Plan B Forum

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110208/ap_ ... speed_rail

Having worked for a couple companies in the railroad and mass transit industry, I am a strong proponent of rail travel, but these high-speed rail projects that are currently on the table are stupid, ill-conceived, cumulative, wasteful, and destined for the same kind of roaring success that has characterized Amtrak. How could it be otherwise?

Here in the U.S., we have a fantastic interstate highway system (burdened by obsolete speed limits), competitive - if aggravating - air travel, and a primitive but serviceable network of buses and trains. We also have an unprecedented dearth of funds to pay for the massive government that we already have, along with its thousands of necessary and discretionary programs, and no conceivable way of paying for "high speed rail." The money that comes into the fare box will be a small fraction of the overall cost - probably not even enough to pay for the inevitable army of unionized blood-suckers who will operate and maintain it.

Every fcuking influential politician within shouting distance of the right-of-way will demand that this albatross stop at his particular hamlet of a home town,thus negating any possible benefit of the "high-speed" element of the projects.

I very well realize that Barry believes he needs to dream up whatever wasteful project he can in order to inject funds into our foundering economy, but (a) this economic program has pretty much been debunked over the past two years, and (b) the real spending on these HS Rail projects won't occur for a couple years, by which time the current recession - if past trends are any indication - will be history.

Honestly, is there any justification for this at all? Would it not make more sense to just give a new Chevy to everyone who needs one? Would that be any more ridiculous than this?

Interesting article on HST at Wiki;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed ... _by_region

Some specific corridors could really benefit from high-speed rail. North to South California is one example.


yrs,
rubato

I do not dispute that many people would find this a godsend.

However.

It is duplicative of road, existing rail, air, and bus transportation that already exists. Will this cannibalize business from Amtrak, air carriers, & bus? Can you justify spending BILLIONS to make this happen?

IN a sane world, one would speak of how long it would take to pay for itself, just as with any other capital improvement project. But there are not enough lifetimes to pay for these boondoggles. If fares were set high enough to pay it off within, say 30 years, NOBODY could afford to ride on it.

BTW, does the Great State of California have any money sitting around, or unused revenue streams, with which to contribute to this?

Has the interstate highway system paid for itself yet? Airport and airline subsidies? Utility subsidies?

Sometimes the payback is not the only consideration for public investments.

I could imagine the Boston, NY, DC corredoor being a good contender for a high speed rail. Maybe infrequent stops in Newark, Pilly and Hartford.

Has the interstate highway system paid for itself yet?

Considering the fuel taxes, probably several times over, actually.

dgs49 wrote:"...

BTW, does the Great State of California have any money sitting around, or unused revenue streams, with which to contribute to this?

You're right. We should never try to do anything new, different, or better. Anything we do is doomed to fail ...

We should just forget that we spend on transportation now and will do so in the future. So that changing the mode of transportation in the future just shifts funds we are already going to spend. We should just forget that our current infrastructure will need maintenance and that maintenance will be reduced if some traffic is shifted to other means. We should pretend that we don't know that cars make many times more pollution per passenger-mile than mass transit. We should pretend we don't know that this pollution makes people sick, shortens lives, and thus represents a vary large cost of the current systems; a cost we can reduce in the future or just bear at an ever-higher level.

Or we can build mass transit like Portland where for an annual per-person subsidy of $75 we can take max to the airport for $2 rather than the $20 a cab costs, where school kids can take a quick train ride rather than have their parents make 2 round-trips in a car to drop them off and pick them up, reducing traffic, smog and costs.

If you do not believe that the future can be better than the past just get out of the way.

yrs,
rubato

If everyone in portland goes to the airport 37 times a year - great idea. HS rail wont work for the same reason airports in every town wont work. Im as big a fan of choo choos as anyone, but rail transit for commuting cannot work unless the coverage area is compacted between residences and destinations (see: NYC).

Bigger bang for the buck? Put all frieght shipments over 500 miles on TOFC or DS. And unless your mass transit is powered by nuclear or water born juice, the statement about pollution is patently false.

High speed rail seems like a relative waste. I'd rather see the money spent on infrastructure maintenance. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the US a "D" for infrastructure maintenance.

Mr. Duality wrote:High speed rail seems like a relative waste. I'd rather see the money spent on infrastructure maintenance. The American Society of Civil Engineers recently gave the US a "D" for infrastructure maintenance.

Really? Who did they pay off to get a "D"?

Tim- don't get me started -ster

Robert Samuelson had an editorial this morning explaining why this is a huge expenditure with little benefit. Reiterates many of the items listed above. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 08870.html

Perhaps the best argument in favor of the program is that if you spend the money on high speed rail, and light rail, then you will eventually get a concentration of population along the rail lines. At some point that population will make rail transportation viable in places where it is not anywhere near viable now. Even assuming such a concentration of population is desirable, it is a pretty expensive bet that such result can be achieved in an era of gazillion dollar deficits.

It is a certainty that populations follow the transportation infrastructure. We know that because that is what happened when paved highways were built, that is what happened after the construction of the interstate highway system, that is what happened in the era of railroad construction, and that is what happened in the era when canals were built, and that is what happened when harbors and airports were constructed.

We, or our descendants, will live in the future that we create. A great deal of that future can be made by design using what we've learned over the past 200 years of development.

yrs,
rubato

Long Run wrote:Robert Samuelson had an editorial this morning explaining why this is a huge expenditure with little benefit. Reiterates many of the items listed above. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 08870.html

Perhaps the best argument in favor of the program is that if you spend the money on high speed rail, and light rail, then you will eventually get a concentration of population along the rail lines. At some point that population will make rail transportation viable in places where it is not anywhere near viable now. Even assuming such a concentration of population is desirable, it is a pretty expensive bet that such result can be achieved in an era of gazillion dollar deficits.

disagree. It started around august 1945. Just like everyone who wins 'the big game' wants to go to disney, every GI who came back wanted a car. Once the govt funded troop movements were over, intercity rail traffic declined to the point of not being viable. the cheapest overall method of travel, is unfortunately by car, just as the cheapest overall engine design is internal combustion on fossil fuels.

This months Trains magazine has a fairly decent writeup on high speed rail and why all the political backers have fled. Its DOA (derailed). If we compress the country into the 'northeast' to make the USA more closely resemble any european country, it might stand a chance, but note, EVERY commuter rail system in europe has fallen below standalone profitability and requries govt funding to continue. If you want to fund a pit - go for it. But dont expect people to take it seriously as a business....

Widespread high speed rail would make sense if the price of gasoline were to rise precipitously. If gas were to cost $7+ per gallon, rail would be the only way most people would be able to travel. I think that is unlikely.

Rail is one of the most efficient ways of transporting bulk and heavy goods, and is to be encouraged.

Gob wrote:Rail is one of the most efficient ways of transporting bulk and heavy goods, and is to be encouraged.

Are you making a comment about overweight Americans again?

Me?... never....

Mr. Duality wrote:Widespread high speed rail would make sense if the price of gasoline were to rise precipitously. If gas were to cost $7+ per gallon, rail would be the only way most people would be able to travel. I think that is unlikely.

this would make it a cheaper option for riders.

not for the providers. which is why amtrack exists. rail is cost effective when the shipped item is ridiculously large in bulk.