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.
The normally liberal leaning Washington Post doesn't seem to think that a High Speed Rail would be a wise decision for the US to invest in, especially considering the present economy and deficit troubles.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S fiscal 2012 budget (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021402446.html - broken link) includes $8 billion for high-speed rail next year and $53 billion over six years. In the president's view, the United States needs to spend big on high-speed rail so that we can catch up with Europe, Japan - and you-know-who. "China is building faster trains and newer airports," the president warned in his State of the Union address. But of all the reasons to build high-speed rail in the United States, keeping up with the international Joneses may be one of the worst. In fact, experience abroad has repeatedly raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of high-speed rail.
China would seem to be an especially dubious role model, given the problems its high-speed rail system has been going through of late. Beijing just fired its railway minister (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/12/AR2011021204496.html - broken link) amid corruption allegations; this is the sort of thing that can happen when a government suddenly starts throwing $100 billion at a gargantuan public works project, as China did with rail in 2008. Sleek as they may be, China's new fast trains are too expensive for ordinary workers to ride, so they are not achieving their ostensible goal of moving passengers from the roads to the rails. Last year, the Chinese Academy of Sciences asked the government to reconsider its high-speed rail plans because of the system's huge debts.
Of course, if the Chinese do finish their system, it is likely to require operating subsidies for many years - possibly forever. A recent World Bank report on high-speed rail systems around the world noted that ridership forecasts rarely materialize and warned that "governments contemplating the benefits of a new high-speed railway, whether procured by public or private or combined public-private project structures, should also contemplate the near-certainty of copious and continuing budget support for the debt."
The normally liberal leaning Washington Post doesn't seem to think that a High Speed Rail would be a wise decision for the US to invest in, especially considering the present economy and deficit troubles.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S fiscal 2012 budget (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021402446.html - broken link) includes $8 billion for high-speed rail next year and $53 billion over six years. In the president's view, the United States needs to spend big on high-speed rail so that we can catch up with Europe, Japan - and you-know-who. "China is building faster trains and newer airports," the president warned in his State of the Union address. But of all the reasons to build high-speed rail in the United States, keeping up with the international Joneses may be one of the worst. In fact, experience abroad has repeatedly raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of high-speed rail.
China would seem to be an especially dubious role model, given the problems its high-speed rail system has been going through of late. Beijing just fired its railway minister (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/12/AR2011021204496.html - broken link) amid corruption allegations; this is the sort of thing that can happen when a government suddenly starts throwing $100 billion at a gargantuan public works project, as China did with rail in 2008. Sleek as they may be, China's new fast trains are too expensive for ordinary workers to ride, so they are not achieving their ostensible goal of moving passengers from the roads to the rails. Last year, the Chinese Academy of Sciences asked the government to reconsider its high-speed rail plans because of the system's huge debts.
Of course, if the Chinese do finish their system, it is likely to require operating subsidies for many years - possibly forever. A recent World Bank reporton high-speed rail systems around the world noted that ridership forecasts rarely materialize and warned that "governments contemplating the benefits of a new high-speed railway, whether procured by public or private or combined public-private project structures, should also contemplate the near-certainty of copious and continuing budget support for the debt."
Read the rest at the Link
That may be the case for China , due to there Ego issues.... But in Europe thats rarely an issue....
The normally liberal leaning Washington Post doesn't seem to think that a High Speed Rail would be a wise decision for the US to invest in, especially considering the present economy and deficit troubles.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S fiscal 2012 budget (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/14/AR2011021402446.html - broken link) includes $8 billion for high-speed rail next year and $53 billion over six years. In the president's view, the United States needs to spend big on high-speed rail so that we can catch up with Europe, Japan - and you-know-who. "China is building faster trains and newer airports," the president warned in his State of the Union address. But of all the reasons to build high-speed rail in the United States, keeping up with the international Joneses may be one of the worst. In fact, experience abroad has repeatedly raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of high-speed rail.
