High-speed rail subsidies are a bad investment
I mentioned high-speed rail in my post last week about the Charlottephobia infecting some people in metro Atlanta. Anyone who wants to know whether metro Atlanta, and Georgia, should fret over “losing” the high-speed rail race absolutely must read this column by the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson (links in the quoted sections are original throughout):
Vice President Biden, an avowed friend of good government, is giving it a bad name. With great fanfare, he went to Philadelphia last week to announce that the Obama administration proposes spending $53 billion over six years to construct a “national high-speed rail system.” Translation: The administration would pay states $53 billion to build rail networks that would then lose money — lots — thereby aggravating the budget squeezes of the states or federal government, depending on which covered the deficits.
There’s something wildly irresponsible about the national government undermining states’ already poor long-term budget prospects by plying them with grants that provide short-term jobs. Worse, the rail proposal casts doubt on the administration’s commitment to reducing huge budget deficits. … How can it subdue deficits if it keeps proposing big spending programs?
High-speed rail would definitely be big. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has estimated the administration’s ultimate goal — bringing high-speed rail to 80 percent of the population — could cost $500 billion over 25 years. For this stupendous sum, there would be scant public benefits. Precisely the opposite. Rail subsidies would threaten funding for more pressing public needs: schools, police, defense.
Samuelson then recounts the long, sad history of Amtrak, including higher fares relative to other modes of transportation and an inability, because its passenger load is so small as to be irrelevant (one-tenth of 1 percent of all passenger miles in the country, according to Samuelson), to reduce traffic congestion or improve the environment. And all of this comes at an exorbitant level of subsidy — $35 billion for Amtrak since 1970, the vast majority of which likely benefits upper-income travelers on the East Coast — compared to other types of transportation:
In 2004, the Transportation Department evaluated federal transportation subsidies from 1990 to 2002. It found passenger rail service had the highest subsidy ($186.35 per thousand passenger-miles) followed by mass transit ($118.26 per thousand miles). By contrast, drivers received no net subsidy; their fuel taxes more than covered federal spending. Subsidies for airline passengers were about $5 per thousand miles traveled. (All figures are in inflation-adjusted year 2000 dollars.)
High-speed rail would transform Amtrak’s small drain into a much larger drain. Once built, high-speed-rail systems would face a dilemma. To recoup initial capital costs — construction and train purchases — ticket prices would have to be set so high that few people would choose rail. But lower prices, even with favorable passenger loads, might not cover costs. Government would be stuck with huge subsidies. Even without recovering capital costs, high-speed-rail systems would probably run in the red. Most mass-transit systems, despite high ridership, routinely have deficits.
But for me, the kicker is this observation:
The reasons passenger rail service doesn’t work in America are well-known: Interstate highways shorten many trip times; suburbanization has fragmented destination points; air travel is quicker and more flexible for long distances (if fewer people fly from Denver to Los Angeles and more go to Houston, flight schedules simply adjust). [emphasis added]
This isn’t just about the difficulty of prying Americans out of their cars and off airplanes; it’s about the wisdom of doing so. In no other facet of American life are people demanding less flexibility and adaptability. Why would that be different for transportation?
Rail only begins to make sense for traveling over long distances. And, for the vast majority of 21st-century America, it doesn’t make any sense to spend billions of dollars we don’t have to build an inflexible, hugely subsidized, slower, publicly operated transportation option (rail) to compete with a highly flexible, less subsidized, faster, privately run transportation option already in widespread use (air travel).
– By Kyle Wingfield
Find me on Facebook
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
95 comments Add your comment
I Report :-) You Whine :-( mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
February 15th, 2011
5:43 am
It’s the dummycrats signature boondoggle and they’re proud of it!
And so is China.
~~~~~
How can you tell if a dummycrat is lying? They got their mouths open, hahahaha-
Health and Human Services
Spending: $886.8 billion Percentage change from 2011: 1 percent decrease
• Put off steep Medicare cuts to doctors for two more years, at a cost of $54 billion over 10 years. -Urinal
This was one of the ways they were going to pay for obozocare, “cutting” Medicare, and gosh, not only are we still paying for Medicare, they pile obozocare on top of it.
The fiscal discipline of a teenager.
DeborahinAthens
February 15th, 2011
6:55 am
And the Republicans can’t seem to get it together, either. God forbid the two biggest mouthed critics of President Obama’s attempts at cutting the budger–Cantor and Boehner–will not even answer pointed questions about cutting a mulit billion dollar defense boondoggle. The Pentagon doesn’t want a second engine for a plane that isn’t needed, and, because this engine or its parts are made in their districts, these bozos won’t even be put on the table. Such hypocrites. As for high-speed rail…any one that has taken the Eurostar from England to France, or the TGV inside France, knows how wonderful access to an alternative form of travel can be. The Repugs always make fun of France, yet, with high-speed rail, the fact that 70% of their electricity comes from nuclear power plants, and a superb health care system, we could learn a lot. No, I am not French, but when I retire, it won’t be in this country run by religious, hypocritical idealogues.
JimW
February 15th, 2011
7:38 am
Obama is only proposing it because the railroad construction jobs are union jobs, which will bolster his base. You are absolutely right in observing that the high speed rail makes no sense because low ridership will guarantee that it will be a huge money-loser. It sounds like a great isea until you look into the economics.
Rail travel in the Eastern corridor of the US makes sense because of the number of population centers in close proximity. That’s also a reason that it works well in Europe, along with the fact that in Europe rail travel is a viable economic alternative to flying and rail travel is quick because of the short distances.
Jack Bennett
February 15th, 2011
7:47 am
Part of the problem is in the definition of high speed. Railroads ran passenger trains at 79mph on existing track and right of way. It is stupid to be against what you don’t understand. And what is the alternative? all transportation eggs in one basket? When gas is 5$ a gallon, and there no alternatives, what good would 15 lanes, 20 lanes or 50 lanes of highway do? I guess Kyle is OK with sending a Dictator 150 billion (murbrak) but begruges 1.5 billion for Amtrack commuter rail and.
A good rail system will get trucks off the highway as well as providing safe commuter alternatives.
J M Bennett Railroad signal worker and proud BRS union member.
Aquagirl
February 15th, 2011
7:51 am
Did the airline subsidy calculation include the cost of 3000 lives on 9/11?
Road Scholar
February 15th, 2011
7:53 am
How will high speed rail look when gas gets to $4 a gallon? How about $5/gal? Anyone for $6? At least rail can be driven by electricity, not just oil!
As for the airlines, they operate on oil if you haven’t noticed. Ticket prices are already going up, along with delays. Service is going down. I thought competition was the basis for our capitalism?
