- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
So yes, high speed trains on medium distances is a sensible investment and profitable one at that. Btw the Euro/Japanese high speed requirements (to be called highspeed) is over 200 km/hour minimum on existing tracks or 250km/hour on new tracks. Most go 300km/hour or over.
It takes six hours and two hundred dollars to fly from Los Angeles to Chicago.
What rail project is going to compete with that?
Answer: None. Not possible.
The private investors should be lining up to put their own money down to do it.
The government has no business getting involved here. The people of Montana, for example, which doesn't have anything resembling what most people would call a "city", shouldn't have to pay for Joe Biden's speedier commute.
So you're saying we shouldn't build it because you're scared of terrorists. We can't be scared of terrorists forever. I fly all the time. Anybody want to be flying mach .6 1000 feet of the ground when an SA-14 tags your ass?
Sure it does, in fact it's constitutional and in line with the Federal Government's proper function, interstate affairs. I think the people of Montana would see tangential benefits in the form of a more competitive economy (see my previous posts).
Close. $346 if you were to leave the day after tomorrow on the cheapest ariline (Southwest)...
I think it would be cheaper, especially in lieu of rising oil prices.
If the choo choo doesn't go to Billings, and I can't see why it would, it doesn't get any benefit from the choo choo.
But it still gets the tax bite.
Now, that's wrong.
Oh?
The train's gonna beat the six hour flight time?
How?
That's overly simplistic. Billings would benefit indirectly through overall cost savings in logistics which would benefit our manufacturing and shipping industries (including the shipping of mail). And the network can be expanded...
No, but if you can make it cheaper than flying and faster than driving (and potentially cheaper than driving as well) then you have a potential market.
Sure it does, in fact it's constitutional and in line with the Federal Government's proper function, interstate affairs. I think the people of Montana would see tangential benefits in the form of a more competitive economy (see my previous posts).
Fed to invest $13 billion in nationwide high-speed rail project - Business First of Columbus:
Horrible, horrible, horrible idea.
Before the government spends $13 billion on new railroads, how about they first demonstrate that they can run Amtrak efficiently?
That's just a heap of happy horse**** there, with undigested grass seeds and everything. Gonna show some studies to back it up?
Ah yes, but what about the operators who operate within the realm of logistics and shipping? They're still out there turning a profit although the industry is suffering due to the benefits of air transportation (reduced overhead). If we could create an alternative that's cheaper, not dependent on oil, and offers the lower overhead of rapid air-based transportation, then there could be substantial cost savings in the long term as well as reduced dependence on foreign oil.
And I'm not going to rule out the idea that civil transportation on the high speed rails wouldn't be profitable either. It could be, especially as we get closer to "peak oil" (are we there yet?) and consumers start to see a substantial cost savings.
Will the potential of that market be enough to amortize the investment and interest fees as well as operating costs?
If the government has to run it as a permanent subsidy, it absolutely should not be done.
Amtrak has been a financial disaster and billions could be saved from the federal budget annually by making Joe Biden pay the full price for his commutes back to Delaware, as well as all the other Amtrak passengers.
Did you know that the Federal Government spent $15 billion on the FAA last year? Just something to think about when you look at this proposal...
The more I think/read about this the less enthusiastic I am about it. It seems all the high speed rail systems in other countries are either failed or heavily subsidized and if you factor in the geography of America it makes even less sense. I'll remain cautiously optimistic, for now.
I was looking up the corridors and I saw they connected my state to another state I frequent BUT it was to a city 45 minutes away from the city I visit. That city has an airport. That alone would be enough to dissuade me from taking the rail line.
It takes six hours and two hundred dollars to fly from Los Angeles to Chicago.
What rail project is going to compete with that?
Answer: None. Not possible.
The White House and the U.S. Department of Transportation on Thursday said it will invest $8 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and $1 billion a year for five years as a down payment to develop a passenger rail system and put the transportation policy on the right track.
Based on what the article actually said:
"Complete individual projects" sound like many of the city based rail projects across the country. This, as SouthernDemocrat stated is actually a good idea. Much of the congestion on our roads is within cities, not on across the country highways.
If America had high speed trains, as does every other developed nation, we would use them.
That is an insane distance and not practical for a high speed rail network.
However LA to SF, New York to Washington or Boston.. yes. Dallas to Houston, Austin to Houston.
...
In France there were in 2005 95 million people travelling on the high speed trains and profits over a billion Euros. The Spanish system is also profitable last I heard and passenger numbers are increasing each year by leaps and bounds, but the Spanish system is still relative young in age and still being expanded.
Fed to invest $13 billion in nationwide high-speed rail project - Business First of Columbus:
Horrible, horrible, horrible idea.
Before the government spends $13 billion on new railroads, how about they first demonstrate that they can run Amtrak efficiently?
Don't you get it yet? This program was never going to be about sensible projects that make sense; this is about a campaign promise to confiscate tax payer money on use it on "make work" projects to falsely create jobs regardless of their temporary nature or usefulness.
Don't you know that this is about forcing Americans to change their behaviors to match poorly thought out green initiatives by the administration and Congress invested in the false belief that these will make us energy independent?
What makes anyone think that it matters to Democrats and this Administration that this would be a vast waste of taxpayer money and just exacerbate the losses and subsidization of our rail system.
I am always amused by those who thought that Obama's programs were supposed to make any rational sense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?