# Choo choo's



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This is dead-on right:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

One of the biggest non-defense wastes of coin in the past 100 years of the republic.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I know we discussed this before, but thanks for posting. 

High speed rail is such a wet dream for some. I'm not sure what the appeal is, especially as there is ample mass transport available in the northeast corridor.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Article~


> But as Mr. Obama's second term nears an end, some experts say the president's words were a fantasy.


"Experts??"

You need to be an expert to figure that out??


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

We've got the same kind of pointless and phenomenally expensive vanity projects going on in the UK, "Crossrail" being one, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail and "High Speed 2" the other, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2 .
I have nothing against railways, but building new ones that aren't a necessity at enormous cost is something that I can't support.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I know we discussed this before, but thanks for posting.
> 
> High speed rail is such a wet dream for some. I'm not sure what the appeal is, especially as there is ample mass transport available in the northeast corridor.


Yes, I know, but I was too lazy to look up the thread. Thanks for understanding.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

When the POTUS starts to pull in the big money from speeches and book sales, and starts his "foundation" he can solicit for private funds to build high speed rail. No doubt he will contribute his speaking fees to seeing his dream come tried. 

Let's see how enthusiastic private capital will be to pony up for high speed rail.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

That nasty private filthy lucre would only stink up the nice choo-choo.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> When the POTUS starts to pull in the big money from speeches and book sales, and starts his "foundation" he can solicit for private funds to build high speed rail. No doubt he will contribute his speaking fees to seeing his dream come tried.
> 
> Let's see how enthusiastic private capital will be to pony up for high speed rail.


There was some sort of private effort to build HSR between LA and Vegas. Yeah, sure. The media, at least most of the media, treated it as a serious endeavor. I think the great-great grandson of PT Barnum was CEO.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

His partner was the great grandson of Charles Ponzi.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I would love for the US to develop high-speed rails. Our passenger rail system is terrible and the Acela is a joke. It would be great for the economies of many cities in the Northeast. The current system is far worse than most people think.
It's extremely difficult for private companies to do without government help for a variety of reasons, including the ROW limitations.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> This is dead-on right:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
> 
> One of the biggest non-defense wastes of coin in the past 100 years of the republic.


I tend to agree. But I could be wrong.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> I tend to agree. But I could be wrong.


You are not.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> I would love for the US to develop high-speed rails. Our passenger rail system is terrible and the Acela is a joke. It would be great for the economies of many cities in the Northeast. The current system is far worse than most people think.
> It's extremely difficult for private companies to do without government help for a variety of reasons, including the ROW limitations.


I hate to do this, but I will do this...

I would love for Skittles to fall from the sky--if only the government would fund it, we could make it happen. Because our passenger rail system is terrible, I take the bus. Or a plane. Or drive my car. All three options are cheaper/faster than choo choo's, at least everyplace outside the Northeast Corridor. I think that it would be great for the economies of cities to have a lot of federal money pumped into projects that cannot come close to paying for themselves--oh wait, that already happens.

The point of the original NYT piece is that $11 billion has been flushed down the toilet toward rail projects that cannot possibly succeed. The other point was, if the money had been concentrated in one area, say the Acela, it might have had a chance. I'm not sure about that. I do know that rail and freight cannot share the same track and have any hope of success (unless you are the freight company that owns and so controls the track), and that is what we have been throwing money at, to the eternal giddiness of Union Pacific et al that have benefited from this drunken sailor's acid trip.

With HSR, we are solving a problem that does not exist in the United States, which has the best transportation system on the planet. Why is there so much trouble understanding this?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

*Why is there so much trouble understanding this?*

Because lots of folks hear of a government 'transportation'(and/or fillintheblank) program and assume it has as its primary function and goal, the transportation of goods,services and passengers. Rather than the simple purchasing of votes and gaining power.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> I hate to do this, but I will do this...
> 
> I would love for Skittles to fall from the sky--if only the government would fund it, we could make it happen. Because our passenger rail system is terrible, I take the bus. Or a plane. Or drive my car. All three options are cheaper/faster than choo choo's, at least everyplace outside the Northeast Corridor. I think that it would be great for the economies of cities to have a lot of federal money pumped into projects that cannot come close to paying for themselves--oh wait, that already happens.
> 
> ...


Strange answer to say the least. A few responses:

1) Hard to see how Skittles from the sky would improve the economy or provide other social benefits, such as a high-speed transportation system. The government plays a massive more in transportation of most types (including planes, buses and cars), and even conservative leaning people are generally supportive of this role in government in infrastructure.

2) You'd be hard pressed to find many government projects that pay for themselves. That doesn't inherently mean that the project is flawed. You need to consider the other benefits of the project. Take defense spending as an example. Projects that promote economic growth can have a net positive economic impact even if the project doesn't pay for itself.

3) Where are you coming up with your statement that transportation isn't a problem in the United States or that the United States has the best transportation on the planet? I assure you that there are better transportation systems in many places (e.g., look at parts of Europe), and that transportation could very much be improved in the United States. Whether or not transportation is a "problem" is in the eye of the beholder.

4) I don't see the relevance of your statement that you take a bus, plane or car because they are faster than a train. Are you stating that as a reason to not have trains? If there were high speed trains in the United then those options may or may not be faster depending on your particular destination and travel plans.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> Strange answer to say the least. A few responses:
> 
> 1) Hard to see how Skittles from the sky would improve the economy or provide other social benefits, such as a high-speed transportation system. The government plays a massive more in transportation of most types (including planes, buses and cars), and even conservative leaning people are generally supportive of this role in government in infrastructure.
> 
> ...


