ObamaRail

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

ObamaRail

Written By : Dave Blount

As Comrade Obama revealed in his State of the Union address, he has found a solution to the Sword of Damocles that hangs over us in the form of massive government debt: pour still more money into 19th century technology to placate environmental extremists. It takes more than windmills to bankrupt a great nation; only when the country is criss-crossed by empty trains can we be sure to achieve socialist penury — aka, a green economy:

“Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips, it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest are already underway.”

For most routes, it will be far slower than flying, which is why Amtrak has to be financed coercively with endless subsidies. At least terrorists will be pleased to hear about the absence of pat-downs.

Compliments of Cons.Underground.

Cross-posted at Moonbattery.

Good Ol Boy

Honest question: Are they planning to keep the existing Amtrak railways or scrap them for these high-speed jobs? Anyone know?
Good Ol Boy

Honest question: Are they planning to keep the existing Amtrak railways or scrap them for these high-speed jobs? Anyone know?

glynn

In the East corridors Amatrak has some dedicated rail corridors but generally speaking Amatrak uses existing freight lines for their long hall routes across the country. This dual usage causes delay because of congestion. Also with the cutbacks at Amatrak over the years routes/lines were eliminated and costs rose because of it. As air became cheaper and more widely used rail began to die quicker. The expansion into high speed rail will either change existing beds into single use or create parallel beds along existing lines. Here in Texas it takes 50 min to get from Dallas to Houston with about an hour or two with security. It is possible to take the same trip on high speed rail in about the same time for a cheaper price and with less CO2. The right seems to demean rail as inefficient or silly but the fact of the matter is that it is far more efficient and more cost effective. It puts more money in the hands of consumers, it has the chance to lower fuel cost for drivers and it reduces our need for foreign oil, everything that the right wants so why is there this demeaning of truly american form of travel? Why is it that the right is happier to give money to foreign oil than spend money on domestic infrastructural improvements that create jobs and keeps money at home? Why? Why does the right hate the idea of improving america?

Good Ol Boy

“Why does the right hate the idea of improving america?”

Um… they don’t. Oh, and its America, with a capital A.

Now then, from what I could find, this proposed high speed system isn’t projected to be finished until 2040 and will cost roughly $117 billion. Are those figures accurate? If so, where are y’all proposing to get that money?
There are benefits to the rail system, no doubt, but I have seen no difinitive proof that is “more efficient and more cost effective”. And since you brought up fuel costs for drivers, have you even considered the tax revenue loss that would come from the HSR? Governments, both state and Federal, draw a significant amount of their revenue from gas taxes; revenue that is used here in NC for road/bridge infrastructure. Just a thought.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

Oh SNAP!
glynn

So you are making the argument that that revenue is *poof* lost….. That is funny…. so you think that people’s money should go to taxes for gas rather than staying with the person.

Good Ol Boy

Um, no… I’m saying that governments make their budgets based on expected tax revenue. If that tax money isn’t there, it creates a tax shortfall. This isn’t difficult logic to follow. If these railways create the effect that you proposed, the government(s) will have to find other means to recoupe the tax revenue… either through new taxes, or by increased ticket prices for the HSR.
Btw, I notice that you didn’t answer my question about where the $117 billion to build this system is going to come from.
Good Ol Boy

Um, no… I’m saying that governments make their budgets based on expected tax revenue. If that tax money isn’t there, it creates a tax shortfall. This isn’t difficult logic to follow. If these railways create the effect that you proposed, the government(s) will have to find other means to recoupe the tax revenue… either through new taxes, or by increased ticket prices for the HSR.
Btw, I notice that you didn’t answer my question about where the $117 billion to build this system is going to come from.
Anonymous

You’re the one proposing massive amounts of new spending. The real question is why YOU aren’t concerned about a potentially major loss in tax revenues.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

It is silly if can’t be profitable.

Why do hate taxpayers so much that you want to steal more of their money?
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“Why does the right hate the idea of improving america?”

America is perfectly capable of improving itself when it wants to and when it feels the need to do so. We have no love for those who want to impose what they see as “improvements” on us against our will.
Oh Please

High speed rail would not more efficient and cost effective. How efficient and cost effective is AMTRAK?? If it were more efficient, it would be more heavily used and passenger demand, not political pork, would drive its expansion. How cost effective is it? It is heavily subsidized by the government.

