Orange County Register: Hit the brake on bullet train, before we're broke

...of course we all know that conservative's real fear is not that HSR would be a flop. The nightmare for conservatives is that it would work. They're afraid...very afraid of that...

Of course it works. All you have to have to do is look at the success of the Acela Express. A few more improvements and it will own almost the entire NEC medium range travel market.

At the moment there are only a few areas which meet the criteria needed for successful (American Style) HSR. As I said earlier:

The sweet spot for rail is high demand city pairs ~250-550 miles apart. Anything less and driving is going to be economical, anything more than flying is.

There is a reason that the Acela is the only Amtrak line that comes close to/covers it's operating costs (depends on how you do the accounting).

Unfortunately the way the meat grinder of Congress works, instead of just focusing on these corridors instead the money has to be spread around.


That's why I don't really have a problem with this Cali project going bye-bye. I don't think we are ready yet for full European/Japanese Independent ROW HSR.

If I had my way, all of our HSR investments would be on improving the NEC, the Chicagoland Hub, the Cascades Corridor, and the Cali Corridor. They are really the only areas with the criteria needed for a successful American Style HSR project.

No conservative is afraid that HSR will work. HSR is a financial black hole except in one or two areas of the country. And California is not one of those exceptions.

They were against the interstate highway system too but now the benefits of it are so obvious they've been forced to do a 180 and claim they're the biggest defender of it. They did the same about Social Security and after that medicare. The truth is this is their M.O.. Oppose everything then when it's a success and they're proven wrong claim they were always for it.

Explain the parameters of it "working."

I'd say having revenue equaling or exceeding operating costs would be a good start. As our highway and air transport systems can't even manage to pull this off, asking for much more is a pretty clear double standard.

Sounds innocent enough.

So not to steer people away from "urban sprawl" in favor of efficiently compartmentalized urban centers linked with railways?

The problem with our interstate system is that it is pretty built out. But there is an inherent bias with both politicians and the voting public against maintenance projects over new infrastructure. Our highway funding should be used to catch up on our maintenance backlog instead of adding new miles.

Density is a natural byproduct of cutting back the state's roll. Get rid of the massive 'free'way projects, start using tolling to fund maintenance, relax zoning restrictions that keep people from being able to develop their property, get rid of the mortgage tax credit that favors Single Family Homes over Multifamily, get rid of utility equalization and levy equalization that has urban rate and tax payers subsidizing suburban and rural rate and tax payers, etc. etc. and people will flock to the cities.

Well, more so than they already are. There is a reason vacancy rates are lower in the city than in the suburbs, look for this trend to only accelerate at the government starts to cut back on it's subsidization of suburban sprawl.

The irony is that every time governments start to try and pull back there is automatically an uproar of 'SOCIAL ENGINEERING' as if the status quo is all free market and that reducing subsidies is 'SOCIALISM'. Just look at happens any time a city starts to charge for 'free' parking.

See, I knew I smelled a fucking rat.

Considering my post contained nothing to PROMOTE urban living, just ways in which suburban living is SUBSIDIZED, I find your response humorous, though not unexpected. Everyone thinks their lifestyle should be supported by others. Talking about cutting back on those subsidies and you're all of a sudden a 'rat.'

How about we don't subsidize anything, and let people decide what social engineering projects deserve their money?

They've tried that, the result is Somalia and people who aren't insane reject that "model".

I agree, that should be our eventual goal. Although I don't think you would be very happy with the results.

At the moment, the rural/suburban lifestyle is heavily subsidized by those living in urban areas. Take a look at the wealth transfers via taxation as well as those factors I've listed above.

Since going cold turkey isn't going to happen, I think an immediate loosening of restrictions on in-city growth combined with lowering subsidies for the suburban/rural lifestyle will get us to a point where we can start to reduce all subsidies together.

Because, like garamet, you like to argue with imaginary characters.

Just slap a fuckin toll booth on all the paved roads in and out of the city, and sell bonds to build your CommieRail. If nobody buys the bonds, tough shit.

Oh really? And was this imaginary character the one that called me a rat for suggesting that some of his subsidies be reduced upthread?

I agree that all freeways into the core should be tolled, but I think that money should be used on road maintenance. Let's start there and see how much more popular the bus becomes once people have to start paying a bit for their road usage (much like transit riders are already paying some towards their fare) and then see how shit goes.

No, it's an imaginary character you can state for certain wouldn't like these nebulously undefined consequences of ending all transit subsidies. Right there in the context you're ignoring in favor of a dumb little game. I'm starting to think you and garamet are related. You both seem to think these dumb little games of prevarication make you look like a genius.

You don't read that good do you?

Although I don't think you would be very happy with the results.


Does 'don't think' translate to 'state for certain' in Albertopia?

And yet here you are arguing for HSR...

"Bullshit" translates to "bullshit."

Maybe you could just skip the games and lay out what it is you think I wouldn't like.

Listing things I think you do like would be a much shorter list.

That's cute.

No really, you're adorable.

MOM????

No, but she says to tell you "Mmph mmm mmm mph mmm!"

:blowjob:

You're so classy!

So you admit that I didn't state anything for certain?

Glad we got that out of the way.

As for stuff you wouldn't like. How about getting rid of the subsidies for sprawl I listed that you then called me a rat for?

Or was that an imaginary person that did that?

Yes I am. However a distinction needs to be made, as I have stated previously there is Acela type American style HSR, when comes from upgrading existing track, grade separation, getting rid of bottlenecks, etc. and then there is European/Japanese style HSR which involved building out completely new infrastructure.

I'm for the first kind.

That out of the way, I'd be perfectly happy with keeping up current funding (including ARRA, HSR, TIGER, etc) for the next decade combined with performance based grants. Put the money where it needs to go, not to the districts of politically powerful Congressmen or constituents. At the same time backing highway subsidies down till they are roughly equal and then from there start reducing them both. Obviously a few billion dollars is a drop in the bucket compared to the TRILLIONS we've dumped into Highway and Airport infrastructure, but I am confident enough in the superiority and efficiency of the system that I think in time the market will correct the previous 60 years of government subsidies.

Now when talking about transit as a whole, once all modes are priced correctly, I'd like to see the state pull back there as well. If I had my way subsidies wouldn't be mode specific (trains over planes, or cars over bikes) but instead be used to subsidize the poor, elderly, handicapped ect. So reduced cost fares, tolls, parking, bike lockers, etc.

Since you've already been told more than once that I'm all for removing all tax-funded subsidies, I would have assumed you meant something else.

That sort of broad brush bigotry is fundamental to today's political discourse!