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.
In other words, you're susceptible to the phony HSR propaganda directed toward Social Justice Warriors and similar wannabees.
The European and Asian systems of the present day are possible only because the possession and maintenance of a private vehicle have long been discouraged by discriminatory taxation, and because the taking of private property for "public" use via the "principle" of eminent domain is more common. In the case of Japan's shinkansen (conceived in the Fifties), the reduction of many urban areas to rubble via American bombing made the task easier in a culture where "the nail that sticks out must be hammered down".
With recent developments on the energy front, the possession of private vehicles by people of ordinary means now seems more sustainable than ever. (You can now rant about "global warming", and your cuddly polar bears if you like). There will be further improvements in mass transportation, but only in those cities where urban congestion, rather than direct expense, is the driving factor.
Most of us don't (or can't) participate in extensive foreign travel, and are more concerned about mobility in the real world, on our own schedule and at our own convenience, rather than chosen by bureaucratic fiat in the name of some supposed "greater common good".
As for Hyperloop, it's like the other Snowflake dream of "self-driving" automobiles -- a pretty fantasy possible only under tightly-controlled (there's that word again) conditions, but unlikely to be adaptable to everyday life without a great deal of time, expense, political infighting, and similar frustration.
I'm not a social justice warrior by any means or a snow flake or anything like that. I do, however, live in the real world.
It is true, Europe and Japan followed a public policy post WW2 that favored dense city centers and public transit. Many of their trains are or were at one point subsidized. That doesn't mean our system isn't subsidized, or deliberate, it is.
Look at the way highways and roads are funded and built in the US and tell me with a straight face that we don't subsidize driving. The gas tax pays for less than half the cost of roads. There is a very strong build it and they will come mentality of trying to induce growth.
I saw and article not that long back that taxes in Houston would take over two hundred years to pay for the road that need to be repaired that have a 50 year life cycle. (I can't find the article at the moment, but this is pretty common)
Our system is inefficient and not free market in the least. I as a conservative am much more worried about the financial disaster that our cities and towns are putting themselves in than Climate Change.
Oh, and the land lost to eminent domain will be minimal, much less than building a highway.
If you are so worried about eminent domain why arn't you raising a stink every time a city uses it to widen a street?
I'm not saying that there aren't rail projects that are huge wastes of pubic money, there absolutely are. A lot of the new trolley systems in the US are just toy trains and not a serious transportation network. The federal money would have been better spend on maintaining again rail lines that get usage.
That said, way, way, WAY more money is wasted on bad road projects than on rail projects all for the common good of course!
I'm not denying the benefits of the private car either. I drive a hundred or more miles for work just about every day. No one is trying to take away our cars. I do however recognize that my driving is subsidized
not unlike public transit or air travel are.
I agree with you that the Hyperloop is a pipe dream (pun intended), but high speed rail is nothing like that. Look how many people already fly or drive from Dallas to Houston every day, you don't think another way of getting there would be nice?
Oh, and self driving cars are going to be a thing if you like it or not. I'm willing to bet that in 15 years about half the miles driven the the US will be self driven.
No, I do not support the rail line:
1. We are not Europe - different mentality, different approach to life. We are not better or worse, we just have a different approach to transportation. 2. Lots of people will lose their lands / property due to eminent domain. I wouldn't want to be the one to lose my land or have a train station in my back yard.
3. We already have a train system in the US- AMTRAK. It's not widely popular.
People lose that already to highways and privately-owned tollroads. So what's the issue?
Re: Mentality -- You're right that we're not Europe, but not everyone in Texas wants to be a slave to his/her own car. Many live in urban centers and would like better alternatives.
I drive from San Antonio to the Austin airport pretty regularly because flights from Austin are cheaper and more direct. I'd be thrilled to have a train running from SA to Austin, stopping at the airport.
When someone throws out the word "snowflake," they automatically destroy their entire argument.
I was going to quote and reply to that post... but I think I'll just agree to this and move on. The overgrown 5 year old comments aren't worth replying to.
Anyway, I'm all for this. It's the 21st Century, folks.
A lot of the future of HSR is riding on what happens in California over the next decade or so; unlike the Boston-Washington Northeast Corridor, which was built upon existing rail lines and has had to live with the restrictions imposed by century-old tunnels, drawbridges and the like, the central (Bakersfield-Merced) segment consists of entirely new right-of-way, with a 200-MPH top speed which is a minimum of 50 MPH over anything Amtrak can muster, (and that over only a small portion of its route).
But CA-HSR still faces the challenge of finding its way into the central cities, and I expect it will accomplish this via a partnership with the established freight railroads and urban transit operations. It won't come cheap, and the lead times will likely be very long.
Point being, the innate suspicions between private capital and urban politicians have made private financing of infrastructure such as this a dead starter for over a century. The Pennsylvania Railroad's North (Hudson) River tunnels and the Hudson and Manhattan (now PATH) system were an albatross around the neck of those who financed them even before construction was completed, and they are wearing out. Attitudes can change quickly, especially when there's no connection between the supposed benefits vs. a bill left for someone else to pay, but sometimes, the laws of both nature and the markets will force our hand Over the long run, some HSR projects can be expected to return substantial benefits. The problem is finding somebody to pay the bill "up front", and that process itself tends to increase the total, overall cost.