While I suppose one could claim that more money is put in the hands of consumers of AMTRAK (or HSR) by providing those consumers with massive subsidies, those subsidies only come from taking money from other people – substantially made up of non-users of the service.

Here’s a good way to assess cost effectiveness: do users pay a premium to use the mode of transportation? Gas taxes are little deterrent to drivers. If our gas taxes went up to European levels, a new equilibrium would be reached, but most drivers will continue to drive. Why? They find driving efficient and that it is cost effective to pay these user fees. A number of taxes and fees are bundled into airline ticket fares. Airlines are still crowded. Why? People find air travel more efficient and that it is still cost effective to pay these user fees.

How come HSR, AMTRAK or urban mass transit proponents never propose a fare surcharge to generate user fees to pay for operating or expanding transit services? Because they fear that, when faced with these surcharges, their consumers would switch to a mode that is more efficient and cost effective.

There are claims, but no evidence that HSR will reduce our need for foreign oil.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

I only hope they can get ObamaRail to run on that nice, clean, environmentally-friendly “green” electricity, which we all know comes out of the air and isn’t generated by coal or nuclear power plants at all.
/sarc
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

I only hope they can get ObamaRail to run on that nice, clean, environmentally-friendly “green” electricity, which we all know comes out of the air and isn’t generated by coal or nuclear power plants at all.
/sarc
TheMartha

And see the country.
Anonymous

Can anyone tell what is the lefts obsession with high speed rail projects? Other than a novel way to steal form the taxpayers that is.

glynn

Because it makes economic sense.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Only if it makes a profit, and there is NO guarantee it will. Amtrak is no different than the high speed, it will cost billions even trillions and still require subsidies.

glynn

When did a road turn a profit (excluding toll)? The concept of public transportation is that it provides movement for citizens to engage in economic activity. Your basic assumption is that as an endeavor it must turn a profit. Department of transportations around the country fail to make a profit but they allow the movement of goods and capital around. I never see the right complain about a road that brings a customer in.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Rail is far more expensive to build and operate than road, and roads are actually a Constitutional expense. The concept of public transportation is to reduce traffic, it has nothing to do with economics.

Why waste taxpayer funds on a project that doesn’t benefit everyone? I never see the left complain spending taxpayer money on feel good projects that have little real benefit.
glynn

Please see above….. please cite.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Well, rail could be considered a Constitutional expense. If we were a country whose citizens primarily relied on rail for travel then I could see the need for the government to build the necessary infrastructure. But in there is little desire or need for it than it is a waste of money that we really cannot afford.
glynn

David, a rail ticket is cheaper than a gallon of gas.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Glynn, it really doesn’t make much sense for the government to spend millions of dollars on something there is little demand for. A rail ticket may well be cheaper than a gallon of gas, but for whatever reason, at present, the great majority of Americans choose to travel by car. If that preference changes, then there would be some justification for the expense of building rails. At present, there really isn’t. And, given that the government is $14 trillion dollars in debt, now is not a good time to be embarking on new and expensive projects.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

When did a road turn a profit (excluding toll)?

They don’t, but then they don’t require billion dollar subsidies every month just to keep functioning, either.

http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“Because it makes economic sense.”

I think you are having difficulty with the word “economic.” Also “sense.” If it made “economic sense” to build these rail lines, corporations would be falling all over themselves to get them built, and investors would be lining up at their doors with money in hand trying to get a piece of the action.

Anonymous

Europe has ‘em. That’s the only argument necessary.

Except oddly enough for strict immigration controls and nuclear power.
Anonymous

Because for the left, mass transit and high speed rail is the gift that keeps on giving. Financial interests are able to secure subsidized returns on the (sometimes lightly disguised) municipal debt issued to pay for the project, once established the projects require perpetual ongoing subsidy to employ union workers, a very useful sinecure is created to reward political allies, and a perpetual target for additional state subsidies is created.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“Can anyone tell what is the lefts obsession with high speed rail projects?”

