money.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-04-2011 at 08:21 AM.

  2. #2
    God/dess hockeybobby's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,969
    Thanks
    1,811
    Thanked 597 Times in 382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Don't worry so much about the money Eric.
    Remember when you guys bought Alaska?
    Yer gonna be dead when it gets paid for anyways.
    Just enjoy the nice trains while your here.
    Have a nice day

  3. #3
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by hockeybobby View Post
    Don't worry so much about the money Eric.
    Remember when you guys bought Alaska?
    Yer gonna be dead when it gets paid for anyways.
    Just enjoy the nice trains while your here.
    Have a nice day
    Funny you mention Alaska. It has been a net drain on the rest of the country for decades i.e. it gets more Federal money than it pays in taxes.

    As I said, I like trains and IF HSR made sense and was cost effective, I'd be glad to support it. Unfortunately it does not.

    What if anything is Canada doing about HSR ? Any plans for a Toronto - Montreal line ? Edmonton- Calgary ? Winnipeg to Saskatoon ? Why not ? Maybe it's because it is cheaper and faster to fly .

  4. #4
    God/dess hockeybobby's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,969
    Thanks
    1,811
    Thanked 597 Times in 382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Heh...then sell Alaska to us for a $1. We'd be happy to take that drain off your hands.

    We just talk alot about HSR in the Windsor/Montreal corridor up here. We don't actually do anything about it. It will take a leader with vision and determination.
    You have the Bos/NY/Wash Corridor which is shorter and has way more people. It has a very good chance of working there.
    Our company Bombardier would be happy to supply the trains.

  5. #5
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    ^^^ and Canadians wouldn't balk about pumping Alaskan oil either ... which would be far less environmentally risky than Alberta shale oil !!!


    You have the Bos/NY/Wash Corridor which is shorter and has way more people. It has a very good chance of working there.
    Unfortunately America has a property problem that is seldom if ever seen in Canada. All along the Boston / Providence / New Haven / NYC / Newark / Philly / Baltimore / Washington corridor are people living in expensive suburban houses who do not want to sell their property. Besides pissing off a few million well to do registered voter homeowners via the exercise of gov't eminent domain powers in order to obtain the necessary property for a 'straight' right of way that would actually allow HSTs to achieve High Speeds , the 'fair value' cost reimbursement would run into the trillions of dollars even at today's depressed real estate price levels.


    Our company Bombardier would be happy to supply the trains
    Ain't gonna happen, even though it would undoubtedly save US taxpayer money to do so. As a gov't 'stimulus' project, it's a foregone conclusion that the train contract will be given to Obama's buddy Jeff Immelt at GE !!!

  6. #6
    Senior Member The Boob's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Northern Cal
    Posts
    87
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 26 Times in 14 Posts
    My Mood
    Breezy

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Take out the "speed" and you've got the truth: High Rail. (all of the people pushing for this stuff are high.)

    HighSpeedRail is like the US just flat out saying "We're terminally stupid now! And here's the proof! Our education system is as bad as you've all heard and it has now rendered us incapable of making good decisions with our billions, which we will soon no longer have. But we will have something shiny like Japan has, and that'll kinda look like progress if we squint real hard! And we will be squinting because we're so dumb we're also going to be walking into walls a lot, so we'll be squinting from eye injuries, and our inability to clearly see the world as it truly is will aid us as we continue pouring hundreds of good billions down the drain. Good day!"

    These railways will of course never be completed, except for useless mid-point tracks connecting places like Corcoran and Bum-F___ California. But--and I really mean BUTT-- the people who are in on the project will continue to get huge paydays because nobody will want to stop "progress." So, basically, ....... are they hiring?
    Last edited by The Boob; 03-03-2011 at 02:39 PM. Reason: Jesus
    Well, since you asked, what I'd really like in this next dance is more armpit.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to The Boob For This Useful Post:


  8. #7
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    ^^^ and, unfortunately, that's only part of it. In point of fact, Florida's governor went on record as to why he turned down federal funding for a HSR project ...

    - all of the contractor cost over-runs would become the responsibility of Florida taxpayers and not shared by federal taxpayers ( with cost over-runs usually running at least 2x the original budget on large 'untested' projects )

    - if the project were to be terminated at any time after an official 'kickoff', Florida taxpayers would have to pay back the federal gov't every dollar they had previously received ( even though a fair chunk of money would have already been spent on engineering, project management etc. )

    - Florida already has an inter-city semi-HSR link that costs $58 million a year to operate, but generates only ~$10 million a year in fare revenue ( with the rest being continually subsidized by Florida taxpayers ).

