Comments on: High-Speed Rail Investment in U.S. Would Result in $26.4 Billion Net Benefits by 2040

By: BadDealARS

BadDealARS — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:09:00 +0000

Zachary, my response is – no response because you said nothing to response to, sorry.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:51:00 +0000

and expanding less efficient (yep, less efficient = moneysuck) roads for that corridor would not require loans?

or should people just sit in traffic twice as long as they do now? since that’s so efficient and economically advantageous. (i.e. probably one of CA’s biggest problems)

By: algalli

algalli — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 15:39:00 +0000

If you want some bang for the buck upgrade the bridges from DC to NY so that the Auto train could come further north. Today it is restricted because the high cars cannot get under bridges. If Auto Train had a terminus near Philadelphia or NY its ridership would explode.

By: Smart Growth News – July 18, 2012 | Smart Growth America

Smart Growth News – July 18, 2012 | Smart Growth America — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 14:34:33 +0000

[…] High-Speed Rail Investment in U.S. Would Result in $26.4 Billion Net Benefits by 2040 Clean Technica – July 17, 2012 The report titled “Opportunity Cost of Inaction: High-Speed Rail and High Performance Passenger Rail Service” was released [last week] at a Congressional briefing by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA). It shows that building a high-speed rail program in the U.S. results in $26.4 billion in net benefits over the next 40 years. […]

By: BadDealARS

BadDealARS — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:06:00 +0000

Regardless, Greeceafornia has zero money
and this project will be partially built on borrowed money, thus interest and
principle will immediately eat up that $26 b so called benefit!!! Who says this
a bunch of lib greenies??? The big
picture is failure because it will never be done correctly & between
government dreamers and greenies, it will automatically create a disaster, forgone
conclusion always.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 01:06:00 +0000

Thanks. Me, too!

By: MB

MB — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 22:09:00 +0000

I am very tired of hearing this argument. Private enterprise does NOT FUND ANYTHING related to infrastructure without government support and incentives FIRST. Railroads back in the early 1900’s – government subsidies. High speed internet – government subsidies including state and local tax breaks for companies. Highways – government money. Airports and runways – again, government tax breaks, subsidies….you name it, the government ALWAYS puts in significant investments to infrastructure first, then private enterprise comes along second. It has always been this way, and I doubt it will change anytime soon. Government provides the bulk of investment to get the infrastructure up and running, then private enterprise can run the trains for a profit.

By: Ross

Ross — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 19:15:00 +0000

For a start the report mentions $40 billion for a new federal air traffic control system. It also suggests that by freeing up capacity on shorter distance routes the airlines could divert resources to more lucrative longer haul flights.

It would be great to think another volume was about to be written in the inspiring history of rail in America.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:46:00 +0000

You forgot to include the additional airport development that taxpayers will need to provide if we don’t shift some of the traffic to rail.

Slow passenger rail is not a sustainable business model (see, that can be written in small case) for other than shorter trips along very crowded corridors. But you can’t extend that to high speed rail where people can get to their destinations as fast and in more comfort than flying.

Spain’s economy did not falter because of HSR. It also did not falter due to renewable energy. Spain ran into a housing bubble and crappy financial industry problem as happened here in the US. Please don’t use false information in an attempt to push your point.

As for the passed-by communities in France. My experience there a few months ago was that they are using a combination of fast and slow rail. Obviously the fastest trains are not going to stop at every village. The same is true of slow rail with its ‘express’ and ‘local’ trains.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:42:00 +0000

and did you catch that the net result of investing in rail is a + on the balance sheet? for society.

By: Zachary Shahan

Zachary Shahan — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:41:00 +0000

do you really think air transport doesn’t get massive subsidies?

By: highdesertslim

highdesertslim — Tue, 17 Jul 2012 17:33:00 +0000

I’m all for high-speed rail…as long as it’s privately-funded like the airlines are. Otherwise, my tax dollars will be subsidizing little Suzy taking a trip from Chicago to Miami to see her grandmother. Why do you think ALL of the freight rail carriers were out of the passenger business by the 1970’s? IT’S NOT A SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS MODEL. And as far as having long-term pay-backs, might want to check on the financial health of Spain, and then read how devastating high-speed rail has been to out of the way communities in that country and neighbor France, as the trains do NOTHING for the communities that might be on the route, but do not have stations. Then again, we need to re-build and replace our roads, bridges, water systems, and schools first. Let Warren Buffet and Willard Romney and other private equity investors build high-speed rail, not me, an American tax-payer (and rail fan!).