As usual, it’s all about control. When everyone can drive his own car on any road he wants, as long as he wants and as far as he wants, the Left cannot control the people. But when those people must take trains that only move a certain number of them to certain places at certain times, the movement of the masses can be funneled and monitored.

Anonymous

That’s why I’ve always felt that the truest symbol of freedom is not the Statue of Liberty or the Constitution, it’s the privately owned automobile. I’ve never felt freer than the day after I got my driver’s license when I suddenly realized I could now go anywhere I wanted, whenever I wanted.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Well like Cav says its control, but there are other factors. Trains are communal carriers rather than individual, and leftists are collectivists first and foremost. Individual liberty is abhorrent to the left. Trains are very European, and as we all know, the Europeans are so much more advanced, evolved, and sophisticated than hick Americans… or so the left believes.

http://twitter.com/BeachPatriot Mike Coleman

Look at what Europe gave us in the last century. Fascism, communism, two world wars and through the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany almost rid the planet of Judaism. If that’s advanced, evolved and sophisticated, I’ll be proud to be called a hick.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

There’s basically zero demand for high speed rail, and I think that particular bit of the speech left a lot of people scratching their heads, if they were even paying attention by that point. I’m just curious to see how a spending cut and a massive, multi-billion dollar national project mesh in this guy’s mind.

glynn

Because it makes economic sense.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Only if it makes a profit, and there is NO guarantee it will. Amtrak is no different than the high speed, it will cost billions even trillions and still require subsidies.

glynn

When did a road turn a profit (excluding toll)? The concept of public transportation is that it provides movement for citizens to engage in economic activity. Your basic assumption is that as an endeavor it must turn a profit. Department of transportations around the country fail to make a profit but they allow the movement of goods and capital around. I never see the right complain about a road that brings a customer in.

http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

YOU are the one saying it makes economic sense. So how does it make economic sense?
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Rail is far more expensive to build and operate than road, and roads are actually a Constitutional expense. The concept of public transportation is to reduce traffic, it has nothing to do with economics.

Why waste taxpayer funds on a project that doesn’t benefit everyone? I never see the left complain spending taxpayer money on feel good projects that have little real benefit.
glynn

Please cite because relevant research shows that per mile rail is far more cheaper than road.

The U.S. was primarily rail prior to WWII it was not until interstate highway system that we became a nation of cars. We as a nation are more urban than we are rural now so it does make more sense to invest in infrastructural projects that focus on that clustering of population.

Over and Over Rail has shown to be a huge economic catchment. Real Estate prices around Rail stations go up. Shopping (Tax Revenue) goes up around mixed use residential/rail sites (mocking bird station here in Dallas is one of the best examples). The Market/Capitalism like rail, why don’t you?
Anonymous

When did a road turn a profit (excluding toll)?

That makes no sense whatsoever. The collection mechanism for a for-profit road is tolls. That’s like asking “When did the government ever protect the citizenry (excluding police)?

Department of transportations around the country fail to make a profit but they allow the movement of goods and capital around.

You’re conflating two different arguements here. There is the public goods argument that it is impractical to extract value from the use of a piece of infrastructure. That is a reasonable argument for government subsidization of some infrastructure. However, most of the available evidence is that high speed rail doesn’t suffer from a public good problem (it’s easy enough to charge a railroad passenger fare), but from a actual cost-benefit deficit. That is to say, the amount of wealth created by high speed rail is less than the cost of the railroad.
glynn

infrastructure is infrastructure. You are looking at rail as a profit making endeavor; it’s not, it is infrastructure.
Anonymous

You are looking at rail as a profit making endeavor; it’s not, it is infrastructure.

So you’re saying it will be a drain on the economy. Thank you.
Anonymous

glynn,

No, I’m explicitly not looking at rail as a “profit making venture”. But whether a project is for-profit or public, a project that has higher costs than benefits is stupid. Infrastructure that costs more than the benefits it creates is not wealth enhancing. It is wealth destroying. That is simply tautological. And a government that is wealth destroying is a drain on the economy.

Anonymous

It makes economic sense to spend billions of dollars on something there is basically zero demand for? What planet do you live on?

