Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

I rely on mass transit to get around, I can't legally drive, but I oppose HSR and local commuter rail plans on lack of likely passengers and cost. If I want to go to Orlando from my city I can take direct route Greyhound its round trip under $30 and takes 90 minutes once I leave Tampa. Amtrak is cheaper and takes about the same amount of time or faster a bit. Now is HSR going to be that cheap the extra speed for me is not worth paying say $90 and I just take a book to read and relax enjoying the trip.

Locally I can get an UNLIMITED bus pass for $35 a month now would a commuter rail raise this or allow me travel using that, and again I just plan my trips and if its a long trip take a book to read or something productive.

I would argue air travel is cheap enough to be fast if needed, and people take that. For others integrate existing systems to allow for in-state travel making it affordable for those choosing or needing those options.

 

I just returned the lame serve.

 

In my post I used the pyramids comparison deliberately. Years ago on another forum I got into an infrastructure discussion with liberals asking would building a giant pyramid in the middle of Central Florida be good infrastructure project? Well, they unanimously agreed that it would, and for much the same reason you did. It would supply thousands of jobs for years. As you said, "infrastructure is infrastructure." I know it's too much to ask liberals to be good stewards of the public funds but this project just strikes me as ridiculously wasteful. The only thing it has going for it is that it's cool. Unfortunately, that was the standard used when the project won in elections in California.

The issue, that you asked in your subject line, isn't that conservatives oppose high speed rail just because it's high speed rail. They tend to oppose projects that are wasteful and make no economic sense. Liberals seem to have no governor when it comes to spending or reasonableness. It just has to pass the cool test.

 

You could not be more incorrect. The expanse of the US makes high speed rail very advantageous.

Rail moves freight extremely efficiently right now. Oil is not the issue, cost is.

The only people who think high speed rail is a bad idea are idiots which most of the GOP Governors are. Since they are bought by someone already, they have no interest in anything but maintaining the status quo which costs everyone money so they'll continue to support throwing more money into the pit of airports and airlines instead of doing the smart thing and creating a high density, high speed, multi-modal transportation system suitable for a so called advanced nation.

Idiots are the problem in this country and they are not the solution to what ails America.

 

Like I said.. I liken this to the interstate highway system. Success or no?

The point of the Interstate Highway system isn't to be profitable. Why should high speed rail be different?

No one can dispute the logistical advantage that the IHS has provided to this country. Not to mention the amount of small interstate "towns" that have popped up over the country as a direct result of it. HSR will do the same thing to urban areas in cities, which have declined to (*)(*)(*)(*) across most of the country.

 

Because the interstate transports hundreds a millions of people a day. A train would perhaps do a few hundred to a thousand. If you see no difference in those numbers, then you're coo-coo.

 

So by your logic, we should scrap the Interstate Highway System because it's plagued by maintenance issues?

So is the train the problem, or the tracks the trains run on? Who owns those tracks?

 

Its not the only reason!!! Its just one of the many fringe benefits.

 

It does now and it's creation was the largest economic engine in the nations history. That didn't stop Republicans from opposing it when it was proposed though since that would have taken what conservatives typically don't have; vision.

Again, the vision thing is something "conservatives" sorely lack.

How many people fly from Miami/Orlando/Tampa to Atlanta every day?

Do you travel regularly?

 

Liberal goes to Germany travels all over country in rail, wonders why we dont have it in the US, fails to realize that he only traversed an area approximately the size of Montana.

 

East and West Coast rail lines make a lot of sense. Not as sure about a cross country rail.

 

A lot of people are also missing the regional value this offers. Again, pure logistics.

Here is just a current cost analysis using Amtrak as an example.

I live in Buffalo, NY. The capital of NY is Albany, which is roughly 270 miles a way. Many people in NY use Amtrak to get to Albany, so it is the crossroads and main rail hub in the state, with the crucial connection to NY city. Albany is listed on that proposed "dream" system on the OP.

Amtrak - "Value" fare - $49. Travel time 6 hrs, 12 minutes. Fastest time is 5 hrs, 32 minutes at $70.

Driving between the train stations can be found here. It is listed at 291 miles, 4 hours and 18 minutes (this seems quite opitimistic.. assumes no traffic or stops).

