What if Atlanta was a site of a massive nation-wide high speed rail? (Nashville: low income, closing)

[pit2atl]

In the north east, definitely. It's beyond overdue. Also out in California, it's needed. Not so much in the south I don't think.

[MattCW]

The whole density argument is completely bunk. Furthermore, airlines can't serve the intermediate cities well, and it's far more profitable for them to serve the longest distance possible. Atlanta is an ideal High Speed Rail hub with lines going to Chicago, the northeast, Florida, and maybe New Orleans. New Orleans is a tad harder to justify due to the much smaller intermediate market, but 220mph bullet trains could serve these corridors very well. I somewhat disagree with the routing north of Nashville, I think the line would be better served going through St. Louis, but nationwide 220mph-HSR is very doable, and not reliant on density.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by pit2atl

In the north east, definitely. It's beyond overdue. Also out in California, it's needed. Not so much in the south I don't think.

Have you seen the cost projections for California's system?

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Have you seen the cost projections for California's system?

Who cares? Seriously, who cares? Have you seen the cost projections for China's high-speed rail system? See, unlike the anti-transit Far-Right, China understands that you have to invest in your infrastructure to make it work. They've now got a transportation system that puts ours to shame. What do we have? Oh, that's right, AMTRAK.

Seriously, this anti-train attitude is just pissing me off. Trains don't pollute (or at least a lot less), they don't hog road space, they have almost none of the negatives that cars bring, they are a great benefit for local economies, etc. etc. etc. Stop harping on just the price tag. That isn't debating fairly.

[MattCW]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Have you seen the cost projections for California's system?

Hvae you seen the costs of our Interstate Highway System?

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Who cares? Seriously, who cares? Have you seen the cost projections for China's high-speed rail system? See, unlike the anti-transit Far-Right, China understands that you have to invest in your infrastructure to make it work. They've now got a transportation system that puts ours to shame. What do we have? Oh, that's right, AMTRAK.

Seriously, this anti-train attitude is just pissing me off. Trains don't pollute (or at least a lot less), they don't hog road space, they have almost none of the negatives that cars bring, they are a great benefit for local economies, etc. etc. etc. Stop harping on just the price tag. That isn't debating fairly.

Why throw the political labels on this discussion? That is a pathetic way of ignoring facts.

Price IS the big reason we don't have HSR in America and the reason we aren't investing in it currently. To ignore the fiscal realities of both state and the federal government makes no sense because that is a huge piece of the puzzle.

If we are debating in a fantasy land where money is no objection, then sure, build 1 million miles of HSR connecting every town in the country, but if we are debating real world issues, then only build isolate HSR routes in very dense corridors where it makes sense.

[gtcorndog]

Originally Posted by MattCW

Hvae you seen the costs of our Interstate Highway System?

Run a comparison on cost per highway mile vs. cost per HSR mile traveled and get back to me.

You are comparing apples to oranges and again, ignoring the fiscal realities.

You guys crack me up. Your finances must be in ruin the way you throw around money... or do you just talk about throwing around that free government money?

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Why throw the political labels on this discussion? That is a pathetic way of ignoring facts.

Price IS the big reason we don't have HSR in America and the reason we aren't investing in it currently. To ignore the fiscal realities of both state and the federal government makes no sense because that is a huge piece of the puzzle.

If we are debating in a fantasy land where money is no objection, then sure, build 1 million miles of HSR connecting every town in the country, but if we are debating real world issues, then only build isolate HSR routes in very dense corridors where it makes sense.

Sigh. We've been through this...

OK let me try to explain this to you one more time. When assessing the costs and benefits of any kind of transportation system--or any system, for that matter--one MUST look at all the costs and all the benefits. You are intentionally focusing on the former and ignoring the latter. There are real, live cost-savings benefits associated with rail lines, including, but not limited to, reduced pollution, reduced gasoline expenses, reduced vehicle wear and tear, increased traffic throughput, increased property value (this is a big one), increased mobility for those who struggle to afford private transportation, increased safety including fewer emergency room expenses, reduced stress, and I could go on. And I haven't even talked about how much building all this stuff would boost our economy, especially at a time when we could use a boost.

Why are you blatantly, willfully, intentionally ignoring all this, corndog? Why are you so enamored with the price tag and nothing but the price tag?

[westau]

Originally Posted by toll_booth

Who cares? Seriously, who cares? Have you seen the cost projections for China's high-speed rail system? See, unlike the anti-transit Far-Right, China understands that you have to invest in your infrastructure to make it work. They've now got a transportation system that puts ours to shame. What do we have? Oh, that's right, AMTRAK.

Seriously, this anti-train attitude is just pissing me off. Trains don't pollute (or at least a lot less), they don't hog road space, they have almost none of the negatives that cars bring, they are a great benefit for local economies, etc. etc. etc. Stop harping on just the price tag. That isn't debating fairly.

China #1 has the ability to just take whatever land from anyone they want with no reimbursement to the people who were there before, #2 has basically labor costs so low it might as well be free, and #3 has a lot of money(most of which used to be ours). $20 million a mile in California between 2 cities that are in an area that will probably end up being the cheapest area in the whole state to build because no one lives out there(relatively) is insane and that is just the beginning for the state.

[workaholics]

Originally Posted by gtcorndog

Why throw the political labels on this discussion? That is a pathetic way of ignoring facts.

Price IS the big reason we don't have HSR in America and the reason we aren't investing in it currently. To ignore the fiscal realities of both state and the federal government makes no sense because that is a huge piece of the puzzle.

If we are debating in a fantasy land where money is no objection, then sure, build 1 million miles of HSR connecting every town in the country, but if we are debating real world issues, then only build isolate HSR routes in very dense corridors where it makes sense.

Okay, I get what you're saying. Fiscal discipline should be a non partisan issue. Don't spend money on big projects if it's not worth the time and money. But high speed rail is worth both! I'm sure people thought the interstate highway system was a big waste of money as well, but look at how much it's transformed the United States in fifty years. Atlanta's GDP is 275 billion, all thanks to the highways that made Atlanta a transportation hub. Without them I doubt Atlanta would have grown nearly as rapidly. Think of high speed rail as an expensive investment that has the potential to keep the US competitive and grow the economy.