Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

I gathered from reading your posts that you were so invested in the backwards looking vision of most conservatives that you weren't interested or receptive to any case that might be made.

After all, we're not talking about science fiction, even though most conservatives here treat it like it is simply because the US doesn't have it already.

We're talking about things that other developed countries have had for years or are now building.

I gather most of the critics don't travel at all, or travel only rarely, and even more rarely for business.

If more of them did, and more of them spent even a modicum of time looking at what people outside in the world are doing, they'd be more open minded.

Instead, poster after poster holds up the creaky, overcrowded, hassle ridden 1960's transportation infrastructure system that the US is saddled with as a model.

They ought to know better, but the seem stubbornly invested in not doing so.

The fact is, that major trunk likes on high speed rail in many countries DO generate healthy surpluses, and most produce income that subsidizes the money losing older lines and connector lines they support. This is true even of Amtrak, whose Acella service does produce a surplus over it operating costs.

http://www.psmag.com/politics/high-speed-rail-can-cover-its-operating-costs-31731/

The fact is, that the current American car and airline based travel infrastructure is groaning at near capacity. The trucking industry has been warning about capacity issues on the Interstate highway system for years. This is partyly because it has been the tacit policy of the Federal government since the Reagan years to drastically underfund the maintenance of this infrastructure. Federal gas taxes, the main mechanism for financing interstate infrastructure hasn't changed in twenty years, even though the cost of resurfacing a mile of interstate highway has roughly quadrupled.

American airports are viewed as dirty, antiquated, crowded and inconvenient by the rest of the world, and for good reason. The US airline industy operates the oldest fleet in the industrialized world, and the air traffic control system is still using 1960's vintage routing and traffic management practices.

Few of the comparisons that conservatives here offer, even note the hassle that is associated with having to go from city center or suburb to an airport, park an car (or return a rental) clear security, board a crowde airliner full of people trying to put luggage in an overhead, fly and then reverse the process on the other side. Of course, if you only travel once or twice a year, or once or twice a lifetime, you discount this exercise as part of the novelty of the experience. But when you do it twice a month, it's not a novelty.

When you factor all that in, the difference in net travel time between air and high speed rail between big American cities becomes far more equal, and in many cases is favorable (especially in the northeast corridor). Moreover, when travel times drop from three or four hours, to 45 minutes or an hour, there is strong incentive for changes in lifestyle and commuting. Imagine how Peoria might be affected if one could get there from Chicago in an hour by train, instead of three hours by interstate (with the risk of heavy traffic always looming)

High speed rail travel times between cities like Charlotte to Atlanta, Charlotte to Raleigh, Richmond or Roanoke. Pittsburg to Cincinatti, New York to Chicago (or Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, South Bend, Buffalo or Albany), Chicago to Kansas City, KC to Denver., Chicago to Milwaukee or Minneapolis, all become VERY competative with air travel.

And if you think that the business travel customer won't give up the bus in the sky for a comforable seat on a high speed railroad car, then you surely don't travel!

 

A lot if what you are saying is misleading for false.

Air mail was used to subsidize the commercial airline industry for well over 20 years, and remained a large part of their income stream well into the jet age. You also conveniently forget that in that period ticket prices were maintained at artifically high levels by the CAB, which set airfares into the late 1970's.

BTW, the Jenny was not powered by a Liberty engine.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no evidence to show that is happening.

 

I'm a libertarian, not a conservative, but we share some views on economic issues. I don't oppose high speed rail, I oppose paying for high speed rail through involuntary funding. I'm opposed to using force to pay for things. If you can come up with a way to build such a network without taking the property of others I'd be very much so in favor.

Problem is, the demand is just not there - and the upstart costs would be enormous for a nation-wide network like that. Even in "tax and spend" Australia we haven't come up with a way of funding high speed rail. In a country the size of Australia or the US it's overwhelmingly costly. Again, if you can find a way of building such a network without taking the property of others by force, then by all means.

 

A 737 is capable of Mach 0.8 in the jet stream flying west to east, not east to west. Get your (*)(*)(*)(*) straight.

You have nothing to say but "trains are stupid." You can't even explain your irrational fear of HSR.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the

WORST

ARGUMENT

EVER

Does everyone driving on I-95 travel from Maine to Miami?

Does everyone driving on I-90 travel from Boston to Seattle?

 

"...that is associated with having to go from city center or suburb to an airport, park an car (or return a rental) clear security, board a crowde airliner full of people trying to put luggage in an overhead, fly and then reverse the process on the other side."