Of course the government plays a role in transportation of many kinds, including road, air and rail. And that is all well and good--without government money, these systems could not exist. Where the problem lies, leastways so far as I think, is that government funded HSR is plugging a hole that doesn't exist. Let's take the St. Louis-Chicago corridor, where I live, as an example. The federal government has spent $1.1 billion in HSR grants to improve the tracks that remain in private (Union Pacific) ownership--indeed, the money, or most all of it, was simply handed over to UP to do the improvements because the government had no right to go onto private property to do the work itself. With these improvements, it is still cheaper to take a bus between these two cities and it takes, within ten minutes or so, the same amount of time. Don't trust me, look it up yourself--the schedules and fares are easily obtainable via the Internet. If you don't want to take a train, you can fly, which takes less time, although it does cost more money. If you don't want to fly or take a train or take a bus, you can drive, and the drive takes about the same amount of time as the train, and for about the same amount of money if the cost of parking in Chicago isn't factored in (and if you are headed south, it's a non sequiter). If I take my wife (or anyone else) as a passenger in a car, it costs much less to make the drive than it does to take the train. That's what I'm talking about when I say we are paying to fill a hole that doesn't exist. Now, the trains are full--absolutely, they are. But at what cost? They are full because a choo choo is nicer, cooler than a bus, or, especially for a single traveler, than a car. But I don't think that is a wise use of my tax money. Why should the government give $1.1 billion to UP to improve UP tracks on a corridor with no shortage of traveling options so that single travelers can have yet another option that is square in the middle of price options? And let's not forget: The tracks belong to UP. Should UP decide to increase freight traffic on that corridor, passenger trains will be crowded out and delayed so that any time advantage purchased with $1.1 billion will go out the window, and there is not a blessed thing that the government can do about that. I'm not exaggerating. You can look this up yourself.

Obama hails from Chicago. He was a legislator in Springfield, equi-distant between St. Louis and Chicago. Surely he knows the math on this as well as I do, and as I have just laid out. Yet he spent--flushed--the money anyway. That, in my book, is the definition of "indefensible."

You have posed a number of questions, but I think that the above about covers the waterfront. Any questions?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I do, myself, enjoy traveling by train. But I have no problem waiting until my next European vacation to put that enjoyment into action.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Light rail ,not hi speed but it fits;

You know the adage, "When you're in a hole, stop digging"? TriMet has revised it to: "When you're in a hole, build more light rail." Despite its financial distress, TriMet now plans to build another MAX line, its most expensive yet. Construction is slated to begin this summer on a segment connecting Portland and Milwaukie, a sleepy town of 20,000. The price tag: $1.5 billion. As the line would stretch only 7.3 miles, *the cost per mile would be a little more than $200 million.* The federal government has agreed to foot half the bill, and TriMet plans to fund most of the rest by floating $724 million in bonds

https://spectator.org/articles/38027/portland-going-nowhere


Bear in mind Portland is surrounded by freeways, in most cases the light rail lines parallel them. Buses can use the freeways and side streets and arterials .Buses an alter their routs instantly.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

We're brought up to believe that statesmen listen to (in this case) well informed transportation planners, pass a specific bill authorizing a single thing (high speed rail line), a specific bill authorizing dedicated funds for that sole project, and place it in the hands of competent engineering types to complete, with open and fair bidding by qualified contractors. If you read that whole sentence without laughing or choking, you're a better man than I am.

The transportation planners are probably the only bunch who do a good and objective job, and who then watch it go to hell on a caboose. The bill gets amended to include every crossing highway, parking lots, shuttles, and who knows what else that might be remotely tied to the rail line (or not: you can amend any bill with anything, apparently). Then the n_ecessary _funding is cut, but $$ is added back to cover some kind of peripheral stuff that a political contributor can make some money from. Then the engineers are told to adjust the route through or around certain properties, depending on which campaign contributor owns what. Then some "statesman" hears from one of his contractor-contributors that the $$ bypassed him, or some union wasn't brought in (this is getting more rare, but still extant) and some obscure House or Senate rule is used by a single person to scuttle the whole damned thing unless the dollars get to the "right" place.

Is there anyone here who hasn't seen this exact scenario played out in their own locality or state? If so, let me know, I might think about relocating.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^

The phenomenon you describe plays out in all arenas, not just transportation. It is difficult to know whom to believe or trust because most everyone has skin in the game and paid spin artists to advance their cause, and it is made even worse in the realm of transportation because of this absurd infatuation with choo choo's. It should be very simple: We should be investing money for mass transit in areas that suffer from gridlock. Instead, we dole money out so that this congressional delegation gets a little and that congressional delegation gets a little and the other congressional delegation gets a little more, with the end result being that no problems get solved. With the HSR stimulus, it is hard to even make the argument that it increased employment in any significant sense. The money went to private railroads that already had workers--I doubt they hired anyone with the money, they just put off other work while spending taxpayer funds. I would not have minded this so much if there had been truth in advertising. HSR, at least around here, is a subsidy for freight railroads. Now, government subsidizes all kinds of freight transportation, and that's fine. But don't tell me that giving a $1 billion check to a freight railroad company to make track improvements isn't a subsidy. We can debate the merits of doing that, but to call it high speed rail when I can make the drive in a car in the same amount of time is insulting the intelligence of the body politic.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I don't know the details of these particular projects, but the ineffective or wasteful implementation of funds towards rail development in one context certainly doesn't per se mean that developing rail transportion in another context is inappropriate.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Rail makes sense for freight, which appears to be working fine for now. 

Otherwise, light commuter rail that serves a particular metropolitan area (Chicago, New York, etc.) is understandable. But the notion of high speed rail, particularly interstate makes no sense whatsoever as there just is no demand for it.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I think you might be surprised by the level of demand if the pricing was reasonable.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Rail makes sense for freight, which appears to be working fine for now.
> 
> Otherwise, light commuter rail that serves a particular metropolitan area (Chicago, New York, etc.) is understandable. But the notion of high speed rail, particularly interstate makes no sense whatsoever as there just is no demand for it.


If the infrastructure exists, ie if the track is already laid, it would make sense to make more use of it. Building new lines is a different situation.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> I think you might be surprised by the level of demand if the pricing was reasonable.


You would be surprised by the level of demand for Kobe beef if the pricing was reasonable.

Are you suggesting that the government spend upwards of $500 billion (and that's a conservative figure) in upfront capital costs to create a nascent inter-state HSR system and then subsidize operations--like virtually every other nation with HSR--to make riding these rails economically attractive when the interstate highway system and air transportation system are working perfectly fine. Seriously?

News flash: Money does not grow on trees.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

pleasehelp said:


> I think you might be surprised by the level of demand if the pricing was reasonable.


If only that were so for poetry, bagpipe music and opinions!!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*Train Journey with Sir John Betjeman*

Slightly off-topic, but I like listening to these old recordings of Betjeman. Here he is describing a journey I made in my childhood, or something very like that.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> I think you might be surprised by the level of demand if the pricing was reasonable.


Therein is the rub! It would necessarily have to be subsidized, much like Amtrak. So affordable? Perhaps at first glance, but at what cost to the tax payers?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

32rollandrock said:


> ... the interstate highway system ... are working perfectly fine.


