America will suffer because of the budget compromise

[WildCat]

At one time, it was exactly the other way around. Passenger railroad was the only practical means of travelling long distances, because no interstate highway system existed. Would the inverse of the observation you've just made have been a valid argument at that time against the construction of an interstate highway system? Can we safely assume that the cost of fuel will remain low enough that people will be able to afford to continue to "actually use the highways"?

Please calculate the cost of replacing every interstate highway with HSR. Then you have the problem of freight traffic, which HSR does not address at all. Not everything can move in a freight train, fresh produce for example cannot survive a 3 week trip from California to the east coast.

As I said, at the end of the day we will still need interstate highways. HSR cannot replace them, it can only complement them. HSR is a luxury, not a necessity.

 

[WildCat]

And it will reappear, in the newer forms, where that will work. Owning, maintaining, and fueling a car is a HUGE investment.

Are you going to take HSR to Costco for your grocery run? Home Depot to buy a new refrigerator? Take your kid to his baseball practice? Do you think everyone will live within walking distance of a HSR terminal?

HSR cannot be a substitute for automobiles.

 

[WildCat]

The costs are almost entirely covered by the government, the economic benefit only indirectly goes back into our coffers through tax dollars.

Our government would be as rich as the Congo's if we didn't have roads. Everyone benefits from roads, including the government.

Opponents of HSR, by contrast, demand that the cost of the rail be covered by the tickets it sells. We do not impose this same limitation on automobile travel, otherwise we would never build a single road.

Because HSR is a luxury, not a necessity.

False dilemma. Why does building new rail depend on allowing existing infrastructure to crumble?

It's being billed as a substitute for roads, you're doing this yourself. Please try to maintain a consistent argument.

You are, of course, completely wrong about what can "ill afford." When international investors are anxious to invest money in the United States, offering rates substantially below our rate of growth, we can ill afford NOT to invest in our nation's infrastructure. Light rail in metropolitan ares would be an awesome allocation of investment (Chicago also could use a few jobs, you may have seen), and light rail is another great investment.

What about maintaining the infrastructure we already have?

"Folks, we're broke"

 

[WildCat]

It's not necessarily quite that simple. I hope you will take the time to look at this Wiki article (I linked it above) discussing the Great American Streetcar Scandal.

Please stop this nonsense. Street cars were and are a horrible means of transportation. There are few things uglier than overhead wires crisscrossing the city down every major street.

 

[rwguinn]

Our government would be as rich as the Congo's if we didn't have roads. Everyone benefits from roads, including the government.


Because HSR is a luxury, not a necessity.


It's being billed as a substitute for roads, you're doing this yourself. Please try to maintain a consistent argument.


What about maintaining the infrastructure we already have?

"Folks, we're broke"

You are all ignoring the fact that the vast majority of expenditure on HSR will be simply acquiring the land to do it. You are simply replacing the airlines with something slower and more cumbersome-HSR does not move freight...

 

[tyr_13]

Are you going to take HSR to Costco for your grocery run? Home Depot to buy a new refrigerator? Take your kid to his baseball practice? Do you think everyone will live within walking distance of a HSR terminal?

HSR cannot be a substitute for automobiles.

No one is saying that HSR would be a complete substitute for automobiles. In cities, the combo of subway, HSR and other public transport can replace the need for cars, but not for everyone obviously. No, I don't think everyone will live within walking distance of an HSR terminal, and haven't suggested that they do.

I can't fit a new refrigerator in my car by the way, and I'd wager the vast majority of cars on the road can't fit one either.

Your straw man combined with argumentum ad abusrdum is hilariously bad in this case. No one is saying that you're agueing that we tear out all light rail, subway, and other lines we already have and replace them with roads.

 

[Dymanic]

The reasons Americans don;t use passenger rail has little to do with stubborness and everything to do with geography.

As I have argued, it has quite a bit to do with history as well.

Airlines are much more efficient

From an energy standpoint, they are the least efficient means of travel we have.

you don't need thousands of miles of expensive infrastructure between airports

That part of your argument I find completely valid. Unfortunately, what you DO need for air travel is lots and lots of petroleum-based fuel, and there are good reasons for predicting that we will see that continue to become more and more expensive over the coming years.

and airplanes are several times faster than even the fastest trains.

