Republicans Vow To Fight High Speed Rail; Use Money For Freeways

[canuck]

R8RBob is right about the so-called resistance of government interventionism in the economy. But the kid of intervention they really hate is rules and regulations. They will find fault with rail because the ridership is not up to snuff. But how much work was done to attract passengers to Amtrak and Via Rail Canada as opposed to other modes. Also, as GP mentioned earlier, a lot of intercity air links are money losers for airlines and when you look a the state of airlines, How many of them are not under chapter eleven protection these days? Are these companies really too big for their breaches?

I just am puzzled that in Ohio where rail was paramount to its industrial relevance, leaders would dismiss that mode over others. Maybe it has to do with spiting the symbolic importance of the rustbelt industry that slowly disintegrated. Rail travel still reeks of mass transit and anti-individualism when opposed to car travel and is not sexy to your wannabe jetsetter. I once rode the TGV which is ultra high speed three months after its inauguration in 1981. I still have the ticket stub. It was an amazing trip from Paris to Lyon that took two and a half hours and used to take six before that. All told the metro beckoned at the terminus station, and I travelled to a youth hostel from the train station in 10 minutes. If you count the number of connections and waiting time, security, baggage retrieval in some cases; cost of airport duty, taxi ride when the airport is far away from city centers, etc... Rail travel is usually much better at linking cities even fairly distant ones.
At Montreal's P.E.Trudeau Airport, they just bult a huge Marriott Hotel in the American Zone so american passengers would avoid the security bother.

[Russix]

Like most Federal programs / grants , etc., there is no free money for the states for rail programs. One of the reasons that many state governors oppose rail programs [[and lots of other programs) is that the Federal government funds a fraction of the initial construction / start up costs and the states have to pay the rest - which they usually can’t afford. Also, the states get stuck with gigantic operating losses which go on year after year long after the federal level politicians that took credit for the programs have left office.

Taxpayer money for high speed rail = socialism!
Taxpayer money to maintain roads and highways = socialism!
Taxpayer money to BAIL OUT America's airlines = socialism!
Taxpayer money to fund America's airports = socialism!

Welcome to DetroitYes, hope you have fun here!

[lincoln8740]

a tax-payer in Birmingham who voted for L. Brooks Patterson is asking this question: why should pay taxes for mass transit when I will never use it? We have three cars and a mobile home and I am going to be required to pay taxes so that some poor unfortunate Detroiter who can't afford a car can get around. That tax-payer is thinking like the governor-elect of Ohio and Brooks. Build more highways.

Imagine that a politician actually listening to the opinions of his constituents!!!


Thank god for Brooks.

[DetroitDad]

The argument generally is that maintaining freeways and the airline industry is not only inefficient, but also not sustainable for the long term. Improved passenger rail [[not to be confused with local light rail and buses, but also not technically high speed, just higher speed than now) is arguably more efficient, has a higher capacity, is safer, and is more cost effective in the long term. Unfortunately, in order to get to a more cost effective and sustainable system, we have to invest capital in the new infrastructure. You have to understand, to some this is investing in something that doesn't exist, and therefore, it must be proven to warrant the investment. In other words, if everybody takes cars now, why randomly switch everyone over to rail, something unproven in this country?

I generally don't agree with the flawed thinking of "if it ain't broke than why fix it", because that view promotes complacency with mediocracy.

Taxpayer money for high speed rail = socialism!
Taxpayer money to maintain roads and highways = socialism!
Taxpayer money to BAIL OUT America's airlines = socialism!
Taxpayer money to fund America's airports = socialism!

Welcome to DetroitYes, hope you have fun here!

America in Deadlock:
Beyond all that, you have some extremists [[right or left) who think one side is trying to obtain socialism while the other is trying to promote an unfair advantage to the rich through entitlements, rather than hard work. The problem that creates [[along with the belief you are either for or against one of the sides) is that it shuts both sides down towards listening to each other, creating a crippling deadlock.

