Author Topic: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.  (Read 20423 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26453
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #140 on: November 04, 2011, 07:00:54 AM »
Which is so foolish, because it robs America of using foreign countries as a free test bed to see what works and what doesn't, and then take the stuff that works. Instead, a lot of it gets rejected categorically as "foreign" and thus American *must* do it differently.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #141 on: November 04, 2011, 08:45:29 AM »
I dont get how this is a debate.  Its obvious that people have been voting with their pocketbooks to take planes and cars in US.  They find the costs of these methods less than that of the train... Like barto said, going from NYC to anywhere beyond a 100 mile radius is rediculously cheaper than train...

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20558
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #142 on: November 04, 2011, 08:47:05 AM »
First off,  I trust we can all agree that my position here isn't based on any sort of American exceptionalism.

Once again,  I prefer train travel.  As a tourist I'd pay the extra money for a pleasant 2.5 hour train ride.  As a business traveler,  I'm taking the dirt cheap 55 minute flight.

Those 55 minutes are pure flight time though. Actual travel time is probably more than 3 hours, with check-in, baggage grab, travel to/from airport etc.

rumborak
Yes and no.  From where I sit now I could be on a SWA 737 in half an hour or so.  If I checked a bag (and I rarely do),  it'd be an extra 20 minutes after the flight.  Plus,  travel time to and from the airport is equally applicable with rail.  It'd take me a lot longer to get to Union Station than DAL.  I think a huge part of the decision making process with people will be proximity to the start/end points. 

Let's also keep in mind that we're almost certainly going to face the same TSA bullshit with HSR pretty soon.  Security is now a very lucrative cottage industry.  There's too much money to be made employing goons and buying backscatter x-ray machines.

Again,  I'm not trying to say that flying is better than rail travel.  I don't think it is.  I'm pointing out that all of these bonuses are highly variable.  Some will apply and some won't as every case is different.  Flying will be cheaper.  It'll probably take the same amount of time or be slightly faster, overall.  Convenience will be hit or miss depending on the from and to.  It'll sometimes be much more pleasant,  but then I've also been packed into overcrowded trains Japan style, and that's only entertaining when you're standing next to a hot frauline in a low-cut dress. 

While I can see some American exceptionalism taking place,  I can also see a lot of people taking pie in the sky attitudes towards this.  Not all of the niceties are going to exist in every situation.  Sometimes it'll be a decent option, and sometimes it'll suck balls.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #143 on: November 04, 2011, 08:57:23 AM »
I wonder how much quicker checking in and everything would be is the TSA didnt suck.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26453
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #144 on: November 04, 2011, 09:04:31 AM »
Yes and no.  From where I sit now I could be on a SWA 737 in half an hour or so.  If I checked a bag (and I rarely do),  it'd be an extra 20 minutes after the flight.  Plus,  travel time to and from the airport is equally applicable with rail.  It'd take me a lot longer to get to Union Station than DAL.  I think a huge part of the decision making process with people will be proximity to the start/end points. 

It is indeed, but as pointed out before, HSR is primarily for business commute, and the places people commute to are predominantly inside big cities. Trains drop you off straight into the heart of a city, an airport necessarily lies outside the city and needs an additional commute.

Quote
Let's also keep in mind that we're almost certainly going to face the same TSA bullshit with HSR pretty soon.  Security is now a very lucrative cottage industry.  There's too much money to be made employing goons and buying backscatter x-ray machines.

I don't subscribe to that kind of cynicism. I've traveled over the last 3 months and have taken many a train, but other than Barcelona (which had massive issues with terrorism, far beyond what the US has) none had flight-style security checks. If all this stuff was really driven by monetary interests as you suggest, all those countries with HSRs would have those checks, but they don't.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #145 on: November 04, 2011, 09:11:42 AM »
I dont get how this is a debate.  Its obvious that people have been voting with their pocketbooks to take planes and cars in US.  They find the costs of these methods less than that of the train... Like barto said, going from NYC to anywhere beyond a 100 mile radius is rediculously cheaper than train...

