Posted on 09/23/2011 5:21:33 PM PDT by Kaslin
Boondoggles: How can we tell if Congress is serious about reining in spending? A clear-cut, permanent defunding of high-speed rail would be one sign. But the pipe dream won't quite die.
Sometime soon — or so we'd like to think — the fast-train fad will fizzle out, the victim of fiscal sanity and critical thinking.
Just this week, a Senate Appropriations subcommittee controlled by Democrats actually voted to give high-speed rail nothing at all in the new fiscal year.
That got our hopes up. Then the full Appropriations Committee mixed the message by approving $100 million for the program, which is a far cry from the $8 billion sought by President Obama.
That pittance was a symbolic victory for the rail fans. It was a rebuke to the Republican-controlled House, which is trying to kill Obama's high-speed rail scheme once and for all. For those who think that sleek trains will somehow revolutionize transportation in America, it keeps the dream alive.
It also continues to dangle the temptation of federal funds — if not in 2012, maybe later — in front of states that should not be taking the bait. California, especially, would spare itself enormous future pain if it were to ditch its ambitious high-speed rail plan now, before starting to build lines that almost no one will use.
A clear sign from the feds that no further money is coming for that purpose, now or ever, would make the state's decision easy. Voters have authorized $9 billion in bonds to build the system, but these don't come close to meeting construction costs, which the state's non-partisan Legislative Analyst office has pegged at $67 billion for just the first phase, from Orange County through Los Angeles to San Francisco.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Here in NYS, we have a damn thruway from one end of the state to the other. Now really....Do you really want to “drive” faster than 70 MPH?? Take a damn plane.
I like my idea much better. Instead of loading people into crowded aircraft we should put them into individual UAVs(large ones) that would fly over the city of choice and eject the passenger out, with a parachute of course. Sound like a money waster? Yep, but no more so than high speed rail. What ever happened to Willy Green, BTW?
Train Union guys who will be making $150K/year from Federal Subsidies.
As I recall, he told the proprietor to perform an obscene act with himself, and out the door he went.
Idea is fine BUT the way the Gov. will put it in place will have it too expensive and too slow. Its like the Electric car—the Volt. Not really a bad idea for inter urban transportation but WAY TO EXPENSIVE—so its out of reach for the very people it needs to serve! IF the high speed train was inexpensive and good—it would be an excellent alternative to driving or air—But it will not be!
Unless they’re O-Gauge I have no use for them.
If passenger travel was profitable, the major railroads would be in it in a big way.
The market will best determine if hi-speed rail is practical.
That's the problem, they want to put it on the wrong side of the mountains, put a high speed rail line between L.A. and Mammoth Ski Resort in Eastern Sierra and they would find a lot of people wanting to ride. During Summer there are millions of people who go to the Eastern Sierra, backpackers, fishermen, etc. that would rather not drive here. We have no railroads or public transportaion of any kind (no Greyhound bus, etc.).
Problem is what in the hell do you do once you get to a station that may still be miles from your destination. Bring your roller skates.
High Speed to Insolvency-Why liberals love trains.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/27/high-speed-to-insolvency.html
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.
Time was, the progressive cry was “Workers of the world unite!” or “Power to the people!” Now it is less resonant: “All aboard!”
A fixed rail system seems rather short sighted, even if the government can successfully identify routes that would justify this kind of capital expenditure.
A fixed system is very expensive to change as circumstances, residency and employment patterns and vacation preferences change as they always will.
If there is a real unaddressed need for public transport, busses would seem to be a better choice. They are easier and less expensive to reroute in the future, and when they break down, its a lot easier just to tow them out of the way and have the subsequent busses to just pass the disabled vehicles.
How did Willie Green manage to buy that Committee?
That's why it makes sense in Japan, South Korea, China, much of Europe, and certain corridors in the USA (e.g. the Northeast Corridor between Richmond, VA to Boston, MA). Interestingly, Chicago is one place where high-speed rail especially makes sense, since from Chicago these corridors work well for such lines:
Chicago-Milwaukee-Madison, WI-Eau Claire, WI-Minneapolis/St. Paul
Chicago-Davenport, IA-Des Moines-Omaha
Chicago-St. Louis-Kansas City, MO-Wichita
Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati
Chicago-Grand Rapids, MI-Lansing, MI-Detroit
Chicago-South Bend, IN-Toledo-Cleveland-Buffalo
Oh, I agree. "M...ass transit" is not for me. But if you absolutely MUST "do" mass transit, buses are a far more practical choice than trains.
Willie Green will ride them only to enjoy delicious meals in the dining car while using free Wi-Fi.
Buses work best when distances are relatively short, like about commuting up to 20 miles between home and work. But buses have the issues of being limited by posted road speed limits, and that could make commutes quite long.
Willie was out-sourced. You can find a dozen trolls straight of the shelf who can perform the same work.
Here in NJ, they wanted to build another tunnel under the Hudson River until the great Chris Christie pointed out that there was nobody to use it; the jobs in NYC, and the taxpayers of northern NJ, were melting away. People I know who commute into the city say there are a lot less people on the existing trains...
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.