Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
President Obama on Thursday revealed the administration's plans for developing high-speed rail lines in ten corridors around the country. Included in the plan is one line from Detroit to Chicago and another from Chicago to Toledo and Cleveland right along Michigan's southern border. Here's the map of the administration's planned rail lines:
Oh, remember all that fevered bullshit from the Republicans about how that money would go to create a "Sin Express" from LA to Las Vegas? You might notice that there is no line planned between those two cities. Will we hear a retraction? John Boehner, where are you? You used that nonsense about the Vegas rail line and said that the project wouldn't help your state of Ohio, but you might notice that one of the lines runs from Chicago to Toledo and Cleveland, while another goes from Clevland down to Cincinnati.
Thad McCotter? You used it too and said that the project wouldn't help any workers in Michigan, yet you might notice that one of the lines runs from Detroit to Chicago, likely cutting right through your Congressional district. Funny, I only hear crickets.
Politics
Comments
And crickets are all you'll ever hear when a right-winger is proven wrong. Either that or, more often, a denial that they ever said anything like that to begin with.
Posted by: gary l. day | April 17, 2009 9:43 AM
Cincinnati! Excellent, that will enhance the accessibility of the Creation Museum.
I notice two of the lines go up into Canada. How are the annexation talks going?
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | April 17, 2009 10:09 AM
I'll bet that they are all going to claim that it was because of their efforts that the map looks the way it does right now. (!)
What I'm thinking, though, is that if this high-speed train to Detroit is really going to be something of great use, someone's going to have to build a second track, because right now, there's only a single track going through Ann Arbor on the current Chicago-Detroit AmTrak line.
Also, for people living in D-town (and cities/towns closer to D-town than Chi-town) then going to NYC or DC by train still doesn't remain a viable option, unless one figures out hot to get to Toledo. Looking at the map, this isn't even addressed (nor is the fact that there isn't a high-speed connection between Chi-town and DC or NYC).
Posted by: Umlud | April 17, 2009 10:10 AM
Wow, those of us in the non-Pacific coast west don't get jack, do we?
Posted by: dogmeatib | April 17, 2009 10:11 AM
Well, obviously the "Sin Express" was taken out of the plan. I haven't consulted my Magic 8-Ball yet to determine if it was due to a conspiracy to make Republicans look foolish or from the pressure of right- wing hoodoo, but I'll let you know later.
Posted by: AL Jeremy | April 17, 2009 10:11 AM
There will probably be some pushback with whatever sort of poltical sway the Lake Michigan ferry companies have. A high speed rail served from W. Michigan to the Chicago and Milwaukee areas will threaten thier business...
Posted by: SpotWeld | April 17, 2009 10:11 AM
Herod, The talks are going well. We have almost succeeded in our plan to buy the US for a few trinkets but there's great pressure here to not go forward as it would lower the value of our trinkets ;)
Posted by: Doug Alder | April 17, 2009 10:16 AM
@spotweld
I would take the rail company lobby over the ferry company lobby any day in terms of political influence. :) Especially in Chicago.
Posted by: yoshi | April 17, 2009 10:20 AM
Yeah, it's a bit disappointing that there's no high-speed link between Chicago and Washington or Chicago and New York. But you have to start somewhere.
I hope we're talking real high-speed trains on these routes and not the current situation that we have with the Acela trains on the NE corridor. At least on the section I'm familiar with (Philly to D.C.) the Acela trains run on the same tracks that the standard trains run on. So for a cool $80 more you can get to D.C. about 8 minutes faster (although both travel time and price fluctuate depending on the time of day). Still, it beats flying.
Posted by: Imrryr | April 17, 2009 10:27 AM
@dogmeatib
I live in that part of the world. Exactly where are we going to generate the passenger volume to justify a high speed rail?
Posted by: vhurtig | April 17, 2009 10:47 AM
I'm glad to see this, but sad that it wasn't done sooner. In the late 80's we had a great plan for an Austin to Houston line that might have made Bryan a major transportation hub and, down the road, may have granted us quick access to all of Texas' big cities. Oh, for the road not taken :(
Of course, being a rail suburb for Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio would have inevitably had a downside as well.
Posted by: Julian | April 17, 2009 10:51 AM
Great news. I've taken the TGV in France and the bullet train in Japan -- both fast, convenient, clean, and comfortable. Infinitely better than flying. It's about time we got with the program here.
I don't get the objections to a line between LA and Las Vegas. It's an obvious choice and I would think it could pay for itself before some of the other routes. Don't Republicans like money any more?
Posted by: Rob Lll | April 17, 2009 11:01 AM
Rob: They like money, but not more than railing against the inequity of "California liberals", all of whom are OBVIOUSLY whore-mongering, wine-guzzling, pot-smoking gamblers. Oh, and homosexuals.
Posted by: Julian | April 17, 2009 11:04 AM
The talks are not going well. The Canadians can't be convinced that annexing a third world country is in their best interest.
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | April 17, 2009 11:06 AM
Yoshi; I'm still hoping to buy Maine for a few glass beads and a large latte. It should fit in nicely with the rest of the Maritimes.
Speaking of which, is that a high speed rail line from Portland, Maine to Boston? Very cool. I used to use the bus lines for a 12 hour day trip to Boston, and one convention down in Philadelphia. That would be so much faster, easier, and more comfortable by high-speed rail.
The rail line crossing into canada also intrigues me. :D I wonder if that's hitting Ottawa or Montreal?
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | April 17, 2009 11:09 AM
This is extremely welcome. Especially if they don't buy into the "conspicuous display of intrusiveness with no contribution to real-world safety whatsoever" philosophy of security screening that keeps me out of airports and "we have some nice, comfy hobbit-sized passenger cabins...always proud to cater to the little folk, Mr...?" design philosophy (and lack of non-shitty air conditioning) that makes me not mind this too much.
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 17, 2009 11:16 AM
Good idea in some limited ways. Having had the joy of living in Germany for over a year, I can really appreciate the benefits of reliably, fast and relatively cheap public transportation.
There are a a few things to consider before getting too happy about this though. First and foremost, if the destination city doesn't also have good public transportation via local rail or a good bus system, then it's pointless, unless you can also easily load your car on the high speed rail and take it with you.
At least in Europe, all that inrastructure was already in place, you knew where ever you were travelling, they would have a decent public transport system and you wouldn't have to rent a car or find another way around.
Also, even a high speed rail is a 2-3 day trip across the whole of the US. I'm not sure that's feasible for a lot of travellers. I can see where it would useful with limited applications, but not many US cities are really set up to accomodate this sort of thing yet.
Posted by: FastLane | April 17, 2009 11:16 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | April 17, 2009 11:19 AM
The French TGV travels at 200 mph. Assuming an average coast-to-coast distance of 3,000 miles, that's only 15 hours.
Posted by: Dunc | April 17, 2009 11:21 AM
@Left_Wing_Fox - Most likely Montreal as Amtrak already has service to that city. Although, most of the current line is not owned by Amtrak and that results in a lot of delays.
Posted by: Imrryr | April 17, 2009 11:28 AM
@Dunc
I assume your 15-hour cross country train will have specially designed catch poles or scoops to pick up passengers and luggage at intermediate stations. And said stations will have well padded landing zones for offloading passengers and luggage at 200 mph.
Also, Houston only gets a high-speed line to New Orleans and parts deeper into the South? Not to Austin or Dallas? Shouldn't Obama be trying to encourage Houstonians to socialize with the more civilized parts of the South?
Posted by: Kevin S | April 17, 2009 11:40 AM
Ok, add on some time for stops. Still doesn't take you anywhere near 2-3 days.
Posted by: Dunc | April 17, 2009 11:46 AM
will they be using Rearden metal to build those tracks?
