High Speed Rail Talk

General Discussion
61

“Well it’s a tangent, but it leads to the question of why are the government(s) supposedly bankrupt in the richest country in the world? Why, in the richest country in the world, can we supposedly “not pay for what we do now”?”

We can pay for it. The problem is that we are unwilling to pay for it. Any change in existing government practices will lead to unemployment. Cut defense spending and defense workers become unemployed. Cut health care spending and health care workers become unemployed. Cut education spending and educators become unemployed. Eliminate government waste? Those are code words for eliminating most government departments (Commerce, Agriculture, HHS, Education, NASA,etc) because the ones talking about that want a significantly smaller government. Increase taxes and people have less disposable incone, and that will certainly eliminate jobs. Don’t forget pork barrel spending: it provides jobs for connected legislators’ districts. Why indeed. Many economists, even those that want smaller government, are willing to wait until the economy can generate jobs on its own before tinkering with government spending. But how to spend for what we really want is a set of issues we will have to deal with in a year or two.

62

Why, in the richest country in the world, can we supposedly “not pay for what we do now”?

…because the voters will send you packing if you raise their taxes.

If the people wanted high speed rail, we would already have it. Based on how the citizens of this country vote, they want low taxes and no high speed rail. The election this past November was no fluke. Liberals who think they know what’s best for everyone, and who want to force what they think is best upon those who don’t want it, don’t stay in office very long.

You might be right, that the car culture is bad for our health. Without a change in the culture, it isn’t going to change. I just got a place that is 30 miles from where I work. My old commute was 14 miles in each direction, so I have effectively doubled my commute. I could have gotten a place closer to work, but the cost of living (including taxes) would have been higher. I can’t afford to make poor economic choices for the sake of the environment right now, and I imagine there are a lot of people in the same boat.

63

The question is not “to subsidize or not to subsidize”–it’s all subsidized. There is no free lunch. And this country is bankrupt because everyone votes for Santa Claus. But Santa Claus now lives in Beijing, and is getting just a tad tired of sending us toxic junk in exchange for worthless pieces of paper. High-speed rail is a great idea, but we blew it sixty-five years ago when Sainted Pres. Eisenhower subsidized the highways and let the railroads die. When the last of a species dies, it will take a new heaven and a new earth before another one of that kind appears. Busses are great, if you don’t mind the crowding, the inconvenient (and unsafe) terminals and the schedules, and aren’t taking much with you. I went from NYC to DC and back last month for $9.50 on the bus, but “cheap” is my middle name–y’all wouldn’t have liked it.

64

You say, “We don’t want big government, but then a hurricane hits us or a bridge collapses, and then we suddenly blame government for failing to give us what we want on a shoestring budget. You can’t have it both ways.”

Are you suggesting that high speed rail has the same urgency or benefit as disaster assistance?

Apples and oranges, my friend…

I look for return on investment for my tax money. The benefits of HSR are measured in the tens of millions and the costs are measured in the hundreds of millions. It simply can’t be justified or even rationalized.

65

John Dough; you are applying classical economics to the transportation problem. An example is the Valdez oil spill; when it happened the State Gross Domestic Product (the ‘wealth’) jumped up, because many people and companies were cleaning up something that should not have happened. They were addressing the EXTERNAL COST of the disaster. The stae of Alaska was the big loser.

Likewise, the automobile has INTERNAL (the cost of operation) and EXTERNAL costs. The external costs are seldom addressed in evaluating a project or mode of transportation. If all the highway infrastructure and its operating costs were added to the automobile and truck operating costs, the true cost would be known.

In addition to that the costs of meeting environmental standards or cleanup has to be added in as well. To be fair, wind mill and solar advocates seldom look at the total cost as well. They will need subsidies for a long time to come.

In a previous post I refer to the social costs caused by congestion; lost time, cost of accidents, lost wages, and so on.

Every country needs a balanced transportation system with rapid transit in congested areas, good intercity highways and express trains where the traffic density justifies it.

