NBC Wonders: Can America 'Afford Not to' Spend Billions on High-Speed Rail?
On Thursday's NBC Nightly News, anchor Brian Williams praised China's high-speed rail system and lamented that United States had not done the same: "China is rocketing ahead of the U.S. with high-speed rail. And it has a lot of people wondering how long we can keep chugging along the same old track."
Touting the completion of a new rail line between Beijing and Shanghai, Williams proclaimed: "Which raises again the question, when it comes to trains, why is America, home of the iron horse and the golden spike, still on the slow track?" Correspondent Adrienne Mong filed a report riding the rails across China, touting the high-speed system as "smoother, sleeker, greener than a jet plane."
Mong praised the efficiency of the trains, noting that a trip from the Chinese capital to Shanghai took under five hours, unlike a similar train route in the U.S.: "...that's about the distance between New York and Atlanta. If you took Amtrak, that journey would take you 18 hours."
She expressed amazement at the swift completion of the project: "China spent $34 billion to build this rail link in just over three years, nearly a year ahead of schedule." Mong then wondered: "How did they do it?" CLSA China strategist Andy Rothman provided an answer to that question: "It is a one party regime, so there's no political opposition, there's no rule of law, there's no transparency, so there aren't as many environmental hearings and things like that."
Mong added that, "critics say it costing too much money for the government to build and for passengers to ride." She further reported: "Earlier this year, the railway's ministry chief was fired for allegedly embezzling $30 million, sparking concerns railway authorities might have cut corners at the expense of safety."
Despite the problems with Chinese high-speed rail, correspondent Tom Costello followed Mong's report with his own about efforts to build a similar transportation network in the U.S.: "If they can build it in Asia, why can't we build it here? Well, in California, high speed rail is on the way." A gushing sound bite was included from Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood: "This is about as American as you can get, good, green jobs, putting Americans to work."
Costello declared: "The Obama administration is moving ahead. The ultimate goal, connect 11 mega-city regions with a network of high-speed track helping to relieve congested roads and airports."
He acknowledged that "it won't be cheap, $53 billion over the next six years, 500 billion in federal, state, and private money over the next 25." And added: "Already Republican governors in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin have rejected federal high-speed rail money, afraid they'll be on the hook for cost overruns."
After playing a clip of Florida Governor Rick Scott explaining that "the risks far outweigh the benefits," another sound bite followed from Oliver Hauck of Siemens, the company building a high-speed system in California, who asserted: "It would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs. It would mean billions of new economic development." Lahood appeared again and dismissed opposition to the massive government spending: "This is the same debate I'm sure they had 50 years ago when Eisenhower signed the interstate bill."
Costello concluded the segment: "An argument over whether the nation can afford to build a new high-speed network or afford not to."
Here is a full transcript of the June 30 segment:
7:00PM ET TEASE:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Fast track. China is rocketing ahead of the U.S. with high-speed rail. And it has a lot of people wondering how long we can keep chugging along the same old track.
7:09PM ET SEGMENT:
WILLIAMS: China has a lot to boast about tonight. First, today it opened the world's longest bridge over a body of water. It is the Qingdao Jiaozhou Bay Bridge, about 350 miles southeast of Beijing. It's over 26 miles long, that's 2 1/2 miles longer, by the way, than the causeway over Ponchartrain in Louisiana, for those keeping score at home. And the estimated cost, at least a billion and a half dollars. This bridge is part of the government's effort to deal with serious traffic congestion in a nation that, of course, has more people than anywhere else in the world.
Another area where China has rocketed ahead is high-speed rail. They unveiled a new system today, Beijing to Shanghai, 800 miles in about five hours, less time than it takes to fly New York to L.A. For China, high-speed rail is what the interstate highway system was to the U.S. back in the 1950s. Which raises again the question, when it comes to trains, why is America, home of the iron horse and the golden spike, still on the slow track? We have two reports tonight, beginning with NBC's Adrienne Mong, who rolled the rails from Beijing.