Posted by: VicVanity | April 17, 2009 11:48 AM
This is made of awesome. Having traveled on the bullet trains in Japan you get an appreciation for just how good rail transport can be. My wife is a flight attendant and I can still see us using this service to go party somewhere within a few hours of Detroit. The trip from NY to New Orleans would be pretty good to if done over a few days to hit some of the cities along the way.
I hope that they charge reasonable prices for booze on these things! Oh that's another thing that is great about Japan, they have drink machines on the platforms that sell beer.
Posted by: Doug Little | April 17, 2009 11:50 AM
@Kevin S,
Texas would have succeeded from the union by then, right?
Maybe the new country of Texas can build their own high speed rail system.
Posted by: Doug Little | April 17, 2009 11:53 AM
A rail connection to Indy and Louisville? Nice! Louisville had an Amtrak bus link to Indy for, say, about 15 or 20 minutes, a few years back. The city trumpeted this new (agonizingly slow) service to Chicago, then it quietly disappeared forever. High speed rail would make sense.
Posted by: wheatdogg | April 17, 2009 11:59 AM
Small precision: The railway station of departure is Honolulu (!)
Posted by: humorix | April 17, 2009 11:59 AM
Looks very awesome and, to be frank, the only real option. The planes 'n' cars situation is not environmentally sustainable. One of the things I really love about Europe is the train network: the fact that you can get from London to Paris in about the same time it takes to watch a movie is awesome. You only have to check-in 30-45 minutes before departure and you don't have to go through humiliatingly awful security like at the airport.
Posted by: Tom Morris | April 17, 2009 12:07 PM
Right, like LA has no sin.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | April 17, 2009 12:09 PM
Also, even a high speed rail is a 2-3 day trip across the whole of the US. I'm not sure that's feasible for a lot of travellers.
The useefulness of such a line will depend on which, and how many, locations it serves in between. I suspect that most of the passengers on such a line won't be going the whole distance either way. But it will be great for bringing the coasts and heartland closer together.
...and you don't have to go through humiliatingly awful security like at the airport.
Just wait till the next big terrorist attack on our brand-new rail system (or the old one for that matter). Quite frankly, I'm surprised we haven't already secured our train stations like we've secured our airports.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 17, 2009 12:22 PM
Oh Huzzah! High-speed to Vancouver! It's definitely the way to cross the border. Oh, and to be able to take the train to CA, and not have to stand around taking off my shoes, and denying my lotion. Stupid TSA.
@dogmeatib, there's lots of trains in the West, they just all seem to be carrying freight.
Seattle almost has decent public transit. For the West Coast.
Posted by: JustaTech | April 17, 2009 12:29 PM
Well, in theory it's a great idea, but with likely cost overruns and the fact that as long as gas is cheap enough not many people will use it, I just don't know if it's feasible.
Posted by: Jim | April 17, 2009 12:36 PM
Theyve got a line between Richland and New Orleans and nothing between Phoenix and LA?
You've got to be kidding me. Denver should be mad as well.
East coast bias.
Posted by: Dave Thompson | April 17, 2009 12:42 PM
I enjoy your comments.
"Political discussion" in this country has turned into a really childish game of asserting that something bad will happen and then arguing as though it actually has. I'm glad to see you name the names of those who did that.
Posted by: wally | April 17, 2009 12:49 PM
I love how all the libertarians here are wowwing at a plan for a socialized and subsidized railroad.
If this sort of thing were profitable, don't you think someone would have done it by now? Or at least started building part of it?
Posted by: J | April 17, 2009 1:08 PM
Unless of course, the amount of initial investment neccesary to build up to a scale where it would be profitable is so large that no private company could do it.
Or, maybe go to Germany and see what you get when you have such a system, and run it well.
Or, maybe you should be protesting against the socialized and subsidized roads we have all over this place.
Decisions, decisions.
Posted by: Coriolis | April 17, 2009 1:20 PM
Posted by: Alex, FCD | April 17, 2009 1:28 PM
No one had to build the whole thing all at once. If any part of this thing were profitable, someone would be building it right now.
Something tells me that people know that this won't be profitable. So the government will end up pissing away $13 billion and will then piss away billions more on the continual subsidies.
Posted by: J | April 17, 2009 1:34 PM
Sigh...
Why are they planning billions-dollar transportation upgrades only for places that already have good transportation? Build us some intra-city light rail and inter-city high-speed in Tucson and Phoenix (with service to LA and SD), please! I'll use it, I promise!
Posted by: Uncephalized | April 17, 2009 1:36 PM
J, you're missing the point, which is that mass transit systems have to have a certain level of coverage before people will use them in large numbers. If that kind of coverage isn't achievable without government investment, and we deem it a good goal to pursue, then the government should do what it can to make it happen. A high-speed system by its nature needs nationwide coverage from day one to be appealing to a large number of people (and therefore profitable). Plus this way we avoid having 400 different rail systems spring up all over the country using different track gauges, etc. that can never be combined into one large network when they finally grow large enough to meet.
Contrary to popular belief, sometimes the public good trumps profitability. Not to mention that the only reason airlines, etc. are profitable is because no one is paying the true cost of oil and its associated technologies--internalize those costs and all of a sudden energy-efficient modes like rail start to seem a lot more attractive.
Posted by: Uncephalized | April 17, 2009 1:42 PM
I love how it's just assumed that any rail line to Las Vegas would be a bad thing. Heaven forbid we run high speed rail to a major airline hub.
I agree that these things are not likely to be profitable (or at least, not very profitable). But neither is the interstate highway system.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | April 17, 2009 1:58 PM
J: If this sort of thing were profitable, don't you think someone would have done it by now?
Well, this is why the federal government is getting involved. One of the purposes of government is to make sure that certain essential services are available to the public regardless of whether it is profitable.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 17, 2009 2:03 PM
Shorter J:
We should never build anything new, because if it was worth building it would have already been built.
Posted by: Jason A. | April 17, 2009 2:28 PM
having rode both the TGV and ICE I can say that high speed rail is awesome.
But I don't think we'll ever see this. It's too cool and logical for America.
I;d like to see the west lines go all the way from Seattle to LA. That would make Disneyland trips much more feasilbe by rail. You can do that now, with a sleeper car and never get off the train. It is awesome. This system requires a transfer. Lame.
The lack of a link all the way across the nation is alos troubling.
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | April 17, 2009 2:43 PM
Y'all can forget a real bullet train until we invest another $100 billion or so on this. These trains are generally going to have use existing tracks and share routes with freight. Most existing rail in the USA can't handle anything over about 120mph, and there's no passing lane for getting around freight. Even given the current abuses of eminent domain, laying new track to handle a real high-speed system is a long, long way off.
I really wish this would work as promised, though. My wife is train-happy, and I enjoy them myself. If they could make it as cheap as flying with fewer hassles, it'd be a dream come true.
Posted by: Ranson | April 17, 2009 2:44 PM
Shorter Jason A:
Only the government can build things.
Posted by: J | April 17, 2009 2:45 PM
And bullet trains are an essential service?
Who's "we"? The people using the service or the people forced to pay for it?
What do you mean no one is paying the true cost of oil? We're all paying. There is no escaping it. There's no free lunch.
Unless you mean that the airline passengers are not paying the true cost of oil, but obviously they are. And what do you think these trains will run on?
Posted by: J | April 17, 2009 2:54 PM
That's not shorter Jason A. at all--he never even implied that the private sector cannot build things of value. On the other hand, you pretty much flat-out stated that the government cannot build things of value, because if something would be valuable a private entity would have built it for profit. Which is wrong. Eventual profit is not the only hurdle in whether or not an enterprise gets started. There's time horizons, opportunity costs, start-up capital thresholds, etc. Not to mention that one could find that a public rail system would be profitable in public hands even if it would not be profitable in private hands once one factors in reductions in external costs to society that private industries currently do not count towards their profit (e.g. reduced pollution, reduced wear-and-tear on roadways, etc.)
