YoHo1975 So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me. ... I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale.
So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me.
...
I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale.
Even the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels.
Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way.
zinker YoHo1975: So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me. ... I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale. Even the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way.
YoHo1975: So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me. ... I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale.
That would indeed be a benefit to everybody who uses roads even if they do not use HSR. But the question is, how much benefit for how much cost? Certainly, a $500-billion HSR system will reduce the use of highways, and thus lower their cost of maintenance and construction. But, what would be the result if we took the $500-billion and put it into better roads?
For that matter, we could pay people to not drive in order to encourage less use of the roads. There is plenty of driving that is not essential, and could therefore be eliminated. I suspect that paying people to not use the roads would do more to reduce the road maintenance cost and congestion than building an HSR system to accomplish the same thing.
And when you mention the benefit of HSR reducing the use of fossil fuel, that won’t happen unless the power comes from renewable energy sources. Otherwise, HSR will be coal-fired trains for the most part.
zinker YoHo1975: the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. YoHo: The wear and tear issue has been debated on several threads in the past. Mudchicken posted how much trucks wear on roads. It appears that the ordinary car inflicts an infinitely small wear on roads. We have roads here in Georgia that prohibit trucks from the left lanes and they have no wear where as the outer lanes are developing potholes. As certain posters have noted there are certain parkways around the NYC area prohibiting any trucks and these roads have not for the most part required any maintenance for 40 years. The more important item IMHO is to remove as many trucks from the highways as possible. The I-81 (part of NS' future Crescent corridor) in Va is an example of a road that cannot stayed repaired. Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way. So although I support a subsidy for HSR the maintenance part of an argument should be dropped in favor of more is germain reasons. ie the reduction of car traffic that will be available for persons needing to drive;; etc.
YoHo1975: the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. YoHo: The wear and tear issue has been debated on several threads in the past. Mudchicken posted how much trucks wear on roads. It appears that the ordinary car inflicts an infinitely small wear on roads. We have roads here in Georgia that prohibit trucks from the left lanes and they have no wear where as the outer lanes are developing potholes. As certain posters have noted there are certain parkways around the NYC area prohibiting any trucks and these roads have not for the most part required any maintenance for 40 years. The more important item IMHO is to remove as many trucks from the highways as possible. The I-81 (part of NS' future Crescent corridor) in Va is an example of a road that cannot stayed repaired.
the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels.
YoHo: The wear and tear issue has been debated on several threads in the past. Mudchicken posted how much trucks wear on roads. It appears that the ordinary car inflicts an infinitely small wear on roads. We have roads here in Georgia that prohibit trucks from the left lanes and they have no wear where as the outer lanes are developing potholes.
As certain posters have noted there are certain parkways around the NYC area prohibiting any trucks and these roads have not for the most part required any maintenance for 40 years. The more important item IMHO is to remove as many trucks from the highways as possible. The I-81 (part of NS' future Crescent corridor) in Va is an example of a road that cannot stayed repaired.
So although I support a subsidy for HSR the maintenance part of an argument should be dropped in favor of more is germain reasons. ie the reduction of car traffic that will be available for persons needing to drive;; etc.
blue streak 1 zinker: YoHo1975: the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. YoHo: The wear and tear issue has been debated on several threads in the past. Mudchicken posted how much trucks wear on roads. It appears that the ordinary car inflicts an infinitely small wear on roads. We have roads here in Georgia that prohibit trucks from the left lanes and they have no wear where as the outer lanes are developing potholes. As certain posters have noted there are certain parkways around the NYC area prohibiting any trucks and these roads have not for the most part required any maintenance for 40 years. The more important item IMHO is to remove as many trucks from the highways as possible. The I-81 (part of NS' future Crescent corridor) in Va is an example of a road that cannot stayed repaired. Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way. So although I support a subsidy for HSR the maintenance part of an argument should be dropped in favor of more is germain reasons. ie the reduction of car traffic that will be available for persons needing to drive;; etc.
zinker: YoHo1975: the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. YoHo: The wear and tear issue has been debated on several threads in the past. Mudchicken posted how much trucks wear on roads. It appears that the ordinary car inflicts an infinitely small wear on roads. We have roads here in Georgia that prohibit trucks from the left lanes and they have no wear where as the outer lanes are developing potholes. As certain posters have noted there are certain parkways around the NYC area prohibiting any trucks and these roads have not for the most part required any maintenance for 40 years. The more important item IMHO is to remove as many trucks from the highways as possible. The I-81 (part of NS' future Crescent corridor) in Va is an example of a road that cannot stayed repaired. Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way. So although I support a subsidy for HSR the maintenance part of an argument should be dropped in favor of more is germain reasons. ie the reduction of car traffic that will be available for persons needing to drive;; etc.
