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.
It's clearly in the public interest to have transport capacity between cities across the country. The question is whether road, rail or air is the best method to subsidize. There's a strong argument that rail is the superior option for transit between cities two or three hundred miles apart; far enough to be an inconvenient drive, close enough to be inefficient for air travel (2 hours of security and a half hour in the air).
Your argument holds no water unless you're suggesting transportation in general shouldn't be subsidized at all. Specifically complaining about rail doesn't really make any sense. That's like insisting that we have a public fire department, but only if they wear red hats.
I love rail. And I'm all for Chicago getting HSR to St Louis. I'm just not for asking New Orleans to pay for it. And I'm really not for asking the people who live in the 16 states that on the OP's map wouldn't have any access to HSR to be asked to pay for it.
My argument holds quite a bit of water, since we aren't talking about transportation from scratch. We already have a national transportation system. It's been built. The decision to build it was made years ago, when the technology for HSR didn't exist. The decision to build it was made based on the population density figures that made air and private car and freight rail the best choices. HSR can't run on the existing tracks. We can't rip up the existing tracks and lay new rail, not when our rail is currently being used to transport freight. No, we'll need to buy new right-of-ways, and we'll have to do it where land is at a premium, because that's the only place where population density even makes it plausibly useful. When time is an issue, people are still going to prefer to fly. When money is an issue, people will prefer to drive. Because HSR isn't cheap.
I don't spend 2 hours in security at the airport. I don't even spend 30 minutes in security at the airport. And I would fully expect that if rail travel attracted the same kind of passenger traffic that air travel does, that at some point we'll be stepping up security at the rail.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,091,524 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
I have no problem with the public building the rails and having them managed the same way we manage air traffic in this country.
Considering private investment was brought up by originally in a post by "Frank DeForrest : Maybe private money will consider it. " placing this burden on the public was not part of the discussion whether you have no problem with it or not.
No deflection involved. I answered your question appropriately.
Not really, but you seem to be opposed of any federal funding for HSR because someone living in a state that takes in more tax dollars than it produces is somehow paying for it. But if it makes you feel any better, when the Northwest gets HSR, we will be doing it on our own with little to no help from the federal government who clearly is incapable of doing any large project likes these today.
I love rail. And I'm all for Chicago getting HSR to St Louis. I'm just not for asking New Orleans to pay for it. And I'm really not for asking the people who live in the 16 states that on the OP's map wouldn't have any access to HSR to be asked to pay for it.
My argument holds quite a bit of water, since we aren't talking about transportation from scratch. We already have a national transportation system. It's been built. The decision to build it was made years ago, when the technology for HSR didn't exist. The decision to build it was made based on the population density figures that made air and private car and freight rail the best choices. HSR can't run on the existing tracks. We can't rip up the existing tracks and lay new rail, not when our rail is currently being used to transport freight. No, we'll need to buy new right-of-ways, and we'll have to do it where land is at a premium, because that's the only place where population density even makes it plausibly useful. When time is an issue, people are still going to prefer to fly. When money is an issue, people will prefer to drive. Because HSR isn't cheap.
I don't spend 2 hours in security at the airport. I don't even spend 30 minutes in security at the airport. And I would fully expect that if rail travel attracted the same kind of passenger traffic that air travel does, that at some point we'll be stepping up security at the rail.
Rail travel around the world does not have the kind of security that air travel does even where rail is more popular. And although we do have interstates already built, they are largely crumbling due to age in many areas. It's perfectly legitimate to question whether maintaining even larger road networks is superior to building a much more convenient rail network.
And no, it's not valid to say that every Federal dollar spent must directly benefit every tax-paying citizen in the country. That's a nonsensical and essentially anarchist argument. It only makes sense if you refuse to apply your argument to anything other than the project you're trying to discredit.
Your argument about land price doesn't make sense. You don't have to buy new HSR track doorstep-to-doorstep. The trains won't be traveling 200mph within urban areas, just in the middle of Illinois as they pass rows of corn.
