High-speed rail absurdities just keep rolling along

Orange Punch, The Orange County Register political commentary blog ^ | 4-3-2012 | Mark Landsbaum

[landsbaum]

There is so much wrong with the California High-Speed Rail project, it’s getting difficult to stay up to date as new absurdities are revealed almost daily. . . . But Katy Grimes raises an aspect pretty much overlooked, although we and others have mentioned aspects of this aspect previously. . .

[EGPWS]

There is so much wrong with the California High-Speed Rail project, it’s getting difficult to stay up to date as new absurdities are revealed almost daily. . .

The high speed trains are required so we can be corralled into the cities and become totally dependent on government for everything.

[FatherofFive]

"Green" High Speed Rail

[Joshua Marcus]

Brown has a new scheme how to fund this rail: cap-and-trade, in other words, this pile of dicktator, with the help of that sickening specimen -—Arnold the RINO-of-a- Kennedy’s muscle bonk Austrian-—has been capable of snookering big-business into this scam, and now they are going to reap what they helped sow. If the idiots who voted for this clown think the unemployment rate is too high now, wait until employers see it more important for self-preservation than helping out the state in continual disrepair.
To go GALT and move jobs overseas and lay off, has been occuring continually for sometime now and there should be no allusions. Producers will be funding a union run rail line-—for a minute-—and there is no way around it, Brown will steal anything not nailed down, and as usual, but not unlike any good communist, he will circumvent the California legislature to promote the union, OWSer, progressive agenda.
I wish California had chose to become it’s own country long ago; too many electoral votes. To even imagine that these fools running Ca. cannot even begin to have the capacity to understand that 250K does not a millionaire make-—must be the new math that makes it so difficult for today’s students to fathom real figures-—is beyond me.

[muawiyah]

A train, unless it has frequent stops, is of NO ECONOMIC USE TO ANYONE except those at either end.

[Army Air Corps]

A Willie Green Memorial Choo-choo Ping.

[GeronL]

bump

[GeronL]

don’t forget the 5 billions from Obama for Desert Xpress which has no track record at all. The route makes no sense, it’ll never make a profit and the “loans” will never be repaid.

[Army Air Corps]

So, it is just like all of Obummer’s other “investments.”

[GeronL]

Except they pretend that Desert Xpress is a “private company”... right sure. Owned, likely, by the unions, politicians, city of las vegas and Harry Ried and Casino owners I bet.

But its not like the MSM is at all interested in finding out who or what owns a company slated to get a $5 billion loan from the Obama government.

[Army Air Corps]

But its not like the MSM is at all interested in finding out who or what owns a company slated to get a $5 billion loan from the Obama government.

If they did that, then they might deviate from the prepared script that the DNC provides on a weekly basis.

[MeganC]

“A train, unless it has frequent stops, is of NO ECONOMIC USE TO ANYONE except those at either end.”

That’s profoundly narrow minded. In the case of the LA-Las Vegas HSR if you live in Barstow the economic impact of the train is found in reduced traffic and reduced costs associated with emergency services required for all of that traffic. Of course, there’s also a negative impact if HSR is successful and then businesses that depend on traffic jams and collisions and etc. along that corridor see their incomes impacted by the reduction in carnage along the LA-LV corridor.

Also, anything that ships by rail to a distribution point results in lower costs when it is eventually trucked to its final destination. You inevitably have things in your home that were shipped to you by intermodal shipping.

[muawiyah]

A train that stops only at the two ends of the line is of economic use only to those who are at those ends (or who can otherwise access them through other means, e.g, trucks, planes, etc.).

One of the reasons trains went out of service as a way of moving people is they just can't compete with automobiles and planes.

[MeganC]

Trains did fine up against planes and cars until government subsidized roads and airports came along.

I’d be right with you on denounicing public funds for HSR if public funds were eliminated for roads and airports and then billions in bail-outs for the airlines.

It’s not like private firms are not willing to build HSR (as in Texas). But when Southwest Airlines pours millions into lawsuits to stop a competititve HSR plan (again, see Texas) then the only way to get the thing built is with the power of government.

So like I’m saying, if you want to level the playing field you’ll find that private investors are willing to build HSR because the numbers for it make sense. But if you’re going to get all upset about public funds going to HSR while being silent about highways and airlines/airports that would go bankrupt if required to run on their own then I guess you see where I stand.

[muawiyah]

Speaking of subsidized roads, the National Road was the first one ~ and that was BEFORE the invention of trains, cars and planes.

We have a couple of subsidized roads here in Fairfax County. Used to be called Rolling Road #1 and Rolling Road #2

Those roads were in business BEFORE the French and Indian War.

Now, regarding taxes that pay for roads and airports (and air traffic control), they exist. You pay gasoline taxes ~ and in the USA they go to roads (in Europe they give all that money to Iranian doctors and Bengladeshy nurses and they end up with inadequate medicine and worse highways).

Runways are paid for out of the fees charged air passengers, and a part of those fees go for TSA.

I think you are trying to confound USER FEES with TAXES.

Concerning railroad subsidies, we subsidize the Metro Rail system in the Washington DC area out of PROPERTY TAXES!

[Political Junkie Too]

Let me point out that federal funding of roads is in the Constitution, but trains are not.

Article I Section 8 Clause 7:

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

-PJ

[discostu]

If the train doesn’t stop there then you also have the reduced revenue of people stopping for gas or food. So very minor reduced costs (most of which is actually federal highway money anyway) and reduced area revenues as the train flies by. Except of course people won’t actually be riding the train because it will be too expensive and on an inconvenient schedule. So basically you get what you have now and a train that flies by empty a few times a day.

[muawiyah]

Federal authority to be involved in roads (including funding them) is in the Constitution. They don't have to pay for them of course.

Railroads are also a form of "road" ~ neatly divided into "bed", "rails", "rolling stock".

[Political Junkie Too]

I guess so. Trains weren’t invented until the early 1800’s, although I did read that horse-drawn wagons on rails existed a lot earlier.
-PJ

[MeganC]

“Let me point out that federal funding of roads is in the Constitution, but trains are not.”

Neither are airports yet that hasn’t stopped Jack Murtha from building a monument to himself at taxpayer expense.