4 ms·
"last time I researched it, a few years ago, there wasn't an HSR line in existence that didn't net revenue for the state". The linked article says that only 3 o
by cjensen 10y ago
"last time I researched it, a few years ago, there wasn't an HSR line in existence that didn't net revenue for the state". The linked article says that only 3 of the 111 systems worldwide run without subsidies. That claim comes from the construction company which benefits if HSR goes forward.
- ojbyrne 10y agoHow many highways run without subsidies?
- mudetroit 10y agoHigh speed rail cannot come close to replacing highways though. It deals with a fraction of the overall traffic that the highway system supports without near the flexibility. This is why even the countries that are making extensive use of high speed rail still have extensive highway systems. Please note, I am in no way trying to imply that our current highway system works well, but that is a far different discussion.
- Symbiote 10y agoThe proposed high speed line north from London is supposedly the alternative to building a new motorway. The high speed live won't carry freight, but it will free up space on the slower railway, and the motorway.
- ojbyrne 10y agoFair point in the first paragraph. It's the "far different discussion" I'm more interested in though. Starting with the loss of life caused by driving.
- cjensen 10y agoI was not stating an opinion on whether it is reasonable to subsidize HSR; rather I was just pointing out the discrepancy between the claim in the comment here versus the multiply-sourced claims in the article. Additionally, the HSR proposal explicitly promised not to require ongoing subsidies. I think that was foolish: HSR would have passed without making silly promises.
- Decade 10y agoI haven’t looked at those numbers, but I would expect a rail system to increase revenue from activities near the stations. Especially since we really do need to transition to a post-carbon future. Effective transit would allow us to increase housing density and commercial activity while decreasing per-capita use of fuel, water, and other resources. Leading to higher revenue from income tax, property tax, and sales tax, that does not show up on the train’s own profit/loss statement. We just have to be realistic about it. A problem of the California HSR is that the officials have been coy with the actual numbers. Perhaps they are spooked by the disaster that has been Amtrak: Slow, expensive to ride, yet still losing money. We need to recognize that a good rail system can be subsidized, and still give a net benefit to the community and the government.