For those who say that rail, esp Amtrak and the NE rail corridors, operates at a loss, have you thought what roadway investment would be required to eliminate rail and transit to address the existing, let alone future needs? And what about polution? Oh that’s right polution doesn’t exist! Our air will look like China’s if we don’t do something different. Besides it woud create jobs. Oh that’s right here in Ga, we won’t increase our user fees (gas tax) to even address our needs let alone new jobs!
ByteMe
February 15th, 2011
7:55 am
And all of this comes at an exorbitant level of subsidy — $35 billion for Amtrak since 1970
Wait, you seriously wrote that?? $35 billion OVER 40 YEARS? That’s less per year than it cost for a week of reconstructing Iraq. Your priorities are seriously screwed if your numbers are right.
Hank Reardon
February 15th, 2011
8:49 am
Three words:
Cost Of Oil
Not just per barrel in the market…in defense resources we stupidly throw at the Middle East to ensure OPEC keeps prices low.
History is typically a great indicator of what will transpire in the future, but not on this issue. This is uncharted territory.
The US better keep up with the changing world, or get left behind.
There is no stopping population growth and all the increased demand for resources that come with it. And y’all know what increased demand leads to…
jm
February 15th, 2011
9:43 am
Kyle, I agree with the sentiments, and the obvious fact is that the air and road systems are vastly more flexible than rail transit. That said, all the facts in this analysis are wrong. The reason you can get anywhere by road and air is because the investments have been made to make it so. Fuel taxes come NOWHERE close to covering the cost of just road MAINTENANCE now, forget about actual new investment and development. As is obvious, if new roads have to be built today, the only way to do it is with Tolls, which voters seem to hate, so no new roads are being built.
The same myopic view of government and transportation investment costs that wants to kill rail transit is ALSO killing new road investment.
Kyle, I like a lot of your columns. But this one is just off in left field. We need new transportation investment, in every form available, because gridlock is bringing this country to a standstill.
But if you want to live in a country with nationwide traffic jams, by all means, please publicly and openly advocate such an agenda. GRIDLOCK FOR ALL!
Corey
February 15th, 2011
9:44 am
Let’s face it. Airlines will never allow competition by another form of transportation to threaten their profits. Enough said. Half the population want the country to move forward while half want it to stand still. As we debate and squabble over twentieth century issues, our competition is moving ahead at a dizzying pace. Half the population embraces the future while half the population fears the future and want to hold onto the past. Our population becomes older and resistance will become the status quo. Beyond our shores there is an emerging world with youthful populations as its majorities.
jm
February 15th, 2011
9:45 am
“could cost $500 billion over 25 years”
SO WHAT?
Just maintaining our roads, forget about building new ones, is going to cost $2 Trillion over the same time frame. Jesus.
jm
February 15th, 2011
9:49 am
“High-speed rail subsidies are a bad investment”
Lasik surgery or just eye glasses for Conservatives would be a good investment. So they could actually figure out how to read and look at the statistics and figure out the difference between new investment in capacity versus maintaining the status quo.
Aquagirl
February 15th, 2011
10:06 am
jm, it’s not a matter of not being able to read, it’s a matter of dishonesty. They are fully aware they leave out the fact air and road systems run on already-established infrastructure, heavily subsidized by previous generations of taxpayers. Why should they invest? They take the free ride quicker than a NYC turnstile jumper.
Then these pseudo-libertarians can hop in their fat SUV’s and drive 10 miles to the nearest grocery store while muttering about the darned gub’ment spending their money. That is, unless they encounter inconveniences like traffic or the Dali Lama’s nephew.
Question Authority
February 15th, 2011
10:18 am
Its not an investment. It is theft of money from the taxpayers. Worse, it is theft from future generations who don’t even have a say. None of this will be paid for with current revenues. It will be paid with debt at the Federal level and bonds (debt) at the local level. In the end, it will be a great subsidy for developers who own land near stations, companies who will build the wasteful system, and government administrators who will make way too much money shuffling money.
Add to this the inflation impact which is just a hidden tax on everyone and we have the collapse of the dollar and the american economy. The only positive outcome of these will be the collapse of the government at all levels and a situation that will force all of you rail supporters to finally realize that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH MONEY for all this government waste.
Stuart
February 15th, 2011
10:22 am
“Rail only begins to make sense for traveling over long distances.”
Actually, it is quite the opposite. Rail makes much more sense for short and/or highly congested distances. If given the choice between air travel or rail for a distance of 400 miles or less (particularly if it was a high speed train travelling 150 miles per hour), people would choose rail, given the hassles of air travel.
By making such a statement you are obviously so ignorant of the topic that it is not even worth considering any of your other points!
Here Spot
February 15th, 2011
10:30 am
More Obama Horse Apples and Biden is choking down as many as possible. Quayle may have been useless but atleast he didnt open is mouth, too often, and prove how stupid he was…potato vs potahto. Biden is just plain stupid and out of touch.
JF McNamara
February 15th, 2011
10:35 am
I’m still undecided on this one. Rail in America is used by companies as a means of shipping products. The transportation aspect of the rail system is nominal even though it gets the lion share of attention.
What I don’t understand is how upgrading the rail system impacts the shipping needs of companies. If they can now use electric trains (ie no fossil fuels) and travel at higher speeds, I can easily see this being net positive in a very short amount of time. I’m never against building infrastructure that improves commerce.
If its passenger only, then its clearly a bad idea in America. There were people against interstates, but that clearly worked out. Not because of the ease of travel but because truckers can move products efficiently. Until I truly understand that, I’d wait to be hardcore for or against it.
John
February 15th, 2011
10:36 am
Got to love the hypocrisy of the Republicans. First, they pledge to cut spending by at least $100 billion the first year alone. Now, they claim their plan will cut $61 billion, which doesn’t meet the $100 billion pledge because the it’s now in the middle of the fiscal year which they knew it would be when they made the pledge. They also came up with this $61 billion amount by comparing it to last years budget proposal which was not passed instead of comparing their cuts to actual spending. When compared to actual spending, the amount is much less than the $61 billion.
As another poster pointed out earlier, they forcing the Pentagon to buy extra engines which the Pentagon says is not needed and not wanted. This is due to the fact the engine and parts are make in Cantor and Boehner’s districts…the top 2 Republicans in the house. Instead of funding things that are needed and wanted, they want to fund things that are not needed nor wanted.