Taxcutter asks:
Is that not also true of rail transportation? You go to the station, go through TSA, wait for the train, file onto the car, stash your luggage somewhere and sit. Reverse at the other end.

Electrifying the freight mainlines will reduce the price of long haul contaner traffic. Right now the intermodal vs straight truck decision breaks at about 400-500 miles. With faster trains the line moves to 200-300 miles. Intermodal terminals become faster and more efficient with every passing year.

 

This is a perfect example of what a boondoggle is.

 

HSR has a legitimate argument for routes of the sort of proximity which Boston and NYC share.

It has no argument at all transcontinentally - and that's the exact argument being offered in this thread. The cutoff for viability may be around 300 miles. Boston and NYC are only around 220 miles apart, IIRC.

 

I think you may just need to write suggestions for their inbox.

 

You are thinking in bits. By this logic a road should only be 50 miles long, since after that trains and cars are faster and more efficient.

Like I said, a route between Boston - NY - LA (like the one proposed) includes Pittsburgh, Chicago, Des Moines, Omaha, Denver just to name a few. 99% of those riders aren't taking a marathon between Boston or NY to LA, but will be intermediate customers using Chicago-Des Moine, Pittsburgh to Chicago, Omaha to Denver, whatever.

You get the drift. I reiterate.. how many people on Interstate 90 are driving from Boston to Seattle vs. Interstate 90 as a whole?

 

How much larger can we make our freeways?

 

Suburban freeway sizes aren't the problem. Most urban areas don't have the room for surface street expansion to handle the increased traffic flow from larger freeways. Our infrastructure there is already too entrenched for it to be upgraded without demolishing skyscrapers.

Urban freeways suffer the same problem. They can't be expanded further.

 

So lets cut federal taxes so you can handle your own problems without middle America bailing you all out again when this project also comes in way over budget.

 

This doesn't make any sense. Our gas tax isn't even keeping up with our roads. It hasn't been increased in 20 years (thank you conservatives) while our current infrastructure deteriorates. Cutting taxes will make it worse.

How the hell is traffic congestion only my problem? Do you live in a black hole?!?!?

 

Can you ever put add two and two and not get some random number other than four?

 

No it's not. For 100 years suburbs have grown faster than cities. Only in 2011-2012 did cities outpace suburbs and that is because of the (*)(*)(*)(*)ty job market and people not being able to buy homes because of the stricter mortgage requirements and lack of jobs and college debt. When the economy gets rolling again which it inevitably will then suburbs will once again (just like it did for 100 years) outpace cities. Some people do renting in the cities but that is because their brain cells haven't kicked in or their credit isn't good enough yet. Once they realize that the money the essentially throw away on rent can be used to pay a mortgage and go towards something that they can actually own at some point then they will start looking for a home to buy. Only a complete idiot rents longer than they have to.

The only area where rail works is between large metropolitan areas that are close to each other. We have an AmTrak express line that runs from Chicago to Milwaukee that I took a few times. It was always only half full when I took it and I thought it was a pretty good deal as I could just take a bus to the museum (the only thing other than the pizza that is interesting in Chicago) and not have to pay for gas or parking. If you can't get a line like that to work then good luck getting rail to work anywhere between other smaller cities or suburbs.

http://www.today.com/id/47992439/ns/today-money/t/cities-grow-more-suburbs-first-time-years/

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304830704577493032619987956

The California line is a complete joke and you are literally one of five people on the planet still defending its constantly ballooning budget (almost $100 billion now) and the fact that they have no plans on how to pay for it beyond the initial stretch between Bakersville and Chowchilla, one of which I had to look up on google maps because I never heard of it. There is no way in hell they will get the rider ship from those to cities and clearly the reason they chose that route is to meet the deadline to get Federal money (read get more money for their companies) and so that its out there and future politicians will feel obligated to keep spending more and more on it even though right off the bat it will be running in the red.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304830704577493032619987956

Beyond that, several experts suggested that the train would never attract the promised ridership, in no small part because unlike, say, the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, the bullet train would go into cities that do not have particularly extensive public transit networks, forcing people to rent cars once they arrived. Low ridership would undercut the economic and environmental benefits that are part of the argument for the project.

“The whole thing doesn’t make sense unless you have the riders,” said Richard Geddes, an associate professor at Cornell University. “Based on historical experience, I tend to be skeptical of the rider projections that I see.”

 

Our drug war is socialism in action; but since only the least wealthy don't benefit, it is still with us.

