Poll: Would you like to see high speed rail in the USA?

[Gumby]

This reminds me of a lengthy political battle going on in Milwaukee. Suburban lawmakers would love to widen a stretch of freeway that funnels suburbanites into downtown. All that would be needed would to be to carve into a couple cemeteries, one of which is occupied by veterans.

That it itself in unpalatable, but on top of that, inner-city folks see no benefit to improving the comfort of suburban commuters, many of whom are openly unsympathetic to the urban population.

This may be getting uncomfortably political, but if the national climate is anything like my microcosm, further expansion of freeways to make it easier to navigate into city centers from suburban sprawl is unlikely.

When I lived out in Ohio many moons ago, if you worked in one of the cities, you paid an income tax to the city even if you didn't live there. It was a good way to compensate the city for the cost of being a regional business hub, including the added burden of allowing all those suburbanites to drive to down town. Under a tax system like that, I wouldn't think the city leaders would want to discourage people from coming into town to work.

 

[Mr._Graybeard]

When I lived out in Ohio many moons ago, if you worked in one of the cities, you paid an income tax to the city even if you didn't live there. It was a good way to compensate the city for the cost of being a regional business hub, including the added burden of allowing all those suburbanites to drive to down town. Under a tax system like that, I wouldn't think the city leaders would want to discourage people from coming into town to work.

Yes, that would be a good idea. Don't expect to see it in my lifetime here.

 

[clifp]

And, as you know, we have the worst infrastructure maintenance in the country. The Aloha bowl was eventually closed as it virtually rusted away. Kapiolani ave. is virtually always being dug up to fix water mains or whatever. I could go on and on. I don't think we know about (or even understand) the concept of a sinking fund but YMMV.

For sure, Hawaii is generally a good example of what not to do. (Although, we did a good job with Covid). But Hawaii is hardly the only example of failing infrastructure project. I hope as a country we will get better after the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

 

[Koolau]

For sure, Hawaii is generally a good example of what not to do. (Although, we did a good job with Covid). But Hawaii is hardly the only example of failing infrastructure project. I hope as a country we will get better after the passage of the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

I agree completely, but I can just picture our legislature greedily rubbing their hands together in anticipation of all that money to dive into and spend on their pet projects. If half the money we receive goes to actual infrastructure, I guess I'll feel good about it. I can see them dumping all of (the 50%) into the light rail which would be better dismantled in my opinion. But, I'm not bitter so YMMV.

 

[davidfin]

In theory, I would be for it. In practice, the debacle that has gone on in California (both Vegas and San Fran proposals) leads me to deep skepticism that it could be done efficiently, within budget, and as proposed. My cynicism stems from a lifetime of: Big Dig in Boston, Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Silver Springs, MD transit center, Veteran Affairs Electronic Health System, the Auburn Dam, the Super Collider, the list goes on and on.............

Personally believe huge forces are aligned against high speed rail. Our existing transportation infrastructure suppliers would suffer enormous financial harm even though eventually we’d leave the planet in better shape for descendents.

 

[OldShooter]

The concepts of mass transit and the concept of high speed rail are getting conflated here.

My view of mass transit is that at its heart its purpose is to give poor people mobility to access jobs and fill other needs. Almost by definition this means subsidy. Mass transit for commuting from prosperous suburbs is a different matter; those people's rides should not be subsidized. Ticket pricing based on the origin of the trip, city income taxes, or other clever methods could be used to claw back subsidies from the commuters.

High speed rail is basically transportation for the affluent and the fare box should cover the cost. It is a fundamentally different thing than mass transit. To the extent that there are positive and negative externalities they should be priced into the package with due understanding that promoters' positive externalities are usually comprised of moonbeams and bull$hit.

Here's a little rule of thumb for these projects: $1B of up front costs translates into approximately $1M per week in depreciation and capital costs. Divide your weekly ridership into $1M to see how much this means at the fare box before any operating costs are considered.

 

[Markola]

The concepts of mass transit and the concept of high speed rail are getting conflated here……High speed rail is basically transportation for the affluent and the fare box should cover the cost. It is a fundamentally different thing than mass transit.

I think that’s undeniably correct. Go to Union Station in DC and take the Acela north. It’s all business class. Take the regular Amtrak south and it’s a whole different scene.

I wish we had more of both in this country but your insight illustrates the problem when asking taxpayers at all levels to fund a new line that will serve one of the populations.