And of course, there’s Georgia’s lawmakers, both at the state level and federal level, that are disappointed in the lack of more funding for expansion of the port of Savannah. The president’s budget proposal contains $600,000 for the project but Georgia lawmakers were seeking $105 million. These Republican lawmakers who ran on fiscal responsibility, cutting government spending, against earmarks, saying everyone will have to feel the pain are now wanting to increase the spending the president proposed in his budget for this project. They’re even looking at using earmarks, if need be, to get the funding. What happened to fiscal responsibility, cutting government spending and everyone having to feel the pain of the cuts?
retired early
February 15th, 2011
10:36 am
Just one more example of the difference between Liberals who are forward thinking re our country’s future and the conservatives…who want to return to the Guilded Age of early 1900’s….a couple more election cycles in their favor and we are there…back to their utopia of no social programs, no middle class, no income tax…the top 1% have 90% of the money…they may then go back to the good ol days of segregation, corrupt law enforcement, bans on alcohol…..”those were the days…”
Tychus Findlay
February 15th, 2011
10:43 am
High speed rail is unrealistic in a country the size of the US. It works in Europe because their geography is a fraction of ours.
You don’t see high speed rail as a priority in Canada, or Brazil, or Australia, or China, or any other “large’ country.
Here Spot
February 15th, 2011
10:47 am
Bascially anything ObaManure proposes is gonna be fraught with waste and stupidity. 2012 cant get here quick enough.
atlmom
February 15th, 2011
10:51 am
So, um, it’s okay to subsidize roads but not trains?
The reasons cited above as to ‘why it doesn’t work’ is because we’ve subsidized *that* lifestyle, rather than rail.
We live far apart – because we have cars. Because we need huge parking lots and parking decks to house all those cars. We have lots of interstates because for some reason we have decided that we want to subsidize that rather than trains.
Trains are so much less stressful. Trains allow us such a better lifestyle than cars.
1) crime. When there are more people walking around and near each other, you’d have less crime – when you have a downtown like atlanta, where no one walks around, you have higher crime (NYC is one of the lowest crime cities in the country – look at where the high crime cities are).
2) obesity. You have lower obesity when you can walk places.
3) the young and old can get around. Right now, people buy their ‘barely can drive’ kids big cars they don’t know how to drive, because the parents are so thrilled they don’t have to drive their kids places anymore. If there were ways to get around other than cars, teens could be a little freer – without all the risks of young people on interstates (look at the mortality rates of kids under 18 who were driving – we get those articles *all the time* in this paper). Also, it would be easier to take the keys away from an elderly person who doesn’t have the capacity to drive if they could get around without a car. As it is, we have very dangerous drivers on the road because taking away someone’s keys is akin to taking away all their independence
3) just a nicer way to live – no worrying about car maintenance, how much it costs to fill up the tank, all that time spent filling up the tank and driving around for maintenance, no worrying about driving to one store, shopping, then having to drive across the street to go to another store, since you can only park in a store’s parking lot when you are shopping there. You can go places with other people, without worrying where to ‘ditch the car.’
I am a pretty darn big conservative when it comes to most issues. But I really don’t understand why this is so one way or another. We are all dependent on each other – people have convinced themselves that for some reason, when they are in their car, they are independent. Lot of good it did y’all when we had snow and the govt couldn’t clear the roads. The trains were still running.
DebbieDoRight
February 15th, 2011
10:51 am
Well Kyle if you hate “high speed rail” so much, we can always revert back to the horse and buggy. After all, it’s the repugs dream to push the country back as far as possible — let’s forget about pre Reagan years, or pre-50’s, let’s go all the way back to pre-revolutionary war times!! Republican mantra: Progresss = BAD/European and un-American; Staid, Stale, and The Same= GREAT!! The American way!
Hank Reardon
February 15th, 2011
10:52 am
Tychus, it’s called Google. Try it.
http://wikitravel.org/en/High-speed_rail_in_China
High-speed rail in China
From Wikitravel
China is building a high-speed passenger rail network, similar to French TGV or Japanese Shinkansen “bullet trains”, but far larger and faster. The overall plan calls for 13,000 km of lines in a national high-speed passenger network by 2012, and more by 2020. Over 8,000 km are already in service. As that network comes online, many existing lines will become freight-only lines so overall freight capacity will be improved as well.
These are easily the best way of getting around China where available. The trains are clean, comfortable and modern. Seating is comparable to that in an airplane. Most tickets are for assigned seats; no-seat tickets are sometimes sold in limited numbers, but unlike regular Chinese trains, there is never a mad crush with more people sitting in the aisles than in seats. Also unlike other trains, no smoking is allowed, including toilet and between carriages. Prices are reasonable and, on most routes, departures are frequent.
The fast trains are called CRH, China Railway High-speed. At some train stations there is a separate CRH ticket office or even vending machines; at others, CRH tickets are sold at separate counters in the main ticket office. In either case, just look for the “CRH” signs or logo. There are mostly two classes of seats, first class and second class. Both classes are comfortable, though first has noticeably wider seats. Some trains also have limited number of VIP sightseeing class or private seat cabin.
The letter prefixes on train numbers indicte the type of train. From fastest to slowest, they are:
G or C: latest generation CRH, all with top speeds of at least 330 km/h and some up to 380 km/h (236 mph)
D: earlier generation CRH, with top speeds of 200 km/h or 250 km/h (125 or 155 mph)
Z or T: intermediate-speed non-CRH trains
K or no letter: slower, cheaper and more crowded trains
The speeds attained vary considerably from line to line. The technology used also varies. Nearly all the rolling stock is now manufactured in China, but much of the technology comes from abroad. The Canadian company Bombardier, Japanese Kawasaki, German Siemens and European Alstom have been involved.
See China#Get_around for more general information on rail travel in China.
atlmom
February 15th, 2011
10:56 am
@tychus: when I lived in Nice, France, it was a 12 hour ‘regular’ train trip to paris. It was about 5 or 6 hours on high speed rail. It’s about 600 miles between the two cities, and less than 250 miles from Atlanta to Charlotte, about 450 miles from atlanta to orlando. So, um, that ‘excuse’ doesn’t really hold water.
IF there was a train between atlanta and orlando that wasn’t a joke (in order to go between the two cities by train, one must go through DC – idiotic) i can tell you there would be a lot of people who took that train (oh, and atlanta to DC, 640 miles, only slightly farther than paris to nice).
atlmom
February 15th, 2011
10:57 am
Thanks, Hank – makes a lot of sense.
Why I Left the GOP...