ADRIENNE MONG: It's smoother, sleeker, greener than a jet plane, the Harmony Express. Clocking 187 miles an hour, connecting China's capital Beijing to its commercial center Shanghai in just under five hours. The Beijing-Shanghai link is 824 miles long, that's about the distance between New York and Atlanta. If you took Amtrak, that journey would take you 18 hours. China spent $34 billion to build this rail link in just over three years, nearly a year ahead of schedule. How did they do it?
ANDY ROTHMAN [CLSA CHINA STRATEGIST]: It is a one party regime, so there's no political opposition, there's no rule of law, there's no transparency, so there aren't as many environmental hearings and things like that. And then they've got the money.
MONG: They also had a little help. 'Our technology is imported from France and Germany,' said this engineer, 'but we developed our own trains.' With that technology, China already has 12 high-speed rail links under construction, hoping to build 10,000 miles of high-speed rail by 2020.
But critics say it costing too much money for the government to build and for passengers to ride.
ZHAO JIAN [PROFESSOR, BEIJING JIAOTONG UNIV.]: It's a technological feat, but I think it's a economic loss.
MONG: Earlier this year, the railway's ministry chief was fired for allegedly embezzling $30 million, sparking concerns railway authorities might have cut corners at the expense of safety.
But maybe, also in a rush to catch up. 'There's still a huge gap between China and other developed countries,' says this railway official, 'we want to be like Americans, we want a strong country and a good life.' A life the Chinese are rushing to embrace. Adrienne Mong, NBC News, on the high-speed rail in China.
TOM COSTELLO: This is Tom Costello. If they can build it in Asia, why can't we build it here? Well, in California, high speed rail is on the way. Construction begins next year on what will eventually be a northern California to Los Angeles line promising 150,000 jobs.
RAY LAHOOD [TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY]: This is about as American as you can get, good, green jobs, putting Americans to work.
COSTELLO: At the moment, America only has high-speed rail in the northeast, from DC to New York and Boston, where century-old tracks and winding routes keep the Acela from ever hitting peak speeds. Across the country, Amtrak right now rents space on freight lines. But to go faster than 125 miles per hour would require an entirely new electrified network of high-speed rail lines.
The Obama administration is moving ahead. The ultimate goal, connect 11 mega-city regions with a network of high-speed track helping to relieve congested roads and airports. But it won't be cheap, $53 billion over the next six years, 500 billion in federal, state, and private money over the next 25. Already Republican governors in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin have rejected federal high-speed rail money, afraid they'll be on the hook for cost overruns.
RICK SCOTT [GOVERNOR, R-FL]: The truth is this that this project will be far too costly to taxpayers and I believe the risks far outweigh the benefits.
COSTELLO: But in Sacramento, train giant Siemens Engineering is ready to shift from building light-rail trains to high-speed systems.
OLIVER HAUCK [SIEMENS MOBILITY PRESIDENT]: It would mean hundreds of thousands of jobs. It would mean billions of new economic development.
LAHOOD: This is the same debate I'm sure they had 50 years ago when Eisenhower signed the interstate bill.
COSTELLO: An argument over whether the nation can afford to build a new high-speed network or afford not to. Tom Costello, NBC News, Washington.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
The short answer dumass
Submitted by KornKing on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 4:48pm.
is yes. Spend a bunch of money we don't have to lose a bunch more we don't have, real einsteins these clowns are
Yep. I was just thinking if
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 7:03pm.
Yep. I was just thinking if this was built how is unemployment going drop?
I'm packing my bags
Submitted by Franksam on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 4:47pm.
Nothing has ever moved me with such desire to live in China as their slave-labor built high speed trains.
Actually, I was there when they built the initial phases if the
Submitted by nonncom on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 4:53pm.
interstate system, and there was very little opposition to it, other than the fact that many mom and pop businesses on the then major highways would be bypassed....the money for high speed rail would be better spent doubling the size of the existing interstate system, and starting the process of getting us off oil for vehicles and onto natural gas.....Rick Scott was right....the states would be left with the burden of any cost overruns (guaranteed to occur) and for maintaining the rail lines afterward....AMtrack has never turned a profit, and without subsidies would not exist....why would anyone think this boondoggle would....we need more like Rick Scott....bravo....
