Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

...and you still don't have a legitimate reason for why high speed rail will not benefit this country. Our population is only going to grow. Roads will become more congested, and as fuel goes, our economy goes. The price of oil will increase the cost to drive OR fly. How long will we be reliant on oil for EVERYTHING?

 

You won't be building anything for anyone, that much is obvious.

 

I have an idea. Since liberals don't know (*)(*)(*)(*) about economics/business, the only ideas that can be proposed are going to be by people who actually understand as much.

How about we do this? We say "companies, we will subsidize you 1/3 the cost of building this high speed rail if you are willing to." To which the corporations will respond "durp! No amount of NPV calculation will make this profitable even with your subsidy!" Let's leave it to people who know about these things, not the people with "visions" as one idiotic poster put it LOL!

 

I'd be very much in favor of upgrading our freight rail. Rial is a great way to move freight. However as commuter transportation its has been largely surpassed by air. It can never compete on any moderately large scale.

 

That is their perogative.

That's not true at all. I travel for work every two weeks. Even at the IRS rate of $.565 / mile, driving is more efficient than flying for us between 200-400 miles. Coincidentally, that is ideal range for train.

How has Amtrak failed? People still use it last I checked.

 

I know! I know! I know! (raising hand). It has to be profitable.

Fortunately, governments are not created to generate profits.

 

Having a few thousand people take the rail will not make a noticeable impact on the congestion of our streets.

 

Uhhhhh that is the point you business heads are missing. Your country's infrastructure is not a business, it is a public service. Bridges, roads, and public transportation are not there to make profit. They are there to service the society and aid the logistics of our economy. Air travel is "for profit" and has FAILED at being profitable... (I wonder why..)

- - - Updated - - -

It certainly does in NYC.

Obviously that is an extreme example. Still, why not provide alternative transportation in the future as our population grows?

 

Yes but when you are talking about spending from the commons to build something the first thing you have to show is that its worth while. When we have a perfect example that people with rail still prefer to fly over any moderately long distance that is evidence that building it is a waste of money.

The reason people choose not to drive is because they wont want to spend their entire vacation driving.

It loses money hand over fist because people prefer to fly.

 

So why does Amtrak still exist?

BTW, Southwest is the only airline profitable, yet you aren't breathing down airline's necks about money (despite their constant corporate bailouts).

 

If it's not profitable for anything to run high-speed rail, then it's not going to benefit the economy. Durp! This is the default rule, the exceptions the exceptions. It's up to you to PROVE BEFOREHAND WITH A BIG MARGIN OF SAFETY THAT THIS WILL BENEFIT THE ECONOMY!

"If 2 people use the hsr to get to work every day, we should build it! It's a public service after all!"

Open your eyes and read your own posts, jesus

- - - Updated - - -

Again, it's your job to show with ample room for error that this would have a net benefit. Be numerical, no more opinions lol...I don't put stock in your opinions and neither do most conservatives (because we rely on facts lol)

 

Sorry to disagree but you are quite deluded. The only advantage to air travel is speed, time is no longer that much of an advantage because of security requirements, air travels sweet spot is long distance. As well not every traveler requires instant gratification. Take all the state/local/federal subsidization away from air travel and it would be non-existent because you wouldn't be able to afford it just like in the 1930's. High speed rail should not be built for "commuters", it should be built for travel between 250-600 miles treks and it would be far more efficient and cost effective in that space than air travel.

 

The same reason the post office still exists, because it's a gov't entity propped up by taxpayer dollars. And before anyone says "taxpayers don't fund the USPS", no they don't, but they DO fund the 15 BILLION DOLLAR loan that was given to the USPS to pay its expenses this past year.

 

You have SO much vision....and so little #s to back it up

lol.

edit: You're also so advanced. Such a visionary, so advanced, can't be a conservative lol!

 

First off, post offices and postal roads are just as much of a Constitutional requirement as defense is. Secondly, the only entity in the nation which requires fully funded pension and retiree health plans is the US Post Office and that is why it is losing money. Apply those same requirements to corporations and see how many need bailouts.

- - - Updated - - -

Outstanding rebuttal. I'll start taking notes.

 

Wrong. Those pensions only accounted for 5 billion. They borrowed 15 Billion. Subtracting the former from the latter means 10 BILLION dollars lost that had nothing to do with pensions.

 

Ok. It's your job to show me that this can work. I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt, despite all your vision.

 

Let's see:

Engineers need to design it
Construction workers need to build it
Materials need to be manufactured & shipped
Electricians / specialty work everywhere
It needs to be staffed
Demand for engineer / conductors to drive the trains (more skilled labor training)

Train STATIONS need to be built and staffed
Local downtown businesses can benefit from the new influx of passengers as potential customers

Ohh.. decrease dependency on OIL also.

Now, disprove all that economic influx.

The interstate highway system, the transcontinental railroad, local urban railroads.. they all created massive economic output to get up and running. You are providing the citizens of this country the opportunity to CREATE something (wealth!) that will benefit future generations in this country.

 

Excellent post. The German rail system connects many closely located suburban areas with urban centers. The subway in New York, the Streetcar and bus systems in New Orleans and in many other cities in the US are very good but no system can be profitable as spread out as we are. The NY train crash last week or so is one reason we can't use rapid transit, the rails won't support the speed.

 

Oh so no numbers, that's what I thought.

"The highway system was a great idea, therefore..." lol!

Where do you people work lol? Probably in marketing where "vision" is the most important of all the factors

 

Look at train accidents / fatality frequency and compare them to automobile. Come on!

Again.. are roads profitable? Bridges? Airlines? Subways?

NO!

- - - Updated - - -

I work in accounting. Typical conservative response when you run out of reasons to say "this is not a good idea." You make it personal.

Are you denying that the construction of a fully functional, competitive high speed railway across this country will not require ANY of the labor I just listed?

 

You did good until you got to that line. Those people will still need cars, as rail won't go everywhere they want to go. The decrease in oil demand would be absolutely nill. And the first 6 lines are nothing but HUGE expenses that need to try to be recouped by hauling a couple of thousand people around. It won't work.

And I don't know if you know this, but in a forum environment, you don't just spout out something and then say "Prove that won't work" or "disprove that." If you say it will work, YOU have to prove it. Nobody has to prove a negative for you.

 

No, I'm not seeing any stats on how much benefit that would bring vs. the cost though Mr. Supposed Accountant. That's like the first rule for your kind lol!

 

I'm not going to provide a complete business plan. Major public works infrastructure programs in this country have benefitted us tremendously, regardless of if they turn a profit or not. They service our society.

No it is a fact that every plane or car passenger-mile is a reduction in oil consumption and CO2 emissions. FACT.

 

That "cost" can't be quantified easily. It requires future projections on which we have no data

How do you think our Interstate Highway System was funded? Can it be quantified how "profitable" it is?

Plenty of variables in play. For starters, due to inflation.. the "cost" burden will decrease and be miniscule 100 years into the future (that is one of the reasons the Fed devalues our currency every year intentionally).. Second, the indirect economic impacts can't be measured.