• 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

So yes, high speed trains on medium distances is a sensible investment and profitable one at that. Btw the Euro/Japanese high speed requirements (to be called highspeed) is over 200 km/hour minimum on existing tracks or 250km/hour on new tracks. Most go 300km/hour or over.

The private investors should be lining up to put their own money down to do it.

The government has no business getting involved here. The people of Montana, for example, which doesn't have anything resembling what most people would call a "city", shouldn't have to pay for Joe Biden's speedier commute.
 
It takes six hours and two hundred dollars to fly from Los Angeles to Chicago.

What rail project is going to compete with that?

Answer: None. Not possible.

Close. $346 if you were to leave the day after tomorrow on the cheapest ariline (Southwest)...

I think it would be cheaper, especially in lieu of rising oil prices.
 
The private investors should be lining up to put their own money down to do it.

The government has no business getting involved here. The people of Montana, for example, which doesn't have anything resembling what most people would call a "city", shouldn't have to pay for Joe Biden's speedier commute.

Sure it does, in fact it's constitutional and in line with the Federal Government's proper function, interstate affairs. I think the people of Montana would see tangential benefits in the form of a more competitive economy (see my previous posts).
 
So you're saying we shouldn't build it because you're scared of terrorists. We can't be scared of terrorists forever. I fly all the time. Anybody want to be flying mach .6 1000 feet of the ground when an SA-14 tags your ass?

No. I'm pointing that out as one drawback.

Not many passenger airliners fly that fast that close to the ground, really. And...that particular flight regime is known as "takeoff" and "landing approach", and are relatively short in duration, as compared to the 100% of the time the train is on the ground.


The biggest argument against it goes like this:

The government's broke, it should stop wasting taxpayer dollars on boondoggles. If it's argued that it isn't a boondoggle, then show us the private investors lining up to invest their own cash, and if they exist, there's no need for the government to be spending that money.

So either way, the government should not be spending the money.

Hey, if some private consortium wants to pony up a few gigabucks to play railroad tycoon, fine by me, but it's not something the public has such an urgent need for that it needs to invoke Article 1 Section 8 whichever paragraph covers post roads, to finance.

Really, if we needed it, someone would be building it with their own cash.

I can get to San Fransissyco by plane, by train, and by automobile, and frankly, there's no traffic jam on the I-5, there's no backlog of train seats, and there's no shortage of airplanes to get me there. There's no need for such a train. If the Balitmorons and the Washingtonians feel there should be a faster train between the two towns, those two towns can make their own arrangements and the project should be financed by charging the passengers the proper ticket prices.
 
Sure it does, in fact it's constitutional and in line with the Federal Government's proper function, interstate affairs. I think the people of Montana would see tangential benefits in the form of a more competitive economy (see my previous posts).

If the choo choo doesn't go to Billings, and I can't see why it would, it doesn't get any benefit from the choo choo.

But it still gets the tax bite.

Now, that's wrong.
 
Close. $346 if you were to leave the day after tomorrow on the cheapest ariline (Southwest)...

I think it would be cheaper, especially in lieu of rising oil prices.

Oh?

The train's gonna beat the six hour flight time?

How?
 
If the choo choo doesn't go to Billings, and I can't see why it would, it doesn't get any benefit from the choo choo.

But it still gets the tax bite.

Now, that's wrong.

That's overly simplistic. Billings would benefit indirectly through overall cost savings in logistics which would benefit our manufacturing and shipping industries (including the shipping of mail). And the network can be expanded...
 
Oh?

The train's gonna beat the six hour flight time?

How?

No, but if you can make it cheaper than flying and faster than driving (and potentially cheaper than driving as well) then you have a potential market.
 
That's overly simplistic. Billings would benefit indirectly through overall cost savings in logistics which would benefit our manufacturing and shipping industries (including the shipping of mail). And the network can be expanded...

That's just a heap of happy horse**** there, with undigested grass seeds and everything. Gonna show some studies to back it up?
 
No, but if you can make it cheaper than flying and faster than driving (and potentially cheaper than driving as well) then you have a potential market.

Will the potential of that market be enough to amortize the investment and interest fees as well as operating costs?

If the government has to run it as a permanent subsidy, it absolutely should not be done. Amtrak has been a financial disaster and billions could be saved from the federal budget annually by making Joe Biden pay the full price for his commutes back to Delaware, as well as all the other Amtrak passengers.
 
