(Another) 11 billion down the drain

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html


    WASHINGTON — On a 30-mile stretch of railroad between Westerly and Cranston, R.I., Amtrak’s 150-mile-per-hour Acela hits its top speed — for five or 10 minutes. On the crowded New York to Washington corridor, the Acela averages only 80 m.p.h., and plans to bring it up to Japanese bullet-train speeds will take $150 billion and 26 years, if it ever happens.


    The Obama administration has spent nearly $11 billion since 2009 to develop faster passenger trains, but the projects have gone mostly nowhere and the United States still lags far behind Europe and China, where trains on average top 220 m.p.h. Although Republican opposition and community protests have slowed the projects here, transportation policy experts and members of both parties also blame missteps by the Obama administration — which in July asked Congress for nearly $10 billion more for high-speed rail — for the failures.


    Instead of putting the $11 billion directly into high-speed rail projects, they say, the administration made the mistake of parceling out the money to upgrade existing Amtrak service, which will allow trains to go no faster than 110 m.p.h. None of the money originally went to service in the Northeast corridor, the most likely place for high-speed rail. Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, all led by Republican governors, in the meantime canceled high-speed rail projects and returned federal funds after deeming the projects too expensive and unnecessary.


    [continues]


    Another problem is that Amtrak’s funding is tied to annual appropriations from Congress, leaving it without a long-term source of money. “I do what I can do,” said Joseph Boardman, Amtrak’s president. “But I don’t sit back and wait for $15 billion to rebuild the Northeast Corridor.” For now, Amtrak is rebuilding a stretch of track in central New Jersey that will permit 160-mile-an-hour travel for 23 miles.


    [continues]


     


     


    High speed rail doesn't make sense for most of the US; and the predicted cost of the NYC-DC line doesn't sound particularly worthwhile.


     


     


     


     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html

     

    WASHINGTON — On a 30-mile stretch of railroad between Westerly and Cranston, R.I., Amtrak’s 150-mile-per-hour Acela hits its top speed — for five or 10 minutes. On the crowded New York to Washington corridor, the Acela averages only 80 m.p.h., and plans to bring it up to Japanese bullet-train speeds will take $150 billion and 26 years, if it ever happens.

     

    The Obama administration has spent nearly $11 billion since 2009 to develop faster passenger trains, but the projects have gone mostly nowhere and the United States still lags far behind Europe and China, where trains on average top 220 m.p.h. Although Republican opposition and community protests have slowed the projects here, transportation policy experts and members of both parties also blame missteps by the Obama administration — which in July asked Congress for nearly $10 billion more for high-speed rail — for the failures.

     

    Instead of putting the $11 billion directly into high-speed rail projects, they say, the administration made the mistake of parceling out the money to upgrade existing Amtrak service, which will allow trains to go no faster than 110 m.p.h. None of the money originally went to service in the Northeast corridor, the most likely place for high-speed rail. Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, all led by Republican governors, in the meantime canceled high-speed rail projects and returned federal funds after deeming the projects too expensive and unnecessary.

     

    [continues]

     

    Another problem is that Amtrak’s funding is tied to annual appropriations from Congress, leaving it without a long-term source of money. “I do what I can do,” said Joseph Boardman, Amtrak’s president. “But I don’t sit back and wait for $15 billion to rebuild the Northeast Corridor.” For now, Amtrak is rebuilding a stretch of track in central New Jersey that will permit 160-mile-an-hour travel for 23 miles.

     

    [continues]

     

     

     

     

     

    High speed rail doesn't make sense for most of the US; and the predicted cost of the NYC-DC line doesn't sound particularly worthwhile.

     

     

    /QUOTE]

    It is worth at least $10 billion to get through New Jersey at 160 MPH...the smell wont have time to fester...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    It is worth at least $10 billion to get through New Jersey at 160 MPH...the smell wont have time to fester...

    Chris Christie disapproves of this message.

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    For all the rage threads over lesser amounts supposedly wasted on green energy LOANS, there is an interesting degree of silence. Is the problem that the NYT reported on it?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    "the Administration made the mistake of parcelling out the money to upgrade existing AmTrak service...none of the money originally went to service in the Northeat corridor.."

    This was no 'mistake',  this was the calculated policy...the stimulus billions were doled out like candy for purely partisan political purposes, there was no logic to it, in terms of an overall transportation policy. 