One of the arguments for HSR is that for trips involving distances within a certain optimal range, they can compete very well with airplanes on travel time.

Trains are great at moving freight, expensive to move people. Apparently you can't stack people like cordwood on a train...

Moving people is more expensive than moving freight, period, the fact that they can't be stacked like cordwood being only one of the reasons. You can't do that on an airplane either -- and if you really want to spread them out so they occupy the greatest volume, put them in cars (ideally, one to a vehicle).

Please calculate the cost of replacing every interstate highway with HSR.

You're still treating this as an either/or choice. I've already argued that it is not.

As I said, at the end of the day we will still need interstate highways.

I said the same, in post #43 above.

HSR cannot be a substitute for automobiles.

I agree. Nor can it be a substitute for airplanes. Neither can bicycles. Sometimes you get to choose whatever you want with little regard for either the cost or the impact on the planet. Other times you DO have to consider those costs, and if doing so leaves you with fewer choices, find a way to adjust.

Please stop this nonsense. Street cars were and are a horrible means of transportation. There are few things uglier than overhead wires crisscrossing the city down every major street.

Oh right. It wasn't about politics and economics; it was about aesthetics. I don't think your argument even holds on that basis. San Francisco is often touted as "the world's most beautiful city", and it has lots of overhead wires criscrossing the streets. So there.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh right. It wasn't about politics and economics; it was about aesthetics. I don't think your argument even holds on that basis. San Francisco is often touted as "the world's most beautiful city", and it has lots of overhead wires criscrossing the streets. So there.

I think most of those overhead wires get used for electric buses (or trolley buses), not for streetcars.

Not that this has much of anything to do with high-speed rail.

 

[TraneWreck]

Our government would be as rich as the Congo's if we didn't have roads. Everyone benefits from roads, including the government.

You're missing the point. Our economy developed around roads and the government covered almost all of that cost, especially after the automobile was developed. At no point were roads required to cover their own cost in the same way you are demanding high speed rail does.

Again, look at the economic studies. HSR benefits everyone as well, including the government. Their is a significant return in terms of economic activity when a rail system is built, and it has added benefits that could end up saving MASSIVE amounts of money. No one knows what the ultimate cost will we pay for the internal combustion engine. In order to make your economic argument work you have to wave your hand and dismiss that cost as an externality.

Because HSR is a luxury, not a necessity.

Interstate highway systems were a luxury. There was a way to get from one side of the country to another, the interstates just made it much easier and more efficient. They cost more in terms of maintenance than HSR, there are a stunning amount of fatalities (if Al Qaeda killed as many people as die on interstates we would be lobbing nukes into every country with a mosque), and the obvious environmental impact.

Highways and interstates are a necessity because we've built our society around them. At every step the government has generously supported the system: cars, steel, roads, oil, refining...etc. You're now arguing that because it is that way, it always had to be that way. This is just wrong. Worldwide it's relatively unique to require each citizen to wrap themselves in thousands of pounds of steel and race down highways. It's an expectation that's a reflection of our wealth, not a reflection of choosing the most efficient means available.

HSR won't replace highways and it won't replace air travel. It will more efficiently accomidate a certain percentage of each and significantly benefit the environment.

It's being billed as a substitute for roads, you're doing this yourself. Please try to maintain a consistent argument.

This is a false distinction. It will replace some use of roads and some use of air travel. Why on Earth would it only be able to do one or the other?

What about maintaining the infrastructure we already have?

Another false choice. We can do both.

And more importantly, we WILL be adding infrastructure in the future, not just repairing what we already have. THe country is on pace to add 100,000,000 citizens over the rest of this century. That will require new building. We can either build safe, efficient, convenient, environmentally friendly new infrastructure, or we will be adding more of the old crap. In either case, maintenance will be necessary.

"Folks, we're broke"

Except we aren't. We're the single best source of investment in the world. I don't think you understand what "broke" means. Bond rates are at historical lows, please find another example of a nation that was simultaneously the world-preferred source of investment and broke.

