Obtuse, Doubled? Thoughts on Dec editorial

[Anonymous]

blownout cylinder

 We do not need to do it just because others are----again. Lets think OTHER---than the usual follow the bouncing ball

 

But Mr. Wrinn says we need HSR for societal benefits such as less pollution, better land use, reduced congestion, and getting people off of the highway for their own safety.  And without HSR, our friends overseas consider us to be an uncivilized nation.

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

The proposition that the US has a more individualistic culture  than some of the other countries does not rule out federal investments in infrastructure.  You are only using that as an excuse for continuing what we have done in regard to rails for the past 50 years - nothing - while we collectively and wisely invested (remember, we are talking investment, not just spending money on expenses) many billions in the interstate highway system and the air transport system.  One could just as easily conclude you take a contrarian approach to decisions.

And, I suppose, you would prefer to do this all because the Europeans are doing it therefore they must be right? This is what the argument seems to be revolving around--"Well, the Europeans do that so why can't we?". I'm tempted to reply---"Oh Waaah". Maybe the point is that it appears to me to be more a "want" vs "need" thing.  And, yes, the Interstate highways were an investment--in the sense that the whole thing was thought of in terms of an added military advantage for rapid deployment, but that would be too crude a stick. The problem is that now you have a lot of areas with virtually no customer base in many of the areas in the mid west---yet they will find more tax dollars coming out of their areas to subsidize the tax base in the urban centers.

Again, a regional solution could be as good as any other centralized system.

 

Oh, BTW, there still is an argument going on about how the Interstate system may have been responsible for partially depopulating a lot of areas during the 1960's and after.

Look, I'm not necessarily against HSR as such. It is just that I'm not seeing why this is such a need now. And if my position is as a contrarian than so be it. It beats following the latest trends without thinking about the needs and desires of same.

[schlimm]

blownout cylinder

Chinese traditional culture has always been more communal whereas ours was established along a more individualistic basis. Brazil is doing the same thing but again it has a more or less established culture of its own. Yes, they all have an infrastructural issue. So do we----but we do not necessarily need to follow everyone else's lead. We can do it on our own terms. And if it means that we do not do the HSR route or any other than what we deem necessary than so be it. And as mentioned before---doing what was done before does not constitute doing nothing.

 We do not need to do it just because others are----again. Lets think OTHER---than the usual follow the bouncing ball

The proposition that the US has a more individualistic culture  than some of the other countries does not rule out federal investments in infrastructure.  You are only using that as an excuse for continuing what we have done in regard to rails for the past 50 years - nothing - while we collectively and wisely invested (remember, we are talking investment, not just spending money on expenses) many billions in the interstate highway system and the air transport system.  One could just as easily conclude you take a contrarian approach to decisions.

 

[selector]

Greyhounds and Blownout....thanks.  That works for me.

-Crandell

[blownout cylinder]

selector

Maybe I am making the mistake of interpreting 'doing nothng' as having no active role in a determination.  I take it literally, and in the example cited above, the choices are there, are considered, and the person may elect to continue to use the usual route.  That is not doing nothing.

I think that the phrase "doing nothing" may be a misnomer? The phrase could be more that we continue doing things the way we've done them before---it being a more piecemeal approach that is sensitive to each regions issues. In other words the dreaded " Status Quo ".

The idea that I've seen bandied about more is that there is some kind of all encompassing system/solution---a "magic bullet" as it were. HSR has become precisely that magic bullet. Europe has a much more centralized methodology when it comes to infrastructure. Here not so much.

Some places go for an overarching system. Others go for a more smaller/regional approach. Why there should be an issue over the regional way is something else again

[greyhounds]

selector

I disagree with the statement that doing nothing is always to be considered in a list of alternatives.  While it may be the actual best choice in some circumstances, it is not considerable in dealing with, for example, a dlilemma, especially one of the ethical kind.  Now, this is an academic approach, granted, but when confronted with an ethical dilemma, one is not going to actively consider "doing nothing" because to do nothing would be an indicator of indesiciveness, a lack of a sense of commitment or responsibility, and it wouldn't actually be an active step in choosing the 'correct' or best way ahead..the lesser of two evils, if you will.

Maybe I am making the mistake of interpreting 'doing nothng' as having no active role in a determination.  I take it literally, and in the example cited above, the choices are there, are considered, and the person may elect to continue to use the usual route.  That is not doing nothing.