[wolverine]

Newsweek's take on this:
"Somehow, it has become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help “save the planet.” They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already-overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs—schools, defense, research." More: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/w...ake-sense.html

As for newsweek It might be a drain on dollars because for 50 years, we've put ourselves in this difficult situation. We've decentralized our population and our job centers. We've built too many roads and too many freeways to support this spread. Now we are struggling to keep it running. Just think of when cities were more compact, more organized and manageable. Reaching a solution will be difficult, and America is incredibly overburdened by politics that nothing is ever going to get done.

Trains may not be the most effective way of mobility because they don't reach as many people as they used to, just major cities. That's unfortunate though. It's one of the benefits of living in the city where you can board a train close by where you live and go to another place without having to up with the cost of owning a vehicle and parking it at your destination.

When I go home to Michigan from Chicago, I take Amtrak. I used to drive. I can't imagine driving I-94 anymore. What an awful experience it always was. Boring and often times dangerous in winter conditions. Taking the train is far more convenient. Plug in your laptop, tilt your seat back and relax. The occasional stops the train makes are sometimes less than the time you'll sit at a stop light. Thanks to the train, I spent $200 in your state last weekend at stores and restaurants. Tourism dollars. Something high speed rail can help promote.

[DetroitDad]

Fighting Mass Motoring Socialism

The quoted poster in this thread may be correct, and so to the many Republicans and L. Brooks himself. In the past, I think that Republican's views have proved right in some regards, concerning some government programs, but this time may be different.

Blind support of Republicans against efficient transit initiatives may move us away from free market capitalism, and towards mass motoring socialism.

Beyond this, high speed rail actually may fit in with the Republican goal of moving us away from socialism and communism. Moving us towards more efficient infrastructure would allow for freeing up capitol to reinvest in private enterprise, and away from a system that requires tax and government subsidation on the scale of mass motoring. High speed rail will require less long term government hand outs and tax dollars than mass motoring, if supporters are correct [[and if they are not, we need to know, by initiating our own studies).

Here is the truth because we assume that everyone is on-board but they are not.

Mass transit is frown upon by Republicans like they frown on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Unemployment benefits, Fanny and Freddie Mac and etc, etc.....because it is all social and they don't give a damn about anything social. Want proof? Look no further than to Lewis Brooks Patterson. Brooks loves sprawl because in Brooksland, everyone who has a car or two is middle-class or well-to-do and will never need public transportation to get around. In the mind of Brooks and other like-minded Republicans, the only people who cries for mass transit is the poor, the ones that need public transportation to get around and a tax-payer in Birmingham who voted for L. Brooks Patterson is asking this question: why should pay taxes for mass transit when I will never use it? We have three cars and a mobile home and I am going to be required to pay taxes so that some poor unfortunate Detroiter who can't afford a car can get around. That tax-payer is thinking like the governor-elect of Ohio and Brooks. Build more highways.

[dtowncitylover]

Trains may not be the most effective way of mobility because they don't reach as many people as they used to, just major cities. That's unfortunate though. It's one of the benefits of living in the city where you can board a train close by where you live and go to another place without having to up with the cost of owning a vehicle and parking it at your destination.

In America they don't serve as much people as they used to. But in the UK and France [[and I'm sure other modernized parts of the world), train lines are spread throughout their entire countries with even the smallest cities having access to the line. It's a shame Amtrak doesn't have more North-South routes, like a Detroit to Atlanta, Minneapolis to Dallas, or Denver to Phoenix, let's say.

[ghettopalmetto]

You mean, like THIS, dtowncitylover?

http://www.ushsr.com/phasingplan.html

Also note the importance of Ohio to the network. If you think the federal government is going to let John Kasich singlehandedly overrule the national economic interest, you're out of your mind.

[hybridy]

CLEARLY, you missed the part where Ohio has an equivalent population density as France, which has one of the more extensive rail networks in the world, high-speed and otherwise.