Michigan was
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 8:29pm.
supposed to get "high speed" rail between Pontiac and Chicago this year, or at least the initial work on it.
Then Norfolk Southern dropped a bomb on the idea, they will not be responsible for any maintenance on the tracks, which they own. The state would have to be responsible for the cost of maintenance, because the feds won't be, they'll just provide "start-up" money for high speed rail.
So, no, we don't need, or want, high speed bullet trains, with all the costs that they incur. Relocation of hundreds of rail and road crossings, realigning sharp curves, and where are we to get the electrical power to run these things? Windmills? Solar panels?
Think airport/airline security is difficult and expensive . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 4:54pm.
. . . just wait until the high-speed rail connecting 11 major urban centers is completed. How hard is it to ensure the safety of thousands of miles of rail and bridges every day?
And will a ticket on high-speed rail be cheaper than an airline ticket? Only if the government subsidizes it like Amtrak, and/or levies a higher tax on airline tickets.
Gal, Excellent point
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:06pm.
No high speed rail system would ever attract enough riders to cover the operating costs, much less recoup the construction costs, and throwing in the $7/hr government child molesters would keep even more people away.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Aside from the fact that high speed rail makes no sense...
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 4:58pm.
...in a country that is laid out the way ours is, and would wind up being a giant money pit as well as a political football for years afterward, just where, exactly, does this communist moron think we are going to get the billions to build it in the first place?
And what state, praytell, has the money to contribute to a $500 billion (and you can bet it will be $1.5 trillion, if not more, literally overnight) fund for anything?
We're flat f'ing broke as a nation, and about to get even broker.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Children
Submitted by SimJim on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:01pm.
Why don't the dems and the liberal media buy themselves a few Lionels and leave the rest of us alone! Idiots.
Oh please. Anybody ever ride the Acela "Express"?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:07pm.
Grandma driving her 1980 LeBaron on the Garden State Parkway goes faster. As in MAYBE 75 mph.
And after we get thru the 50 years of eminent domain battles, guess who's gonna build this fabulous new infrastructure? It starts with a big U.
williams
Submitted by grammajane on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:12pm.
The only time williams gets excited about reporting "his news" is when he is pushing something the one has said, or done. It is actually comical how a so-called grown man can carry such a crush on another man who is trying to ruin America on a daily basis. No matter what is said or done, williams is on the side-line cheering him on and it is really getting pathetic.Williams is not a reporter, he is the water boy for the WH
It does sound attractive.... however
Submitted by wizardjr on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:15pm.
If you talk to anyone knowledgable about the US railroad system you'll quickly come to the conclusion it is just an illusion. The (actual) cost per passenger mile will never be competitive with today's airline system.
I'd love to take high speed rail from the Twin Cities to the northwestern 'burbs of Chicago where my family lives if it was speed competitive with my car or the airlines. But once you include EPA filings, court challenges to everything, etc., etc., and then add in the actual cost of new high speed tracks and passenger stations you wind up with an enormous bill and a very expensive ticket price.
Of course then the TSA would have to step in and strip search everyone while the 'stupid' terrorists just mosey on down the track a few miles and plant a bomb where the train will be going 90mph. duh. Then you've still got to get to your real destination and get around when you're there. Hmmmm, maybe you could use a car. Hmmm, maybe the wasted time and pain in the butt would make driving the car the whole way more palatable. duh redux.
Rail
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 8:06pm.
There is something else the geniuses at NBC and elsewhere in the American mouthpieces refuse to report: the U.S. rail system is the world's best at the shipment of freight. (A recent article in The Economist indicates this.) Close to 50% of the goods shipped in this country go by rail. You can't do that in Europe as the rail lines are used primarily by passenger trains. If rail is forced by government fiat to handle even more passengers, think of the additional burden that will be forced onto the roads as more trucks carry more freight that trains used to handle.
Rail makes sense IF your populations are very densely packed. For movement in a nation like the United States it is economically unfeasable (except for MAYBE the northeast). China is going to rail because their government is unfamiliar with the concept of eminent domain among other things, and because their populations in the east (like Beijing and Shanghai) are densely packed. But I suspect that they will run into the very same problem other nations have: rail is good for running frieght or passengers but seldom both.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
It boggles the mind
Submitted by octavioj on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:20pm.