Current American rail service, even with the Acela, is nothing compared to what a modern high speed rail service would bring.  New York to Boston travels at an average speed of 101 km/h.  With HSR running on dedicated track, it would travel at ~260-280 km/h.

Currently, San Francisco to Los Angeles takes about 12 hours via train.  About 6 and a half hours to drive.  HSR would cut that to two and a half hours. 

People would definitely take HSR.  It would also allow the phasing out of local air travel (like in Europe), because the cost and speed advantage with HSR is simply too great.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #146 on: November 04, 2011, 09:12:28 AM »
Rail for business is fine if your client is near your but I've never travelled more than 60 miles for a client by train...  Backpacking is a totally different monster, the cost of the time it takes is usually much less than it is in other situations...

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26453
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #147 on: November 04, 2011, 09:18:23 AM »
livehard, if you look at Europe and its HSRs, they're full of businessmen who do work while traveling to a client. I think if these kinds of people were offered the same option in the US they would immediately take it. Because plane travel only permits small time windows in which you can do actual work.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20558
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #148 on: November 04, 2011, 09:22:34 AM »
Yes and no.  From where I sit now I could be on a SWA 737 in half an hour or so.  If I checked a bag (and I rarely do),  it'd be an extra 20 minutes after the flight.  Plus,  travel time to and from the airport is equally applicable with rail.  It'd take me a lot longer to get to Union Station than DAL.  I think a huge part of the decision making process with people will be proximity to the start/end points. 

It is indeed, but as pointed out before, HSR is primarily for business commute, and the places people commute to are predominantly inside big cities. Trains drop you off straight into the heart of a city, an airport necessarily lies outside the city and needs an additional commute.
That's just not true.  There are plenty of inner city airports.  I'm right next the middle marker of Dal 31L.  Also consider that in a city like Dallas,  much of the business and industry is conducted outside of downtown.  Corporate campuses tend to be suburban nowadays.  AA, Pepsico, ExxonMobile--all much closer to DFW than Downtown where the train station is. 

Again,  every situation is different.

livehard, if you look at Europe and its HSRs, they're full of businessmen who do work while traveling to a client. I think if these kinds of people were offered the same option in the US they would immediately take it. Because plane travel only permits small time windows in which you can do actual work.

rumborak

Some would.  Some would find it much better to fly.  My position isn't that HSR would be a failure.  It's that you guys assume all the best qualities about it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #149 on: November 04, 2011, 09:29:47 AM »
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20558
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #150 on: November 04, 2011, 10:03:50 AM »
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).
Who are you addressing?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #151 on: November 04, 2011, 10:10:13 AM »
livehard

Edit: Sorry barto, I can't quote on my phone so I should've made that clearer.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 10:33:55 AM by Super Dude »
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26453
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #152 on: November 04, 2011, 10:14:44 AM »
Some would.  Some would find it much better to fly.  My position isn't that HSR would be a failure.  It's that you guys assume all the best qualities about it.

I'm not, and it's not gonna work everywhere in the US, that's for sure. But I would think they wouldn't dump millions of dollars into a project that is bound to have no customers. Unless a side objective is to influence the locations of people, and thus *create* the demand.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #153 on: November 04, 2011, 10:43:28 AM »
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).

I dont necissarily think flying is supirior.  I know its supiriority is a fucntion of the distance travelled.  I think its very clear why a plane from NYC to LA is supirior to a high speed train.  The "real" reason is the costs are too high.  plain and simple.  If the costs were lower or the demand was higher, investors would project that given a certain amount of risk, it would project a rate of return worthy of investment.

But it hasn't, and I dont think that some guy in washington, who knows neither about investing or trains, has the right to take money out of our pockets because he disagrees with this.

Offline rumborak

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 26453
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #154 on: November 04, 2011, 10:47:17 AM »
With that argument the Interstate system would never exist.

rumborak
"I liked when Myung looked like a women's figure skating champion."

Online El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20558
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #155 on: November 04, 2011, 10:49:27 AM »
Some would.  Some would find it much better to fly.  My position isn't that HSR would be a failure.  It's that you guys assume all the best qualities about it.