Posted by: Shygetz | April 17, 2009 3:02 PM
I'm also what basis there is for an objection to a LA to LV high-speed line. The alternative, people driving themselves, a considerable proportion being drunk or high, seems far worse. At least on a train the conductor, who is assumed to be a well trained professional and sober, or a computer, does the actual driving.
I'm a big supporter of trains. Just from an engineering POV they are far more efficient than the highways. They are also far safer. I also resent having to drive distances. On a train I could, read or sleep of play cards. Doing that stuff in a car tends to upset the back seat folks. IMO driving is just plain boring. At least it is until shortly before the accident.
IMO trains get the short end of the public funding stick. We spend piles of money on highways. The trucking and car companies benefit but it is the taxpayer that builds the highways, maintains them, enforces laws on them, and cleans up the carnage. The trucking and car companies don't build or maintain them.
Likewise the airlines don't build or operate airports, pay for air-traffic-control, or most of the security apparatus. Taxpayers cover it.
Shippers and barge operators have canals, dams, locks, ports and channels built for them. The USCG maintains the signs and enforces the laws that keep it all relatively safe and efficient. But the shippers don't usually build ports, dams or dredge channels. It is the taxpayers who do the lion's share of the dirty work.
Why is it that airlines and trucking companies and barge operators all, in effect, get massive subsidies to keep them profitable for their owners but if anyone raises a hand to help the railroads the claim is that we don't support welfare for business. That we expect businesses to finance their own operation. Clearly we don't expect that of other transportation systems. Why is it that RRs get held to a higher standard?
Posted by: Art | April 17, 2009 3:07 PM
J: And bullet trains are an essential service?
I would say yes. At least as much as prisons and public education. Are we now going to get hung up on the precise meaning of common phrases?
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 17, 2009 3:13 PM
Not at all. I said that IF the government HAS TO build it, then it most likely has less value than people are willing to pay. If the government is building it, then people are forced to pay for it.
And when Jason A said that "we" can't build anything unless it had already been built, he was arguing with a strawman.
All these things are taken into account by private entities. They look at it and say that it's too risky. The government has a ready supply of money because it can just tax people or print it, so risk isn't such a factor. If it ends up wasting a few billion dollars, which it does on a regular basis, then it's no big deal.
That's like saying that school is an essential service so we're going to pay for every kid to go to Harvard. Or the prisons are an essential service so we need laser fences and robot guards.
Posted by: J | April 17, 2009 3:25 PM
J: That's like saying that school is an essential service so we're going to pay for every kid to go to Harvard. Or the prisons are an essential service so we need laser fences and robot guards.
Yeah. It's just like that.
Are you taking analogy lessons from Peter Rooke?
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 17, 2009 3:29 PM
So you're saying that you can't get across the country without a bullet train?
You can't take Amtrack? Or drive? Or fly?
Explain to me why a bullet train is so essential.
Posted by: J | April 17, 2009 3:36 PM
J: So you're saying that you can't get across the country without a bullet train?
Yeah, that's exactly what I said.
Posted by: Chiroptera | April 17, 2009 3:41 PM
Seriously, could a train drop a car and pick up a new one while going through a station at or near full speed? The two cars would have to be self-propelled and probably a custom configuration, but one can imagine having everybody who is disembarking go to the rear car, which decouples and slows well short of the station. Then a car filled with embarking passengers pulls onto the track behind the train, catches up, docks, and everybody moves forward into the main part.
What's wrong with that idea?
Posted by: Bob Munck | April 17, 2009 3:48 PM
What's wrong with that idea?
Why have a train at all? Just send the individual cars.
But that would be very inefficient.
Posted by: J | April 17, 2009 3:54 PM
J: Private industry did build a nation-wide rail system in the U.S. It was dismantled and abandoned after World War II as 'unnecessary' because of the strength of the car, airline, and road construction lobbies. As a result, New York city was barely navigable for the last fifty years, LA is a nightmare of concrete and fuel exhaust, and the mid-West is filled with marginally viable suburbs separated from their primate cities by arduous daily commutes in ridiculous traffic.
Despite what economics would have you believe, things don't happen in this world as a result of strict cost/benefit analysis; who's benefiting and how the cost are paid is often far more important. For instance, the main reason the idea for a rail network I mentioned in my first comment was killed was because the head of Southwest thought it'd be detrimental to his business and he was good friends with the Texas Speaker of the House at the time.
Posted by: Julian | April 17, 2009 4:08 PM
This is great news!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | April 17, 2009 4:15 PM
Wouldn't have the same effect unless everybody in each car was departing from and going to the same cities. Otherwise the car would have to stop at intermediate cities. With the drop/pickup idea, the passengers are all traveling at full speed the entire time (other then when departing and arriving).
Would there be inefficiencies other than wind resistance? Putting a BIG motor in a separate car might be more efficient, but I don't think by much.
Posted by: Bob Munck | April 17, 2009 4:16 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_airline_bankruptcies
Even ignoring the fact that the prices of fossil fuels don't include externalities and are thus artificially depressed, the free market doesn't seem to do a very good job with long-distance travel. The link above gives a timeline of airline chapter 11 claims. As you can see, following efforts to deregulate in the late 70's and early 80's, there have been flurries of chapter 11 claims every time there's an economic downturn. Airline travel -- at least hub-based airline travel -- doesn't seem to be able to sustain itself through economic downturns.
Point to point airlines seem to fare better, but that creates a problem for those with unpopular destinations. Assuming airlines only run routes that are profitable, you may have some trouble getting a flight to Boise within a month of when you want to get there. Obviously, this will increase travel time to get to many areas and complicate scheduling meetings between businesses headquartered in different parts of the country. Time is money, and it's unclear how much value would be lost trying to adjust to the time constraints imposed by letting any hub-based airline that gets into trouble fail until we eventually only have Southwest and Jetblue style carriers.
In addition, long-distance travel as it currently exists is hardly the libertarian ideal of a free market. Airlines are incredibly heavily regulated (sensibly, in my opinion), and the airlines themselves don't build the airports.
Finally, as I've already mentioned, airlines tend to collapse like rows of dominoes during economic downturns. It seems to me that this will be yet another negative feedback during recessions, as it will increase the cost of doing business either by making flights harder to get or increasing the costs of tickets (although, fuel prices often drop during recessions, so this is not so clear-cut).
Regardless, long-distance travel is not an issue with which the market has dealt with effectively in the past. Most of the readers here are not Randroids who assert without evidence that markets are always the best solutions. A simple and straight-forward example are ocean fisheries; laissez faire policies regarding fisheries result in bad outcomes for everyone in the long term. The readers here are clearly willing to entertain the notion that long-distance travel is another such problem that is not easily solved by markets.
Which makes your initial post here seem a little shallow and superciliously snarky, don't you think?
Posted by: Dan L. | April 17, 2009 4:32 PM
@Julian
I suppose you're right, but I'm so tired of the stereotyping of California liberals like me as whore-mongering, wine-guzzling, pot-smoking, gambling homosexuals. I've never gambled a cent in my life.
Posted by: Rob Lll | April 17, 2009 5:17 PM
"Oh, remember all that fevered bullshit from the Republicans about how that money would go to create a "Sin Express" from LA to Las Vegas?"
Being born and raised in Vegas (and still calling it home), this objection always bothered me. Vegas is a tourism hub, with entertainment off virtually every kind within walking distance. It's also a major International Airport hub and major Convention location.