The US is the number one economy in the world and has held that position for decades without high speed rail. How was THAT possible???
The biggest lie in this debate is ...
Submitted by Fredy on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:23pm.
That there will be an increase in the economy from such a rail system. High speed rail has no economic value to people shipping goods. It is only usefull in moving passengers. Rail systems will never compete with air system across long distances. Short distances cannot take advantage of higher speeds as the stopping and starting takes up most of the travel time.
As for the Seiman guy claiming 'jobs', his goal is to sell the public his products. The jobs he is referring to are at his company. Many slick salesmen use the same tactics in wording their unbridled support of public works projects.
You are absolutely correct.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:52pm.
Additionally, air travel makes it possible to get to outlaying communities far from any hub-station that a HSR system envisions.
And one further point from the article about comparing the debate over HSR to the Highway System… The Eisenhower Highway systems primary purpose at the time of development was to move troops and supplies throughout the country… it just happened to be great for moving people and goods as well. Now as you said, HSR is good only for moving people and that makes it a ridiculous waste of money.
- Grump :o)
“Happy & Safe 4th of July weekend to all!”
Comparing railroads to the
Submitted by robert108 on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 10:53pm.
Comparing railroads to the Interstate Highway system is a fraud; people like cars much more then they like trains, which is why no one, except the enviroloonies, complained about highway construction.
Why not?
Submitted by another_old_veteran on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 5:29pm.
The idiots will want to build the high speed rail and then use the airlines to subsidize them since airplanes use lots of oil. Then make the trains electric to use power from windmills. Finally all new roads will have to all be made downhill to save gas.
“If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.” - Halton C. Arp
Choo-choo-over country
Submitted by nkviking75 on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:09pm.
The more sparsely populated states will be thrilled to become choo-choo-over country so we can pay for a high speed rail system that probably won't benefit us one bit. We just get to watch our money fly away with the train. And if we did want to use high speed rail, we'd probably have to drive lots of miles to get to a train station. Not unlike Amtrak. I love trains, but I hate this idea. If passenger trains are so likely to succeed, someone will start to build the system.
“Always love your country — but never trust your government!" -- Bob Novak (1931-2009)
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
These allegedly smart media people will never get it...
Submitted by Iowa Boy on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:11pm.
I live in Council Buffs, Iowa, which was the start of the eastern end of the trans-continental railroad. If Union Pacific could make any money at all with a high-speed rail line, don't you think they'd have built one by now?
Iowa Boy you could also tell
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:36pm.
Iowa Boy
you could also tell them first hand ," Freight" makes money in rail, people do not.
fergedaboudit
Submitted by Rackie on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:13pm.
Gimme a ticket for an aeroplane
Ain't got time to take a fast train
Lonely days are gone, I'm a-goin' home
My baby, just-a wrote me a letter
our money
Submitted by goldbough on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:15pm.
"China is rocketing ahead of the U.S. with high-speed rail." Probably because they have a lot of our money!
YET
Submitted by Unsane on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 8:09pm.
And YET the Chinese still invest heavily in hardware built in places like Everett, WA.
Boeing does many things but making trains is not among them.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Also...
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:41am.
They have trains to no-where. Most of the cities they have built with American dollars are empty. Why? because the average Chinaman can't afford the rent. The Chinese are trying to be capitalist, but the problem is they don't know how to be capitalists because the are friggin Communists! DUH!?!
Let's see...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:31pm.
Let's see, our interstate highway system is rapidly deteriorating. Bridges are collapsing, or are in danger of collapsing. Road surfaces are crumbling. Drainage systems overwhelmed due to blockage and poor maintenance. It is a 30 trillion dollar problem that is not being addressed. So, shall we spend federal transportation money building an expensive, high maintenance, high speed rail project that is very limited in scope and only affects a small segment of the population instead of trying to correct a very serious problem with our existing infrastructure, one that affects the vast majority of Americans, and to build this arguably frivolous rail system when we're experiencing TRILLION dollar yearly deficits and a prolonged recession? Ahh, YOU do the math!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
NBC
Submitted by jessieH on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 6:44pm.
