Why Do Conservatives oppose High Speed Rail?

I believe underground MagLev in vacuum environments is a shovel ready job waiting to happen.

 

You are counting the double fee you are paying then. Out toll roads are great in Florida. I drive them everyday. Wish I could get my gas tax back.

Biggest stimulus ever, less jobs afterward then at the bottom of the recession. Can you stop with the free cash giveaway?

Lets see the data. Lets see how many billions it takes to do nothing before we raise taxes on the middle class again to pay for a leftists that spent all their money on non priority items.

Learn about federalism, then explain why Florida has to take care of your pot holes and everyone need to bail out NYs main industry to the time of nearly a trillion a year - and - fix your roads. You have one of the highest taxes in the union. Fix some roads with the cash and stop spending on trifling things.

Flight happened nearly 15 years after the highways. If you look at the data it happened during the democrat political takeover of the cities. Everything went to hell in a hand basket fast when they did. Detroit is a perfect study. Big lib Cavanaugh saw crime spike, big race riot and massive exodus from Detroit. All before imports too.

Why does the left who spent them ino bankruptcy hate them so much? Why should we reward their mismanagement? They will just hire another leftist and (*)(*)(*)(*) it away on something completely stupid.like another auto world.

Hahahah hahahah! Waterfront? Vibrant? Hahahahanahahzhah. Go visit one day. Nasty waterfront maybe. Get out of NY, come to FL and I will show you what a waterfront should look like.

CANADA. And they still cant stay in business.

You only support those people who waste taxpayer money.

Dodge

Democrats always trying to secede always trying to fight another civil war. Keep your crazy to yourself please.

Was Florida below jersey on all those things when democrats ran it? Are we catching up fast? No state loses more money then New York and no state is growing faster then florida. Keep up the liberalism. We are banking on it down here. 2 people here on minimum wage can easily afford a 2000 sq foot home that is hurricane proof. You guys still paying top dollar for homes that can't handle tropical storms?

Don't look now but Paychex came for the low taxes. As has scrips medical research. There is a reason we are the fastest growing state in the union. We also have free education got college education. Do you my great liberal state of NY? Based on merit or only for certain races?

No it isn't. Now you know by you pay more and Detroit pays way more for the same thing.

If you let Detroit have the money they will just lose it. They have to go through bankruptcy.

Only since a few years before middle class flight.

Well you should get on that. The counties maintain and run them here. That is probably why they are better. You see, when it is your money and your roads you have an in entice to care for them. Something lost on leftists. What other excuses for why you tax so much but can't handle your priorities?

Sounds like the taxes as they stand are enough then. Why not call up Ohio and ask them how to fix a road without having to raise taxes anymore. You take more then 40% from the workers lefty, that is enough. Learn to prioritize. Less money for sex changes, means more for road construction.

http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1441408

 

But it is a big waste that will never pay itself off and Californians don't want to pay for it. Better that you should. Just like Amtrack.

 

First you need to get to your train station in buffalo. This may require a cab, your own car, other public transportation, etc and so forth. This is added costs on top of the train ticket. Unless of course you are lucky enough to live within a few mins walk. Then when you get to Albany you are left at the station, now to get to your destination you need a cab, someone to pick you up, to use public transportation, etc and so forth. This is more costs on top of that ticket once again. Add in all the time it takes you to get to the station, wait for the train to leave, hope its on time; the time it takes to get from the station in Albany to your destination, etc and so forth and you will see there is a lot more you need to take into account.

Now to address a specific hi speed rail plan:

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2028182,00.html

There are so many suburbs around Milwaukee that it would average less than 60 mph. I have driven from Milwaukee to Madison numerous times and the speed limit the majority of the way is 65 mph with a few spots 55, I easily made the 70-80 mile trip (depending on start and stop points) in right around an hour every time Ive done it. With a car that gets around 30 mpg thats the cost is cheaper than a train would be not to mention one doesn't have to get to and from the stations.

It just doesn't make sense, I understand you believe infrastructure is infrastructure but when we are strapped for cash and borrow .40 cents on every dollar, and since 2010 our debt has gone up 2.5x faster than GDP doesn't it make sense to try and get the most bang for your buck? If we were flush with money and the economy was zooming I would say go ahead, build a new rail line that will likely use"eminent domain" to rape many a private individuals of their land just so we can build some infrastructure to lose some of our bankroll

 

http://www.sncf.com/sites/default/f...ss_release_2012_annual_results_02_18_2013.pdf

A recurring net profit of £696 million is shown. Pretty good considering Europe is in recession.