Sure it does, in fact it's constitutional and in line with the Federal Government's proper function, interstate affairs. I think the people of Montana would see tangential benefits in the form of a more competitive economy (see my previous posts).

Note carefully:

I never said it wasn't constitutional. I'd place it under the authorization for "post roads" not the interstate commerce clause, but that's pointless quibbling.

I'm saying the government shouldn't do it because it's a bad idea.

It's a bad idea because its never going to run at a profit and will become a permanent drain on the taxpayer.
 
That's just a heap of happy horse**** there, with undigested grass seeds and everything. Gonna show some studies to back it up?

I'm not sure of any high-speed rail lines that are used for logistics. Do you know of any? I do think that my argument is reasonable, though.

Ah yes, but what about the operators who operate within the realm of logistics and shipping? They're still out there turning a profit although the industry is suffering due to the benefits of air transportation (reduced overhead). If we could create an alternative that's cheaper, not dependent on oil, and offers the lower overhead of rapid air-based transportation, then there could be substantial cost savings in the long term as well as reduced dependence on foreign oil.

And I'm not going to rule out the idea that civil transportation on the high speed rails wouldn't be profitable either. It could be, especially as we get closer to "peak oil" (are we there yet?) and consumers start to see a substantial cost savings.
 
Will the potential of that market be enough to amortize the investment and interest fees as well as operating costs?

It should, in my opinion. The transcontinental railroad is lauded as a major driving force in early US industry.

If the government has to run it as a permanent subsidy, it absolutely should not be done.

I agree. I'd like to see a cost/benefit analysis to see Obama's justification for this system but it should work, in my opinion.

Amtrak has been a financial disaster and billions could be saved from the federal budget annually by making Joe Biden pay the full price for his commutes back to Delaware, as well as all the other Amtrak passengers.

I definitely agree. Amtrak needs to roll over and die already.
 
Last edited:
The more I think/read about this the less enthusiastic I am about it. It seems all the high speed rail systems in other countries are either failed or heavily subsidized and if you factor in the geography of America it makes even less sense. I'll remain cautiously optimistic, for now.

I was looking up the corridors and I saw they connected my state to another state I frequent BUT it was to a city 45 minutes away from the city I visit. That city has an airport. That alone would be enough to dissuade me from taking the rail line.
 
Based on what the article actually said:

"Complete individual projects" sound like many of the city based rail projects across the country. This, as SouthernDemocrat stated is actually a good idea. Much of the congestion on our roads is within cities, not on across the country highways.

"Corridor programs" is a bit sketch to say much about. A North Eastern corridor doesn't sound like a bad idea. But LA to Chicago is retarded (not to mention it would take hours).
 
Did you know that the Federal Government spent $15 billion on the FAA last year? Just something to think about when you look at this proposal...

When you compare the 28 million people who rode Amtrak last year to the ~750 million people who flew in the US last year, that seems like a pretty decent deal.
 
The more I think/read about this the less enthusiastic I am about it. It seems all the high speed rail systems in other countries are either failed or heavily subsidized and if you factor in the geography of America it makes even less sense. I'll remain cautiously optimistic, for now.

I was looking up the corridors and I saw they connected my state to another state I frequent BUT it was to a city 45 minutes away from the city I visit. That city has an airport. That alone would be enough to dissuade me from taking the rail line.

All airports are outside of cities, necessitating time and expense getting to and from the plane. Train stations tend to be in the middle of town, so when your train arrives, you are there. If America had high speed trains, as does every other developed nation, we would use them.
 
It takes six hours and two hundred dollars to fly from Los Angeles to Chicago.

What rail project is going to compete with that?

Answer: None. Not possible.

That is an insane distance and not practical for a high speed rail network.

However LA to SF, New York to Washington or Boston.. yes. Dallas to Houston, Austin to Houston. I would say that a distance of 500ish miles is getting near the maximum "sustainable" for high speed trains but that is of course depending on the situation, the route and the geography. If it is 600 miles in a straight line, then I doubt a plane can beat a 2 hour train ride..

Someone suggested using high-speed for logistics (transporting goods). No, also impossible and impractical on a large scale. The weight of goods that are normally transported on trains in the US and Europe is huge when compared to the weight of passengers and baggage in a 200 meter high speed train. It is not used anywhere for these reasons. Normally you need some of the most powerful trains out there and several of them, in front and behind to push these huge train sets across countries. Plus the high speed trains are designed to cut through the air, much like airplanes, and big bulky goods is not exactly beneficial to speed. But what it does do, is take the passenger trains off the tracks for more efficient goods transporting in the areas where high speed trains do go, since they are not on the same tracks.