I've driven on those NYC Parkways and can tell you they can get beaten up pretty badly. Of course trucks are much worse, but enough cars over a highway over time will damage it.
In any case, reducing traffic on the highways also makes them safer and increases the overall speed for the remaining traffic.
Bucyrus zinker: YoHo1975: So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me. ... I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale. Even the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way. That would indeed be a benefit to everybody who uses roads even if they do not use HSR. But the question is, how much benefit for how much cost? Certainly, a $500-billion HSR system will reduce the use of highways, and thus lower their cost of maintenance and construction. But, what would be the result if we took the $500-billion and put it into better roads? For that matter, we could pay people to not drive in order to encourage less use of the roads. There is plenty of driving that is not essential, and could therefore be eliminated. I suspect that paying people to not use the roads would do more to reduce the road maintenance cost and congestion than building an HSR system to accomplish the same thing. And when you mention the benefit of HSR reducing the use of fossil fuel, that won’t happen unless the power comes from renewable energy sources. Otherwise, HSR will be coal-fired trains for the most part.
zinker: YoHo1975: So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me. ... I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale. Even the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way.
I would venture that a single coal-fired HSR train would produce less carbon than all the automobiles it could remove from the highways. And that doesn't consider the possibility of powering those trains from other sources.
zinker Bucyrus: zinker: YoHo1975: So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me. ... I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale. Even the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way. That would indeed be a benefit to everybody who uses roads even if they do not use HSR. But the question is, how much benefit for how much cost? Certainly, a $500-billion HSR system will reduce the use of highways, and thus lower their cost of maintenance and construction. But, what would be the result if we took the $500-billion and put it into better roads? For that matter, we could pay people to not drive in order to encourage less use of the roads. There is plenty of driving that is not essential, and could therefore be eliminated. I suspect that paying people to not use the roads would do more to reduce the road maintenance cost and congestion than building an HSR system to accomplish the same thing. And when you mention the benefit of HSR reducing the use of fossil fuel, that won’t happen unless the power comes from renewable energy sources. Otherwise, HSR will be coal-fired trains for the most part. I would venture that a single coal-fired HSR train would produce less carbon than all the automobiles it could remove from the highways. And that doesn't consider the possibility of powering those trains from other sources.
Bucyrus: zinker: YoHo1975: So the argument is based on usage. That is I suppose valid, but then the next question I ask is, what percentage of users need to benefit to justify the cost? Is there a hard number? Seems kinda wishy washy to me. ... I would also argue there are Social benefits to the nation as a whole that come from a HSR system and every portion of the system built applies to those benefits. So, I'd argue that people will benefit indirectly from projects built not int heir district or locale. Even the people who would not use an HSR system would benefit from it, at least indirectly. How will highway users benefit from HSR? The people who are using HSR will not be on the roads, clogging them with more traffic, creating more wear and tear on them, spewing more pollution, and burning precious fossil fuels. Based on that, a subsidy for HSR may well be justified since we will all benefit from it in some way. That would indeed be a benefit to everybody who uses roads even if they do not use HSR. But the question is, how much benefit for how much cost? Certainly, a $500-billion HSR system will reduce the use of highways, and thus lower their cost of maintenance and construction. But, what would be the result if we took the $500-billion and put it into better roads? For that matter, we could pay people to not drive in order to encourage less use of the roads. There is plenty of driving that is not essential, and could therefore be eliminated. I suspect that paying people to not use the roads would do more to reduce the road maintenance cost and congestion than building an HSR system to accomplish the same thing. And when you mention the benefit of HSR reducing the use of fossil fuel, that won’t happen unless the power comes from renewable energy sources. Otherwise, HSR will be coal-fired trains for the most part.
