High Speed Rail you know nothing pantywaist. I’d tell you to keep up but this is way above your head apparently. You can attempt to “insult” as much as you like. I take it as a badge of honor, although you might want to sharpen up on your “insulting” skills. They’re severely lacking!
High Speed Rail you know nothing pantywaist. I’d tell you to keep up but this is way above your head apparently. You can attempt to “insult” as much as you like. I take it as a badge of honor, although you might want to sharpen up on your “insulting” skills. They’re severely lacking!
Now run along. The adults were trying to have a conversation.
Logically, their economies are smaller and thus have smaller amounts to contribute to their infrastructure. Still they got it done?
Silly person. It's not above moving people so much as it's above freight.
You answered your own question.
Now that's funny!
Perhaps HSR in California was not the best scenario for an experiment. As you note, it is failing in a spectacular manner due to numerous factors. This is a brief overview of what I found about it.
Good points and can’t argue with a whole lot. We’ve both pointed out the why it wont happen. I have had this debate before and one thing I’d like to piggyback off you on.... Continued.
Yet eons ago, under the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program, that program facilitated massive connectivity across the continent in both directions and fueled the economic engine like no other program outside of the national defense efforts during WWI and WWII. This is an outline of such a program that could be undertaken for high-speed rail following that model:
"Yes, a program similar to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System could potentially jumpstart high-speed rail (HSR) development in the United States. The interstate program's success in the 1950s offers a useful blueprint for what a nationwide HSR initiative might require, including federal coordination, consistent funding, and a national vision for HSR as a critical part of the country's infrastructure.
"Here’s how an HSR-focused version of the Eisenhower Program might look and what it would need to be successful:
1. Federal Coordination and National Vision
- Interstate Blueprint: The interstate system succeeded because it was a national priority with centralized federal oversight. HSR in the U.S. has often been piecemeal, with states like California and regional efforts like Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor left to advance projects largely on their own. A national HSR program could streamline development across states and establish a unified vision.
- A Cohesive Network: Rather than isolated HSR corridors, a federally coordinated approach could integrate regional networks (Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, etc.) into a cohesive, national rail grid. It could focus on connecting high-population and high-travel corridors, much like the interstate system prioritized routes with high transport demand.
2. Consistent Federal Funding
- Interstate Funding Model: The federal government funded 90% of the interstate system’s costs, making it feasible for states to participate without shouldering the full burden. For HSR, federal funding could cover a similar portion, reducing the strain on individual states and ensuring that the project is seen as a long-term national investment.
- Dedicated HSR Trust Fund: Just as the Highway Trust Fund is funded by a federal gas tax, a HSR Trust Fund could be created, possibly supported by carbon taxes, transit fees, or other transportation-based revenue sources. This fund could be used exclusively for developing and maintaining HSR infrastructure, guaranteeing steady funding.
3. Streamlined Land Acquisition and Permitting
- Eminent Domain and Federal Support: The interstate system benefited from federal support in acquiring land for the highways, using eminent domain where necessary. Similarly, a national HSR program could include federal support to acquire land for rail corridors, helping to bypass lengthy and costly state-by-state land negotiations.
- Reduced Regulatory Complexity: Federal leadership could standardize and simplify environmental reviews for HSR specifically, as opposed to the patchwork of state and federal regulations currently involved. This would allow necessary environmental protections while speeding up approvals, similar to what the interstate system achieved through federal oversight.
4. Unified Standards for HSR Development
- Highway Engineering Standards as a Model: The interstate program established clear engineering standards for width, grade, and speed limits, ensuring the entire system was cohesive. HSR in the U.S. could benefit from similar national standards on track specifications, speed, safety, and even station accessibility, making construction and operation more consistent across states.
- Interoperability: Standards could ensure that trains can operate seamlessly across state lines, enhancing efficiency and allowing for a truly national network. In regions with existing infrastructure (like the Northeast), a national program could upgrade and expand current rail to meet HSR standards.
5. Public Support through National Messaging
- Building a Shared Vision: The interstate highway program was popular because it was presented as essential for national defense, economic growth, and connectivity. A national HSR program could similarly emphasize environmental benefits (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions), economic growth, and enhanced mobility.
