High Speed Rail In the Midwest

[RooRocz]

shh... don't tell anyone... but in the fifties, the highest tax bracket was 90%. (and rich people still lived here! gasp! and we were easily able to pay for the interstates, which are largely what made America the nation it is today.)

EDIT: Point is, catering to the whims of the ultra-rich is just a plutocracy by proxy. Increasing taxes isn't going to make the Hamptons any less desirable, it isn't going to make apartments on Park Avenue suddenly become empty, etc. The wealthy will still live here, they'll just grumble about it and keep threatening to move to the Cayman Islands.




Back to the infrastructure argument: Building things is the best way to stimulate the economy. You're not throwing money in a hole, and it will result in a net increase in GDP, because businesses that would have otherwise been idle will have huge orders for concrete ties, bridges, rails, railroad equipment, and so on. Plus, at the end of it all we have this nice new bit of infrastructure that stimulates development in the cities that it links and more closely links their downtowns together, which will last for hundreds of years.

And if China calls in its debts (unlikely, if they bankrupted us they'd lose their export markets) I'd rather have adequate ways to get around my deserted wasteland of a country than have had slightly lower taxes in the buildup to it.

 

[kws4000]

I'd rather have adequate ways to get around my deserted wasteland of a country than have had slightly lower taxes in the buildup to it.

Atlas Shrugged

That's all I'm gonna say.

 

[Euphod]

Well, that's a nice sentiment, but you won't be able to afford the tickets.

 

[amigacooke]

It's not a partisan issue, no matter where the money goes, there's no net increase in GDP, because while you're paying it out one end of the Government, it's being collected in higher taxes at the other end. Simple.

Too simple. This chart, US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP, shows that US government spending has been increasing as a percentage since 1903.

This chart, US Real Gross Domestic Product History, shows that real GDP has also been increasing over the same time period.

I'm no economic expert, but it appears that GDP can increases even if the percentage of the GDP from the public sector is increasing. Weird eh?

 

[bl4882]

It is literally true that a GDP can increase while the percentage of the GDP sucked off for government pyramid building increases. But you must be careful of the conclusions you draw. If this phenomenon were linear, then Greece would be the richest country on the planet. It demonstrably is not.

HSR threads seem to be "deja vu all over again," as the famed macroeconomist Yogi Berra onced said in another context. Proponents argue the expenditure of money siphoned from productive sectors of the economy can be well afforded to create their favorite 12 inches to the foot scale trainset because it will improve the "infrastructure," in some sense, and make the argument with religious fervor. Opponents demand that whatever is built must pay its own way before it should be considered as an infrastructure investment, do so with equal fervor, and overlook that sometimes we should be ahead of the demand curve.

I think the truth is somewhere in between. HSR is not the same when applied to a contenental nation like the US or Russia as it is when applied to European sized countries like France or Germany or the "Tight Little Island," that last said with great respect and admiration, or even some smaller Asian countries like Japan. But that does not mean it is always wrong. What is certain is that we are really just cutting and pasting, and sometimes creating variations on the themes that have been played in a number of threads before. No one's mind seems to change.

Bernie

 

[SuperFudd]

Hmmm...

We already have a network of inter city passenger trains. HSR just makes passenger trains faster.
In 1954 we already had passenger airlines. Those recip a/c were only ~300 mph though. Thank heavens the government decided to build a 600 mph high speed air network. I can hardly wait for government built 1200 mph higher speed air network!

 

[Euphod]

Back to the infrastructure argument: Building things is the best way to stimulate the economy. You're not throwing money in a hole, and it will result in a net increase in GDP,

At one end, yes new orders for durable goods will increase the GDP, at the other end, no, the increased taxes will nullify any increase in GDP. You seem you have eyes only for one end of the equation.

It is literally true that a GDP can increase while the percentage of the GDP sucked off for government pyramid building increases.

Not if you have the sense to look at where the money is coming from. At this point most of it is borrowed from China, which adds to the deficit. Why you would want to have fast shiny trains moving to and fro at the expense of your children's and grand children's future financial well being is beyond me. Are you guys really that selfish as to want HSR, CONSEQUENCES BE DAMNED? If so, you are no wiser than Sandra Fluke demanding free birth control, and then free abortions if she should happen to be bad at mathematics!

 

[bl4882]

Just to make myself clear, the full context of what I said is as follows:

"It is literally true that a GDP can increase while the percentage of the GDP sucked off for government pyramid building increases. But you must be careful of the conclusions you draw. If this phenomenon were linear, then Greece would be the richest country on the planet. It demonstrably is not." [Emphasis added]

The point of those four sentences taken together is that it is fallacious to suggest that because a vibrant economy can survive being plundered for politicians' pet vote purchasing projects, wealth can be created by such plunder, and especially in an economy such as ours that is far from vibrant. Such plunder always weakens it, and can destroy it, a la Greece, Italy, Spain, if the economy is weak. Euphod has poignantly mentioned other ill effects it is unnecessary to list again.

Money extorted by the government does not create wealth and is a net loss to the economy, i.e., the people. The question is whether the loss is worth it. It can be, but usually is not. When used frugally to carry out the limited legitimate functions of government, it can be money well spent. If squandered on "pyramid building," well, that is a different story. There is a legitimate debate about the legitimate functions of government, on the federal, state, and local levels, but HSR seems, under most circumstances, to be way out on the "pyramid building" end of the spectrum to me.


Bernie

 

[Truemac]

No one wants to go to St. Louis anyway.

As someone who lives in St. Louis...you are absolutely right.

 

[Euphod]

No offense intended, everyone should see the city at least once, for the arch, if nothing else.

Our nation is judged by the GDP, no other numbers really matter. It determines the value of our currency, and takes into consideration our deficit. Jobs programs are worthless, in that jobs are the end result of an expanding economy. When the government institutes a jobs program, they are paying the wages from taxes, or borrowing the money from other nations. At best, paying a worker with tax money adds to the increase in taxes to the rest of the population, which renders any increase in spending as null and void. At worst, when paying workers with borrowed money, it increases our deficit, which reduces our GDP and places the future at risk.

I love the concept of HSR, but pretending that it's a worthy strategy to produce jobs and increase our GDP is nonsensical. Better to reduce or eliminate the deficit, and then in-act programs like that, when the money could be drawn from a surplus (yeah...right) or at least borrowed at a less onerous rate. I like trains as much as the next guy here, but just because HSR is trains related, it doesn't get a pass on the economic realities.

 

[amigacooke]

At best, paying a worker with tax money adds to the increase in taxes to the rest of the population, which renders any increase in spending as null and void. At worst, when paying workers with borrowed money, it increases our deficit, which reduces our GDP and places the future at risk.

At best public money can be used for projects such as the Hoover Dam that cover its own construction costs and creates income to the tune of $600,000 annually.

 

[RooRocz]

Of course I don't anyone has mentioned SNCF's proposal for a public-private partnership in creating Midwest HSR that would cost orders of magnitude lower than just having the government build it. They submitted these proposals without an invitation to simply because they believed it was such a lucrative market.

This was rejected, I believe, due to crazy "Buy American" laws and the fact that most of America seems to believe that SNCF is run by Nazis because they transported Jews to concentration camps in WWII...

 

[kws4000]

At best public money can be used for projects such as the Hoover Dam that cover its own construction costs and creates income to the tune of $600,000 annually.

This is part of the argument that HSR would work, it would end up paying for itself.....

FWIW, Amtrak is Federally Mandated to cover 90% of all operating costs by October 1, 2014. Can they make it? Conrail did. Can the same scenario apply to such a fickle market of people-moving? Don't think so. There has been a long history of pessismits being proved wrong, and I hope this is one of them, but first there would have to be a major ovverhaul to the subsidy system to highways and airports(not airlines specifically).

Do I want HSR? Yes. Can it be done? Certainly. Should it be done? Open-ended question. Will it be profitable? Not likely, unless there is a global limiting system of pollution per passenger-mile.

Can one dream?

Always :wave:

 

[jacksonbarno]

HSR seems at first like a good idea all around, until you consider that we life in an era where time rules over all. Even HSR would be impractical for the uses that we are trying to use it for. HSR should be put on nonstop, flat, intermediate length routes between large city pairs: Chicago- Buffalo, Cincinnati - Chicago, NY - Washington, NY - Phili, Phili - Harrisburg, Buffalo - Detroit, Detroit - Grand Rapids, Detroit - Chicago, NY - Boston, L.A. - San Diego all NONSTOP. These routes are really the only way to compete with airline tavel. Longer routes, such as NY - Chicago, NY - Detroit, etc... are too long to compete with airline travel. Overnight long distance trains such as the Sunset Limited, the Lake Shore Limited, the Capitol Limited, etc... take way longer than airline travel at about the same cost. the game has changed, and Amtrak has to realize that they have to play a whole new game in terms of what trains to run and where. HSR sounds like a good idea to connect old city hubs (KC, St. Louis, etc...) where nobody really wants to visit. If people really want to go to those places, they will fly, as it saves time, and in some cases money. But still, if you think about it, the only feasable way to put HSR to use, really isn't feasable at all. The upgrades to track and the cost of trainsets, possible electraficaton, terminal renovation, and operating cost, would not only void the profit, but it would put the project so deep in the red, that it would possibly take years, if not decades to break even on it. With the way Amtrak is going right now, that just dosen't seem possible to do it and financially stay in the black. The only way that I see Amtrak getting in the black right now as it is, would be to go the Conrail way; that is, for Amtrak to set out under private management. But, who would pay for this, if somehow the govrnment found some crzy reason to spend more money when the debt is climbing higher? The taxpayers! Wow! Where have I heard that before.... And in the end, the only people who would ride the HSR would be the Wealthy people, who are already paying for most of the government ventures in taxes. There you go. I say HSR, throw on the E-Brake. I'm not in support. The economy and the debt are in no place to build HSR.

 

[BobCass]

jacksonbarno: Quite obviously you have never been in the flyover zone..We also have a life, its to bad you have the good ole East Coast Mentality..You would like it if its just on the East Coast and serve you, but not us..Is that it??

 

[rjhowie]

You have an inter-city network Suporfud but when you compare it with elsewhere in the world it doesn't really mean a hill of beans in a sense. Few and far between and yes I know all about distance and the advantage of planes.Anything that improves on the present situation for those interested in railways is to be commended though.

 

[jacksonbarno]

Well, ok, those were just some examples that I made, that happened to be more so on the east coast, but you get my point, short and intermediate nonstop city pairs are the way to go for HSR travel, some others being St. Paul - Chicago, S. Louis Chicago, KC - St. Louis, Dallas - Houston, Dallas - Austin, Houston - Austin, LA - Sacramento, Seattle - Portland (not flat, but close enough), etc... For smaller towns and suburbs, there should be shuttle trains, or regional trains that take people into the city, but the idea of it being nonstop is more the idea of competing with airlines than bypassing small towns. But, there should only be two - three hubs: Chicago, and NY, and possibly L.A., where thee are large cities that are close by. Also, by the way, commuter trains don't stop at my station anymore, so to get to an Amtrak station, I have to drive an hour and a half into Boston to get to an Amtrak station or an airport.

 

[dricketts]

Well I want to go to STL... even though I loathe their baseball team. I have and do travel Amtrak several times a year to STL from KC. There are many more people using the Missouri River Runner than 5 years ago. This summer I caught the train headed east in Lee's Summit (just outside KC) and I couldn't believe how many people were waiting for the train. You would have never seen a crowd like that 5 or 10 years ago. All coach cars were filled to capacity. I'm used to having both seats to myself. Just recently I saw the River Runner with one cafe car and 4 coaches from KC to STL. Never seen 4 coach cars on that train in my life.

I'm just saying demand is increasing. Maybe not enough for High Speed now but who knows 5 or 10 years from now. What's wrong with planning ahead?


This pic was taken about 20 minutes before the River Runner showed up. Even more passengers showed up after this pic was taken. Keep in mind this station is about 20 miles outside Union Station in downtown KC where it picked up even more passengers.

 

[Euphod]

I know of no HSR system in the world that "pays for itself" or is profitable. It's my understanding that the only reason France considers their system profitable is because they levied tolls on the roads to force the populace to take the train. Someone here in the US wants to make other forms of energy so expensive that solar and wind begin to be competitive in price. This kind of social engineering is fraught with disaster.

 

[jacksonbarno]

But that isn't really "making a profit" if you just force someone to do something. Sometimes, if the system is so bad or expensive, people won't mind the costs that you put forth on rads and highways as much. You have to make the system work for the traveler, and that is something that almost every passenger railroad struggles to do. Trust me, I love railroads as much as the next guy on this forum, maybe even more, but its just the exact opposite of what the country needs right now.