-Crandell

In this case, what I mean, and what I think some others here mean by "Do Nothing" is to seriously consider it to be one of the options.  As in "Do Nothing" is always an option that should be considered.

We're talking about an investment decision.  Obviously, not making any investment is an option that should be considered.  With your military background you might be familiar with "Anything you do can get you killed, including nothing."  But sometimes "Nothing" is the right choice.  If you try to react to, and control, everything you'll run out of resouces. 

I haven't seen a valid argument for forced Electrification or HSR yet.  It's mostly "Other countries have it".  That's no reason to have it in the US.  We don't have the resources to "Do Everything" so "Do Nothing" will often be the right choice, all things considered.

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

2.  If one looks at Western Europe, it really isn't so small.

But it is not the same size as the U.S. As well, the Europeans are not all in agreement with the HSR proponents there. There was a discussion on Deutsche Welle about the view that a good chunk of the debate was taken out because a lot of that opposition to HSR was due to many local/rural infrastructure projects were being suppressed in favour of the HSR investments. We also need to remember that a large chunk of this investment went to nationalized RRs, many of which service highly populated centers----there are not too many private railroads in Europe

schlimm

3.  Countries other than the "tiny" ones of Europe or Japan are also developing HSR and fairly fast rail practically from scratch, eg., China.  If you think they are doing it for nostalgia or to be nice to the population, think again.  Everything done in 21st century China is economic pragmatism.  They are investing huge sums because it strengthens their economy by improving the infrastructure.

China is still politically a Communist state. The political/social culture there, again, is a social/communal one. Chinese traditional culture has always been more communal whereas ours was established along a more individualistic basis. Brazil is doing the same thing but again it has a more or less established culture of its own. Yes, they all have an infrastructural issue. So do we----but we do not necessarily need to follow everyone else's lead. We can do it on our own terms. And if it means that we do not do the HSR route or any other than what we deem necessary than so be it. And as mentioned before---doing what was done before does not constitute doing nothing.

 We do not need to do it just because others are----again. Lets think OTHER---than the usual follow the bouncing ball

 

[henry6]

schlimm

[3.  Countries other than the "tiny" ones of Europe or Japan are also developing HSR and fairly fast rail practically from scratch, eg., China.  If you think they are doing it for nostalgia or to be nice to the population, think again.  Everything done in 21st century China is economic pragmatism.  They are investing huge sums because it strengthens their economy by improving the infrastructure.

Another who is hearing some of what I am saying...

[schlimm]

blownout cylinder

Another issue---why is it that we see proponents to this HSR push this as a cross country thing ? This is hilarious. Look at any country in Europe and try to compare the size of that country with ours for pete sake. We are not talking a mere 800km--or 500 mile run here. Many of these proponents are looking at a much larger set up here than there would really need be. There are only 3 areas that you have that could 'use' this HSR.

 

1.  Many people who are suggesting improving passenger rail in the USA are not just talking HSR and think the long distance routes (say CHI to LA or SF or SEA) are dinosaurs.

2.  If one looks at Western Europe, it really isn't so small.

3.  Countries other than the "tiny" ones of Europe or Japan are also developing HSR and fairly fast rail practically from scratch, eg., China.  If you think they are doing it for nostalgia or to be nice to the population, think again.  Everything done in 21st century China is economic pragmatism.  They are investing huge sums because it strengthens their economy by improving the infrastructure.

[henry6]

blownout cylinder

[...why is it that we see proponents to this HSR push this as a cross country thing ?.... Many of these proponents are looking at a much larger set up here than there would really need be. ...The only thing I see here is that we need to change the way we think about some things----not just throw European solutions to their issues at this issue thinking that they have the answer----it HAS TO COME FROM/THROUGH OUR OWN culture.

[

At least one person gets some of what I've been saying!!!!

[htgguy]

henry6

Proving my point, garr says that whenever he sees my moniker I will say "government is great, etc" .  That is far from the truth and just goes to show how much I am (mis)understood.  I am a strong believer in private enterprise,  However, it is as plain as the nose on your face that private enterprise has not and cannot provide all that is needed in society and that the government, since its day one, has had to nurture, prime, loan, grant, legislate or otherwise assist and support private enterprise.  It's undeniable that that has been our history. 