    In essence, the creation of HSR is meant to provide lucrative contract work for 'connected' US supplier and construction corporations ( and their union workers ) at the onset, and then meant to provide thousands of additional high paying generous benefit gov't employee jobs for train operation, train and track maintenance, regulation and inspection etc. on an ongoing basis. This arrangement of course will require ongoing state / federal taxpayer subsidies.

  9. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Boob raises an interesting question in an oblique way : What is the big attraction of HSR ? Let's think about it. It's PRIMARY justification boiled down to its simplest terms is to get people out of their cars. Almost every proposed inter-city route duplicates i.e. runs parallel to a major Interstate highway. People in cars can go where they want, when they want. People on trains cannot. There is something inherent in the liberal / progressive mind that gets off on controlling people. Seriously ! These are the people who want to tell everyone what to eat, where to live, what to drive, how much to drive, to have health INSURANCE, where to send their kids to school; so why is it surprising that the thought of exercising control over trains full of people excites them so ?

    Btw, who is going to operate these HSR systems ? The same people who haven't been able to make a profit at AMTRAK in over 40 years ?
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-08-2011 at 07:37 AM.

  10. #9
    God/dess Smurfette's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,134
    Thanks
    3,336
    Thanked 5,934 Times in 1,334 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Uh, I thought one of the main arguments for HSR was that it would create jobs. Moreover, it would help a lot of underprivileged folks who are very geographically limited as to where they can work because they can't afford a car and have no access to adequate public transportation.

    LMAO @ your comment Eric that liberals want to get people into trains to "control" them. Are you serious? You probably are serious, I'm sure you think Michelle Obama reminding us to eat our vegetables is an example of LIBERAL SOCIALIST FOOD CONTROL.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Smurfette For This Useful Post:


  12. #10
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Eric,

    Aside from a small number of religious nuts who refuse any type of medical treatment because it goes against their religious beliefs, please tell me who wouldn't want health care if they become seriously ill or injured?

  13. #11
    God/dess hockeybobby's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    4,969
    Thanks
    1,811
    Thanked 597 Times in 382 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by Smurfette View Post
    LMAO @ your comment Eric that liberals want to get people into trains to "control" them. Are you serious? You probably are serious, I'm sure you think Michelle Obama reminding us to eat our vegetables is an example of LIBERAL SOCIALIST FOOD CONTROL.
    Hahaha

  14. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    I thought one of the main arguments for HSR was that it would create jobs.
    Indeed high speed rail would create two types of jobs. Initially it would create jobs for gov't contractors - both in construction of the right of ways and rail lines, and in the manufacture of trains. However, both come at 100% cost to the taxpayer. In the longer term, it would create jobs for gov't employees who operate, service and manage the trains and track. But as the Amtrak example and the Florida governor's numbers clearly show, these jobs also come at a major ongoing cost to taxpayers. The reason for the latter is that, in order to provide for a reasonably low level of fares such that train ticket prices attract some number of ticket buyers, ticket revenues can only provide a small percentage of the actual cost of these gov't workers' wages and benefits !

    Or viewed another way, HSR winds up being an expensive, non-self supporting 'black hole' that will continue to devour taxpayer money to subsidize its operation year after year after year.

    !
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-08-2011 at 01:50 AM.

  15. #13
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Eric,

    Aside from a small number of religious nuts who refuse any type of medical treatment because it goes against their religious beliefs, please tell me who wouldn't want health care if they become seriously ill or injured?
    That is NOT the issue. It is people being forced to purchase health insurance. Right, wrong, fair or unfair , a lot of people make the choice to forego health insurance. Congress does not have the power to force people to buy something.

    As to Smurfette's comment, I was being serious. If you actually analyze the facts , the arguments in favor of HSR do not hold water. They simply cannot withstand any serious analysis. So then the question becomes: WHY build HSR ? What is so great about trains that will carry just as many people as airplanes at a slower speed for more money ? There has to be some attraction that shifts the focus from improving air and automobile transportation. Part of it could easily be our foolish propensity to build "new" things rather than maintain and take care of that which is then and there existing. Politicians LOVE building new stuff rather than maintain the existing infrastructure. But at its heart , the liberal fixation on HSR boils down to an issue of control, as I spelled out.

    Even if this was some sort of non-union system ( a completely fantastic notion ) it would still require heavy taxpayer subsidies. There is not a single passenger rail system in this entire country that operates in the black. Not one. ALL require subsidies from the taxpayers.

    It seems to me to make much more sense, and be far more cost effective, to spend the HSR money on improving existing mass transit systems and other transportation infrastructure.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-08-2011 at 07:43 AM.