Speaking from first-hand experience, it's far easier and cheaper to get around a poor country with an emerging economy, like Poland, than it is to get around Ohio. I could walk up to the station, buy a ticket for the next train, and wait no more than 30 minutes for one to show up. Oh--and all the trains, including the freight trains, operate on overhead electric catenary, because the Polish people don't have Saudi cocks in their mouths.

There are Polish cities with 250,000 inhabitants that see 40 trains a day. Ohio can't even run 3 lousy round-trips between three of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States because they "can't afford it" [[while they spend 176 times as much money annually just maintaining the freeway system--never mind capital projects like the $1.6 billion interchange rebuild in Columbus or the new $400 million bridge in Cleveland).

polish trains are slow and outdated compared to the rest of europe, but definitely a great way to travel. took the pkp intercity overnite sleeper from warsaw to budapest this past summer..good times and cheap in comparison...granted economic circumstances and road infrastructure hinder personal car ownership

[ghettopalmetto]

polish trains are slow and outdated compared to the rest of europe, but definitely a great way to travel. took the pkp intercity overnite sleeper from warsaw to budapest this past summer..good times and cheap in comparison...granted economic circumstances and road infrastructure hinder personal car ownership

Oh sure, there's no denying that the former Eastern Bloc lags way behind Western Europe, but even with the rehabbed old Soviet-made railcars, PKP is decades ahead of Amtrak. Every single train I took was right-on-time, tickets were cheap, and the compartments were actually quite comfortable. LOVE the carts with free coffee in first class! East of downtown Warszawa, I counted no less than 10 parallel tracks, all electrified, and all carrying passenger trains. There was a lot of upgrading being done to the tracks, especially on the lines between the major cities, whereas we in the States spend money to turn our valuable rail lines into "multi-purpose" recreational trails.

I took an overnight sleeper from Zakopane [[in the Tatra Mountains) to Malbork [[in Pomerania, near the Baltic Sea). From what I recall, it was $135 or so for my own sleeping compartment [[on a 14 hour trip), and the attendant in my car was a hoot. Thinking my stop was coming up, I picked up my gear and headed for the door as the train slowed. The attendant says, "Hey, AMERICAN! Where you going? Your stop--Malbork, twenty minute. Have seat! Relax! I come get you!"

Long story short, the Poles certainly have suffered from decades of disinvestment under communism, and are spending plenty of money on fixing their roads and highways. The attitude, though, seems to be that there's no reason they shouldn't be like their German neighbors and have a balance of SEVERAL excellent transportation systems. We all-knowing Americans, though, like to exclude people from our economy unless they attach an expensive four-wheeled appendage to their bodies.

The Polish per capita GDP is a quarter of ours, and they can afford to build both roadways and railways--as well as airports. What's our excuse?

[staticstate]

high speed rail is great. spending millions of dollars on trains that are slower than my moped is fail.

[ghettopalmetto]

high speed rail is great. spending millions of dollars on trains that are slower than my moped is fail.

Let me ask you this:

Did the United States build the Interstate Highway System first, or were there maybe a few dirt roads and two-lane highways before that?

It doesn't make sense to spend billions of dollars on a 200 mph train when there isn't any ridership to begin with. You have to start with at least some sort of rudimentary service, and then upgrade it over time. The TGV and ICE systems have evolved over a period of 50 years. Unfortunately, because we decided to require everyone in our country to own an automobile, we don't even have the base network from which systems like TGV and ICE evolved. Where we have built such a base network, say, in Illinois, California, and North Carolina, the ridership has responded quite favorably.

I'd like to see your moped go 79 mph.

[bailey]

CLEARLY, you missed the part where Ohio has an equivalent population density as France, which has one of the more extensive rail networks in the world, high-speed and otherwise.

Speaking from first-hand experience, it's far easier and cheaper to get around a poor country with an emerging economy, like Poland, than it is to get around Ohio. I could walk up to the station, buy a ticket for the next train, and wait no more than 30 minutes for one to show up. Oh--and all the trains, including the freight trains, operate on overhead electric catenary, because the Polish people don't have Saudi cocks in their mouths.

