Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

That's asinine debate logic too. Boy, you just don't get how to argue, do you?

We're done for today.

 

Great. Waste of time anyway..we agree.

 

How is it unworkable? The only "unworkable" part about it comes from close minded thinking like yours. We have the engineers, labor, and talent in this country to make it work. We built an interstate highway system.. how is this any different?

 

Okay, this is a joke, right?

 

HIgh speed rail is fantastic but as far as I can tell is losing money even in China.

Conceptually I love the idea.

I am not convinced it is feasible in the U.S., and has the potential to be a huge boondoggle.

 

No. The government prints money. Well technically, the Federally insured banks just type the dollar amounts into your checking account into a keyboard. But yea... that's exactly how the government spends money.

 

I believe it's unworkable for ONE reason, that people won't utilize the train.

And hey, you say they 'do it in other countries'. Well they've tried socialism and communism in other countries too. Does that make it a good idea to try here?

I can ASSURE you that people won't like THAT. (even liberals wouldn't like communism, eventually)

- - - Updated - - -

You've ended my interest in talking to you for today if you don't know that the substance of money comes from the people, not from the U.S. Mint. And it appears that you don't.

 

oh boy, another one that believes in the magical federal funding fairy. i've got news for you bucko, only a portion of the necessary funding ever comes from the fed and there are a lot of strings attached to what little you get. the rest is provided by the state and the private sector.

i do find the combination of your two answers to be hilarious. first you claim washington is paying for it all, then you ask how government makes its way into the conversation. you do realize that the federal government is government, don't you??? on top of that bureaucracy you have state "representatives" pushing their agendas and muddying the waters even further. it keeps going on down the line, counties and cities and such. everyone with their hand out and a purse to fill. all that incompetence and graft for a rail line that will never meet expectations and will seldom be used by our instantaneous gratification population.

 

You support subsidies for what you favor, not for what you oppose? Why not oppose subsidies in principle?

 

Right! I've ridden the trains in Germany many times, and it works very well there because of the density of population and the fact that the whole damn country only has about 138,000 square miles (larger than New Mexico, but smaller than Montana).

Still, as Conservative as I am, I have nothing against trains in America. Let some group of investors come up with the money, build the railroad system, and run a thriving business. I hope they all get rich, and I might even invest in the project myself. And I'd probably ride the trains, too, now that air travel has turned into such a tiresome pain in the ass! But, DON'T come whining to the Federal Government to be given any money -- that's the part that is bull****....

 

Really?

The private sector paid for the Interestate Highway System?

Hoover Dam?

the Space Program?

DARPA?

 

That's not how the high speed rail systems were built in China or in Europe.

I suppose they would have been better off if we had stuck to the American way.

And hour slog out to the airport, look for a parking space, or turn in the rental car, ride the shuttle, clear security, cram youself into the narrow dirty seat, ride the flying bus.

And then repeat the process in reverse on the other end!

It's relaxing and fun!

Sorry, but I got to compare taking the Eurostar from London to Paris with flying from Charles DeGaulle to Gatwick.

I'll take the train!

 

Considering that it won't be a private entity, that is pretty much irrelevant.

Public transportation is subsidized by gas taxes. High Speed Rail will be another form of public transportation.

Before you go attacking other countries, you tell me what communism and socialism has to do with a high speed rail network.

The Federal government does not get its money from taxpayers. It prints it. Taxation and Federal budgets are used to constrain inflation. This is a fact.

 

I think you just shot your own argument in the foot.

Rail growth in dense urban areas is perfectly fine. In areas where you have a high population density, like the Northeast corridor, rail makes sense. But high speed rail isn't for dense urban areas, it's competing against the Interstate buses, and airlines. The WSJ had an article about California's high speed rail just today.

California's Bullet Train Derailment

The price tag on this is amazing! The 300-mile segment from Merced to the San Fernando Valley is estimated to cost $31 billion dollars! If you feel the need for public transportation is that acute, get a fleet of buses. They are more versatile and much cheaper. Otherwise, high speed rail seems like our ages pyramids. Grand projects that have little economic value.

 

The primier European high speed rail line covers less distance than the distance from Boston to Atlanta. Last I checked passenger fairs just about cover the cost of track maintenance. The distances covered in japan are even less and still track maintenance issues plague the system. The current High speed rail system we currently have - Boston to Washington if memory serves - seldom averages more than about 80 mph in part because there are too many stops and in part because rail maintenance issues also plague it. One should recall that a tack line that is perfectly acceptable at 60mph is an accident in the making at 160 mph.

 

Personally, I think it should be through a combination of Federal dollars, state dollars, and bonds. Let the train pay it off.

For those who cling to the grand superiority of Airlines, you tell me how many airlines are profitable every year?

 

Well yes, obviously the tracks need to be upgraded or routes built from scratch.

 

Why are you looking at 31 BILLION dollars like this is a one time price tag?

1) Like I said, issue bonds for some of the funding and let the system pay for itself in the future. That is how toll roads were financed.
2) No mentions of how building and maintaining creates THOUSANDS of jobs?! How many people would a massive project like this put (and keep) to work?
3) The increased FUTURE economic activity of providing a 3rd DIRECT mode of transportation for all our major cities? If every major city has a downtown rail station, you eliminate the need for PARKING and taxiing to and from suburban airports. There can be a revival in many cities downtown areas.

Infrastructure is infrastructure. This is a future investment that will undoubtedly help our economy. Why are so many against infrastructure?!?!

 

hades must be sitting under a foot of ice because we finally agree on something. the idea of high speed rail is very cool, but it's just wrong for us. it is an uncomfortable melding of 19th and 21st century technologies that our population simply has no need of. for better or worse, we are a civilization bent on keeping our personal transportation and that means our cars. better to improve their efficiency and the infrastructure necessary for their operation than to introduce a new transportational dead end. the age of rail travel is over and trying to revive it is counter-productive.

 

Look around you. Traffic congestion gets worse every day. Gas becomes more expensive. Highways can continue to expand, but surface streets in the major cities were not designed to handle the increasing influx of automobile traffic coming from the freeways. You can make a freeway 20 lanes wide and keep adding lanes, but our downtown cores have no further room for expansion.

 

i hope you are actually reading what you're posting, because you're making my argument for me. airline profitability continues to decline and fares continue to rise. our roads and bridges are deteriorating faster than we can fix them and our current rail lines are a heavily subsidized money pit. proposing a network of new high speed dead ends would seem just about as foolish as can be. having them run by an obviously inept governmental bureaucracy only makes the idea even more asinine.

let the train pay it off??? when was the last time any government run entity ever made a profit or even paid for itself. the parks systems are the only things that come close and they are the first to get the ax every time the purse strings tighten.

 

The answer is progress. They have no interest in that with a democratic administration.

 

that argument has already been tried and rejected by anyone with a lick of sense. what impact does high speed rail have on surface street congestion?? none!!! no one is going to take a train to go shopping or to visit relatives across town. the train isn't going to drop you off at your destination any more than a plane is going to land at your front door.

 

I believe The conservatives are Putting politics ahead of country as usual
They know that this would create a lot of jobs
They do not want that to happen while Barak OBama is in office

 

You definitely buried him.