Aparantly, the United States of America isn't moving fast enough to the cliff to suit NBC. They want to get to the end of "ride" to obscurity faster. Friggen traitors!
Anybody remember this? I
Submitted by Dave. on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 7:00pm.
Anybody remember this?
I think Brian Williams must have missed it.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Everytime I hear about high speed trains.....
Submitted by TeachertT on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 7:06pm.
I really want to puke. Cheaper? LOLOLOL Just for my family of 3 kids and myself to go to Chicago to a museum will cost me $50 for metra, and that is just to the station. I would either have to get a bus or taxi to actually get to the museum. Even with the toll roads, it is WAY CHEAPER for me to drive my family to the museum and pay the $20 to park there. Yeah, do the math.
Our family have wanted to take Amtrak, just for the experience, but it is just too expensive. To take the train from Chicago to washington state would cost $2200 to get that 1 room with meals. Funny, but it would cost us much less to drive it, and we would get to stop and see lots of different places instead of just "passing through".
Fun- probably
cost effective- I don't think so.
Also subsidized by the very same Taxpayers
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 10:24pm.
Obama and the other dimwits want to soak for even more cash. So we pay for it's operation, and we still have to purchase over priced tickets?
As much as I love the trains
Submitted by danbo on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 7:47pm.
As much as I love the trains in europe. I had to get from Paris to Venice. The train was overnight. A plane got me there in 3 hours including the airport security dance. And it was a lot cheaper.
Trains work in europe because the government didn't kill them, gas cost a fortune, european cities aren't auto friendly, and most importantly, distances are short.
Here trains are a waste of time and money.
Is this sino envy?
"You lie!" Rep. Joe Wilson R-(SC)
Danbo, don't forget
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 8:39pm.
trains also work in Europe because the government subsidizes them. Or just outright owns them.
I rode the train from Frankfurt to Amsterdam twice while I was there, Franfkurt to Paris and Frankfurt to Copenhagen. Great experience? Oh yes. Can it be profitable and cost effective, not there, that's why they own or subsidize them over there. Would it be profitable here? No way.
Automobiles Give Individuals Too Much Freedom and Independence:
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 9:48pm.
Big government nanny statists demand regimentation, dependence and subservience. Statist want to control where we live, how we live, where we travel and how we travel. They want us all living in apartments and small houses clustered in cities traveling by public transportation, listening to public radio, watching public TV, taken care of by government health care, eating a government approved diet. Freedom to travel in cars when and where we want doesn't fit into this state vision.
Damn straight on this one
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 10:00pm.
That's why they try to kill production of oil, refining it into gas(or replacing it with ethanol which is a boondoggle), make the price of gas prohibitively expensive, cause the price of oil to go up through various actions or methods, and so on and so forth.
By doing all that, they are breaking people at the wallet. Break people of money and they are stuck, S T U C K STUCK!
You can't spell Statist and Stuck without ST.
-Jon
Remember Amtrack
Submitted by Hausmaus on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 9:56pm.
Back in 1971 we came up with an idea named Amtrack. We were not to be left behind by industrialized nations building state of the art rail lines for their high speed bullet trains. Since 1971 until today, Amtrack has yet to produce a profit. The Feds have been subsidizing this project to the tune of billions of dollars. Amtrack never out weened the need for constant infussions of dollars due in part to incompentence by the powers that be. The know-it-alls who came up with this idea, are the same know-it-alls bringing you back to the table with the same insatiable appetite for billions, and billions of dollars that it will take to maintain a high speed rail system today. Last, but not least, where in the hell the money is going to come from?
chalk up tens of billions to lawyers and consultants
Submitted by DaMav on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 9:57pm.
combined with decade- long delays on basic track routing decisions and you have a recipe for disaster right out of the gate. Just ask the libs pushing high speed rail if they are willing to suspend all environmental litigation/regulations to ensure projects are completed timely and within budget.