They may not continue to do so if the cowards in Congress continue to delay raising fuel taxes to pay for maintenance, though.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MaxBuck said:


> They may not continue to do so if the cowards in Congress continue to delay raising fuel taxes to pay for maintenance, though.


I'd be more pleased if the tax remained level but the funding for bonehead new projects were ended to help maintain existing infrastructure.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> You would be surprised by the level of demand for Kobe beef if the pricing was reasonable.
> 
> Are you suggesting that the government spend upwards of $500 billion (and that's a conservative figure) in upfront capital costs to create a nascent inter-state HSR system and then subsidize operations--like virtually every other nation with HSR--to make riding these rails economically attractive when the interstate highway system and air transportation system are working perfectly fine. Seriously?
> 
> News flash: Money does not grow on trees.


Demand for Kobe beef is quite high.
The cost of the project will depend on the particulars of the system. I'm saying that it should be evaluated. A proper high speed rail system would have a widespread impact.
You're stating that the highway systems and air transportation systems are working perfectly fine. I don't know what you mean by that. There are major bottlenecks and shortcomings in our current infrastructure that causes a variety of problems. I don't claim to have quantified those problems, or the exact monetary benefit of improving upon them, but it is something that I would be interested in seeing. If there was a proper high speed rail from NYC to Boston, Washington DC, Chicago and, to a lesser degree, upstate NY, I suspect that it would be used heavily. I don't know whether the costs are worth the benefits without more research. I personally would use it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It was more than $1.1 billion for less than 200 miles between St. Louis and Chicago for a system that doesn't work--no faster than driving or taking the bus and just as expensive, if not more, plus a subsidy on top of this. It is 3,000 miles from New York to Los Angeles. Extrapolate.



pleasehelp said:


> Demand for Kobe beef is quite high.
> The cost of the project will depend on the particulars of the system. I'm saying that it should be evaluated. A proper high speed rail system would have a widespread impact.
> You're stating that the highway systems and air transportation systems are working perfectly fine. I don't know what you mean by that. There are major bottlenecks and shortcomings in our current infrastructure that causes a variety of problems. I don't claim to have quantified those problems, or the exact monetary benefit of improving upon them, but it is something that I would be interested in seeing. If there was a proper high speed rail from NYC to Boston, Washington DC, Chicago and, to a lesser degree, upstate NY, I suspect that it would be used heavily. I don't know whether the costs are worth the benefits without more research. I personally would use it.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

It's not that I disagree with High Speed Rail in some area, it's just that I can no longer trust *any* Federal or State legislature to pass a* specific* bill to create a *specifi*c thing (e.g., HSR) with *dedicated* funding that is *efficiently* allocated. What finally comes out of the two houses' "reconciliation committee" is a disjointed hodge-podge of semi- and un-related crap, that's basically a pot of money to dole out.

(Short version of previous screed)


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Slightly off-topic, but I like listening to these old recordings of Betjeman. Here he is describing a journey I made in my childhood, or something very like that.


Thanks for posting this, I really enjoyed watching it.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'd be more pleased if the tax remained level but the funding for bonehead new projects were ended to help maintain existing infrastructure.


Yeah, the problem is that the tax hasn't remained level. As vehicles get more and more miles per gallon, the actual number of dollars raised per capita by the tax drops. That isn't a recipe for maintaining funding.

I'd be curious to know what "boneheaded projects" you're referring to. Is a good example the "road to nowhere" built in Sarah Palin's Alaska?


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Yeah, the problem is that the tax hasn't remained level. As vehicles get more and more miles per gallon, the actual number of dollars raised per capita by the tax drops. That isn't a recipe for maintaining funding.
> 
> I'd be curious to know what "boneheaded projects" you're referring to. Is a good example the "road to nowhere" built in Sarah Palin's Alaska?


Actually a good example is the new,just opened this week, $50,000,000 reader boards from ODOT we now have all over he Portland metro area informing drivers of ODOT's guess of how long it might take to go from point A to point B.

Too bad none of the local radio or TV stations had traffic reports, if they had all the same information would have been provided by advertisers.

The Portland Tram is by comparison a gem. It costs $4.00 to ride from the SW Waterfront to the OHSU facility 500' above. The $12.000,000 project will take some time to pay for itself though,especially since the final tally was $64,000,000. Portland paid a fraction while OHSU paid most of the rest.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> It's not that I disagree with High Speed Rail in some area, it's just that I can no longer trust *any* Federal or State legislature to pass a* specific* bill to create a *specifi*c thing (e.g., HSR) with *dedicated* funding that is *efficiently* allocated. What finally comes out of the two houses' "reconciliation committee" is a disjointed hodge-podge of semi- and un-related crap, that's basically a pot of money to dole out.
> 
> (Short version of previous screed)


This is a different issue, but it is an unforunate reality and a reasonable conclusion based upon ample evidence. However, I'd suggest that the focus should be on criticizing/remedying the underlying ineptitude in the process rather than the projects themselves.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

The reason that the "high-speed rail" (it will NEVER equate the rest of the world's) or any form of rail is bad in the U.S. compared to the rest of the world is quite simply because nobody would ride it; America and its economy been hooked on automobiles and airplanes for the past 70 years, and will most likely continue to be for the next 70 years. Had the freeways not been built, we would have the fastest and best trains in the world (and I guess this thread wouldn't have existed), as our technological growth in rail was in its prime before WWII, ending when railroads did not have enough money to replace tracks and develop new locomotive and freight cars; the Penn Central (merge of the Pennsylvania, New Haven, and New York Central) made gondolas from box cars, and used decrepit locomotives and passenger cars that were then 40+ years old!

Instead, we have cement roads for steel tracks; and no independent passenger carriers; before Amtrak (I hate it so), there were more than 30 railroads operating both freight and passenger services. Now we have about 5 freight carriers, and a wretched "nationalized" passenger service that has not improved in its 40+ years of existence.

It's just not worth the effort to reconstruct the rail infrastructure unless if the majority of Americans (excluding the NE) will actually use it as a regular means of travel.

-Quetzal


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Have we even covered the fact that tele-conferencing has become so sophisticated that the former need for people to go routinely, e.g., DC to NYC, or Boston-Phila. has been drastically reduced? Or that a lot of company HQs and operations are now out in the 'burbs, and getting to and from center city train stations has become far less convenient than when everything was downtown?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

I offer but two comments for your consideration:

1) The debate(s) that continue in earlier postings to this thread seem to totally disregard or perhaps overlook an aspect of rail travel in the US vs such travel in Europe, Japan, etc. The scale of the undertaking in the US is much greater and the costs associated with such undertakings are going to be much greater than in many of the competing locations that have been lauded for past and present day successes. Hell, it takes longer to drive across the state of Texas than it does to drive across all of Europe! Longer runs equate to much higher initial construction and ongoing maintenance costs.

