Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

Now there is a thought, and let the people on the cities pay for it all.

Homes were only a bad investment during the democrat started CRA disaster. They are closer to a good buy now. Especially with all the inflation coming our way.

Rail in FL was also a joke because it dropped you off somewhere where you needed a car and was therefore useless.

 

Concrete and asphalt don't change, sir.

Don't you get it... most interstate roads are maintained by state departments that contract the maintenance work out to PRIVATE companies. Cut the anti-government strawman.

That's because even $400 billion would be inadequate to carry out a massive public works project like this currently.

BTW, the stimulus was a joke.. less than 3% of GDP per year.

Are you ignoring the falling bridges and the constant potholes all over the country?

Traffic congestion in all our major cities needs to be addressed if we are to stay the leader of the world. The US had dropped from 1st in Infrastructure to 15th!

New York State has larger road obligations than most states, that is why our gas tax is very high. Harsh winters, high population, NYC sucking the state dry, large highway-miles, and being a major crossroads between the Great Lakes / Midwest, the East Coast, and Canada.

Before you call it a "lefty" problem, New Jersey has the 3rd lowest gas tax in the nation (small state, less roads).

Florida doesn't have road salt.

What the hell does right to work have anything to do with? Michigan is a right to work state and they have the worst roads in the North. Despite their terrible roads, they still can't get their idiot Republican governor to raise the gas tax to address it.

 

If a high speed train could link downtown Chicago with downtown Milwaukee (90 miles) and average 100 mph (just under an hour) for the trip, suddenly both cities become commutable....

But that is a unique case right? How many major urban city centers are within 150 miles of each other?

Chicago-Milwaukee
Pittsburgh-Cleveland
Buffalo-Rochester-Syracuse
Albany-NYC
Northeast Corridor
DC-Richmond

etc.. you get the drift. Oh snap... imagine multiple connections on one line?!

People in Chicagoland can't even drive 15 miles in an hour during rush hour.

Most urban centers are going through a revival. People aren't fond of marathon commutes that are starting to plague this country.

California has geographic limitations that are prohibiting further road expansion. They also have very strict zoning limitations.

A train linking Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, and Sacramento down the I-5 corridor would absolutely get ridership.

I'd be happy to debate you all day about how much of a (*)(*)(*)(*) investment a house is in another thread. You can tell yourself it is great with a home that barely keeps pace with inflation and costs you constant cash in the form of maintenance, property taxes, sky-high utility bills, homeowner's insurance, and the INTEREST on the loan that doubles or even triples what you end up paying for it. A house is for living, not as a "feel good" investment. They are straight money pits. You have to PAY to SELL the damn thing after you get ripped off by the bank and government for 30 years.

I might own a house one day.. but I see no reason to. I'm happy renting and pouring money into the market where I know it will actually earn 7-10% every year. Plus, I like the flexibility of being able to flip off my company and leave town if they decide to screw me.

 

Is that a profit on operations or does it include infrastructure maintenance?

 

Yes they have. Plus the logistics have improved by leaps and bounds as has the machinery.

The government bureacracy eats it up anyway. Look at the process used now and when Ike hired private companies to get it done. You know they use AA in road bidding projects right? Most states even pay fixed costs per road size rather then let price competition? China laid more private road last year then we did last decade.

Nonsense. You spent more then that anyway. You can build the Panama Canal and the Hoover dam combined and adjusted for inflation for less.

More like double and that is massive amount to spend. Government spending is at 40% of GDp and they need more money in every sector they involved with to turn around degradation? When will you hold these people to account? 40% isn't enough to do their job?

What falling bridges? I live in Florida we don't have potholes. Why can't your beloved government get the job done with more money being spent then ever before as a % of GDP?

by those cities.

Why is that? Detroit pissed all their money away why should anyone reward them with more cash? If the city isn't taxing its residents enough it should raise them.

Build the keystone pipeline and stop spending money on 3 years of unemployment when you have roads in disrepair. Tell the enviros to stop suing every time a tree is cut down.

Good. Then waste the money on unions that don't fix it. Your higher congestion means more used fees. We in Florida have no desire to fix your problem while you waste cash hunting down big gulpers.

Republican governor too. What is your point? Newark still sucks. All the big tax cities you run have delapadati g infrastructure because leftists have a million priorities and none of them are efficiency.