  16. #14
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by Smurfette View Post
    Uh, I thought one of the main arguments for HSR was that it would create jobs. Moreover, it would help a lot of underprivileged folks who are very geographically limited as to where they can work because they can't afford a car and have no access to adequate public transportation.

    LMAO @ your comment Eric that liberals want to get people into trains to "control" them. Are you serious? You probably are serious, I'm sure you think Michelle Obama reminding us to eat our vegetables is an example of LIBERAL SOCIALIST FOOD CONTROL.
    Actually I fully support Michelle's efforts to promote healthier eating. I think she should start at the top and get Michael Moore on a healthier diet. Then she should drag Hillary into the gym 6 days a week for at least an hour of Pilates.

    She should get her husband to A. save a lot of money and B. seriously promote healthier eating by ending Federal subsidies and other agricultural policies that actually discourage fruit and veggie production and instead encourages MORE milk, white flour, corn and sugar. None of which ought to receive federal support.

  17. #15
    God/dess Zofia's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    2,964
    Thanked 2,370 Times in 934 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Highways are taxpayer funded. For FY 2010 federal funding is $41.846 billion.
    Airways are taxpayer funded. For FY 2010 federal funding was $15.956 billion.
    Transit gets a federal subsidy for FY 2010 of $10.336 billion.
    Amtrak's federal subsidy for FY 2010 was $1.5 billion with another $1.0 billion for high speed rail.
    Maritime transportation gets a federal subsidy of $346 million.
    Freight rail gets a federal subsidy of just over $203 million.
    Pipelines get a federal subsidy for FY 2010 of $188 million.
    And, the St. Lawrence Seaway gets a federal subsidy for FY 2010 of $32 million.

    The point is every form of transportation gets some federal subsidy. The states add in a lot more. It really comes down to priorities.

    HTH
    Z

  18. #16
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    That is NOT the issue. It is people being forced to purchase health insurance. Right, wrong, fair or unfair , a lot of people make the choice to forego health insurance. Congress does not have the power to force people to buy something.
    Congress forced everyone to pay for the invasion of Iraq, regardless of whether anyone was for or it against it. How is that any different?

    When someone who doesn't have insurance becomes very ill and needs expensive treatment, who should pay for it? or should we just let the person suffer and maybe die?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    As to Smurfette's comment, I was being serious. If you actually analyze the facts , the arguments in favor of HSR do not hold water. They simply cannot withstand any serious analysis. So then the question becomes: WHY build HSR ? What is so great about trains that will carry just as many people as airplanes at a slower speed for more money ? There has to be some attraction that shifts the focus from improving air and automobile transportation. Part of it could easily be our foolish propensity to build "new" things rather than maintain and take care of that which is then and there existing. Politicians LOVE building new stuff rather than maintain the existing infrastructure. But at its heart , the liberal fixation on HSR boils down to an issue of control, as I spelled out.
    How does HSR control people? This sounds more like nonsense coming from Rush Limbaugh rather than any facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Even if this was some sort of non-union system ( a completely fantastic notion ) it would still require heavy taxpayer subsidies. There is not a single passenger rail system in this entire country that operates in the black. Not one. ALL require subsidies from the taxpayers.
    No, the Acela is profitable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    It seems to me to make much more sense, and be far more cost effective, to spend the HSR money on improving existing mass transit systems and other transportation infrastructure.
    HSR is the most efficient form of transportation and the only major system that is not dependent on oil, so for me, it makes more sense to spend the money on high speed rail.

    The US government has spent vast sums of money developing our national highway system, and the airline industry, while neglecting rail. Maybe if we spent similar amounts of money on high-speed rail, it would be competitive with the airlines and automobile travel.

    The US government pretty much funded the entire development of the jet engine in the US, and significantly subsidized the development of the first airliner developed in the US, the Boeing 707, through its military counterpart, the KC135.

  19. #17
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Indeed high speed rail would create two types of jobs. Initially it would create jobs for gov't contractors - both in construction of the right of ways and rail lines, and in the manufacture of trains. However, both come at 100% cost to the taxpayer. In the longer term, it would create jobs for gov't employees who operate, service and manage the trains and track. But as the Amtrak example and the Florida governor's numbers clearly show, these jobs also come at a major ongoing cost to taxpayers. The reason for the latter is that, in order to provide for a reasonably low level of fares such that train ticket prices attract some number of ticket buyers, ticket revenues can only provide a small percentage of the actual cost of these gov't workers' wages and benefits !

    Or viewed another way, HSR winds up being an expensive, non-self supporting 'black hole' that will continue to devour taxpayer money to subsidize its operation year after year after year.