This is just nonsensical fear-mongering that you will never bother to support.

 

[WildCat]

No one is saying that HSR would be a complete substitute for automobiles. In cities, the combo of subway, HSR and other public transport can replace the need for cars, but not for everyone obviously. No, I don't think everyone will live within walking distance of an HSR terminal, and haven't suggested that they do.

We're not talking about light rail and other transport within a city, but HSR between cities.

I can't fit a new refrigerator in my car by the way, and I'd wager the vast majority of cars on the road can't fit one either.

No, but when you shop for one you drive your car to different appliance stores, then the truck which delivers it needs a road to drive on. It's certainly not going to be loaded onto a bus or subway and then hand-trucked to your door.

Your straw man combined with argumentum ad abusrdum is hilariously bad in this case. No one is saying that you're agueing that we tear out all light rail, subway, and other lines we already have and replace them with roads.

People are indeed saying we should fund HSR instead of highways, so no it is not a strawman. HSR will not reduce the need for highways one bit.

 

[tyr_13]

We're not talking about light rail and other transport within a city, but HSR between cities.

So your talk of taking it to get stuff from Costco is and admitted red herring then? I don't drive my car to DC to get a fridge either.

No, but when you shop for one you drive your car to different appliance stores, then the truck which delivers it needs a road to drive on. It's certainly not going to be loaded onto a bus or subway and then hand-trucked to your door.

Again, this is presumed that we're taking out roads to put in HSR. That's a bad strawman. But why can't I ride my bike, take the subway, or walk to the different appliance stores?

People are indeed saying we should fund HSR instead of highways, so no it is not a strawman. HSR will not reduce the need for highways one bit.

No one is saying that. Everyone here has said we need both. But yes, it would reduce the demand put on highways because if people had to option to take a train to a city, some who would have driven and some who would have flown will instead take rail. The demand on the interstate will still grow, but not as much as it would have without the HSR option.

 

[WildCat]

You're missing the point. Our economy developed around roads and the government covered almost all of that cost, especially after the automobile was developed. At no point were roads required to cover their own cost in the same way you are demanding high speed rail does.

Roads do indeed cover the cost. They make possible economic activity, which could not happen without the roads. HSR is simply a substitute for other means of transportation which already exist. You don't get more economic activity with HSR, you just get more infrastructure to pay for.

Again, look at the economic studies. HSR benefits everyone as well, including the government. Their is a significant return in terms of economic activity when a rail system is built, and it has added benefits that could end up saving MASSIVE amounts of money.

Then let California build their HSR. If what you say is true they don't need a single penny from taxpayers in the 49 other states.

No one knows what the ultimate cost will we pay for the internal combustion engine. In order to make your economic argument work you have to wave your hand and dismiss that cost as an externality.

One minute you say it's not a replacement for the automobile, then you say it is. It's like 2 different people are posting under your name.

Interstate highway systems were a luxury. There was a way to get from one side of the country to another, the interstates just made it much easier and more efficient.

And HSR doesn't do either of these things, it just makes it more expensive.

They cost more in terms of maintenance than HSR, there are a stunning amount of fatalities (if Al Qaeda killed as many people as die on interstates we would be lobbing nukes into every country with a mosque), and the obvious environmental impact.

Now you're back to arguing that HSR is a replacement for highways...

You're essentially making the argument from irreduceable complexity. Those folks argue that the heart, for example, could not have evolved because no

This is a false distinction. It will replace some use of roads and some use of air travel. Why on Earth would it only be able to do one or the other?

Exactly. The roads will still need to be maintained, and with HSR we will also need to maintain that also. Capacity isn't increased, costs are.

Another false choice. We can do both.

And more importantly, we WILL be adding infrastructure in the future, not just repairing what we already have. THe country is on pace to add 100,000,000 citizens over the rest of this century. That will require new building. We can either build safe, efficient, convenient, environmentally friendly new infrastructure, or we will be adding more of the old crap. In either case, maintenance will be necessary.

Are you back to arguing that HSR is a replacement for roads again?