2) Our criticisms of rail travel as being slower, more costly, etc, totally overlook the charm and luxury of cross country rail travel for those choosing, if only for a short time, to slow down and enjoy the experience...one that cannot be matched by air travel or travel by automobile. How many have had the opportunity to experience a sleeper compartment or the luxury of a sit down meal on a train? The wife and I haven't done such in a long time, but past experience has left us with enduring memories!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> I offer but two comments for your consideration:
> 
> 1) The debate(s) that continue in earlier postings to this thread seem to totally disregard or perhaps overlook an aspect of rail travel in the US vs such travel in Europe, Japan, etc. The scale of the undertaking in the US is much greater and the costs associated with such undertakings are going to be much greater than in many of the competing locations that have been lauded for past and present day successes. Hell, it takes longer to drive across the state of Texas than it does to drive across all of Europe! Longer runs equate to much higher initial construction and ongoing maintenance costs.
> 
> 2) *Our criticisms of rail travel as being slower, more costly, etc, totally overlook the charm and luxury of cross country rail travel for those choosing, if only for a short time, to slow down and enjoy the experience.*..one that cannot be matched by air travel or travel by automobile. How many have had the opportunity to experience a sleeper compartment or the luxury of a sit down meal on a train? The wife and I haven't done such in a long time, but past experience has left us with enduring memories!


The problem, of course, is paying for it. I think that you can still take Amtrak across the country if you enjoy giving a snail a run for his money. I think that there might also be sleeper units available, but I'm not sure on that point. HSR is entirely different, of course.

The more I think about it, the more I think that we should abolish Amtrak (sorry) for most inter-city travel. Keep it on the Northeast Corridor (where enough people ride it that it does not require an operating subsidy), but there's no reason for passenger train service between, say, Seattle and New York. It may be quaint and lovely, but it is dreadfully expensive for taxpayers, most of whom will never go near a train. There are currently plenty of alternatives for a trans continental journey, ranging from bus to jet airplane, that fit every budget. Why throw taxpayer subsidized trains into the mix when the private sector already has it covered?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Of course the points you have made are valid, but cross country train runs offer a level of charm and yes, comfort, that is just not matched by automobiles or airplanes, just as an ocean liner is a preferred option for some crossing the pond, enroute to European destinations and points further east. While I agree with your point that the private sector should take the lead, such is not always feasible and not always in the best interest of the public. Given Russian President Putin's recent comments/warnings to the west about strategic capabilities, perhaps it is time for the US to reconsider the deployment of rail mobile ICBM's!


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

phyrpowr said:


> Have we even covered the fact that tele-conferencing has become so sophisticated that the former need for people to go routinely, e.g., DC to NYC, or Boston-Phila. has been drastically reduced? Or that a lot of company HQs and operations are now out in the 'burbs, and getting to and from center city train stations has become far less convenient than when everything was downtown?


You've stated a very good point; as the majority of white-collar Americans live in the Suburbs since the end of WWII, more companies have felt that is is convenient to have operations in the location of their employees, hence the reduction of constant cross-country travel.

Once again, this is because of the automobile; America is addicted to gasoline (this is not an environmental argument; rather one of history), and those of us who know cities know that it is a bad idea to drive and own a car in such an environment. The suburbs cater to automobiles, while walking and public transportation (I hate buses; I wish cities still had streetcars or at least a form of public transportation that the average person would WANT to ride) is preferable for cities, but of course, nearly all Americans, regardless of environment prefer cars, and worse, trucks.

-Quetzal


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> The problem, of course, is paying for it. I think that you can still take Amtrak across the country if you enjoy giving a snail a run for his money. I think that there might also be sleeper units available, but I'm not sure on that point. HSR is entirely different, of course.
> 
> The more I think about it, the more I think that we should abolish Amtrak (sorry) for most inter-city travel. Keep it on the Northeast Corridor (where enough people ride it that it does not require an operating subsidy), but there's no reason for passenger train service between, say, Seattle and New York. It may be quaint and lovely, but it is dreadfully expensive for taxpayers, most of whom will never go near a train. There are currently plenty of alternatives for a trans continental journey, ranging from bus to jet airplane, that fit every budget. Why throw taxpayer subsidized trains into the mix when the private sector already has it covered?


Precisely. If Americans were to realize that trains are much better than automobiles and live in the cities instead of distant suburbs (with less cars, people would also walk more, and not have as many ridiculous health issues. Look at the rest of the Western world, particularly Europe, and compare), then it would be worth the effort to rebuild the rails that were replaced by freeways. If trains were still common (so common that Amtrak wouldn't have been created in 1972) and glamorous (the "Red Carpet Treatment" was originally a commodity of the New York Central's New York City-Chicago 20th Century Limited, not a Hollywood invention), then taxpayers would not need to pay taxes on trains; they were once all independent companies.

Alas, history doesn't work that way; the likelihood of trains being the majority of transportation with 30+ passenger & freight lines that one would want to ride is the same as having every white-collar American man wearing a suit and the proper accompaniments to work again.

-Quetzal


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Of course the points you have made are valid, but cross country train runs offer a level of charm and yes, comfort, that is just not matched by automobiles or airplanes, just as an ocean liner is a preferred option for some crossing the pond, enroute to European destinations and points further east. While I agree with your point that the private sector should take the lead, such is not always feasible and not always in the best interest of the public. Given Russian President Putin's recent comments/warnings to the west about strategic capabilities, perhaps it is time for the US to reconsider the deployment of rail mobile ICBM's!


What I would give to take an Ocean Liner across the oceans instead of a plane; even though I'm currently small, my long legs (33"!) are always cramped, and I feel as though we're all treated like peas in a pea pod in airplanes.

-Quetzal


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^Of course the points you have made are valid, but cross country train runs offer a level of charm and yes, comfort, that is just not matched by automobiles or airplanes, just as an ocean liner is a preferred option for some crossing the pond, enroute to European destinations and points further east. While I agree with your point that the private sector should take the lead, such is not always feasible and not always in the best interest of the public. Given Russian President Putin's recent comments/warnings to the west about strategic capabilities, perhaps it is time for the US to reconsider the deployment of rail mobile ICBM's!


