Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

Maybe because our entire national infrastructure was originally designed on roads and air travel?  They aren't going away.  So we're already pouring subsidies into those, and now you want to overlay an exponentially more expensive option that has shown time and time again to have cost overrides that are orders of magnitude above forecasts to carve out routes that are often hundred +/- miles. 

See earlier example.  Merced to Bakersfield.  169 miles that costs almost a 5th of what it takes to operate our entire national highway system.  

The Pacific Railway Act signed in 1862 by Lincoln would disagree that roads and airplanes was the basis of our national infrastructure.

Where are you getting your numbers on rail expenses? Upfront costs are indeed higher for a railway, but the throughput is much higher at a lower cost per ton of cargo. It scales better

 

Edit: ah twice clarified it for me, high speed rail not just rail. Derp. That said, of course a single run isn't efficient! Rail lines benefit from network effects, and being isolated really reduces the utility of a specific line

Edited by Captainant
Posted

I think you can certainly argue that the HSR juice is not worth the squeeze, but that applies regardless of funding.  Subsidies aren't really the issue when it comes to transportation infrastructure.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...