Every industrialized country around the world is investing in high-speed rail. Meanwhile, the United States is sitting with its thumbs up the nation's collective ass because the oil companies want to see what remains of the American economy collapse as petroleum prices for cars and planes skyrocket over the next few years and decades. Fortunately for the fossil-fuel industry, there are enough propaganda outlets, like Fox and the W.S.J., to ensure that the country runs itself into the ground.
"The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the oil conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc." Says a lot right there, these are the people who are behind this video.
So far this the only thing of obamas that I support. And you really cannot compare it to any form of transport in the us because no other systems are even similar to it. High speed Is NOT light rail and Amtrak goes 70 mph on old tracks. These trains can go 220 mph.
I barely see the liberty that is recieved from sprawl aka. post WWII development patterns.
Dont listen and STOP Randal O Toole! He seems like a fraud. He and Wendell Cox are part of the lobbyist groups that created this WWII type growth in the first place to CONTROL us.
They falsely act as libertarians to support the oil, cement, big box, asphalt, etc.. companies because Kunstler's ideas destroy their revenues!
Notice how O Toole does not support a "free market" New Urbanism like I do
How in the world you are getting freedom in sprawl?
The house you choose is limited by codes and restrictions where is isolated from the daily needs of the household.
Business cannot choose to be in a marketable mixed of retail and office
People cannot choose what transportation choice they have and are forced to pay car payments, registration, DMV, maintenance, gas, insurance, land to store the cars, and traffic tickets.
People do not have the option to meet their social needs.
Exactly, what is about sprawl that benefits O'Toole?
His special interest group that benefits from sprawl. He poses himself as a libertarian to get some attention when he support a development that controlled by building codes and land use segregation.
His Houston example is a joke, but mixed-use and diverse planning is profitable and marketable to developers, and residents.
@AtibbsSPARTAN You could travel one block to get to the grocery store or you could travel ten miles to get to the grocery store, more distance can distort things.
These guys just blow my fuses. 3:00 Bus systems, hmmmmm. Won't that make us more dependent on oil companies and tire manufacturers? Those companies couldn't be the same ones that owned National City Lines 70 years ago could they? You know, the National City Lines company which bought up all the light rail systems in large American cities and discontinued their service or made their operations so inefficient that people were forced to take buses and automobiles?
And maybe these guys kinda forgot that highways and airports were so heavily subsidized after WWII that the PRIVATE railroad companies couldn't compete and eventually went bankrupt in the 1960's and 1970's. Isn't that why we have Amtrak and had Conrail in the first place? The fact that we pay $300-$600 BILLION every year in subsidies to roads and highways must have slipped their minds. Another fact about rail is that it takes less energy to move the same amount of weight as it does trains. Less
friction between steel wheel and steel rail than between tire and asphalt. So it's more energy efficient, but they must have taken that into account, otherwise they would have mentioned it! And the guy claims in the video a rail transportation system is going to "control where people live." Hmmm, isn't that controlling urban sprawl? Won't controlling urban sprawl help preserve biodiversity and limit habitat destruction and degradation? Is automobile the safest transportation method?
I mean, 50,000 people die every year in the U.S. from automobile accidents. I'm sure if airplanes and trains were that dangerous, people would still use them. Wait a minute, this video is titled and started off as "High-speed rail," but then it ends with the two blasting "light-rail." I sure hope they know what they're talking about because high-speed rail and light-rail aren't the same thing. That would be like comparing Shinkansen to BART. I mean, this guy is an "expert." on this topic.
I'm sure he's read every article and multiple 80+ page studies on CAHSR and other HSR systems around the world like some of us have that say that high-speed rail can be economical and convenient like it is in Japan, France, Germany, Taiwan, China, Spain, Italy, South Korea and Sweden and a few other countries. Even profitable! Just saying, there may be some inconsistencies about this video...
Did you think? I guess not. When people take high-speed trains, the demand for highways will go down. Eventually, the demand will be so low that it won't be cost-effective to keep maintaining them and they will be dismantled. And why do you think Åmtrak isn't covering its costs? B/c there's no demand for it. Why isn't there demand for it? B/c people are using cars and thinking its a convenient and cheaper alternative. It's "cheaper" if it's supported by $300-$600 billion in annual subsidies.
Now if you were to weigh $300-$600 billion against the $1 billion that you say, which one is going to weigh more? Hmmmm... If enough people ride the rails again, Amtrak may cover its costs and actually make profit. If it's profitable, then why not just let private companies(which tend to run things more efficiently than public groups) run the system? Ever heard of JNR becoming privatized into six JRs? You should look into it. Now to make people get out of their cars and on trains...
You have to make people pay the real price of traveling by car. That means no gov. subsidies to pay for roads and highways(b/c railroads pay to maintain their right-of-way themselves), include the price of lost biodiversity, pollution(noise and air), and other externalities caused by automobile transportation in gasoline prices, and eliminate $85 million in annual parking subsidies. It should also be commonly known that we lose 50,000 people annually to auto-related accidents, motor vehicles
use one-third of the world's oil consumption, and that in general, automobiles for everyone is not a sustainable way of living. Yes, like you said, some people will still use the car. But they will be paying a very high and actual price of using cars for transportation. My point is that because of our current policies, we are making the automobile be very convenient compared to other forms of transportation, but at a very high cost.
@th3gtr When gasoline starts hitting $5/gallon then you'll see efforts to implement biodiesel because at that price it becomes economically feasible. Then as that technology progresses, you'll see costs go down or new technologies implemented that make things better for everyone.
Cars running on batteries are great for city living, not so good for someone towing a boat/trailer or freight.