So, you're saying that taxpayers should continue subsidizing inter-city rail service beyond the Northeast Corridor?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Given the right set of circumstances, yes. Otherwise, no!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Your tax dollars at work: 

Now, this isn't the end of the world, or even close--after all, it's just $21,600 in giveaways (free ticket and sleeping berth for each person valued at $900 per). But that's not the point. I am all for the arts. PBS has my full support, as does the National Arts Council and lots of others. But Amtrak subsidizing novelists and story writers to produce "writing projects of their own choice?" It's a good thing the agency is flush with cash.

Crazy.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

I'm getting the sense that most of the posters in this thread don't spend much time moving around the Northeastern United States. Trains are quite popular and would be moreso if there was a high-speed option. I know very few people that would continue to use the shuttle flights among Boston, NYC and DC if there was a proper high-speed rail option.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> I'm getting the sense that most of the posters in this thread don't spend much time moving around the Northeastern United States. Trains are quite popular and would be moreso if there was a high-speed option. I know very few people that would continue to use the shuttle flights among Boston, NYC and DC if there was a proper high-speed rail option.


Are you saying that taxpayers should be subsidizing the cost of high-speed travel between NYC and DC so that people who can now afford to fly will benefit? Do you realize just how expensive it would be? Acquisition costs for a right-of-way alone would be staggering.

The Northeast Corridor is the only place in the nation where rail travel is not subsidized. It takes that kind of population density to make it work. What we are objecting to is spending billions and billions on rail service between places where there are already plenty of transportation options ranging from bus to jet aircraft. Sure, it might be nice to take a train across the country, hang out in the club car, get a sleeping berth, etc., but no one--no one--would buy a ticket if revenue from passengers had to pay the full, true cost. Same thing with true high-speed rail service between NYC and DC. No one would buy a ticket if all the costs had to come from passengers. It would be cost prohibitive.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Are you saying that taxpayers should be subsidizing the cost of high-speed travel between NYC and DC so that people who can now afford to fly will benefit? Do you realize just how expensive it would be? Acquisition costs for a right-of-way alone would be staggering.
> 
> The Northeast Corridor is the only place in the nation where rail travel is not subsidized. It takes that kind of population density to make it work. What we are objecting to is spending billions and billions on rail service between places where there are already plenty of transportation options ranging from bus to jet aircraft. Sure, it might be nice to take a train across the country, hang out in the club car, get a sleeping berth, etc., but no one--no one--would buy a ticket if revenue from passengers had to pay the full, true cost. Same thing with true high-speed rail service between NYC and DC. No one would buy a ticket if all the costs had to come from passengers. It would be cost prohibitive.


I said that demand for the line between Boston and NYC, and between NYC and DC already has high demand, and that it would increase further with high speed rail.

Whether or not highspeed rail should span the entire country is something that would need to be analyzed further. You are jumping to conclusions about the cost, usage, method of payment, etc., but those things are all variables that would need to be analyzed. Furthermore, the various benefits and detriments would need to be assessed. For example,the impact on the labor force, travel safety, real estate values, different traffic patterns, other ancillary development, etc.

You obviously have a negative emotional reaction to the mere concept. That's fine for you to feel however you want about it.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> I said that demand for the line between Boston and NYC, and between NYC and DC already has high demand, and that it would increase further with high speed rail.
> 
> Whether or not highspeed rail should span the entire country is something that would need to be analyzed further. You are jumping to conclusions about the cost, usage, method of payment, etc., but those things are all variables that would need to be analyzed. Furthermore, the various benefits and detriments would need to be assessed. For example,the impact on the labor force, travel safety, real estate values, different traffic patterns, other ancillary development, etc.
> 
> You obviously have a negative emotional reaction to the mere concept. That's fine for you to feel however you want about it.


No, I have an economic reaction to it. If you think that spending tens of billions of dollars in upfront capital expenses to establish a high-speed rail line between DC and NYC is a good idea, then find someone in the private sector who will pay for it. While you're at it, find someone who will also absorb the operating losses, because experience has shown that these lines can't pay for themselves. They're subsidized in both Europe and Asia. I would prefer that finite resources be spent on more practical things, such as repairing the roads, bridges and sewers that are crumbling all around us while we flush billions down the high-speed rail toilet.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> No, I have an economic reaction to it. If you think that spending tens of billions of dollars in upfront capital expenses to establish a high-speed rail line between DC and NYC is a good idea, then find someone in the private sector who will pay for it. While you're at it, find someone who will also absorb the operating losses, because experience has shown that these lines can't pay for themselves. They're subsidized in both Europe and Asia. I would prefer that finite resources be spent on more practical things, such as repairing the roads, bridges and sewers that are crumbling all around us while we flush billions down the high-speed rail toilet.


What studies are you referring to guide your "economic reaction?" Very few transportation infrastructure projects pay for themselves if you are only looking at direct revenue applied against direct costs. This obviously includes most roads, bridges and sewers. Therefore, any credible economic study would need to look at the project in a broad sense, with respect to both the costs and benefits.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> What studies are you referring to guide your "economic reaction?" Very few transportation infrastructure projects pay for themselves if you are only looking at direct revenue applied against direct costs. This obviously includes most roads, bridges and sewers. Therefore, any credible economic study would need to look at the project in a broad sense, with respect to both the costs and benefits.


I can live without a fast choo choo. Try living without a sewer.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> I can live without a fast choo choo. Try living without a sewer.


The mere fact that you can live without something does not mean that it is not a worthy infrastructure project.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

pleasehelp said:


> The mere fact that you can live without something does not mean that it is not a worthy infrastructure project.


No, but it sure is a convincing argument!!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> The mere fact that you can live without something does not mean that it is not a worthy infrastructure project.


Worthy of what?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

32rollandrock said:


> I can live without a fast choo choo. Try living without a sewer.


LOL. They taught us how to dig a "field latrine" back in the day. However, when burning your scat, make sure your crib is not downwind of the operation. Would you like a copy of the field manual?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. They taught us how to dig a "field latrine" back in the day. However, when burning your scat, make sure your crib is not downwind of the operation. Would you like a copy of the field manual?


Actually, I would. I can see it coming in handy in many respects--when in doubt about important questions of any sort, consult the manual and answer like Chance the Gardener.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Worthy of what?


Worthy of consideration for potential development.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^For what purpose? Building a zoo is also worthy of consideration.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^For what purpose? Building a zoo is also worthy of consideration.


