Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is an interesting article that explains why conservatives hate High-Speed Rail. The only argument they have is that rail costs more than highways do. That argument got debunked. Conservatives just don't like to see progression. If we were in the cavemen era, they would not want to build infrastructure. They would want us to continue living in caves without lights and be uncivilized. Conservatives just hate fun and new ideas.
High-speed passenger rail never pays for itself, unless it is subsidized by taxpayers, or you are willing to charge extremely high ticket prices. Commercial rail transport, on the other hand, does pay for itself.
Passenger rail trains come and go on a schedule, regardless of how many passengers. Commercial rail does not leave until they have enough freight to make the run profitable. You won't see a hundred empty cars leave a rail station just because its that time of day again.
High-speed passenger rail never pays for itself, unless you are willing to charge extremely high ticket prices. Commercial rail transport, on the other hand, does pay for itself.
Passenger rail trains come and go on a schedule, regardless of how many passengers. Commercial rail does not leave until they have enough freight to make the run profitable. You won't see a hundred empty cars leave a rail station just because its that time of day again.
The Acela and Regional Trains pay for themselves...
You don't have an infrastructure that can be expanded and improved.
Our existing rail runs freight. The rail is not designed for high-speed transit, and what are you going to do with the freight while you rip of the existing track and lay new track? Do you have any idea how expensive that will be? And if you don't like the expense of ripping out what we currently have, then you are talking about the expense of condemning and buying property all over the country, laying down new infrastructure.
People talk about France, they talk about Japan. France is smaller than the state of Texas. The entire country of France can fit into the state of Texas. If high-speed rail will primarily benefit people in high-density urban areas, then let the people in those high-density urban areas fund it.
I see posters from urban areas saying that rural folk can do without high-speed internet, because they don't want their tax dollars spent to help provide that on a national network. But people in rural areas should just shut up and pay for high speed rail for people in urban areas. Mmmmmhmmmm....
The poster was refering to improving the interstate highway system infrastructure to support high-speed cars like on the Autobahn in Germany.
Your French you have HSR all over your country..... You have Rural lines aswell....what are you talking about...
All we need to do duplicate European practices, and jack up the price of gasoline two or three times, and raise taxes tens of billions to pay for rail subsidies, and there you go, instant incentive to give up the freedom of driving your car and ride the train. In other words, given enough self inflicted pain by government, and you can force people into doing what they otherwise would not do.
No they don't. They get over 50% of their operating income from the Federal Govt. There are not enough passengers or trips to make it cost effective.
No they run on profit.....there they only 2 trains in North America that run on profit....the Keystone comes close to profits. Doesn't matter how many passengers.....since they don't burn diesel fuel and run on electricity....which is generated by Wind , Solar and Hydro....
The poster was refering to improving the interstate highway system infrastructure to support high-speed cars like on the Autobahn in Germany.
There highways and Europe in General are very advanced and can handle the higher speeds.... In the US i don't think it would work , except the rural areas....they also have higher standards for drivers...
The Acela and Regional Trains pay for themselves...
In some areas, where you have a dense enough population, then passenger rail can work. I'm not saying it can never be useful. The subways in New York or maybe even the El in Chicago.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