Henry, I don't agree. Private enterprise (the free market) has led to the world's most innovative pharmacutical industry (introducing new drugs to much of the world from research done right here in the good old USA), high technology that is unmatched, and the most vibrant freight railroad system in the world. In fact, freight railroads did not begin to flourish until government got out of the way.

Certainly, there is a place for government, but it is not to "nurture, prime, loan", etc. It needs to provide a level playing field and then get out of the way.

What do you believe about private enterprise, specifically? Give me some examples of the good things you think private enterprise has accomplished. Myself, I believe that free markets do the most efficient job of allocating scarce capital to its best use-many times more efficient than central planning by government, or markets distorted by subsidies or tax breaks.

henry6

As for doing nothing.  I agree that it should be a considered alternative.  But also the cost and consquences of that alternative has to be weighed.  We have done nothing for years about health care and rail transportation and see where we are today.  Ask why other countries are ahead of us and the answer is because they did do something years and years ago.  Not for the people but for business and industry.  Here we are discussing  status quo railroading in this country while the rest of the world is zipping along at speeds up to 250 MPH.  Do more of nothing and we will be hit by the train and fall under the wheels of the high speed rest of the world.  

I'm not sure I understand who the "we" in the paragraph above is. Many people and companies have done a lot regarding both health care and rail transportation. You may not feel they have done what you wanted, and I understand that, but it's not really fair to say "we" have done nothing. I am a heart attack survivor-when I had my heart attack a relatively new procedure allowed the cardioligist to retrieve the clot from my heart in one piece rather than dissolve it with the attendant risk of it floating through the body in little chunks.

I don't belong to the "do something, even if it's wrong" school. If you can't demonstrate how a change will measurably improve things, it's not worth doing. Cost/benefit analysis is important and needs to be taken seriously.

And "we" are making changes. Freight transportation by rail is improving continuously-not as a result of government mandates, but as the competing railroads and equipment suppliers strive to gain competitive advantages. If they were regulated, there would be much less drive to innovate and improve. See the Southern Railway's "Big John" case from the early 60's when freight railroading was heavily regulated for the effect government regulation can have on innovation.

We are not doing nothing. Lots of people are doing lots of things. Some will work and some won't.

henry6

I am not espousing anything that isn't apparent to an educated person as long as the past is not an anchor nor political and economic philosophies handcuffs on thier minds.  Stop calling me names and calling me out. Instead discuss how to change the world. Oh, that may be too serious.  Especially for me.

I guess you can call me uneducated then. I don't agree that the free market needs the government to nurture, prime, etc. I strongly believe in free markets and the economic philosophy that goes along with them, and I try to use examples to point out why I think I am right. Please, do the same. Show me specific examples of what you think should be done, how it will be paid for, by whom, and who will benefit. That's how to try and win people over to your view.

If I have called you names, I apoligize. I tend to get too fired up in online forums. I will call you out, though, when I disagree with you.

You want the world to change? Give people the freedom to try new things and make mistakes. Let them reap the rewards when they are right. The innovation and progress will amaze you, as will the trail of destruction left in the wake. It's all part of change.

[blownout cylinder]

schlimm

But I do not really understand the strong anti-passenger, anti-HSR, anti-government sentiments by individuals one would suppose have an interest in railroading.

I'm not so sure that it is Anti-passenger as it is that I see more of a particular cultural phenomenon. I just love it when everyone gets into a tizzy when your government gets into something elsewhere and says that we should not impose something on another culture---yet seems to think nothing about trying to push something that 'Works' in Europe. European culture--in terms of its political/social structure--not to mention its geographical structure is different from N.American forms. Historically we can see that----sheeesh---even hard nosed Leftists ask---Why didn't the Revolution occur in the West?---for that same reason-----Difference.

Another issue---why is it that we see proponents to this HSR push this as a cross country thing ? This is hilarious. Look at any country in Europe and try to compare the size of that country with ours for pete sake. We are not talking a mere 800km--or 500 mile run here. Many of these proponents are looking at a much larger set up here than there would really need be. There are only 3 areas that you have that could 'use' this HSR. Does Harry down in Broken Jawbone KS need this? But he will be paying for it through his taxes. Taxes='Funding'=issues.