- Potential for Private Sector Investment: Clear government backing and a structured funding model would likely attract private sector involvement, as companies see the potential for consistent returns. Public-private partnerships could make HSR financially viable without being entirely government-funded.
6. Addressing Geographic and Population Density Differences
- Focused Corridors: While the interstate system spread across the entire country, HSR would work best in corridors with high population density and demand for intercity travel. Federal leadership could focus on key routes—such as the Northeast Corridor, California, the Midwest, and the Texas Triangle—where HSR is most viable.
- Supplemental Rail Connections: A national HSR program could also integrate with other forms of transportation, like regional rail and local transit, to provide broader access. Connecting high-density corridors with improved rail infrastructure could make HSR accessible to smaller markets, enhancing its utility.
Challenges to an Eisenhower-Style HSR Program
- Cost and Funding Priorities: An HSR program would require significant investment, potentially more than the original interstate system when adjusted for inflation. Federal budgets would need to prioritize HSR over other infrastructure investments, which may be politically challenging.
- Political and Public Resistance: Some regions and interest groups (e.g., oil and automobile industries) may oppose a national HSR initiative, seeing it as a challenge to existing transportation and energy structures.
- Logistical Challenges: Unlike highways, which can navigate around urban centers, HSR often needs to run through densely populated areas, requiring complex planning and sometimes contentious negotiations for routing and construction."
Conclusion
"A national high-speed rail initiative modeled on the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program is feasible and could have a transformative effect on U.S. transportation. It would require significant political will, consistent federal funding, and a streamlined regulatory process, but with these elements in place, it could overcome many of the issues that have hindered piecemeal HSR efforts so far. As the interstate program revolutionized American mobility, a similarly structured HSR initiative could do the same, with the added benefits of environmental sustainability and reduced reliance on highways."
Yep, another call for big bother to help the step-siblings... but in a good way."
Certainly sounds like a workable plan you got there for most places.
I don’t think you want to be on standard time.
Neither conservative nor a trumper. Still think that the airline industry ought to be subsidized.I’m trying to stay joyful today.
This brings me joy!
A conservative/trumper asking the federal government to help subsidize something! Too funny! TY!
The basic problem is that in present day America things are done for the following reasons.... Continued.
Yet eons ago, under the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program, that program facilitated massive connectivity across the continent in both directions and fueled the economic engine like no other program outside of the national defense efforts during WWI and WWII. This is an outline of such a program that could be undertaken for high-speed rail following that model:
"Yes, a program similar to the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System could potentially jumpstart high-speed rail (HSR) development in the United States. The interstate program's success in the 1950s offers a useful blueprint for what a nationwide HSR initiative might require, including federal coordination, consistent funding, and a national vision for HSR as a critical part of the country's infrastructure.
"Here’s how an HSR-focused version of the Eisenhower Program might look and what it would need to be successful:
1. Federal Coordination and National Vision
- Interstate Blueprint: The interstate system succeeded because it was a national priority with centralized federal oversight. HSR in the U.S. has often been piecemeal, with states like California and regional efforts like Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor left to advance projects largely on their own. A national HSR program could streamline development across states and establish a unified vision.
- A Cohesive Network: Rather than isolated HSR corridors, a federally coordinated approach could integrate regional networks (Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, etc.) into a cohesive, national rail grid. It could focus on connecting high-population and high-travel corridors, much like the interstate system prioritized routes with high transport demand.
2. Consistent Federal Funding
- Interstate Funding Model: The federal government funded 90% of the interstate system’s costs, making it feasible for states to participate without shouldering the full burden. For HSR, federal funding could cover a similar portion, reducing the strain on individual states and ensuring that the project is seen as a long-term national investment.
- Dedicated HSR Trust Fund: Just as the Highway Trust Fund is funded by a federal gas tax, a HSR Trust Fund could be created, possibly supported by carbon taxes, transit fees, or other transportation-based revenue sources. This fund could be used exclusively for developing and maintaining HSR infrastructure, guaranteeing steady funding.
