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.
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.
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.
It's the people who run high-speed rail.
Metropolitan Transportation Districts are considered by blacks to be reparations, and they believe they are entitled to run them while paying themselves exorbitant salaries and laying track for political/reparations purposes rather than laying track where the most people will benefit from it.
All MSDs are cesspools of theft and corruption.
That's the problem, Willie.
You're one of those people planning on lining your pockets, aren't ya?
“You can read some more of my ramblings on the topic here,”
The guy admits he’s a total idiot!!!!
There, fixed it. So-called "high speed" rail is a giant step back to 1850. We need more highways and cheaper gasoline, or something to replace it. And the government needs to get the heck out of the whole thing. Even the railroads of the 1800's were designed and built by private companies. The government-sponsored lines quickly turned into boondoggles.
Political Opposition to High Speed Rail is Beyond Stupidity
There, fixed it. So-called "high speed" rail is a giant step back to 1850. We need more highways and cheaper gasoline, or something to replace it. And the government needs to get the heck out of the whole thing. Even the railroads of the 1800's were designed and built by private companies. The government-sponsored lines quickly turned into boondoggles.
Second the amount of capital needed for any such system would be huge. Would private investors be willing to foot the cost or would this be a "let the government buy it" project? If the government is footing any part of the bill, then how will they get paid back and will this project require continuing government subsidies to operate? I fear that these high speed rail systems will just be another government funded boondoggle that will get built and operate only with the taxpayers paying for it.
A few issues with the writer’s premise:
Comfortable and convenient are opinons. To me, my car is much more convenient and the fact that I can stop anytime I want for food or other breaks negates (in my opinion) the comforts of the train.
It is only faster than a flight if you are going a short distance, but if TSA ever started monitoring trains, that would change.
Rail stimulating massive economic development is not a fact. It is possible, but it is also possible that development wont happen near stations. It is purely a hope that this will happen.
Riding trains will not cut down on obesity unless everyone has to walk a mile from where they are to the train station, which will cut into the convenience factor above. Plus, the cutting of obseity arguement is dependent on the economic development argument, so now we have a wish based on a hope.
The only freeways Ive seen congested are the ones right by the big cities, which would still be congested if people rode the train from Houston to Dallas. The congestion happens when they get out of the train and get a car.
People love it is another opinion.
Other than that, great article.