High Speed Rail

[JayHawk]

Requiem for a Train

I was reading the linked article about the decline in support for high speed rail. I was struck by the amazing ability for one party to stifle the other at will and without much effort. Yet one paragraph summed up the two parties pretty well.

The modern federal government isn’t good at solving long-term problems (if it ever was). Most Republicans don’t believe the government should solve problems. They believe big government, in fact, is the one of the only problems that can’t be solved by the free market. Democrats, as seen in the failures of all of these railroad projects, err by assuming that the government can solve problems more effectively than it realistically can.

Those two principles are the root cause of both parties failures and are the reason they can't figure out a way to go forward.

I wish there were a way to demand long term goal effort in our system. It seems without a head of state that has some power the group of people loosely associated can't plan for their future because of competing interest. How did we ever build the Eisenhower Interstate System?

 

[kallipolis]

Car manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers, airlines and road construction companies also contribute to the competing forces at work when decisions on public transport projects need to be made.

France, Germany and Japan are countries that have invested heavily in high speed trains with impressive results for their economies, as well as the convenience of the travelling public.

China's dreams have been set back by safety failures on their recently constructed high speed train network.

It is easy to blame the political elite when refusing to consider the self serving input of competing forces in private sector.

As long as the American love affair with the car continues the development of high speed rail networks will be a slow process for the United States, and yet, the North East corridor is evidence of progress towards realising a high speed train network that will easily repay the investment.

 

[palbert]

[portion deleted] How did we ever build the Eisenhower Interstate System?

We didn't build that system as a highway system. We built the never-ending returning runways for the intercontinental bombers returning from whereever they had been on destructive runs.

Plus, it was porkbarrel heaven.

 

[JayHawk]

Palbert... Ummm... urban myth and No.

I agree Kallipolis. There are many locations in America where convenient rail would make a great deal of sense.

I know there is huge discussion in the UK about the govt cost of supplying that rail system and whether or not it has a return at all. Have France, Germany or Japan successfully created a profitable model?

 

[kallipolis]

Palbert... Ummm... urban myth and No.

I agree Kallipolis. There are many locations in America where convenient rail would make a great deal of sense.

I know there is huge discussion in the UK about the govt cost of supplying that rail system and whether or not it has a return at all. Have France, Germany or Japan successfully created a profitable model?

The French, German and Japanese governments and travelling public are satisfied with the high speed train networks in their respective countries contributing to the common good with the profit factor being considered beyond the operating costs of the railway networks with a focus towards the very real benefits of reducing air pollution from cars and aircraft and reducing reliance on highway construction as a means to move people from city, to city as economically as possible. There is no doubt that the respective railway networks are subsidised by government as a means to improve the well being and feel good factor as well as reduce the over all cost for the travelling public.

Even in the UK there is an understanding that there is insufficient land space to keep expanding their highway network and that developing a high speed rail network is the most cost advantageous, and environmentally sound method confronting the needs of the 21st century.

Ironically the UK invented the train and yet in the early 1960s cut its rail network in half in favour of building highways to encourage car ownership as a means of reducing the overall cost of travel by granting the general public the freedom to make its choice how to travel. Now it would appear that the original rail network is being redeveloped and expanded with the addition of a high speed rail system that will stretch from London as far north as Edinburgh and Glasgow according to recent proposals from the Scottish administration favouring expansion of the high speed train into Scotland.

 

[jackoroe]

It's a matter of priorities. We are continually being told that our infrastructure is in danger of collapsing any minute. OK, fair enough. If that's the case, we need to repair what needs fixing before we start any new projects. It's like you decide to put new siding on a home infested with termites. The problem seems to be that a good portion of the fuel taxes get spent on things not even remotely related to highways. I saw instance where they used money to build houses. WTF?

About 15% of federal funds go toward mass transit and other things not road related, according to the Transportation Department

http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/04/news/economy/gas-tax/index.htm

So, first fix what needs to be repaired. Then, if there's money left over you get to engage in building new roads. If there's money left after you do that, then you get to build new railways. It's common sense.

That's why it will never happen.

 

[frankfrank]

How did we ever build the Eisenhower Interstate System?

SHORT ANSWER: If the Eisenhower Interstate System (or, for that matter, full rural electrification) had not been in place by 1980, it would **NEVER** happen.

And, for that matter, the Republicans are doing their damndest to see to it that deteriorating highways, bridges, etc. are never repaired. In forty years, Burma or Malawi will probably have better roads/highways than we do, if things go "the Republican way" here.

 

[palemale]

The idea that building up and improving our embarrassingly meager rail network shouldn't be a priority is par for the course of the Republican Party. They simple lack any imagination or ideas about what it will take to keep the US a strong and vibrant country and economy. It's the "Stupid Party" after all.

New York City and Philadelphia area airports have the worst on-time records in the country. If we had a world-class train system, as they have in Europe and Japan, it would probably clear out a lot of the short distance flights in the Northeast. Frankly, I have no idea why anyone would fly from New York City to Philadelphia. The train ride now takes a little over an hour. But, with a good train system, there would be no need to fly from NYC to any other city between Boston and Washington, or to Montreal, Albany, or even to Buffalo or Pittsburgh.

France's high speed train network is nothing short of spectacular. Not only is Paris connected to every major city in France by high speed train, and many major European cities as well, but one can take high speed trains from many major cities right to Charles De Gaulle Airport. Travel in France is a pleasure because of their train network. It's a disgrace the United States is so backward.

 

[JayHawk]

Well that didnt take long to become a "I am embarrassed to be American"...

< quietly points towards the door >

SO it is a proven fact that a good deal of federal tax monies are taken from the more populous and wealthier rich states and delved out for projects in less prosperous areas of the US.

So why don't Democrats allow for lowered Federal Income taxes and take there base where they are in control like in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York and work out raising taxes at state levels in those areas to fund and then subsidize the common good railway system?

I have always wondered why Democratic strong areas didn't do these things at a more local level. Throw up your hands and allow the Republicans to live how they wish on a federal level. If the claims of prosperity these infrastructure plans would bring are true (and I think they are) then through success the Democrats could easily prove the other side wrong.

The same case can be made for health insurance. Look at Massachusetts plan.

The democratic party finds success usually at a grassroots level so why don't they stick with that effective method?

 

[Kulindahr]

I wish there were a way to demand long term goal effort in our system. It seems without a head of state that has some power the group of people loosely associated can't plan for their future because of competing interest. How did we ever build the Eisenhower Interstate System?

We had a general using to giving orders and a nation still grateful.

As long as the American love affair with the car continues the development of high speed rail networks will be a slow process for the United States, and yet, the North East corridor is evidence of progress towards realising a high speed train network that will easily repay the investment.

Not necessarily. Train cars for vehicles have been designed, that would work on high-speed trains. People could drive on, ride to their destination, and drive off. The fuel savings would still be substantial, and it would have the attractions of being in your vehicle at the end along with not having to stare at pavement for hours on end.


Part of the problem is that highways aren't actually paying their own way; they're heavily subsidized. Another part is that they're not paying their own actual costs: they result in several different kinds of pollution that inflicts real monetary costs that are borne by all sorts of others but never charged to the highways system.

If Republicans were faced with a choice between drivers actually paying their way and funding some high-speed rail, it would be interesting to see their choice(s).