3. Streamlined Land Acquisition and Permitting
- Eminent Domain and Federal Support: The interstate system benefited from federal support in acquiring land for the highways, using eminent domain where necessary. Similarly, a national HSR program could include federal support to acquire land for rail corridors, helping to bypass lengthy and costly state-by-state land negotiations.
- Reduced Regulatory Complexity: Federal leadership could standardize and simplify environmental reviews for HSR specifically, as opposed to the patchwork of state and federal regulations currently involved. This would allow necessary environmental protections while speeding up approvals, similar to what the interstate system achieved through federal oversight.
4. Unified Standards for HSR Development
- Highway Engineering Standards as a Model: The interstate program established clear engineering standards for width, grade, and speed limits, ensuring the entire system was cohesive. HSR in the U.S. could benefit from similar national standards on track specifications, speed, safety, and even station accessibility, making construction and operation more consistent across states.
- Interoperability: Standards could ensure that trains can operate seamlessly across state lines, enhancing efficiency and allowing for a truly national network. In regions with existing infrastructure (like the Northeast), a national program could upgrade and expand current rail to meet HSR standards.
5. Public Support through National Messaging
- Building a Shared Vision: The interstate highway program was popular because it was presented as essential for national defense, economic growth, and connectivity. A national HSR program could similarly emphasize environmental benefits (e.g., reducing greenhouse gas emissions), economic growth, and enhanced mobility.
- Potential for Private Sector Investment: Clear government backing and a structured funding model would likely attract private sector involvement, as companies see the potential for consistent returns. Public-private partnerships could make HSR financially viable without being entirely government-funded.
6. Addressing Geographic and Population Density Differences
- Focused Corridors: While the interstate system spread across the entire country, HSR would work best in corridors with high population density and demand for intercity travel. Federal leadership could focus on key routes—such as the Northeast Corridor, California, the Midwest, and the Texas Triangle—where HSR is most viable.
- Supplemental Rail Connections: A national HSR program could also integrate with other forms of transportation, like regional rail and local transit, to provide broader access. Connecting high-density corridors with improved rail infrastructure could make HSR accessible to smaller markets, enhancing its utility.
Challenges to an Eisenhower-Style HSR Program
- Cost and Funding Priorities: An HSR program would require significant investment, potentially more than the original interstate system when adjusted for inflation. Federal budgets would need to prioritize HSR over other infrastructure investments, which may be politically challenging.
- Political and Public Resistance: Some regions and interest groups (e.g., oil and automobile industries) may oppose a national HSR initiative, seeing it as a challenge to existing transportation and energy structures.
- Logistical Challenges: Unlike highways, which can navigate around urban centers, HSR often needs to run through densely populated areas, requiring complex planning and sometimes contentious negotiations for routing and construction."
Conclusion
"A national high-speed rail initiative modeled on the Eisenhower Interstate Highway Program is feasible and could have a transformative effect on U.S. transportation. It would require significant political will, consistent federal funding, and a streamlined regulatory process, but with these elements in place, it could overcome many of the issues that have hindered piecemeal HSR efforts so far. As the interstate program revolutionized American mobility, a similarly structured HSR initiative could do the same, with the added benefits of environmental sustainability and reduced reliance on highways."
Yep, another call for big bother to help the step-siblings... but in a good way."
Wow! A true Socialist country. Just like Venezuela, and look what a shit hole it's become.
Venezuela has never gotten rid of capitalism, not even at the height of Hugo Chavez's power. It's too much capitalism that has damaged the Bolivarian Revolution, not too much socialism. Billionaire owned media has always been permitted to cause unrest there, which a socialist system would stop by taking power out of their hands, period.
What the US needs is a party like Eugene Debs' Socialist Party of America from 100+ years ago. Debs spent a lot of energy on telling people that the Democrats and Republicans both represented capital, not labor. Unfortunately, Franklin D. Roosevelt winning 4 presidential elections as a Democratic candidate undid nearly all of Debs' work in this regard.
It broke up in 1972 over whether to support or oppose the Vietnam War. Successor organizations include the Socialist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America.