I'm not, and it's not gonna work everywhere in the US, that's for sure. But I would think they wouldn't dump millions of dollars into a project that is bound to have no customers. Unless a side objective is to influence the locations of people, and thus *create* the demand.

rumborak
Unfortunately,  they often do.  People inflate numbers to sell projects all the time.  DART is running into a similar problem here.  Every year they inflated ridership projections.  Turned out to be somewhat like a Ponzi scheme.  I'm not saying that's what's happening in Cali.  I'm suggesting that they might well be using pie-in-the-sky estimates to justify a nifty project. 

edit:  wait a minute, is this a federal plan?  That actually would change everything.  If the state is saying it's a good thing,  then perhaps they're right,  but it's very hard to tell.  If this is just a handout to a swing state,  I'd consider it to be guaranteed worthless. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #156 on: November 04, 2011, 11:00:33 AM »
With that argument the Interstate system would never exist.

rumborak

You mean if the government used my argument?  Well thats not necissarily true.  There are private roadways.  The government building of the interstate system affected whether the private market did so.  I think if there was sufficient demand for such a thing (which I believe there was), it would have been built.  And more importantly the costs would have been distributed to those who use it, isntead of the current inefficient system.

Actually the fact that such highways exist disproves your certanty.

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #157 on: November 04, 2011, 11:06:14 AM »
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).

I dont necissarily think flying is supirior.  I know its supiriority is a fucntion of the distance travelled.  I think its very clear why a plane from NYC to LA is supirior to a high speed train.  The "real" reason is the costs are too high. plain and simple.  If the costs were lower or the demand was higher, investors would project that given a certain amount of risk, it would project a rate of return worthy of investment.

But it hasn't, and I dont think that some guy in washington, who knows neither about investing or trains, has the right to take money out of our pockets because he disagrees with this.

Like I said, many of us HSR proponents have now demonstrated to death that this is not true.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #158 on: November 04, 2011, 11:10:35 AM »
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).

I dont necissarily think flying is supirior.  I know its supiriority is a fucntion of the distance travelled.  I think its very clear why a plane from NYC to LA is supirior to a high speed train.  The "real" reason is the costs are too high. plain and simple.  If the costs were lower or the demand was higher, investors would project that given a certain amount of risk, it would project a rate of return worthy of investment.

But it hasn't, and I dont think that some guy in washington, who knows neither about investing or trains, has the right to take money out of our pockets because he disagrees with this.

Like I said, many of us HSR proponents have now demonstrated to death that this is not true.

Neither the investors or the consumers agree...

Offline yorost

  • Inactive
  • Posts: 7862
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #159 on: November 04, 2011, 11:19:34 AM »
These projects never get a rate of return atrractive enough for a private investor. thats why some govt official forces money out of the public's  pocket for these things.  We basically have a relatively inexpensive car/plane situation here in the US.

Oh wait, that's right... Europe actually disproves everything you just said. Nothing like ignoring facts.

We're talking about the US genius

And why is the US exceptional? If it works in Europe, it could work here. Maybe some tweaks to the system need to be instituted, but it's wrong to say that high speed rails don't give a return on their investment. Private enterprises face a different issue, namely land rights, so you're not going to see them get involved in infrastructure like this without the government.
There are examples of it working here, now.  Last I knew there were three profitable Amtrak lines, all connecting the downtowns of fairly close major cities by high speed rail.  There was one each in the East Coast, West Coast, and Midwest.

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #160 on: November 04, 2011, 11:20:52 AM »
You've yet to give a *real* reason flying is superior. So far your argument seems to be air travel is already here and it would cost too much to try something new (which many of us have labored to show isn't true).

I dont necissarily think flying is supirior.  I know its supiriority is a fucntion of the distance travelled.  I think its very clear why a plane from NYC to LA is supirior to a high speed train.  The "real" reason is the costs are too high. plain and simple.  If the costs were lower or the demand was higher, investors would project that given a certain amount of risk, it would project a rate of return worthy of investment.

But it hasn't, and I dont think that some guy in washington, who knows neither about investing or trains, has the right to take money out of our pockets because he disagrees with this.

