Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

If states want this go for it. But the nation doesnt need to be paying for the pet projects of some locale. Doing this on a large scale would be even more of a loser financially. It may make sense in the NE corridor, but that is about it.

 

I am a conservative and think that a good high speed rail system would be a good thing. However, it would have to be available to all large and medium cities and most small towms too inorder to be beneficial.

 

Tell you what Jackster, why don't you actually act in accordance with your lofty principles and stop paying your taxes. You wouldn't allow something as trivial as a jail term to prevent you from not compromising your principles, would you? After all, people have died in defence of theirs...of course you have the option of being labelled a hypocrite.

 

Comparing the US and Europe is ignorant....

 

I don't think anyone here understand this particular bit of twisted logic.

This argument could be used to againt interstate highways, police departments, public libraries, schools and fire departments.

Democracies doing what the majority of people want is not force. It's how representative government works.

Using tortured logic to assert that something that you as an individual don't like is somehow depriving you of some imaginary freedom is almost juvenile.

 

I don't know a single person who would take a train to Disney from south fl. And how many times does a family go, once a year maybe? Twice every few years? Nobody is going to commute between central and south fl. So what possible service does it perform?

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/today...hird-most-profitable-year-since-2001/2387639/

"Packed planes should help the world's airlines earn $12.7 billion this year, as travel demand accelerates faster than the airlines add seats, according to a new prediction from a trade group.

The estimate represents a 67% increase over the airlines' $7.6 billion in profits last year. The new estimate is a 20% jump over IATA's estimate just three months ago.

IATA said that if its forecast holds, the global airline industry will have its third strongest year since 2001."

 

I don't know a single person that drinks milk. What possible benefit does it have? ~ If their is a demand in a capitalist society, it just might get answered, Isn't Florida full of retired seniors? Seniors who do not drive. Business people that would love to avoid the congestion of your freeway commutes? Here is from FL state report.

From 2009 to 2010, congestion costs remained steady at about $101 billion for 439 U.S. urban areas. There were 4.8 billion
hours in travel delay and 1.9 billion excess gallons of fuel consumed. The 2010 travel delay and excess fuel consumption also remained constant from 2009.

Orlando and Miami each had 38 hours of annual delay per auto commuter in 2010, the highest in Florida. They both ranked 15th nationally, Orlando for the large population group and Miami for the very large population group. Tampa–St. Petersburg, with an annual delay of 33 hours per auto commuter, ranked 3rd in Florida and 27th in the nation. In terms of a travel time index (the ratio of congested to free-flow travel time), Miami ranked 1st in Florida and 16th nationally, with a value of 1.23.

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/trends/special/flcongestion011812.pdf

That is just florida, expand that to all the states that have congestive commutes and those billions explain why rail is needed.

 

What profits? If it were profitable the private entities would already be running high speed rail lines.

 

Why do you lump all infrastructure into on pie?

 

No one said necessary. One day it may become necessary but for now it is a prudent endeavor for the future of our growth. Future infrastructure improvements are more expensive than present. Why wait until it gets to that point?

- - - Updated - - -

Mechanical failure can happen in your car (brakes / car accident), a plane (plane accidents), or a boat (carnival cruise horror story). What is the argument here?

 

Conservative governors consistently TURN DOWN federal funding for these projects. Turn down GIVEN money.

Tell me how long it will take to get to LAX, then the trouble of arriving 1.5-2 hours BEFORE that flight. You are completely ignoring the point I made that it takes a minimum of 3 hours to make trip. You don't have a rebuttal to this. If a train connects LA's downtown business district with San Jose and San Francisco (which is how most HSR proposals should be structured, since most cities have a downtown train station), you cut out the commute and extra (*)(*)(*)(*) off time that goes with air travel.

A boeing 737 (the most common passenger plane in the WORLD), carries 137-143 passengers. A superliner rail coach car used by amtrak carries up to 72 passengers PER CAR, and trains can operate as frequently as needed. Don't ignore the math. Trains have a MUCH higher capacity than ANY method of travel and it isn't even close. Just look at the subway systems ridership during rush hour in major metro areas.

Crashing with a train is no different than crashing with a plane, other than it being a LESS frequent occurance.

It doesn't need to stop every 10 miles. It just needs to stop at the major urban areas. Most urban areas are at least 50 miles apart. Plus, HSR doesn't have an acceleration problem, LOL.

 

Because conservatives hate infrastructure. I'm sorry I have to cling to it.