A few years ago I spent 6 weeks in a Paris, France suburb on a project. The train would get me into the heart of Paris in 20 minutes. Some team members went to London, England for the weekend. All it required was to take the local train, running every 20 minutes, to the main station in Paris, then on the Chunnel Train and the next stop was downtown London.

All these trains are electric and powerd by non-polluting nuclear generating station. No, they do not cause cancer; that’s reserved for the more traditional fossil generating stations without emission controls.

Your total tax bill includes such EXTERNAL things as; highway police service, scraping accident victims off the pavement at public expense, hospital care for those without insurance, highway operation & maintenance, and other costs that do not show up. Fuel taxes and licese fees don’t cover all these costs; the balance is paid out of general revenue, i.e. YOUR taxes.

The US has one of the most unbalanced transportation systems. AMTRAK should be a world class system, like those in Japan, France, Germay, and Switzerland. Airline connections to various location are good. The interstate highways are great (if the maintenace is kept up); it’s the suburban and urban transportation sytem that needs fixing most.

Cities like New York know that subways and commuter trains to the suburbs are a MUST HAVE way to keep things moving. You also have access to lots of taxis. If you are foolish enough to take your car into downtown Mahatten, you suffer.

Agree that California and some other states face bankruptcy; you can’t forever give business and the public tax breaks, pay record salaries and benefits to a bloated burocracy, and still end up in the black. California should get its finacial house in order before even thinking about rapid rail transit which requires a heavy up-front investment in infrastructure.

66

Get you head out of the dark place it’s in. Eisenhower didn’t subsidize highways. Users paid for them on a pay-as-you-go system. The Intersate Highway Act was passed by a 98 to 1 vote in the Senate and more than a 90% majority in the House.

Obama can’t even dream about that kind of bipartisan majority.

67

Since there is almost 100% correlation between “the public” and “highway users”, I submit it is the same people paying the external costs as those paying the internal costs.

Not so for rail. Regular rail users in America probably are less than one half of one percent if the population. Include occaisional users and you might get up to 2-3% if you’re lucky.

So apply your model to rail and you still have the general public footing 100% of the bill for both internal and external costs that are enjoyed by .5 to 2 or 3% of the population.

What makes the model particularly offensive is that the subsidy is in reality a transfer of wealth to those who need it the least: long distance commuters and Business class travelers.

68

The richest country in the world is almost $14,000,000,000,000 in debt and there will never be enough train riders to even come close to justifying the obscene cost of building it. That’s why.

69

Here in NH we have an obsolete and dangerous interstate highway, I-93, that desperately needs another lane or two from Salem to Manchester.

Which is being done as we speak…I know…it effects my commute. Desperately needed some 20 years ago. I’m amazed it took so long.

A self-serving advocacy group from Boston called the Conservation Law Foundation has held the I-93 expansion project up for 10 years and added many millions of dollars to the cost by filing nusience lawsuits to force a rail system to be put in, despite the fact that rail systems existed in the past and closed due to lack of ridership.

These guys are a joke. They’ve filed several different lawsuits pretending to be different groups, but they turned out to be the same group.

I’m all for a train system…IF AND ONLY IF…it will actually help alleviate traffic. It’s NOT a viable form of transportation for many of us. I would never use it. My office is about 10 miles outside of Boston. I can be at a commuter rail in less then 15 minutes…Take the train to Boston (1 hour), then take the T(subway) and a bus to work. Total time - about 2.5 hours. OR…I can drive to work in 40 minutes. Want to guess what one I do???

I’m all for a GOOD mass transit system…but for it to be viable for me (and most people in NH)…it’ll cost BILLIONS…I’m with Mountainbike…YOU PAY FOR IT.

70

It’s really impossible to make any comparison, since most people don’t have a choice so they can’t know which they prefer, driving or good train service.

So you’re saying we should spend BILLIONS of dollars just to find out.

71

High speed rail is not cost effective to a country that has committed so much of it’s resources toward it’s highway system. People forget that in areas where high speed rail is successful, proximity between employment and residence is much better. No country that I’m AWARE OF has committed itself to over the road trucking to support our goods distribution.

Until populations migrate more to city centers and or give up the freedom of their cars, this debate will always push someones buttons with no national solution. Locally perhaps through state initiatives with distinct need, but no national mandate.

IMO, the proponents are from those areas in need.

72

IF you have a very efficient rapid rail system, many people will use it; New York stockbrokers living in Connecticut TAKE THE TRAIN to work on Wallstreet. In those areas a very high percentage of workers and non workers use public transit. Drivers are in the minority.

I live near the Rocky mountains and our rapid transit rail system has a 20-25% ridership for commuters. I use it quite often to get downtown because of the parking problems. Certain areas also have express diesel busses from areas where there are no train stations. I live in an area where there are almost as many vehicles as there are drivers.

Any public service is used disproportionately by certain segements of the population. The police and court service is used mostly by people who disobey the law or get divorced. But you and I pay for it.

I’m fortunate to be in very good health; so I’m paying for all those who are either umhealthy, accident-prone, or live violent lives.

I’m at a loss where you get the 0.2-3% of the population unless you live in a rural hamlet. I assume you refer to long distance intercity travel by train, which I agree is on the wane everywhere. Time is money, and any distance over 400 miles favors travel by short haul aircraft or if you are on holidays, diesel busses. The Detroit-Chicago (two high population areas) type of travel would favor trains, for instance.

You may travel frequently by air, and have all those that don’t fly subsidize airports and a whole host of airline support services that are NOT in your airline ticket.

To make your model work, we (you and I)should commit more crimes, get sick more often as well as take the train. The last person I heard expound your philosophy was Lucille’s Ball’s boss (Gail Gordon)on the Lucy show when she wanted a health care plan for the employees. His answer; “people get sick without the help of the government; they can get well without any help on their own”.

I also agree that long distance travel is best done by air. Wherever I go, air fares are less than train fares. You can travel acrosss Australia (about 3000 miles) by train; a very boring trip. The service was established before there was air service. Time is money, so only vacationers and retirees use the passenger train. The railbed infrastructue is mostly paid for by freight trains since Australia is a big resource exporting country.

Finally, most countries I know that have adopted your philosphy have high crime rates; high social segregation, limited upward mobility and some resemble an armed camp. The role of government is to establish the most effective overall environment for its citizens. That includes good police service, health car environment, court systems, public utilities and fund, where necessary the right MIX of transportaion systems for the specific region, based on population density, geography, climate and other factors.

I do agree that intercity express busses are very efficient in carying passengers. We have one ere that goes to the next major city 200 miles away, and has luxury seats and work tables. The cost is $70 and it take about the same time as flying, at just over half the price.

73

Back before AMTRAK and interstate highways, I attended a graduate school 350 miles from my home. I made the trip in my 1947 Pontiac that I had purchased for $75. When I made trips back home, I used a combination of trains and buses and could make the trip within 20 mintues of the time it took to drive the distance. The cost was very little more than the gasoline for the Pontiac, and I was able to study along the way.

Some of the AMTRAK routes are equipped with a business coach with high speed internet service. Businessmen can get work done while in transit. I live about 175 miles from Chicago. For a while, AMTRAK was routed through our city. We could leave about 6 a.m. in the morning and be in Chicago on the Loop well before noon. Now, if I fly to Chicago, I have to drive 60 miles to the airport, arrive an hour before departure time, pay to park the car, go through security, land at O’hare, and find ground transportation to the Loop.
It takes less time to drive than to fly. However, parking the car overnight is almost as much as the hotel room. For trips under 300 miles for business people, perhaps high speed rail makes sense.

74

I used to commute on mass transit from Miami to Boca Raton, FL in the 1990s. It was nice to park and ride. I could read and relax on the ride, but it took almost twice as long to get where I was going.

75

Same question then. It’s a tangent but – why is the richest country in the world so in debt without even getting the infrastructure of many less rich countries? Characterizing the cost of a train system as “obscene” is a bit extreme. The word is better saved for things like unprovoked wars and aid to countries that violate human rights – the cost of which could pay for some decent train infrastructure.

76

John Dough, it wasn’t meant to be a comparison, so “apples and oranges” means very little. I was explaining why large projects like high speed rail are hard to get funding for.

77

Cars cause cancer, you must realize that in the near future, cars won’t cause cancer.{I don’t believe they do now}

What are you doing as an individual to resolve the transportation needs? Yeah you?

Don’t say cars are the same as they were 30 years ago. They aren’t. Thirty years from now, the majority of cars will be electric or hydrogen powered.

Americans like their own vehicles. I don’t understand how a bankrupt state as California has any credibility with the rest of the nation.The land of fruits and nuts has no credibility at all.

Where is the money coming from for this high speed rail system? Do we just print up more money? Can you spell Euro or Yen?

78

Short answer: overspending on a whole host of other things, wars included.

I think we always ought to examine the benefits of any expenditures against the costs. This is a fundamental common denominator for comparing public expenditures. Unfortunately, our governments (local, state and federal) no longer even give a nod to it.

That’s why, IMO, we get ourselves in over our heads with projects like high speed rail. If Ray LaHood, or some of the thousands of people who work for him, just looked at some simple --BUT HONEST – measures of benefits and costs, they would put the whole idea of high speed rail to rest for at least another 20-25 years before even entertaining it again.

Look. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that building high speed trains at a cost up to a half million dollars per passenger is not a smart investment. In many cases, it would actually be cheaper to subsidize people’s mortgages and encourage them to move within walking distance of their jobs!

I don’t know about you but I think spending a half trillion dollars (estimates I’ve see for the cost of a USDOT-envisioned HSR program) that would carry, by the most optimistic of predictions, less than one half of one percent if personal travel in this country is nothing short of obscene.

A final point I would debate with you is your inference that America’s transportation infrstructure is inferior to that of other countries. That is not true. American mobility is second to none.

79

I am not happy with Gov elect walker deciding to reject the WI funds, so they go somewhere else. Sure let’s prove a point, we don’t need no stinkin high speed rail, he cut off our nose to spite our face, aren’t we proud the dollars did not go to our state? NOT. His new minions are claiming the only way to save the economy is to bust the unions, That is a guarantee of widening the gulf between rich and poor, as there will be multi million dollar bonuses paid for ever dime saved on workers pay. I feel we, (me the regular guy) are not operating on a level playing field, but that is nothing new.

80

Your post wanders in so many places, I don’t have the time to parse it and address all your points. Sorry.

But, one thing that strikes me is your confusion about the difference between urban transit and intercity transit. High speed rail is not intended to serve intraurban travel. It’s supposed to be an interurban solution. It’s supposed to be an alternative for air and long distance auto travel. And this is what you have to say about that:

“…long distance intercity travel by train, which I agree is on the wane everywhere.”

Then you agree that intercity express buses are very efficient in carrying passengers. So why do we need rail? To serve corridors that are declining in ridership or as a substitute for an already efficient mode?

Some day when you have a little time on your hands, go to the USDOT statistics Web site and look up how many passenger-miles of travel are made by the various modes: air, road, rail, bus, walking, etc. Get out your calculator and figure out what percentage is by rail now. Then assume the government spends $500,000,000,000 on HSR and then assume that doubles or even triples intercity rail’s share of personal travel. Then (and here’s the kicker) ask yourself if you think that would be a worthwhile return on an investment that would amount to about $1,400 for every man, woman and child in America.

P. S., Sec. LaHood, if you’re reading this, you might partake in this little exercise, too. From it, you might learn why Scott Walker and John Kasich are so much smarter than you.