Republicans: High speed rail is ok, as long as it's only between Boston and D.C.

[^_^ 5,021]

January 27, 2011

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held its first field hearing of the new session this morning. The topic was the future of high-speed rail on the Northeast Corridor.

Chairman John Mica led the committee’s Republicans towards what appears to be their emerging message on high-speed rail: they’re for it, so long as it’s built through public-private partnerships and largely limited to the dense Boston-Washington corridor.

High-speed rail advocates and some Democrats seem to think the re-prioritization of the Northeast Corridor could be a good thing, though other Democrats remain committed to the Obama administration vision of a nationwide network.

...

Pennsylvania Republican Bill Shuster, who chairs the Railroads Subcommittee, called himself a strong rail supporter but attacked the Obama administration’s strategy so far. “There’s no better way to move large numbers of people than passenger rail and high-speed rail,” he said, telling the story of how improved service on Pennsylvania’s Keystone corridor had convinced him to ride the rails instead of driving. But, he continued, Obama “took that stimulus money and spread it too thinly across the nation.” He said that the President’s State of the Union promise to bring high-speed rail to 80 percent of Americans by 2036 was simply unrealistic and that starting on the Northeast Corridor would be smarter.

...

Ohio Republican Bob Gibbs praised his state’s new governor for killing its high-speed rail program but said that it might make more sense in the northeast, where air traffic is snarled with congestion and transit already feeds into rail stations.

...

Even as the committee debated where to prioritize high-speed rail, it also tackled the question of how and by whom it should be built.

...

Because the Northeast Corridor already turns a profit and has a large ridership, said United State High Speed Rail Association VP Thomas Hart, it’s the route most attractive to the private sector.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2011/01/27/mica-touts-public-private-northeast-corridor-hsr-in-grand-central-hearing/

[mawilson 2,133]

High-speed rail to 80 percent of Americans? I'd like to have whatever they are smoking in DC.

Imagine how much a project like that would cost, and how wasteful it would be, with most trains running empty most of the time.

The North-East Corridor is a different story.

[^_^ 5,021]

The North-East Corridor is a different story.

Indeed, rail actually works here! They should take money away from that joke of a system they're trying to build in Cali (from one small town in the middle of nowhere to another small town in the middle of nowhere, passing through a bunch of farmland) and use it for the NEC. When Cali catches up in terms of population density, then they can play too.

[DEDixon 39]

Imagine how much a project like that would cost, and how wasteful it would be, with most trains running empty most of the time.

run by the gov't with union employees no doubt (at least that is the way it is in CA). i'm not sure the ticket price will be less than flying. i'm not sure getting to the HSR station will be any easier than getting to the airport. at airports, airlines compete, at HSR stations, there isn't any competition. i'm not sure HSR will work anywhere in america.

okay, in the northeast, it might work in the sense that it will have ridership, but i doubt it will be able to support itself. also, they always supply a very limited number of tracks so capacity is limited. good for creating short term construction jobs, bad for long term taxpayer support.

[^_^ 5,021]

run by the gov't with union employees no doubt (at least that is the way it is in CA). i'm not sure the ticket price will be less than flying. i'm not sure getting to the HSR station will be any easier than getting to the airport. at airports, airlines compete, at HSR stations, there isn't any competition. i'm not sure HSR will work anywhere in america.

okay, in the northeast, it might work in the sense that it will have ridership, but i doubt it will be able to support itself. also, they always supply a very limited number of tracks so capacity is limited. good for creating short term construction jobs, bad for long term taxpayer support.

It does support itself in the NEC. Amtrak makes money on the NEC (and only on the NEC ).

[mawilson 2,133]

run by the gov't with union employees no doubt (at least that is the way it is in CA). i'm not sure the ticket price will be less than flying. i'm not sure getting to the HSR station will be any easier than getting to the airport. at airports, airlines compete, at HSR stations, there isn't any competition. i'm not sure HSR will work anywhere in america.

I found this part of Obama's State of the Union speech interesting:

Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail.

(Applause.)

This could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips,

it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down. (Laughter and applause.)

Without the pat-down, really? What if a terrorist blows up a high-speed train? Wanna bet?