High-speed rail: What's not to like?

[Brigid]

The governors of FL, WI, and OH (all Republicans, of course) have turned down billions in federal money for it. It would spur innovation, create jobs,
help traffic congestion on the interstates and in the air, and help conserve energy. So, other than the fact that the Obama administration supports it, what's the problem? :grr:

[Zephie]

1. It would also take money out of the pockets of Oil companies

And republicans are never fans of that idea. I think honestly that the idea is anything that doesn't help people making over a million a year is considered an unnecessary expenditure on their part, as those who are poorer are less likely to line their pockets when election time rolls around.

[kentauros]

5. Interestingly, the biggest lobbiests against highspeed rail in Texas

20 years ago were Southwest Airlines and the concrete companies. It's easy to see why SW Airlines would be threatened. But the concrete companies didn't like it either because they make more money building (and re-building!) highways than they would off of any rail project. Even if the rail used concrete ties, that's nothing compared to the amount of concrete used in your average four-lane state highway.

[BeFree]

9. Concrete proof

Think: Who owns the super-majority of all that placed concrete?

We, the public. We paid for it.

Which made for great profits to the companies who now use that money to lobby against our best interests.

[liberal N proud]

2. They have said NO to Tens of Thousands of TAX Paying jobs

It drives right through their whole campaign against the Democrats last fall about JOBS!

Where are the JOBS going to come from when economic stimulus like this gets run over by ideologues?

[EnviroBat]

3. Our governor here in Ohio is simply an asshole placed into a position of power

by asshole voters. Not much more I an say...

[el_bryanto]

4. Hmmm. That sounds very familiar - from someone in Florida

But Lord I wish they would give this idea a fair shake.

Bryant

[socialist_n_TN]

6. It's too "European". Plus Obama is for it............

ergo it's got to be "socialism".

[peekaloo]

10. the term "Obamarail" was used here in Florida. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

13. Yep as I said.............

These people are REGRESSIVE to the core. ANY change is bad. That's why they're trying to push us back to the 19th Century.

[LeftinOH]

24. We had better passenger rail service in the 19th century..n/t

[samplegirl]

7. I've got the stong feeling............

they'll wish they wouldn't of passed it up! Kasich really screwed the people of Ohio with this and now continues his
anti-union march.
Just for the jobs alone.....that it would of created and keeping our gas prices lower. I hate Kasich and can't wait for this asshat to prove to Ohio once again that Republicans are the evil force that keeps us from progressing.

[MrTriumph]

8. There is plenty about HSR not to like.

Depending upon what kind of long distance HSR we are discussing, the costs of construction are astronomical. The land that must be aquired (new HSR takes more right-of-way) is substantial. The systems are expensive for riders unless massively subsidized. Ask any European. HSR systems involve hub and spoke design, not the most efficient. HSR trains may not run at full speed in urban or urban sprawl areas. Combined with stops along the way, HSR is not as fast as one might imagine.

[maxsolomon]

25. having ridden on it in europe

i can tell you that its fucking fast - as fast as i imagined. there was no hour-long slog to the airport on the periphery of the city, no security wait, no baggage claim, no cramped seats. the center of paris to the center of amsterdam.

the 'spoke and hub' USED to work well, before we allowed sprawl to decentralize the cities. in a post-fuel america, you'll see cities re-centralize.

& yes, it will be subsidized. cars & trucks are subsidized - by gas tax-supported road networks.

[Ganja Ninja]

11. You can't score points with right wing yahoos by supporting sensible ...

Democratic proposals. Never mind the fact that we don't make cars anymore or have the oil to fuel them. Never mind that anything we can do to get people out of cars would be good for our economy. Elections are more important that the good of the country.

[MrTriumph]

12. I beg to differ.

We still make cars in the USA. Millions of them. In addition, battery technology is quickly pushing automotive technology in the right direction.

In addition, we have no expertise at building new HSR. Chanting "YES WE CAN!" does not an expert make.

[Ganja Ninja]

14. We assemble cars. Most of the parts are made elsewhere.

And never mind the fact that the rest of the world is using or building HSR, even the Chinese. That's the part that right wing yahoos like least. Anything foreign is mindlessly dismissed. If the Chinese can do it there is no reason we can't. Your expertise argument doesn't hold water.

[slackmaster]

15. It's not a panacea, especially if a project ends up underutilized and sucking public money subsidies

HSR is great for some locations, but it wouldn't work everywhere.

[Brigid]

16. You are right, of course.

HSR is no cure-all. But I think that if done judiciously and given a real chance to work, it could be a real boon to this country. I'll bet that the interstate highway system wasn't all smooth going in its early stages either -- but we got it done.

[cali]

17. frankly, I'd rather see less money for high speed rail rather than cutting LIHEAP

and other programs like Community Block Grants. That's my problem with it.

[Statistical]

18. Well light rail here in VA has been a money pit

http://articles.dailypress.com/2011-02-16/news/dp-nws-hrt-subpoena-20110216_1_norfolk-light-rail-project-hampton-roads-transit-hrt-president

[Blecht]

19. It isn't the light rail that is the problem

It's the corruption. At least that is the information the linked article contains.

[Statistical]

21. I agree however the giant piles of cash from federal govt certainly didn't help corruption.

The "Free" money from federal government has ended up costing VA significantly.

Honestly I doubt the program will ever be a success. We are geographically to spread out. I think the light rail will run at a subsidized loss (draining money from other social programs) for decades.

I honestly hope I am wrong.

[HuckleB]

23. The problem is that the spread will always continue, unless there are transportation means to give..

..... people more choice in housing and commuting options.

[HuckleB]

22. Light rail has been fantastic in Portland.

People want it, and they use it, and it keeps expanding. A subway would have been better, of course, but...

Still, this is why putting light rail in Florida made no sense to me. It should go where people will use it. The northeast and the northwest, for example.

[Blecht]

20. Fewer cars means fewer car loans made and less gas consumed

If you think of who has power in this country, it's not hard to understand.

[kudzu22]

26. I don't see HSR ever being a success in the US

It works great in Japan where you have a large number of people in a small geographical area, and consequently have a lot of people travelling in the same direction at the same time. In the US, we are far too dispersed for HSR to be effective. On price, it would still lose to airlines for long trips, and lose to cars for short trips. It might be faster than cars, but still slower than airlines, and I think price would be the deciding factor.

The other complication is that it would run on the same rails as freight runs on today, clogging a system that is working pretty nicely today.