• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fed to invest $13 billion in nationwide high-speed rail project

PeteEU said:
Brilliant idea. High speed trains are great. In Europe and Japan we have had high speed trains for decades and they are very very profitable, safe and faster than planes in most cases. The French high-speed train system had a profit of over 1 billion euros last year if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Although there are many claims about "profitability" with high speed trains in Europe and perhaps Japan, I am very skeptical about the claims and Government accounting of these "profits."

If they are so profitable, why are there no private capital consortiums vying to create said "profitable" high speed train networks?

It appears to be Government Accounting handiwork to express to the public who funded these capital investments that their money was well spent and they are turning a profit; yet these Governments continue to struggle with their budgets and tax their constituents at ever greater rates; why is that?
 
RightinNYC said:
Obama and his administration aren't idiots - they just have a difference of opinion. I truly believe that they wholeheartedly think that this plan will be good for the nation in the long term. I'm just inclined to disagree.
Click to expand...

I truly believe that Obama and the moronic Democrats infesting our Congress wholeheartedly think that ALL their plans will be good for the nation in the long term. I just happen to disagree with them based on the historic facts and record. :2wave:
 
BulletWounD said:
Again, this is a local issue. If it's worth it then the cities should be willing to bear the tax burden themselves instead of sucking the rest of the country dry.
Click to expand...

Perhaps from that perspective, but if the goal is to stimulate the economy, increasing transportation options which reduce lost productivity hours does make sense. And many cities don't have the money or the political will to fund it completely by themselves.
 
The problem isn't the train system but the cost of tickets. Canada doesn't really have an extensive railway system, but what we do have costs passengers a fortune. You might as well fly instead of taking the bloody rail.

In China, the railway system is extensive and affordable even to some of the poorest people. It connects regional municipalities but branches out to the entire country. It's extremely reliable. Railway projects need to be ongoing with large infrastructure budgets (spread out over many, many years) in order to be sustainable. There's no point in infusing a bunch of money so that railways can be built over 5 years or so, and then never looking at the railroads again.

Amtrak is a failure due to this very problem. And also, it's prices are not competitive with flying or even fueling one's car.
 
Orius said:
The problem isn't the train system but the cost of tickets. Canada doesn't really have an extensive railway system, but what we do have costs passengers a fortune. You might as well fly instead of taking the bloody rail.

In China, the railway system is extensive and affordable even to some of the poorest people. It connects regional municipalities but branches out to the entire country. It's extremely reliable. Railway projects need to be ongoing with large infrastructure budgets (spread out over many, many years) in order to be sustainable. There's no point in infusing a bunch of money so that railways can be built over 5 years or so, and then never looking at the railroads again.

Amtrak is a failure due to this very problem. And also, it's prices are not competitive with flying or even fueling one's car.
Click to expand...

True story: When I used to go home from school, I had two options.

My first option was to ride the subway 20 minutes to Penn Station and then sit on Amtrak for 4.5 hours, followed by driving 10 min home. It took 5 hours and cost $79. A soda and cookie would cost $6

My other option was to ride the subway for an hour to JFK, spend an hour going through security, fly 45 minutes to syracuse, and then drive 45 minutes home. It took 3.5 hours and cost $44. Soda and cookies were free.
 
Truth Detector said:
Although there are many claims about "profitability" with high speed trains in Europe and perhaps Japan, I am very skeptical about the claims and Government accounting of these "profits."

If they are so profitable, why are there no private capital consortiums vying to create said "profitable" high speed train networks?

It appears to be Government Accounting handiwork to express to the public who funded these capital investments that their money was well spent and they are turning a profit; yet these Governments continue to struggle with their budgets and tax their constituents at ever greater rates; why is that?
Click to expand...

Gezz talk about being paranoid. These excuse from the anti whatever crowd are getting more and more lame.

Now you are saying that the government is fiddling with public viewable books? Give me a break. Considering that the private companies in the US have been fiddling with their books for decades and still do, then you got some balls to accuse another country with public viewable accounts of doing the same. Enron, Maddof, and so on.