Anonymous

The planet where people demand jobs and the President gives them fairy dust and unicorn farts.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Enlighten me here, how does it make economic sense? In what way does this help the economy grow?

He said “freeze spending for five years” then said “spend hundreds of billions on rail nobody wants” after that. Doesn’t that seem even a little bit inconsistent to you?

glynn

if anybody freezes spending it precludes any growth what so ever. Is that what you want? Any lack of growth?

Anonymous

He asked you several questions, Glynn. Answer them.

1. How, specifically, does a nation-wide high-speed rail system make economic sense and help the economy to grow? Keep in mind that you have yet to prove that a city-wide light-rail system makes economic sense and encourages economic growth.

2. Obama said he wants to “freeze spending for five years” then said he wants to spend billions of dollars on a high-speed rail system of dubious economic benefit. How does that make any economic sense? Doesn’t that seem inconsistent to you at all?
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

So basically you can’t answer either question? Thanks for playing.

Mediumheadboy

BWAH-HA-HA-HA!!! Like any leftist choad knows anything about economics.

glynn

You guys really don’t get it do you? Here in Dallas Light rail has dramatically increased the economic base by allowing people to spend their money on stuff rather than paying for gas. In other words people can spend money on goods and services rather than imported oil products.

The reason that Rail (high speed, light rail, trolly, ect.) holds a greater cost benefit is because it holds a lower cost per mile than flying and even in some circumstances even driving.

For a group that promotes consumerism/free market/efficiency the right sure seems bad at math.

Why do y’all hate thinking?

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

If it’s economically viable, then the market should be jumping all over it.

The person bad at math is the one who thinks this would be profitable.

Why are you so stupid?

glynn

The Market is jumping all over it. Mixed Use residential cites around rail are huge investments that have provided a great rate of return. Please cite your evidence that it is not. Here is Dallas we have made a large investiture in rail and have see significant returns on our investment. The market has clamored for more expansion of our rail system because of its success. Don’t let your ideology preclude facts.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

If the market is jumping all over it than why does high speed rail need subsidies? I have no objections to rail, especially if that is what commuters want and are willing to pay for. I do object to money being wasted, especially when we just don’t have it.

glynn

The same reason that private investment requests tax breaks for everything it reduces risk and increases profit. In other words corporate welfare. Which for some reason the right has no problem with…. Why is that?
Anonymous

The same reason that private investment requests tax breaks for everything it reduces risk and increases profit. In other words corporate welfare.

Exactly how are tax cuts “corporate welfare”? Since when is it “welfare” to not take as much money out of someone’s pocket as you did the year before?

Which for some reason the right has no problem with…. Why is that?

Don’t project your lack of moral integrity on us, child.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Tax breaks are not welfare, they are incentives, subsidies are welfare. Incentivizing doesn’t create dependence. Subsidies do.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

I’m against corporate welfare, if you mean subsidies, paid for with taxpayer’s money. Get rid of all of it. Tax breaks are a slightly different matter. I think a lot of people on the Left work on the assumption that all of the money belongs to the government and what is left over after taxation is some kind of gift.

Anonymous

So provide for loans to private companies at reasonable rates that will encourage businesses but still turn a profit for the federal government and otherwise cut leave the feds out of it.

But that is never what is suggested.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Here is Dallas we have made a large investiture in rail and have see significant returns on our investment.

No, you have not. They lose money. Every time. Every place. You are not investing anything, you’re pouring money into a leftist dream then declaring it a success.

Mediumheadboy

Never forget: for leftists, intentions are all that matters. Results are irrelevant.

Anonymous

The Market is jumping all over it. Mixed Use residential cites around rail are huge investments that have provided a great rate of return.

This isn’t exactly honest. The “mixed-use investments” in question are municipal issuances backed by the city’s credit and generally subsidies from the federal government. Pretending that the market is financing these projects on a stand-alone basis is laughable. Investors will always take a subsidized return.

glynn

That is how you prod the private sector with public spending….. just like you want.
Anonymous

Just like who wants? I know you aren’t referring to anyone here since no conservative on this website is in favor of subsidies of any kind.

