America will suffer because of the budget compromise

[Neally]

Since HSR cannot be developed without condemning private property, and private enterprise is notorious for not wanting to pay a fair price for that property, giving it over to private enterprise makes no ecconomic sense.

Who said anything about giving it over to private enterprise? Again, the property is taken by eminent domain, which acquires it for fair market value, then sells it to the private company for the same price it paid. Basically, government just helps with getting the property at no public cost when the private company commits to building the HSR.

There is just so much less environmental impact from a rail line than from a freeway that that alone should be a good argument for building HSR instead of more roads.

Sorry, no, that won't fly.

Worth the cost to whom? Whiney babies who think they are self-made men and shouldn't have to bear any of the burden of having to maintain the infrastructure?

Worth the cost to society, obviously. With private enterprise the only person that bears the cost of the infrastructure are those who use it.

 

[Dymanic]

Well I guess we can agree that HSR has potential benefits, it's just that we don't know if those potential benefits will materialize and thus we are talking about billions of funds at risk to find the answer. Therefore let private enterprise take the risk if they feel the potential reward justifies it.

When has our policy-making process ever enjoyed the luxury of perfect information? Someone has just mentioned Hoover Dam. At the time it was undertaken, it was to be the largest concrete structure in the world, and some of the techniques to be used were unproven. Its cost ended up being measured not only in dollars, but in human lives. Had the risks involved in that public works project been left to private enterprise, do you think there is the remotest chance that it would ever have been built?

Sorry, the justification for any new billion dollar public works project can't just be it's a "benefit"...

I seem to have missed the part of your post where you illuminate us as to what, if anything, IS the legitimate justification for a public works project.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I should have known how many people were in your car. My bad. I'll snoop around on google Earth next time.

Or you could read my posts.

I've almost never taken that trip alone. It's generally been two or more people per car, so per-passenger we can't get that number even with a round trip (which, again, they don't say, so it probably isn't). And for intercity travel, per-vehicle occupancy really is a lot closer to 2 than to 1.

 

[Dymanic]

With private enterprise the only person that bears the cost of the infrastructure are those who use it.

Ever had a CT scan? Because if you've ever paid for services at a hospital that has one, a portion of those charges went to covering the cost of that machine.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The majority of rail cost will be paid for by ticket purchases.

Facts say otherwise. Or by "majority" do you mean about 20%? Because that's what ticket prices contribute to the operating costs of our brand spanking new passenger rail in New Mexico.

I find it astonishing that you don't think the cost of cars is relevant to a discussion about the cost of travel by road. Is the cost of the high speed train, itself, irrelevant to the discussion about the price of rail travel?

WOOOOSH. I've said over and over again that there was a difference between "total cost of transportation" and "what we should be shelling out at the pump". Please note, the article you linked to back up your claim that gasoline should cost 12 dollars a gallon included the price of the car in that price.

Can you be anymore dishonest?

 

[Neally]

When has our policy-making process ever enjoyed the luxury of perfect information?

I never argued for perfect information. Businesses do this all the time. Let the businesses figure it out and make that decision.

I seem to have missed the part of your post where you illuminate us as to what, if anything, IS the legitimate justification for a public works project.

In the case of HSR, we don't have to debate that analysis, do we? Simply let private enterprise make that decision. Regardless, a multi-billion dollar project needs a bit more justification than, wow, a shinny new train that has the potential for benefits, plus it creates jobs!

Ever had a CT scan? Because if you've ever paid for services at a hospital that has one, a portion of those charges went to covering the cost of that machine.

And?

 

[WildCat]

An express from Los Angles to Las Vegas might make a stop in the suburbs on the way out of town, but there is no reason to stop every few miles.

No practical reasons, but there are political reasons. You think Congressman Blowhard is going to let the train go through his district without stopping? If you do I have a bridge to sell you, the Brooklyn model...

 

[WildCat]

Last time I checked, the profitable Amtrak routes were on the high speed Northeast corridor.

Right, home of New York City, the only city in the country where less than half of adults don't own a car. Do you think that has anything to do with it?

 

[WildCat]

Boy, you're really struggling. Once again, HSR riders will be made up of some number of people that would drive without HSR and some number that would fly.

Which means that HSR isn't adding to any economic activity, it's merely taking it from other sectors of the economy. Nor is it adding a way to get from Point A to Point B which doesn't already exist nor does it make travel from Point A to Point B significantly faster than an automobile for short to medium travel and is slower than an airplane for long distance travel.

Again, it's a solution in search of a problem.

The same hidden costs that make cars appear more cost effective than trains are what make it almost impossible for electric cars and other technologies to compete on the open market.