There are Polish cities with 250,000 inhabitants that see 40 trains a day. Ohio can't even run 3 lousy round-trips between three of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States because they "can't afford it" [[while they spend 176 times as much money annually just maintaining the freeway system--never mind capital projects like the $1.6 billion interchange rebuild in Columbus or the new $400 million bridge in Cleveland).

CLEARLY you missed the point where I said we, as a society, have divergent views on transportation UNLIKE our more homogeneously opinionated European friends. Part of this country use and support rail. Other parts, at best, don't support it, or at worst, advocate aggressively against it. They're are a myriad of reasons why. Around these parts it's clearly not supported because those with the power of the purse think we are beyond salvage. Any more investment is simply good money after bad. Or l. brooks is a racist and wants to keep all the black folk in detroit...i forget which boogey man we're blaming today. Parts of the country elect representatives who further the use of rail, Ohio doesn't. Fine. Fuck Ohio then. Don't blame the leaders. Blame the slack jawed yokels that make up the population that puts them in control. I really don't understand what you are so angry about. you don't live in ohio you dont live in michigan.. You live and work in an area that uses and supports rail. Frankly I would have thought you'd see this an as opportunity for your region to snatch up some more federal dollars. But continually comparing what is available in Europe to what is available here is a silly a comparison as comparing Detroit to New York. They are two entirely different animals.

[ghettopalmetto]

CLEARLY you missed the point where I said we, as a society, have divergent views on transportation UNLIKE our more homogeneously opinionated European friends. Part of this country use and support rail.

You can't use somethng you don't have! "Divergent views" has nothing to do with it!

It's like going to a pizza place and saying that "Nobody orders cheeseburgers here, therefore, nobody wants to eat a cheeseburger."

[bailey]

You can't use somethng you don't have! "Divergent views" has nothing to do with it!

It's like going to a pizza place and saying that "Nobody orders cheeseburgers here, therefore, nobody wants to eat a cheeseburger."

True, but you don't go to a pizza place looking for a great hamburger either. They may have it, but it's not their bread and butter so they probably do it poorly. Same here. we have rail, we are just shitty at it. Could I, instead, interest you in the house specialty; a nice 8 lane divided highway?

When the US taxes gas like Germany or the UK does [[4-6 dollars a gallon), you'll see European style train transport being embraced. Untill then you'll have to pry the road dollars from their cold dead hands.

[canuck]

True, but you don't go to a pizza place looking for a great hamburger either. They may have it, but it's not their bread and butter so they probably do it poorly. Same here. we have rail, we are just shitty at it. Could I, instead, interest you in the house specialty; a nice 8 lane divided highway?

When the US taxes gas like Germany or the UK does [[4-6 dollars a gallon), you'll see European style train transport being embraced. Until then you'll have to pry the road dollars from their cold dead hands.

Right, but then doesnt it make sense to address the problem Nowas opposed to when the excrement hits the propeller?

You will pay 4.15 canadian dollars right now for a US gallon in Quebec. The outrageously high taxes levied on gas here go toward paying for highways and such. And this is in a province within a country that is the biggest exporter of fuel to the US, much bigger than the Saudi cock GP spoke of earlier.

http://middleeast.about.com/od/oilen.../me070905e.htm


I.G.Y. Donald Fagen/ The Nightfly 1982
Standing tough under stars and stripes
We can tell
This dream's in sight
You've got to admit it
At this point in time that it's clear
The future looks bright
On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
Well by seventy-six we'll be A.O.K.

What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free

Get your ticket to that wheel in space
While there's time
The fix is in
You'll be a witness to that game of chance in the sky
You know we've got to win
Here at home we'll play in the city
Powered by the sun
Perfect weather for a streamlined world
There'll be spandex jackets one for everyone

What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free

On that train all graphite and glitter
Undersea by rail
Ninety minutes from New York to Paris
[[More leisure time for artists everywhere)
A just machine to make big decisions
Programmed by fellows with compassion and vision
We'll be clean when their work is done
We'll be eternally free yes and eternally young

What a beautiful world this will be
What a glorious time to be free

[Hypestyles]

Who else went to the Transit Riders United/TRU Fall Fundraiser, at the Guardian Building.. the People Mover tour, with presentations, etc.

