As if another reason to cancel was really needed!

[ekin1972]

Actually, the U.S. - outside of government/politics - is largely fueled by practicality, not unneeded, overpriced crap that only stands to benefit a few, especially when a 3 hour plane ride can replace an 18 hour train trip. If you are so convinced HSR fills a "social need" in America, would you care to put your money where your mouth is and pitch in?

Listen, I know you're a railfan. So am I, big time. So is pretty much everyone on this board. But let's not let this cloud our judgment.

I'm not convinced at all that there is a need for HSR rail in the US.
But also, emissions play a huge part in the need for hi hi speed rail. And there again, the US falls flat on its face.
Its cost more to have transport that produces less emissions.
So why would any US citizen pay more to use a train that produces less world pollution and takes longer. When they can pay less, get there quicker, for less and produce even more pollution.

 

[RRSignal]

I'm not convinced at all that there is a need for HSR rail in the US.
But also, emissions play a huge part in the need for hi hi speed rail. And there again, the US falls flat on its face.
Its cost more to have transport that produces less emissions.
So why would any US citizen pay more to use a train that produces less world pollution and takes longer. When they can pay less, get there quicker, for less and produce even more pollution.

Well, we pay for that extra fuel too.

P.S. I'm still waiting for your contribution to the U.S. The average tax burden was roughly around 10%. Please help us fill our "social need".

 

[bendorsey]

It seems to me all high speed rail systems are initially alike. Those for it vastly over estimate the ridership and under-estimate the cost. Those against it do the opposite. Neither side will give an inch. I live in Florida and you will never convience me in a gazillion years it will ever break even let alone make a profit.

Any fellow Floridians out there remember the Cross State Barge Canal? Florida's HSR reminds me of it time and time again, lol.

Ben

 

[ekin1972]

Actually, the U.S. - outside of government/politics - is largely fueled by practicality, not unneeded, overpriced crap that only stands to benefit a few, especially when a 3 hour plane ride can replace an 18 hour train trip. If you are so convinced HSR fills a "social need" in America, would you care to put your money where your mouth is and pitch in?

Listen, I know you're a railfan. So am I, big time. So is pretty much everyone on this board. But let's not let this cloud our judgment.

Well, we pay for that extra fuel too.

P.S. I'm still waiting for your contribution to the U.S. The average tax burden was roughly around 10%. Please help us fill our "social need".

The US economy, would be one I would never contribute to, unless they was no alternative. Because it does not see social need. And see's taxes to cover social need as wrong. I believe as we do in the UK we should look after each other.

Now this has gone off in a tangent now. So i'm done with this thread.

 

[Euphod]

There are plenty of advocates for "Social Need" in America, indeed America provides more charity and assistance to the rest of the world and itself than any other nation.

I don't understand how HSR becomes a social issue, when the capital required to establish the same could be far better used in other areas, even on other transportation systems. If the system could be made to be profitable without government subsidies, grants or props, then all this is a moot point, because HSR would be "just another product" funded and provided by private enterprise.

 

[TweetsieDude]

"Fair and Balanced" means that they invite people from all sides of an issue to be interviewed and present their opin....they meet that assertion completely.
"No-Spin Zone," means they present topics without attempting to influence an agenda...many other news blogs leave out parts of a story that they don't want you to know.
Fox News is watched by far more people than any other news organization besides CBS.[/quote

Thank you Backyard.

 

[RRSignal]

The US economy, would be one I would never contribute to, unless they was no alternative. Because it does not see social need. And see's taxes to cover social need as wrong. I believe as we do in the UK we should look after each other.

Now this has gone off in a tangent now. So i'm done with this thread.

Ah, it doesn't benefit you, so there's no point in contributing. Well, guess what? That's how many (and probably the vast majority) of Americans feel as well.

So much for your "social need" theory.

 

[Klinger]

Because it's the closest thing to decent media we have in the United States. I'm not sure if that's saying much though...

Your kidding right? The only decent media in the US is the one with the far right attitude?

Your biased

I prefer NPR, they actually show the Left, Right, AND middle of every issue.

 

[backyard]

Too "spread-out...?"

Are you kidding?