Woiuldn't it be great if the money being proposed for HSR was used instead to develop electric car infrastructure (power grids, standardized swapable battery technology, etc) rather than 50-year old train technology? The future is electric cars, why invest in yesteryear's technology?

 

[WildCat]

I frankly don't believe that number.

Well if you assume everyone makes the trip alone in a Ford Expedition or a Hummer...

 

[Kestrel]

Sorry, the justification for any new billion dollar public works project can't just be it's a "benefit" or it creates jobs, and when you talk about a "infrastructure investment" you have to talk about the return on that investment. You still haven't said why private enterprise shouldn't pursue it if there is such a need and demand.

A high speed rail connection between two cities takes the strain off of highways and airports serving both cities. Business and leisure travel becomes easier and more convenient. It benefits people who don't even use the system.

The Interstate Highway system doesn't turn a profit either. The gas taxes and other fees don't provide enough revenue to keep it going. So at times we dip into the general fund to improve a section or replace a critical bridge.

National Parks are another example of something that doesn't turn a profit at the entrance gates. But we do know that they improve the economy of the surrounding area. They also provide intangible benefits, at least to those who's entire life is not centered around money.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Again, it's a solution in search of a problem.

You're absolutely correct. They already applied the solution here in New Mexico and it solved nothing and just costs money that could be better used.

 

[Kestrel]

You're absolutely correct. They already applied the solution here in New Mexico and it solved nothing and just costs money that could be better used.

What New Mexico built isn't high speed rail.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What New Mexico built isn't high speed rail.

Correct, it's light passenger rail. It does the Santa Fe to Albuquerque commute in about the same time as a passenger car. I see no reason to believe that it would do better if it was higher speed.

 

[Neally]

A high speed rail connection between two cities takes the strain off of highways and airports serving both cities. Business and leisure travel becomes easier and more convenient. It benefits people who don't even use the system.

The Interstate Highway system doesn't turn a profit either. The gas taxes and other fees don't provide enough revenue to keep it going. So at times we dip into the general fund to improve a section or replace a critical bridge.

National Parks are another example of something that doesn't turn a profit at the entrance gates. But we do know that they improve the economy of the surrounding area. They also provide intangible benefits, at least to those who's entire life is not centered around money.

You're still dancing around and avoiding answering the question as to why should government take on the risk and expense verses private enterprise.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You're still dancing around and avoiding answering the question as to why should government take on the risk and expense verses private enterprise.

Because the purpose of HSR is to benefit the public, not turn a profit. The same way construction of highways is not designed to turn a profit, but rather to benefit the public (eta: which, coincidentally, is why highways are not owned by private enterprise).

Private industry, on the other hand, is concerned only with turning profits. While that is not in and of itself a bad value, we are discussing a system designed to primarily benefit the public (as well as private enterprise) with profits coming in second to that goal.

This particular arrangement of goals is not something private enterprise is capable of accomplishing.

 

[WildCat]

Because the purpose of HSR is to benefit the public, not turn a profit.

This is true, however my objection to HSR is that it doesn't benefit the public, at least not to the extent of the many billions of dollars it will cost. All it does is provide "another option", and that option isn't obviously better than the options which already exist.

When the Eisenhower expressway system was built it did provide an obviously superior option than the roads already in existence. Whereas it took weeks to travel old Route 66 to California, now it could be done in a matter of days for people, cargo, and (most importantly at the time) the military. It made our country "smaller", in a manner of speaking. I'm having a very difficult time seeing any similar benefit wrt HSR. Passengers can travel slightly faster than by car over short to medium distances, but not nearly as fast as by airplane especially over longer distances. Cargo can't use it at all. It's ridiculously expensive.

A solution in search of a problem.

 

[Dymanic]

Last time I checked, the profitable Amtrak routes were on the high speed Northeast corridor.

Right, home of New York City, the only city in the country where less than half of adults don't own a car. Do you think that has anything to do with it?

You know, you may just be on to something here. There could very well be some sort of connection between availability of rail service and ownership of cars.

 

[Dymanic]

You're still dancing around and avoiding answering the question as to why should government take on the risk and expense verses private enterprise.

Perhaps if you tried answering the question I asked you above:

Had the risks involved in that public works project been left to private enterprise, do you think there is the remotest chance that it would ever have been built?

...you'd find that you'd just answered your own question in the process.

 

[WildCat]

You know, you may just be on to something here. There could very well be some sort of connection between availability of rail service and ownership of cars.

Or there's a connection between no place to park (cheaply anyway) and ownership of cars.