We have sinkholes and gators and hurricanes. Do you want us to pay your hearing bill too? If you want it pay for it.

Find something the unions do for less then non unions.

They were union strong during their whole decline and became right to work 5 minutes ago. Why are you trying to be dishonest about that? Why must every leftist resort to deception?

All the worst found in the areas that vote and are run by democrats.

Doesn't need to. He just made it right to work. Now road work won't cost as much.

 

Gee, I thought that was what our dear leader got the "Stimulus" and his Shovel ready jobs. Oh, I forgot he said his shovel read jobs weren't so shovel ready. Chuckle, wink, wink.

 

High-Speed Rail: Obama Pledges $53 Billion for Upgrades - TIME


Obama's Big, Bold Bet on High-Speed Rail
http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2047110,00.html

An Amtrak Acela train passes through the Princeton Junction station in West Windsor, ... Obama launched high-speed rail by slipping $8 billion into his stimulus ...

I guess that didn't work out to well. Did it?

 

I'm curious as to why you would quote me without actually attaching my name to the quote your using. It's almost as if you wanted to reply to me, but you kind of hope I wouldn't notice it.

Anyway, the question I've asked about economic benefits is a valid one, and you don't have to be theoretical about it. The Obama administration has poured billions into high speed rail and there is a massive project underway in California right now, although "right now" means it's a project that's been going on for years, it's spent billions and will need billions more.

California had a bond issue of 8 billion dollars for a high speed rail project with a total cost at that time of 35 billion dollars. Pricey, but for a 800 mile system, let's do it!

Fast forward to 2011 and there is a new estimate, 98 billion dollars, and a completion date pushed back 13 years to 2033. Now we are talking about sending people to Mars prices. Now, if you just want a project that looks cool and neat, and will be a great backdrop for films, then it's a great investment, but still no one is even arguing that high speed rail has any real economic benefits. To me, I would ask, has California solved all of it's problems and has billions just lying around for some sort of fancy demonstration project? I don't think so.

Why is this sort of nonsense so important to you leftists? I mean, a statue of Lenin would be much cheaper. In fact, I think if you built a giant pyramid as Governor Brown's resting place, that would probably be cheaper. Economic value? Probably about the same as high speed rail.

Now if you want to refurbish or build new airports, or expand or repair the the highway system, I can see the economic value of that, but I'm getting the idea that "economic value" isn't on any high speed rail supporters short list of important issues.

 

*facepalm*

No one in this country wants all our roads to turn private. Toll roads are frickin bankrupt too, and they cost SIGNIFICANTLY more per mile than public roads.

Not enough. The stimulus didn't stimulate the economy. We need more. It was the weakest stimulus ever. Can you guys let us fix the country and stop obstructing?

If 40% isn't enough to maintain the country, it isn't enough to maintain the country. It is what it is. Our infrastructure is degrading because the gas tax hasn't moved in 20 years. People are paying a fraction of what they used to, and the roads are being used more. All this BEFORE inflation.

Learn what causes a pothole, then you can articulate an intelligent rebuttal as to how roads in Florida are different (and cheaper to maintain) than roads in New York.

This is the UNITED States. Not every person, every city for themselves. Most people don't live in city jurisdictions anymore thanks to white flight and underfunded highways out to the suburbs.

So that what's left of Detroit can leave it fully deserted? Why do you hate this country so much!!!!!!

Metro Detroit is home to ~5.5 million people, a vibrant waterfront, and the largest international trade border in the WORLD. People like you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about anything that helps this country go.

Irrelevant talking point to this discussion.

Then have Florida secede from the country. Let's just make it 50 countries ok?

You are crazy. New Jersey's gas tax was the same before it had a Republican governor. The laws of math don't change based on political party. New Jersey has a higher median income than Florida, a more educated population, and jobs a little more sophisticated than what they offer in Florida. Stop (*)(*)(*)(*)ting up every thread with your personal hatred of anything "left."

Your point? Florida is a crap hole. People go there for weather.. nothing else.

Irrelevant to the thread.

...... why do you leave out his unwillingness to address the failing infrastructure in his state? Roads are quite important in the biggest car-enthusiast state in the country.

Cities are democratic. Highways and major arterials are maintained by the state DOT, not the cities. Strawman.

