I almost agreed with somebody, but then I noticed it was me, so I’ll try something different. I think the solution is to have nobody go anywhere. I mean, why would anybody voluntarily go to Milwaukee? Have Peapod drop off some brats and beer and take a tour of the Harley factory via YouTube. You save money and gas and get to not have to go to Milwaukee.
I don’t see anyone suggesting plunking down random mass transit lines. High-speed rail is working well in the one place where we have it (such as it is), and might be suitable in others in the years go come.
I don’t think we need a crash program to start building it all next week, but I’d like to see it as a viable option in long-term planning. We can build up more experience operating the Acela, improve and expand on that service, and include zoning and rights-of-way in the planning discussion in other cities.
Oh please, it died because in most cases it wasn’t financially viable. it was a pork project that cost the recipients more money than it was worth. And we build the equivalent of the transcontinental railroad all the time. It just comes in different names in each city. Look at all the bypass highways that have been built in the last half of the 20th century. These were major projects that add up to a tremendous investment in infrastructure. We just don’t have a singular project that warrants historic recognition such as the transcontinental highway. Which while I’m thinking about it wasn’t a government project in the first place. It was a private enterprise.
We won’t see the equivalent of the Hoover Dam ever again because of environmental concerns which is probably justified. But this wasn’t a Hoover Dam project. It was stimulus pork that cost more than it was worth.
Which is why we ought to just support our poor people, without demanding that they construct some kind of modern-era monument. We have the resources to just feed them/us all, so let’s do that first. Let’s try to dissolve conflicts with this kind of compassion.
Is this supposed to be a bad thing? We don’t need to divert resources to wasteful activities. Resources should be allocated by the market in order to satisfy consumer needs. Only a price system with profit and loss feedback can accomplish this, not government.
Hypothetical - a rail system would fulfill a great need, but the people who need it most couldn’t actually afford to use it if the prices were set to be profitable. This is obviously a very real social good, reducing pollution and increasing range for people who need it most… but only at prices which are unsustainable. What then?
In theory, a train could compete on price vs. a plane, but that hasn’t been my experience with Via Rail. Every time I’ve tried pricing a train trip, it’s just microscopically cheaper than a flight, at best.
High speed rail is a matter of when, not if. We can do it the hard way, and fight over every inch. Our grandchildren will eventually benefit. Or we can just build it and start reaping the benefits now. It’ll happen either way.
Anyone who doesn’t see the benefit of a quick, wifi enabled downtown-to-downtown connection between LA, SF and Silicon Valley is nuts.
Most people who use the Interstate Highway System couldn’t afford to pay for it either.
But, that already exists today, at LAX, SFO, and SJC. The train will take longer, cost more, and you will still need to rent a car at the other end. What is the benefit?
HSR would make sense if it can link up places where airlines cannot go, or can beat them on time and cost. For the SF Bay Area to LA area, the future is already here with commercial airlines.
Now, with your first statement I am in agreement, but again, the HSR will need to be for selected areas where it actually makes more sense than airlines. Something less that 200 miles (e.g. Seattle-Portland, NE corridor). SF to LA is nearly 400 miles, there is no way for a train to beat airlines - it does not make sense in that case.
It’s paid for out of taxes applied to gasoline and diesel fuel.
I’m a big rail fan. I actually go out to watch the damn things and would take the occasional train for novelty rides but unless it picks me up from my house and drops me off to where I’m going it’s not something I would ride daily. If I had a job that was 3 hrs away and a train connected both cities I’d buy a 2nd car and stage it but I don’t have a job 3 hrs away. I do have a job that’s 1 hr away and I carpool to it. Otherwise I’d have to drive or take a bus to a station and then take a taxi or bus from the terminal point. It would turn a long day into a really long day and be expensive.
If someone came up with a method where you could ferry your car on a train with minimal hassle and cost, well that would be sweet. But I’m filing that one down the list that starts with flying cars.
Amtrak does that along the east coast. In that case, the train does something the airlines cannot, so it makes sense. For HSR in CA, the current plan does not do anything better than flying.
That should be the mantra for all HSR projects - it needs to do something better than flying, otherwise it’s like taking a step backward.
Wow, that’s pretty neat. Checks garage for flying car… dammit…
$269 one way WAS/ORL for 1 adult. $538 for two adults. The food has to be better than airline food.
The benefit is that it’ll be quicker and cheaper. Yes, a plane flies faster than a train can run, but most of the time spent in air trips is not the time on the plane itself. If a train station is more conveniently located than an airport and has a more streamlined pre-boarding process, the total time will go down.
Of course, freight rail need not be high-speed.
But what do we do when that doesn’t work, when the system leaves consumer needs unfulfilled because consumers do not earn enough to buy what they need?
Then you don’t do it. I have all kinds of needs that are unfulfilled. It’s not the government’s job to fill them.
Okay, picture this. I am starting the day at my office in San Francisco’s Financial District at 8:30 AM. Suddenly a big client in LA would like a demo. At noon. I have a few hours of prep to do before the meeting, and I need to be home by seven for my kids ballet recital.
Air? No way. First off, same day tickets are going to be outrageous, if I can get one at all. Then I need maybe 40 minutes to get to SFO, but I’ll have to pad it in case there is traffic. Then an hour for security and actually getting on my plane. And I can’t work for any of this time, so my prep isn’t happening. There may or may not be wi-fi on the plane, and in any case for much of the flight I won’t be able to use my laptop. And the I get dropped off at LAX and have another round of traffic to face going in and out. And let’s be sure to add taxi fares and parking fees.
Or…I buy a ticket online-- trains can carry lots of people so there are likely seats. And if not, another train will leave shortly after. I walk over to the station. I don’t need to pad my time, because I’m not beholden to traffic. I can plan to arrive just a few minutes before the train leaves, and I won’t have any long lines or other bottlenecks to worry about. I waltz on to the train and open my laptop immediately getting to work. I have a full three hours of uninterrupted work time, and can stay on top of emails and calls. When I arrive in LA, I take an Uber to the office, give my demo, and head back for another three hours of comfortable productivity, all to arrive home not only before seven, but in time to catch the last meeting of the day.
The real power in this is the creativity and collaboration that comes out of connecting urban centers. I am from Sacramento, and high speed rail will mean that creative, ambitious people will be able to stay in Sacramento rather than defecting to the bay. It will ease the crowding and housing woes in SF, and will bring new vitality and opportunity to Sacramento- which will improve the economy for everyone.
That is no solace to the poor and the unemployed. Not even you, I hope, would think of denying that their problems are public problems.