    !
    You're making stuff up again. The Acela runs at a profit.

  20. #18
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,030
    Thanks
    21
    Thanked 117 Times in 78 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    You're making stuff up again. The Acela runs at a profit.
    It's part of Amtrak??? You can't cherry pick one line that makes money (one of the only in all of the sytem) and call that representative.

    Trains will never be big in this country. Our culture doesn't support them. To pretend otherwise is pointless.

  21. #19
    God/dess Zofia's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    2,964
    Thanked 2,370 Times in 934 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by jester214 View Post
    It's part of Amtrak??? You can't cherry pick one line that makes money (one of the only in all of the sytem) and call that representative.
    It's the only example of HSR in the US, and it makes a profit. Thus, picking the Acela is relevant to illustrate the point that HSR can be profitable here.

    The issue really is population density for HSR to work. In the northeast, some future minded people laid out the right-of-way for HSR almost 100 years ago. That R-O-W still serves us very well. Indeed from 1938 until the late 1960s we had the only example, worldwide, of HSR. As the Pennsylvania Railroad's fortunes declined, they were unable to continue investing in HSR and development stagnated. (No new locomotives or rolling stock.) Amtrak took over in 1971 and continued to ignore the HSR that did exist and finally in the late 1970s with the locomotives finally wearing out, Amtrak shut down the US' only HSR replacing it with more ordinary speed rail. With the purchase of the Acela trainsets, HSR in a manner of speaking returned. But, we're still running far slower than the Europeans and Japanese do. But, we are running at a profit.

    Infrastructure improvements are the types of public investments that economists of all political stripes agree yield big returns in growth of GDP and standard of living. HSR is a prime example of such an investment. Thus, I ask should we spend money on infrastructure investments or something else? If something else, then what will yield the kind of returns that HSR will?

    Trains will never be big in this country. Our culture doesn't support them. To pretend otherwise is pointless.
    Never say never.

    Z

  22. #20
    God/dess Zofia's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    2,964
    Thanked 2,370 Times in 934 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    Ain't gonna happen, even though it would undoubtedly save US taxpayer money to do so. As a gov't 'stimulus' project, it's a foregone conclusion that the train contract will be given to Obama's buddy Jeff Immelt at GE !!!
    There you go again, making things up. Bombardier designed and built the Acela trainsets. Now it's true that GE and EMD certainly have the technical ability to build high speed locomotives. They build the vast majority of the locomotives worldwide. GE in Erie, PA and EMD in LaGrange, IL London Ontario and Muncie, IN. Always helps to have a few facts thrown in the discussion.

    Z

  23. #21
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Congress forced everyone to pay for the invasion of Iraq, regardless of whether anyone was for or it against it. How is that any different?

    When someone who doesn't have insurance becomes very ill and needs expensive treatment, who should pay for it? or should we just let the person suffer and maybe die?



    How does HSR control people? This sounds more like nonsense coming from Rush Limbaugh rather than any facts.


    No, the Acela is profitable.




    HSR is the most efficient form of transportation and the only major system that is not dependent on oil, so for me, it makes more sense to spend the money on high speed rail.

    The US government has spent vast sums of money developing our national highway system, and the airline industry, while neglecting rail. Maybe if we spent similar amounts of money on high-speed rail, it would be competitive with the airlines and automobile travel.

    The US government pretty much funded the entire development of the jet engine in the US, and significantly subsidized the development of the first airliner developed in the US, the Boeing 707, through its military counterpart, the KC135.
    There you go again. Congress had the Constitutional power to send forces into Iraq. There is no similar power spelled out in the Commerce Clause.

    We all pay now for the uninsured.

    HSR vs the automobile. Which gives the traveler more autonomy ? More freedom ?

    As others have pointed out, the Acela is one line in the most densely populated corridor in the country. However it is NOT a high speed line. Far from it, At best, it hits 120 mph for limited stretches. Typical HSR's in other countries AVERAGE 175 mph or better.

    I'd like to eliminate ALL crony capitalism and end ALL government subsidies. HSR only makes sense for Inter-City travel. Other than the Acela corridor, there is NOT the demand for such service to justify the cost. Automobiles and airplanes are actually more energy efficient per passenger mile than HSR.

  24. #22
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Automobiles and airplanes are actually more energy efficient per passenger mile than HSR.
    Where did you get your information from?

    From:

    http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/protectenv.aspx

    High-speed trains need only one-third of the energy than that of an airplane and one-fifth of an automobile trip.

  25. #23
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle2 View Post
    Where did you get your information from?