The BS about "sin city" is ironic in that there really aren't nearly as many strip clubs as people believe, and compared to some southern cities it's actually less per square mile. The fact that prostitution is not legal here should also be an important note: it's not like this rail would be stopping at the brothel in the next county over...
Posted by: Mystyk | April 17, 2009 5:18 PM
I hope this system gets built. I find it embarrassing that it takes longer to get to Chicago by train today than it did in 1960.
The 20th Century Limited could o the trip in 20 hours or so. It stopped in (IIRC) Philly, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Gary, and possibly South Bend.
Now? It takes 24 hours at least, assuming no cock-ups.
And BTW, for those folks railing about private investment -- the original nationwide rail network was built with huge government grants of land and right of way. $billions worth in modern dollars.
Posted by: Jesse | April 17, 2009 6:06 PM
I'm very disapointed to see that the "Sin Express" was a bunch of lies. I love Vegas and several conventions I'd like to attend are held there but I hate flying and driving just isn't a real option for me. I would think that would be a pretty popular route if they built it.
Posted by: Ciaphas | April 17, 2009 6:28 PM
Dude, bullet trains. Fuck yeah!
"No one had to build the whole thing all at once. If any part of this thing were profitable, someone would be building it right now."
Yes, "if any one part of this were profitable." I'm not making assumptions about crucial details here, honest!
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | April 17, 2009 6:32 PM
Ranson,
Railroad usually own a mile on either side of their tracks. No additional land would be needed to bypass freight lines. Parallel rails line do not have to be that far apart. The problems would come where the rails go through small towns at street level.
Posted by: Hathor | April 17, 2009 6:43 PM
At last!!! Was way overdue that that huge, huge, huge country got some actually usable trains!
RRRAAARRRGGGH!
<keels over from shock>
Then how come it's so cheap here in France? Is it perhaps profitable?
In addition to the cost of building it, you have to keep in mind the existence of human stupidity. Let me reword it for you: If any part of this thing were profitable, and anyone had actually got the idea of doing it, someone would be building it right now.
Which is why only Obama can do it. :-|
There are indeed things that only governments can build: things that require a lot of investment (time- and money-wise) to break even, let alone turn a profit.
What a question in that huge country of yours.
Don't tell me you'll never use it. You don't believe that yourself.
And besides, you're free to vote for Sarah Failin' again...
Why am I not surprised at that "southern" part.
Posted by: David Marjanović | April 17, 2009 6:57 PM
For comparison, I was quite surprised to find out that there's only a single track most of the way between Belgrade (northern Serbia) and Niš (southern Serbia)... Along the Danube in Austria there are now four tracks.
Posted by: David Marjanović | April 17, 2009 7:07 PM
Going from Paris to Marseille, a distance of about 450 miles, takes 3½ hours by TGV. Arrival and departure hassles are minimal; maybe 15 minutes when you board and 1-5 minutes when you leave; everything is carry on. By comparison, a recent flight from Grand Rapids to Pittsburgh, a distance of 350 miles, took 4 hours including check in and baggage claim. The TGV ticket cost $60 round trip, taxes included. The cheapest airline ticket was $239 + taxes and fees. It took longer and I was subjected to a full cavity search (ok, no, but you don't see those with trains).
I'm not sure why the LA/LV line isn't there. It would be an ideal line; it seems to me that 230 miles in about 80 minutes (including arrival/departure procedures) would see a good amount of use, save a lot of money, and have less impact on the environment.
When oil goes back up to $150+/barrel again, and it will, I will be damn happy to have those trains. TGV trains in France are run by high powered electric motors, and their electric "fuel" is 90% supplied by nuclear power. I'm not sure what they're going to do about power with ours, but hooking it up to renewable energy will have to be done eventually.
Posted by: Robert Faber | April 17, 2009 7:53 PM
You're right. Once there are more rail passengers there'll be more of a market for "scaring the cowardly sheep into thinking the administration is protecting them, even though not a single element of the screening procedure would stop a determined terrorist or even a moderately intelligent pissed-off teenager."
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 17, 2009 8:07 PM
Robert Faber: electric motors are superior to internal conbustion engines in most ways, and have been for some time; the only advantage of the ICE is how much easier it is to deliver power to it. Therefore, if there is a large scale substitution of ICE's by electric motors, there will be a reduction in use of oil, even assuming that the extra electric power needed could not be obtained from other sources.
Of course, it takes time to build new power plants to burn all that oil, so you can't do the transition immediately, but still.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | April 17, 2009 8:33 PM
Actually, trains (especially modern, high-speed electric ones) is the transport mode LEAST vulnerable to terrorism.
Airplane terrorism is inherently dangerous for two reasons: first, that hijackers can fly a plane into a densely inhabited location, killing far more than the number of people on the plane, and second, that if the attack happens in mid-air, chances are EVERYONE on board will be killed. Neither is the case with trains -- a derailment is not likely to kill all the passengers, and as soon as it known a train was hijacked, the power to that section of the track will be cut off, stopping the train between stations -- possibly with a special forces team in waiting.
The inability to control where the train goes makes it a poor missile, and if terrorists simply wanted to kill people directly, a crowded shopping mall or amusement park would be a better venue.
So, ranking different modes of transportation by their potential for use in terrorism: planes > boats > cars > trains. And that won't change.
As for trains transporting hazardous material such as nuclear waste, they need to be guarded with security details and the stuff must be packaged in specially protected containers -- but the same applies to any other mode of transport as well.
Posted by: R. Sherman | April 17, 2009 8:48 PM
I'm sure there are a lot of disappointed teabaggers who were expecting the rail-link map to be in the shape of a swastika!
Posted by: Dr Horrible | April 17, 2009 9:45 PM
Shorter J: "People with money are always right! Their decisions are the very definition of rationality and no one ever has a right to question them!"
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 17, 2009 11:00 PM
If this sort of thing were profitable, don't you think someone would have done it by now? Or at least started building part of it?
Did it ever occur to you, J, that there's more to the common good than making money for people who already have it? Did it ever occur to you that monetary profit may not be the only relevant measure of what's good for the people? Or do you expect police and fire departments to make a profit too?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 17, 2009 11:05 PM
No, external costs are NOT taken into account by private entities. That's what makes them external. Amtrak doesn't make one red cent for every ton of carbon saved from commuters not driving cars--doesn't mean the savings to the public isn't real.
Opportunity costs, etc., ARE taken into account by private entities, which is my entire point. It is fallacious to say that an enterprise probably won't be profitable because private industry has not jumped on it BECAUSE profitability isn't the only factor involved in convincing private capital to invest, and no, risk isn't the only other factor. So, private consensus could be that high-speed rail would be profitable AND low-risk, but that the initial investment is too high or the opportunity costs are too high due to the time horizon required for profitability. In such a case, public investment is would be both necessary to establish such an enterprise AND profitable.
So, in short, saying that any government enterprise is likely to be unprofitable because, otherwise, private enterprise would have already done it reveals a over-simplistic understanding of business.
Posted by: Shygetz | April 18, 2009 12:36 AM
Shygetz - great argument.
Posted by: Michael Heath | April 18, 2009 12:48 AM
Hello,
Funny how many lines will be going into Ohio- esp when you compare it to whats proposed for So Cal! I travel all over the SW and South, and am surprised to see nothing going to Phoenix or Las Vegas. If we want to cut down car traffic, these two are obvious.
I guess putting the first lines into older, more dense cities makes sense, esp if it will be tied to existing public transport. Can't do it all at once, starting where the infrastructure exists is smart.
Running them to airline hubs would make great sense- when I was in Germany, I flew into Koln, walked down the stairs, and took the train to my final destination. It was SO easy and convenient!
Of course, I am just happy to get ANY of these lines. In-city rail would be great too- but any move away from car travel as standard is smart, and needed.