As for doing this the private investor way. Sure, but as in many places including Europe, the biggest blockage was not the money issue (well at the moment it is due to the credit crunch), but the getting the route correct and getting the land the route was to be put on. On top of that permits and so on... so the red tape. Here having the government in the driving seat is beneficial and no one can deny that as it cuts at least some of the red tape.. in theory. But using the government card is just another lame excuse to block progression in US society. High speed trains are great pure and simple and the US can benefit hugely from them.. just think about the amount of passengers taken from airlines and hence less planes in the sky over the US... aint that a big problem at the moment.. congested airwaves in the major transportation hubs like New York?

In France there were in 2005 95 million people travelling on the high speed trains and profits over a billion Euros. The Spanish system is also profitable last I heard and passenger numbers are increasing each year by leaps and bounds, but the Spanish system is still relative young in age and still being expanded.
 
The White House and the U.S. Department of Transportation on Thursday said it will invest $8 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and $1 billion a year for five years as a down payment to develop a passenger rail system and put the transportation policy on the right track.

Translation:

$8 billion in legal fees fighting off the enviromental, airline, auto and big oil lobbies.

Here in Florida, it's been an issue:

Florida has had a rocky relationship with high speed rail, with voters first passing a constitutional amendment in 2000 ordering the state to construct a system linking the 5 major cities, but then passing a negating amendment just 4 years later.

Once the dust settled from the original amendment and it came to light that it was essentially the "Disney Train", the concensus among Florida voters was, let Disney build it.

Someone in the thread already pointed out that if it was such a great plan, the private sector would already be on it.

Obama's "eurodream" is a train wreck in the making.
 
Based on what the article actually said:

"Complete individual projects" sound like many of the city based rail projects across the country. This, as SouthernDemocrat stated is actually a good idea. Much of the congestion on our roads is within cities, not on across the country highways.

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.
 
If America had high speed trains, as does every other developed nation, we would use them.

We do. We don't.

That is an insane distance and not practical for a high speed rail network.

However LA to SF, New York to Washington or Boston.. yes. Dallas to Houston, Austin to Houston.

...

In France there were in 2005 95 million people travelling on the high speed trains and profits over a billion Euros. The Spanish system is also profitable last I heard and passenger numbers are increasing each year by leaps and bounds, but the Spanish system is still relative young in age and still being expanded.

Again, you keep ignoring the fact that what works in one situation does not automatically work in all.

We already have high speed rail between NY and DC, probably the most frequently traveled path between two major cities. If even that can't operate profitably, I don't know what makes you (or anyone else) think that a train between LA and SF or Austin and Houston would.
 
High-Speed, long distance rail-system.... at a cost of $13 billion.

Why don't we take the money, the expertise, and the will of entrepreneurship and dig ourselves out of this pile of burning cash before we continue to build currently unnecessary crap. The only sign of a good working transit system is in Europe? Gotta do better convincing than that before I'll buy.
 
Fed to invest $13 billion in nationwide high-speed rail project - Business First of Columbus:

Horrible, horrible, horrible idea.

Before the government spends $13 billion on new railroads, how about they first demonstrate that they can run Amtrak efficiently?

Don't you get it yet? This program was never going to be about sensible projects that make sense; this is about a campaign promise to confiscate tax payer money on use it on "make work" projects to falsely create jobs regardless of their temporary nature or usefulness.

Don't you know that this is about forcing Americans to change their behaviors to match poorly thought out green initiatives by the administration and Congress invested in the false belief that these will make us energy independent?

What makes anyone think that it matters to Democrats and this Administration that this would be a vast waste of taxpayer money and just exacerbate the losses and subsidization of our rail system.

I am always amused by those who thought that Obama's programs were supposed to make any rational sense.
 
Don't you get it yet? This program was never going to be about sensible projects that make sense; this is about a campaign promise to confiscate tax payer money on use it on "make work" projects to falsely create jobs regardless of their temporary nature or usefulness.

Don't you know that this is about forcing Americans to change their behaviors to match poorly thought out green initiatives by the administration and Congress invested in the false belief that these will make us energy independent?

What makes anyone think that it matters to Democrats and this Administration that this would be a vast waste of taxpayer money and just exacerbate the losses and subsidization of our rail system.

I am always amused by those who thought that Obama's programs were supposed to make any rational sense.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom