High speed rail

[Harry Guerrilla]

It's not really a feasible project for the private sector, the costs are too high.

Actually, high speed rail was one of my solutions for the unemployment rate. You'll create temporary jobs to build it so that people can keep working and the economy can recover. A true high speed rail system which links our major cities and can then later be expanded to cover even more...that would be exceedingly useful to us.

Also I don't buy your numbers. You're essentially saying that over 82% of Americans do not pay any federal tax.

Building such a system would cost trillions, that would make the current budget deficit look small.

 

[Ikari]

You are basising your 82% off of total population, not total taxpayers.

There are only about 172 million taxpayers in the country. Of that 172 million, 53% net no federal income taxes paid at the end of the year.

But then the 260 million you claim are piggybacking is more than the number of total tax payers. So more than 100% of Americans don't pay taxes?

 

[Ikari]

Building such a system would cost trillions, that would make the current budget deficit look small.

How much did we spend on the wars? How much in total bailouts? How much on subsidies to large corporations, etc.? High speed rail would be exceedingly useful, but the scale of the project is too large for private industry. Government could do it. And a works project during a huge recession isn't the worst thing out there.

 

[Samhain]

But then the 260 million you claim are piggybacking is more than the number of total tax payers. So more than 100% of Americans don't pay taxes?

I think you are confusing me with someone else. 53% of taxpayers net no federal income taxes, not 82%. conservativeguy mentioned 260 million.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

How much did we spend on the wars? How much in total bailouts? How much on subsidies to large corporations, etc.? High speed rail would be exceedingly useful, but the scale of the project is too large for private industry. Government could do it. And a works project during a huge recession isn't the worst thing out there.

Getting people to finance such a system, with upfront tax increases, then getting them to leave the comfort and privacy of their vehicles is going to be a major challenge.
It's really not that useful.

It's one of those "feel good" projects.
Plus in relation to the war spending and all that, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Samhain]

How much did we spend on the wars? How much in total bailouts? How much on subsidies to large corporations, etc.? High speed rail would be exceedingly useful, but the scale of the project is too large for private industry. Government could do it. And a works project during a huge recession isn't the worst thing out there.

Just based off the current costs of the California situation, and the longer the track the higher the costs per mile, a single track of high speed rail from seattle to miami would cost 2.6 trillion. You would want at least 2 lines, so you can actually have a train running in both directions, so now you are looking at, ballpark, 5 trillion bucks. 1/3 of the entire GDP of the country.

 

[Dittohead not!]

It think it goes without saying, but you can transport more people for cheaper and quicker via planes than you can with trains, and its simple logistics.

You can only have one train on the track in any given area at any given time. Planes have vertical avenues that linear vehicles like cars and trains don't.

Plus I think you are underestimating the size of the states. The current example is 100 billion for 110 miles of track, that stays away from major metropolitan areas.

At that cost, Boston to Washington DC would be north of 1 trillion(480miles of track) since you have to figure out how to go out of boston, in/out of NYC, and in washington.

It doesn't even pass the smell test.

Good point. 110 miles is nothing in California. It is more like 400 miles from SF to LA, 600 from LA to Sacramento, and about 1,000 miles from Mexico to Oregon.

 

[Ikari]

Getting people to finance such a system, with upfront tax increases, then getting them to leave the comfort and privacy of their vehicles is going to be a major challenge.
It's really not that useful.

It's one of those "feel good" projects.
Plus in relation to the war spending and all that, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Certainly don't, but if we're spending **** loads of money, I'd prefer to spend it on our own infrastructure which could ultimately produce some good. You could sell bonds and such as well to help finance the costs.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Certainly don't, but if we're spending **** loads of money, I'd prefer to spend it on our own infrastructure which could ultimately produce some good. You could sell bonds and such as well to help finance the costs.

But what's likely to happen, is that they spend all the money on wars, corporate welfare and a dysfunctional HSR system.
HSR is a boondoggle, plain and simple.

Mass transit projects already rob state and local road maintenance funds, I don't want worse roads because of HSR.

 

[Ikari]

But what's likely to happen, is that they spend all the money on wars, corporate welfare and a dysfunctional HSR system.
HSR is a boondoggle, plain and simple.

Mass transit projects already rob state and local road maintenance funds, I don't want worse roads because of HSR.

There was another works project that could have been initiated during this recession, highway, interstate, and bridge repair. I'd go for that too.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

There was another works project that could have been initiated during this recession, highway, interstate, and bridge repair. I'd go for that too.

We need a restructuring of things, not a add more money situation.
In places were mass transit consumes more money than it does provide a benefit, it should be ended.

In some places, these mass transit systems consumer an equal share of dollars, that road maintenance does, but only serve a single digit percentage of the population.
Those should be cut and the funds diverted to fixing roads, bridges, etc.

If at the end of the day, these communities are still short of the needed funds, then should we increase spending to fix these problems.

 

[Paschendale]

Wouldn't getting a lot of people off the road and into trains have other benefits? Fewer car crashes, a whole lot lower fuel costs, drastically lower emissions...

Americans like trains. And we especially like having the most efficient means of travel at our disposal. Cars are useful, too, but more for short range trips, between one and two hours. Interstate travel is far better accomplished by rail.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Wouldn't getting a lot of people off the road and into trains have other benefits? Fewer car crashes, a whole lot lower fuel costs, drastically lower emissions...