[oladub]

It doesn't matter so much if "Six million people reside within 10 miles of the proposed 3-C passenger rail line [[in Ohio)." What is much more important is how many people live within 10 miles of train stops.

Population density is crucial. Money spent should be largely determined by potential ridership. Outgoing Governor Doyle in Wisconsin, bought a bunch of Spanish trains to go between Madison and Milwaukee as sort of a pet project even though Madison has less than a quarter million people. His State and Federal dollars would have been better spent on the Milwaukee-Chicago route which has Racine and other densely populate stops along the way. Similarly, Michigan's priority should be to upgrade Detroit-Toledo service to link in to an eventual high speed train linking Minneapolis-Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland-Philadelphia[[with connections to the East Coast high speed rail corridor).

I just priced Megabus rates between Columbus and Cinncinati for Nov20-21. The cost is $30RT with no help from taxpayers except for existing roads. What will the price be on high speed rail?

I also checked the Detroit Rosa Parks Transit Center-Chicago Union Station RT price for the same weekend. RT is $43-51. 5hr.40min. each way. The advantage of high speed rail is that it would clip an hour or two off but at what price?
http://us.megabus.com/Default.aspx

[gdogslim]

You are hopelessly confused. Light rail and current Amtrak service are two completely different things, and neither one is the subject of this thread.

No I am 100% right on target.
Can anyone name a light rail system that runs a profit? maybe a couple in the world, or isn't massively subsidized.? New York many years ago.
Look at The People Mover. 8 - 10 MILLION a year subsidized by taxpayers!
Outrageous. Should be called the Detroit Tax Soaker.

Amtrak is different obviously, inter city rail, but it is still a government subsidized boondoggle multi BILLION. that has never had a profit overall. "The Pew Charitable Trusts SubsidyScope Project has just released a new report that finds 41 out of Amtrak's 44 routes lose money. The losses ranged from nearly $5 to $462 per passenger, depending upon the line, and averaged $32 per passenger."

As we all know the government does not create jobs, just transfers wealth.
We all know what happened to the Michigan Central Station.

Sure it might be good for students graduating in planning for jobs, union contractors who are big enough and donate to the right politicians and passenger who use trains at the expense of taxpayers who subsidize their transportation costs.
Land use problems, land costs, people choosing to drive cars , people move, it will never make money in michigan.
Instead maybe have electric or hybrid buses that are FLEXIBLE.

[Russix]

It doesn't matter so much if "Six million people reside within 10 miles of the proposed 3-C passenger rail line [[in Ohio)." What is much more important is how many people live within 10 miles of train stops.

Population density is crucial. Money spent should be largely determined by potential ridership. Outgoing Governor Doyle in Wisconsin, bought a bunch of Spanish trains to go between Madison and Milwaukee as sort of a pet project even though Madison has less than a quarter million people. His State and Federal dollars would have been better spent on the Milwaukee-Chicago route which has Racine and other densely populate stops along the way. Similarly, Michigan's priority should be to upgrade Detroit-Toledo service to link in to an eventual high speed train linking Minneapolis-Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland-Philadelphia[[with connections to the East Coast high speed rail corridor).

I just priced Megabus rates between Columbus and Cinncinati for Nov20-21. The cost is $30RT with no help from taxpayers except for existing roads. What will the price be on high speed rail?

I also checked the Detroit Rosa Parks Transit Center-Chicago Union Station RT price for the same weekend. RT is $43-51. 5hr.40min. each way. The advantage of high speed rail is that it would clip an hour or two off but at what price?
http://us.megabus.com/Default.aspx

I think the central location of a train station is more important than the density. The area around the airport is practically rural for the most part. The bus is subject to construction delays, accidents and traffic jams. The goal between Detroit and Chicago is 2 hrs. A more easily attainable goal is 3 hrs @ 110 MPH. This is alot cheaper than rebuilding a mile of I-94. Sounds like a deal to me.