Like I said, many of us HSR proponents have now demonstrated to death that this is not true.

Neither the investors or the consumers agree...
You can't even possibly know that.  You're just spitting out more nonsense now.  Pretty sure they have to agree to some degree if they voted for it.

Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #161 on: November 04, 2011, 11:58:15 AM »
There was intial talk here in Ohio about a HSR line called the 3-C Line, that would connect Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. Initially, nearly everyone I knew (including myself) was very excited about the potential prospect. Then once everyone (including myself) understood the costs to build and operate it, and then  were told that due to the number of stops along the way that the average speed on a trip from Cincinnati to Cleveland would be 39 miles per hour; it quickly lost momentum, and is basically now dead in the water. So much so that the feds pulled Ohios grant dollars for an HSR project and gave them to California. Good luck California.

It takes me basically four hours and twenty minutes to go from my driveway to Cleveland. I don't have to even ever get out of my car, and I can drive from my garage to the garage of an office building. I dont have to get out, stand in any lines, go through any security, rent a car or wait for a bus to take me to my final destination once I arrive in Cleveland. None of that. I can drive very nicely from point A to point B in roughly 4.5 hours.

If I took the proposed HSR line, I have to leave my car either at home and rely on other mode of transportation to take me to the station, or leave my car somewhere nearby the station. I have to wait in line, I have to wait for the train, I have to go through security, THEN I will have to endure a train ride that will take me to some part of Cleveland (not my final destination mind you), and drop me off SIX HOURS AND 38 MINUTES later (and thats ONLY the train ride portion of the trip; not the waiting in line, or the drive to the station, or getting to point B once I arrive in Cleveland). In fact, due to safety concerns there would be ONLY 38 miles of track where the train can actually TRAVEL AT high speed. And it's gonna cost how much? 3.5 billion dollars? Then another 20 million each year from the state to operate it? Well if it's good for the environment...what? The environmental impact to build it would be another 800 milllion dollars? And it will take me twice as long to get there?

No thanks.

I can see a WHOLE bunch of Americans saying the same thing.

As Bosk and others havce pointed out numerous times in this thread. If people don't use it, it's a waste of money. I don't care how much it costs, for me personally, I'm not riding on anything that takes me nearly 8 hours to get to Cleveland from my front door.

The convenience and low cost of our highway systems will never allow the U.S. to be like Europe as far as rail travel is concerned.
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #162 on: November 04, 2011, 11:59:45 AM »
39 mph?  That's not a HSR line.  I don't know what you're talking about.

EDIT: I assume you're talking about this?

That's not high-speed rail.  The standard definition for HSR is 200 km/h+ top speeds.  The type of HSR we've been discussing in this topic is another level: dedicated tracks, containing trains traveling at top speeds of 300-350 km/h, at average speeds of 240-270 km/h.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #163 on: November 04, 2011, 12:02:03 PM »
I don't care how much it costs, for me personally, I'm not riding on anything that takes me nearly 8 hours to get to Cleveland from my front door.

Well explained.  But to address above: those are part of the costs for you, you value your time so that you aren't willing to spend the time, along with the ticket amount and the inconvinience.

Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #164 on: November 04, 2011, 12:10:01 PM »
39 mph?  That's not a HSR line.  I don't know what you're talking about.

EDIT: I assume you're talking about this?

That's not high-speed rail.  The standard definition for HSR is 200 km/h+ top speeds.  The type of HSR we've been discussing in this topic is another level: dedicated tracks, containing trains traveling at top speeds of 300-350 km/h, at average speeds of 240-270 km/h.

Umm... That's kind of the point. What was originally dubbed a high speed rail line (there was even talk at one time of it being a maglev train) the HIGH SPEED train would ONLY be able to travel an average speed of 39 MPH. I'm not talking about what the damn thing is capable of traveling. But what it would be able to average in speed. I know what is being discusssed and what I'm talking about is the same thing.  The train would make 9 stops between Cincy and Cleveland, and due to safety issues couldn't operate at high speeds for nearly the entire trip. 
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Offline Dr. DTVT

  • DTF's resident Mad Scientist
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9064
  • Gender: Male
  • What's your favorite planet? Mine's the Sun!
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #165 on: November 04, 2011, 12:13:07 PM »
Tempus, what do you think about the idea I posted which got last at the bottom of page 3?  Sounds like it's perfectly suited for what you want, and I can't imagine that you and I are the only two people who use it.
     