    If throwing down any public money on Amtrak makes sense anywhere, it is the Boston to DC corridor....but instead the money was spread around so Joe Biden and Democrat politicians could hold more ribbon cutting ceremonies for boondoggles that will never finish, like the high speed rail on the West Coast...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html

     

    WASHINGTON — On a 30-mile stretch of railroad between Westerly and Cranston, R.I., Amtrak’s 150-mile-per-hour Acela hits its top speed — for five or 10 minutes. On the crowded New York to Washington corridor, the Acela averages only 80 m.p.h., and plans to bring it up to Japanese bullet-train speeds will take $150 billion and 26 years, if it ever happens.

     

    The Obama administration has spent nearly $11 billion since 2009 to develop faster passenger trains, but the projects have gone mostly nowhere and the United States still lags far behind Europe and China, where trains on average top 220 m.p.h. Although Republican opposition and community protests have slowed the projects here, transportation policy experts and members of both parties also blame missteps by the Obama administration — which in July asked Congress for nearly $10 billion more for high-speed rail — for the failures.

     

    Instead of putting the $11 billion directly into high-speed rail projects, they say, the administration made the mistake of parceling out the money to upgrade existing Amtrak service, which will allow trains to go no faster than 110 m.p.h. None of the money originally went to service in the Northeast corridor, the most likely place for high-speed rail. Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, all led by Republican governors, in the meantime canceled high-speed rail projects and returned federal funds after deeming the projects too expensive and unnecessary.

     

    [continues]

     

    Another problem is that Amtrak’s funding is tied to annual appropriations from Congress, leaving it without a long-term source of money. “I do what I can do,” said Joseph Boardman, Amtrak’s president. “But I don’t sit back and wait for $15 billion to rebuild the Northeast Corridor.” For now, Amtrak is rebuilding a stretch of track in central New Jersey that will permit 160-mile-an-hour travel for 23 miles.

     

    [continues]

     

     

     

     

     

    High speed rail doesn't make sense for most of the US; and the predicted cost of the NYC-DC line doesn't sound particularly worthwhile.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Oh...I could not agree more! I ride this train a few times a year..and it just doesn't make sense to have a high speed train in this particular route. For one thing..there are simply too many stops along the way to really make a difference.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    To add...I'd rather see the 11 billion used to upgrade and improve the public transportation system into and out of Boston..it is pretty abysmal. At least bring the level of service up to NYC levels.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To add...I'd rather see the 11 billion used to upgrade and improve the public transportation system into and out of Boston..it is pretty abysmal. At least bring the level of service up to NYC levels.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

    [/QUOTE]

    The MBTA has been a patronage haven for decades....the  tax money goes down a rathole of obscene pensions and useless hacks...

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To add...I'd rather see the 11 billion used to upgrade and improve the public transportation system into and out of Boston..it is pretty abysmal. At least bring the level of service up to NYC levels.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

    [/QUOTE]

    The MBTA has been a patronage haven for decades....the  tax money goes down a rathole of obscene pensions and useless hacks...

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay..well be that as is may...I'd still like to see them upgrade to a system that actually works for commuters. Perhaps that in turn would alleviate the traffic nightmares into and out of the city on a daily basis.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html

     

    WASHINGTON — On a 30-mile stretch of railroad between Westerly and Cranston, R.I., Amtrak’s 150-mile-per-hour Acela hits its top speed — for five or 10 minutes. On the crowded New York to Washington corridor, the Acela averages only 80 m.p.h., and plans to bring it up to Japanese bullet-train speeds will take $150 billion and 26 years, if it ever happens.

     

    The Obama administration has spent nearly $11 billion since 2009 to develop faster passenger trains, but the projects have gone mostly nowhere and the United States still lags far behind Europe and China, where trains on average top 220 m.p.h. Although Republican opposition and community protests have slowed the projects here, transportation policy experts and members of both parties also blame missteps by the Obama administration — which in July asked Congress for nearly $10 billion more for high-speed rail — for the failures.

     

    Instead of putting the $11 billion directly into high-speed rail projects, they say, the administration made the mistake of parceling out the money to upgrade existing Amtrak service, which will allow trains to go no faster than 110 m.p.h. None of the money originally went to service in the Northeast corridor, the most likely place for high-speed rail. Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, all led by Republican governors, in the meantime canceled high-speed rail projects and returned federal funds after deeming the projects too expensive and unnecessary.

