This animated map shows how radically a high-speed train system would improve travel

Heh. When the private sector sees free money laying on the ground they pick it up. When the public sector sees free money laying on the ground they spend more money trying to figure out how to pick it up than was laying on the ground in the first place.

Seems about right.

 

And, it's even more profitable with drug traffic, right?

However, I don't really see a justification for celebrating the criminals, even when their actions are somehow logical.

 

Well, your current transportation system IS sunk cost. And, being sunk cost doesn't mean it should be trashed. All of our transportation infrastructure is sunk cost, by definition.

Faster rail is just one of a number of possible directions to consider if improvement in transportation would benefit the region.

 

What I stated is what I meant. I want high speed alternatives that competes with air. I never mentioned the government at all. If there was a proposal on the table for the govt to produce such a system I reserve the right to change my mind based on the price tag.

 

I don't follow the logic. I do work for the state. Pretty familiar with the way the state spends money for the sake of getting money to spend. And vise versa, spends money for the sake of not having to spend money... Are you suggesting that maybe they are on drugs?

 

Does a 9 hour train ride compete with air? What's competitive with your 4 hour flight time? How much are you willing to pay below 2 grand for that competition, because there's going to be a huge startup fee to cover regardless of who's investing the cash?

California's 500 mile rail is upwards of 130 billion at this point. Can we expect to at least triple that figure for 1700 miles?

Let's see 400 billion cost against your 1k worth of tickets every two years ....

We'll start seeing returns around 800 million years from now.

 

OK, I'm sure you know the following, but it looks like I should probably state it anyway:

I'm interested in rational decision making on infrastructure, with public dollars rationally spent on those decisions.

The major transportation systems are infrastructure. Airports, roads, rail, require planning by government as well as tax dollars to build, expand and/or maintain. They often require eminent domain to gain the right of way required. Taxes are not always the full source of revenue for those features, of course. For airports, ticket and freight do not cover the cost of an airport. Etc.

The catch with infrastructure is that free market capitalism is not good at supplying stuff like new airports, new rail lines, new roads, improved power grids, etc. or maintaining those systems. Private corporations may do design work and almost always do the construction, but they are carrying out the plans of government entities and paid by our tax dollars.

 

All these things have to be decided on a case by case basis, obviously.

For example, you believe that Boston has plenty of transportation options. So, case closed. We don't build new airports or freeways for the fun of it, and we shouldn't build passenger train lines for the fun of it, either.

You ask about competition with air, but that's a part of the case by case analysis.

Employers, government, and the rest aren't going to send their people on a 9 hour cruise if there is any other possibility.

 

And again you have no answer. I rest my case.

 

I gave you direct answers to most if not all your questions.

You couldn't get those answers yourself.

So, you asked ME?!?!?!

 

No you didn’t. You gave a reading assignment on speculations. There is no data on the to amswer my questions. You have a narrative supported by opinion and speculation.

 

Once again, we're basing an analogy around an inaccurate assumption, freight trains are not exclusive to the United States, every one of the countries listed in the OP also use freight trains. The only difference is they have the infrastructure to support both freight train deliveries and bullet train transportation, where as the US does not.

Air travel coming to and from less populated areas of the US are not as profitable as air travel between two major cities. Air travel between those middle areas of the country have to be subsidized in order for those regions to have access to reasonably priced transportation.

You can read about it here-> https://www.transportation.gov/poli...unity-rural-air-service/essential-air-service

 

We?

While assumptions are on the table did you happen to pay attention to the amount of freight moved by rail in the US vs the amount of freight moved by rail in Europe?

Or was that something you assumed would have the same priority in both locations?

 

Once again, Europe and Asia use freight train deliveries too, the only difference is they have the infrastructure to support both. The idea that having both is unachievable is nonsensical. Claiming we can't have two separate railway systems is like saying we can't have both railways and highways. It is objectively false.. in fact our interstate highway system is even more expensive than a separate railway system. I should also note that the US highway system is known for being wider, and thus requires more property than most other countries.

 

Building a new major international airport is no cheap thrill either. But we must address our infrastructure. If you fly and there are major storms, then flights are canceled, delayed, etc and that can put a strain on air passenger travel, especially with a lack of qualified pilots now. Airlines are attempting to address this, but this is a short-term remedy only. It still does not address the long term problems in our transportation infrastructure though.

We need to improve our sea ports, our railroads including high speed rail, and air travel. Otherwise, we are extremely vulnerable to cyber-attacks and other nefarious devices.

 

You missed the point here AFM. Even in the private sector, there are money pits. Customer service is a money pit to a company. It has no intrinsic value. It has extrinsic value to the customers it serves, but no intrinsic value to the company. And government cannot make money period even though they use plenty of private sector best practices to try to obtain efficiency.

 

So no. You didn't happen to pay attention to that.