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #166 on: November 04, 2011, 12:15:25 PM »
39 mph?  That's not a HSR line.  I don't know what you're talking about.

EDIT: I assume you're talking about this?

That's not high-speed rail.  The standard definition for HSR is 200 km/h+ top speeds.  The type of HSR we've been discussing in this topic is another level: dedicated tracks, containing trains traveling at top speeds of 300-350 km/h, at average speeds of 240-270 km/h.

Umm... That's kind of the point. What was originally dubbed a high speed rail line (there was even talk at one time of it being a maglev train) the HIGH SPEED train would ONLY be able to travel an average speed of 39 MPH. I'm not talking about what the damn thing is capable of traveling. But what it would be able to average in speed. I know what is being discusssed and what I'm talking about is the same thing.  The train would make 9 stops between Cincy and Columbus, and due to safety issues couldn't operate at high speeds for nearly the entire trip.

Ah, then whoever was doing the dubbing was doing it wrong.  39 MPH is slow even by American standards, and American standards are slow as hell.

The proposal would probably take place along existing freight lines owned by other companies.  Freight companies don't maintain the quality of their track or other components (signalling, for example) because it's not worth it for them to achieve higher speeds.  So the track would probably have a limit of 100-120 km/h.

So it wouldn't be "high-speed."  Not by a long shot.  What we're talking about is a system with dedicated track (i.e., no other passenger or freight traffic), advanced, computerized in-cab signalling, with no grade crossings and an operating speed of 350 km/h.  Under such a system, Cincinatti to Columbus would take less than an hour.
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline TempusVox

  • Descendant of Primus
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5324
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #167 on: November 04, 2011, 12:18:42 PM »
@ DTVT Depending on the cost involved, I'd say that would be a great idea. Another idea I've heard is a rail system built above the highway using the same corridor, which to me would be really cool as well. Imagine one or the other being used for commerce, and the other for people perhaps. Again, I'd love a high speed rail system in this country, but only if it was cost effective and people actually need to use it for that. Americans love our cars and our ability to travel so easily, cheaply and freely.

@GP. They were proposing just such a track, but then was pointed out due to the number of stops, and the safety concerns involved the thing would average 39 mph. So then the question was asked "Then why build and buy a HSR if you can't basically take it out of first gear? Why don't we just redo existing lines to accomodate better passenger service?" And the powers that be came back with "But THAT wouldn't be a HSR line then. Maybe we can squeeze out 46 MPH out of the HSR line Hows that sound?" And everyone said basically, "THATS NOT HIGH SPEED EITHER?"  :lol The whole thing was very Spinal Tap-Esque..."But it goes to 11!"  So in the end it basically boiled down to buying and maintaining a McLaren F-1 and only driving it in a school zone during restricted hours. Why?
« Last Edit: November 04, 2011, 12:28:17 PM by TempusVox »
You don't HAVE a soul.You ARE a soul.You HAVE a body.
"I came here to drink milk and kick ass; and I just finished my milk."

Offline GuineaPig

  • Posts: 3754
  • Gender: Male
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #168 on: November 04, 2011, 12:22:35 PM »
In terms of capacity, it's cheaper to build a high-speed rail line than a highway (assuming of course, typical geography: things get pricey real quick once lots of tunnels and bridges get involved).  And they turn a profit.  It would be a fast, environmentally friendly and sustainable, and safe way to bring American cities closer together. 
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Offline Super Dude

  • Hero of Prog
  • DTF.com Member
  • **
  • Posts: 16159
  • Gender: Male
    • The Nerdy Millennial
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #169 on: November 04, 2011, 01:23:42 PM »
In terms of capacity, it's cheaper to build a high-speed rail line than a highway (assuming of course, typical geography: things get pricey real quick once lots of tunnels and bridges get involved).  And they turn a profit.  It would be a fast, environmentally friendly and sustainable, and safe way to bring American cities closer together.