     

    [continues]

     

    Another problem is that Amtrak’s funding is tied to annual appropriations from Congress, leaving it without a long-term source of money. “I do what I can do,” said Joseph Boardman, Amtrak’s president. “But I don’t sit back and wait for $15 billion to rebuild the Northeast Corridor.” For now, Amtrak is rebuilding a stretch of track in central New Jersey that will permit 160-mile-an-hour travel for 23 miles.

     

    [continues]

     

     

     

     

     

    High speed rail doesn't make sense for most of the US; and the predicted cost of the NYC-DC line doesn't sound particularly worthwhile.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    High Speed Rail is great but we just can't afford it. The Bos/Wash urban corridor will never have the right alignment to achieve full speed. Most of the money is to acquire very expensive real estate to flatten out the horizontal curves. Bullet trains go straight very well, but the NE corridor is far from straight.

    In fact all urban rail is very expensive and putting new sections in use or even recovering old lines has proved to be uneconomical from a ridership B/C ratio.

    The capital cost $0.5B and operating cost of the 1/2 capacity Greenbush line make it very uneconomical for the 3000 passengers a day. Still less than half of the projections.

    The proposed South Coast Rail to New Bedford is another bad idea at $1.2B.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to miscricket's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    To add...I'd rather see the 11 billion used to upgrade and improve the public transportation system into and out of Boston..it is pretty abysmal. At least bring the level of service up to NYC levels.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

    [/QUOTE]

    The MBTA has been a patronage haven for decades....the  tax money goes down a rathole of obscene pensions and useless hacks...

    [/QUOTE]


    Okay..well be that as is may...I'd still like to see them upgrade to a system that actually works for commuters. Perhaps that in turn would alleviate the traffic nightmares into and out of the city on a daily basis.

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    Fix what we have is a much better idea.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    The issue, why liberal get all concerned about projects like this, is that it is a big government solution. Some government worker in a building far away determines everything. Consumers are expected to be compliant and be thankful for the government angels that are so compassionate and caring.  The problem it, it is not the real world. 

    For the most part, comparisons to train service in Europe and Japan is a non starter. Trains are more through thru there, operate over shorter distances, and are completely government controlled, with a compliant consumer.

    a person in a free society gets in their car and goes where they want, when they want.  If a not so free society, they go where government goes, when government wants to take them there.

     

    However, the biggest issue I see with amtrak is not the concept, but the execution.  Turning a 7 hour drive to D.C. Into an 11 train ride, not when I need it, but at some god-forsaken hour, is just stupid government.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/us/delays-persist-for-us-high-speed-rail.html

     

    WASHINGTON — On a 30-mile stretch of railroad between Westerly and Cranston, R.I., Amtrak’s 150-mile-per-hour Acela hits its top speed — for five or 10 minutes. On the crowded New York to Washington corridor, the Acela averages only 80 m.p.h., and plans to bring it up to Japanese bullet-train speeds will take $150 billion and 26 years, if it ever happens.

     

    The Obama administration has spent nearly $11 billion since 2009 to develop faster passenger trains, but the projects have gone mostly nowhere and the United States still lags far behind Europe and China, where trains on average top 220 m.p.h. Although Republican opposition and community protests have slowed the projects here, transportation policy experts and members of both parties also blame missteps by the Obama administration — which in July asked Congress for nearly $10 billion more for high-speed rail — for the failures.

     

    Instead of putting the $11 billion directly into high-speed rail projects, they say, the administration made the mistake of parceling out the money to upgrade existing Amtrak service, which will allow trains to go no faster than 110 m.p.h. None of the money originally went to service in the Northeast corridor, the most likely place for high-speed rail. Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin, all led by Republican governors, in the meantime canceled high-speed rail projects and returned federal funds after deeming the projects too expensive and unnecessary.

     

    [continues]

     

    Another problem is that Amtrak’s funding is tied to annual appropriations from Congress, leaving it without a long-term source of money. “I do what I can do,” said Joseph Boardman, Amtrak’s president. “But I don’t sit back and wait for $15 billion to rebuild the Northeast Corridor.” For now, Amtrak is rebuilding a stretch of track in central New Jersey that will permit 160-mile-an-hour travel for 23 miles.

     

    [continues]

     

     

     

     

     

    High speed rail doesn't make sense for most of the US; and the predicted cost of the NYC-DC line doesn't sound particularly worthwhile.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    [object HTMLDivElement]

    High Speed Rail is great but we just can't afford it. The Bos/Wash urban corridor will never have the right alignment to achieve full speed. Most of the money is to acquire very expensive real estate to flatten out the horizontal curves. Bullet trains go straight very well, but the NE corridor is far from straight.

    In fact all urban rail is very expensive and putting new sections in use or even recovering old lines has proved to be uneconomical from a ridership B/C ratio.

    The capital cost $0.5B and operating cost of the 1/2 capacity Greenbush line make it very uneconomical for the 3000 passengers a day. Still less than half of the projections.

    The proposed South Coast Rail to New Bedford is another bad idea at $1.2B.

    [/QUOTE]

    Just big government projects with no real use, a sop to the unions.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    The US population is expected to pass 400 million within 30 years, and that population is becoming more and more urban.  Its going to put a huge amount of stress on our already stressed highways and air traffic systems.

    But high speed rail is socialism, so we won't invest in it.  It cuts into our freedom to sit on a highway and stare at the car in front of you that isn't moving.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to UserName9's comment:


    But high speed rail is socialism, so we won't invest in it.  It cuts into our freedom to sit on a highway and stare at the car in front of you that isn't moving.




    Sure, some tools may think this has something to do with socialism and free societies, but having high speed rail simply looks inefficient for most of America.


    The sheer size of our landmass combined with the fact that most of America is sparsely populated means there aren't that many corridors that are worth building high speed rail on.


    But MMJ also makes a good point, one that I've been banging on for years: Our existing infrastructure needs massive investment, yesterday. Thousands of bridges are nearing or past their age limit. Roads constantly falling apart. Waterworks way past age limit.


    I'd go as far as to say the bulk of the stimulus should have been dumped into fixing up and replacing aging infrastructure..... (I think the breakdown alotted a bit over 110b to transportation projects) the public works jobs might not be any more permanent, but at least it'd get things done that we'll have to do anyway.


     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    These are the 10 corridors the Obama administration had identified for possible high-speed rail projects:

     

    -California corridor (Bay Area, Sacramento, Los Angeles, San Diego)

    -Pacific Northwest corridor (Eugene, Portland, Tacoma, Seattle, Vancouver British Columbia)

    -South Central corridor (Tulsa, Oklahoma City, Dallas/Fort Worth, Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock)

    -Gulf Coast corridor (Houston, New Orleans, Mobile, Birmingham, Atlanta)

    -Chicago hub network (Chicago, Milwaukee, Twin Cities, St. Louis, Kansas City, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Louisville)

    -Florida corridor (Orlando, Tampa, Miami)

    -Southeast corridor (Washington, Richmond, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta, Macon, Columbia, Savannah, Jacksonville)

    -Keystone corridor (Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh)

    -Empire corridor (New York City, Albany, Buffalo)

    -Northern New England corridor (Boston, Montreal, Portland, Springfield, New Haven, Albany)

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These are the 10 corridors the Obama administration had identified for possible high-speed rail projects:

    [/QUOTE]

    That may be so, but it doesn't mean that he is right that it would actually be worthwhile.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These are the 10 corridors the Obama administration had identified for possible high-speed rail projects:

    [/QUOTE]

    That may be so, but it doesn't mean that he is right that it would actually be worthwhile.

    [/QUOTE]


    Some of the proposed routes make sense. SF/LA/SD for instance or the SE corridor between DC and ATL.

    It would seem to me that the routes must be long enough to make driving a hassle and short enough that flying would be overly burdensome.

     

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to UserName9's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    The US population is expected to pass 400 million within 30 years, and that population is becoming more and more urban.  Its going to put a huge amount of stress on our already stressed highways and air traffic systems.

    But high speed rail is socialism, so we won't invest in it.  It cuts into our freedom to sit on a highway and stare at the car in front of you that isn't moving.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's not that it is socialist that is the problem, it is that it doesn't work, won't work, and can't work.

    that aside, it is typical big government solution: expensive, slow, and union built.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: (Another) 11 billion down the drain

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to high-road's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    These are the 10 corridors the Obama administration had identified for possible high-speed rail projects:

    [/QUOTE]

    That may be so, but it doesn't mean that he is right that it would actually be worthwhile.

    [/QUOTE]


    Some of the proposed routes make sense. SF/LA/SD for instance or the SE corridor between DC and ATL.

    It would seem to me that the routes must be long enough to make driving a hassle and short enough that flying would be overly burdensome.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    None of it makes sense at all. Go to the amtrak site and look at the price of tickets and timeframes for going to D.C., then go to any airline site.

     

Share