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.
If you follow traffic in LA, Houston, Dallas, ATL, Miami, DC burbs, etc you would know that relying on cars is impossible.
One cannot compare light-rail intra-city transport to high speed rail. Their purpose, ridership, and economic model are completely different.
Light rail intra-city transit can and does indeed provide an excellent alternative to cars.
High-speed-rail, in contrast, is economically viable for higher-populated regional, inter-city transport where ridership demand can possibly offset cost; The Northeast corridor is an example.
Rail today doesn't get the ridership necessary for economically justify other routes, and this is why Amtrak continues to operate at a loss. If it's not self-sustaining today, there's no reason to believe high-speed rail would change it. Indeed, if there was opportunity to not operate at a loss, other existing rail carriers would re-establish passenger service. They already own the rights of way and track; pursuing high-speed would involve upgrades. Nothing is codified in law [anymore] which would preclude other rail carriers from pursuing passenger service, either.
One cannot compare light-rail intra-city transport to high speed rail. Their purpose, ridership, and economic model are completely different.
Light rail intra-city transit can and does indeed provide an excellent alternative to cars.
High-speed-rail, in contrast, is economically viable for higher-populated regional, inter-city transport where ridership demand can possibly offset cost; The Northeast corridor is an example.
Rail today doesn't get the ridership necessary for economically justify other routes, and this is why Amtrak continues to operate at a loss. If it's not self-sustaining today, there's no reason to believe high-speed rail would change it. Indeed, if there was opportunity to not operate at a loss, other existing rail carriers would re-establish passenger service. They already own the rights of way and track; pursuing high-speed would involve upgrades. Nothing is codified in law [anymore] which would preclude other rail carriers from pursuing passenger service, either.
I'm not comparing any form of rail to any other form of rail. Amtrak is not high speed rail. Amtrak is irrelevant in this thread. The interstate highway system operates at a loss. Why did we build the interstates when surface highways could move people to the same place?
I'm not comparing any form of rail to any other form of rail. Amtrak is not high speed rail. Amtrak is irrelevant in this thread. The interstate highway system operates at a loss. Why did we build the interstates when surface highways could move people to the same place?
Hey genius, Amtrak is totally relevant in the discussion of the viability of high speed rail. If you don't get that, you don't belong in the discussion.
As to the Interstate Highway Funding, do a little history work, instead of vomiting out the propaganda you hear on the Liberal MSM.
The IHS was created after WWII for the purposes of national defense. A little history explains why your question about "surface" highways is naive.
In 1919 lieutenant colonel Dwight Eisenhower participated in the first transcontinental motorized military convoy, spanning from Washington DC to San Francisco. Like private American motorists traveling transcontinental, Eisenhower's convoy had to travel on a patchwork of dirt and macadam roads, and crumbling bridges. Eisenhower's convoy took nearly two months to make the trip. Two decades later, during World War II, Eisenhower observed firsthand the advantages of a national highway network via the German autobahn, which provided reliable, safe, expedient, and efficient military mobility and defense.
Upon his Presidency, Eisenhower pushed for creating a similar network for national defense and mobilization. Congress first acted on his vision by passing the Federal Highway Act of 1954. Later, they passed a second; the Federal Highway Act of 1956. Further Congressional legislation provided additional funding to build the network.
In short, the Feds didn't build the highway so annie_himself can drive his/her Prius to the Starbucks and buy a latte -- or make it faster to get to his/her yoga class.
It was built justifiably so, and maintained, for strategic and tactical military defense; common Defense -- as stipulated per Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. There is no similar requirement or relevance for High Speed Rail.
Thus, any argument about the Federal Highway System operating at a loss, and receiving funding, is a red herring in a discussion about High Speed Rail. Indeed, anyone who argues otherwise doesn't have a clue about what they're talking about.
and this is why Amtrak continues to operate at a loss. If it's not self-sustaining today, there's no reason to believe high-speed rail would change it.
You are still beating this same misguided drumbeat...public roads lose far more money than Amtrak. Again, I'm not saying that that alone justifies more spending for rail as it takes a much closer and detailed analysis, but quit the misleading statements about rail needing to be economically sustainable when all other modes of travel are subsidized to a greater degree.
You are still beating this same misguided drumbeat...public roads lose far more money than Amtrak. Again, I'm not saying that that alone justifies more spending for rail as it takes a much closer and detailed analysis, but quit the misleading statements about rail needing to be economically sustainable when all other modes of travel are subsidized to a greater degree.
There is no market for it. If there was, it would have been built.
Hey genius, Amtrak is totally relevant in the discussion of the viability of high speed rail. If you don't get that, you don't belong in the discussion.
As to the Interstate Highway Funding, do a little history work, instead of vomiting out the propaganda you hear on the Liberal MSM.
The IHS was created after WWII for the purposes of national defense. A little history explains why your question about "surface" highways is naive.
In 1919 lieutenant colonel Dwight Eisenhower participated in the first transcontinental motorized military convoy, spanning from Washington DC to San Francisco. Like private American motorists traveling transcontinental, Eisenhower's convoy had to travel on a patchwork of dirt and macadam roads, and crumbling bridges. Eisenhower's convoy took nearly two months to make the trip. Two decades later, during World War II, Eisenhower observed firsthand the advantages of a national highway network via the German autobahn, which provided reliable, safe, expedient, and efficient military mobility and defense.
Upon his Presidency, Eisenhower pushed for creating a similar network for national defense and mobilization. Congress first acted on his vision by passing the Federal Highway Act of 1954. Later, they passed a second; the Federal Highway Act of 1956. Further Congressional legislation provided additional funding to build the network.
In short, the Feds didn't build the highway so annie_himself can drive his/her Prius to the Starbucks and buy a latte -- or make it faster to get to his/her yoga class.
It was built justifiably so, and maintained, for strategic and tactical military defense; common Defense -- as stipulated per Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. There is no similar requirement or relevance for High Speed Rail.
Thus, any argument about the Federal Highway System operating at a loss, and receiving funding, is a red herring in a discussion about High Speed Rail. Indeed, anyone who argues otherwise doesn't have a clue about what they're talking about.
Lol You fell for the defense thing.
There's a certain group of people who LOVE military spending, and they fell for this lie.
I, a man, drive an '84 E30. And I've never bought anything from Starbucks much less ever drank a latte in my life.
I would argue more but I already know how they fooled you so no need to learn it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattOTAlex
There is no market for it. If there was, it would have been built.
If there wasn't a market this thread would not exist. Neither would the many other threads, and the many articles on the web, etc. There's a market for it, it just has to be built right.
This would be great. It would certainly help cut back on cars on the road too, especially in the major commuting areas. I know New York City has this covered, but places like LA would really benefit from a system that could take cars off the road.
There is no market for it. If there was, it would have been built.
This statement in itself might be fundamentally-flawed. But disregarding that and assuming your premise is correct, then yes, I think it would have been built.
If there were no subsidies for auto or air travel and we wiped the slate clean, I think theres a very good chance that the private sector would build a much better rail network than what we have now. Far less roads would be built, probably a few less airports (though I think the number of flights would be greatly reduced as well as the size of many large airports) and a far greater percentage of travelers would utilize the railroad system.
If you follow traffic in LA, Houston, Dallas, ATL, Miami, DC burbs, etc you would know that relying on cars is impossible.
I don't think you comprehend what self driving cars and smart roads will do to congestion.
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.
