Posted on 10/07/2010 6:09:53 AM PDT by Willie Green
Passenger rail has never, does not now, and never will do any of this.
The ability to move people from one place to another faster than they can go there by other means is not a growth producer.
The ability to move freight efficiently is the engine for economic growth.
And the need for moving freight is done by creating jobs that create goods.
Can anyone name a public passenger rail system in the United States that makes money?
“It’s horse $hit, and everyone with half a brain knows it’s horse $hit.”
Exactly...
If it were a good idea, the railroads would be doing it.
America is NOT Europe.
Another example of how Obama and the rest of the Libs just don’t get America.
This is not Europe, we are not a train culture, we are a car culture - freedom, the open road, etc, etc.
Most American’s work hard so that they can stop taking public transportation...and drive!
When I was young and just out of college, I took the train, the bus the subway, etc, etc. Today, you’d have to pry my car keys from my cold dead fingers.
I could care less if they built a high speed rail that ran from across the street to my destination. I don’t work hard everyday to sit crammed in stinky box car being shuttled like a cow to dairy.
The joy of climate control, adjustable seats, right-wing radio and personally powered accelerator are sometimes the best part of the day.
And judging by the traffic in EVERY city (where the best public transit also exists) proves my point.
Forget the train, build more highway lanes.
For the life of me I cannot understand why a CONSERVATIVE forum continues to allow proponents of central planning to post this propaganda incessantly.
Willie, this really isn’t the best web site to post Obama Administration puff pieces . . .
I'd much rather post articles that advocate a conservative high-speed rail initiative.
Unfortunately, the GOP are a bunch of Oil Industry sockpuppets and are on the wrong side of this critical issue.
The bottom line is that high-speed rail will deliver a more efficient downtown-to-downtown mobility; it will spur economic development; it will bring manufacturing jobs to the US; and it will move us to a cleaner, greener way of getting around.
Exactly how will "more efficient downtown-to-downtown mobility" bring manufacturing jobs to the US? Since when do employers place your transportation convenience as an overriding factor to taxes, regulation, zoning, energy, distribution, crime, education, work ethic and political corruption? If anything, a work-force dependent on the union run/operated transportation system is a detriment that works against deciding where to put a factory. Even if employees could be teleported to and from the factory, all of the other factors are why companies increasing choose to expatriate as much of the operations as possible.
Beside, what is left to manufacture in this country that somehow can get past the environmental nazis and the unions?
High-Speed Rail will keep America on the straight and narrow?
Anything the liberals support is bad for the future of this country.
Add to the that fact that almost no mass transit system has ever made a profit. (I saw almost as I am unsure of the small commuter rails lines in the Norteast corrider. They may make money as the population density is there, but I’d bet they still get subsidies)
If high speed rail was financially feasible there would be hundreds of PRIVATE companies clamoring to build and operate the lines. (Note that if a company is only involved in building the lines then they cannot be trusted as they don’t care if the line is a continuing sinkhole for our tax dollars. They just want the construction part.)
High speed rail will never work in the USA. Who wants to be cooped up with a bunch of people we’d never choose to associate with anyways. If we need to go somewhere we’ll drive our own cars and have room for our own families and luggage etc.
Can anyone name a public passenger rail system in the United States that makes money?Alaska Railroad
Chief FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff Criticizes Rail Transit
In a speech in Boston early this week, FTA Administrator Peter Rogoff sounds like he is channeling Wendell Cox or another of the Antiplanner’s faithful allies.
“Supporters of public transit must be willing to share some simple truths that folks don’t want to hear,” said Rogoff. “One is this — Paint is cheap, rails systems are extremely expensive. Yes, transit riders often want to go by rail. But it turns out you can entice even diehard rail riders onto a bus, if you call it a ‘special’ bus and just paint it a different color than the rest of the fleet.” By coincidence, the Antiplanner made the same point on the same day as Rogoff’s speech.
Rogoff pointed out that America’s transit systems have $78 billion of deferred maintenance, the vast majority of which is for rail lines even though the majority of transit trips are by buses. His point is not simply that we aren’t maintaining rail lines, but that such maintenance is extremely expensive and rail supporters often deceptively ignore such costs when trying to sell new rail lines to the public. “if you can’t afford to operate the system you have,” Rogoff warns urban leaders, “why does it make sense for us to partner in your expansion?”
In contrast to rail, says Rogoff, “Bus Rapid Transit is a fine fit for a lot more communities than are seriously considering it.” While not suitable everywhere, there are many places that are considering light rail, commuter rail, and other rail lines that would do far better with BRT.
Not surprisingly, rail-transit supporters were quick to criticize Rogoff’s speech. They blame the federal government for failing to fund operating costs, which contributed to service cuts by many transit agencies in the current recession. (The federal government does provide some operating grants, but they think it should increase during the recession.) But that is a completely different issue from the maintenance issue that Rogoff is raising. Maintenance is considered a capital cost in FTA accounting, so the $78 billion in deferred maintenance can’t be blamed on the federal emphasis on capital.
Rogoff’s point is that at least 80 urban areas are seeking federal funds for rail transit, when the 30 or so urban areas that already have rail transit can’t afford to maintain the systems they have. As rail systems in Boston, Chicago, Washington, and other cities slowly collapse for lack of maintenance, it doesn’t make sense for cities like Charlotte and Phoenix to build more white elephants that will themselves suffer huge maintenance gaps in a few years.
Rogoff’s refreshing speech is a sharp contrast to the inane ideas that have come from the mouth of Rogoff’s boss, Ray LaHood. Maybe, if American taxpayers are lucky, Rogoff will someday replace LaHood.
http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=3137
Another problem I have with high-speed rail in the US is what you do once you get there.
In Germany I could take high-speed rail to another town, step off the train, walk over to the streetcar or bus stop (train stations always have one or more) and end up within walking distance of my destination in a few minutes. In the US in most cities I’d have to rely on expensive taxis or rental cars once I got there. Even better, in some cities the in-town street cars can even go out of town on the regular train tracks, giving you a convenient 30 or so mile radius of cheap travel around the city.
Here I like to drive unless it’s a really long trip. That way I have transportation within the city when I get there. The three hour drives here I would have done on train there.
It would certainly enrich the cement companies. If memory serves, that used to be a convenient dodge for Mafia legal fronts. Wonder if that’s still true...?
“it means economic development corridors.”
How? High speed rail has few stops; anything in the corridor, save for a few stops, is passed by at high speed.
One of the great arguments against freeways was that small towns passed by would evaporate - and they did.
Virginia features a hundred-mile “technology corridor”. Nothing but cow pastures.
Willie, you keep avoiding the issue of “where to where?”.
High speed rail can get people from point A to point B fairly fast - but who is close enough to either for it to matter?
Rochester NY put in, with great fanfare, a high speed ferry across Lake Ontario to Toronto. It was a dismal failure because few people in one city wanted to go to the other, for most interested it was too much effort to get to the port, and once at the destination they still had to find a way to where they really wanted to go. Easier to just jump in a car and drive; in practice, the alleged “high speed” took just as long as driving, and cost more to boot.
Same thing with high speed rail: so you can get from A to B fast. What does it take for you to get to A in the first place? How far is B from where you really want to go and how will you get there?
Funny, you never answer this very relevant question ...
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.