Staceyjw
Posted by: Staceyjw | April 18, 2009 3:18 AM
@Hathor
That's exactly the kind of situation I'm talking about. I live near one of the main north/south lines in the southeast -- it's clearly marked on the map here as high-speed. Just in my county, it passes through more than a half-dozen municipalities at street level. There are houses built up to within thirty feet of the rail line, not to mention parks and public structures like water towers. There are already a few lawsuits going on about who owns the land next to the rails. It's a nightmare without even injecting new projects in.
In the wilderness, sure, multiple lines will be easy. Other areas are going to be a bear.
Posted by: Ranson | April 18, 2009 9:59 AM
Dunc:
Only the red is 'highspeed' rail. There is a big fat swath of 13 'highspeed' rail free states that goes right throught the middle of a America. No coast to coast routes are planned at all.
Furthermore - there are no plans to achieve the sort of track quality TGV relies on. The key quote here is 'Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 miles an hour... ' . 200 miles an hour - or anything reasonably close to it - is not going to happen in the US any time soon.
Real high speed rail - that is, above about 150 mph - requires special rights-of-way to support the broad curves and shallower grades needed. Obama's plan is a step in the right direction, but it's far short of the French TGV.
Posted by: llewelly | April 18, 2009 10:10 AM
I've had the pleasure of riding the Chinese rail system, one of the most extensive in the world. There are several kinds of trains, ranging from locals (slow) to express (quicker). Most cities have rail access, even small ones. For a country that until recently had poor highways and few cars, building out the rail system made sense.
I went to Beijing recently from Changsha, Hunan, on a non-stop express. It took 12 hours overnight to cover about 950 miles -- not high-speed, but better than the 24-hour train that stops everywhere. I booked a sleeper berth both ways. A berth in a six-bed "hard" sleeper cost about $50; the cushier soft sleeper (4 berths to a compartment) was about $95. The toilet (OK, granted, these are kind of sketchy) is down the hall, and there is ample hot water for tea and washing up. The trains are generally on time. Your baggage is X-rayed, but there is none of the TSA airport crap you get in the USA.
China's trains are not luxurious; they are utilitarian. Americans would likely prefer more privacy and more baggage handlers. But national rail systems work very well, if some decent planning goes into them.
Posted by: wheatdogg | April 18, 2009 10:38 AM
@Staceyjw: The map seems to be building on pre-existing Amtrak lines, many of which go through Ohio.
Posted by: Umlud | April 18, 2009 10:53 AM
For those who think that it would take too long to get across country -
A lot of people would be using it for much shorter trips, that on highspeed rail would take less time than dealing with airport bullshit and the flight itself. And at two hundred MPH even with stops, one could get across country in less than twenty four hours. Considering that you can get from NY to LA in four days on Amtrak now, trains that go four to six times the speed of Amtrak will definitely be a reasonable alternative to flying - and I've taken the Amtrak on three day trips, trains are generally packed.
For those who think no one would use it -
Try booking a overnight trip on Amtrak, in a sleeper. Especially a family sleeper. Try booking a similar length trip in coach, less than a few days out. People use the slow train now, many more would likely use a high speed rail, given the objection now is speed.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 18, 2009 11:31 AM
Railroad usually own a mile on either side of their tracks.
Maybe on the great plains, but certainly not in the East. There are houses, factories and other private land within 30 ft of most rail lines.
as 'unnecessary' because of the strength of the car, airline, and road construction lobbies
Actually, not so much because of evil lobbies, but because people stopped using them. While trains are definitely more convenient in a crowded city, or for some long hauls, most other places it's a lot easier to hop in the car.
Actually it would really be good for these long haul trains if they provided an easy way to put your car on as well. People are not just travelling to these cities, millions of square miles is far from these 'destination' cities
Posted by: jay | April 18, 2009 11:32 AM
I have no need for high speed rail. I own a fuel efficient automobile that gives me great flexibility and convenience on trips of less than five hundred miles and I live near an international airport that provides me with access to very reasonable service provided by for profit airlines for trips longer than five hundred miles.
I realize that the roads and airports are provided partially by government subsidies but so what. I'm not making some private versus government transportation argument just pointing out that the current system works very efficiently and inexpensively for the great majority of Americans.
I also live in a city with AmTrack service. I have used it exactly once in thirty years. It was late, smelly and slow.
Europe and Japan have much greater population densities than the US. Trains make sense in those places.
I'm not against the idea of high speed rail where it can be supported without massive on going government subsidies but it is clear that many of the people advocating the idea are doing it for political rather than practical reasons.
Posted by: Lance | April 18, 2009 12:34 PM
$5 billion is perhaps enough to build one of those high-speed segments, but certainly not ten of them. Adding a zero might do it. (The figure of $13 billion has been mentioned in the comments, but only $5 billion of that is allocated to high-speed rail, according to the CNN story.)
Passenger rail makes much less sense in the U.S. than in Europe because we have a much lower population density.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | April 18, 2009 12:39 PM
Lance -
This kind of project just isn't plausible without huge government subsidies. It isn't even possible in population dense Europe, which is virtually covered in railroad that get's used by a huge percentage of the population. If the goal is profit, public transportation is just not plausible. If however, the goal is less cars on the road and the ability of those who don't or shouldn't drive to get around, then it makes sense.
Highspeed rail of this sort is entirely reasonable, because it will make it easier for folks who can't afford to fly get around and take more planes out of the air.
And just because you wouldn't use it, doesn't mean it won't get used or that what we have now doesn't. Most particularly long trips, I use Amtrak. Yup, it's slow and totally sucks for multi-day trips, but it's also affordable. And the trains are generally full for most of the runs I've been on.
High-speed rail is just that much more likely to be full.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 18, 2009 12:52 PM
It's very likely that I'll never use whatever international airport, so why am I paying for you to leech off of me? Further, I may very well be paying for some useless stretch of interstate highway that you drive on but I'll never see. The parochial interests are bleeding me dry!
Also, I'm not sure why my university library has so many books. They used my tuition dollars to help pay for tens of thousands of books that I didn't need to get my degree.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | April 18, 2009 2:01 PM
Having lived and worked in France and taken the TGV quite often I can tell you it was absolutely the ideal form of business travel. For a trip of up 500-600 miles it is faster door to door than flying. A typical air trip involves arriving 1 hour before departure, taxiing and waiting to take off (often 30-60 min at overcrowded airports) then about 1- 1.5 hours in flight, followed by circling and waiting to land, then often waiting for a gate, then waiting for the ramp to be put in place and then for a long line of passengers to exit. During the flight you are crowded into a tiny seat with little room to spread out documents and no cell phone or internet. On the TGV you could arrive 10 minutes before the departure, the train would pull out of the station exactly on time and upon arrival you could be off the train in less than 20 seconds. Plus you had plenty of working space and cell and onternet access over most or all of the trip. As for driving, reading and working on your laptop while driving-matbe not a good idea.
As far as the population densities, rural France is actually quite thinly populated. The TGVs generally went from paris to other major cities with few or no intermediate stops. The population density in the Northeast, central Florida, So Cal and the other proposed routes rivals most of Europe, except for the Netherlands. IMO, world-class high-speed trains would be easily competitive with air travel or auto for trips under 500 miles.
Posted by: aztectwostep | April 18, 2009 2:46 PM
Troblesome Frog,
You can stop beating that straw man now, I said "I'm not making some private versus government transportation argument just pointing out that the current system works very efficiently and inexpensively for the great majority of Americans."
Hundreds of millions of Americans used our public highways and airports last year. From here in Indianapolis I visited my sister in Kentucky last week and it cost me 11 bucks in gas and took three hours each way. I drove directly from my door to hers.I stopped when I wanted to and for any reason that appealed to me or my wife.
