High speed rail

[Jerry]

Should it be built? Is it a boon, or a boondoggle?

Passenger rail never lives up to it's promises. The taxpayer ends up floating the entire bill. Improving bus systems is a much better way of investing the money.

 

[longview]

When the French TGV started, I read an article in which they asked the head of transportation,
"How did the French Government plan such a wonderful train system?"
His reply was the plan was started in 1946!
I think at less than 500 miles HSR looks great, between 500 and 1000 miles, still worth thinking about.
Above 1000 miles flying would be better.
Think of it this way, flying has a 4 hour overhead, things equal out at a 5 hour train ride.
(1 hour to the airport, 2 hours before flight, 1 hour from the airport)=4 hours

This model fits well in Europe and Japan, The USA is much more spread out.
I am not saying you could not make it work financially here, it would just be more difficult.

 

[Porchev]

Show me a surplus in the Federal budget while it was being built and I'll agree. Where do you think they money came from, otherwise?

Ed:
My reply to you is the same. Show me where in the 60's we had a surplus or broke even.

In the 60's deficit spending was microscopic compared to today. There even were a few years there was a surplus. Besides the highways are mostly funded by gas taxes that have gradually increased over the years. The whole point is California and the federal government's budget are way out of whack and until they reduce deficit spending (on the way to no deficit spending), they should reduce huge expensive projects when there are cheaper alternatives. And at the same time, help the private sector grow so they can have more money coming in from a booming free enterprise economy.

The government and private sector have a parasite and host symbiotic relationship. The private sector is the host and the parasite is the government and the parasite is killing the host.

 

[longview]

I have always thought the way to look at deficit spending was compared to income.
Things only get out of control, when your outlay exceeds your income!
1960's 4% overspent
1970's 13%
1980's 22%
1990's 12%
2000's 15%
Keep in mind the 2000's look good because of low deficits at the beginning of the decade.
2008 was 18% over
2009 was 67% over
2010 was 59%over
2011 was 56% over

 

[TitusAndronicus]

I don't think recent annual deficits reflect any difference in philosophy from years before, they just appear to be a perfect storm of high expenditures and low revenues. That said, I think the deficit is one of the two biggest issues the country faces and have thought so for years.

Apparently the difference between the 2008 and 2009 budget deficits was $869M. According to the CBO (2011) and in millions, between 2008 and 2009:

Income tax revenue went down.
1,145.7 to 915.3 (-230.4M)

Corporate Taxes went down.
304.3 to 138.2 (-166.1M)

Social Insurance Taxes went down.
900.2 to 890.9 (-9.3M)

Customs Duties went down.
27.2 to 22.5 (-5.1M)

In all, income went down by $419M.

Now for mandatory spending:

Social Security spending went up.
612.1 to 677.7 (+65.6M)

Medicare spending went up.
456 to 499 (+43M)

Medicaid spending went up.
201.4 to 250.9 (+49.5M)

Income Security (SNAP, unemployment, foster care, etc.) went up.
260.7 to 350.3 (+89.6M)

"Other" Programs went up (the difference is TARP + Freddie Mac).
121.2 to 367.2 (+246M)

With other inputs for a total increase in mandatory spending of $498M

So in total, revenue and mandatory programs accounted for an added $917M between 2008 and 2009, greater than the increase in the annual deficit of $869M. $917M is 3/4 of 2009 discretionary spending ($1,237.5M). Should it all have come out of that? Cut discretionary spending from one year to the next by 75% during a recession? I'm not saying we aren't spending too much now, but the real issue is that we have had many years of prosperity since Reagan took office, but the deficit has increased all through that time. We should have been paying off the debt and saving for the aforementioned rainy day.

 

[MoSurveyor]

I don't think recent annual deficits reflect any difference in philosophy from years before, they just appear to be a perfect storm of high expenditures and low revenues. That said, I think the deficit is one of the two biggest issues the country faces and have thought so for years.

Apparently the difference between the 2008 and 2009 budget deficits was $869M. According to the CBO (2011) and in millions, between 2008 and 2009:

[...]

So in total, revenue and mandatory programs accounted for an added $917M between 2008 and 2009, greater than the increase in the annual deficit of $869M. $917M is 3/4 of 2009 discretionary spending ($1,237.5M). Should it all have come out of that? Cut discretionary spending from one year to the next by 75% during a recession? I'm not saying we aren't spending too much now, but the real issue is that we have had many years of prosperity since Reagan took office, but the deficit has increased all through that time. We should have been paying off the debt and saving for the aforementioned rainy day.

Thanks!

 

[American]

BUild the damn thing. Run it down the Interstate highway's so as to not have to push people off their land. Just ****ing build it. I'm so sick of people telling us that the US can't build anything or do anything big anymore. Only China can build big. Not us. We are not allowed to.

Yeah, BUILD BABY BUILD!! Are YOU going to pay for it?

 

[American]

The larger it's built the faster it will pay for itself. I think deficit spending on this project will create jobs in the short run and pay for itself faster for the long run. The more piecemeal its done the more detractors will rise to fight it's expansion.

You think it's as simple as laying down track? There is an entire transportation network to consider. How much cargo will it carry and produce revenue.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Why cargo? The Shinkansen carries millions of passengers from Tokyo to Osaka and back every year, faster and cheaper than a plane. They depart 13 times per hour!

Shinkansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Matt Foley]

Yeah, BUILD BABY BUILD!! Are YOU going to pay for it?

I wonder if the Greens realize that their alliance with other Lefties pretty much hampers their Grand Plans. We don't have the money. Many Righties would consider an alternative overhaul to the transportation industry IF there was money to do it with, but as it is now we're bankrupt and it's pointless to even talk about it.

 

[TitusAndronicus]

You think it's as simple as laying down track? There is an entire transportation network to consider. How much cargo will it carry and produce revenue.

Most cargo doesn't need to get anywhere fast. Which is why you never see freight trains speeding faster than you in your car.

But elsewhere, HSR trains carry the mail. For comparison, commercial airlines make about 5-10% of their revenue by hauling this and similar types of freight. And the Los Angeles, Fresno and San Francisco Processing and Distribution Facilities would be closer to HSR stations than their local airports.

 

[Matt Foley]

Most cargo doesn't need to get anywhere fast.

There goes the trucking industry.

I read once that there are over 2 million CDL licenses in the US.

 

[TitusAndronicus]

I wonder if the Greens realize that their alliance with other Lefties pretty much hampers their Grand Plans. We don't have the money. Many Righties would consider an alternative overhaul to the transportation industry IF there was money to do it with, but as it is now we're bankrupt and it's pointless to even talk about it.

Righties would be reasonable on rail? Unlikely. Florida Governor Rick Scott turned down HSR in his state that would have been paid 90% by the feds and was projected to show a profit, based purely on advice from his friend from the Reason Foundation. He claimed Florida would have to pay the final 10% on the system, plus overruns and pay to run the system. But the numbers show it would have been profitable and he conveniently cancelled the project before the public-private proposal process, as a few international businesses were interested in paying off some or all of the 10% remaining cost, including any overruns if they would be allowed to run the system and keep the profits off of it.

And Wisconsin's Scott Walker cancelled the planned Milwaukee-Madison commuter rail system immediately after taking office, sending all the money for the completely federally funded project back to Washington. He too said it would cost too much to run. But based on the current fed-state funding structure, it would have cost about 750K per year to run, whereas it cost nearly $100M to cancel the project based on work already done and projects that would still need to be completed anyway and would now have to be funded by the state. Also, Spanish firm Talgo set up a manufacturing plant for passenger train cars in Milwaukee based on this project. They stated if the project was cancelled, they would have no reason to stay in Milwaukee. They began laying off people yesterday.

 

[TitusAndronicus]

There goes the trucking industry.

Why? It just means the trucking industry is typically more worried about fuel expended than getting it someplace faster. For example, UPS routes their mail trucks by minimizing left turns, as you can make a right turn faster and save fuel.

 

[Matt Foley]

Why? It just means the trucking industry is typically more worried about fuel expended than getting it someplace faster. For example, UPS routes their mail trucks by minimizing left turns, as you can make a right turn faster and save fuel.

The only reason a long distance trucking industry exists is because of speed of freight.

 

[Matt Foley]

Righties would be reasonable on rail? Unlikely.

The reasonable ones, not the baby eating anarcho capitalists.

Florida Governor Rick Scott turned down HSR in his state that would have been paid 90% by the feds and was projected to show a profit,

What part of, "we're bankrupt" don't you get?

based purely on advice from his friend from the Reason Foundation. He claimed Florida would have to pay the final 10% on the system, plus overruns and pay to run the system. But the numbers show it would have been profitable and he conveniently cancelled the project before the public-private proposal process, as a few international businesses were interested in paying off some or all of the 10% remaining cost, including any overruns if they would be allowed to run the system and keep the profits off of it.

Regional HSR is a waste of money, it would have to be nationwide and extremely comprehensive like the interstate system, to actually work.

And Wisconsin's Scott Walker cancelled the planned Milwaukee-Madison commuter rail system immediately after taking office, sending all the money for the completely federally funded project back to Washington. He too said it would cost too much to run. But based on the current fed-state funding structure, it would have cost about 750K per year to run, whereas it cost nearly $100M to cancel the project based on work already done and projects that would still need to be completed anyway and would now have to be funded by the state. Also, Spanish firm Talgo set up a manufacturing plant for passenger train cars in Milwaukee based on this project. They stated if the project was cancelled, they would have no reason to stay in Milwaukee. They began laying off people yesterday.

Bummer

 

[longview]

Actually I would think long haul trucking exists because of flexibility,
and they are not overburdened with more than 100 years of union and pension obligations.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Why? It just means the trucking industry is typically more worried about fuel expended than getting it someplace faster. For example, UPS routes their mail trucks by minimizing left turns, as you can make a right turn faster and save fuel.

Then why are the trucks on our freeways going 65-70 when the speed limit is supposedly 55? Wouldn't they burn less fuel at 55?

 

[TitusAndronicus]

Then why are the trucks on our freeways going 65-70 when the speed limit is supposedly 55? Wouldn't they burn less fuel at 55?

You see some trucks going slow, some going 65-70. It depends on the specifics of the order and the company. But I was more referring to the difference between 65 mph service and 220 mph service (or air freight). If you're UPS and you're sending a standard package from SF to LA does it matter if it gets there in 3 hours or in 7 hours? It only matters when your cargo is next-day (or people).

 

[TitusAndronicus]

What part of, "we're bankrupt" don't you get?

When Florida's project was cancelled, the dedicated funds were redirected to other projects, not saved. And furthermore, the corridor in Florida is still near capacity. Plans now are to widen I-4 instead. A minimum of $2B will be invested in the corridor no matter what.

Regional HSR is a waste of money, it would have to be nationwide and extremely comprehensive like the interstate system, to actually work.

No one is proposing a nationwide system because no one would take the train from NYC to LA. It makes more sense to fly. HSR makes sense for distances of 100-500 miles, which are less than ideally served by either driving or flying. HSR make sense only as regional systems. Taiwan's system makes a profit and is only 214 miles long. Italy's does not connect to France's or Germany's and is about the size of the CA proposal.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Then why are the trucks on our freeways going 65-70 when the speed limit is supposedly 55? Wouldn't they burn less fuel at 55?

Typically it's trucking companies with fixed schedules and routes that will drive slower to save money. In fact, a lot of them are now monitoring their trucks with GPS to make sure they go the proscribed speeds. Trucks make money per mile driven (unless you have that fixed route/schedule). Obviously, the faster you drive the more money you make. For independent truckers it's a no-brainer and many smaller and/or specialty trucking companies work the same way an Independent does.

 

[justabubba]

When Florida's project was cancelled, the dedicated funds were redirected to other projects, not saved. And furthermore, the corridor in Florida is still near capacity. Plans now are to widen I-4 instead. A minimum of $2B will be invested in the corridor no matter what.



No one is proposing a nationwide system because no one would take the train from NYC to LA. It makes more sense to fly. HSR makes sense for distances of 100-500 miles, which are less than ideally served by either driving or flying. HSR make sense only as regional systems. Taiwan's system makes a profit and is only 214 miles long. Italy's does not connect to France's or Germany's and is about the size of the CA proposal.

this underscores that in addition to political will, population density is a prerequisite for HSR:
taiwan 1,655 per sq mi
germany 593
france 295
USA 83

such infrastructure is only cost efficient in high density corridors

 

[TitusAndronicus]

this underscores that in addition to political will, population density is a prerequisite for HSR:
taiwan 1,655 per sq mi
germany 593
france 295
USA 83

such infrastructure is only cost efficient in high density corridors

Are you saying that the United States is a 'corridor'?

You know, Russia has built HSR. They have a population density of only 21.5/sqmi. Let's ignore Alaska and the Rocky Mountains and reevaluate these density figures:

Spain 231
France 295
Italy 521

California 242
Ohio 282
Florida 353
Maryland 596

 

[justabubba]

Are you saying that the United States is a 'corridor'?

You know, Russia has built HSR. They have a population density of only 21.5/sqmi. Let's ignore Alaska and the Rocky Mountains and reevaluate these density figures:

Spain 231
France 295
Italy 521

California 242
Ohio 282
Florida 353
Maryland 596

absolutely, not
HSR is only viable in high density corridors
which tells us that this is not infrastructure to be constructed widely (at least in the USA)

 

[TitusAndronicus]

HSR is only viable in high density corridors
which tells us that this is not infrastructure to be constructed widely (at least in the USA)

I contend that there are plenty of corridors in the US that could support and benefit from HSR.

Atlanta-Jacksonville-Orlando-Tampa-Miami
Washington-Philadelphia-New York-Boston (Acela had a $100M profit in 2010)
Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland-Pittsburgh
Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis
Vancouver-Seattle-Portland
New York-Buffalo-Toronto
San Diego-Los Angeles-Fresno-San Francisco-Sacramento
Los Angeles-Phoenix-Tucson
Los Angeles-Las Vegas

Los Angeles in particular could use alleviation for LAX. 7 of the 35 busiest air corridors by aircraft movements are US domestic routes, and 5 of those have a terminus in LA. (to San Francisco, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix, New York.) 4 of these routes could be largely supplanted with HSR operations, opening up room for routes to many new destinations and allowing increased frequency for existing ones.