Americans like trains. And we especially like having the most efficient means of travel at our disposal. Cars are useful, too, but more for short range trips, between one and two hours. Interstate travel is far better accomplished by rail.

That's based on the assumption that people want to use trains.
How do you know this and how do you know that people who want to use trains, won't change their mind after they've rode it a couple of times?

Good reason why people won't use them, trains go by their schedule, not yours.
A lot of people prefer the convenience offered by cars.

 

[Paschendale]

That's based on the assumption that people want to use trains.
How do you know this and how do you know that people who want to use trains, won't change their mind after they've rode it a couple of times?

Good reason why people won't use them, trains go by their schedule, not yours.
A lot of people prefer the convenience offered by cars.

Because of the lots and lots of people that use trains. Especially those who cannot afford to maintain... like all of those 47% who are so very poor. This is yet another step we can take to alleviate the effects of poverty.

Seriously, you're making a huge assumption that anyone prefers driving a car to the point where they will choose it over a cheaper and more convenient option.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Because of the lots and lots of people that use trains. Especially those who cannot afford to maintain... like all of those 47% who are so very poor. This is yet another step we can take to alleviate the effects of poverty.

Seriously, you're making a huge assumption that anyone prefers driving a car to the point where they will choose it over a cheaper and more convenient option.

Cheaper for who?
The minor amount of people who have ready access to these trains?
Since when do poor people make regular trips around the country, necessitating a train?

Trains are less convenient, than cars, in nearly every case.
You can't just hop on a train whenever you feel and go to any place you want.

You want to waste potentially trillions of dollars, for some people who might use a train?
That doesn't jibe at all.

 

[Temporal]

Our country has put off infrastructure development long enough. Our's is an aging one. While even developing nations soar ahead of us in railway development, we're sorely lagging behind.

With all the money we've spent on interventionist wars, we could have a national high speed rail system already. I think it's worth the investment to our people.

I just want the government to make sure that bids for the contract are fair, and a balance between cost effective and high quality.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Our country has put off infrastructure development long enough. Our's is an aging one. While even developing nations soar ahead of us in railway development, we're sorely lagging behind.

With all the money we've spent on interventionist wars, we could have a national high speed rail system already. I think it's worth the investment to our people.

I just want the government to make sure that bids for the contract are fair, and a balance between cost effective and high quality.

HSR is inherently, not cost effective, for the majority of situations.
Why is this so difficult to understand?

 

[UtahBill]

Works reasonably well in SMALL countries and in densely populated areas that need city to city connections that are too short to be serviced by air.
Otherwise, not enough usage by the public...no payback.

 

[Fishstyx]

Above is the reason why HSR is a failure. Boston to DC. For the Acela (HSR) $452.00 for a 6+ hour transit. For Air Tran Logan to BWI, $201. 1.5 hour direct flight. So even with 3 hours of airport shenanigans, its still faster and MUCH cheaper to fly.

 

[Alyssa]

I definitely support the maintenance and development of infrastructure, but HSR would not be successful in the US.

 

[poweRob]

Building such a system would cost trillions, that would make the current budget deficit look small.

Initial costs would definitely cost. Once we started linking major metropolitan areas together, ticket fees could definitely start funding the growth of the tracks' expansions. The more track, the more revenue, the more it can expand independent of new tax or new deficit spending.

 

[poweRob]

Wouldn't getting a lot of people off the road and into trains have other benefits? Fewer car crashes, a whole lot lower fuel costs, drastically lower emissions...

Not to mention how many fuel guzzling airline flights would be cut back heading us towards more electric transportation, if it is a maglev train, and away from imported fossil fuels which of course = more energy independence.

I'm seeing a lot of false comparatives between HSR maglev trains and cars which isn't really a comparative. 350 mph trains do not compare to a car ride.

 

[poweRob]

HSR is inherently, not cost effective, for the majority of situations.
Why is this so difficult to understand?

Sure glad our country didn't take this mentality when we build the Hoover dam the Tennessee Valley Authority that pretty much gave electricity to the bulk of the South, and our interstate system. We need a bit more from our government and our expectations of it other than government = evil and can't do anything because history says otherwise.

 

[poweRob]

View attachment 67117892View attachment 67117893

Above is the reason why HSR is a failure. Boston to DC. For the Acela (HSR) $452.00 for a 6+ hour transit. For Air Tran Logan to BWI, $201. 1.5 hour direct flight. So even with 3 hours of airport shenanigans, its still faster and MUCH cheaper to fly.

put in a monorail magnetic levitating train from DC to Atlanta (661 miles) traveling at 310 mph and see how many airline flights get grounded due to lack of use. An 11 hour drive by car according to google cut to around 2 hours on this train:



It's not a car ride. It's on a monorail riding nonstop over traffic. Not across roads. like other North American trains. It's nonstop, 310 mph to your destination. Not much slower than a passenger jet flies but much faster boarding, unboarding and take off with no delays due to weather or tarmac traffic.

 

[Neomalthusian]

Land area of Japan: 146,000 sq. miles
Population density: 873 per sq. mile

Land area of United States: 3,974,000 sq. miles
Population density: 87 per sq. mile

So the US has 27 times the land area as Japan, and Japan has 10x the population density. Believe me, I'd love to see hordes of Americans stuffed into mass transit like sardines, Tokyo-style, but I have to admit there may be any number of reasons hi-speed monorails work for Japan that might not translate over to the US.