    From:

    http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/protectenv.aspx

    High-speed trains need only one-third of the energy than that of an airplane and one-fifth of an automobile trip.
    Not quite. Even those "pie in the sky" HSR proponents in California admit that at best, HSR would reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions no more than 0.7 to 1.5 % and that is only IF the high end of projected use levels is reached ! First of all, the main competitor to HSR is NOT the car. It is private airline companies. So for the California projections to come to pass, and for the projected reductions in grrenhouse gases to actually occur, a LOT of people are going to have to agree to pay MORE money to arrive LATER than they would if they take a plane. That will NOT happen.

    INDEPENDENT studies of EXISTING HSR systems raise some very troubling questions. In Japan, HSR has lost half of its market share to CARS ! In Europe, HSR market share has gone DOWN from 8.2 to 5.8%. People are flying and driving instead.

    I'm sorry and I don't post this with any pleasure whatsoever. I am a "train buff". I like trains. I like to travel by train. I've often taken a train when I could have flown instead. But when it comes to intelligent use of taxpayer dollars, it makes much more sense to put HSR money into improving commuter systems. HSR ONLY makes sense for Inter-City travel. The demand is just not there. Even if , IF, the government tried to juice passenger demand for HSR with various subsidies and/or credits it makes ZERO economic sense. France and Japan show a profit on HSR Only in their most populated corridors ( Osaka - Tokyo ) and I forget if it's Paris- Lyon or if that has been supplanted by Paris to the Chunnel. It's one or the other . We already have the Acela. Where is a similarly profitable run going to be ?
    San Fran to San Diego ? And folks are going to pay more to travel slower than a plane, WHY ?

  26. #24
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    There you go again. Congress had the Constitutional power to send forces into Iraq. There is no similar power spelled out in the Commerce Clause.
    And what makes you an expert on Constitutional law? Congress has the power to provide for the general welfare of the US. This is a standard conservative argument against any policy they don't like. "It's not constitutional".

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    We all pay now for the uninsured.
    and you think that is better than requiring them to buy insurance for themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    HSR vs the automobile. Which gives the traveler more autonomy ? More freedom ?
    You can very easily get where you want to go from the train station by cab or rental car. Again, how is anyone being "controlled" with HSR? How does it prevent anyone from getting where they want to go?

  27. #25
    God/dess
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,964
    Thanks
    6,155
    Thanked 10,183 Times in 4,602 Posts

    Default Re: Caution Signals for High Speed Rail

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    Not quite. Even those "pie in the sky" HSR proponents in California admit that at best, HSR would reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions no more than 0.7 to 1.5 % and that is only IF the high end of projected use levels is reached ! First of all, the main competitor to HSR is NOT the car. It is private airline companies. So for the California projections to come to pass, and for the projected reductions in grrenhouse gases to actually occur, a LOT of people are going to have to agree to pay MORE money to arrive LATER than they would if they take a plane. That will NOT happen.
    How do you know they will have to pay MORE money to arrive LATER?


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    INDEPENDENT studies of EXISTING HSR systems raise some very troubling questions. In Japan, HSR has lost half of its market share to CARS ! In Europe, HSR market share has gone DOWN from 8.2 to 5.8%. People are flying and driving instead.
    In the US, the Acela is gaining market share from the airlines.

    http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/03/would-people-av/


    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    I'm sorry and I don't post this with any pleasure whatsoever. I am a "train buff". I like trains. I like to travel by train. I've often taken a train when I could have flown instead. But when it comes to intelligent use of taxpayer dollars, it makes much more sense to put HSR money into improving commuter systems. HSR ONLY makes sense for Inter-City travel. The demand is just not there. Even if , IF, the government tried to juice passenger demand for HSR with various subsidies and/or credits it makes ZERO economic sense. France and Japan show a profit on HSR Only in their most populated corridors ( Osaka - Tokyo ) and I forget if it's Paris- Lyon or if that has been supplanted by Paris to the Chunnel. It's one or the other . We already have the Acela. Where is a similarly profitable run going to be ?
    San Fran to San Diego ? And folks are going to pay more to travel slower than a plane, WHY ?
    You don't know that. HSR is far more efficient than air travel. There is no reason why it couldn't be run for less money.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 12:33 AM
  2. High speed pursuit ended by our shop today
    By X Evan X in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-13-2007, 09:20 PM
  3. Weird signals
    By sunnie in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-13-2007, 07:19 AM
  4. i am sending confusing signals about something else
    By monicabi in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 08-27-2005, 08:55 PM
  5. Looking for other high speed internet connections
    By Farrah_Holiday in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-14-2005, 01:25 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •