kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 1, 2010 16:14:03 GMT -5
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Nov 1, 2010 18:34:45 GMT -5
If high-speed rail is such a boondoggle, then why are countries that have HSR building new lines as fast as they can?
The population density argument doesn't fly. Overall the US has a lower population density than the other countries that have HSR, but in the regions where the networks will actually be built the density is much more akin to what you find in countries with thriving HSR networks. For example, the Midwest is very similar to France in the distribution of the population, while the Northeast Corridor lines up fairly well with Japan.
As a matter of fact, Samuelson likes to use that trick a lot - using statistics for the entire US instead of the places where the networks will actually be built.
Samuelson says HSR wouldn't give "any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, air travel, oil consumption or imports."
- Traffic congestion: Will HSR cut down on daily rush hour traffic? No. That's what commuter trains are for. NYC (arguably the only city in the US with a well-developed commuter rail system) would have a heck of a lot more traffic every day without its commuter rail system. Will HSR cut down on congestion between major cities? Yes. Samuelson uses the trick I described earlier to try and disprove that. However, if you just look at the number of intercity travelers between cities that will be connected by HSR, the trains will get a very significant chunk of people off the road, thus easing traffic congestion.
- Greenhouse gas emissions: This one depends on what else goes along with the HSR network. If you just build a bunch of new coal or oil fueled power plants to power the trains, then HSR won't result in a big cut in emissions. There will be a small cut, but not significant. However, if you do what France did and build nuclear plants to power the trains (the TGV and France's extensive network of nuclear power plants came from the same comprehensive energy plan), then you'll see big cuts in greenhouse emissions. And yes, I'm aware that will be expensive, and a lot of HSR fans are very anti-nuclear. But this country needs lots of new nuclear plants anyways.
- Air travel: Almost every example of true HSR being installed around the world has seen a big reduction in air travel on competing routes. London-Paris used to be the busiest air route in the world, now it's hardly flown. Another phenomenon we've seen in Europe is HSR going to airport terminals and codeshares between airlines and rail companies. So for example, here in the US I fly Milwaukee-Chicago O'Hare-Destination XYZ on United all the time, since in the bizarre world of airline economics that's cheaper than driving to O'Hare. With an HSR line from Milwaukee that stops at O'Hare and a codeshare agreement, I'd be able to buy that same United ticket, only my Milwaukee-O'Hare trip would be a train journey, not a regional jet flight (operated by Amtrak instead of Skywest). Since they'd have the Milwaukee-O'Hare connection market covered by the train, United could cut their Milwaukee-Chicago flights. The same goes for countless other short-range destinations. Now, would all those eliminated flights result in fewer overall flights in the US? No, since the airlines would re-deploy their resources (landing slots, gates at the terminal, airplanes) on other routes, where air travel is more efficient than the train. That would result in a wider range of destinations for passengers and lower fares, thanks to increased competition. It would also be good for the airlines, since they wouldn't have to waste resources on expensive and inefficient feeder flights that are only operated because the efficient and profitable longer distance flights rely on them. With their feeder needs covered by the train, they could use their resources in a more efficient manner.
- Oil consumption: See the greenhouse gas argument.
Samuelson likes to claim that HSR is just a pork barrel project, without saying who's getting the pork. Who's the secret shady beneficiary of all these HSR projects? Samuelson doesn't tell us. The reality is that most of the money is going into construction, which is giving good high-paying jobs to a lot of Americans during a time when those kinds of jobs are hard to come by. The reality is that the politically expedient thing to do would be to cancel HSR in this sort of political environment. Sticking with it is a piece of long-term investment and foresight that is all too rare in governments.
People say that these trains won't pay for themselves, but that's patently untrue. The French national rail company rakes in over $1 billion in profits per year, thanks mostly to the TGV. And even if it doesn't make back its construction costs, how is that any different from any other infrastructure project? Airports and highways don't make back the money spent to build them, but we still build plenty of them, and rightly so. The economic benefits they provide to our society as a whole more than justifies the money spent building them. The same has proven true for HSR around the world, and will prove to be true here in the US.