[Russix]

No I am 100% right on target.
Can anyone name a light rail system that runs a profit? maybe a couple in the world, or isn't massively subsidized.? New York many years ago.
Look at The People Mover. 8 - 10 MILLION a year subsidized by taxpayers!
Outrageous. Should be called the Detroit Tax Soaker.

Amtrak is different obviously, inter city rail, but it is still a government subsidized boondoggle multi BILLION. that has never had a profit overall. "The Pew Charitable Trusts SubsidyScope Project has just released a new report that finds 41 out of Amtrak's 44 routes lose money. The losses ranged from nearly $5 to $462 per passenger, depending upon the line, and averaged $32 per passenger."

As we all know the government does not create jobs, just transfers wealth.
We all know what happened to the Michigan Central Station.

Sure it might be good for students graduating in planning for jobs, union contractors who are big enough and donate to the right politicians and passenger who use trains at the expense of taxpayers who subsidize their transportation costs.
Land use problems, land costs, people choosing to drive cars , people move, it will never make money in michigan.
Instead maybe have electric or hybrid buses that are FLEXIBLE.

Passenger rail service was profitable until we pumped a few TRILLION dollars into roads, airports and a continuous airline subsidy. Your rubbing your nose off at the fastest and most efficient form of transportation the Modern world has yet to invent. High Speed Rail and mass transit infrastructures deserve to be equaled funded as air travel and roads or none of them at all deserve any funding and should all be based on user-fees.

http://www.trainweb.org/moksrail/advocacy/resources/subsidies/transport.htm

[ghettopalmetto]

It doesn't matter so much if "Six million people reside within 10 miles of the proposed 3-C passenger rail line [[in Ohio)." What is much more important is how many people live within 10 miles of train stops.

Population density is crucial. Money spent should be largely determined by potential ridership.

Given that the proposed route would have stops in Cleveland [[and CLE), Columbus, Dayton, Springfield, and Cincinnati, I'm going to hedge a wild guess that most of those 6 million people live in those 5 cities, and not so much in the rural areas in between.

The studies of which you speak have been conducted and have determined the ridership to be feasible. If it were otherwise, the project would not have qualified for the $400 million in federal funds.

[gdogslim]

8000 jobs and 1.2 billion, who made up these numbers?
Remember all the promises of the people mover? It costs Detroit 8-10 million a year

European rail systems are all very heavily tax subsidized.
And Michigan taxpayers will end up holding the subsidy bag, just like for stadiums.

I suppose cash for klunkers was a success too eh?
Just ask the low income people who now have to pay more for a used car now.
They must have ended Stabenow's great tax subsidy for car makers program because it was TOO successful for the govt too handle.

[ghettopalmetto]

No I am 100% right on target.
Can anyone name a light rail system that runs a profit? maybe a couple in the world, or isn't massively subsidized.? New York many years ago.
Look at The People Mover. 8 - 10 MILLION a year subsidized by taxpayers!
Outrageous. Should be called the Detroit Tax Soaker.

You're going to blame a failure of local leaders in Southeastern Michigan on "public transportation" in general?

In your infinite wisdom, which roadways generate a profit? Do tell....

Instead maybe have electric or hybrid buses that are FLEXIBLE.

Yeah, we already have buses. Greyhound has been cutting routes and stations left-and-right in order to stay afloat. Maybe you've never ridden a bus or a train, but I'd take a train [[and even pay a premium for it) every time just for the extra comfort.

[iheartthed]

No I am 100% right on target.
Can anyone name a light rail system that runs a profit? maybe a couple in the world, or isn't massively subsidized.? New York many years ago.
Look at The People Mover. 8 - 10 MILLION a year subsidized by taxpayers!
Outrageous. Should be called the Detroit Tax Soaker.

Let me tell you what else is massively subsidized: roads. In fact, as percentage of maintenance and operating costs, roads are 100% taxpayer subsidized. Transit systems at least recover some cost from the farebox.