America needs High Speed Rail. Why does the right oppose it ?

People will continue to use it because it is fast, convenient and clean. I don't hear the French whining about it and they have been using it since 1981. TGV paid for itself (including build costs) within a decade:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/tgv/background.html

 

First off, I'm in favor of high speed rail.

The reason the Republicans are opposed to it is most likely the cost involved; they agonize over spending money possibly because they don't like change and feel that the government should not be helping out the railroads nor being in the transportation business. For them it reeks of socialism and they would prefer a capitalist company running it, but then again we all know what happened to the conventional railroads 60 years ago when they were run by capitalists.

 

Indeed; and although France has been traditionally 'socialist' the government-run TGV which is operated by SNCF makes annual profits of £900 million. I'll bet that's confusing the conservatives! Imagine, a socialist rail system making profits approaching £1 billion a year! What's even worse for conservatives is that SNCF is unionised, yet still turns in healthy profits!
Damn the French and their socialist profiteering!

 

HSR has zero car-trains collisions, HSR is built on a raised or underground platform keeping the public and trains far apart. HSR does not have any road crossings at grade, and any that do go at more slower speeds over grade crossings.

HSR in America can be profitable in some areas, but the real problem is right of way, existing freight right of way can not handle HSR, and finding the land to build new right of way is terribly expensive. It would displace businesses and homes, something that in America is not done without a huge court battle adding to the cost.

I have traveled to foreign countries with HSR, Spain, France, Germany, it works because of the population base, and the short distances traveled, plus the feeder lines of trolley, underground, and buses help to make it work. HSR is ancient technology, it looks cool, the innovation that has come out is cutting edge but it still uses steel wheels on steel rail, I would prefer to look at mag lev, or something else, possibly rubber tired people movers on their own right of way. The costs of maintaining HSR is enormous, 15-20 day inspection cycles, complete tear downs or replacements after 90 days. America is not one to spend tremendous amounts of money on up keep, we prefer bare minimum, and HSR needs robust maintenance.

I am a locomotive engineer, I have a lover affair with trains, I would love to be able to travel by train but I understand that the costs of tickets on even low speed passenger travel is expensive, and HSR is out of sight. Try to book a trip in a European country and travel by high speed trains and see how much it costs and the tickets still do not cover the cost of capital.

 

Yet another "we should have high speed rail because other countries have it!" thread. You'll excuse me if I don't jump at the chance to pay a few trillion dollars for a status symbol.

 

Maybe you should read what the staggers act is, and how deregulation of the railroads saved them. The government made it impossible for the railroads to make money. Regulation killed the railroads, and deregulation has allowed the railroads a new renaissance. There is a reason why Warren Buffet paid 50 billion for the BNSF.

 

Subsidy? Gas taxes pay for the roads. Get government out of wasting that cash and lets do private roads. Like they build in china, more then they do rail that is for damn sure and more then our government lays.

 

The French don't have a zillion railroad crossings to deal with and they grew up taking trains, so naturally they are more inclined to use trains, and France is a state or two compared to the vast expanse of the US.

 

European roads suck and you can walk around the towns. America is not built that way.

 

Down in FL, some have wanted to connect Tampa and Orlando, claiming it will strengthen the economy...yada, yada.

From Wiki...
"The trains would have been capable of reaching speeds of "168 miles per hour (270 km/h)" but due to the number of proposed stations, a "bullet train would beat a car by only 30 minutes....Downtown Tampa – Orlando Airport 84 Miles@1 hour 22 minutes vs 1 hour 4 minutes by car.

So, basically we should spend BILLIONS, to save around 20 min? And how many people need to save 20 min going from Tampa to Orlando? How many people are even making the trek consistently? So you must be on CRACK to think that's a good idea and that's why it was rejected. Ok, so you wouldn't put wear and tear on your car. Thats a bonus, saves you money. But you'd have to either rent a car at your destination or use public transportation...YIKES. That does NOT save you money and is NOT convenient.

Same with going from S FL to Orlando. I make the trek around once per year. 3 hrs. If I saved even an hour, I would HAVE TO rent a car up there, since I'm not necessarily staying at a resort and even then, more taxis if I want to go out to eat or visit other locations up there, which aren't cheap. The cost of renting a car up there which lets face it, You HAVE TO DO, is far worse than an extra hour drive. It just does NOT add up. I have to have 2 cars. It is impossible to build any sort of public transportation system in S FL that could replace your car. IMPOSSIBLE without using the current roads, which means buses. You know how many buses you would need to reasonably transport people around from any A to B point? I can't even fathom it. How long would you have to walk just to get to these buses? Not to mention what happens if it rains and good luck walking in the summer when it hits the 90s but feels like 100+ with little cloud cover. You are totally screwed.