........ does not mean the gas tax is too low, nor is it relevant. Neighboring Ohio has similar population, more major cities, and is not right to work. Take a drive through Ohio and Michigan; the difference in road quality is night and day.

You have a habit of derailing every thread with your irrational anti-government garbage. Stop posting ignorant crap in here.

 

Look, I can't disagree that California's system looks silly. I personally like the one in the OP and don't think anyone should bother putting HSR stations in the middle of nowhere, far removed from urban centers. The hyperloop will be done and put this thing to bed. Not because an HSR is a bad idea, but because the implementation and planning is just so poor.

Why are conservatives so afraid of large numbers?

85 BILLION dollars sounds so big when you put it in caps and try to draw so much attention to it!

Hint:

California has the 12th largest GDP in the WORLD. WORLD! California's GDP is 1/8 of the entire United States, at over $2 TRILLION.

Get that number through your head.

This project costing $85 billion is a mere 4% of California's total economy. Yep, 4%. That's it.

$85 billion coincidentally is the same amount the Fed was artificially pumping into our economy. So for the cost of appeasing corporate goons, California will get a high speed, useful piece of infrastructure in the future. I'd call that a bargain, despite the horrible implementation.

You conservatives need to stop being afraid of numbers and do your homework.

 

The homework is done, that's why lots of conservatives are getting the chance to say "I told you so" to California, but your other comment, "you conservatives need to stop being afraid of numbers" clearly shows one of the core differences between the left and the right. No one would accuse the left of being afraid of large numbers. Price really is no object to you guys. Meanwhile, the conservative idea of being a good steward of the public funds, may seem hopelessly old fashioned to you. You guys are certainly not bothered by those cost overruns.

In California, I think it's only about 1% of the state income tax payers pay about half of the state income tax. A 2 trillion economy that has about 150,000 people paying half of the state's income tax. I don't see that as a sustainable model, but I think you guys see that as the model.

 

I opposed the HSR in FL because it was a giant waste of money. So much investment and barely anyone would use it. What, are people supposed to rent a car or take taxis once you get to your destination? Live in Orlando and work in Tampa? There are plenty of people in each city to fill any job needs.

You need only rub2 brain cells together to see its a huge money pit. Yeah sure it would provide a bunch of jobs to build it and then what? No one would use it. Not enough to justify its existence.

 

The cost of doing business to better your country and your society. If you need proof, look at how the right-wing southern states are performing in EVERY major statistic - crime, obesity, education, household income and compare them to their northern "liberal" states.

Why do you think that is? Why is California suffering from such wealth inequality? (Hint: It has more to do with national politics than state politics)

 

You can't predict the future. What time horizon are you looking at? I bet people believed no one would use the Interstate Highway System in the fashion that it is used.. or the Acela Express on the NE Corridor. They are both doing quite well.

Maybe ridership sucks for 5 years... 10 years.. 50 years?

The point is.. if it takes $85 billion to build a HSR line, and it pays back the $85 billion even 100 years from now, it was a worthwhile investment because a new service was created to society.

 

The situation of the southern states was better decades ago when it was the solid (democratic) South and flinty New England was Republican? This isn't the slightest bit relevant in any case.

Actually I would like to know why you think California is suffering from such outsides income inequality. I mean, it's been solidly Democrat for years now. Shouldn't it be a blue paradise?

 

Some of the brightest minds and talent come out of California. It is our country's economic powerhouse.

California is at the center of the immigration problems. The true cause of inequality though is the Fed's intertwining with the dumb Housing market. California has strict zoning codes and the metro areas are geographically limited, which drives up the cost of real estate. Throw in its proximity to the Far East (with rich Asian investors), and you get a vicious cycle of housing / wage pushed inflation. Add immigration to the equation and you get a big mess.

Texas, by contrast, has no limits to its sprawl. Despite the most business friendly tax structure, endless miles of land, and similar proximity to immigration, Texas still scores mediocre to poor in the same metrics I mentioned with its southern conservative counterparts (admittedly, Texas is slightly different culturally).

 

Most problems with the airlines now days come from overregulation by the government in the form of the TSA. The airlines themselves are mostly pretty good.

 

So if I understand correctly, you are saying that California's disadvantages are:

immigration

zoning laws

My head is swirling from this new information! Apparently you are not only arguing that diversity isn't our strength, but that government regulations create added costs through market distortion! There may be hope for you yet.

Texas is starting to look pretty good from here...