Once again, don’t project your lack of integrity on us. Just because your side is unprincipled doesn’t mean everyone else is too.
Anonymous

Except for a few basic facts:

1. It’s fundamentally dishonest to say, then, that the “market is jumping all over it”. They aren’t buying into these projects on a standalone basis. And that is the only meaningful way that you can assess the market’s judgement.
2. Neither me nor any of the conservatives I know support government subsidizing private projects.
3. A more accurate description would be “That is how you misallocate resources. The funds allocated to infrastructure projects that can’t support themselves could be much more efficiently allocated to alternative projects that would be wealth enhancing, rather than wealth destroying.
Anonymous

Except for a few basic facts:

1. It’s fundamentally dishonest to say, then, that the “market is jumping all over it”. They aren’t buying into these projects on a standalone basis. And that is the only meaningful way that you can assess the market’s judgement.
2. Neither me nor any of the conservatives I know support government subsidizing private projects.
3. A more accurate description would be “That is how you misallocate resources. The funds allocated to infrastructure projects that can’t support themselves could be much more efficiently allocated to alternative projects that would be wealth enhancing, rather than wealth destroying.

Anonymous

Here in Dallas Light rail has dramatically increased the economic base by allowing people to spend their money on stuff rather than paying for gas.

I’m sure it has…in Dallas. But you’re talking about a nation-wide rail system. Even if it didn’t cost them a dime people aren’t going to be day-tripping from coast to coast.

Anonymous

Oh come on sam, don’t you know that the entire rest of the country is exactly as wealthy and densely populated* as the city of Dallas?

*high population density being a major factor in the viability of local mass transit. hence why they make a lot of sense in the EU (115.9/km2) and Japan (337.1/km2). Surely it will work the same in the US (33.7/km2).
Anonymous

guess I shoulda read farther down before replying to the dolt…and repeating you. Maybe repetition will help him conceptualize the enormity of costs associated with this boondoggle Obama is rather cavalierly promising…
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Its a money trash can in Dallas too. People ride cheap or for free on light rail because they and other people pay taxes to subsidize the rail system. And when they get where they’re going, they have no car.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Its a money trash can in Dallas too. People ride cheap or for free on light rail because they and other people pay taxes to subsidize the rail system. And when they get where they’re going, they have no car.

Anonymous

Yeah, well, that’s the left’s standard for success for you. Doesn’t matter how inefficient it is, how impractical it is, or how costly it is. If a big-government program doesn’t instantaneously cause the economy to self-destruct, it’s a good thing.

Anonymous

“For a group that promotes consumerism/free market/efficiency the right sure seems bad at math. ”

Free market efficiency does not equal government run program.

Anonymous

Yeah, that one just baffled me.

Conservatives believe in consumerism and the free market, therefore we should logically be in favor of spending billions of dollars on a big-government boondoggle? WTF?

Anonymous

I think looking for logic in glynns posts is in itself illogical. We should just mock him instead.

Anonymous

You really don’t get it glynn. There are niches that would benefit from high speed rail runs, however, there is no call for a trillion dollar boondoggle -because that’s what it would be- or a need for a high speed rail network crossing and interconnecting across the continent. The project would go broke long before it could be completed, it would be underutilized -unless our beneficent leaders decided they needed to take our cars away or make them too expensive to own and operate- and the maintenance alone would eat away any chance at profit.

glynn

agreed it needs to go where the facts/research say it should go.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

OK a couple quick things here.

1) Light Rail isn’t high speed rail. There’s no comparison, that’s like comparing a moon landing buggy with a tonka truck

2) You seem to believe that once a train is built its free because you can ride it for free downtown in Dallas. You’re paying for that with increased taxes, that’s taking money away from you every day for something you may never ride. Basically your “economic base” is money being forcibly taken from everyone to benefit a few. That’s not economic benefit, its marxism.

3) Rail does not cost less per mile than flying, I cannot conceive of where you came up with that calculus. It actually costs more for several reasons. The first is the most obvious: time is money. It takes much longer to get places on the ground than in the air. The second is that passenger rail does not own the rails and have to rent from the owners for every single foot they travel. The third is that trains take a significantly greater beating every single trip than planes do (especially high speed).

There’s a reason passenger trains don’t make money, not anywhere. Europe has gotten used to subsidies to keep their trains running and they’ve got a much more train-friendly area to work with, but their train system is still a huge trash can to dump dollars into.

