America will suffer because of the budget compromise

[Dymanic]

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

Yes! Yes! Or... let's see... a connection between high gas prices and ownership of cars...

Definitely on to something here.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

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

So, there could in fact be a public benefit to HSR?

Say, alleviate congestion? Alleviate parking issues? And that's without discussing infrastructure maintenance (fewer cars = less maintenance), emissions, etc.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

Unless you were driving a Model T Ford, it didn't take weeks to travel to California on Route 66.

It seems to have escaped your notice that building more lanes on freeways and expanding airports also costs a bundle. And these solutions don't do anything to help reduce our demand for oil.

I also find it odd that the nation that put a man on the Moon can't figure out how to build a high speed rail network. We don't even have to invent the technology, other countries have already proved it can be done. Has our nation really regressed that far during my lifetime?

 

[rwguinn]

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.

nice job of reversing cause and effect, slick...

 

[Dymanic]

nice job of reversing cause and effect, slick...

Thank you. Of course, Wildcat probably deserves most of the credit for providing such a beautiful setup.

Actually, I suspect that the matter is actually rather complex, with causality running in both directions, but it is possible to make at least one simple observation: you can't ride a train and drive a car at the same time.

 

[WildCat]

Yes! Yes! Or... let's see... a connection between high gas prices and ownership of cars...

Definitely on to something here.

Do you have any evidence at all that gas prices in the US have lead to lower car ownership?

Didn't think so.

 

[WildCat]

So, there could in fact be a public benefit to HSR?

Say, alleviate congestion? Alleviate parking issues? And that's without discussing infrastructure maintenance (fewer cars = less maintenance), emissions, etc.

NYC is unique in that regard. If you think Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles, etc etc are going to suddenly become as densely populated as NYC please present your evidence. Chicago actually lost 200,000 people in the last decade.

 

[WildCat]

Unless you were driving a Model T Ford, it didn't take weeks to travel to California on Route 66.

Yes, it did. Even without traffic you couldn't go very fast on those roads, and then there was the fact that every 10 miles or so you had to go through a town with low speed limits and stop signs and traffic lights..

It seems to have escaped your notice that building more lanes on freeways and expanding airports also costs a bundle. And these solutions don't do anything to help reduce our demand for oil.

It seems to have escaped your attention that cargo can't travel on HSR, so we will still need interstates for truck traffic, and it is trucks that account for the wear and tear on the roads. It also seems to have escaped your attention that we have already taken the first baby steps towards electric cars. I would be shocked if gas-powered cars aren't a rarity in 30 years. We will still need to maintain all of those interstates, even if every single dreamed-of HSR line is built.

I also find it odd that the nation that put a man on the Moon can't figure out how to build a high speed rail network.

Er, that was figured out years before we put a man on the moon. HSR is 50 year old technology.

We don't even have to invent the technology, other countries have already proved it can be done. Has our nation really regressed that far during my lifetime?

You ignore the geographical differences between those countries and the US. Population density is a bitch to overcome.

 

[Dymanic]

Do you have any evidence at all that gas prices in the US have lead to lower car ownership?

I believe can provide evidence indicating a connection between high gas prices and ownership of cars. But before I go to that trouble, I'm going to give you a little time to reflect on whether you really want to argue against that. Check you in the morning.

 

[WildCat]

I believe can provide evidence indicating a connection between high gas prices and ownership of cars. But before I go to that trouble, I'm going to give you a little time to reflect on whether you really want to argue against that. Check you in the morning.

How will people get to the train station without a car?

Remember, we're talking about the US, not western Europe which has the population density to support public transportation.

You could double gas prices, and people would just drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. And electric cars are just around the corner, rendering moot the entire issue.

 

[Neally]

Perhaps if you tried answering the question I asked you above:...you'd find that you'd just answered your own question in the process.

Apples and oranges. HSR is not cutting edge/never been done before and other HSR lines are privately owned. Continued avoidance noted.

