3 ms·

> The story highlights something I think anti-rail proponents always miss: the lifetime of this infrastructure is far beyond what ordinary businesses deal with.

by anamax 14y ago

> The story highlights something I think anti-rail proponents always miss: the lifetime of this infrastructure is far beyond what ordinary businesses deal with. Parts of the NYC subway are a century old, and parts of the London subway are pushing 150 years old. The part that rail proponents miss is that very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan. Rail, like freeways, can be a "tipping point" if other things are close. However, that isn't always true. Also, you basically have to decide between freight rail and passenger rail, and freight rail makes a lot more sense for much of the US. (Yes, I know that you folks insist that one can have both, but how about some examples....) High-speed rail is going to break CA financially.

redwood 14y ago
"High-speed rail is going to break CA financially." When I hear this, I wonder what the west would be like if people had said the same of all the infrastructure we rely on in the west today. The rail, the roads, the bridges, the dams. Everything. You say "very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan." Well you know what? The western US would have nearly no one living in it if it weren't for big infrastructure projects. It's naturally a very inhospitable place, too little water half the year, too spread out, etc. But we've turned it into a place millions can thrive in. High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today. If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken. And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose?
- rayiner 14y ago
  This is absolutely right. Chicago exploded from a settlement of a few thousand people in 1840 to one of the five largest cities in the world, with over a million people, in 1890. This growth was contemporaneous with the expansion of the railroads out west and Chicago's status as the major U.S. rail hub. And it's also absolutely right that it's ridiculous for people out west to complain about the intractability of big infrastructure projects. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, etc, wouldn't even exist without massive U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the 19th century that made the harsh desert habitable.
- anamax 14y ago
  > "High-speed rail is going to break CA financially." When I hear this, I wonder what the west would be like if people had said the same of all the infrastructure we rely on in the west today. There are several huge differences between then and now. The big one is that that infrastructure exists. High speed rail can't make a 10x difference on any factor. That infrastructure did, usually on multiple factors. Another is that that infrastructure was relatively cheap. We didn't "bet the economy" on it. CA's high-speed rail is betting CA's economy. (Govt then was roughly 3% of GDP. If it had failed, no big deal. That's not true now.) A related factor is that we didn't have as much govt debt then as now. > High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today. High speed rail isn't at all critical in CA or across the US. > If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken. HSR is technically possible, but that doesn't imply that it's a good idea. > And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose? That's insane. I note that you didn't address freight....
krschultz 14y ago
That's all true, but at this point we're not even spending money in NYC anymore. The north east corridor could be turned into full blown high speed rail - the demand is absolutely there as shown by how many people ride the current (broken) system. I think we have heavily tipped in favor of 'anti-rail'.

by anamax 14y ago

redwood 14y ago

"High-speed rail is going to break CA financially." When I hear this, I wonder what the west would be like if people had said the same of all the infrastructure we rely on in the west today. The rail, the roads, the bridges, the dams. Everything. You say "very little of the world is NYC/London/Japan." Well you know what? The western US would have nearly no one living in it if it weren't for big infrastructure projects. It's naturally a very inhospitable place, too little water half the year, too spread out, etc. But we've turned it into a place millions can thrive in. High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today. If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken. And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose?

rayiner 14y ago
This is absolutely right. Chicago exploded from a settlement of a few thousand people in 1840 to one of the five largest cities in the world, with over a million people, in 1890. This growth was contemporaneous with the expansion of the railroads out west and Chicago's status as the major U.S. rail hub. And it's also absolutely right that it's ridiculous for people out west to complain about the intractability of big infrastructure projects. Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, etc, wouldn't even exist without massive U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects in the 19th century that made the harsh desert habitable.
anamax 14y ago
> "High-speed rail is going to break CA financially." When I hear this, I wonder what the west would be like if people had said the same of all the infrastructure we rely on in the west today. There are several huge differences between then and now. The big one is that that infrastructure exists. High speed rail can't make a 10x difference on any factor. That infrastructure did, usually on multiple factors. Another is that that infrastructure was relatively cheap. We didn't "bet the economy" on it. CA's high-speed rail is betting CA's economy. (Govt then was roughly 3% of GDP. If it had failed, no big deal. That's not true now.) A related factor is that we didn't have as much govt debt then as now. > High speed rail may not be as critical as water, but it's ridiculous to think we can't build a modern railroad today. High speed rail isn't at all critical in CA or across the US. > If we can't build a modern railroad today then we're already broken. HSR is technically possible, but that doesn't imply that it's a good idea. > And if we're already broken, what do we have to lose? That's insane. I note that you didn't address freight....

krschultz 14y ago

That's all true, but at this point we're not even spending money in NYC anymore. The north east corridor could be turned into full blown high speed rail - the demand is absolutely there as shown by how many people ride the current (broken) system. I think we have heavily tipped in favor of 'anti-rail'.