Except we aren't. We're the single best source of investment in the world. I don't think you understand what "broke" means. Bond rates are at historical lows, please find another example of a nation that was simultaneously the world-preferred source of investment and broke.

The ability to borrow money means you're not broke? Well whip out that cedit card and charge it to the max!

 

[WildCat]

So your talk of taking it to get stuff from Costco is and admitted red herring then? I don't drive my car to DC to get a fridge either.

Nope. The claim is HSR decreases the need for roads. Perhaps you should direct your complaint to those making that claim instead of me?

Again, this is presumed that we're taking out roads to put in HSR. That's a bad strawman. But why can't I ride my bike, take the subway, or walk to the different appliance stores?

You can, but eventually you'll need a road to get it to your house. Hell, you need roads to get it from the factory to the store. And stop the strawman claims, the HSR proponents are indeed saying we should be funding HSR instead of roads.

No one is saying that. Everyone here has said we need both. But yes, it would reduce the demand put on highways because if people had to option to take a train to a city, some who would have driven and some who would have flown will instead take rail. The demand on the interstate will still grow, but not as much as it would have without the HSR option.

You won't be able to save a single penny on roads by implementing HSR. All you're doing is adding hundreds of billions of dollars in costs. And how do you explain the hilited part without claiming that HSR is not a substitute for more roads? If a section of road carries 45,000 cars a day without HSR and 43,000 cars a day with it you've made a negligible dent in auto traffic on the road, but added many billions of expenses for HSR. The economics just aren't there.

 

[Dymanic]

I think most of those overhead wires get used for electric buses (or trolley buses), not for streetcars.

The question at issue was whether those wires constitute such an eyesore as to render a transportation system "horrible", and thereby justifying dismantling and rebuilding it so as to eliminate them. It may well be that that very argument was made at the time by the proponents of the dismantling of that infrastructure, but there also seem to be some very good reasons for supposing that they may actually have had other motives beyond beautifying our cities. I certainly would not argue against including aesthetic considerations among our deliberations, but in this land of strip malls and "cartoon architecture" I'd say that horse left the barn so long ago that he must have died fifty years ago after having lived out the rest of his days roaming free across the land and siring several generations of bastard offspring.

Not that this has much of anything to do with high-speed rail.

As I've said, I'm not necessarily in love with high-speed rail per se. My understanding is that when Amtrak President Joe Boardman says "Our only restriction will be the available capacity", the limitation he's referring to primarily has to do with the amount of available rolling stock. I'd be all for giving priority to expanding the existing system including light rail to exploit the already available rail infrastructure before sinking the bulk of the resources into HSR.

 

[tyr_13]

Nope. The claim is HSR decreases the need for roads. Perhaps you should direct your complaint to those making that claim instead of me?

You keep arguing that people are saying that HSR replaces the need for roads. The argument is that it decreases or supplements both road and air travel.

You can, but eventually you'll need a road to get it to your house. Hell, you need roads to get it from the factory to the store. And stop the strawman claims, the HSR proponents are indeed saying we should be funding HSR instead of roads.

No they aren't. I don't know where you're getting that from. No one here has said any such thing. It's such a blatant strawman that I'm baffled as to why you stick with it. I'll eventually need to walk to get to my house, are you saying we should replace all walkways with roads? No of course not, so I don't think anyone believes someone is saying we need to replace all roads with rail of any sort.

You won't be able to save a single penny on roads by implementing HSR. All you're doing is adding hundreds of billions of dollars in costs. And how do you explain the hilited part without claiming that HSR is not a substitute for more roads? If a section of road carries 45,000 cars a day without HSR and 43,000 cars a day with it you've made a negligible dent in auto traffic on the road, but added many billions of expenses for HSR. The economics just aren't there.

Road and air, is not going to be substituted with HSP. Again, that's not the claim. It would be useful to supplement, or augment our existing transportation options with more rail options.

 

[TraneWreck]

Roads do indeded cover the cost. They make possible economic activity, which could not happen without the roads. HSR is simply a substitute for other means of transportation which already exist. You don't get more economic activity with HSR, you just get more infrastructure to pay for.