I realize that I incur other expenses to own my automobile (purchase costs, insurance, maintenance etc.) but I personally decide to pay those expenses in exchange for the great utility and freedom provided by automobile ownership.
Fuel taxes and other vehicle taxes provide over 90% of the funding for the interstate highway system. So your remarks about me "leeching" of off you and you being bled "dry" are absurd as well as histrionic.
Also since when can a system that is used almost daily by a vast number of the American population be considered parochial?
Your impassioned but misinformed and illogical post is further evidence of the fact that this issue is often argued on emotional and political terms rather than rational ones.
Posted by: Lance | April 18, 2009 3:08 PM
DuWayne,
I wasn't arguing against high speed rail if it makes sense for the region that it is proposed to serve. I was just saying that the current transportation system (private automobiles on public highways and private air travel from publicly funded airports) works pretty darn well for a great majority of the US population.
According to a recent Detroit News story "The ridership on the railroad’s Northeast Regional trains between Boston and Washington fell 15 percent to 548,695, and passenger loads on the Acela line, the nation’s only high-speed rail route, dropped 8.5 percent to 263,970."
It doesn't look like there is any pent up demand for high speed rail service to me even in the one place that it looked like it made sense, the North East corridor.
It looks like national Amtrack ridership overall is up so maybe there are some good reasons to increase its funding but it isn't likely to replace the current system anytime soon.
This is where a lot of people will start arguing that Americans "should" travel more by public transportation. Well should is a very arrogant word to interject into the discussion.
I like driving my car and flying on commercial airlines and if you think you have a right to stop me from doing either we are going to have a problem.
Posted by: Lance | April 18, 2009 3:36 PM
How exactly do you plan to keep doing this once the oil runs out?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 18, 2009 4:49 PM
1) who suggested anything of the sort?
2) what are you, 5?
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 18, 2009 4:52 PM
@Lance:
A roundtrip of say 350 miles; for $11? When you start paying the true cost of the fuel, come back to us.
I would use 8 gallons or so for that trip - say £35-40; more than four times the heavily subsidised price you pay, and still nowhere near the true cost (including externalities).
Posted by: Robin Levett | April 18, 2009 5:37 PM
I wasn't arguing against high speed rail if it makes sense for the region that it is proposed to serve. I was just saying that the current transportation system (private automobiles on public highways and private air travel from publicly funded airports) works pretty darn well for a great majority of the US population.
It is also horribly inefficient, causes a great deal of pollution and fails to work at all for a great many Americans. It is also completely unsustainable in the long run.
According to a recent Detroit News story "The ridership on the railroad’s Northeast Regional trains between Boston and Washington fell 15 percent to 548,695, and passenger loads on the Acela line, the nation’s only high-speed rail route, dropped 8.5 percent to 263,970."
Ridership on rails, airplanes and other forms of mass transit fluctuates a great deal everywhere - for a great many reasons.
It doesn't look like there is any pent up demand for high speed rail service to me even in the one place that it looked like it made sense, the North East corridor.
That's because you don't want such demand and desire to exist. That's because you are looking at short term trends and making long term assumptions. And that's also because you haven't the foggiest fucking clue where these lines make sense.
The lines on the map above, are closely correlated with existing Amtrak service and focused where they have the highest ridership. The biggest complaint that people make about using trains, instead of less environmentally friendly forms of travel, is generally speed. Change the speed factor and people will use it.
This is where a lot of people will start arguing that Americans "should" travel more by public transportation. Well should is a very arrogant word to interject into the discussion
Not at all. What's arrogant, is you assumption that your experience is the only experience that matters. What's arrogant is coming in here and justifying driving, because you happen to have the luxury of driving a particularly fuel efficient vehicle. What's arrogant is the supposition that because you won't benefit, we shouldn't spend tax dollars on it.
I don't benefit from a great deal of the things that my tax dollars have contributed to over the years. And while I am currently carrying zero tax liability, I have paid substantial taxes over the years. I don't whine about my tax dollars being spent on shit that I vehemently disagree with or which merely don't benefit me, because I understand that there are a lot of areas where the taxes do benefit me and don't benefit everyone else, while tax dollars also get spent on things that I strongly support, while others vehemently disagree.
I don't whine about it, because I am pretty good at pretending to be an adult. When my children whine like you are, I send them to time out.
I like driving my car and flying on commercial airlines and if you think you have a right to stop me from doing either we are going to have a problem.
Who the fuck said anything about stopping you from doing a damned thing? That would most certainly not be me.
I do however, reserve the right to criticize people who drive unnecessarily - that isn't force, unless the object of said criticism is a weak willed ninny who can't handle criticism.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 18, 2009 6:18 PM
That's part of the problem, yes? Demand for long-distance transportation is high and will continue to climb for the foreseeable future. The resources and infrastructure necessary to sustain it don't grow by themselves, if they grow at all. The fact that it's currently convenient and inexpensive to do most things by car right now is great, but it's not necesasrily going to be true forever.
I was being facetious. We all pay for stuff we don't use, but infrastructure is a good thing, and waiting until we seriously need it tends to be expensive. The market does fix these things, but as we saw with last summer's fuel price spike, the way it fixes it is by making life miserable until we do something about it (or we get lucky and the world economy contracts and demand for oil). Sometimes, a little bit of planning ahead pays off.
Really? Because I get the impression from most of your posts on these topics that what really bothers you is the emotional jab you feel when other people benefit from your tax money more than you do. A complete rational analysis would include questions like, What should our infrastructure look like 50 years from now? and, Since this is part of a stimulus package, is it putting idle resources to a good use?
I suppose that the, "Life is good for me personally at this very instant" part of the analysis is not without value, but it's not exactly the view the generations who came before us and built our current transportation infrastructure had.
This whole conversation sounds like the weirdo mirror image of the discussions of the new Tesla $50K electric car. In that one, people were bitching that because they personally didn't have enough money to buy them, they were pointless and shouldn't be made.
All part of your dispassionate analysis of the problem?
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | April 18, 2009 8:24 PM
Lance:
Sometime in the early 1980s, a few people in Utah's Salt Lake valley started agitating for light rail. For almost two decades, the anti-light rail folk insisted there was no demand, it would never be profitable, nobody would ride it, etc, etc, etc. In particular, they pointed to downward trends in the ridership of Salt Lake Valley's existing bus system, which light rail would be linked to, and to some extent dependent on. In fact, when light rail finally became operational, light rail ridership exceeded projections by 40-50%. Trains had to be lengthened from two cars to three.
You're making the same mistake, Lance. You're assuming that if a transit system isn't sufficient to meet people's needs, improving it won't help.
Posted by: llewelly | April 18, 2009 8:48 PM
Hell, I'd consider using the bus if drivers who drove right past stops on their route, ignoring the people waiting there, and the like were fired.
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 18, 2009 9:17 PM
So I've taken the regular Amtrak coach Northeast Regional train from Boston to NYC and it takes between 4 hrs and 4.25 hrs... and taken the Acela Express for some extra $$ (usually around $15) and get there in 3.5 hrs. The top speed that I've seen is 140 mph just south of Providence, RI. It uses the same tracks as the other passenger & freight trains, but they did have to re-do the actual tracks & add the over-head electrical lines. The cars are comfy as sin and quiet!
Oh, and all the train cars are full going both ways... so people are using both high-speed and regular trains. There's a need for more cars and expanded service, as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: marlana80 | April 18, 2009 9:42 PM
Hell, I'd consider using the bus if drivers who drove right past stops on their route, ignoring the people waiting there, and the like were fired.