The tickets that get sold for HSR service are higher--hence Jane Doe and Joe Plebe won't afford them--unless they save for the rare special trip. Europe generally has had a longer tradition of socialized commerce than here. The way of doing business is different in kind. The average work week is shorter than here for one thing---

The only thing I see here is that we need to change the way we think about some things----not just throw European solutions to their issues at this issue thinking that they have the answer----it HAS TO COME FROM/THROUGH OUR OWN culture.

 

[schlimm]

henry6

I am a strong believer in private enterprise,  However, it is as plain as the nose on your face that private enterprise has not and cannot provide all that is needed in society and that the government, since its day one, has had to nurture, prime, loan, grant, legislate or otherwise assist and support private enterprise.  It's undeniable that that has been our history. 

 

henry6: I've never looked at posts in the "General Discussion" section before.  There certainly is a lot of heat with relatively little light. I did notice your efforts here, as well as as on the "Passenger" section, and they seem quite thoughtful.  Also several others' comments - oltmanns, wwhitby, etc. are really helpful.  But I do not really understand the strong anti-passenger, anti-HSR, anti-government sentiments by individuals one would suppose have an interest in railroading. 

Anyone familiar with history and economics  (and reality) would agree with you that the market and private enterprise are not the only means or always the best means of asset allocation.  Otherwise we would "privatize" many other important components of the national economy: police, fire, defense, and on and on.  And we would stop subsidizing roads, air travel, the banks, etc.  Of course, that would largely be foolish.  Clearly, there must be sound economic reasons why other nations are upgrading their transportation systems (not just HSR). 

[henry6]

Proving my point, garr says that whenever he sees my moniker I will say "government is great, etc" .  That is far from the truth and just goes to show how much I am (mis)understood.  I am a strong believer in private enterprise,  However, it is as plain as the nose on your face that private enterprise has not and cannot provide all that is needed in society and that the government, since its day one, has had to nurture, prime, loan, grant, legislate or otherwise assist and support private enterprise.  It's undeniable that that has been our history. 

As for doing nothing.  I agree that it should be a considered alternative.  But also the cost and consquences of that alternative has to be weighed.  We have done nothing for years about health care and rail transportation and see where we are today.  Ask why other countries are ahead of us and the answer is because they did do something years and years ago.  Not for the people but for business and industry.  Here we are discussing  status quo railroading in this country while the rest of the world is zipping along at speeds up to 250 MPH.  Do more of nothing and we will be hit by the train and fall under the wheels of the high speed rest of the world.  

I am not espousing anything that isn't apparent to an educated person as long as the past is not an anchor nor political and economic philosophies handcuffs on thier minds.  Stop calling me names and calling me out. Instead discuss how to change the world. Oh, that may be too serious.  Especially for me.

[selector]

I disagree with the statement that doing nothing is always to be considered in a list of alternatives.  While it may be the actual best choice in some circumstances, it is not considerable in dealing with, for example, a dlilemma, especially one of the ethical kind.  Now, this is an academic approach, granted, but when confronted with an ethical dilemma, one is not going to actively consider "doing nothing" because to do nothing would be an indicator of indesiciveness, a lack of a sense of commitment or responsibility, and it wouldn't actually be an active step in choosing the 'correct' or best way ahead..the lesser of two evils, if you will.

Maybe I am making the mistake of interpreting 'doing nothng' as having no active role in a determination.  I take it literally, and in the example cited above, the choices are there, are considered, and the person may elect to continue to use the usual route.  That is not doing nothing.

-Crandell

[oltmannd]

htgguy

henry6

We have a saying in advertising sales for customers who say they won't advertise: If you don't advertise, then nothing will happen.  And that is a mindset that a lot of Americans, too many Americans, seem to have: don't do anything and nothing will happen.  The problem of course is that nothing happening eliminates maintaining the status quo as well as not allowing for any growth.  Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

I don't agree that because you have a "saying" in advertising sales that it should dictate our national policy on how to allocate scarce capital. You are going to have to bring a little better case than that if you expect to be taken seriously.

"Doing nothing" ALWAYS needs to be included in a study of alternatives. Every one of us does this sort of thing every day. Example. You drive a certain route to work every day. They start construction on your route, which slows your trip. You look at a map to study alternative routes. You don't automatically reject your current route, do you?

[garr]

henry6

...Sometimes I feel that when talking with so called educated and experienced brains here, I can't take them seriously simpley because they can't think beyond there experience or education or learned political  mantra, immediately put down anything and anyone with a thought that isn't in thier books, is practiced at the moment,or part of thier political or academic pursuasion.  Seriously now!