And with this post we have reached the part of our interaction that has happened every time I've engaged you: I cannot tell if you're trying not to understand.

Yes, roads pay for themselves in the long run, in fact, the interstate system has been a HUGE economic boom for the country, and through tax dollars, the government. But we do not require people using the roads to cover that cost. They aren't paid for by the gas tax alone. We don't make drivers bear the cost of the generous automotive and petroleum subsidies that keep gas artificially cheap at the pump. That cost is shared across society with government footing the massive upfront cost for road and bridge building and repair.

Yet with HSR you DEMAND that unless the cost can be covered by ticket purchases, it isn't worth it. The economic studies show a similar return of investment when a high speed rail is built, like this one:

http://www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail/documents/report.pdf

Then let California build their HSR. If what you say is true they don't need a single penny from taxpayers in the 49 other states.

Right. It's 1950: tell Kansas that if they think the interstate highway system will benefit them economically, they should just build it themselves and don't need a sigle penny from the other 49 states.

One thing government is great at is covering the upfront costs of a project that will have long term, rather than immediate, benefit.

One minute you say it's not a replacement for the automobile, then you say it is. It's like 2 different people are posting under your name.

Again, are you trying to be dense?

There is some percentage of car travel that will be replaced by HSR and there is some percentage of air travel that will be replaced.

We will still have cars and airplanes.

And HSR doesn't do either of these things, it just makes it more expensive.

No, it doesn't. In order to make that math work you have to ignore the cost of highways when you consider car travel, you have to ignore the massive subsidies we dump into the automotive and oil industries, and you have to ignore the environmental costs.

Now you're back to arguing that HSR is a replacement for highways...

Are you really this confused or are you trolling? I really can't tell.

Fixed in an edit.

Exactly. The roads will still need to be maintained, and with HSR we will also need to maintain that also. Capacity isn't increased, costs are.

It depends on where the lines are built, and capacity certainly exists. It's only an issue in your bizarre universe of straw where we let everything else fall apart.

Are you back to arguing that HSR is a replacement for roads again?

Surely you're trying to make a joke with this stuff. I refuse to believe that you could fail that badly at comprehension.

The ability to borrow money means you're not broke? Well whip out that cedit card and charge it to the max!

Well, that sums up your way of thinking nicely. Mull that sentence over in your head a few times.

Having access to sources of revenue capable of covering one's expenses is pretty much the exact opposite of being broke.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yet with HSR you DEMAND that unless the cost can be covered by ticket purchases, it isn't worth it.

Really? Wildcat demanded that? I don't recall him making any such demand. Can you point me to a post where he said that?

Right. It's 1950: tell Kansas that if they think the interstate highway system will benefit them economically, they should just build it themselves and don't need a sigle penny from the other 49 states.

Other states benefit from Kansas having an interstate highway because of through traffic.

Where's the through traffic from California's proposed high-speed rail? Nowhere. It won't exist. Because it won't be interstate.

 

[TraneWreck]

Really? Wildcat demanded that? I don't recall him making any such demand. Can you point me to a post where he said that?

Since you and he never cite sources or bother to explain at how you arrive at figures, I would love to hear an explanation of why HSR isn't cost effective that doesn't involve ticket prices or the cost of laying down track.

Arguing that HSR isn't cost effective is based entirely on the notion that ticket purchases will not cover the expense of building the rail.

You or he are welcome to prove me wrong. Of course, you'll just ignore this and never bother to substantiate your claims. I've been through this with you guys a bunch of times now.

Other states benefit from Kansas having an interstate highway because of through traffic.

Where's the through traffic from California's proposed high-speed rail? Nowhere. It won't exist. Because it won't be interstate.

Other states benefit greatly from California 1) cutting fuel emissions and carbon dependence and 2) California having a thriving economy. There are only a handful of countries in the world with a larger economy than California's. If they experience economic benefit, the entire nation gains.

But please, define for me how much Oregon benefited from the Interstate that runs between Salina and Topeka. Prove to me that other states have gained from that. Figure out how much they paid in taxes and then consider what gain accrued from interstates in Montana and Wyoming. How do New Yorkers, who have a significant deficit in tax dollars they provide to the nation vs. services they receive, benefit by paying for roads that enable Polygamists in Utah to shuttle more easily between their tiny towns.