This is an invitation to every polka dotted green bellied prairie dog ear tick in the US to lawyer up and become rich
HIgh speed
Submitted by UpNorth on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:36pm.
trains would require gentle, wide curves to operate on.Which would require more land than a freight line would. That would require more emminent domain seizures of land, and don't forget the cost of grade crossing realignments.
Various estimates of the cost of construction for high speed rail come in at anywhere from $27 Million to $52 Million per mile. That doesn't take into account the cost of operation, which will require subsidies, once it might be built. Can the U.S. afford a make-work project like this, one that will be a pay-off for unions?
If You Build It, Will Anyone Ride?
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 11:05pm.
The reason private enterprise does not build a high-speed rail system is there is no demand for it. It is a capital money pit and a big money loser. Not even Dagny Taggart could make this hairbrained scheme work.
______________________________________________________________________________
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
You know what
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:28am.
If Americans want to go to work in mass transit, let them decide. The gooberment should not decide if I ride a train to work or drive a car. Of course being a good citizen, I will ask our dear leader what I should do. Thank you dear leader for considering my question.
Williams, the idiot, forgot
Submitted by jdhawk on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 12:51am.
Williams, the idiot, forgot to mention that a ticket to ride a bullet train in China is so expensive that it would take the average Chink or Chinka a year's salary for a round trip. In fact, like the greater majority of public transportation in the U.S., the trains run empty.
Meanwhile, Secretary Lahood says it will create thousands of jobs. Correct me if I am wrong, but when did Siemens, the maker of the bullet trains, become an American company.
And, oh yeah, it will create thousands of construction jobs - read union jobs at union rates. Due to duhbama rewriting federal government contract laws, any project over $25 million must have union rates apply. That means, in most areas, a 10-20% cost increase of any federal construction project.
If the "big dig" in Boston is any portent of the real cost of any bullet train project, expect that each project to cost five to eight times more than originally estimated. The "big dig" in Boston was started with $1.5B in federal money. It cost over $15B to finish. We, the taxpayers, got stuck with the bill
Then, there is the ongoing maintenance costs once construction has been completed. As so many have pointed out, Amtrak has operated in the red for decades soaking up billions of federal taxpayer dollars. Imagine having thousands more track miles and thousands of very expensive trains to maintain.
Then, there is the "green" BS. Where do we get our electricity? Primarily coal generates electricity in our country. So, the trains will be running on coal. What's "green" about that?
We landed on the moon, So lets build gravity trains.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:41am.
Of course more airports would be the best way to spend tax monies... screw it It ain't my money we got all that innovation and dreams stuff on our side wind pork, hell train pork . Gravity trains 42 minutes to anywhere.
You Didn't Build That.
No one rides the slow speed trains now.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 2:05am.
The same bunch of no ones are gonna not line up to not ride fast speed trains.
I don't want to go to any one big city in the United States, let alone take a train from one to another.
DON'T DO IT!
Submitted by Chris Norman on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 2:31am.
We have normal speed state run train service in New Mexico (the "Rail Runner") connecting Albuquerque and it's suburbs with Santa Fe. It was essentially designed to provide commuter service for state employees in the capital of Santa Fe who can't afford to live in that high cost city. It was billed as more than that, a way for tourists flying into ABQ to travel to the more tourist desirable town of Santa Fe. It ran hugely over estimated costs (surprise, surprise) and now that the federal subsidies are ending, they're scrambling to find ways to plug the deficit beyond the heavy state subsidies it still receives. Mostly they are talking about cutting out all service on weekends. In other words, the taxpayers who paid for the thing won't have the opportunity to ride on it, making it essentially a private transportation system for state workers. Conservatives said before it was built that it would be a boondoggle, but ex-governor Boss Bill Richardson got his way and it was built. Now, Republican Susana Martinez is left with trying to figure out how to keep it running - such as it can. This was a relatively low-cost short distance train system built over sparsely populated areas between the two cities using mostly existing tracks - you can imagine what a high speed rail system with dedicated tracks in other states with much longer distances to cover will cost to build, run, and subsidize.
Interstate Highways Work like the Internet, Rail is like Phone
Submitted by Avitar on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 2:54am.