Whether it is a net benefit. The components on the costs/benefits and relative values are obviously complicated (and some of them are subjective).


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I couldn't agree more. But the advocates for high speed rail, or any other large infrastructure project, rarely will pose it as such. 

Instead they will over-inflate the benefit, downplay the cost (does anyone remember the "Big Dig" or Millenium Park in Chicago?) and most importantly misrepresent where the funding will come from. 

To date, I don't think anyone has really indicated the benefit of high speed rail. I mean the real public interest benefit beyond being able to get to Milwaukee 30-45 min. sooner than by regular rail.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> To date, I don't think anyone has really indicated the benefit of high speed rail. I mean the real public interest benefit beyond being able to get to Milwaukee 30-45 min. sooner than by regular rail.


Shovel ready projects like this will get America working again, make us more competitive in the 21st Century economy, and save the planet thru reduced emissions.

Just like the new Olive Garden.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I couldn't agree more. But the advocates for high speed rail, or any other large infrastructure project, rarely will pose it as such.
> 
> Instead they will over-inflate the benefit, downplay the cost (does anyone remember the "Big Dig" or Millenium Park in Chicago?) and most importantly misrepresent where the funding will come from.
> 
> To date, I don't think anyone has really indicated the benefit of high speed rail. I mean the real public interest benefit beyond being able to get to Milwaukee 30-45 min. sooner than by regular rail.


There are a variety of potential public interest benefits, although a lot of it depends on where the lines run, the speed and the cost. Some easy examples:

1) It could make towns that are currently impractically far away from a city into a viable place to live, thereby allowing people to enjoy a higher quality of life.

2) Decrease traffic in the skies and on the ground.

3) Increase the ability of certain suffering cities to offer accessible services. For example, Baltimore might be able to better serve certain business needs of neighboring cities.

4) If properly applied for freight, it could help improve the serious logistics problem our country is facing for commercial hauling.

5) Decrease travel time and thereby increase productivity.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Do we have problems with this now?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> There are a variety of potential public interest benefits, although a lot of it depends on where the lines run, the speed and the cost. Some easy examples:
> 
> 1) It could make towns that are currently impractically far away from a city into a viable place to live, thereby allowing people to enjoy a higher quality of life.
> 
> ...


Huh? Show me a single place on the planet that has high-speed rail for freight.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ Do we have problems with this now?


Yes. That's obviously just a sample list.
That's not to say that the project is necessarily viable. Requires a lot of analysis.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Huh? Show me a single place on the planet that has high-speed rail for freight.


With all due respect, I don't have the time to explain this but the information is readily available. You've made your passion against the concept of high speed rail well-known.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> Yes. That's obviously just a sample list.
> That's not to say that the project is necessarily viable. Requires a lot of analysis.


Though you seem to have skipped over the analysis part and already stated problems for which high speed rail is the solution.

There is "ZERO" need for high speed rail in this country. Furthermore, there is very little appetite for it on the part of taxpayers. High speed rail would require new rail, admittedly, as the current infrastructure wouldn't support the technology. Who wants to be the pol that starts to declare eminent domain over farmland? Who wants to be the one to go against the Sierra Club and other environmental groups when some frog needs to be displaced?

High speed rail would by necessity be subsidized heavily, like Amtrak. It would just turn into a boondoggle and become a money pit into which tax dollars will be poured into. If there was so much money in it, private capital would be flowing into it. There's not. That tells you there's no money or profit in it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

pleasehelp said:


> Yes. That's obviously just a sample list.
> That's not to say that the project is necessarily viable. Requires a lot of analysis.


Something tells me you are just the man we need to hire to do the analysis!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> With all due respect, I don't have the time to explain this but the information is readily available. You've made your passion against the concept of high speed rail well-known.


Due respect, but I think you owe at least a link. I've read quite a bit on high speed rail. I'm very familiar with the concept, and the cost, in the United States--in fact, I've read the entire grant proposal for HSR submitted to the feds by the state of Illinois four or so years ago. I've also read a fair amount about systems in Spain, France and Japan.

If the information is readily available, as you say, then you should be able to simply post a link. I'd be very interested. I think that my opinions on HSR are considered ones based on reading and research--again, I have read the entire grant application for HSR in Illinois that resulted in a federal grant of more than $1 billion. If there were such a thing as high speed rail for freight, then I should think I would have stumbled across it by now.

I'd be stunned if there were such a thing. Why? Because, once again, the cost of HSR is astronomical--there is no way that freight charges could pay back the upfront capital and ongoing operating costs, so it would have to be subsidized by the government. And keep in mind that you cannot operate both freight and passenger trains on the same lines. The United States is the only industrialized nation that tries, and it has not worked.

But I digress. A link, please.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> Yes. That's obviously just a sample list.
> That's not to say that the project is necessarily viable. Requires a lot of analysis.


So, what you're saying is, you don't know whether it would work or not, you're just coming up with stuff that you think sounds good. That's what I'm hearing.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> So, what you're saying is, you don't know whether it would work or not, you're just coming up with stuff that you think sounds good. That's what I'm hearing.


You can decide to hear whatever you choose, but that's not what I'm communicating. All of those things I listed are positives of an enhanced rails system (including high speed rail). There are many others which I did not list, and I did not list the costs. 
I don't know whether benefits are worth it relative to the costs, and I can't know without studies/details about the particulars and alternatives, and neither do you (despite what you might think).


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Due respect, but I think you owe at least a link. I've read quite a bit on high speed rail. I'm very familiar with the concept, and the cost, in the United States--in fact, I've read the entire grant proposal for HSR submitted to the feds by the state of Illinois four or so years ago. I've also read a fair amount about systems in Spain, France and Japan.
> 
> If the information is readily available, as you say, then you should be able to simply post a link. I'd be very interested. I think that my opinions on HSR are considered ones based on reading and research--again, I have read the entire grant application for HSR in Illinois that resulted in a federal grant of more than $1 billion. If there were such a thing as high speed rail for freight, then I should think I would have stumbled across it by now.
> 
> ...


You're looking for a link about places that use the same lines for freight and passenger? Please feel to use google to go learn about it.
You can also research how logistics projects can work in tandem (e.g., share resources) on these sorts of things. I'm not interested in spending any additional time explaining this.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ The technology for freight and light rail are completely different. I'm not familiar with any place that uses high speed rail for freight. Also, anyone living in the Chicago area can attest to the nightmare of passenger rail sharing lines with freight.

High speed rail is this kind of fetish that many have. I'm not suggesting you have it, merely stating that there are those who espouse it with an almost religious fervor. Again, time after time, when these projects come up there is enthusiasm about it until the costs are laid bare and then the public turns against it. Here's an interesting story:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/20/calif-high-speed-rail/3090811/


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> ^ The technology for freight and light rail are completely different. I'm not familiar with any place that uses high speed rail for freight. Also, anyone living in the Chicago area can attest to the nightmare of passenger rail sharing lines with freight.
> 
> High speed rail is this kind of fetish that many have. I'm not suggesting you have it, merely stating that there are those who espouse it with an almost religious fervor. Again, time after time, when these projects come up there is enthusiasm about it until the costs are laid bare and then the public turns against it. Here's an interesting story:
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/20/calif-high-speed-rail/3090811/


Chicago's rail problems cause issues with the entire country's logistics. The problem is far more complicated and worse that freight/passenger sharing lines. That's evidence that more money should be invested into rail in order to improve efficiency.

There are freight lines that run on high speed rail tracks, although that's not necessarily the point. Additional and better laid track would overall be helpful to the logistics issues in this country, although the issue is very complicated for a variety of reasons.

For those suggesting that there is zero need for high speed rail and that we don't have an infrastructure problem, I wonder what standard you're using for problem. Yes, the world will keep turning if we don't build any additional track; however, logistics in the United States could be vastly improved and made more efficient in many ways.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Something tells me you are just the man we need to hire to do the analysis!!


Can't quite imagine spending my time that way...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> Chicago's rail problems cause issues with the entire country's logistics. The problem is far more complicated and worse that freight/passenger sharing lines. That's evidence that more money should be invested into rail in order to improve efficiency.
> 
> There are freight lines that run on high speed rail tracks, although that's not necessarily the point. Additional and better laid track would overall be helpful to the logistics issues in this country, although the issue is very complicated for a variety of reasons.
> 
> For those suggesting that there is zero need for high speed rail and that we don't have an infrastructure problem, I wonder what standard you're using for problem. Yes, the world will keep turning if we don't build any additional track; however, logistics in the United States could be vastly improved and made more efficient in many ways.


What standard? There's not exactly a groundswell to enthusiasm for high speed rail. The enthusiasm seems to rest with politicians mostly, and of course lobbyists.

As for laying down new track; where? It's a simple question. Where?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> Chicago's rail problems cause issues with the entire country's logistics. The problem is far more complicated and worse that freight/passenger sharing lines. That's evidence that more money should be invested into rail in order to improve efficiency.
> 
> *There are freight lines that run on high speed rail tracks*, although that's not necessarily the point. Additional and better laid track would overall be helpful to the logistics issues in this country, although the issue is very complicated for a variety of reasons.
> 
> For those suggesting that there is zero need for high speed rail and that we don't have an infrastructure problem, I wonder what standard you're using for problem. Yes, the world will keep turning if we don't build any additional track; however, logistics in the United States could be vastly improved and made more efficient in many ways.


Once again, where? I contend that this is not the case.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> What standard? There's not exactly a groundswell to enthusiasm for high speed rail. The enthusiasm seems to rest with politicians mostly, and of course lobbyists.
> 
> As for laying down new track; where? It's a simple question. Where?


Do you mean places where it might make sense? I don't know the topography to give exact specs but new lines (particularly if you could make them straight so they can handle better loads/speeds) among Baltimore, NY, Phili, DC, Boston and upstate NY would all be helpful.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> Do you mean places where it might make sense? I don't know the topography to give exact specs but new lines (*particularly if you could make them straight* so they can handle better loads/speeds) among Baltimore, NY, Phili, DC, Boston and upstate NY would all be helpful.


I think it's pretty clear that you don't have a darn idea what you are talking about. Perhaps I am overly obsessed by this notion of a high speed freight line. Still waiting for an example. A link. Anything. Thanks.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> Do you mean places where it might make sense? I don't know the topography to give exact specs but new lines (particularly if you could make them straight so they can handle better loads/speeds) among Baltimore, NY, Phili, DC, Boston and upstate NY would all be helpful.


Not where geographically, that's easy. Such rail has to inevitably pass across private land. Whose land?


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> I think it's pretty clear that you don't have a darn idea what you are talking about. Perhaps I am overly obsessed by this notion of a high speed freight line. Still waiting for an example. A link. Anything. Thanks.


To be clear, as I've said earlier, I don't see any further value in a discussion on this between us, so I don't intend to respond. You can think that whatever you want about my credibility - I don't care. 
It's extremely easy for you to research the interplay between high speed rail an freight lines. I have no intention of doing it for you.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> Not where geographically, that's easy. Such rail has to inevitably pass across private land. Whose land?


Most large infrastructure projects (e.g., pipelines, rails, roads, etc.) pass across a combination of private and public land. How is this any different? It woudl depend on the particular line that you're building.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

pleasehelp said:


> Most large infrastructure projects (e.g., pipelines, rails, roads, etc.) pass across a combination of private and public land. How is this any different? It woudl depend on the particular line that you're building.


No my friend. It will depend on what politician wants to be the one who wants to support declaring eminent domain on some farmer whose family has for generations farmed the land and has sent sons to die in foreign wars.

Just wait until the news crews arrive and start interviewing the family and especially when it's revealed the lobbyists that have paid off said politician for support of the project.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

If only the Interstate/Freeway System weren't created, then we wouldn't have this problem...

-Quetzal


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Quetzal said:


> If only the Interstate/Freeway System weren't created, then we wouldn't have this problem...
> 
> -Quetzal


One could make an argument for freeways and interstates. There is really no pressing issue that high speed rail solves. We already have rail. Getting freight to and fro is not really an issue. We have a robust air travel and interstate system for car and truck travel. We have light rail for commuting in major metropolitan areas.

Are you really telling me that shaving a couple of hours off of the LA to SF commute is of vital national interest?


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> One could make an argument for freeways and interstates. There is really no pressing issue that high speed rail solves. We already have rail. Getting freight to and fro is not really an issue. We have a robust air travel and interstate system for car and truck travel. We have light rail for commuting in major metropolitan areas.
> 
> Are you really telling me that shaving a couple of hours off of the LA to SF commute is of vital national interest?