February 15th, 2011
10:58 am
Thought like this on from Republicans is exactly why I call myself a conservative not a Republican. Rail is the favorite whipping boy of GOPers because you claim that they don’t break even or raise enough revenue. Yet the GOPs infrastructure improvement recommendation is to spend trillions on roads that are outmoded, inefficient and do not generate ANY revenue outside of the handful of toll roads around the country. Kyle you obviously have no clue about business and operations. You’re just the token GOP hack at the AJC and you give real conservatives like me a bad name.
wallbanger
February 15th, 2011
11:03 am
The thing about high speed rail is you need to have critical masses of people interested in getting from point a to point b on a train. In Europe this makes sense because interesting places are relatively close together and there is a huge tourist trade that rely on the rail. It doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense in the United States unless we are talking about maybe it being more economical for shipping products rather than people.
wallbanger
February 15th, 2011
11:05 am
Another thing. We dont have any money. Why is buying something like this even on the table? It is like an indigent family saying they want to buy a Cadillac because they could move around faster. Where in the hell are they going? And how will they pay for it? It just doesn’t make any sense to spend when the country is $14 TRILLION in debt.
atlmom
February 15th, 2011
11:07 am
@wallbanger: but it’s a chicken and the egg thing…
and…um…how big is the dept of transportation budget? there’s a federal budget, then a budget in each state. take some of that money.
JF McNamara
February 15th, 2011
11:10 am
Here’s a good write up on the real issue. Its not the money, its the oppostion of those running freight traffic. I’m sure that’s where all of the hatred for high speed rail is originating. I would seem that they could find a common ground that benefits both passenger and freight rail.
http://www.economist.com/node/16636101
Cutty
February 15th, 2011
11:11 am
Kyle has obviously never been to Chicago, or heard of Metra. It’s a commuter train system that can get you from South Bend, IN to Madison, WI without getting in your car. I don’t view that as ling distance travel. And how much do we pay over a 20 year period to maintain or roads; not any new ones either. Regional and national rail infrastructure is needed because we can’t just keep building roads. I think must sensible people already know this.
Usually Kyle is quick to badger any person who is in disagreement w him. Even he must know this article sucked and other modes of transportation are needed.
Hank Reardon
February 15th, 2011
11:14 am
wallbanger,
Use the money we save by getting out of Iraq completely.
In fact, audit the Pentagon. I’d bet the farm that there is plenty of wasted money to use there.
If we begin slowly now, to lay the foundations for this network, we can do it at the same rate that the demand for these services increases.
Eisenhower’s interstate system wasn’t cheap, but it was well worth it.
Not to mention, designing and laying tracks creates jobs, just like creating the highways did.
Until folks get back to work, you can forget about getting out of debt.
Ted
February 15th, 2011
11:15 am
Kyle needs a complete reboot on this topic. Quoting Robert Samuelson, the poster child for the gloom and doom school of economics, who never has anything positive to say about anything, isn’t much of a source. He’s obsessed with deficits, and knows nothing about transportation. And the subsidies for Amtrak are tiny, too small to have the system run properly. The idea that Amtrak couldn’t be run properly because it’s a rail system doesn’t make sense. The Republicans simply don’t want anything in government to run properly because of their rigid ideology, so they have hampered Amtrak at every turn. And short runs are exactly where rail is most efficient … for commutes into cities to combat congestion. In eastern cities like Boston rail is the method of choice for several hundred thousand commuters daily. It’s comfortable, efficient and economical. Atlanta is easily congested enough for that to be a highly attractive solution. Who knows if connecting high speed rail between, say, Birmingham and Atlanta might not lead to a revivification of ties between the two cities and lead to some economic benefit. This editorial is the worst I’ve ever seen Kyle write.
Rafe Hollister
February 15th, 2011
11:16 am
This rail proposal should be DOA. I heard one expert say last week, that when Biden spouts off about “high speed rail”, what he actually means is 39 MPH Amtrak. Many on here fantasize about Japanese “bullet trains” flying along at 190 mph” and what Obama is trying to sell is more Amtrak.
And for those of you long for futuristic mode of transportation, remember rail is horse and buggy. If we had reliable rail lines from NYC to Chicago and to San Fransico, how many would actually take the time to enjoy the scenery and spend two days on the train. A few old geezers on vacation. Rail has not shown itself to be significantly less expensive that airlines. Call and get a price on taking the train from Atlanta to DC and You will find you are spending much more time and saving little if any money.
Rafe Hollister
February 15th, 2011
11:19 am
those of you longing for a futuristic mode of transportation.
seabeau
February 15th, 2011
11:27 am
Can you say TSA. Yes folks ,all of us non-flying taxpayers subsidize those who fly. Another boondoggle that should be paid for by those who use it.
Rockerbabe
February 15th, 2011
11:31 am
High speed rail is a great idea! I love the train; when I lived in St. Louis back in the late 1970’s, my friends and I would take the train 3-4 times per year to Chicago. It is just wonderful; the trip took about 3-4 hours; we had great comfortable seats, could eat and drink in our coach, had great views from the windows and because fellow travelers were in a good mood, I had numerous interesting converstaions with other people! It was wonderful; no airline could ever match the atmosphere, comfort or quality, then and definitely now.
If the train had been high speed, we probably would have made Chicago in two hours or less. I would use high speed rail all the time, rather than driving, as I do now. I just refuse to fly with all of the bad treatment travelers are subject to these days; I just refuse to be treated like a criminal for merely wanting to fly somewhat, so I drive whenever the trip is 10 hours or less. High speed rail would save time, money, energy cost and hopefully return pleasure to the travelers.
High speed rail is very successful in both Europe and Japan; it can be successful here in the USA. Of course, building the new rail system would most likely employ thousands of Americans citizens at good wages; I guess we can’t have that! Afterall, business and the GOP, both seem to think they have the American worker were they want us – on our knees and willing to work for 3rd world wages, but think again.
President Obama’s program to build a high speed rail system is right on target. It will employ thousands of Americans, cut our enery cost and dependence and give the airlines some real competition. All of this naysaying is just noise from those who have absolutely no idea how to get this country moving again and how to get us into the future. Be mindeful Kyle, your ideas as so 20th century for someone so young. What a shame.
Port O'John
February 15th, 2011
11:35 am
The Conservative Version of America: The Can’t Do Country.
Scrap space exploration, scrap rail, scrap clean energy, scrap affordable healthcare for ordinary americans. But keep those corporate subsidies for big oil, big developers, big corporate farms, defense contractors and big pharma coming. Because that’s in America’s best interest.
John
February 15th, 2011
11:39 am
@Rafe Hollister
“I heard one expert say last week, that when Biden spouts off about “high speed rail”, what he actually means is 39 MPH Amtrak.”
Who is this supposedly “expert” you mention? Someone on Fox?
John
February 15th, 2011
11:41 am
I wonder how many of the extra engines the Pentagon has hanging around? The ones Republicans are forcing the Pentagon to buy even though they don’t want or need them.
H. Hunt
February 15th, 2011
11:42 am
Does the subsidies for Air travel include TSA? Airport and terminal costs?
Bottom line, if I need to travel less than 600 miles, it is a lot easier to just drive, but a waste of fuel and tires.
Think about it – you live 1 hour away from the airport. HAVE to be there 2 hours early, so allow 30 minutes more to park. Flight is 2 to 3 hours, depending on weather. Have to rent a car (1 hour). Probably take 1 hour to destination.
So that’s 7 hours, just in travel. Plus cost of rental car, parking, etc.
When I need to go from ATL to New York, I ALWAYS take Amtrak. Get a sleeper for same price as a flight. Work a bit or read a bit, sleep 8 hours, Breakfast as arriving Washington DC. New York (DOWNTOWN ALREADY !) at the end of lunch.
Rail is what we need between metro areas. We already have the right-of-way (median of the Interstates – elevate the train).
If you think otherwise, well, you ain’t flown much lately.
atlmom
February 15th, 2011
11:43 am
Every time they ‘expand’ the highway system, it takes a few years or so, but traffic is just as bad as when they proposed ‘relieving’ the congestion.
Why you ask? Well, if you live – wherever – and your commute is 1.5 hours, well, when they expand the roads, and your commute decreases, that’s great for you, right? But housing prices nearby go up, so people have to live even further out. Which we all know they will do – because now ‘further out’ is ‘better’ since you can still have that 1.5 hour commute ‘further out.’ So eventually, congestion goes back to where it was. You can’t win for losing, right?
Wrong…build some trains, that will relieve congestion, because people have choices (and it seems that people who don’t like the train think something along the lines of them being FORCED to take it, and I’ve never seen anywhere where someone would force another person to take a train – if you like driving, great for you – why not let others do something different? it’s completely intolerant…)
Hillbilly Deluxe
February 15th, 2011
11:43 am
Not being an Atlanta resident, it’s probably none of my business but it seems to me it would make more sense to expand rail in the Metro area, than to build a line from Atlanta to Chattanooga. I’d think there’d be many more potential riders.
Gubment cheese
February 15th, 2011
11:55 am
Would amtrak survive without govt subsidies? nope. It fails in the freemarketplace and all this crap about high speed rail comes down to one thing and one thing only. Its just another govt boondoggle that doesn’t survive in the marketplace. End of story.
Hank Reardon
February 15th, 2011
11:59 am
Gubment,
Neither does air travel or farming.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
February 15th, 2011
11:59 am
Any non-military “investment” by the overlords always turns out bad, a waste and a sop to a politically-connected mercantilist.
Dan
February 15th, 2011
12:04 pm
The US simply does not have the population density to make rail travel cost effective.
Hank Reardon
February 15th, 2011
12:08 pm
While I’m all for the gov’t removing itself from subsidizing most everything, certain things require a large startup cost and this is one of them. There is no company holding enough capital to begin this system. It is one forward thinking thing that a gov’t like ours can do to enable commerce. Do you use the interstate system, Gubment? Isn’t it wonderful? How long will its capacity suffice?
Pull the plug on subsidizing those industries that are past ’startup’ and let’s see which can survive in the marketplace.
Cutty
February 15th, 2011
12:11 pm
Gubment Cheese- Name one industry that DOESN’T get some type of subsidy from the ‘gubment’? Oil companies receive them and they’re making record profits. So does Big Pharma thanks to W and Medicare Part D.
Aquagirl
February 15th, 2011
12:14 pm
…sez Gubment cheese from it’s big, fat, farting SUV on the taxpayer-subsidized road.
Yessiree, those roads are a naturally occurring feature, they wuz here when the Pilgrims landed! If God wanted us to use high-speed rail, He would have created America with rail lines instead of the interstates, parking lots, and subdivisions He made with the rest of His creation 6000 years ago!
Haven’t y’all seen the dinosaur footprints in I-85? Proof Jesus loves CARS, not commiepinko evolutionist backed rail. Pretty soon they’ll be teaching our schoolkids it’s NORMAL to ride Amtrak. Perverts!
Pdent
February 15th, 2011
12:15 pm
High-speed rail would be a great idea. What if I want to travel from Atlanta to Orlando (Disney World) with the kids for Memorial Day weekend? Or what if the wife and I want to go to Miami for a weekend getaway and do not want to drive 12 hours?
It can connetc cities, and increase tourism between the cities. Plus, all of the restaurants, etc. that can spring up around or near the train station.
Dan
February 15th, 2011
12:16 pm
Cutty, you have it backwards, governmnet is 100% subsidized, not business. They are simply in the role of moving money from one person to another, ostensibly based on the greater good, but in reality based on political self interest. Business is in the role of taking a raw material and converting it into something useful i.e. more valuable. That is the real creation of opportunity and growth.
atlmom
February 15th, 2011
12:21 pm
@dan: it’s a chicken and egg thing, isn’t it? businesses are apt to start investing in stuff near trains, right? if there’s a ‘certainty’ so to speak, of people passing thru, it’s a great place to put stuff – residential and commercial stuff…
@pdent: no joke! But the only way to get to orlando is to go thru DC right now. Silly.
Cutty
February 15th, 2011
12:22 pm
Dan- What raw material does Financial companies make or airlines for that matter? Most corporations pay no taxes, those costs are almost always shifted to the taxpayer. Why is Exxon getting $9 Billion from the Government when they’re making over $30B a year?
Rafe Hollister
February 15th, 2011
12:29 pm
John
“Yet there are several problems with Obama’s plan. First, it is important to understand that most of Obama’s plan is not bullet trains or TGVs. Instead, it is conventional Amtrak Diesel-powered trains running a little faster — up to 110 mph, but averaging only 60 to 70 mph — than Amtrak runs today. Based on this, here are my most important objections to Obama’s moderate-speed rail plan.
1. Less than 1 percent will ride, more than 99 percent will pay
More than 4 percent of federal transportation spending goes to Amtrak, yet Amtrak carries only 0.1 percent of passenger travel. Moderate- and high-speed trains will significantly increase the subsidies but have little effect on the total travel. Why is it fair for 99.8 percent of people to pay for the rides enjoyed by the other 0.2 percent?
Even with subsidies, high-speed rail fares will be about 50 percent higher than ordinary Amtrak fares. For example, passengers pay $69 to ride conventional trains from New York to Washington, and $99 to ride high-speed train. (By comparison, an unsubsidized bus is $20 and unsubsidized airfares are $99.) This means only the wealthy and those whose employers pay the fare will ride high-speed rail. All taxpayers will end up paying for rides of bankers, bureaucrats, and lobbyists.”
Taken from Cato Institute analysis
For you GW coolaid drinkers you can go to Cato and read about how “dirty” these diesel powered trains are as well and how inefficient they operate. But, the fantasy of returning to the rails is hard for some to let go.
atlmom
February 15th, 2011
12:32 pm
Rafe: there was a time when very few people (i.e., only the rich) had cars too. Then someone came along and said: we need roads for all these cars! Or did everyone always have two or more cars in their driveways?
Aquagirl
February 15th, 2011
12:37 pm
Rafe—the whole point is to expand rail so that more than 1% of the population can use it.
Of course, if you are happy freeloading off other people’s investment in the interstate system, this isn’t a problem. Previous generations sent you a welfare check so you can drive while listening to Neal Boortz complain about welfare parasites.
Here Spot
February 15th, 2011
12:37 pm
Once again ObaManure comes out with some silly, stupid, ill-thoughtout plan.
CJ
February 15th, 2011
12:39 pm
Kyle indicated in his post that the air travel is less subsidized than rail. Of course, rail would compete with auto and bus travel as well. It’s not as if people don’t drive from one state to another.
So when comparing subsidies, you can’t just limit the comparison to “subsidies.” Subsidies for modes of transportation to compete with rail would include oil subsidies plus taxpayer money spent on defense, highways, air traffic control, the FAA, the NTSB, state and local departments of motor vehicles, homeland security devoted air traffic, taxpayer money spent on airports, and all the rest.
Dan
February 15th, 2011
1:01 pm
@AtlMom, it isn’t even close to chicken and egg, business trade always comes first, where else would government get resources. the problem with rail is the population density is not great enough here. Sure it may be convenient to get to Disney, but how many people would have to make that trip daily from atlanta to support that ?
@Cutty, financial institutions take money from savings and lend it to people who do create things, where do you think the interest on your savings comes from? People borrow money at 10% to create something that makes them 20% and thus a profit, but you are correct, business don’t really pay tax they simply pass that cost along to the end user, which is exactly why oil companies get the subsidies, because it behooves a government for people to have affordable fuel. and don’t forget their profits are high in absolute dollars but their margins are not that high, a gallon of bottled water cost more than gas
@Aquagirl – a history lesson in historical chronological order, and simple words first came a horsey, then a choo choo, then came a car and finally a plane. soooo which is going backwards ?
yeah yeah I know high speed and all, but if your population density doesn not provide adequate demand, it doesn’t matter how fast you can get from point a to point b
Intown
February 15th, 2011
1:02 pm
If drivers are being taxed on fuel to pay for roads … isn’t that our public tax dollars providing a **gasp** SUBSIDY?!?!?!
Eric
February 15th, 2011
1:09 pm
Either you believe Cheap Oil is running out and we need a less energy-dependent way of getting around, or you don’t. Perhaps you simply don’t care to continue to live in a mobile society. If you do understand that our Cheap Oil supply is a finite resource, then looking for ways to build a less energy-dependent transportation infrastructure is extraordinarily prudent to begin putting in place now.
Alternatively, you can wait until oil is $200 a barrel to start considering the options. The cost of air fare and car transportation is only going to go up with rising fuel costs. Rail is very energy efficient. Once the infrastructure is in place, high speed rail is a very cost effective and convenient option for regional transportation, but to have the infrastructure ready in 10-20 years, we must start NOW.
jm
February 15th, 2011
1:10 pm
Dan 12:04 – yes it does. Not across the whole country, but in specific markets, it certainly does.
Florida, the Northeast, California, and East Texas, very much so. And the East Coast on average works. So your generalization does not apply. No one is talking about high speed rail between San Fran and Witchita.
Rockerbabe
February 15th, 2011
1:20 pm
Hillbilly Deluxe:
You need to understand that there is LOTS of traffic from ATL to Chattanooga on a daily basis. Sometimes when I travel back home to Louisville, the traffic is bumper to bumper all the way! High speed rail would make the trip so much shorter, less gas used, less wear and tear on the tires and less overall fatigue.
High speed rail would be a godsend when going to Macon, Athens, Augusta, Savannah and Birmingham as well as all point south, north, east or west.
Getting around Atlanta is easy to some degree with Marta, but the GOP hates Marta [it is successful, despite all of the bad mouthing and it really wasn’t their idea, so they have to disrespect the organization.
I support high speed rail. Just think, soon most of us baby-boomers will be retiring and at some point will not be able to drive, let alone afford an airline ticket; high speed rail will get us going to the various places we would like to visit! Don’t pay attention to Kyle, he is a young man with old, old ideas that only reinforce the GOP idea that America is a nation of “can’t do this, can’t do that”.
Eric
February 15th, 2011
1:20 pm
@Dan – “the problem with rail is the population density is not great enough here.” — by having rail, you add value to a community, which will make more people want to live there, raising the population density. If you build it, they will come.
@Dan – an economics lesson for you — first came the pack mule, then came the train, then came the big rig truck, then came the train again! As truck fuel prices went UP, rail became a much more attractive because you can move one ton of freight 436 miles (average) on a gallon of fuel (look it up). The same will happen with people.
jd
February 15th, 2011
1:37 pm
If you want rail to compete in the market place — you must first stop subsidizing highways so the market is open to competition
Pdent
February 15th, 2011
1:55 pm
I agree about the cost of gas. Eventually, it will get more expensive. How quickly people forget about the gas panic a few years back! I remember driving to two or three gas stations because they were all out all the while hoping and praying that I would not run out of gas.
We really need another alternative. And airplane tickets will also get more expensive to cover their fuel costs. There needs to be an alternative.
And my last reason is: I am tired of sending money to countries that do not respect us, and think that we are “infidels”. That is like me giving money to somebody that constantly berates me.
Question Authority
February 15th, 2011
2:06 pm
Is is possible in this country to have a discussion about anything without saying that one horrible proposal is ok because of something else unconstitutional the government does. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Get government out of everything. Let every business stand or fail on their own. Our country is structured as it is because of the manipulation of government. The heavily subsidized interstate highway system, the heavily subsidized intercontinental rail system (yes, back during Lincoln’s time), and the list could go on and on. Lets try a new approach. Allow private funding, investment, profit, etc. and let be what will be. If it cannot be afforded, then it can’t be sustained. Everyone’s positive experience with rail, air, car, etc. is all undermined when one asks the question of whether these methods of transport can really stand on their own in a FREE SOCIETY. By the way, what we have is definitely not free. The totalitarian TSA certainly makes that clear.
Rafe Hollister
February 15th, 2011
2:16 pm
Pdent
The gas crisis was during the Carter years, 77,78, or 79. Guess what it was a temporary thing. Jimmy put on his sweater and saved us so much oil, we still GOT OIL. Scientest have no idea the amount of oil left, remember, the BP spill, they were amazed at how much oil there was in that pool and how much pressure it was under. It is an inexact science and if the USA was allowed to explore and develop their resources, no one knows how much we could bring to the marketplace.
Yes, it will eventually run out, but why do we fall for every kockamamie idea that the intelligensia dream up. Solar and wind, didn’t work. Ethanol did not turn out well. Switchgrass and biomass, not so efficient yet. Ride sharing, whatever happened to that? CAFE standards, some success, but not much. It is going to be a slow process of research and development and we have to spend our money wisely, not of boondoggles, like a new Soviet style slow trains.
For those of you anxious to ride the scenic rails to Chattanooga, I have a question? How are you going to get around when you get there? Busses? I can drive up and back before you figure out the bus schedule. Rent a car? Why, not drive your own and save money?
Richard Bagge
February 15th, 2011
2:24 pm
Rafe, I believe that the previous poster (Pdent) was referring to the small gas panic in September 2008. Perhaps you were at home; those of us with commutes and kids in school certainly remember waiting in a line for $4+ gas hoping to buy enough to get home. Many stations ran out for a couple of days.
Pdent
February 15th, 2011
2:40 pm
Rafe, Richard is right. That small crisis in September 2008 was enough for me to realize that we need to come up with an alternative.
Why is oil the best option? “Let’s just stay dependent on it, and explore other areas of our country to see if we can find more.”
Even if we do have a ton of oil, why should we be the greedy ones and use it all up? What about our grandchildren and great-grandchildren?
Question Authority
February 15th, 2011
2:52 pm
The price of gas is as much a reflection of the devaluation of the dollar (as trillions and trillions more are printed by the unconstitutional Federal Reserve) as is the issue of supply and demand. An absurd idea like a national rail network will require printing trillions more dollars and further devaluing the dollar. Unfortunatey only Keynesian economic hogwash is taught in school so this is just not obvious to everyone. Gold, silver, etc. are not really going up in price because of demand or increased “value”, it is because the dollar is worth less and less and less. Worthless dollars won’t be able to buy steel for rail cars or electricity for running it anymore than worthless dollars will be able to afford oil on the open market. We are headed towards a Zimbawe moment and more deficit spending of money printed out of thin air will only accellerate the pace.
winkasdad29
February 15th, 2011
3:10 pm
We need to invest in ALL modes of transportation. I’m big on rail travel, but what I’d like to also see is for the Air Traffic Control system to move from being radar-based to GPS based. From what I’ve read, GPS-based ATC will provide more efficient management of air traffic. ATC will know exactly where planes are – even when planes are flying over oceans. Of course, the devil is in who will pay for the conversion to the new system.
High-speed rail is a good investment in the transportation infrastructure of this country. Again, the devil is in how it’s paid for. We should find a way to pay for it. We also should implement the fastest speeds where they make sense.
Aquagirl
February 15th, 2011
3:49 pm
Rafe, please take a “Scientes” class instead of getting your edumacation from talk radio. There is no magic utopia oil reserve. Oil is—get ready for this—liquid. When you send out sound waves into the ground, you can get a rough idea of what’s down there. It’s a guess, to be sure, but it’s not like the continents are floating on a layer of oil.
Besides, we’ve tapped all the oil that’s easily available. Despite the constant squealing of Neal Boortz, environmentalists were not forcing BP to drill their little booby-trap. They were drilling there because there was a bunch of oil, and rising oil prices made it worthwhile to do so. We have tapped our easily available oil reserves. Other countries (many of whom don’t like us) have not. No amount of new legislation or loose regulations will change that.
Do the Math
February 15th, 2011
3:57 pm
Not so fast….
Most of the proposed Federal subsidies will be spent on improving existing rail lines at speeds excess of 100mph. Much need maintenance, removal of dangerous at grade crossing and bridge improvements. Nearly all of it will make the freight system in the United States better, cheaper and more environmental then trucks alone. You need to rework your cost benefit analysis to recogize all benefits to business and the economy.
carlosgvv
February 15th, 2011
3:59 pm
High speed trains are just another thing it would be great to have in our country if we could afford it.
Tweets that mention High-speed rail subsidies are a bad investment | Kyle Wingfield -- Topsy.com
February 15th, 2011
3:59 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eva Miranda, Googlyfish Canada. Googlyfish Canada said: Canada Job Post High-speed rail subsidies are a bad investment | Kyle Wingfield http://ow.ly/1blGes [...]
Dr. Pangloss
February 15th, 2011
5:50 pm
In Europe people do take the train because it’s so convenient and pleasant and because they’re paying $5 to $6 a gallon for gas.
Rafe Hollister
February 15th, 2011
6:18 pm
Aquagirl
I have had a few science courses, in fact a Batchelor of Science from the oldest state chartered university in America. That is why I do not fall for the first hypothesis thrown out by someone representing themselves as an expert.
This is a prediction of mine, that as long as oil is readily available at an affordable price, we will never discover an alternative. Necessity is the mother of invention.
Cutty
February 15th, 2011
6:52 pm
“Batchelor” degree?? LOL. Obviously, Rafe get a UGA education.
Do the Math
February 15th, 2011
8:42 pm
Tree huggers gave a serious beat down on the barrel huggers today. That’s what you get when you try to use recycled anti transit rhetoric to argue against national infrastructure investment.
San Francisco perspective
February 15th, 2011
10:24 pm
any cost/benefit analysis of automobile transportation MUST include 1) the trillions spent on “defense” to maintain access to mideast oil—see $1 trillion invasion/occupation of Iraq and 2) the very real costs of environmental destruction born from a car-centric transportation model—see BP oil spill, smog, global warming. perhaps kyle is willing to pay these costs. if so, he needs to explain why. but we are way past the time of simply pretending that they do not exist.
Wah Wah Wah
February 15th, 2011
11:18 pm
Kyle, your blog is a boondoggle.
Business Man
February 15th, 2011
11:19 pm
Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. You can’t just “cut, cut, cut” and expect some type of return.
Name One
February 15th, 2011
11:20 pm
1) Conservatives hate rail because rail raiders tend to vote Democratic.
2) In Georgia, Republicans fight rail because they recieve huge campaign contributions from road builders such as C.W. Matthews.
3) Kyle Wingfield has no problem with our dependence on foreign oil.
4) Kyle forgets that the Georgia Dept. of Transportation, which is really the GA Dept. of Highways, wastes tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of our tax dollars, and is a vestige of good ole boy who you know.