 

"Involutary funding" sent a man to the moon, built the Interstate Highway system, subsidzed the airline and computer industries throughout their early growth periods, built all the locks and dams that made many of the country's inland lakes, made the Mississippi River navigiable, built the Intercoastal Waterway, most of the waste water and drinking water plants in small and medium sized communites across the United States, and built the TVA, the Hoover Dam, Bonneville and Grand Colee (sic) dams.

 

Yeah, and yet I remain opposed to funding those things involuntarily.

 

It's also very obvious that you've never been to Manhattan or tried to drive or park a car in Manhattan.

In your auto based scenario, you had better plan on adding at LEAST $100 to your scenario for parking for just one day, if you plan to drive from Albany to NYC and park to do your business. You should also plan on adding two to three hours to your time, as most of the parking garages on Manhattan are on the outer fringes of the island where the real estate is cheaper, while you destination won't be, so you'll need cab fare to and fro. And you'll have to stand there in the garage and wait for someone to go find your car and bring it out. BTW, he'll want a tip.

Milwaukee to Madison is nothing like NYC to Albany.

Your debt argument against investing in infrastructure is also a familiar conseravtive one. And the GOP has been sucessful at using it to prevent any effective investment in the future, other than a one time underfunded stimulus bill (and much of the energy in that was wasted on tax cuts),

There is not shortage of infrastructure in your area that was built by the WPA, the PWA or the CCC on borrowed money in the 1930's. Debt was just as out of whack then, but government used even more debt to put people to work. Conservatives didn't believe in that then, and they don't believe in it now.

75 years later, the infrastructure is still there and people are still using it.

 

Every single example I cited was an undertaking of a democratically elected government. Involuntary funding had nothing to do with it. This narrow, parochial libertarian view is impractical and limited.

All of these investments were investments that private industry and small governments would have never undertaken on their own.

In your world, Las Vegas would be a one horse town, there would be no barge traffic on the Mississippi north of the Ohio River, the would be far fewer paved roads, most towns would still be dumping raw sewerage into rivers across the US, and you'd pay a toll on every road of any size you drive on.

It always amazes me to see these exremist libertarian ideological positions and note the fact that it's obvious that the poster never thought through how the world would look if their vision was reality.

The US would be one large bananna republic, dominated by a government subservient to large corporate intrests, as it was 125 years ago.

Conservatives have been driving US policy back in that direction for thirty years now., We have the crumbling infrastructure, the income inequality and the corpoprate welfare to prove it.

 

It's not worthwhile if only a tiny proportion of people use it. A great rollercoaster was built a while ago right off 95. After 5 or so years barely anyone paid to ride it. Hasn't ran in around 10 years now,mostly acting a billboard rental space. Wonder if any tax dollars went into that fiasco?

Here's reality. Its about a 3 hr drive to Orlando from S FL. Unless you're staying at a resort you'll need a car. Most people visiting Orlando don't stay at resorts and prefer the freedom. Renting a car would be more expensive then the drive. That was one of the benefits of the rail. Another was business commuting. Few could justify why they would work in Orlando but live in S FL.

Massive waste of money

 

Uh, no.

The railroad doesn't admonish you to arrive at the station two hours before your train (add that to your travel time estimates and add at least another hour on the other end).

You don't have to take your shoes off and pull out your laptop to get on a train.

You check luggage on the train, and you don't get charged for it.

The train is far more specious and comfortable. You arrive much closer to your destination ,and if you're going to suburban office parks, you're driving your rental against traffic, and not in the jams.

High speed rail between a lot of business routes would make train travel far more desirable as the net travel time would be the same or less.

The terminal is often much closer to your destination than a remote airport.

You don't have to ride the shuttle from the parking lot or rental car facility to get to the terminal.

Travel some time. Then you'd realize how absurd your remarks really are!

BTW, I wonder why you keep going on about electrifying freight lines. Aside from teh fact that this would be impractical and very expensive in many parts of the country, I'm wondering what benefit it would generate.

I live besides what is now called the Northeast Regional. The Pennsylvania Railroad electrified those lines in teh 1930's. NO freight traffic is pulled by electric locomotives. Not one.

The electric lines are used exclusively by Amtrak.

The PRR actually took down a lot of their catenary wires on many of its lines, where there was little or no passenger service.

 

I had line by line responses prepared, but my net went down and I clicked submit without realizing. Ergo, I lost it.

The gist of it was these things are likely, in a much less severe form (read For a New Liberty), but I don't care. Voluntary interaction leading to consequences I dislike is irrelevant - that doesn't give me the right to go around forcing people into my view of the world.

Governments and people like yourself will continue to do so - fair enough, you disagree with me. I'm not trying to make everyone conform with my view of the world, quite the opposite. Coerce me all you like, I'll do my best to find ways around it. That's all I, or anyone, can really do.