I swear, if Eisenhower had proposed the national interstate highway system in today's political environment, he'd have been branded a raging socialist and voted out of office in an angry landslide.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Nov 4, 2010 14:45:39 GMT -5
You act as if this money is not going to spent at all if it's not spent on trains. That's wrong, it's just going to be redirected to highways (as Christie is doing with NJ's share). So now it's just a game of "no, subsidize the mode of transport I'm ideologically predisposed toward". |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 4, 2010 18:30:55 GMT -5
You act as if this money is not going to spent at all if it's not spent on trains. That's wrong, it's just going to be redirected to highways (as Christie is doing with NJ's share). So now it's just a game of "no, subsidize the mode of transport I'm ideologically predisposed toward". I'll pass your thoughts on to Mr. Samuelson.  |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 8, 2011 12:53:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 8, 2011 13:35:09 GMT -5
Christie's response strikes me more as the "me too" politics that seems to have emerged since the election. He's been on every side of the issue, and it is positive that he has now landed on the right side.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Feb 8, 2011 16:11:22 GMT -5
I gotta say, this is a much better project. I still think the Florida, Texas, and CA HSR projects are pretty stupid (although I felt the Chicago-hub to Indy, Detroit, and Milwaukee was a pretty good idea). |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 8, 2011 16:32:17 GMT -5
a tunnel that will actually connect to Penn Station instead of to nowhere. "Nowhere"? You couldn't possibly be confusing the ARC tunnel under the Hudson River that would serve the 1,000,000 travelers a day with the " Bridge to nowhere" would you? |
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 8, 2011 17:07:54 GMT -5
a tunnel that will actually connect to Penn Station instead of to nowhere. "Nowhere"? You couldn't possibly be confusing the ARC tunnel under the Hudson River that would serve the 1,000,000 travelers a day with the " Bridge to nowhere" would you? The original ARC plan did not have a terminus in NYC that was integrated into the existing commuter infrastructure. It dead-ended near but not at Penn Station and for all intents and purposes can be considered to be "nowhere" from a transit perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Feb 8, 2011 22:09:00 GMT -5
"Nowhere"? You couldn't possibly be confusing the ARC tunnel under the Hudson River that would serve the 1,000,000 travelers a day with the " Bridge to nowhere" would you? The original ARC plan did not have a terminus in NYC that was integrated into the existing commuter infrastructure. It dead-ended near but not at Penn Station and for all intents and purposes can be considered to be "nowhere" from a transit perspective. FWIW the vaunted magnetic train in Shanghai is like that. An incredible train from the airport that simply stops at the outskirts to the city with a limited further subway connection to downtown. I took it once for the tourist experience but then had to sit in a car for over an hour to get where I was going. It was a train to "nowhere" and ridership numbers reflect that. Also FWIW I didn't see Christie playing both sides of an issue, I saw him playing the legit negotiator with Washington to get what he needed as a governator. Whether the Congress comes up with the funds to follow through on the new agreement is up in the air though. I have been told they are not on board with Obama's spending priorities but don't know that for sure  |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on Feb 8, 2011 23:11:15 GMT -5
FWIW the vaunted magnetic train in Shanghai is like that. An incredible train from the airport that simply stops at the outskirts to the city with a limited further subway connection to downtown. I took it once for the tourist experience but then had to sit in a car for over an hour to get where I was going. It was a train to "nowhere" and ridership numbers reflect that. Before we get too carried away perpetuating an internet myth tossed out by Rosslyn, the ARC tunnel plan did NOT leave passengers on the outskirts of town, but in the middle of Manhattan... hardly "nowhere". The ARC plan would have involved an addition to Penn Station that would be underground, 1 block East. The new plan involves an addition to Penn Station that is one block South. Penn Station already has lots of different areas connected by underground passageways, escalators and so forth. AMTRAK, LIRR, NJ Transit, the 1,2,3 subway lines and the 8th avenue Subway too. Connecting one more collection of platforms -- whether one block East or South -- is not a big issue. The Biggest problem with the new plan? It sounds like Cafe 31 would be sacrificed for the expanded RR! See below: Excerpt
And whereas ARC was supposed to terminate at platforms under Macy’s, a block east of Penn Station, Gateway would end a block to the south, nearer to street level. The block—West 30th and West 31st Streets between 7th and 8th Avenues—now mostly holds small businesses like restaurants, bars and a repair shop for musical instruments. Son Of ARC? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 8, 2011 23:15:45 GMT -5
Saxa - Maybe you could convince folks that Cafe 31 is close enough to Ground Zero to be sacred ground. Worth a shot, anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Mar 12, 2011 17:14:23 GMT -5
|
|