In other words, you're susceptible to the phony HSR propaganda directed toward Social Justice Warriors and similar wannabees.
The European and Asian systems of the present day are possible only because the possession and maintenance of a private vehicle have long been discouraged by discriminatory taxation, and because the taking of private property for "public" use via the "principle" of eminent domain is more common. In the case of Japan's shinkansen (conceived in the Fifties), the reduction of many urban areas to rubble via American bombing made the task easier in a culture where "the nail that sticks out must be hammered down".
With recent developments on the energy front, the possession of private vehicles by people of ordinary means now seems more sustainable than ever. (You can now rant about "global warming", and your cuddly polar bears if you like). There will be further improvements in mass transportation, but only in those cities where urban congestion, rather than direct expense, is the driving factor.
Most of us don't (or can't) participate in extensive foreign travel, and are more concerned about mobility in the real world, on our own schedule and at our own convenience, rather than chosen by bureaucratic fiat in the name of some supposed "greater common good".
As for Hyperloop, it's like the other Snowflake dream of "self-driving" automobiles -- a pretty fantasy possible only under tightly-controlled (there's that word again) conditions, but unlikely to be adaptable to everyday life without a great deal of time, expense, political infighting, and similar frustration.
The question was not whether private vehicle ownership is sustainable or preferable in general. The question was do you/we support high speed rail in Texas. Period. There's no condition that the existence alone of high speed rail would require the reduction in your use of a private vehicle if that's your preference.
If hypothetically Texas were to build the most extensive high-speed rail network in the world, I don't imagine it would force you to reduce the use of your vehicle at all. In fact, if you prefer to drive and you're a frequent traveler along the major highway corridors within the Texas Triangle, you'd probably be compelled to use your private vehicle even more so due to the potentially lessened highway congestion possibly producing a more pleasant driving experience.
What's with the out-of-context politically-charged insults? What does being a "Social Justice Warrior" have to do with anything? What exactly do you mean by "discriminatory taxation"? Is it discriminatory to have a higher-than-minimal tax rate for the population in general in exchange for adequate 21st century public transit services?
Do you consider not only enduring congestion, but forcing everyone else to endure congestion as well, a positive "conservative" policy position? Is the possible limited use of eminent domain a legitimate enough objection to prevent the construction of a transit amenity with measurable benefits for tens of millions of citizens, including many who would legitimately choose to not ever use it?
Global warming activism is not on my agenda, and I don't give a lick about polar bears. I don't support high speed rail because of political dogma. I support high speed rail because I desire quality public transit options as an alternative to always driving or flying. I must have missed the memo that says the existence of a modern, functional high speed rail network necessitates the confiscation of anyone's car keys.
Well, for better or for worse, we are eventually going to get some hard evidence on the sustainability of (mostly)-new, as opposed to upgraded HSR, and while it's California that's rolling the dice. we all have a stake in it.
My quarrel certainly isn't with the concept of better rail service; we all want that, if it's economically feasible for the area for which it's intended. But those of us who are more familiar with actual rail industry conditions. and who were around when the idea was first promoted in connection with the Presidential inauguration back in 2009, can attest that some pretty far-fetched ideas were being proposed -- not that hard to do given the public's sentimental attachment with an industry which, while central to our economy, plays a vastly different role from what it did fifty years ago.
In other words, you're susceptible to the phony HSR propaganda directed toward Social Justice Warriors and similar wannabees.
The European and Asian systems of the present day are possible only because the possession and maintenance of a private vehicle have long been discouraged by discriminatory taxation, and because the taking of private property for "public" use via the "principle" of eminent domain is more common. In the case of Japan's shinkansen (conceived in the Fifties), the reduction of many urban areas to rubble via American bombing made the task easier in a culture where "the nail that sticks out must be hammered down".
With recent developments on the energy front, the possession of private vehicles by people of ordinary means now seems more sustainable than ever. (You can now rant about "global warming", and your cuddly polar bears if you like). There will be further improvements in mass transportation, but only in those cities where urban congestion, rather than direct expense, is the driving factor.
Most of us don't (or can't) participate in extensive foreign travel, and are more concerned about mobility in the real world, on our own schedule and at our own convenience, rather than chosen by bureaucratic fiat in the name of some supposed "greater common good".
As for Hyperloop, it's like the other Snowflake dream of "self-driving" automobiles -- a pretty fantasy possible only under tightly-controlled (there's that word again) conditions, but unlikely to be adaptable to everyday life without a great deal of time, expense, political infighting, and similar frustration.
Tell me more about this "real world" you inhabit: in it, do you get reputation points for being a jerk? A thumbs up for launching into a pedantic, politically charged tirade when someone expresses preferences that don't align with yours?
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.