I'm for tar and feathering, personally. Because nothing says fun like standing in a cold rain and getting passed by the fucking bus that only runs every twenty minutes, because you're on a off-line.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 18, 2009 10:02 PM
...but I personally decide to pay those expenses in exchange for the great utility and freedom provided by automobile ownership.
Did you "personally decide" to pay the expenses arising from air pollution, dependence on Wahabbi despots for the oil you need for all that "great utility and freedom," or the terrorism being financed by the money you "personally decide" to pay for your gas?
I drive a lot too, but it's not always a personal choice -- it's because there's no other way to get where I need to go. And the extra gas costs, and the extra wear and tear on my car, are not expenses I "personally chose" to incur.
Europe and Japan have much greater population densities than the US. Trains make sense in those places.
Did you notice that some parts of the US are rather densely populated? Did you notice that US population is still increasing, and population density is increasing in many areas of the US?
I also live in a city with AmTrack service. I have used it exactly once in thirty years. It was late, smelly and slow.
So one bad personal experience means the whole system sucks? Are you sure no one else has had ANY bad experiences with driving or flying? Also, are you sure that selfish, shortsighted attitudes like yours weren't part of the cause of the lame service? Perhaps if more people like you were more willing to support public expenditures on public transit, maybe the Amtrak service you're complaining about would have been much better than it was.
I like driving my car and flying on commercial airlines and if you think you have a right to stop me from doing either we are going to have a problem.
I already have a problem with selfish, shortsighted people like you, who consistently vote to force me to drive my own car by refusing to fund alternatives I find more pleasant and less costly.
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 18, 2009 11:21 PM
Posted by: llewelly | April 19, 2009 12:45 AM
I hope high speed rail gets built and works. That being said it will likely not carry more than 1% of the travellers and cost a great deal of money. Of course as argued above money isn't the only important part of the question... but it does matter and all the externalities can only be addressed by a system that really addresses them rather than one that only addresses a small percentage of the problem. Often the argument ends with "of course we have to start somewhere..." with that logic who needs reason.
Europe has been mentioned a great deal here, and Europe has a vast array of energy issues of its own. They are probably ahead of us by some objective measures. Stories about liking the train system there seem to abound at least, but keep in mind low cost air carriers are extremely popular there as well. Chances are if they have lower per capita energy use comes down to lower miles travelled, and only a marginally higher efficiency of travel.
Posted by: Rich | April 19, 2009 1:48 AM
DuWayne,
Did you not notice the "if" in my statement? You also ignored my remark that I would support high speed rail in places where the public investment would be warranted by the possible benefits.
Also implying that I am a paranoid whiner when I say that there are people that want to greatly limit automobile travel and all but eliminate air travel shows you haven't been paying attention to some very loud voices here at ScienceBlogs.
Posted by: Lance | April 19, 2009 3:01 AM
[Citation needed]
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 19, 2009 5:09 AM
@Lance:
"Marginally"? Just looking like for like at automobile travel; US average fuel economy for cars is 22.4mpg, and for SUVs is 18mpg (US DoT statistics quoted at project America). Taking account of the smaller US gallon, that equates to just under 27 and 21.6 miles per gallon in the UK.
I'm having trouble finding overall average fuel economy figures for the UK; but a typical fleet car, a Ford Mondeo 1.8l, will get into the late 30s mpg. That is a relatively large car for the UK; the best selling car in the UK last year was the Ford Focus, which typically has overall fuel economy of over 40mpg.
Bear in mind that we have fewer cars per person (c426 v 765 per 1,000 persons) and typically use trains for our commute, and the difference becomes rather more than marginal.
Posted by: Robin Levett | April 19, 2009 7:44 AM
Re Lance
Just for the information of the readers here, Mr. Lance is also a global warming denier who posts on other blogs. He's a troll who should best be ignored.
Posted by: SLC | April 19, 2009 9:29 AM
Lance -
Did you not notice the "if" in my statement?
Yes I did, but since you mentioned the concept in the context of a reply to me, I took it to mean that you were making some asinine assumptions about my own views. Saying if, doesn't change the implication.
You also ignored my remark that I would support high speed rail in places where the public investment would be warranted by the possible benefits.
No I didn't. I did however respond to your qualifications for determining where such investment is warranted.
To take that further, most every local that has made significant investments into providing really usable mass transit, has had to deal with the very same arguments you are making here. Yet consistently, we see these systems get utilized quite heavily and the benefits that detractors argued wouldn't happen do. And that doesn't end the arguments of the detractors, success generally just moves the goalposts.
Also implying that I am a paranoid whiner when I say that there are people that want to greatly limit automobile travel and all but eliminate air travel shows you haven't been paying attention to some very loud voices here at ScienceBlogs.
Remarkably, I am a very busy student who has little enough time at blogs he really likes - such as this one. I just don't manage to get around to all the sci-blogs like I probably should, because I am trying to maintain a 4.00. If however, you would like to point out a post or two, where bloggers are suggesting we should take away your automobiles, I would be happy to check a couple out and even argue that taking away cars is fucking insane.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 19, 2009 1:33 PM
Robin Levett,
You have misattributed a statement from Rich's post to me.
Raging Bee,
"I already have a problem with selfish, shortsighted people like you, who consistently vote to force me to drive my own car by refusing to fund alternatives I find more pleasant and less costly."
I don't think you have addressed my points. You seem lathered up because I vote to spend tax money on services I find to be efficient and cost effective. Somehow if I vote for transportation options that make sense to me I am "forcing" you to drive your car?
WOW! Talk about irrational and arrogant. If I don't agree with your views I am selfish and shortsighted? So to be magnanimous and wise I have to fund the transportation system that best suites your needs but I think is wasteful and inefficient?
SLC,
Thank Gaia you are here to point the finger at infidels like me. Perhaps you can fashion a yellow or pink patch in the shape of a CO2 molecule that we "climate criminals" will be forced to wear so you can be relieved of your duties as green informer. Until that time keep up the good work of making irrelevant personal attacks on the unfaithful.
Posted by: Lance | April 19, 2009 1:57 PM
DuWayne,
... but since you mentioned the concept in the context of a reply to me, I took it to mean that you were making some asinine assumptions about my own views. Saying if, doesn't change the implication.
Perhaps you should be a bit more generous in your assumptions. The word "if" is a qualifier that makes no presumptions and expressly implies that other conditions may apply. Also in the preceding paragraph I make reference to "a lot of people" which clearly generalizes the following statement that had the "if" built in for further clarity.
You seem a bit too ready to assume the worst and reply in kind.
High speed rail doesn't make sense for most communities in the US. Please show me where I said that I was against implementing it where it does make sense? I explicitly said,
"I'm not against the idea of high speed rail where it can be supported without massive on going government subsidies..."
and
"I wasn't arguing against high speed rail if it makes sense for the region that it is proposed to serve."
followed by
"... I would support high speed rail in places where the public investment would be warranted "
None of these are unreasonable statements. In fact I am agreeing that high speed rail makes sense in some places. So perhaps you can respond with a reply that addresses these points and doesn't attempt to insult or demean me personally.
Posted by: Lance | April 19, 2009 2:28 PM
Lance -
Your proceeding para states that a lot of people believe that Americans should use public trans a lot more. That is something that I absolutely and unquestionably believe is true. There is no question that we would be a whole lot better off if everyone who can possibly use mass transit used it.
That is a far cry from folks coming around to take away your car.
And it is exactly because I agreed with the preceding statement, that I felt you were assuming that I want to take away your car. In the context of your comment, it was an entirely reasonable assumption to make. The "if" doesn't change the implication. Asking me if I believe that or saying that some people believe that would have an entirely different implication.
As it stands, it was completely and utterly irrelevant to anything that I said. By throwing it in there, you implied that it is.
Please show me where I said that I was against implementing it where it does make sense?
Can you fucking read? Seriously, do you comprehend fucking English?