 

henry6,

This point is mutual. Everyone wants the other side to come to their veiwpoint. However, each has his own ingrained thought process. For example, nothing personal, but when I see henry6 in a thread, I always expect to see a response with a "government is  right or great" angle, while with my responses others expect some form of "government financial responsibility" angle.

I could be promised me a lifetime USA HSRpass on the system we have talked about in this thread, but it would not change my opinion that right now is not the time for our government to spend its citizens' hard earned tax dollars on it. Too many unwise choices in spending our tax dollars currently and in the past has tempered our ability to consider what some think is a needed project today.

 

Jay   

[henry6]

If I wanted to be taken seriously, I seriously wonder why I keep posting here!   The point is a good one for advertising and in the discussion here:  if nothing is done, then nothing happens and if nothing happens noting gets done; there is no growth, no change, not even maintenance of the status quo but rather an eroding of what is.  Sometimes I feel that when talking with so called educated and experienced brains here, I can't take them seriously simpley because they can't think beyond there experience or education or learned political  mantra, immediately put down anything and anyone with a thought that isn't in thier books, is practiced at the moment,or part of thier political or academic pursuasion.  Seriously now!

[htgguy]

henry6

We have a saying in advertising sales for customers who say they won't advertise: If you don't advertise, then nothing will happen.  And that is a mindset that a lot of Americans, too many Americans, seem to have: don't do anything and nothing will happen.  The problem of course is that nothing happening eliminates maintaining the status quo as well as not allowing for any growth.  Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

I don't agree that because you have a "saying" in advertising sales that it should dictate our national policy on how to allocate scarce capital. You are going to have to bring a little better case than that if you expect to be taken seriously.

[henry6]

We've got to stop thinking railraod train or highway truck or airplane or automobile and start thinking
transportration system. And we've got to stop thinking what's in it for me and start thinking what in it for our country and economy.  United we stand, divided we fall.

[carnej1]

greyhounds

daveklepper

Left out of this discussion is WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY AND JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

1.  Transportation grid lock?   Food extremely costly in inner cities because of highways becoming slowly moving parking lots and innability to deliver?  Farmers unable to sell produce because of lack of transport?

 

2.   Or trememdous investment in highway expansion with loss of tax and job producing land and ditto for airports, with money far exceeding the billions necessary to provide the capacity increase for rail?

Well, "Do Nothing" is always an option that should be considered.  Especially when the other options involve spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have.

What bothers me is when people create impossibly dark unrealistic scenarios to "Justify" their desired outcome.  In this case the spector of not being able to distribute food if "High Speed Rail" is not built.  This is fear mongering.  And I don't like it.

The food distribution companies, Wal Mart, Kroger, Safeway, SuperValu, etc. are not run by stupid people.  If they've got problems with congestion they can easily enough schedule their deliveries to stores in congested areas during non congested hours.  Delivering to the inner city stores at 2:00 AM would be an example.  The delivery trucks could do that easy enough, then make deliveries to stores in less congested areas during the daylight hours.  That sounds like a less expensive solution than spending hundreds of billions on a "High Speed Rail" network that will do little or nothing to reduce acute urban traffic congestion. 

I see it as a total bankruptcy of the entire "HIgh Speed Rail" concept that people have to use totally unrealistic doomsday scenarios in an attempt to justify it. 

I also see that the rail passenger network in the US is developing as needed.  Reasonable, adequate service is being provided in areas where it makes sense.  The Northeast and Amtrak California are examples.  I don't like the fact that these servces are subsidized, but transportation is not about what I like.

Just as it's not about what the proponents of "High Speed Rail" like.  And I wish they'd quit making up unrealistic doomsday scenarios to justify what they want. 

 

 

Greyhounds is 100% correct about the grocery distribution business (the industry I work in). Whether or not the regional distribution centers/warehouses are receiving freight by rail or not the "last miles" to a supermarket are going to be in a trailer pulled by a tractor.

We can talk about some futuristic "capsule pipeline"(google the term for a description) or the like but for the foreseeable future it's all truck for local deliveries. Deliveries in urban areas are mostly done overnight and the stores employ "night crews" that unload the trailers and stock out product...