I notice that most all the posts against Florida HSR don't live in Florida. You need to visit Orlando & drive to Tampa on Interstate-4.

You need to see the area in person or at least on Google Earth...in the last ten years for example, the population grew by 3-million.

Every day, 500 families move down there on the average.

The retired population largely moved south from the northeastern states, that are very familiar with public transportation.

Only one year, 2008, did the population show no growth...but given a ten-year time-frame, it will be made up for.

The growth rate between 1990-2000 was 23%.

They're starting to plan perimeter routes outside the perimeter routes.

I lived in Lakeland from 1980 to 1992. I went back last year & it was hardly what I could remember, because of the massive growth of subdivisions, businesses, etc. When my family moved to Florida in 1965 the population was 4-million...now it's 18.5m.

Heck yes, Florida needs HSR, independent of freight-hauling railroads.

 

[RRSignal]

Your kidding right? The only decent media in the US is the one with the far right attitude?

Your biased

I prefer NPR, they actually show the Left, Right, AND middle of every issue.

So are you. NPR? Seriously?

But I'll give NPR some credit. At least they admitted their far-left bias.

 

[sparky15]

News: Anyone who watches a talking head on a box in their living room expecting the truth is a fool. Media outlets are money making businesses appealing to ratings. Who would tune in or read a paper if all it said was "nothing bad happened today, it's all good". Sensationalism sells and stories will be spun to fit that. The President can give a speech and every media outlet will have it's own spin on it, usually catering to their fan's beliefs and pushing their own agendas.

HSR: Never take off here. To be profitable, you need someone running it that knows how to make money. Government doesn't know how to do that. They look at numbers on a piece of paper, balance that against next years elections and their constituents (read campaign backers) then make decisions. Another is distance. European countries aren't as large as the U.S.. Been all over Europe several times. It's possible to take a train from one end of England, say, to the other in an afternoon. Not as easy here. A convenient rail system would be impossible, short of inner city rail, due to the massive infrastructure it would need, we're to spread out. That's why the railroads dumped moving people as fast as they could.

Social needs: Two sides of the coin. One, pay everything in and trust someone else to take care of us and except what you get. The other, keep what's yours and take care of yourself how you see fit as best you can. Neither better than the other, costs are the same as well as the outcome. One pays taxes, one pays insurance. One thing for sure, you will never understand us and we will never understand you without actually going there and living that way for a while.

Unless of course you believe everything you see on the news.

Dave.....

 

[paulzmay]

Unfortunately, HSR and even a lot of standard passenger rail is not a good fit for the U.S. The country is too big and Americans dislike being confined to a vehicle over which they have no control. As annoying as airport security is, I'd wager the vast, vast majority of Americans would pick a two-hour flight, plus having to arrive at the airport and hour early, over a four- or five- or six-hour plane ride.

That said, all forms of transportation are subsidized to some degree.

I think it's fair to say that High Speed Rail is not for trans-continental journeys. Even its most ardent proponents would not expect it to gain a majority share of the market for journeys over 3 hours. However, the USA has plenty of pairs of cities where a 3 hour journey is possible, many of which already have heavy air and highway traffic (e.g. LA to SF). I seem to remember that in the case of California, part of the HSR argument is that it would be cheaper to build than the new airport capacity that would soon become necessary. Where HSR is available in Europe, it has gained the majority of the market where the Train is as quick as the plane (centre to centre), or quicker.

Eurostar's figures are a poor example, because the initial projections were based on ridership figures of more than were currently travelling by plane - obviously a bit optimistic, and they still have to pay a fixed per-passenger fee for the channel tunnel, reducing their ability to cut fares to compete with the likes of RyanAir. Despite this, they have the majority of the Air/Train market.

Elsewhere, we could argue all day about how railway accounting is done, and how the costs of infrastructure are paid for, and therefore what constitutes an operating profit. Should government pay for permanent way in the same way that they pay for roads? If not why not? Shouldn't we have the choice as to how to travel, and why should government encourage one (environmentally damaging and socially divisive) form over another? America is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to increased use of public transport in general, as the endless miles of low-density suburbia were laid out for the car, and for the car only. European cities are typically much denser, firstly making unfettered car transport impossible, and secondly making high quality public transport easier to implement without massive subsidies.

Oh, and Euphod - The Heartland Institute - Really? I know Wikipedia is run by a neo-liberal green commie pinko (did I miss anything) conspiracy , but thsi provides a little background reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute . And if that wasn't leftie enough: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

Paul

p.s. Google the author of Euphod's link 'Wendell Cox' for a little more light reading...

 

[Euphod]

So...now the source of information determines the validity? I suppose there was no earthquake in NZ then, because I saw that reported on FOX news. Hurricane Earl was obviously made up for effect, because CNN had articles about that. I try to respect you enough to provide some underpinning to what I initially wrote, now you call a source into question. Suddenly I find I don't respect you at all.
You keep your opinion, and I'll keep mine then.

 

[paulzmay]

So...now the source of information determines the validity? I suppose there was no earthquake in NZ then, because I saw that reported on FOX news. Hurricane Earl was obviously made up for effect, because CNN had articles about that. I try to respect you enough to provide some underpinning to what I initially wrote, now you call a source into question. Suddenly I find I don't respect you at all.
You keep your opinion, and I'll keep mine then.

That's a pretty weak argument. Major world events either happen or they don't. It takes a special kind of crank to deny what there is clear unambiguous evidence for. Even so, the selection and presentation of news is often not free from a certain 'angle'. Here in Australia the main commercial channels tend to be very parochial in their outlook - world disasters always start with the number of Australian backpackers affected. It's a good job that Aussies are big travellers, or world news here would stop at our borders...

So is Fox news a reliable source of news? Well I haven't watched it much personally, but that's not the point. Is it a source of un-biased opinion? That's another question. If the question is about the Heartland Institute being a source of information, the please, give me a break - they are a think-tank (read pressure group). They are there to present a certain point of view from a certain political perspective (you've probably gathered it's not one I agree with). In no way are they unbiased - though this of course is true for any pressure group from any strand of politics.

Respectfully...

Paul

 

[Konni]

Hi,

For a european it is quite interesting to watch this "controversy". Railway companies, not even in the US, were never supposed to exercise control over what they are transporting.
It is a historic fact, that antisemitism was one of the political issues where the french right and the Petain regime had the least difficulties to agree with the nazis. But what the heck has this to do with building and operating a high speed rail line in central Florida in the 21st century?

It just exemplifies the typical hypocritical american way of blackening a formidable competitior. Staying on the sidelines some silly woman is pushed forward with supposedly "moral" arguments. That Fox News, the mouthpiece of lunatic radical republicanism, provides the platform for this venture is quite revealing. A typical case of republican xenophobic Know-Nothingism.

Now to the point: European experience clearly shows, that at distances up to about 300 miles, high speed trains provide shorter travel times between cities than either aircraft or automobiles.
Even during the age of steam french railway companies gave much attention to fast passenger rail services. Carrying on with that tradition after WW 2, SNCF became the european leader in the development of electric high speed trains. In France and elsewhere airline companies are losing business because of the competition from high speed trains. Mainly because of the services provided by high speed trains, the german DB (Deutsche Bahn AG) railway company has become profitable again.

If the state of Florida wants to set up such a system too, why not turning to SNCF as the proven experts in this kind of operation? Or would you rather pay heed to republican know-nothingism?

Cheers,

Konni

 

[Euphod]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/ambitious-high-speed-rail_n_510850.html

Oh gee...I must be completely wrong. I'm sure this source would never print anything biased...:hehe:.

I don't know about the rest of the members joining in this discussion, but I don't discount statements based on who has said them. Even a fool can manage to babble the truth on occasion, as proven by this sentence.

A more mature approach to the argument for or against HSR would be to present as many facts here as possible, sources be damned, and then try to reach an unbiased conclusion.
I thought we could do that here, I had no idea so many members of the forum were puppets of one side or the other....or the other!

My personal opinion is that the lines would have already been built if there was such a demand. The railroads in America would have surely studied the situation and decided if it were feasible, and profitable. Yes, profits are a dirty word to so many of us and our out of country friends, but I contend it is the very prospect of profits that make any venture successful.

But that's just my opinion, and like all of my opinions it is subject to change depending on the presentation of facts. Unlike some, I'm not particularly concerned with where the facts come from, because if they are true, then they will stand further scrutiny, and if they are false, they will surely be revealed as such.

 

[RooRocz]

HSR, much like the Interstate Highway System, is not intended to make money.

The interstate highway system would never have been built by private companies, because it can never ever make money. Likewise, HSR would never be built by private companies (with one notable exception) because it will never be profitable. (at least not in the near future).

The interstate highway system, by itself, has never generated a cent of direct revenue for the government. But the wider economic benefits of having such a vast and expansive network of roadways for transporting people are almost incalculable.

The same will likely be true of HSR. HSR between nearby metropolitan areas will bring untold growth and prosperity to said areas because of the ease of access between them.

For example, the North East Corridor makes it possible for me, a resident of the Washington DC metropolitan area, to take a day trip to NYC easily and quickly, almost on a whim. (it's a bit more expensive than I would like, but I digress.) What would have been a nasty 6 hour drive becomes a relaxing 3 hour and 45 minute train ride.
This opens up a whole new customer base for commercial establishments in the NYC and Washington DC area (and cities in between), effectively opening the whole northeast to any other part of the northeast.

The same thing could (almost certainly will) happen in other parts of the country. Think of the benefits that Detroit could see from having high-speed access to Chicago. Think of the benefits Cleveland could see from high-speed access to the same.

You won't recover the cost of HSR from fares. You will recover the cost from the new businesses which are made possible from better access to adjacent cities.

 

[rjhowie]

Euphod did well in this wee bit of mischief but I have to disagree with the passing comment that passenger trains are of the past. That applies to our American friends here but the US isn't the world. In GB and Europe passenger trains rule so there is life outside the US of A though sometimes you wouldn't know it! Here passenger is overwhelming the railways and a complete opposite to the US. A wee touch of the insular I suspect?!

 

[sparky15]

Interstate commerce is a huge factor in the U.S. economy. While the highway system itself may not have been profitable, the benefits of it are.

HSR could be a profit, but the cities they serve would have to update their infrastructure to take advantage, as well as any other place they stop. Without that support, you would be basically stranded when you get off the train. I live about 90 miles south east of Chicago. Sure, I could be there in 45 minutes once I get to the train. I still have a 30 mile drive to get to the train. With that, cost and time become a wash and it's more convenient to just keep driving.

Paying high taxes for a system that benefits a few is kind of a waste. Especially since public transportation is in place where it would be of benefit.

Dave....

 

[sparky15]

Euphod did well in this wee bit of mischief but I have to disagree with the passing comment that passenger trains are of the past. That applies to our American friends here but the US isn't the world. In GB and Europe passenger trains rule so there is life outside the US of A though sometimes you wouldn't know it! Here passenger is overwhelming the railways and a complete opposite to the US. A wee touch of the insular I suspect?!

Don't forget you're comparing two completely different geographic areas. The size of GB and densely packed population centers makes the rails an attractive proposition. Also, the cost of fuel there drives many to the trains.

For years they have been screaming fuel should be at least $4 a gallon here. After 9/11, it was getting close to that. The price of agricultural goods started to climb and everyone had a fit. Even those in Europe expressed concern as the prices rose. I live in a rural area where farming is the game. Several farmers I know didn't plant because the high fuel costs meant they might break even if they were lucky.

There was also a stink because during that time, fuel consumption was down and affecting tax income for the states. Most tried to raise income taxes and sales taxes to make up the difference or go broke. About broke our backs.

To subsidize a transition to rail we would have to raise fuel and goods prices. It would be impossible to maintain both a rail and interstate system and keep the cost of goods down. No way you could serve the agricultural area effectively by rail alone. That would affect more than just the good old USofA. Agriculture becomes a loosing proposition here it would affect some countries who rely on those exports to eat.

It's a world economy now. I find it funny how some of our friends in Europe think America should change when those changes would have a detrimental effect on them. It's not a cultural thing at all and I'm just using grain as an example. What works in one country my have a negative impact in another and it goes deeper than targeting greedy Americans. Sometimes there is a bigger picture involved.

Dave......