China would seem to be an especially dubious role model, given the problems its high-speed rail system has been going through of late. Beijing just fired its railway minister (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/12/AR2011021204496.html - broken link) amid corruption allegations; this is the sort of thing that can happen when a government suddenly starts throwing $100 billion at a gargantuan public works project, as China did with rail in 2008. Sleek as they may be, China's new fast trains are too expensive for ordinary workers to ride, so they are not achieving their ostensible goal of moving passengers from the roads to the rails. Last year, the Chinese Academy of Sciences asked the government to reconsider its high-speed rail plans because of the system's huge debts.
Of course, if the Chinese do finish their system, it is likely to require operating subsidies for many years - possibly forever. A recent World Bank report on high-speed rail systems around the world noted that ridership forecasts rarely materialize and warned that "governments contemplating the benefits of a new high-speed railway, whether procured by public or private or combined public-private project structures, should also contemplate the near-certainty of copious and continuing budget support for the debt."
Read the rest at the Link
Another great thing our WI governor did was turn down the high speed rail project b/c of these very reasons. The lines are not sustainable. Obama needs to quit caring about what other people/countries do and start worrying about what is going on in our own country.
Another great thing our WI governor did was turn down the high speed rail project b/c of these very reasons. The lines are not sustainable. Obama needs to quit caring about what other people/countries do and start worrying about what is going on in our own country.
Or he should have dumped it into the Profitable Northeast , instead of trying to give the rest of the country a half HSR line.... It seems this region always has to wait for things that would work here.....sheesh......
Or he should have dumped it into the Profitable Northeast , instead of trying to give the rest of the country a half HSR line.... It seems this region always has to wait for things that would work here.....sheesh......
No he shouldn't, that money is stolen from all Americans.
99.9% of whom would derive no benefit from your special interest.
That may be the case for China , due to there Ego issues.... But in Europe thats rarely an issue....
Not arguing with you, but here's what the article says about Europe...
Quote:
When it comes to high-speed rail, Europe, Japan and Taiwan have two natural advantages over every region of the United States, with the possible exception of the Northeast Corridor - high gas taxes and high population density. If high-speed rail turned into a money pit under relatively favorable circumstances, imagine the subsidies it would require here. Every dollar spent to subsidize high-speed rail is a dollar that cannot be spent modernizing highways, expanding the freight rail system or creating private-sector jobs. The Obama administration insists we dare not lag the rest of the world in high-speed rail. Actually, this is a race everyone loses.
I say stop subsidizing all transport. Lets make airline passengers pay the full cost of those airports.
And in New York, make subway riders pay the real cost of the subway instead of subsidizing it from Bridges and Tunnels.
And no extra money from the Feds or the States for highways. Make it all come out of excise taxes and, if it isn't enough, charge more tolls.
And why do we have to give Boeing $10 billion in loan guarantees? If thats what it takes for them to sell airplanes then they cannot be very good ones.
And lets listen to everyone - from the politicians to the public - squeal
Alternatively, lets have a bit less hypocrisy about subsidizing different forms of transport.
Wait.. lets stop letting the Obama administration change the definition of words.
What they want to fund IS NOT high speed rail.. It doesnt even come close..
In the U.S., is it's not as fast and reliable as the Shinkansen, then it has no hope of becoming viable, especially cross-country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by andrea3821
Another great thing our WI governor did was turn down the high speed rail project b/c of these very reasons. The lines are not sustainable. Obama needs to quit caring about what other people/countries do and start worrying about what is going on in our own country.
Haven't you noticed? The rationale that liberals base almost ALL their ideas on rest on this simple sentence "other countries are doing it, why shouldn't we?"
High speed rail is just $500 billion in wealth redistribution.
America will pass.
America will get passed.
Oh wait, thats already happened.
Nothing wrong with us being a Third World country as long as wealth is concentrated amongst the top 2%, all made possible with the help of poor white trash.
The Dumbing Down rolls on.........
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.