You would have a point if people could not already quickly, safely and cheaply travel between large cities.
Rail service has the potential to restore mass transit service to thousands of American communities that either never had airline service or lost it when we decided to deregulate the airlines! For example try to get a flight from anywhere in eastern Montana, eastern Oregon or much of South Dakota. You can't and its little comfort having to drive hundreds of miles to Minneapolis, Denver of Spokane if you need emergency medical treatment that may not be available in Kalispel MT or Burns Ore. . Think of driving I94 either to Spokane or Mpls. if you are suffering congestive heart failure or pneumonia. Even in the NE a trip for me to go from Washington DC to Reading PA is a chore requiring bus and rail and serveral changes from bus to rail to do so. Even in the NE there is less rail service than there was over 100 years ago. In fact the easiest route requires me to go to Reading via NYC since there is a direct bus route from that city to Reading but not Philadelphia, Washington or Baltimore. Such a trip adds hundreds of extra miles many hours not to mention the cost. America is an aging population and people need to wise up an wonder how they will get around when they have celebrated their 85th birthday and have to seriously think about surrendering their drivers license before they kill somebody. Do you have any idea what it costs to have a private driver?
Rail service has the potential to restore mass transit service to thousands of American communities that either never had airline service or lost it when we decided to deregulate the airlines! For example try to get a flight from anywhere in eastern Montana, eastern Oregon or much of South Dakota. You can't and its little comfort having to drive hundreds of miles to Minneapolis, Denver of Spokane if you need emergency medical treatment that may not be available in Kalispel MT or Burns Ore. . Think of driving I94 either to Spokane or Mpls. if you are suffering congestive heart failure or pneumonia. Even in the NE a trip for me to go from Washington DC to Reading PA is a chore requiring bus and rail and serveral changes from bus to rail to do so. Even in the NE there is less rail service than there was over 100 years ago. In fact the easiest route requires me to go to Reading via NYC since there is a direct bus route from that city to Reading but not Philadelphia, Washington or Baltimore. Such a trip adds hundreds of extra miles many hours not to mention the cost. America is an aging population and people need to wise up an wonder how they will get around when they have celebrated their 85th birthday and have to seriously think about surrendering their drivers license before they kill somebody. Do you have any idea what it costs to have a private driver?
So the answer to closing down small regional air ports is to replace them with uber expensive HSR that is slower and more expensive.
So the answer to closing down small regional air ports is to replace them with uber expensive HSR that is slower and more expensive.
You sound like a snake oil salesman.
Actually for areas that have airports in more rural areas that we are subsidizing, it would make more sense to upgrade the rail lines connecting those places to areas with larger populations. It doesn't have to be full HSR, but it would need to be passenger rail lines and the ability to operate at a higher speed to make it more efficient for those to use that live out in small towns that currently have federally funded airports.
HSR has shown its effectiveness as a means of passenger transport in both Asia and Europe. The sad reality in The United States today is that we ignore public infrastructure unless capitalists can envision turning it into a profit stream.
The very things most developed nations view as being in the greater national interest--medical care, education, transportation networks, internet access, etc.--are nothing more than commodities to be exploited for corporate gain. So we continue our descent to third-world status.
Actually for areas that have airports in more rural areas that we are subsidizing, it would make more sense to upgrade the rail lines connecting those places to areas with larger populations. It doesn't have to be full HSR, but it would need to be passenger rail lines and the ability to operate at a higher speed to make it more efficient for those to use that live out in small towns that currently have federally funded airports.
The small air ports are still much cheaper and faster.
The distance between cities in the air doesn't require development or maintenance.
All you need is a 15 acres and some cement.
No tunnels to dig, no bridges to build, don't have to worry about people/animals getting hit by a train, doesn't disrupt traffic.
I am still waiting for a reason why rail travel is better than air travel besides that's what europe does or air traffic.
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.
But if it makes you feel any better, when the Northwest gets HSR, we will be doing it on our own with little to no help from the federal government who clearly is incapable of doing any large project likes these today.