Who said that Obama wants to see it VIABLE?
it's about hooking up cronies back home. All roads lead to Chicago.
Posted on 08/24/2009 10:51:00 AM PDT by ari-freedom
The Obama administration's enthusiasm for high-speed rail is a dispiriting example of government's inability to learn from past mistakes. Since 1971, the federal government has poured almost $35 billion in subsidies into Amtrak with few public benefits. At most, we've gotten negligible reductions -- invisible and statistically insignificant -- in congestion, oil use or greenhouse gases. What's mainly being provided is subsidized transportation for a small sliver of the population. In a country where 140 million people go to work every day, Amtrak has 78,000 daily passengers. A typical trip is subsidized by about $50.
Given this, you'd think even the dullest politician wouldn't expand rail subsidies, especially considering the almost $11 trillion in projected federal budget deficits between now and 2019. But no, the administration has made high-speed rail a top priority. It's already proposed spending $13 billion ($8 billion in the "stimulus" package and $1 billion annually for five years) as a down payment on high-speed rail in 10 "corridors," including Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and Houston to New Orleans.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
“The mythology of high-speed rail is not just misinformed; it’s antisocial. Governments at all levels are already overburdened. Compounding the burdens with new wasteful subsidies would squeeze spending for more vital needs — schools, police and (ironically) mass transit. High-speed rail could divert funds from mass-transit systems that, according to a study by Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute, have huge maintenance backlogs: $16 billion in Chicago; $17 billion in New York; $12.2 billion in Washington; $5.8 billion in San Francisco. Any high-speed rail system should be financed locally; states should decide their transportation priorities. “
I suggest someone actually get a quote from Amtrack for a trip. For example, Salt Lake City to Orlando - 3 days each way and $516 not including food or lodging and 3 train changes with overlays of 5 to 6 hours. No thanks, I can fly for half the cost and only 4-5 hours each way.
Here is another example of our taxdollars going down the drain.
Why are we subsidizing Amtrack? Shouldn’t the cost of freight, gas and the fact that the infrastructure is already in place (ie. tracks, bridges, depots) are paid for make this a highly lucrative venture? If the railroad was competently managed, how could UPS, FedExpress, US Mail and so much that is moved cross-country by semi possibly compete?
Who said that Obama wants to see it VIABLE?
it's about hooking up cronies back home. All roads lead to Chicago.
I have found that Amtrak prices are either within 20 bucks or they exceed airline fair.
And three days on the road is unacceptable.
It is outmoded transportation.
Psssst. Hate to tell you this, but that semi moving on a public highway is subsidized, too.
i’m sure it’s a lot easier to take a plane from Cali to chicago
De-regulate the railroad freight industry and put the long haul freight back on the rails. Let the people travel on the highways.
Don't count on it.
The real solution is to eliminate the need for all that travel. The long term solution is telecommuting. Technology will eventually “cross a line” that brings the concept of telecommuting into the mainstream much as technology brought us from the extremely rare IBM PC in the home to the ubiquitous pc’s and laptops we now see. I think it started with the $2,500 386 and reasonably reliable Microsoft OS and Microsoft Office products.
As far as I am concerned, it HAS crossed that “386” line and is headed to full fledged “business as usual” status in the next five years. I am already seeing us at that point with some of the desktop sharing software and video links. It has been “technically possible” for over a decade. It is now easy and convenient.
It’s been a long time coming, and it will revolutionize the entire world’s economy over the next decade.
>>De-regulate the railroad freight industry and put the long haul freight back on the rails. Let the people travel on the highways.<<
Oh man, don’t get me started. And I completely agree. I thought I saw a lot of trucks on I-90 going east of Seattle. A couple of weeks ago I headed south out of the Chicago megalopolis to Louisville. The sheer number of trucks make the freeway almost look like a train. Why that is not on cheap rails is utterly beyond me.
I can only assume it is due to saving jobs and cronyism. After all, a long freight train needs far fewer drivers than the same amount of freight being carried by individual trucks. I’ll speculate that the price of goods at the retail level would go down.
Psst. UPS, particularly, moves most of its long distance express by rail. Not the government misrun Amtrak, but privatelt owned, for profit, real railroads.
Then again, I will anything to avoid going through Laguardia.
b...bb...bbbb..b.bbbb..bbu..but, it can get you from Cleveland to Toledo in twenty minutes....isn’t that wonderful?
Expanding the use of regular-speed rail for freight would do far more to “loosen congestion” than high speed passenger rail.
If most long-hauls were done by rail, rather than the semis now clogging highways; there’d be plenty of room for passenger cars. Also, people would feel a lot more comfortable driving smaller cars on those highways.
Don't get me wrong I'm not a proponent of building high-speed rail but I also think federal highways should all be sold to private companies who charge tolls.
I think the federal government should play a minimum roll in transportation.
The private railroads built bridges and tunnels all with their own money. They moved people all over this land until the government started building highways. I think this should end.
telecommuting is the future for bringing people together but we still need to bring actual stuff all around the country. That’s why I’m in favor of high speed freight trains, not more Amtrak. Even more truck lanes would be better for the economy.
I will speak from experience in moving lumber(a fairly heavy product) over railways.
The railroads have become an oligopoly. There are only six majors left in North America. They have shut down many sidings to industries that did not have enough volume. They have raised their rates while trucking rates have come down in the last year by 30%. The railroads have reduced(mothballed) their equipment and kept their prices high. They are also much less user friendly than trucking companies. If you have a problem with the railroad it is like dealing with any big corp. Lastly the truckers can offer just in time delivery and smaller quantities of product ordered to help turn your inventory quicker.
we’d cut a lot of congestion if we got all those trucks off the freeways.
a train from cleveland to toledo might make sense. los angeles to toledo by train is ridiculous
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.