In engineering the mathematics of one technology often applies to a different technology The Highway system behaves like a network the rail systems like a switching office and long distance lines. The Trains switching yards and phone lines and central switching offices are going to remain slower and more expensive than the Internet concentrators and packet switching. There are ways of mitigating the costs and speeding up the phones and rail systems but they are never going to match the network systems.
Another obvious difference,
Submitted by Reaver on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:03am.
Another obvious difference, when Eisenhower signed the highway bill in the fifties sales of automobiles were exploding. The need for a national road network was self-evident. There is no such demand today for a new passenger rail system.
'High-Speed Rail' is nothing but a Liberal wet dream
Submitted by ChrisNH on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:42am.
Libs masturbate furiously over the notion of 'high-speed rail.' But there's a problem. Do you see any progress made on the Reid-Pelosi high-speed rail project made famous in the 2009 stimulus bill? Of course not! And why not? Because it wasn't 'shovel-ready.' In fact, Libs get hoisted by their own petard here because the things that slow projects like these down are all the regulations and permits that Libs themselves insisted upon in the first place! If they need to displace one single spotted Newt, there goes the project...poof!
So, thanks to Liberalism run amok, NO high-speed rail project will EVER be on a 'fast track' to completion.
Secondly, Libs want high-speed rail to connect URBAN centers...places that house lots of 'their' people. So unless you live in an 'urban' area, Libs don't have much use or sympathy for you. You're not one of the people they 'care' about. Libs will want to take away your car while NOT providing you with that 'high-speed rail' they lust over for them 'urban' folks.
Adding to the evidence that
Submitted by Ray Mark on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:26am.
Liberalism is a mental disese.
Antiquated, 20th Century Thinking
Submitted by krendler on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:29am.
Hi-speed rail. Yeah, that's what we've all been waiting for. And look, the Chinese are doing it! It must be good! Remember how much we admire countries like China?
If Obama had any type of vision or leadership skills, he'd look forward rather than backwards and give business tax incentives to invest in technologies that would allow people to work from home more effectively via video conferencing, white boards, etc. Save billions every year on commuting costs and gasoline while, at the same time, helping people find jobs (e.g., I might live in Florida but be a full-time employee for a company in New York). i.e., a 21st century infrastructure.
Instead we get idiotic proposals for high-speed rail boondoggles. And on cue, the MSM toadies parrot his talking point. "We need high-speed rail people!!!!"
Let's spend billions on energy independence!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 9:29am.
Actually we would not need to spend much. Just take restrictions off and let the private sector do it.
This country is too large and rural for nationwide public train transportation.
By the way
Submitted by KornKing on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 10:31am.
Anyone remember the Amtrack bigshot that had to drive to the Biden Station dedication because the train wasn't running?
Energy
Submitted by OldmanRick on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 10:40am.
Has anyone considered where the necessary electricity will be generated to operate this waste of time, trouble, and effort? I'm quite sure wind mills and solar panels will not be sufficient.
Coal
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 11:09am.
Oh, no, not that dirty stuff! Eeek.
Most of these countries they envy..
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:36pm.
Dont have interstates and freeways like WE do! Most use roads that were built by the Romans-great long lasting byroads, but not relevant for multi-lane highways able to get modern vehicles across great lengths at 70 mph! And friggin CHINA had, up to about 30 years ago, old dirt roads used over centuries by pushcarts and peasants. SO, yeah, THOSE countries could use high-speed railways. But we have CLOSED most of ours, and besides, has anyone seen how "well" Amtrak is run? And, to Messrs Williams, Matthews, Hauck, Abbott, and Costello-STOP TELLING ME HOW TO SPEND MY MONEY!
California High Speed Rail problems
Submitted by psa188 on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 1:40pm.
The ridership projections developed by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) have been called into question by the University of California’s Institute of Transportation Studies. In their report “Review of ‘Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study’,” they write: "However, the combination of problems in the development phase and subsequent changes made to model parameters in the validation phase implies that the forecasts of high speed rail demand—and hence of the profitability of the proposed high speed rail system—have very large error bounds."
Furthermore, the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group’s November 2010 report raised a number of questions that collectively called into question the CHSRA’s business plan. Until the issues raised by these reports are properly addressed by the CHSRA, any ridership projections or other documents published by the Authority should be considered unreliable. Finally, until funding is secured for the entire project, we should not assume high-speed trains will be available to reduce demand for flights between northern and southern California.
high speed trains
Submitted by cats1cowboy on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 4:35pm.
If it was a viable venture, business would already have them running. This "pie-in-the-sky" boondoggle would cost taxpayers billions of wasted dollars. Mark Twain said, "Suppose you were a congressman and suppose you were an idiot. But, I repeat myself."
forward thinking
Submitted by tired of it all on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 4:41pm.
Let's compare ourselves, a country where most families own one if not two automobiles, with a country where the primary source of transportation is the bicycle. Wouldn't you think that there would be a much greater desire for mass transit of any kind in China. It would take a lot of effort to get people out of their autos, but not so much to get them off of their bikes. Success of high speed rail is pretty much guaranteed in a land where they have freeway gridlock that lasts for weeks.
tired of it all
Williams was NEVER a
Submitted by fatboy on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:10pm.
Williams was NEVER a newsman...but ALWAYS a cheap 2-bit whore. Still is.
To paraphrase a Presidential candidate,
Submitted by TheHistorian on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 6:46pm.
Yes, we CAN! High-speed transit assumptions are like "climate change" for the liberal intelligentsia. If you don't believe in it, you are from W Va and hug your guns as you smile with both teeth. But like anthropogenic climate change, there is no proof that high-speed transit works. If it did, why are NYC's streets so full of cars? You can take a subway almost anywhere in Manhattan, but you cannot hardly cross the street for all of the cars. Show us how to get rid of cars in NYC, DC, and SF, and we will start to believe you that high-speed rail MIGHT work.
Because right now, we had a train proposed in Ohio to go from Cincinnati to Cleveland. It was going to stop twice, and take 5 hours. Then, when I get there, unless I am downtown, I have to rent a car. I can drive it is 4.5 hours. Even if it does save energy, it sure is not economical of MY time. But, of course, liberals know best because they wrote it down when their liberal prof said it and now can regurgitate it word for word. Just don't ask them to do silly things like "prove" anything. They cannot do that, nor could their profs.
Dennis Prager
Happy reading!
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:24pm.
Seems that high-soeed rail in China isn't trouble free.
The U.S. media simply sucks
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
sure, we can base it on a current rail success
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 8:52pm.
I think this is a great idea. We can base it on a current rail success for a business model. It's a very successful business strategy - find a successful model, copy it. We can use the economic success of Amtrack as a business model for HSR.
["what? never made a profit? runs nearly empty most of the time? a sinkhole for subsidies and outright gifts of tax money? oh my!"]
Never mind.
High speed rail is a liberal fantasyland....
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 07/02/2011 - 11:49pm.
...think about it for a second....
1) all of those high-paying union jobs contributing membership dues to corrupt union leadership
2) all of the graft, payola and bribery to local, state and federal officials
3) all of the government contracts to GE et al
4) all of the tax revenue from the ticket sales AND
5) a "high speed transit tax" addition to liquid fuels to discourage people from driving their cars
Every time a liberal mentions high speed rail, they need a cigarette and a cuddle for afterwards.
high speed rail
Submitted by LarryG on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:44am.
I would be all for it if the trains were dedicated to spanish speakers only and the southern terminus was somewhere in southern Mexico. One way tickets,only. Viva la Raza!!!
rail ridership
Submitted by LarryG on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 2:54am.
Just how many people would be traveling a far enough distance with any frequency to make the whole bloody thing to actually pay dividends and how long is the time frame to ROI? If it's anything like these preposterous windmills, it may not be in our lifetime, if ever. Then, what would be the cost of riding? As it is now, it's nearly cost prohibitive and that's just the failed Amtrak system. I smell money flowing into special pockets.
Obama's mouthpiece
Submitted by tinydancer on Sun, 07/03/2011 - 8:05am.
This is all about UNION JOBS and NOTHING ELSE.
Typical of Obama. Always supporting his union buddies and his hookers at NBC are on his payroll too.