When cars are all electric and can drive themselves, OUR system will make public transportation seem like a total joke. I could sit back and sleep while my car gets me and my family the 3 hrs or faster up to Orlando, since once you take bad drivers out of the equation, everything will move along much smoother. People in EU may be "ahead" in their own mind now, but once Google or someone else figures it out(they're getting close), the rest of the world will be so behind us, it will be hilarious. There already is a self Driving Google Prius and who knows what else is behind closed doors. Any benefit a bus has will be gone instantly. Public transportation works in the city. It doesn't work at all out in the suburbs since you can't just walk out your door and catch a bus by walking a few block. It would take a 1/2 hour just to walk to the front entrance of your community....or do we need community buses on top of everything else, just to get us from all our homes to all the magical larger buses?

 

Which probably explains why the French TGV has totally trounced interior air travel which is losing passengers and revenue as a result. Or am I mistaken? TGV, despite operating costs is still very healthily profitable. Then there's the convenience of it; step on, step off, city centre to city centre. No hanging around for hours in airports-leave alone the hassle of getting to the airport-comfort, decent food, not having to sit with your knees up to your chin. In short it's a great, relaxing way to travel.

 

Same here. I actually get a lot of work done on trains, unlike planes. Airports and airplanes are such a hassle.

Unfortunately, the right's obsession with independence and fossil fuels will never allow for high-speed rail -- even if Amtrack is willing to flip the bill.

 

Amtrack is the government, so it's the same as having the government pay the bill. It's like saying the post office should do something.

 

Well obviously a continent-wide HSR service is impractical, but for travel between major cities on the coasts it has to be a winner compared with the awful 'experience' of being crammed into commuter jets.

 

Yes, and taxes pay for medicare, so I guess that isn't a health care subsidy, right?

 

Why does the right oppose high speed rail? Because it makes plain sense.
Stating that it won't work here is a cop-out. We invented transcontinental trains! And Americans love affair with their cars is merely a bad habit and people's behaviors can change when presented with a new more sensible option.

 

The whole point of high speed rail, which you are missing, is that it is intended to connect centres of population at significant distances. 84 miles is not remotely a significant distance and is within the limits of normal commuter services which anyone but an idiot welded to his car would prefer, given the traffic hassles commuting in a car involves. Trains don't regularly sit for an hour in a gridlock. Your comment about buses is dumb. One bus carrying 70 passengers has already taken 70 cars off the road, and in our cities bus-only traffic lanes neatly avoid the traffic foul-ups cars are causing.

 

Trains can move a ton of freight 486 miles on one gallon of diesel fuel. High speed freight could enable the trailer park guy to save so much he could buy a house. High speed passenger would cost so little he might be able to move somewhere he could buy one.

People prefer to drive because mass transit is so poorly maintained, not because they want to spend long hours sitting in traffic or risking their lives on a superhighway, but that's your typical Conservative; bravely defending our "choice" to neglect things we need and would benefit by so they can spend more of our taxes on Aircraft Carriers to fight hill bandits or tell other sovereign nations how to manage their internal affairs

Please provide links that prove this. And please compare the costs of our highways and the 32,000 people that die on them annually.

And this is somehow an argument AGAINST better transport infrastructure?

 

the train would have to stop at every major city along the way to pick up new passengers and to let off passengers..so a high speed train in calif..and high speed train here is considered 128 mph..from san fran to los angeles would stop atleast 6 times before reaching l.a..trip would be about 4 hours or more..i can drive it in six hours and get right to the pace i am going and have my own car when i get there...

 

Jeez these arguments are so poor.

The private sector cannot afford such a large project.

As for profitability, California's High Speed Rail is actually projected to turn enough of a profit to fund its own expansion. Ticket prices are estimated at $60-$80 by the time its first leg opens.

 

Governors of Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida.

Admittedly, certain corridors are most profitable. I read a report that said the only profitable corridors for initial construction are as follows:

-Bos-Wash + Extension to Albany, NY (and potentially Montreal)
-SoCal - SanFrancisco Bay
-Minneapolis - Milwaukee - Chicago - Detroit - St. Louis - Indianapolis, in an X pattern.. with Chicago in the middle. Also had potential extension to Toronto, Ontario

 

I have absolutely NO problem with high speed rail, as long as it can operate at break-even.

 

If liberals think it is such a good Idea, here is what they can do. Put their money where their mouth is, and form a corporations and build it. With all the filthy rich democrats, the rich stars in Hollyweird, Soros, Gore, Buffet and the rest, they should have no problem at all. Pool their money build their high speed rail and reap the profits.

Then all the rich libs will make million, or if it fails, the taxpayer will not have been on the hook for the money. Can you say Solyndra????

 

Spending trillions of dollars in two wars funded by taxes paid by unsupportive liberals is ok. But funding high speed rail via tax money of unsupportive conservatives is wrong. LOL Gotta love right wing hypocrisy.

 

Amtrak Acela Express already posts a net operating profit; enough to subsidize the rest of Amtrak. Why do you require rail to break even when automobile and airline don't?

How many airlines and auto manufactures have we bailed out? Why do drivers only pick up 50% of their driving tab?