Your efforts are wasted with him there, dude.
Check out my blog!
Quote from: bosk1
As frequently happens, Super Dude nailed it.

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #170 on: November 04, 2011, 01:29:47 PM »
They aren't wasted! What everyone is saying is that you have to look at all the costs and benifits.  You simply cant say oh it goes really fast and is green therefore we should build it.  You have to consider absolutely everything!  If someone decides that the beinifits outweigh the costs, and that enough people will choose this as opposed to the alternatives (car,plane) than I say go 4 it and build it.  But the problem is that these politicans simply have a qualitative discussion concerning it, and then decide to try to use taxpayer money to do.

I say if you believe in it so much go out and raise the funds to do it.  Otherwise leave my wallet alone.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #171 on: November 04, 2011, 01:30:57 PM »
I dont get how this is a debate.  Its obvious that people have been voting with their pocketbooks to take planes and cars in US.  They find the costs of these methods less than that of the train... Like barto said, going from NYC to anywhere beyond a 100 mile radius is rediculously cheaper than train...

How can peole make a market decision when that option isn't available? It's impossible for someone to purchase an HSR ticket, and make that market decision, when there is no HSR. Because of necessity and the status quo, people will use cars and travel. That does not mean they don't desire something different, and wouldn't use it if it were available.
They aren't wasted! What everyone is saying is that you have to look at all the costs and benifits.  You simply cant say oh it goes really fast and is green therefore we should build it.  You have to consider absolutely everything!  If someone decides that the beinifits outweigh the costs, and that enough people will choose this as opposed to the alternatives (car,plane) than I say go 4 it and build it.  But the problem is that these politicans simply have a qualitative discussion concerning it, and then decide to try to use taxpayer money to do.

I say if you believe in it so much go out and raise the funds to do it.  Otherwise leave my wallet alone.

You're just wrong. They do massive studies which look at the issue, as TV's example shows you.

Offline Dark Castle

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6530
  • Gender: Female
  • SmegmaPrincessX
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #172 on: November 04, 2011, 01:31:12 PM »
They aren't wasted! What everyone is saying is that you have to look at all the costs and benifits.  You simply cant say oh it goes really fast and is green therefore we should build it.  You have to consider absolutely everything!  If someone decides that the beinifits outweigh the costs, and that enough people will choose this as opposed to the alternatives (car,plane) than I say go 4 it and build it.  But the problem is that these politicans simply have a qualitative discussion concerning it, and then decide to try to use taxpayer money to do.

I say if you believe in it so much go out and raise the funds to do it.  Otherwise leave my wallet alone.
Uh dude, we've given costs, which most are okay with.  Also there's nothing wrong with the government improving quality of transportation, I've said this so many times.

Offline livehard

  • Posts: 311
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #173 on: November 04, 2011, 01:39:41 PM »
How can peole make a market decision when that option isn't available? It's impossible for someone to purchase an HSR ticket, and make that market decision, when there is no HSR. Because of necessity and the status quo, people will use cars and travel. That does not mean they don't desire something different, and wouldn't use it if it were available.
How did they try to calculate how many ipods would be sold before it came out? they forcasted.  They tried their best to predict, they use comps, reasearch etc...  Trust me if the demand is there, if there is money to be made, than people will invest.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Why "high-speed rail" is dumb.
« Reply #174 on: November 04, 2011, 01:42:06 PM »
How can peole make a market decision when that option isn't available? It's impossible for someone to purchase an HSR ticket, and make that market decision, when there is no HSR. Because of necessity and the status quo, people will use cars and travel. That does not mean they don't desire something different, and wouldn't use it if it were available.
How did they try to calculate how many ipods would be sold before it came out? they forcasted.  They tried their best to predict, they use comps, reasearch etc...  Trust me if the demand is there, if there is money to be made, than people will invest.

You mean... like they're doing and like they've done?