5) Kyle also forgot that during the ice storm, the only things that worked, transportation-wise, were MARTA trains.
From CPT:
The Atlanta area suffered its worst winter storm in years last month, but when everything else failed,
MARTA rail came to the rescue. A combination of snow, cold and ice made streets and highways use-
less for the better part of a week. Cars and buses came to a standstill, leaving only one lifeline for es-
sential travel: MARTA rail. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority opened its emergency
operations center before the first snow-
flake fell. Employees battled the elements
to get into work, not knowing when they’d
be able to get home. Some labored around
the clock, some slept in their cars. There
were occasional service delays, but
MARTA managed to keep the trains roll-
ing, carrying tens of thousands of Atlan-
tans to essential jobs each day, and spar-
ing the city from a complete shutdown.
Some area residents lived too far from
MARTA rail lines to benefit, but that’s not
MARTA’s fault: it’s the result of short-
sighted political leadership that has failed
to extend the rail system to anything near
its potential. After the storm, some people
said local governments should buy more
snowplows, even though they’d be needed
only a few days every decade. It would make more sense to expand dependable, all-weather rail tran-
sit, a service that benefits the region every day of every year.
Name One
February 15th, 2011
11:24 pm
By all research, if you count all the airport hassles, the lines, check-in, the delays, etc., etc., high speed rail for trips for 200-500 miles is on average faster than air.
Thuga
February 15th, 2011
11:34 pm
I’m all for a new and efficient ways to travel. High speed rail makes good sense when tied to demand. I don’t see the demand for ATL to Orlando or to Charlotte. It may be there. Using the trains in Europe or in China as models don’t really make sense.
Look at who currently rides Amtrack. Not business travelers, not tourists. Who rides Marta and why? Study to problems and apply solutions. Not ideas from places that have nothing in common with the US. My brothers wife is from Germany. He makes a very good point about European countries. They are all about the size of Cobb County! Is high speed rail going to help your commute to Midtown?
Peace out!
Clifton Pannell
February 16th, 2011
2:12 am
How pathetic is the sad, tired and unimaginative drivel of Robt Samuelson and Wingfield about passenger rail transport in America! Unlike air and auto/road transport which receive huge but largely hidden financial subsidies, Amtrak has been largely expected to fund itself, and it has provided a remarkable public service with modest funding. The truth is conservatives are ideologically driven to criticize rail service in the face of mounting evidence that trains are the most efficient, environmentally-sound and sustainable form of transportation to move large numbers of people as well as freight.
Get over the obsession with highways, cars, and planes that have bankrupted our country in transferring a share of our national wealth to oil producers in the Middle East and South America and get sensible about what can work in the future of American transportation. This head-in-the sand attitude about refusing to accept new, fast, and developing rail transportation is diminishing American innovation and world leadership in transportation and distribution. There are so many ways to refute the illogic of Samuelson and Wingfield in their shopworn arguments against fast railroads. For example, excessive fossil-fuel, consumption, the enormous subsidies that are hidden to support air, oil, highway, and auto industries to say nothing of the enormous waste of human time, energy, and talent lost sitting in traffic in cities such as Atlanta. Finally, the air and noise pollution and the enormous health costs that could be saved from declining auto accidents would benefit all Americans. Our conservative colleagues fail to account for the myriad financial and other costs related to auto and air travel that are paid by the taxpayers in hidden subsidies and costs that no one wants to calculate. Atlanta was built on its transportation functions, and these are being slowly eroded by failure to take full advantage of the new transport technologies that have been so effective in other advanced countries. We ignore these new innovations and systems at our peril, and the future will show that we did not seize the opportunity that our competitors saw and eagerly embraced.
TnGelding
February 16th, 2011
5:52 am
We need to develop all modes of transportation. The cost is an investment in the present (jobs) and future. But telecommuting should alleviate some of the need to have a mobile workforce. And there is absolutey nothing wrong with staying home and enjoying our palatial abodes. What’s it costing to sit in traffic for hundreds of hours a year?
I heered he was an Ayrab
February 16th, 2011
8:36 am
Kyle Il Sun,
your analysis is as flawed as always. Thinking and reasoning is not something you are good at. The country called USA cannot have the infrastructure of Senoia or Newnan, which is what you prefer. I propose you apply for a Pell Grant and go back to school, but not in Georgia. You need to broaden your knowledge base a bit.
DrW
February 16th, 2011
9:16 am
Cutty, whoever told you the Metra will get you to Madison, WI lied to you. You can get pretty close to Milwaukee, but not Madison. You may be confusing Metra and Amtrak. Amtrak claims to take you to Madison, but it actually dumps you off in Columbus, WI and then you get a 40 minute bus ride from the train station into Madison. This is why no one will ride “high speed rail”. It’s not going to take you where you want to go and none of you supporters ever consider the additional transportation costs to get around in your destination. None of the existing project have worked in the US; why will any of the proposed ones?
Matt
February 16th, 2011
3:21 pm
Typical conservative nonsense, you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Traffic is terrible and it only takes one drunken wrong way driver to shut the whole system down. It happens all the time.
Rail, in any form, is a good idea.
Starting with a high speed network can lead to smaller systems that will support it and the odds that you will die in a fiery crash caused by a drunken idiot somewhere in South Carolina will be reduced significantly.
Think ahead people, let’s work on making things better rather than building more roads to accommodate more drivers sitting there, not moving.
Of course that is the Republican mantra, the only good progress is going backwards, i.e. congress.
no to rail
February 17th, 2011
1:23 pm
high speed rail is just a big boondoggle designed to get connected developers and vendors even richer with billions in taxpayer cash. These “rail lines” would be a bust and are not needed. If people want them, let them use their own money to build and ride.
Freedom to Ride
February 17th, 2011
2:48 pm
Kyle: I think you need to do a bit of real research on this issue, rather than be overwhelmed by Mr. Samuelson. Take the time to find the suggested map for High Speed Rail and you will see that it connects major metropolitan areas and in most cases this mode of travel is relevant only when the distance is 500 miles or less. When you take into consideration the time to go to the airport, park your car, go through security, wait on the tarmac, you could have been half way to Charlotte by the time your plane takes off. It definitely does not work for long distances.
Also, someone is quoting 39 mph Amtrak and I don’t know where that figure is coming from. Most Amtrak long distance trains travel at 79 miles per hour and in the northeat corridor, they exceed 100 miles per hour and in some areas 150 mph. 39 mph may be on old freight railroad track, but it is not the norm. Samuelson and other anti-rail groups are great on mis-quoting the facts.
Also, the $35B that Amtrak has received over the past 40 years amounts to something like $32 per person per year. Hardly a drain on the budget or economy.