I am not saying that you are against implementing it where you believe it makes sense - please show me where you think I did. I have and continue to question your qualification for judging where it does and doesn't make sense. Something you have yet to even try to convince me you're qualified to judge
Posted by: DuWayne | April 19, 2009 3:30 PM
This is probably a waste of time to point out, but having ridden the trains in Germany- we could only wish for something so nice in the US. They were incredibly well run, convenient, easy to navigate, inexpensive, fast, reliable and comfortable. At least from an outsider's point of view. (Plus, you could smoke on them, but I imagine that's changed now.)
I've taken the Greyhound and it is interminably, unbearably slow. It's ok between two nearby towns or cities or for within a city, but anything farther than that is slower than a god damn wagon train. And not even remotely useful for commuting.
It would be a huge benefit to the communities around Chicago. I live about 3 hours outside of Chicago and I'd love to spend more time there, but I'm not terribly interested in taking the bus and I don't want to deal with the hassle and expense parking in the city. Not to mention the folks who have two hour commutes to the city because of traffic and distance. If they took the bus it would probably only get longer. This would probably be a huge benefit to them, thus to businesses and industries in the city.
O'Hare alone is probably reason enough to justify the expense. I mean, my god, have you seen the parking lots there? It's ridiculous. They are probably bigger than my home town. Clearly, thousands of people are driving in from the surrounding communities and shelling out a lot of dough to pay for parking. I have wished for high-speed rail for this very reason many a time. I usually end up paying and extra ~$150-200 for a connecting flight closer to home and I still have to pay for parking. High speed rail that connected to O'Hare (or even near O'Hare) would be downright awesome.
As for areas that (presumably) don't have as much of a need- say Nebraska- the infrastructure could be put in later while the areas that do have need could built now. And as the population grows needs will change, so it makes perfect sense to plan ahead for new infrastructure.
Posted by: Leni | April 19, 2009 3:37 PM
@Lance:
You're absolutely right; I apologise. I take it though that you say this without qualification that you disagree with Rich and agree with my criticism of his statements?
The problem is, though, that you haven't answered my comment on your earlier post, on a very similar topic. Care to do so?
As for your comments on SLC; the problem is that climate change denialism is generally based on ignorance or malice. The science is clear; CO2 is unequivocally a greenhouse gas. If all the CO2 that we've been pumping into the atmosphere, and that remains there, isn't causing warming, then what's stopping it, and what do we do when that factor ceases to operate? It is the denialist side that operates on "faith".
Posted by: Robin Levett | April 19, 2009 5:05 PM
I don't think you have addressed my points.
I didn't have to -- your points have been addressed by others here, and it is clear from our first-hand experiences, and those of others, that you have no clue what you're talking about.
Furthermore, I KNOW you have not addressed any of MY points.
If I don't agree with your views I am selfish and shortsighted?
No, but if you refuse to acknowledge and understand the reality that we've been trying to explain to you, THAT proves you selfish and shortsighted.
Somehow if I vote for transportation options that make sense to me I am "forcing" you to drive your car?
I have just explained to you, in plain English, the cause-and-effect relationship between ignorant, uncaring anti-public-transit attitudes like yours, and my lack of options for getting where I NEED (not just want) to go. (And believe me, I'm not the only one in that situation; there are plenty of people who would gladly give up the stress and expense of driving if only they had other options.) I could try explaining the same thing in baby talk for your benefit, but I doubt that baby-talk would convey the meaning all that well.
Thank Gaia you are here to point the finger at infidels like me. Perhaps you can fashion a yellow or pink patch in the shape of a CO2 molecule that we "climate criminals" will be forced to wear so you can be relieved of your duties as green informer.
You've been playing the poor-persecuted-crybaby-victim card practically since you started posting here. So why do you expect us to take you seriously as anything but an overgrown baby? Seriously, you sound like me when I was eight years old and calling my parents "slave-drivers" every time they asked me to clean up my room. Been there, done that, hit puberty, realized chicks didn't dig it -- so what's holding you back?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 19, 2009 6:28 PM
Actually, I think an ostrich might be more to the point.
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 19, 2009 6:56 PM
It's good to know that we have you here to chide people for thinking with their emotions and beating up straw men.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | April 20, 2009 12:04 AM
Unfortunately, this seems to be another example of the conservo-libertarian school of pseudointellectualism that uses the term "logic" to mean "arriving at the same conclusions they do."
Posted by: Azkyroth | April 20, 2009 12:38 AM
Well, I don't know about the rest of you, but Leni and I suspect myself, are rather impishly gleeful authoritarians, out to villify fucking morons. And according to someone really stupid, who has a trophy named after him here, Leni is also a powder wig loyalist.
So it's really not likely to come as a surprise if, after we strap on our jack-boots, we go looking for Lance and take away his car keys. Though that will have to wait until we single-handedly repress the freedom of expression, of those fucking idiot teabaggers...
Posted by: DuWayne | April 20, 2009 10:04 AM
I know DuWayne. I can't go back to that thread. I'll just end up yelling at that stupid lady more (no, not Robert O'Brien. The other one.) You'll have to carry on for me.
Posted by: Leni | April 20, 2009 1:29 PM
Hmmm...
SLC decides to irrelevantly broadcast a "warning" that I am a "global warming denialist" and when I make a sarcastic reply pointing out the inherent fallacy, not to mention bad faith, of this interjection most of you assholes pile on.
Leaving aside that I do not "deny" that the earth's mean temperature has risen a little less than one degree in the last century, and that CO2 emitted by human beings burning fossil fuels have contributed at least some of that increase, what exactly is the freaking point of "outing" me as a global warming denialist to the current discussion?
The last time I received this kind of juvenile treatment was in the lunch room in 7th grade.
DuWayne,
You are an intemperate buffoon. You continuously substitute outrage for well reasoned argument as if you were the emperor of the internet and everyone were trembling at the sound of your poorly written and profane pronouncements.
Show me were I said anything about people "taking away my car" jack ass. I said that some people want to "limit" my access to air and automobile travel by imposing increasingly prohibitive taxes and other punitive actions such as carbon rationing or cap and trade policies. See the difference you simpleton?
Care to answer a point I actually made or, as usual, will you just pretend I am some "tea-bagger" making an argument that you can rant about but bears no actual resemblance to anything I actually said?
Raging Bee,
You are perhaps even less coherent than DuWayne. Your bombastic spasms of vitriol usually collapse of their own self-important weight. I can't even find anything you said that isn't self refuting so excuse me for not replying further.
Posted by: Lance | April 21, 2009 6:03 PM
Lets see, Lance - could it be this;
I like driving my car and flying on commercial airlines and if you think you have a right to stop me from doing either we are going to have a problem.
that would make one think you're afraid people are going to take away your car? You certainly said nothing about taxes, carbon rationing and the like - had you, I would have laughed at you even more for being a whiny, selfish little bitch.
We all have to live in this here world and deal what happens to the environment affects all of us. Increased taxes on fuels and carbon emissions seems quite reasonable on it's face - you can afford a high mileage car, I don't imagine this will be much of a problem for you. Less fuel to tax, less emissions - you're in a hella lot better shape than I am.
Get over yourself.
Posted by: DuWayne | April 22, 2009 2:45 AM
Lance: 'Show me were I said anything about people "taking away my car" jack ass.'
DuWayne, quoting Lance: 'I like driving my car and flying on commercial airlines and if you think you have a right to stop me from doing either we are going to have a problem.'
So now it's been conclusively proven that Lance is lying about his own words, as well as the words of others. The only question now is, how will he top the Nazi-death-camp imagery in his next "look, I'm being persecuted" whinge?
Posted by: Raging Bee | April 23, 2009 11:23 AM