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

Airline travel benefits the public also, yet it isn't government owned and turns a profit. Benefiting the public and turning a profit is not an either/or choice.

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

Already debunked above.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Airline travel benefits the public also, yet it isn't government owned and turns a profit. Benefiting the public and turning a profit is not an either/or choice.

You sure you want to argue that?

How many airports are built and maintained without Gov't money? Sure, it's private contractors doing the work, but it's still the Gov't paying for the infrastructure - and that's why your argument regarding airlines is a big fat boatload of fail.

K, thx, bye.

 

[Travis]

Look no further than Amtrak for the answer. Despite the fact that the majority of trains remain fairly empty, government run Amtrak runs an abundance of trains daily. In fact, Amtrak actually loses money on 41 out of 44 of their train routes. Taxpayers are forced to pay $32 per Amtrak passenger to make up for these losses.

In 2009 Amtrak carried 27.2 million passengers. Amtrak projected in 1976 that its ridership would grow from 17.3 million in 1975 to 32.9 million by 1980. 30 years later, we still haven't hit that number.

You are arguing that because slow trains run on freight corridors on unregular schedules to small towns don't turn a profit that a high speed train on a dedicated rail line running between a city of 15 million and a another city of 8 million won't? Seriously?

By the way the fake high speed train, the Acela, is one of those Amtrak routes that is wildly profitable. But who funded it's construction?

If high-speed rails are so “needed”, why not allow the private sector to provide these trains? In the private sector, a train company will go out of business if they fail to provide a quality service. Therefore, private trains have more incentives to treat consumers well and run efficiently.

Because the initial capital cost is so high. That's why.

Most of Japan’s high-speed rail lines are ran by a private company, The Japan Railways Group. In 1987, Japan's railroads were privatized due to the failure of the government run Japanese National Railways. Since then, the privatization of Japanese trains has been a huge success. Under the government ran system, Japan’s railways were losing $50 million a day. Since train privatization, three main companies now earn massive profits, ridership has increased and accidents have decreased by over 50 percent.

Japan's railroads make money because they now focus purely on high speed rail. By the way those high speed rail lines were, like everywhere else, paid for initially by the Japanese public.

You want HSR? Start one yourself or let a private company build and run it.

Japan wants to (specifically JR East). But they can only come up with $24 billion. China might be able to come up with more.

If that happens California's high speed rail line will be the first one ever to not be funded by the respective federal government.

TraneWreck's own link said it was 51 percent. Perhaps you want to go back and reread the posts?

In California it is between 20 and 30%. See here. For the rest of the nation see here.

Not the California system. It's a crap allocation of resources. It's a money pit.

You know that a train that doesn't exist yet is a money pit based on what?

And, again, why do they need to make money? Is everyone forgetting the inherent value in offering a transportation option that doesn't put huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

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?

And San Francisco is largely the same. My brother has lived there for three years without a car.


In fact lets' play a little game called COMPARISON!

- | Spain | California
surface area | 505,645 sq km | 423,970 sq km
population | 42 million | 36 million
People per square km | 89.6 | 88.1

At one time the Madrid to Barcelona air corridor was the busiest in the world. Today no airline makes the flight. Why? Because everyone now uses the AVE high speed rail line connecting those two cities.

Distance between Madrid and Barcelona? 386 miles. Distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles? 432 miles. Combined population of Madrid and Barcelona? 10,800,000 people. Combined population of San Francisco and Los Angeles? 22,600,000 people.

So.....with a larger population to serve with about the same distance between them why would the San Francisco to Los Angeles line not have high ridership like the Madrid to Barcelona AVE line does?

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 one of the things a government is supposed to do is to facilitate transport and, through that, commerce. High speed rail will do that and be good for the environment. The government puts up the money to build it. A private operator will run trains on it that makes enough money to cover it's expenses and the people now have a new transportation option that doesn't involve cars, planes or fossil fuels and all the waste associated with them. Also, as a result of lessening dependence on fossil fuels, America is just a little bit better protected economically from the whims of dictators in far off lands.