[greyhounds]

daveklepper

Left out of this discussion is WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DO NOT SPEND THE MONEY AND JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS?

1.  Transportation grid lock?   Food extremely costly in inner cities because of highways becoming slowly moving parking lots and innability to deliver?  Farmers unable to sell produce because of lack of transport?

 

2.   Or trememdous investment in highway expansion with loss of tax and job producing land and ditto for airports, with money far exceeding the billions necessary to provide the capacity increase for rail?

Well, "Do Nothing" is always an option that should be considered.  Especially when the other options involve spending hundreds of billions of dollars that we don't have.

What bothers me is when people create impossibly dark unrealistic scenarios to "Justify" their desired outcome.  In this case the spector of not being able to distribute food if "High Speed Rail" is not built.  This is fear mongering.  And I don't like it.

The food distribution companies, Wal Mart, Kroger, Safeway, SuperValu, etc. are not run by stupid people.  If they've got problems with congestion they can easily enough schedule their deliveries to stores in congested areas during non congested hours.  Delivering to the inner city stores at 2:00 AM would be an example.  The delivery trucks could do that easy enough, then make deliveries to stores in less congested areas during the daylight hours.  That sounds like a less expensive solution than spending hundreds of billions on a "High Speed Rail" network that will do little or nothing to reduce acute urban traffic congestion. 

I see it as a total bankruptcy of the entire "HIgh Speed Rail" concept that people have to use totally unrealistic doomsday scenarios in an attempt to justify it. 

I also see that the rail passenger network in the US is developing as needed.  Reasonable, adequate service is being provided in areas where it makes sense.  The Northeast and Amtrak California are examples.  I don't like the fact that these servces are subsidized, but transportation is not about what I like.

Just as it's not about what the proponents of "High Speed Rail" like.  And I wish they'd quit making up unrealistic doomsday scenarios to justify what they want. 

 

 

[selector]

solzrules

selector

For the record, I did receive a complaint about your terminology, but not one about PV's.  Also, it was not he who posted the complaint.

Regardless, it was a subjective application of your duties.  I stand by my previous comments.

What else could it be, and from whom?

-Crandell

[garr]

henry6

...see what the Chinese are spending today on high speed rail lines (not line, lines) and what Japan and Europe have done...

 

 

Do you have any idea what China's and Japan's national debt levels(if any) are? I honestly don't.

Also, I imagine the US is helping/has helped both countries with their HSR indirectly thru the trading deficits we carry with both of them.

Jay

[solzrules]

selector

For the record, I did receive a complaint about your terminology, but not one about PV's.  Also, it was not he who posted the complaint.

Regardless, it was a subjective application of your duties.  I stand by my previous comments.

[henry6]

garr

henry6

...Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

 

Can we as a nation truly afford this approach on national HSR today?

Jay 

 A quick answer is: or can we not?  But lets face it, see what the Chinese are spending today on high speed rail lines (not line, lines) and what Japan and Europe have done.  It is no longer an experiment. America's way of life, now matter what, is the result of someone marketing his product or service or philosophy better than the others.  It may not be the best for all or for any, but his marketing worked better.

[Murphy Siding]

     Fellas- can we steer this toward a discussion concerning trains please?

[Anonymous]

blownout cylinder

Also---who gets the payments on that debt?

 

Uncle Sam gets the payments on that debt, and he will pass them on to the citizens of the United States through higher taxes.  And if the citizens refuse the higher taxes, Uncle Sam will print money, or monetize the debt as it is called.  This is a marvelous procedure that allows Uncle Sam to withdraw money from all of the citizens’ savings and retirement pensions while those citizens are not paying attention.

[garr]

henry6

...Doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing.  If it doesn't work, then at least you should have learned what not to do.

 

Can we as a nation truly afford this approach on national HSR today?

Jay 

[garr]

daveklepper

...Food extremely costly in inner cities because of highways becoming slowly moving parking lots and innability to deliver?  Farmers unable to sell produce because of lack of transport?

 

2.   Or trememdous investment in highway expansion with loss of tax and job producing land and ditto for airports, with money far exceeding the billions necessary to provide the capacity increase for rail?

 

I don't think High-Speed Rail will solve either of these problems for the vast majority of the US. The ones you point out would be solved with improved commuter rail and increased capacity of the freight railroads once the previous levels of freight, plus some, return.

Jay