Or are you holding proponents of HSR to a higher burden of proof than you can establish for your own arguments?

 

[Ziggurat]

Since you and he never cite sources or bother to explain at how you arrive at figures, I would love to hear an explanation of why HSR isn't cost effective that doesn't involve ticket prices or the cost of laying down track.

In other words, he didn't say that, but that's the argument you'd like to fight against.

Arguing that HSR isn't cost effective is based entirely on the notion that ticket purchases will not cover the expense of building the rail.

And yet, you can't find anyone who's actually claiming that.

Other states benefit greatly from California 1) cutting fuel emissions and carbon dependence

That's a pathetically weak excuse.
http://reason.org/files/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf
"Claims about HSR’s environmental benefits have been greatly overstated. California HSR will do little to reduce CO2 emissions (greenhouse gas emissions). Based upon California Air Resources Board projections, HSR would ultimately remove CO2 emissions equal to only 1.5% of the current state objective. This is a small fraction of the CHSRA’s exaggerated claims of “almost 50%” of the state objective. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that for between $20 and $50 per ton of reduced greenhouse gases emissions, deep reversal of CO2 concentrations can be achieved between 2030 and 2050. A McKinsey report indicates that substantial CO2 emission reductions can be achieved in the United States for less than $50 per ton. Yet the cost per ton of CO2 emission removal by HSR is far higher—between 39 and 201 times the international IPCC ceiling of $50. The reality is that HSR’s impact on CO2 would be inconsequential while being exorbitantly costly."

and 2) California having a thriving economy.

That is perhaps the worst justification of all for spending federal dollars on the project. If California's economy can really thrive so much that other states will receive sufficient benefits to justify their investment, then the return on investment for California has got to be enormous, since external benefits will only be indirect and thus far smaller. In which case they should be able and willing to foot the bill themselves. So even if you're correct about the effect (a matter which is in dispute, BTW), the conclusion that the federal government should fund it simply doesn't follow.

But please, define for me how much Oregon benefited from the Interstate that runs between Salina and Topeka. Prove to me that other states have gained from that.

Wow. That's... pathetic. This is really what you've been reduced to? Comparing external benefits of a system which has NO through traffic to a system which does carry significant through traffic?

Figure out how much they paid in taxes and then consider what gain accrued from interstates in Montana and Wyoming. How do New Yorkers, who have a significant deficit in tax dollars they provide to the nation vs. services they receive, benefit by paying for roads that enable Polygamists in Utah to shuttle more easily between their tiny towns.

Or are you holding proponents of HSR to a higher burden of proof than you can establish for your own arguments?

Oh, the irony. You're demanding a far higher burden of proof than you have provided yourself, and far higher than I have ever demanded. Yet you're accusing me of using a double standard? Your hypocrisy is really quite astounding.

 

[TraneWreck]

In other words, he didn't say that, but that's the argument you'd like to fight against.

And yet, you can't find anyone who's actually claiming that.

Oy. Hilarious. Try and provide a cost-comparison argument that doesn't make that claim.

It's the assumption implicit in the comparison. You may not like it when that assumption is laid bare, but that's what you're doing.

That's a pathetically weak excuse.
http://reason.org/files/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf
"Claims about HSR’s environmental benefits have been greatly overstated. California HSR will do little to reduce CO2 emissions (greenhouse gas emissions). Based upon California Air Resources Board projections, HSR would ultimately remove CO2 emissions equal to only 1.5% of the current state objective. This is a small fraction of the CHSRA’s exaggerated claims of “almost 50%” of the state objective. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has indicated that for between $20 and $50 per ton of reduced greenhouse gases emissions, deep reversal of CO2 concentrations can be achieved between 2030 and 2050. A McKinsey report indicates that substantial CO2 emission reductions can be achieved in the United States for less than $50 per ton. Yet the cost per ton of CO2 emission removal by HSR is far higher—between 39 and 201 times the international IPCC ceiling of $50. The reality is that HSR’s impact on CO2 would be inconsequential while being exorbitantly costly."