The approximate driving cost is $12.45 in tolls + 24 MPG (average fuel economy, nationally) at $3.21 / gal = $51.37

However, using gas only cost is disingenuous. The TRUE vehicle cost is the IRS value of $.565 / mile, which includes fuel, depreciation, insurance, and maintenance Using that value, the cost is $12.45 + $164.41 = $176.86

If they can improve on the speed of that very line, train looks like a very viable option, especially for that ~300 mile trip which hovers in the grey area as far as most efficient transportation mode (a niche train can easily fill). The current Amtrak doesn't top 75 mph in rural areas. While I don't dispute you can go through metro areas at 220 mph, if a train can get up to that speed between cities, that travel time could easily be cut by a factor of 2-3.

 

Since there wouldn't' be a line between Miami and Orlando due to lack of anything in between, you are talking about a train from Miami to Tampa to Orlando.

That is approximate 360 miles or about 3.5 hours if you have an average rail speed of 110. Now give an extra 30 minutes for the lay over in Tampa.

At 4 hours travel time you are seriously cutting into travelers get away weekend when a cheep low fair airline can get them to Orlando in 40 minutes. Do you think they will choose to spend a days travel time in the train or simply fly?

As I said most liberals go to Europe and use the rails but are clueless of how short of a distance they actually traveled. Even Germans will typically fly when they have to travel from say Berlin to Munich.

 

Go look at traffic counts of RURAL interstate highways and get back to me. Most interstate highway traffic is obviously urban to suburban. What is wrong with competition in that regard? Everyone already knows trains are more efficient than truck.

 

High speed rail for the Tampa to Orlando was a stupid idea. High speed rail from Tampa to Miami would be a different story.

 

You're not competing with a truck. You're competing with a Prius. And I can drive a Prius, albeit an ugly car, 50 miles on a gallon of gas. If you have a 200 mile rail, you'd have to charge 12 dollars to compete with a car going the same distance. And I can carry far more crap in my car than I could on the damn train.

 

A 40 minute flight is not a 40 minute flight.

First, you have to get TO the airport. In Miami or any big city.. that is a pain in the ass, especially in rush hour. The airport is always located in the suburbs. You could be working or living downtown. For the sake of comparison, let's say a 20 minute drive.

Second, you have to arrive at the airport 1.5 hours before your flight.

Third, you have to get your baggage (I've been through Chicago airports enough to know that part SUCKS)

Fourth, you need your ground transportation back downtown because again, you flew into the suburbs.

Even if you only had to go airport to airport, your 40 minute flight is 2.5 hours minimum.

 

I don't know about you, but the 45 minute flight I take weekly from Tampa to Atlanta (500 miles) costs me a minimum of 4 hours.

 

I meant tractor trailer when comparing train to truck as far as freight. Everyone knows the winner for both energy, efficiency, and total load.

 

So for your example you take a person with bags, living down town, etc. etc.

Sorry doesn't fly. You also minimize all prep time to take a train if you want to check a bag its no later than 30 minutes early on a train.

Look low fair airlines killed Amtrak. What makes you think that high speed rail can compete? I get that you think its a cool technology and all but it is still inferior to air.

 

Why does that mean it can't exist? Not everyone shares your opinion.

Also, the only "profitable" airline is Southwest. None of the other airlines post a consistent profit. That's why they keep merging and getting subsidized. So much for air being great.

If I'm traveling between 100-500 miles, driving and flying are less than ideal modes of transportation.

 

You must not know what high speed rail is for. It's not for coal LOL We already use trains to haul freight. Your point is moot.

 

If you could get to Albany in <5 hours from Buffalo using the Thruway I'd be very surprised. That train travel time could be cut simply by having dedicated high speed tracks using the Erie Canal right of way, wouldnt' cost the State a thing, they already own the property.

 

You think air travel is profitable? You want to know what would make rail compete? No anal probes to get on board. Maybe you like them, I don't.

 

No most do. Even people who favor rail will still fly. In the end its cheaper and quicker. That why I said even in countries like Germany that have rail people still fly for the longer cross country trips which are only about the distance of a large state.

In the us you can almost always find the same trip for less on a low fair airline than you can Amtrak. So Amtrak is dying.

We aren't going to build infrastructure for you. A high speed commuter rail would fail for the same reason Amtrak has failed. Its inferior to air.