Well that may be the case, depending on how many automobiles a single coal-fired HSR train might remove from the highways. And it also depends on the speed of the HSR train. But what about my main point about the cost/benefit of using HSR to lower highway cost as opposed to spending the HSR money on other methods to help highways?
Bucyrus I would venture that a single coal-fired HSR train would produce less carbon than all the automobiles it could remove from the highways. And that doesn't consider the possibility of powering those trains from other sources. Well that may be the case, depending on how many automobiles a single coal-fired HSR train might remove from the highways. And it also depends on the speed of the HSR train. But what about my main point about the cost/benefit of using HSR to lower highway cost as opposed to spending the HSR money on other methods to help highways?
I'm not a transportation engineer, nor a politician. I would leave it to the experts and political interests to weigh the options and make a wise choice. Sometimes it's less important to make the absolutely perfect decision than it is to make a reasonable decision and follow though on it.
Of course as a train person I am biased in favor of rail solutions where they make sense. I'd like nothing better then to have another option then to drive my own car everywhere I go. I live 1/4 mile from a rail line, but the nearest passenger service to me is Amtrak some 60 miles away.
zinker Bucyrus: I would venture that a single coal-fired HSR train would produce less carbon than all the automobiles it could remove from the highways. And that doesn't consider the possibility of powering those trains from other sources. Well that may be the case, depending on how many automobiles a single coal-fired HSR train might remove from the highways. And it also depends on the speed of the HSR train. But what about my main point about the cost/benefit of using HSR to lower highway cost as opposed to spending the HSR money on other methods to help highways? I'm not a transportation engineer, nor a politician. I would leave it to the experts and political interests to weigh the options and make a wise choice. Sometimes it's less important to make the absolutely perfect decision than it is to make a reasonable decision and follow though on it. Of course as a train person I am biased in favor of rail solutions where they make sense. I'd like nothing better then to have another option then to drive my own car everywhere I go. I live 1/4 mile from a rail line, but the nearest passenger service to me is Amtrak some 60 miles away.
Bucyrus: I would venture that a single coal-fired HSR train would produce less carbon than all the automobiles it could remove from the highways. And that doesn't consider the possibility of powering those trains from other sources. Well that may be the case, depending on how many automobiles a single coal-fired HSR train might remove from the highways. And it also depends on the speed of the HSR train. But what about my main point about the cost/benefit of using HSR to lower highway cost as opposed to spending the HSR money on other methods to help highways?
Well it is not just the transportation engineers and the politicians who run the show. The U.S. taxpayers are the ones who are going to have to pay for this, and they are the ones who should decide whether we need it. That is the way our system works. Moreover, the transportation builders and politicians are precisely the ones who will benefit the most from the money spent, so they are the last ones who should make the decision. If you ask the fox whom he thinks should guard the chicken coop, who do you think the fox will recommend?
Bucyrus Well it is not just the transportation engineers and the politicians who run the show. The U.S. taxpayers are the ones who are going to have to pay for this, and they are the ones who should decide whether we need it. That is the way our system works. Moreover, the transportation builders and politicians are precisely the ones who will benefit the most from the money spent, so they are the last ones who should make the decision. If you ask the fox whom he thinks should guard the chicken coop, who do you think the fox will recommend?
That is the way our system is suppose to work - and may have at one time. That is why we have elections. We are supposed to elect representatives who will be representing our interests.
Unfortunately we actually elect the politicians who can afford the best ads and run them the most, can generate the greatest fear of their opponents and who garner the greatest name recognition.
Those ads and propaganda programs cost a lot of money. The big corporations and Chamber of Commerce, who can now spend as much money as they want thanks to our "activist" Supreme Court, have the deep pockets to finance those ads and buy representatives who will represent them, not us.
Until we have public financing of elections - so the people finance the system, not the plutocrats who now run things, we tax payers will have little real say in the matter.
So the practical matter is it will be up to the business interests to see if HSR or highways will get the funding, not you or I. This decision is simply not going to be made at our pay grade.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.