AHC: Get more people in the US to take the train.

[manav95]

Assuming it is done right and is actually awesome. Most likely it is a boondoggle but at least it would be a boondoggle that does SOMETHING, unlike a train from Fresno to Bakersfield.

One man's boondoggle is another man's economic stimulus.

 

[Johnrankins]

One man's boondoggle is another man's economic stimulus.

With CA high debt and taxes, paying down the debt or cutting taxes will stimulate the economy more than a train to nowhere where you buy the trains from abroad.

 

[manav95]

With CA high debt and taxes, paying down the debt or cutting taxes will stimulate the economy more than a train to nowhere where you buy the trains from abroad.

I don't mind cheaper taxes in California.

 

[TonyA]

The issue of the 20th century is the automobile. Convenience and freedom of the automobile is the attraction. You will need costlier auto travel to quell the rush away from trains. Also faster and better train service. The use of toll roads instead of interstate highways, added fuel and horsepower taxes, and higher registration and licensing requirements would push consumers toward rail.

This is the very thing I hate about the advocates of rail in the U.S. Rather than presenting ways that rail can be made a more attractive option, ways that public transportation might become a viable alternative to our current mess, the only idea that most people can come up with is "make the automobile less and less attractive, more and more expensive and inconvenient"...it's like the old joke about the petitioner with one deformed hand praying to God to make both hands the same, then watching aghast as his normal hand bends and twists...If the auto is that good, we need to start by recognizing that and working from there. Give to public transportation and not take from the auto. Although, the first honest step in this saga would be to extend CAFE standards to light trucks and stop pretending SUV's are work vehicles.

 

[SwampTiger]

I did mention faster and better rail service is required. You would need to have Federal interference in rail freight service to improve passenger service.

Even you noted greater CAFE coverage, which is a means of reducing automotive use. How else can you make train and bus service compete with personal autos?

The current timeline on electric vehicles mentions urban restrictions on smoke and noise from internal combustion engines as a way of encouraging electric cars.

 

[Johnrankins]

I did mention faster and better rail service is required. You would need to have Federal interference in rail freight service to improve passenger service.

Even you noted greater CAFE coverage, which is a means of reducing automotive use. How else can you make train and bus service compete with personal autos?

The current timeline on electric vehicles mentions urban restrictions on smoke and noise from internal combustion engines as a way of encouraging electric cars.

Have the government give subsidies for buses, trams, and subways for use in major metro areas. Done, problem solved. You don't need a very expensive train from LA to SF half as much as cheap trams from the suburbs of LA to LA or other suburbs of LA.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

Have the government give subsidies for buses, trams, and subways for use in major metro areas. Done, problem solved. You don't need a very expensive train from LA to SF half as much as cheap trams from the suburbs of LA to LA or other suburbs of LA.

This is alot harder to do politically than it sounds like in principal. Because mass transit is most effective in large cities, any federal effort to subsidize it would look like a giveaway to coastal elites, and state efforts would run into a local version of the same problem. To add to that, political conservatives are ideologically opposed to mass transit (see this George F. Will column for a slightly hyperbolic rundown of the arguments against it), and there isn't a natural constituency for expanded transit in the same way there is for budget priorities like schools and farm subsidies, because the people who would benefit don't see themselves as beneficiaries.

If you want federal investments that are large enough to make a difference, you probably do need to make driving less attractive. The best ways to do it from an AH standpoint are to extend either the 1970s energy crisis or the high gas prices of the mid-late 2000s.

 

[Riain]

This is the very thing I hate about the advocates of rail in the U.S. Rather than presenting ways that rail can be made a more attractive option, ways that public transportation might become a viable alternative to our current mess, the only idea that most people can come up with is "make the automobile less and less attractive, more and more expensive and inconvenient"...it's like the old joke about the petitioner with one deformed hand praying to God to make both hands the same, then watching aghast as his normal hand bends and twists...If the auto is that good, we need to start by recognizing that and working from there. Give to public transportation and not take from the auto. Although, the first honest step in this saga would be to extend CAFE standards to light trucks and stop pretending SUV's are work vehicles.

IIUC, and I've driven in several major US cities, cars are bad enough due to shocking traffic congestion. If the US wants to move more people from one place to another making this happen in cars is less and less possible for a reasonable price, whereas rail has a lot of easy to access potential to move many more people.

 

[Johnrankins]

This is alot harder to do politically than it sounds like in principal. Because mass transit is most effective in large cities, any federal effort to subsidize it would look like a giveaway to coastal elites, and state efforts would run into a local version of the same problem. To add to that, political conservatives are ideologically opposed to mass transit (see this George F. Will column for a slightly hyperbolic rundown of the arguments against it), and there isn't a natural constituency for expanded transit in the same way there is for budget priorities like schools and farm subsidies, because the people who would benefit don't see themselves as beneficiaries.

If you want federal investments that are large enough to make a difference, you probably do need to make driving less attractive. The best ways to do it from an AH standpoint are to extend either the 1970s energy crisis or the high gas prices of the mid-late 2000s.

The same problem with intercity rail except mass transit solves actual problems. The problem isn't the road from LA to SF, it is the streets going from the suburbs to each other and downton.

Up until the last two paragraphs, he is pretty much right. Intercity trains are freaking useless. Between cities trains are strictly for cargo and using them for passengers is a waste.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Make trains faster. Have reasonably affordable sleeper cars

 

[Fsci123]

It's actually because that area was the easiest to build it in. It's largely rural, mostly flat and almost entirely straight. They basically started with the cheapest part first

From what i understand it might be an attempt to politically rip the bandaid off the project. The central valley would be the most opposed, so once the segment is complete all they would need to do is construct more rail in desolate areas(the mountains) or upgrade rail where it already exists(the SF segment and LA segment).