 

[Puppycow]

Sure. Every other high speed rail system ever built. High speed rail has been a huge success everywhere it has been built. Including in Spain which has the same population size and density as California. In Spain the train has taken so much of the market that no commercial air service now runs domestic flights between Madrid and Barcelona.

Similarly California has one of the most trafficked air corridors in the world between San Francisco and Los Angeles. It also has rural freeways between the two points that are heavily used. With the highways gridlocked in the middle of nowhere and the airports needing expansion projects estimated at tens of billions of dollars in cost it was figured a high speed train would move more people at less cost than the alternatives. The only problem was coming up with the $45 billion to build it. California has found ways to get most of that money but it is looking to the Federal Government for the remainder.

I see. Well, if that's your best case, I'm afraid I'm still not convinced.
I find these arguments by Robert Samuelson more convincing.

Regarding Spain, the cost of gasoline there is over $7/gallon and the car ownership rate is less than 60% of that in the US. Furthermore, you didn't say how much the Spanish government pays to subsidize the high speed rail service. Simply pronouncing it a "huge success" without a cost-benefit analysis and consideration of the opportunity costs doesn't cut it.

 

[leftysergeant]

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 private enterprise cannot be trusted to operate it in a way that serves the public interest. ENRON.

 

[Francesca R]

Because private enterprise cannot be trusted to operate it in a way that serves the public interest. ENRON.

Ideological answer. Conversely, public provision does not have to pass a market test, so can't always be trusted to build things that are economically worthwhile.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

If it connected to Seattle, it would increase the number of elderly snowbirds visiting the state, perhaps to the point of supporting the whole system during the winter. In the summer, it would be a perfect out for people who just reach the end of their endurance of the heat.

 

[WildCat]

In fact lets' play a little game called COMPARISON!

- | Spain | California
surface area | 505,645 sq km | 423,970 sq km
population | 42 million | 36 million
People per square km | 89.6 | 88.1

At one time the Madrid to Barcelona air corridor was the busiest in the world. Today no airline makes the flight. Why? Because everyone now uses the AVE high speed rail line connecting those two cities.

Distance between Madrid and Barcelona? 386 miles. Distance between San Francisco and Los Angeles? 432 miles. Combined population of Madrid and Barcelona? 10,800,000 people. Combined population of San Francisco and Los Angeles? 22,600,000 people.

So.....with a larger population to serve with about the same distance between them why would the San Francisco to Los Angeles line not have high ridership like the Madrid to Barcelona AVE line does?

Gross domestic product (millions of US dollars):
Spain - 1,460,250
California - 1,911,822

Congratulations again Travis, you proved beyond all doubt that California can build it themselves! How many US government dollars did Spain require for their HSR?

If one of the poorest countries in western Europe can do it, California certainly can!

 

[randman]

How long can we keep printing money to fund the government?

Every nation that has gone down this same path has ruined it's currency and economy.

Why should we be any different?

We already cannot find buyers for our debt. We have to "monetize it", meaning printing money artificially. If the FED quits printing money, in 2-3 years, we'll likely be paying over a trillion a year in interest payments alone. That will mean very large spending cuts, well over 60% of the budget, or defaulting.

Is that what Obama supporters want?

Wouldn't it be better to cut 600 billion annually right now rather than cutting much more later and being saddled with more crushing debt?

 

[Francesca R]

The AVE line in Spain was initially funded with the help of the "Expo 92" world fair in Sevilla.

If one of the poorest countries in western Europe can do it, California certainly can!

Spain is also a net beneficiary of funds from the EU budget, which helps fund the lines today. That's not really so different from the US federal government subsidising railways in one state.

Is someone arguing that it is profitable?