Posted on 08/18/2010 7:49:38 AM PDT by Willie Green
High speed rail remains a sort of punching bag when it comes to rhetoric about government spending and America’s unstoppable devotion to the automobile. I’m not one to get too political about sustainability since I think it should be a non-political common sense issue. But sometimes I have to let things fly. Even in an era of deep deficit, some government spending is a good thing, and High Speed Rail happens to be high on that list.
First, let’s run down a few of the reasons why:
High Speed Rail is the most important US infrastructure project since the interstate highway system. You can read some more of my ramblings on the topic here, but the key points are these:
Unfortunately, there’s almost no way a real high speed network will be built in the United States without direct government funding. The reason is simple – it’s very expensive to get started, and requires all kinds of political cooperation from the federal to the local level. There is, however, a plausible argument that NOT building high speed rail (and related non car infrastructural improvements) would actually be more expensive in the long term – widening a freeway (something I compare to an obese person loosening his belt) is astronomically expensive, as is expanding airports. Plus, freeways and airports offer none of the additional benefits that high speed rail provides.
If you’re still not convinced, perhaps a trip to Europe or China would convince you.
Meanwhile in Wisconsin:
Earlier this year, the Obama administration announced funding for a first batch of high speed rail service on several key routes in the US. Many of these will radiate from Chicago – the continent’s transportation hub. The very first line will ultimately connect Chicago to Minneapolis via Milwaukee and Madison. Phase one will be an extension of the existing Chicago/Milwaukee line to Madison – a project that is fully funded by $810Million in stimulus money. It’s a gift horse if there ever was one to the people of Wisconsin.
Now, with the mid term election creeping into view, Republican gubernatorial challenger Scott Walker has pledged – I kid you not – to “return” the $810M in stimulus money to Washington and halt construction of the train.
His argument? That the state will ultimately be forced to pay for upkeep of an empty train.
My argument? Although maintenance costs are not trivial, they are peanuts compared to maintaining highways. And given that this is only phase one of a much larger system, it’s a small, timely investment in something that will pay off in spades later on.
Walker’s abominable “No Train” campaign (web design by a 5 year old, evidently) is a dirt cheap political stunt to shock people who are scared of anything new and who have been led to believe that anything without four wheels and a v8 engine is a communist plot into voting for him. This is despite the fact that the proposed train would create jobs and stimulate new business in his own state. It’s a real shame that any politician, Democrat or Republican would stoop to such a level, but such is the reality of the anti-obama moment.
Why the heck does this matter to me?
If the Wisconsin segment of High Speed Rail is allowed to be turned into a political casualty, rest assured your state is next. This even goes for California where local squabbles, lawsuits, and similar political climate already threaten to push costs into the stratosphere.
Republicans and Democrats alike should favor High Speed Rail as a job creating investment in a cleaner, greener country.
Please visit the Midwest High Speed Rail website and spread the word to friends and colleagues in the area.
What costs me less and gets me to my destination faster, and airplane or a train?
High speed rail is a waste of money and it sucks. You appear to pimp it a lot Willie. Are you a Democrat?
When libs start using phrases like “sustainable development” the hairs on my neck stand on end in warning.
What’s beyond stupidity? Conspiracy?
Right-of-way costs can be a bear in some areas, I believe. Better bus service could be a better choice.
For some trips, I would include Cadillac Escalade in the same comparison.
Living in the northeast, it takes (With early arrival time, car rentals and baggage claims) the same amount of time for me to drive from Southern Connecticut to Charlotte North Carolina as it does to fly.
And far cheaper.
No kidding...
We drive from Baltimore to West Palm (SUV) several times a year and cheaper than flying, not as fast but we have a vehicle when we get there and enjoy the family time.
When terrorists start to target rail travel, the same sort of delays you will see with planes you will see with rail. The only advantage rail has is that the turnaround times are not as fast.
They spelled 'kickbacks' 'cooperation'.
As long as it is funded by a tax on the liberal newspapers that support it and local governments that want the money, I am all for it.
Lets see...expanding highways is expensive...good thing it is paid for with fuel taxes.
Building high speed rail is expensive....and in Europe, that is also paid for with fuel taxes.
I always chuckle when people talk about how great high speed rail would be...to me its not unlike saying ‘private helicopter ownership is great’. Helicopters are fast, and it would be great to own one to get around town...but its ridiculous to even talk about, because its so impractical.
Rail works well in dense urban areas...not so much elsewhere...unless heavily subsidized...period.
What costs me less and gets me to my destination faster, and airplane or a train?
Planes are better for long distances. But for shorter, regional trips, trains are much better than inefficient short-hop air flights. (especially if you factor in airport security hassles.)
One track Willie, Choo Choo!
Is it really?
Lets Compare SF to LA a distance of 380 miles.
Driving time (via I5) = 6.5 to 7.0 hours
Plane: 1 hour flight + 30-45 min to SFO + 30-45 min security + 30 min. boarding + 30 deplaning + 30 to get car + 30 to get downtown = 4-5 hrs.
Train: 3.5 hour Travel Time + 15-30 min to Station + 30 min security + 30 min. boarding + 15 disembarking + 30 to get car = 5-6 hrs.
Of course there are many variables in the above, but if you are going for personal reasons (as opposed to business) and if you need a car when in LA, you are better off driving.
One big exception or other factor to be considered though is how you spend the travel time. The train is obviously much more comfortable and one can be productive.
* It’s also FASTER than flying or driving when door-to-door times are compared
Ohio's "High Speed" proposal was nowhere close to as fast as driving, even if I got behind some little old lady in a Buick with here left turn signal on all the way from Cincinnati to Cleveland. The average speed was about 39 mph. Build a 100mph train that's cheaper than driving (counting both the ticket and the April 15 bonus bill) and I'll consider it.
* Rail stimulates massive sustainable economic development around stations – reinvigorating forgotten downtowns
Shuffling business from one location to another is not development.
and post industrial brownfields
Brownfields are problems primarily because of environmental laws and lawsuits. If I buy the land where an old locomotive factory was, I could be held liable for 100% of the clean up costs. Nope. I'll just build on old farmland instead.
and creating neighborhoods that are more desirable to live and do business in.
I don't want to live in a neighborhood next to a freeway, a railroad or directly off an airport's runway. Build a major railroad within a few hundred feet and I put up the for sale sign.
* By stimulating further development of walkable neighborhoods and alternatives to car travel, HSR impacts social problems including obesity and access to jobs.
Confusing high speed intercity rail with local public transport doesn't aid the argument.
I’m 100% all for light rail, Willie.
The more of you chumps that waste your day waiting for the train, the more space there’ll be on the streets and highways for MY car.
And because I waste less time on transportation, the more efficient I’ll be, so I’ll kick your butts in business too.
It’s a big win for ME and my CAR. Thanks for helping.
Balderdash. If high speed rail made economic sense, private industry would be all over it. Why aren’t they? Two main reasons:
(1) Geography. The US is spread out. Comparisons to Europe are daft. Our cities are further apart with far more local jurisdictions to deal with, rigtht of ways to secure, and track to lay down. How about China? Cheap (virtually slave) labor and an all powerful central government let them mitigate those issues. So unless we want that, geography makes high speed rail a pipe-dream.
(2) Government. High speed rail is a techy-sounding enourmous government works and power grabbing scheme. Those are its primary purposes, so it would NEVER be run efficiently. NEVER.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.