By that statement, I mean that railroads before the 1950s would have probably been able to expand their networks and technological creativity (supposedly, the "Bullet-Train" is an American invention); but since the introduction of the freeway, people have relied on cars, hence spelling an end to the 100+ years of rail transportation. I remember talking to an older man who used to travel into Milwaukee from the 1940s up until 1972, when the Milwaukee Road removed its famous electric line (what a mistake that was, especially the following year) and did not use his 1952 Nash Ambassador (what a Wisconsinite, I know) until the line shut down; he was very upset about it, but hey, at least he had a Classic Car (he still owns it, too) to drive around with (this is how we started talking). But that was only one in a million of people who preferred rail over driving.

My logic is to sit back and relax when travelling longer distances (unless if I'm intentionally going on a road trip), which cannot be accomplished in an airplane (planes also consume much more fuel than trains, from what I've heard). As a fellow Chicagoan (although I live in Wisconsin, I was born in Chicago and grew up near Ogden for most of my life; Chicago will always be home to me), I understand the "terror" that you describe; my folks grew up in Chicago as well, and remember hearing the horrors of "Amtrak" and the smaller lines before Metra scrapped all of their green E9 units for newer, blue models, and I've seen many goods trains whiz right by the Metra car that I was in.

The United States, like England, was once well-known for their rail networks; now we're a laughing stock for Canada, who dominates the rail networks in Wisconsin and surrounding states that B.N.S.F. does not occupy (fortunately for you, there are TONS of American remnants; U.P., B.N.S.F., and N.S have hubs there, and I always see old C.N.W and B.N. signs near the Hawthorne plant's remains). It's troubling for me to see former surviving Milwaukee Road, Chicago & Northwestern, and Great Northern tracks to be used by C.P. Rail; I'm also not a proponent for Amtrak, even if it did save the American Passenger Service back in the 1970s (every line operated both freight and rail up until then; Santa Fe had the Chief, P.R.R. and N.Y.C. had their own respective versions of the Limited until Penn Central, and so on).

-Quetzal


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> To be clear, as I've said earlier, I don't see any further value in a discussion on this between us, so I don't intend to respond. You can think that whatever you want about my credibility - I don't care.
> It's extremely easy for you to research the interplay between high speed rail an freight lines. I have no intention of doing it for you.


The value is to educate me, and others. Please: Point us all to a single example of high-speed freight. Just one will do. And, just so we're clear, we're talking about freight being moved at true high speed, which is to say, in excess of 150 mph. That's the accepted definition of true high speed rail, leastways, outside the Beltway and Obama administration. Thanks.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> No my friend. It will depend on what politician wants to be the one who wants to support declaring eminent domain on some farmer whose family has for generations farmed the land and has sent sons to die in foreign wars.
> 
> Just wait until the news crews arrive and start interviewing the family and especially when it's revealed the lobbyists that have paid off said politician for support of the project.


By that logic, no new infrastructure projects should be created. However, projects are continuing...

I am sympathetic to the general concern that many projects are saddled with ill motives and that the government has become increasing inefficient, but that doesn't mean that a concept/project is per se flawed.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> One could make an argument for freeways and interstates. There is really no pressing issue that high speed rail solves. We already have rail. Getting freight to and fro is not really an issue. We have a robust air travel and interstate system for car and truck travel. We have light rail for commuting in major metropolitan areas.
> 
> Are you really telling me that shaving a couple of hours off of the LA to SF commute is of vital national interest?


Out of curiousity, when you say that getting freight to and fro is not really an issue, what are you basing that on? I certainly know many businesses that would disagree. There are other ways to help elleviate that problem in some case, but those also have various costs.

As for the reduced time of travel between LA and SF, it is a matter of incremental improvement and whether the benefits outweigh the costs. Increased travel speeds do increase productivity and they allow for different utilization of geography. There's also the factors of energy consumption, safety, opportunity cost, general development associated with projects, etc.

What I find rather entertaining about this thread is that I never said that a high speed rail system should be built. I did say (and I maintain) that it does have many benefits and that I would be interested in exploring it.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

If the project were truly essential and a matter of national interest/security, then sure. What is the pressing issue that overrides the liberty concern of the private individual and his private property?

As for being flawed, not every project is flawed or ill conceived. But that doesn't mean that there aren't those that are inherently useless. Does it serve a function? Sure. Is it necessary? That's a different question. Just because something serves a function doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be implemented.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

pleasehelp said:


> By that logic, no new infrastructure projects should be created. However, projects are continuing...
> 
> I am sympathetic to the general concern that many projects are saddled with ill motives and that the government has become increasing inefficient, but that doesn't mean that a concept/project is per se flawed.


Still looking for a high speed freight line?


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Interesting, and possibly correct (we're the only World Power that, if I may be so bold, SOLEY relies on freeways and planes to transport goods and people), but, very few people would be willing to try it out (most people have grown up in cars, and may have possibly even been born and conceived in automobiles, so naturally taking the train, excluding those who live in "liberal" , or reactionary to put things correct, cities such as Seattle and East Coast cities will not find this a problem). Constructing the line, along with rebuilding Trams (the things that had rails and electric lines that ran through your city until the 1960s, again, excluding "liberal" or awesome cities like Boston and New Orleans; it's interesting how coastal cities are more into rail), which I am a strong proponent of, would be the same as turning back history, almost like having every man wear a suit and tie to work if they have and use a Bachelor's Degree.

Essentially, if they come, they will build it, to put things short.

-Quetzal


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

SG_67 said:


> If the project were truly essential and a matter of national interest/security, then sure. What is the pressing issue that overrides the liberty concern of the private individual and his private property?
> 
> As for being flawed, not every project is flawed or ill conceived. But that doesn't mean that there aren't those that are inherently useless. Does it serve a function? Sure. Is it necessary? That's a different question. Just because something serves a function doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be implemented.


No one in this thread said that just because something serves a function, it needs to be implemented. The question is cost v. benefit.

As for whether it is a "pressing issue" or a matter of national interest would depend on a lot of impact studies. The same could be said of any particular road, bridge, pipeline, cable, tower, port, etc.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ yes but for some, and I'm not suggesting you, high speed rail is a fetish; almost an obsession. 

No other public works program seems to generate so much enthusiasm and heavy breathing amongst its adherents.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> ^ yes but for some, and I'm not suggesting you, high speed rail is a fetish; almost an obsession.
> 
> No other public works program seems to generate so much enthusiasm and heavy breathing amongst its adherents.


Agreed. If there were this much enthusiasm about sewer systems, we, and the environment, would all be better off.


----------