 

I guess that's the price you pay when an airline can be used as a missile against the American people.

 

So fondling five year old girls to see if their parents keep bombs in their vaginas is ok in your mind. That says a lot.

 

Believe it or not.. this liberal is VERY pro-cleaning up our border strict immigration reform. I don't defend the illegals. Race / ethnicity has nothing to do with it (I'm black). Anyone who legally applies and gets approved to add something to our society is fine by me. Illegal immigration is not.

Zoning is mostly good.

Texas is a great place if you are well-educated or can thrive in a business-friendly environment (and withstand incredible humidity). It isn't my cup of tea though. I can respect the business-friendly environment. However, the state is pretty backwards thinking due to its unwavering allegiance to big oil.

Public transportation in Texas is a joke. They can build 24 lane highways through Houston but have no desire for anything that doesn't use a crapton of oil. No thanks. HSR would NEVER get approved in Texas. Big Oil would fund every anti-HSR campaign in existence.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure that is inappropriate search and would result in a lawsuit.

 

Well we weren't discussing Texas getting High Speed rail, we were discussing California, so if you agree that California has severe income inequality problems, than that makes spending 100 billion dollars for a high speed rail system some what of ridiculous luxury good eh? Yes, I know as a conservative I'm frightened of those big numbers, but frankly, I would think even liberal California taxpayers should be horrified of those big numbers.

 

Nope. It happens all the time. They strip search kids as part of the TSA mandated security searches.

 

Yeah well, everyone thought that building subways in LA was crazy and way too expensive when they started that but the people there just voted to continue the tax that pays for it for another twenty years. It is quite apparent that people see a value in it they are willing to pay for even though most of them will never use it. $100Billion to build high speed rail from LA to San Francisco is cheap money for a train that will be as fast as flying and bring huge economic growth to the cities in between for decades to come.

The problem with people like you is that you look only at the immediate cost, not at the long term benefits. If it was up to you the interstate highway system would never have been built because it cost too much and the benefits were unknowable, after all the nation already had a private network of railroads and public highways that connected all the cities and towns, why spend all that money on these freeways?

One of the biggest complaints of business is the deterioration of the basic infrastructure of the US that increases their expense for moving products and personnel, especially on short and medium haul routes where delays have become routine due to traffic congestion. Unfortunately for them the party that is supposedly in favour of business has been adamant in its opposition to raising the gas tax, which is dedicated highway funding, or any increase in DOT funding, which pays for highway maintenance and funds alternatives to highway travel that would relieve congestion in and near cities by moving commuters off the roads.

The US is on the verge of decline because public investment in infrastructure has declined to the point where the basic infrastructure of the US no longer meets global expectations. Forty years ago the US was the standard bearer of an infrastructure model that maximized the efficiency of business operations and nations everywhere have spent the time to replicate and improve on that model. Meanwhile the US came into the grip of an anti-tax movement that has caused a deterioration in the infrastructure of the US. Everything that generates the infrastructure that businesses need to succeed, from roads and bridges to education and health care has deteriorated while other nations have moved ahead with comprehensive coordinated government policies to improve the climate for businesses so they can become competitive in world markets.

While the US has become consumed with bombastic arguments over taxes, the size of government and the need to cut government spending the rest of the world has moved in more pragmatic directions that have given their companies huge advantages in competitiveness with US companies. Companies in the EU invest far less in training new employees because their schools better prepare young people for actual employment. Their cost of goods is lower because efficient and ubiquitous public transport removes many autos from the roadways, which reduces the cost of deliveryThe interminable arguments about cutting taxes and reducing government have become seriously damaging to the future prospects of the US. While it is all well and good to argue about cutting waste and fraud and reducing bloated budgets, it is seriously detrimental to be intransigent about all increases in government spending because there are some places where increased spending is absolutely necessary to keep the US, and its businesses in business.

Complaints about improving public transport because it is unaffordable is a pretty ridiculous argument in the the wealthiest nation on the planet. China, with less than a tenth of the wealth of the US is building an interstate highway system larger than the US and a high speed rail network larger than that in the EU in less that twenty years.

 

It's almost as if you've skipped over this entire thread to get to my post, and think what you've posted hasn't already been posted and dealt with before.

Long story short: California can build whatever they want, I just think it's a boondoggle and don't want any more Federal money poured into it.