Conservatives oppose:

Increasing the gas tax.
Alternative methods of transportation.
Alternative methods of energy.
Raising tolls to fund upgrades to existing toll road systems

Sorry, all of those fall into infrastructure. Anything that involves an increase in funding is opposed by conservatives, regardless if it is NEEDED to maintain existing infrastructure. That's why the prospect of NEW infrastructure is a lost cause when the crooked GOP gets their hands on it. Go ahead and turn down more federal funding. It is a fact that our gas tax and toll road prices are roughly 50% of what they were 20+ years ago, yet the prospect of increasing funding is repugnant to conservatives. I'm generalizing, but it is a pretty accurate generalization.

 

It is ~250 miles from Miami area to Orlando. If the trip is doable in 1.5-2 hours, what is the difference between commuting there or spending the same amount of traffic on I-95 each way?

That isn't the ideal scenario, but the point stands. The real catch is if one has a meeting in Orlando and has to get there for a lunch. 8 hours round trip of driving, 3-4 hours EACH WAY screwing with air travel, or 4 hours round trip on the the train?

 

The state argument. This is why the blue states, with superior levels of education, income, health, and economic output, continue to outperform the conservative states. Yep, we will continue to let them fail.

We are ONE nation, not 50 nations.

 

And that is why socialism is a good thing. Capitalism stiffles progress and costs (Post #533) this country billions of wasted dollars.

 

Profit isn't the purpose of infrastructure. Private entities run toll roads and airlines and.... how has that worked out?

LOL

 

You used to run the states that were/are behind - they are catching up now, and the blue states are hemorrhaging cash and people to these red states. Your "blue" states got where they were under Republican leadership. You know this, no need to be dishonest

If you want it, pay for it. Dont make others who dont want it pay for it

 

I wouldn't call catching up, abandoning pavement roads for gravel roads like is occurring in Texas, or selling off the Capitol buildings to make ends meet like Arizona. Just saying...You might want to take a closer look at reality and less at hype.

Sorry, that isn't going to happen in America for you with our form of government or Constitution. There are places you can move however that support your views, and luckily no one makes you stay and suffer. To use your logic, the feds could shut down the military, federal highway systems and transportation, energy sources, water, police & fire & emergency, many corporations, wall street & banks, etc. IF you want to live in a Big Mexico, go move there and see what your view looks like. Then move there if you are pleased with it. But in America, you will pay for what others use and you do not use. Fact!

I noticed how many republican states refused bailouts,........and then come begging for them. lol. Your view must be extremely small, like minute.

 

Are those Texas roads used by big oil trucks? They build roads in Texas, their infrastructure is fine one of the best in the country.

Top 2 states in the union as far as growth and people and cash moving to them? Florida and Texas. Biggest losers in the nation under the same criteria? New York and California. Why are you losing so much cash and people in your 2 most liberal states?

 

I don't have an argument? I merely stated that the on-going operating cost of this high speed rail will be enormous partially due to high security requirements. I was talking about terrorism or malicious activities...

 

Hahahahaha, ok.

Once again you cling to party lines rather than liberalism vs. conservatism. Again, if your precious conservatism is so great.. why are your conservative states the bottom of the country in terms of income and poverty, violence, obesity, education, and economic output?

I don't root for the continuing failure of half of our country. HSR should be national.

 

If you believe high speed rail's problem is 'conservative governors' then I suggest you tweak your logic process.

You will have the same Homeland Security rules/process for a high speed rail...same time as you have boarding a plane.

You have no idea who will use the high speed rail so it's impossible to guess where it's best for the rail services to be located.

There are about 65 million air flights every year, in every single direction, to every airport in the USA, and this passenger service carries many times more than rail service.

Again, there is only one set of tracks so when the high speed rail crashes the route is closed down indefinitely...

 

I don't see how the security requirements would eclipse that of an airline. These aren't vehicles driving explosive jet fuel with the potential to demolish skyscrapers. You have to derail a train downtown to do any kind of damage to anything. Good luck with that.

Security requirements will be significantly less than airlines.

 

I already told you why in detailed fashion.

Florida is the main recipient of snowbirds from New York. People don't move from NY to Florida for economic opportunity. If you think that, you are ass backwards. They move to retire from the winter.

People move from California to Texas due to cost of living. Taxes are part of it, but most of California's problem is geographical limitations to real estate, which shoots the costs into the stratosphere. Texas has miles of open land. Buddy, most of our major technological innovations are coming out of California, NOT TEXAS. I know it hurts and you hate it, but California and NY are #1 and #3 in GDP in this country. Texas, is just barely surpassing NY, despite significantly higher population.