 

Homes are terrible investments so don't even go there. A house is quite possibly the worst "investment" most Americans will ever make.

Suburban sprawl is fine, but the job growth is still concentrated in concentrated city centers.

Is Chicago to Milwaukee not listed as a segment on the hypothetical rail system mentioned on the OP?

It is.

The glass is not half empty. Stop acting like everyone on the line has to ride from NY to LA for it to work. There will probably 10 cities between there that are all linked.

A regionalized system like California seems like a bad idea to begin with. It would be nice between San Diego, San Fran, and LA but half the cities on the route I've never heard of. Link all the major urban areas in the country and call it a day.

 

Don't know about other projects, but the CA rail is an absolute nightmare and joke.

I have to drive to freakin Barstow just to use it? So in other words, I never would...

 

The fact that no one has ever heard of Barstow is all we need to know it will fail.

It looks so poorly planned like it was sabotaged.

A HSR line should be connecting all the major cities in the country.. not towns in east bumblefrick.

 

Yup, I live in Santa Monica and would have to drive over an hour just to get there. Then worry about and pay for my car to sit there.

Or I could take a 10 min cab to LAX and fly.....

 

Because of waste. They should be building roads for less then before when they didnt have aas much technology.

Is increasing taxes the only thing the left knows how to do? It is a user fee. More use, more dollars. There is plenty of money. Obama blew through as much stimulus as it took to build the interstate highway system with nothing - nothing- to show for it worth mentioning. Go ahead and ignore that, and argue they need more cash.

Where? Have them fix it.

If your state had more money it could fix its own problems instead of trying to talk the nation into it. Surely you can think of no less efficient way then the current one.

No I live in Florida. Our roads are nice, and congestion only in the cities. Right to work state.

 

I'm sure people can come up with a miriad of reasons,why not to do high speed rails---that being said; it is a big idea---I would love it--St Louis has a form of a rapid rail system- we used it when we went to a Cardinals game & parked way out of walking distance to get to the game on time-I was really impressed on how fast it was & it was also fun--& it dropped us 2 blocks from the stadium.

 

I'd rather see the funds transferred to help disabled veterans and retired career vets.

 

There already is a train between Chicago and Milwaukee, I used to ride it. It was never more than half full. You have two urban areas with lots of people commuting back and forth especially during the summer with Summerfest and other things going and and the train is only half full even then. I never rode it during the winter but with nothing going on it is likely to even have fewer riders. If you can't get that to work then nothing short of a New York to Boston or similar route with very large cities will do. No one is opposed to high speed rail the issue is that virtually every single proposal has been a complete farce with California, Florida and Wisconsin being the latest. If someone proposed a straight shot from New York to Boston on actual high speed rail tracks or from Austin to Dallas I don't see a problem. Anything other than that is just a complete waste of money.

The single biggest hurdle is what the hell do you do when you get to the city. You end up paying for a bus ride where you get to ride with all the local yahoos or you pay a small fortune for a cab ride. Unlike most cities in Europe which were designed around foot traffic since they predated cars most of the expansion in the US is base on the automobile. Small commuter flights are also an issue as its pretty easy to hop a small plane from Seattle to Portland with minimal effort......lot easier than the coast to coast flights for sure. Trains have to compete with that as well as the automobile.

What I can't understand is that California's highway system is approaching that of a third world country. They have bridges on the verge of collapse and instead of repairing infrastructure that they have ignored for decades they once again are going to blow whatever money they have on "feel good" projects that are not a necessity but give the politicians some good sound bytes for the re-election campaigns.

I like taking the train, I have fond memories of taking the Northwestern to Seattle every summer as a kid but people just don't utilize them. Everyone flies instead.

You are completely daft about homes being a terrible investment. A car is a terrible investment a home is a solid investment. The only people that got screwed were people that got ARM loans in which case that is entirely their fault for being ginormous idiots or they bought a far over valued home, which is what happens when you don't do your homework on houses. Wisconsin's downturn was much smaller than other parts of the country because we didn't have a bunch of morons buying $700K two bedroom ranches like they do in California. Even if your home is undervalued you can still sell it and get money back and if you wait long enough you will get all of it back as home prices do go up in the long run. (unless your in Detroit) Renting is literally just throwing money out of your window because you are not building up any wealth. I have friends who basically don't have to work because of their rental properties and the income they generate from that.

 

We can always use better aqueducts and roads, why not ditch our drug war, instead?