Yes, Wendell Cox is an awesome source of information. He's an anti-rail lobbyist, but whatever, that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong.

So just examining the claim about carbon, there are several massive problems with the calculations. First, per mile rail expells MUCH less carbon than cars and airplanes:

How big is the reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions associated with switching from cars to rail?

[...]

All told, a 240-mile car trip produces 157 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Domestic air flights in the United States average 0.022 gallons of fuel for each passenger mile, and using a gallon of jet fuel is associated with 21.095 pounds of carbon dioxide. I’ll again increase that by 20 percent to reflect refining, and that comes to a total of 133.7 pounds of carbon dioxide on a 240-mile plane trip. This number is close to a Center for Clean Air Study figure based on flying a regional jet.

[...]

Taking a middle figure of 8.6 kilowatt hours for every 100 passenger miles, and using the North American Electric Reliability Corporation estimate of 1.555 pounds of carbon dioxide for each kilowatt in Texas means 13.37 pounds of carbon dioxide for every 100 passenger miles, or 32.1 pounds of carbon dioxide for a 240-mile trip.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...he-environmental-benefits-of-high-speed-rail/

So, if everyone used trains instead of planes and cars, there would be an enormous drop in carbon release. Couple trains with cleaner sources of electricity and the benefit over the internatal combustion engine is even more radical.

Now, the second question is whether this is the most cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gasses. Once again, we arrive at the sloppy math where the cost of building rail is factored into train travel but somehow road building, maintenance and the massive subsidies for the automotive and oil industries are ignored.

That "study" is just a reiteration of the sloppy analysis that underlies all of the anti-rail arguments. It doesn't even try to isolate rail travel, it just analyzes a specific program suggested in California and doesn't bother to control any variables.

That being said, the California plan might be a crappy one. Even if trains are a good alternative, that doesn't mean every plan to build trains is a good one.

That is perhaps the worst justification of all for spending federal dollars on the project. If California's economy can really thrive so much that other states will receive sufficient benefits to justify their investment, then the return on investment for California has got to be enormous, since external benefits will only be indirect and thus far smaller. In which case they should be able and willing to foot the bill themselves. So even if you're correct about the effect (a matter which is in dispute, BTW), the conclusion that the federal government should fund it simply doesn't follow.

Wow, a lot of misguided rambling there.

Notice that a minority of states (almost all of which happen to be "blue," coincidence I'm sure) foot the federal bill for the welfare, or "Republican," states:

http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

Enhancing the economy of California, which receives $0.78 for every dollar they pay to the federal government, would directly benefit the rest of the country. That money would pay for (guess what) roads and infrastructure in the retarded states.

You can stimulate the economy by helping depressed areas recover, but the economy can also be stimulated by generating even more economic activity in the better functioning states. It's amazing that as messed up as California's state government is, it's still an economic powerhouse.

Wow. That's... pathetic. This is really what you've been reduced to? Comparing external benefits of a system which has NO through traffic to a system which does carry significant through traffic?

Then it shouldn't be difficult to prove the benefits. I'm giving you a situation that is EASIER than the California HSR program because of that through traffic. Now go ahead, support your claim.

Instead you run and hide, whining the whole way.

Oh, the irony. You're demanding a far higher burden of proof than you have provided yourself, and far higher than I have ever demanded. Yet you're accusing me of using a double standard? Your hypocrisy is really quite astounding.

Oh god. This is sad.

I'm not demanding anything UNLESS you continue down the line of argumentation you've presented. YOU argued that California's rail system is closed and therefore it's different than the interstate highway system in terms of national benefit. I simply challenged you to show the benefit the nation experiences from paying for interstates in North Dakota.

If it's so obviously beneficial, then you should be able to prove it. Because, say, Alabama is a welfare state, enhancing the economy of California would provide more federal funds to be spent in that state. There's a direct benefit for Alabama in building a HSR (if it increases economic activity).

Now you claim interstates are even more obvious. So explain how Alabama benefits from that interstate in N. Dakota. Let's see the numbers.