Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

How are jets flexible? Cars / roads provide flexibility, not jets.

More to do with the limitations of railroads and monopolization of the rail industry. Passenger and freight compete for the same set of tracks in many places.

Trains are far more efficient and transport than any other mode in energy, load, and capacity.

 

If trains are so efficient at moving people around the country then why are not tickets on Amtrak half the cost of a ticket on a jet?

 

Moving around the country wasn't as much fun before our InterState highway system was established. Would those of the opposing view say the same thing, if we established MagLev in vacuum environments, even if it must be underground for some stretches?

 

You need to read about airline profitability...

 

Don't know if they have change it, but the CA high speed rail cars were going to use a footprint smaller than current train track spacing...HSR tracks would be 100% incompatible with current rail equipment...

 

LOL of now it's per capita I see. FOURTH LARGEST in the country even with all the retired people who skew the per capita number. Beating EVERY northern state except NY which had a huge head start but is now critically bleeding to death.

You really think that's it? I gave you the percentage of manufacturing job losses, why did you ignore that?

And you think you can educate me who has witnesses the growth of our tourist industry here?

That fact remains your attempt to portray Florida as a economic wasteland was absurd on it's face.

 

Yes because the government shut them down for days and their business which is so vital to the day to day operation of the country was so adversely affected by an act of war against us.

You are really trying to compare that to the decades long daily subsidy of Amtrak just for it's normal day to day operations?

What utter folly.

 

Sure there are and it would be a joint venture not a single entity. If the profit is there it will be built. You do know the rail system in this country was built by private companies in the beginning including the transatlantic lines.

They are called corporate bonds.

And the Obamacare website is costing almost a $1,000 billion because government is building it when a private company could have done it for less than $.5 billion.

You really don't understand business and capital formation do you.

I don't know that it doesn't nor is it supposed to. The Constitution mandates that the federal government pay for such roadways so it doesn't matter. It does not mandate a rail system. But when you add up all the gas and fuel that is burned on the interstate system and the taxes applied. All the excise taxes freight companies pay on tires and permits and fees. All the business taxes that are generating because businesses us those roadways to conduct and generate business. Versus the cost of building and maintaining.

I don't know that it doesn't create a positive cash flow but then it infrastructure that all can use freely as opposed to a closed loop rail system.

The same reason SAIA or Fedx or UPS or JB Hunt have to.

 

Taxcutter says:
HSR track has to have great superelevation of outside track to help the train stay on track in a high speed curve.

You don't really plan to run conventional freight trains on HSR lines do you?

You still have to buy all-new (more or less straight) right of way, build new bridges & tunnels and switchwork, signalling, and service facilities.

California is talking $100 billion for a roughly 400 mile line. A quarter bill per mile.

 

My comment was not about running other trains on the same track...it was merely to point out that the HSR system is a stand-alone system.

I think 100% of what's needed for the SF to LA HSR will be built from scratch.

I'll bet if HSR is ever built in CA that the final costs will be double what they are estimating. They just renovated and rebuilt the Bay Bridge in SF which was supposed to take 3-4 years and cost $2 billion and I think it took 7 or 11 years and cost $11 billion to complete. These projects are so huge and the idiots in government are so stupid that it's impossible to obtain accurate cost estimates on these types of projects...

 

Why not simply expand current railroads to a new federal or State, Standard; hopefully, 100 mph minimum.

 

Not ENOUGH MONEY.

$1 Trillion for the website? Sorry, that information is wrong.

You think capitalism can fund our infrastructure which is conceptually wrong.

Please show me that citation. Infrastructure does not require profit. Why are the rules different for roads than trains? Trains existed long before our modern roadways. Everything you just said just makes the case for upgrading infrastructure, thanks.

It does not generate a positive cash flow. Our highway system is underfunded and hasn't been adequate in over 20 years.

Amtrak is more like the Post Office.

- - - Updated - - -

And the $100 billion is still less than 5% of California's current GDP. If California benefits from that in the future with economic growth (which it will surpass in construction alone), it is considered a worthwhile investment.

 

Get it through your head.. YOUNG TALENT IS NOT FLOCKING TO FLORIDA!!!!

They go to NYC, Sillicon Valley, DC, Chicago, Houston.

Florida is not the land of economic activity so stop trying to paint it as one. It has one of the WORST GDPs per capita in the country. Industry is almost nonexistant there, and isn't diversified at all. Florida is a cesspool of crime.

The country has lost most of manufacturing for more profitable industries so why is this significant?

Yes, tourism. Great industry of the future. Toursim is dependent on the rest of the country's economy. Florida is a retirement and vacation state (along with a hotbed for immigration and drug crime), and that is all it ever will be.

 

These same CONservatives applauded when USA tax dollars were used to finance Europe's reconstruction which enabled it to build up their own speed rails. Such hypocrisy is beyond all reason. But note also that speed rails would lessen high way traffic and reduce profits to oil interests that dominate American politics. So don't discount the influence of the highway robbery lobby.

 

anyone want to help me draft a letter to our elected representatives? I believe a Standard of 100 mph, minimum, could be fixed by the public sector. The general government could pay the debts of any States meeting or beating a federal Standard.

 

Taxcutter says:
California would do better to spend the $100 billion on their unfunded public employee pensions.

 

I believe we should merely stop denying and disparaging our natural right to acquire and possess even controversial forms of private property, especially if the domestic Tranquility or Security of our free State is not an issue.

 

....which is wasted once they die.

 

Taxcutter says:
Then repudiate them.

 

Why don't you want society to be productive?

It is so amazing that conservatives defend the SOCIALIZED, TAX FUNDED interstate highway system to the death but balk at the idea of the same thing for HSR. Our roads are the very definition of socialized.

 

Roads are commons care for the commons are just as much a part of lockean limited government they are socialism. Socialism is actually far less about care for tge commons as while Lockean limited government is focused almost entirely on the commons socialism branches out way beyond removing much of its focus.

Simply put a hallmark of leftist governments is that so much is spent on social programs that thr commons are neglected think Detroit.

 

So what is the difference between roads and rail from a limited government standpoint?

 

It's because it's some foolish liberal wet-dream, not a reality. It was funny when liberals started saying the government needs to fund such and such a project because it'll be good for the economy, but now it's just annoyingly stupid. If liberals understood the free market, they'd understand that if high speed rail was actually desired by consumers it'd be profitable and sustainable and already be put in place by the private market.

 

What objection can there be to upgrading our railroads to 100 mph minimum as a State or federal Standard?

 

If passenger rail was afforded the same level of public funding and government subsidies as air and highway travel the private sector would be jumping into high speed rail with both feet.