And what on earth does a high speed rail network run and owned by a partly government funded and partly owned company have to do with the overall government budget and tax rate? That is like saying that the US tax payer today got shafted when the US government built the high way system 50 years ago and as a result the tax rate today is x% higher than it should be.

The investment in a true high speed rail system is not "a few billion", but several tens of billions of dollars at least, and even in normal economic times getting such a project up and running with only private sector cash is frankly very hard, especially in a world where the private sector only invests in projects that have short term benefits at best. There would not be profit from running this network from day 1, especially in the US, since it takes time to convince people that it is a good fast and cheap transport form. I also can not remember the last time I heard a private sector company or companies investing 10 to 20+ billion dollars in a single project without some sort of government help or funding.

But saying that, the private sector is never left totally out.. quite the opposite. It has to be private sector companies that make the trains and even design new trains if the US does not use already designed ones. It is the private sector that will be doing most of the track building I bet. It will be the private sector too that probably will get the contracts for running the whole thing when it is finished.

Like it or not, government has to be used to drag people forward because the private sector and free markets do not like big massive changes, especially when it can impact on their bottom line. Believe me, if the air line industry has any brains, they will be fighting tooth and nail to derail these projects as they risk loosing lots of passengers. And like it or not, you need government involvement to make the whole process much easier, when it comes to permits and regulation of the system.
 
PeteEU said:
Brilliant idea. High speed trains are great. In Europe and Japan we have had high speed trains for decades and they are very very profitable, safe and faster than planes in most cases. The French high-speed train system had a profit of over 1 billion euros last year if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
I'm always surprised when i hear some states don't have alot of trains etc.

I don't even have a driving license and don't want one. If i walk within minutes in either direction, i will run across either a tram stop, bus stop or train station that can connect me to the main stations [king's cross, Victoria etc.] which can take me pretty much to any major city in UK. I do wish it was nationalised tho - PS screwed it up [as they do with anything they touch]
And eurostar from London to Paris - Great weekend trips :2wave:
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
If they could even show that the Acela NY-DC was profitable, I'd fully support an expansion of it to all other viable areas.
Click to expand...
new coup for you said:
The Acella is a joke, it's not comparable.
Click to expand...
RightinNYC said:
What in particular?
Click to expand...
Average speed of 86 miles per hour

The highest speed attained by Acela Express is 150 miles per hour on two sections of track in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, which total 18 miles

The overhead catenary support system which was constructed during the Great Depression

Tracks that are shared with freight and slower passenger trains



I don't know about the Acela, but Amtrak sometimes have to pull over to a side rail and stop and wait to give priority passage to freight trains. If it's not managed properly it's no wonder it's a joke of a system.
 
BWG said:
Average speed of 86 miles per hour

The highest speed attained by Acela Express is 150 miles per hour on two sections of track in Rhode Island and Massachusetts, which total 18 miles

The overhead catenary support system which was constructed during the Great Depression

Tracks that are shared with freight and slower passenger trains

I don't know about the Acela, but Amtrak sometimes have to pull over to a side rail and stop and wait to give priority passage to freight trains. If it's not managed properly it's no wonder it's a joke of a system.
Click to expand...

According to what PeteEU said, a 225 mile trip on French high speed rail only takes about 20 minutes longer than a 225 mile trip on Acela. If there were an hour difference, I might believe that the reason it's not working here is just because of speed, but when the difference is that small, there's something else behind the fact that it's not profitable.
 
RightinNYC said:
According to what PeteEU said, a 225 mile trip on French high speed rail only takes about 20 minutes longer than a 225 mile trip on Acela. If there were an hour difference, I might believe that the reason it's not working here is just because of speed, but when the difference is that small, there's something else behind the fact that it's not profitable.
Click to expand...

Acela is not a high speed train system per say. The problem with Acela is it utilizes existing tracks for the most part and does not have exclusive access on the tracks... aka higher priority trains can stop the train. The average speed on the trip is 86 miles an hour and that is pathetic frankly. This includes the slowing into stations and out of stations..

The average speed on the French system is 173 miles an hour, the Japanese 125 miles an hour and the German system that runs an average of 153 miles an hour. This is considerably higher speeds on average.

To be a real high speed rail system, it needs to be on new tracks that are designed for it and the tracks need to be as straight as possible. Acela route and tracks do not meet these requirements and hence the train might be fast on a test track, but in reality it is a "high speed train".

As for its profitability. Profitability is directly in my opinion directly linked to destinations, speed and in some part price.

If I can get from Malaga to Madrid in 2 hours and 40 min (city center to city center) for 45 euros (50ish dollars), then that is far far cheaper, faster and far more comfortable than taking a plane.

But lets look at the French system. Trip is one way.

Paris to Lyon (the first high speed in France) is 264 miles. It takes 1 hour 56 min and between 58 and 79 dollars for a standard seat.

Paris to Marseille is 366 miles (the longest route). It takes 3 hours and costs 75 to 89 dollars for a standard seat.

Now a plane ride to the same destinations.. Note these prices are roundtrip, since one way fares have insane penalties price wise.

Paris to Lyon. Takes 1 hour 10 min flying time and costs from 75 to 100+ dollars on Air France, but you have to add 68 dollars in taxes and fees. On top of the flying time, you need to add check in, driving to the airport in Paris and driving from the airport in Lyon.

Paris to Marseille. Takes 2 hours 15 min of flying time and costs again from 75 dollars to 100+ dollars on Air France for the cheapest. And again you need to add 68 dollars for various taxes and fees. Again you need to factor in driving time to and from airports, and check in/out and so on.

Now I suspect you can get cheaper fares from other airlines but I could not be bothered to find those out. However what you can not avoid is the 34 dollars taxes and fees each way regardless of what airline you go with. So if an airline need to beat the high speed train, then they basiclly have to sell tickets for 16 to 25 dollars which I guess is always possible. But considering that the train fares are one way, and to even get close to the train fares you need to buy a round trip ticket, then well...
 
Laila said:
Agreed.
I'm always surprised when i hear some states don't have alot of trains etc.

I don't even have a driving license and don't want one. If i walk within minutes in either direction, i will run across either a tram stop, bus stop or train station that can connect me to the main stations [king's cross, Victoria etc.] which can take me pretty much to any major city in UK. I do wish it was nationalised tho - PS screwed it up [as they do with anything they touch]
And eurostar from London to Paris - Great weekend trips :2wave:
Click to expand...

You can drive for days and only see little, sparsley populated cities here in the states :lol:
There are plenty of areas where metros make no sense.

OTOH, places like London, DC, Paris etc. which are highly populated, do make sense. Which is why they already have metros. lol.

We were up in DC 2 month ago and the metro was nice - until they shut large sections of it (the sections we needed!) down for repairs. :doh

We lived in Germany for several years and their public transportation was hit and miss. I didn't have a car so I had to walk to the bus stop, take the bus to the train station and from there downtown to what I needed. Big friggen pain in the neck. Much easier on the days when my husband could drive me (or I had the car). It seems like a lot of Germans were of the same mind since more and more of them were car-owners, much to their governments consternation. We were there when Germany had just opened a new high-speed railway and not many people were using it. So the German gov't raised petrol taxes to try to force people to use it. Those poor people were double-taxed (first to build the railway and then for the addt'l petrol taxes) for something they didn't want! I remember a lot of debates about it at the time. The people didn't seem to have much choice in the matter. I wonder what ever happened with that. (this was the late 90's).

Anyway, we also travelled around in France a lot since it was so close. The public transportation was nice. When they weren't on strike. lol.

So I'm not inclined to agree that this idea is "great". Why should I, in my rather low-populated Southern area that doesn't need/want a railway (we can't even maintain a bus here, lol) pay for places like Pittsburgh to have a railway :confused: My friends and relatives in the Pittsburgh area don't even want it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom