Slashdot Mirror
Is a US High-Speed Railway Economically Feasible?
An anonymous reader writes "The federal government has committed at least $8-billion (and counting) for the development of a nationwide high-speed intercity passenger railway system in almost three-dozen states. Rail advocates have long dreamed of an extensive railway grid that will provide clean, speedy, energy-efficient travel. The high-speed rail program is also expected to create thousands of desperately needed jobs, while reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil and easing gridlocked highways and congested air-space. However, this noble, ambitious, multi-year plan faces a multitude of obstacles — including costs that will no doubt escalate as the years pass by; and an American public that may be reluctant to relinquish the independence and convenience of their beloved automobiles for a train."
You do know that NY-Washington already has high speed rail, right? It could be better, but it's the only one in the country at the moment, and it makes Amtrack money hand over fist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
Now obviously trains cant compete with long-haul air travel such as New York to LA but for short haul, it could really work. (but only if its given proper high speed track and doesn't have to share that track with slow freight trains)
At 200 MPH, the trip would take 15 hours, give or take.
Leave at 5 PM, get in the sleeper, drink some wine that you brought on board, eat your dinner, and go to sleep. At 8AM, you arrive at your destination, in the heart of the city, rested, and ready to go. No need to get your luggage, take a taxi, or a long ride to and from airports.
Now compare this to the red eye flight. Tell me it's not feasible.
We take sleepers in Europe whenever we can; they're so much nicer than planes.
Now my understanding is the exact inverse. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16819-city-dwellers-harm-climate-less.html
Though I am open to a rational rebuttal.
Storm
California voters approved a high-speed rail ballot initiative recently that would build really high-speed trains from San Francisco to LA to San Diego, and also to points in between and Sacramento. The initiative approved $10Billion in bonds for construction - but the official estimated cost was about $30B, and the followup Oops-you-mean-the-WHOLE-Cost cost was about $40B, so they're depending on $30B of Federal money to magically fall from the sky. They've gotten approval for something like $2B of that $8B the Feds want to spend in the whole country, but they'll need a lot more. So the finances have been a total crock from the beginning.
By the way, the route from San Francisco to LA alone is longer than the TGV from Paris to Bordeaux, which is about the longest of the French TGV routes. (The highway distance would be a bit shorter, but the existing train routes across the mountains make the actual route zig-zag for a longer distance.)
I don't think you mean Marin County NIMBYs, though -that's across the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco, and there's no obvious way to get a train across the bridge. There are lots of NIMBYs around Atherton and Menlo Park who don't want the train going down the Peninsula, or at least not near them, or hidden in underground tunnels.
There have also been arguments about whether the route from San Jose should go south first, or should go up the East Bay and east before heading south, but that's been people who want the train to go near them, not people who don't want it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
For the most part, yes, though some are paid for through tolls instead. Toll booths are actually capable of paying for major highways by themselves (construction costs at least, not sure about maintenance).
It's worth mentioning, though, that a huge chunk of that tax money comes from the gasoline tax. While it's less targeted than tolls, it still does mean that, if you don't have a car at all, you are paying far less to maintain roads than a driver is. It also has the benefit of ensuring that people who drive lots of miles pay a greater share of the maintenance costs than someone who only drives a couple miles to and from the grocery store once a week. And it indirectly taxes heavier vehicles more (because they are usually less fuel-efficient), which is fair because those vehicles cause more wear and tear.
Do governments usually pull money out of the general fund to help pay for roads? Yes, they do, there's no question about that. My point is that, while your claim is more or less true, it's also very misleading. Let's look at the numbers. My local mass transit system gets 32% of its money from fares. The rest comes from local sales taxes levied by counties in the service area. As of 2003, 70% of all road funding came from gasoline taxes. You tell me which is fairer.
Rather than these "I don't like what you do with your life so I'm going to try to hinder you from doing it through a passive-aggressive tax measure"
Taxes on carbon emissions aren't about "not liking" liking something, they are about making you pay for costs you impose on the rest of the world without paying for them (externalities).
Libertarian arguments that you don't need taxes because private property will take care of it don't work for many externalities.