Did you pay attention the the fact that we already have twice as much rail as the total rail in Europe?

Or the fact that we transport 3 times as much cargo per mile on that rail?

Probably not.

Can't run a high speed trains on freight rail though routes that freight can pass through slowly. You're suggesting more track, through new routes that must be more mindful on the straightness of the track than the obstacles in the way of that track...

That's kinda why it's so enormously expensive to build 500 miles of it in California.

What's funny is that by the time it's finished everyone that wanted it will be in Texas.

 

Well, the two major issues you cited are political in nature. Shall we talk about cost first? Cost is relatively political. For instance, we spend on our national defense more than the next 25 countries combined. The Ford Aircraft carrier, with a per unit cost of $13 billion has endured another $3 billion in repairs, upkeep, and improvements after it was constructed. And the biggest fraud going on is the military-industrial complex and yet the GOP is not concerned about that. But God is damned if a single black or Hispanic person steals $100 from the SNAP program, the GOP will move hell and high water to get that person while making excuses for Brett Farve and the GOP embezzlement of those funds in Mississippi. Second, 90% of the existing rail lines are being unused, with no traffic, no commerce, etc. To me that is inefficient, don't you think? This will eliminate the use of tracks being used for both passenger AND Rail, as with the case on the line of the Southwest Chief, for instance. Thus with all the available unused train tracks, I am sure there is a way in which we can accommodate both.

As for numbers, the numbers will be the same as the Southwest Chief, maybe even more, now that the time frame will be cut in half and still relatively cheaper than air travel without all the security hassles. Again, numbers are also political if you want unrealistic political number expectations for this travel.

 

Absolutely false

The European Union (which does not represent all of Europe) has slightly less railway space than the US, however it is also worth noting that the combined countries that make up the European Union make up about half the amount of land that is the US.

In terms of rail space per land mass, the amount of railway space the European Union has would be around double the US's. About half of the European Union's railway system is electric, where as about 1% of the US railway system is electric. Again, they have the infrastructure to support both high speed railways and freight train railways.. the US does not

 

Unless you live near a minor airport, like Corpus Christi or Amarillo or Lubbock, or any other similar midsize city, your options are very few and usually commuter airlines or no thrill airlines with few time slots for travel. Hence you don't need to get there two hours early before the flight, more like an hour. But if you are flying out of Chicago O'Hare, DFW, Atlanta, Miami, LAX, San Francisco, and others, you need to arrive two hours early before your flight, almost stripped for security checkpoints, then wait some more as they board and hope you do not have a disruptive passenger onboard who can't follow instructions or worse. Or if it is snowing or severe thunderstorms, then those flights are delayed or canceled and you get to wait for more.

With rail service, you don't have most of that. Security is relatively light at rail stations and you don't need to arrive two hours before the train departs more like 15 minutes. And then the train is not held hostage by one unruly passenger. The trip may take a little longer than air travel, but you definitely don't have the stress of air travel. And you can still get work done. YOu just have to plan more ahead than anything else.

This works in Japan, Europe, and China with relatively few issues. The Shinkansen is the platinum standard and the Chinese high-speed rail is the gold standard.

 

Whatever any transport infrastructure is built, it should never be at the cost of the taxpayer. It should be at the cost of those who use it, reflected in the price of the ticket fare.

UK government fund the rail less and less, so the ticket cost keeps going up and up to cover the shortfall, but it's showing the passengers the real cost of rail.

 

In that case, a high speed railway would cost more than a plane ticket as hardly anyone would use it. I can see high speed railways between major cities in the northeast like Philly, DC, New York etc. But, anywhere else and would be half empty trains.

In Europe, things are different as half the people do not drive, thus public transportation is desired while most people can walk up to 2 kilometers to the train station. Plus, the cost of gas is significantly more than in America. Nobody in America would walk half a mile to a train station as they might as well drive to the destination directly.

 

I spent $200k on my house, therefor $50k worth of magic beans are reasonable. Not a good argument. Cost is relative to utility. Of course, when a politician spends on utility he's spending other people's money to purchase utility for someone else. The utility he purchases is a secondary concern to the politician. The primary concern is earning votes. People love magic beans and they believe in them so the politician buys them magic beans.

Why not simply focus on the security hassles and save a few billion dollars? You could plant trees with it or something.

 

We have one. It's the Acela. 2/3 of all rail passengers in the US live in NY. You can look at the passenger stats if you'd like. They are tumbling. Fewer people are traveling for work. Fewer people take the train when they do travel.

I'd really like to hear an argument from someone on the pro side that claims people are struggling to get where they want to go in the US. That somehow the lack of transportation is what's restricting the economy. I don't see that as being a factor. If anything I think we should be increasing manufacturing and letting them augment our SLOW speed freight to carry goods into our ports to sell back to China.

 

So you don't have an airport, but you do have a stop on a train system that has to slow from 200mph...