 

I don't know what rollercoasters have to do with business travel. No one goes anywhere on a rollercoaster.

I suspect your S Fla versus Orlando commute argument would be quite a bit different if the the travel time was cut in half or two thirds. This is one of the many parts that the people who see the future in their rear view mirrors don't get.

 

I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make .

Government investments in infrastrucure don't take your freedom away, even if you don't have the vision to see the advantages of them.

Quite the opposite, they give you choices and opportunities that you didn't have before.

 

They are funded through my property without my consent. I dislike it when the robber does it, I dislike it when the government does it.

I couldn't care less if others condone it. I do not.

[hr][/hr]

I was a Progressive. I know exactly what you're taking about, I just find it irrelevant.

 

The United States has very high population densities along the coasts, and that is where high speed rail makes economic sense.
High speed rail (sort of), in the form of the Acela, Boston-New York-Washington, is the only part of Amtrak that turns a profit.
High Speed rail corridors save millions of barrels of oil, and the spending, spending a lot now to put it in place, and not much later to operate, fits our current economic situation perfectly. Do it now, when it can be financed with long term bonds at low rates, spend the money now to stimulate the economy, save the money later when the economy is moving nicely.

 

What lack of consent are you referring to? You consent by claiming to be a US citizen.

 

I am not a US citizen, I am an Australian.

In any case, I was born an Australian citizen. I had no say in the matter. I could give up my citizenship tomorrow and nothing would change, I would still be coerced.

The social contract is an absolute joke.

 

The time it would take was in the proposals, cost, ect. When you accounted for everything, you really didn't save that much time especially when you consider the convenience you lose without a car. People didn't care when its THEIR money and taxes getting raised to pay for it. No private businesses wanted to spend the money. Ask yourself why. Do the math for the cost of 4 tickets plus taxis or a rental car once you get to your destination. MOST will not be using it for work. An insignificant portion of people will use it for commuting, which leaves it mostly as a way to go to Disney and Universal. Even with the rail not everyone would choose to use it, so please predict the number of actual users, vs what it costs to build & maintain. Traffic up the Turnpike is not an issue what so ever. If you don't live here you simply don't have a clue.

 

This seems like a "universal truth":

 

what you're talking about is a regional matter, nothing like the national scale of the op. these are traditional commuter corridors that, in many cases, already have some sort of rail lines. while upgrading existing lines may, in many cases, serve some purpose, the creation of an entirely new network is foolhardy at best. california's current boondoggle is a perfect example of taking the entire high speed rail thing too far. in the places where it might do some limited good, the very high population density it would serve makes building such a project far too expensive and troublesome for the small amounts of travel time it would save.

the first question we should ask before sinking billions of dollars into such a project is whether the investment of the people's money serves some real purpose. high speed rail has been likened to the interstate system, bridges and dams, but this is not the case. those projects serve millions of people every day all across the country. they provide the energy that runs our industry and the routes by which the economic lifeblood of the nation can freely travel. high speed rail, by its very nature, is strictly a passenger oriented means of travel, designed to shave an hour here and there off of the time me waste going from one place to another. is it really worth the sort of massive investment necessary, just to service the relatively few passengers it would service, or would those tax dollars be better used elsewhere in our infrastructure?

the other supposedly positive aspect are the jobs such a project would bring. we have to ask once again what value would we gain by the investment. putting the nation to work is important, but it is senseless if it is just "busy work" to no meaningful end. such an investment is better used to improve our nation, not just to make us look cool on the international stage.

 

Well done.

See? Common sense people. Lets build keystone and kill high speed rail for now. Wait until one of these multi million dollar rail companies puts it in themselves instead of lobbying for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Well done.

See? Common sense people. Lets build keystone and kill high speed rail for now. Wait until Amtrack turns a profit before expanding passenger rail.

 

“The railroad doesn't admonish you to arrive at the station two hours before your train (add that to your travel time estimates and add at least another hour on the other end).

You don't have to take your shoes off and pull out your laptop to get on a train.”

Taxcutter says:
If high speed rail passenger service got to be more visible, terrorists would target it (they have in Europe) and TSA won’t be far behind. Frankly, I’m surprised that Middle Eastern terrorist don’t target US commuter lines. Big numbers of people (including lots of Jews) and barely any security. Looks like an easy target to me.



“You check luggage on the train, and you don't get charged for it.”

Taxcutter says:
No, not on 70 MPH Amtrak, but as speed goes up weight and volume begin to be premium parameters. Again, that will change. A TGV cannot be a type of a U-Haul.