If the model was economically viable, then it wouldn’t take government to make it work: private enterprise would already be doing it.

Why do you insist on insulting people when you only end up looking foolish?
Anonymous

Except the light rail didn’t fall from the sky as mana from heaven. And the bulk of the evidence is that the capitalized cost for such projects far outweighs their economic benefit.
http://www.cavalierx.com CavalierX

“You guys really don’t get it do you? Here in Dallas Light rail has dramatically increased the economic base by allowing people to spend their money on stuff rather than paying for gas.”

You just don’t get it, do you? If that works for Dallas (and I’ll wait to see real economic figures instead of relying on your word) then that’s fine for Dallas. That doesn’t mean the same solution would work the same way everywhere else. And moreover, even if it did that doesn’t give you the right to impose it on everyone everywhere else, either. You Leftists just don’t understand the whole concept of freedom, choice, sovereignty or any of the other strange words you will soon see only in old dusty museum documents.

Hainer

A number of private inter urban rails had successful business but government regulations put them out of business.
Only 80 percent to have access, the question should be how many want access and where. Here again instead of allowing private enterprise to invest without government crippling restrictions the egotistical elites would attempt to force people from their cars and into communal transportation. These people don’t look at US citizens as individuals as the founders of this country did but as the masses and that shows up in everything they plan.
There is a need for rail transportation but that should be decided in the market place and not by politicians attempting to transform a free society into something less.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/OZBTYQK5MN5SKP6FA6KK4TJOQ4 MichaelAlan

High Speed rail will never compete with vehicles that drive on sunshine + water = RAINBOWS!
Anonymous

ObamaRail – not quite. Actually the principal support for wasting taxpayers money on passenger rail is Plagiarist-Joe Biden. You see, biden, whose multiple brain aneurysms have made him incapable of operating heavy machinery (like a car) — or preforming most normal mental tasks, like flying on an airplane – has excellent AMTRAK service from DC to his home in delaware, and he often uses the rails for other travel. Hence, to the partially-functioning brain of this lunatic-lefty, EVERYBODY in American should have passenger rail service, whether they want it or not.

Toastrider

Geez, TPN. I don’t like Biden either, but did he kick your dog or something?
Toastrider

Geez, TPN. I don’t like Biden either, but did he kick your dog or something?

Anonymous

I have no problem with the idea of a highspeed rail connecting commuters and cargo between major cities. It makes sense and can be made to work efficiently and cheaply.

I do have major concerns with the abilities of our government to run such a venture.

Maybe build them where the traffic would justify several competing rails and then cut them free. Or better yet simply provide the loan money for private companies to build some key lines and see how it works from there.

Toastrider

This sounds suspiciously like the repeated calls of ‘we should build a domed stadium’ down here in Birmingham, AL.

Oddly, they can never get any private investors, and so insist that the taxpayers foot the bill.

Anonymous

That’s why I favor making loans available instead of having the government simply take over a project.

A) it ought to be budget neutral if done right. B) if the project isn’t feasible no one will take it so it will still be beholden to economic realities. And C) if a private company does it they will have to be efficient and work within their means.

Anonymous

It makes sense and can be made to work efficiently and cheaply.

That isn’t at all clear to me. There simply isn’t that much demand for passenger rail service in most of the U.S. And freight rail usually doesn’t have the time demands of passenger service.

Anonymous

Yes and no.

The idea that we can have passenger rail like in europe/japan that serves most people doesn’t make sense. We simply have too low a population density for it to work.

But in high population areas such as the north east and along the pacific coast it can be reasonable. Also if gas prices go up it may become more feasible in other areas.

I wouldn’t mind having a cheap rail connecting houston, dallas, san antonio, austin, etc. I don’t think the incentive is there yet for it. But one day it may be.

Anonymous

Instead of obsessing about high-speed rail like the Japanese have, how about building normal-speed rail? You know, the kind that goes maybe 40 mph or 60 mph. Then, after that chicken-shit grifter Obama has shown us he can do that, maybe we’ll believe he and those retards in Congress can build the super-fast railway of Futureland.