Johnny Canal!
Posted on 01/30/2011 8:04:48 AM PST by rabscuttle385
Key Republicans are embracing a major spending initiative outlined in President Obama's State of the Union address.
Two top members of the House Transportation Committee said they will push the president's initiative seeking to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail over te course of the next 25 years.
"I believe it's good for America to develop a high-speed rail corridor in the Northeast corridor," Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), the chairman of the railroad subcommittee, said according to the Connecticut Post. "It's a place we have to start, we have to accomplish it, because then I believe all of America, in the various corridors around the country, will want high-speed rail if they see success here."
Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.), the chairman of the whole committee, also said Friday he was "pleased that President Obama has helped to launch a system for improved passenger rail service for our nation."
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
High speed rail would be great...if the private sector paid for the damn thing. Otherwise, BOON-DOGGLE.
The following analysis is from Cato Institute
This year Amtrak is celebrating its silver anniversary. Unfortunately, after 25 years of federal ownership and $13 billion of federal subsidies, Amtrak appears no closer to financial independence than the day taxpayer assistance began. This study shows that virtually every stated justification for continued Amtrak subsidies is based on myth, not reality.
* Amtrak makes a negligible contribution to the nation’s transportation system. Amtrak represents just .007 percent of all daily commuter work trips and just 0.4 percent of all passengers making intercity trips.
* Amtrak’s typical riders are not low-income Americans. Only 13 percent have incomes below $20,000.
* Amtrak has virtually no impact on reducing traffic congestion, pollution, or energy use. Even a doubling of train ridership would reduce energy consumption and traffic congestion by less than 0.1 percent.
* Amtrak is by far the most highly subsidized form of intercity transportation. The average taxpayer subsidy per Amtrak rider is $100, or 40 percent of the total per-passenger cost. On some of the long-distance routes, such as New York to Los Angeles, the taxpayer subsidy per passenger exceeds $1,000. It would be cheaper for taxpayers to close down expensive lines and purchase discount round-trip airfare for all the Amtrak riders.
I’m not a Republican but I understand your problem with the overuse of the RINO term.
When high speed (or low speed) trains are economically feasible, they will be built. I understand that you lilke trains, but that’s not the issue. I like a car with 500 horsepower that gets 50 miles to the gallon, but it’s not realistic to expect anyone to build one for me at an affordable price.
Of course the govt can subsidize trains (again) which means they will fail and cost the taxpayers money for no good reason.
Sounds just like the stem cell nonsense. Private embryonic stem cell research was not outlawed--but the PRIVATE SECTOR did not want to invest. Why? The technology favored adult stem cell research. So here come the liberals: Hussein wants GOVERNMENT TO PAY FOR IT.
Johnny Canal!
“I don’t know the economics of running a rail line, so whether it would be profitable or not for a private company I can’t say. But I can say that if the ticket were reasonably priced, they would have lots of customers. “
I have driven LA to SF many, many, times. It is dull drive with tons of traffic. It is a lot of work to drive that.
And yes, I would agree, that there would be lots of customers, but how many are needed to break even...let’s take a stab: The cost being bandied around is $20B. If you figure that you’ll need to recover, maybe, 10% of that per year, you need $2B at the farebox (and that $2B would probably be enough to cover ops, as well as debt service). So the question is whether you can get $2B per year, or about $5M per day, in farebox revenues.
So, Southwest charges $64 one-way for advance purchases from LAX to SFO, which comes out $75 with tax.
For that price - you would need 65,000 passengers per day. If a train holds 500 people, then you need 260 trains per day...or about one train running every 8 minutes (for a 16-hour schedule). That is a LOT of people
To give you some scale - LAX averages about 80,000 passengers per day. So you would have to carry more people per day than LAX services (for all of their destinations).
The numbers simply do not work.
Overcrowded airports is hardly an excuse.
Why are airports overcrowded? Because enviro/marxist lawyers sue every time you try to build one anywhere.
Goodness! Didn’t you read ANY of the other posts?? I read quite a few that gave good arguments against GOVERNMENT-FUNDED rail, which is what this would be. They ALL said that PRIVATELY-FUNDED rail would be acceptable. What did YOUR post(s) say - didn’t see any that were fighting with the FRs. In fact, you NEVER did give any kind of argument at all.
“Did Obama make a statement in the SOTU that we wouldn’t have to use Airport Security type measures for passengers using High Speed Trains?
I thought I read that here. If true, Obama is more unbalanced, or idiotic than I thought. “
Heck, taking out a high speed train would be simple, since they have to run on a track. You don’t even need to put anything on the train. One good boom, and people will be back on the highways. At least with planes, you need missiles, and the planes can at least be equipped to defend themselves (as they do in Israel).
And that does not count the 23.7 trillion that tarp exec. Neil Barofsky claims has been either spent or committed to bail out the world.
“And that does not count the 23.7 trillion that tarp exec. Neil Barofsky claims has been either spent or committed to bail out the world.”
Not that I know of...
Scroll down near the bottom
"billions in slush fund" This link describes supposed Vatican Bank Accounts held by US officials on both sides of the aisle that were supposedly funded directly from the US treasury.
If this is for real its a major league story.
Graham needs funding for some port dredging or something like that and he is probably making a trade with Obama.
You can be sure there will be TSA screening to make it just as unpalatable as air travel with one important difference: for air travel, the route is secure, at least above MANPAD level; for train travel, especially high speed rail, the ENTIRE TRAVEL PATH is vulnerable. Unprofitable without subsidies as it is, add the security cost on top and rail is a boondoggle beyond belief. Let's hope the other pubbie 300 reps get it right.
If upgraded rail has profit potential, private investment will develop it. If not, who needs it?
Consider the NJ-NYC tunnel project Gov. Christie shot down. It would have benefited only the few who commute to and from Manhattan, at great cost to all in the state. If it could make a buck, it would be funded privately.
If upgraded rail has profit potential, private investment will develop it. If not, who needs it?
Consider the NJ-NYC tunnel project Gov. Christie shot down. It would have benefited only the few who commute to and from Manhattan, at great cost to all in the state. If it could make a buck, it would be funded privately.
High speed rail -just like urban mass transit is an idea premised in utopian socialist fantasy and destined for epic failure.
IF it had value THEN the free market would have embraced it long long ago.
My advice, do not listen to the idiots!
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.