“You arrive much closer to your destination…”

Taxcutter says:
Maybe. Maybe not. The train station may or may not be in the center of the city. Depends on where the high speed right-of-way goes. And even if it is in the center of the city, people have moved outward over the last seventy years.


“…you're driving your rental against traffic, and not in the jams.”

Taxcutter says:
Depends on the time of day. You might be right in the middle of rush hour.



“The terminal is often much closer to your destination than a remote airport.”

Taxcutter says:
Not necessarily true High speed rail will require rights of way that are suitable for high speed use. The Victorian rights of way in current use are have too many sharp curves. A new right of way requires a lot of land acquisition. The sheer cost of land acquisition in hyper-expensive real estate markets like the NYC area and the Bay Area guarantee your terminals won’t be in downtown Manhattan or on the Embarcadero. More like Yonkers.




“You don't have to ride the shuttle from the parking lot or rental car facility to get to the terminal.”

Taxcutter says:
How are you gonna manage that?



“Travel some time.”

Taxcutter says:
I am a shellback and a Golden Dragon. My passport is raggedy from use. I am a million-mile driver. I have seen ever permutation of motel room from the no-tell-motels to the Greenbrier. I’ve stayed at the Royal Hawaiian and had a drink at Raffle’s in Singapore. Can you say that?





“I wonder why you keep going on about electrifying freight lines. Aside from teh fact that this would be impractical and very expensive in many parts of the country, I'm wondering what benefit it would generate.”

Taxcutter says:
Benefits:
1. Faster freight trains. The locomotives are not limited by the power of their engines. Faster trains equal more capacity.
2. Electric railroads are not limited in their energy supply. Since their energy need not be portable, you could run them on coal, nuclear, natural gas, or hydro power. Also electrification allows dispatchers to use the energy of regenerative braking to be used. A train going downhill uses regenerative braking to slow its descent and puts the electricity into the catenary. This power is then sent to a train going uphill. The uphill train only needs 15% of energy the first train needed to climb the hill. Dispatchers keep the u[hill and downhill trains balance and hauling freight over the hill is far more energy efficient. Electrification of freight railroads would reduce US oil consumption by a quarter million barrels a day.
3. Electric locomotives require a fraction of the maintenance that diesel-electrics require.
4. Higher speed intermodal service would siphon a fair percentage of the long-haul trucks off the Interstates and onto rail cars.

Cost:
You could electrify all 30,000 miles of US freight railroads for less than the cost of a New York to LA high speed passenger line would cost. Electrification costs about $2 million per mile. As stated earlier, a high speed line would require a new right of way with many bridges and tunnels to keep the track straight and level enough for high speed service. The freight railroads already have their rights-of-way. All they would need is the electrical apparatus (power plants, substations, switchgear, and the catenary) and of course locomotives. Compared to high speed rail, electrification is a bargain.




“The Pennsylvania Railroad electrified those lines in teh 1930's. NO freight traffic is pulled by electric locomotives. Not one.”

Taxcutter says:
When the last of the GG-1s wrecked in the 70s, Conrail was too broke and their freight volume had shrunk to the point it was no longer economical to replace them. The GG-1s used 25 Hz power which was very exotic in the US in the 70s Since the Staggers Act, the railroads have comeback.


It is noteworthy that of all the bad decisions the old USSR made, they made one good one. They electrified every meter of the Trans-Siberian railroad. This quadrupled throughput. The Trans-Siberian is built to a 2% grade standard. The steepest grade on a US mainline is 0.5%.

 

The US version did get built in the form of the B-1 Bomber, obsolete before construction began, not capable of supersonic speeds(at supersonic speeds it couldn't reach Canada, let alone Russia,so that got designed out in favor of longer range, and it looks like a christmas tree on radar. It is good for bombing people who have no air defenses, but so is the B-52. The chief function of the B-1 bomber was to transfer federal funds to reliable GOP contributor North American Rockwell, (same with the space shuttle for that matter).


But there is a better example, "The Road to China", also know as the Transcontinental Railroad, way over budget, plagued by graft and corruption that tripled costs, it never served to provide the short cut from China to Europe that was it's original supposed purpose.
But it saved the government more than it cost long before it was completed and added millions to the federal treasury with reduced rates on federal freight for 75 years after completion.
High Speed Rail is just the grand vision to boost the US economy into the 22nd century.
First along the coast, where most of the American economy is, and later a couple of lines to Chicago.
The savings on oil would be tremendous, and it will spur the transition from 20th century automobile culture to the future great cities of the 22nd century

 

''

You need to live in a bananna republic. No first world nation operates the way you apparantly want it to.