Our current policies are screwing everything up for many reasons.
@sparky577 Because there are too many powerful people in the way manipulating everyone to do what THEY think is best rather than simply what is best.
HSR simply doesn't work in the way many liberal-types think. It is not a viable option for mass transit because it is simply point-a to point-b travel. People aren't going from A to B and they don't want to use 3 different tranportation methods to get to their destination.
HSR is an EXCELLENT alternative to air travel for short trips (100-150mi.)
@sparky577 People who think HSR should be done any and everywhere are oblivious to reality.
HSR sharing rails with freight companies is also an issue. I am of the belief that HSR lines should be independent...they can run alongside other tracks, but should not share them.
It would cost more, but if done well the investment would be well worth it. I have ideas, I'll have to write them down to see if they are practical since most HSR applications are not.
@williejenkins666 I don't see how the point you made in your last comment was related to my last point, but personally, I think we should lean towards a mass transportation system instead of just changing the type of power source of our cars. Biodiesel and electric cars are nice, but people are still driving. 50,000 auto-related deaths per yr in the U.S. Unacceptable for plane or train industry. Also, we will still be dependent on the same tire companies that partly owned National City Lines.
@williejenkins666 Well, what kind of map? A political map? Geographical map? Be specific. If you look at a current map of the railroads of the U.S., you'll find it is nothing compared to what it used to be in the early 1900's. It can be improved. We have to change our demands.
Why is it that every right-winger I meet has to childishly call anyone who disagrees with him/her a name and then laugh at it? That doesn't help solve anything.
@williejenkins666 Your counter-argument does not make sense at all. What's your point? HSR is the answer to a demand for a convenient, fast, and efficient mode of transportation. With two metropolitan areas(SFBA and LAMA), several Central Valley cities(Sac, Bake, Fres, Mer), SanD, and possible Vegas and cities in Arizona, there will be demand.
Tchoo Tchoo!...Here comes high speed rail (Video of some 50's soviet-inspired diesel (steam?) train)...ROFL...I still have a bang from this vid!
"Why not taking the bus?" Says the old geezer!!!!
Simply unbelievable...Genuine soviet propaganda...OMG, I can't get past over it.
And since I want my joy to be at its highest, I'll watch the vid on the aerotrain, thinking the old schmock would probably believe it to be some super sci-fi project designed by mad French scientists coming from the future!
A follow up to my last comment: That's just Wisconsin taxpayers, not national. I may be a Republican, but I HATE the CATO Institute. They are extremely biased and are completely against any progess whatsoever. They are jus another group that tries to get their way. The Reps and the Dems have them both, and all of them SUCK.
The current taxation per taxpayer with Amtrak is $1.50 a year. If we paid $15 per year for a few years, we could have a world-class, self-supportive high speed rail network. There's lots of taxation debate with upgraded Wisconsin rail. Do the math, at $10 million in subsidies (it's a 110 mph diesel service, not true HSR), it would cost the taxpayer about $2-$3 per year. Is that so bad? I think that's perfectly reasonable. The highway and the $1 billion interchange in one city? $360.
FAct Since Japan introduced high-speed bullet trains it has lost more than half its market share to the automobile. Since Italy, France, and other European countries opened their high-speed rail lines, rail's market share in Europe has dwindled from 8.2 to 5.8 percent of travel. If high-speed rail doesn't work in Japan and Europe, how can it work in the United States?
@quizerry Actually, that's not true. More than 75% of moderate to long distance travel in Europe is done by high speed train. Example: The TGV carries 94% of the Paris-Bordeax air-rail market share and produces quite a profit. Several of its lines are already completely paid off.
I can not understand all these people's IGNORANCE! I am almost getting the feel that a majority of Americans are so ignorant. Do not use Amtrak as an example you jackass, Amtrak is one of the worst rail systems in the WORLD. I do not want to offend patriotic Americans, but as I used to live in country where we make 5 times less money than you I can still say transportation there is better. It takes intelligence to operate a profitable business no matter what, Amtrak has shown otherwise. Rail FTW
Very Sneaky, Starts with High Speed Rail and then the whole conversation is about Light rail. Then they take video of an empty rail car somewhere In Washington that is proabably not even on a revenue run but heading to the rail yard or somthing and they say that's american rail. They are a complete joke!
Go To Japan, Spain, France and take video of the High Speed Trains and you'll see real train travel.
Randal O'Toole is a hypocrite. Despite his opposition to new rail starts, both urban and intercity, he is a member of a railfan group in the Portland area. And Stossel is a brainless twit!
First, "subsidies per passenger mile" is nothing but a distraction. The only reason it's lower for highways is because so many people use highways.
But then, the Highway subsidy does not include the individual cost of each automobile traveling on it. With rail, the subsidy covers the vehicle as well.
Rail subsidies ensure the proper safety and upkeep of all trains. With highways, you are at the mercy of every bad driver and poorly maintained car around you.
@lenojames Buses are cheap, but they have to sit at the same red lights and traffic jams as cars do. Trains can be given their own right-of-way, or even their own grade separation for nonstop service.
You can be distracted while on a train. You can read while on the train. You can do your makeup while on a train. You can talk on your cell phone and text while on a train. And as long as you don't disturb anyone, you can ride a train while you're drunk too.
@lj Yes, I've been watching their movements for quite some time. I respect the men who have the cahonies to make that kind of investment, more power to them. As far as I know, the only plans for extensions are to Los Angeles via Palmdale (which I think makes no sense, if you look at the maps, a connection to Ontario Airport is better). The CHSRS may be paid for publicly for initial contruction, but it's expected to pay itself off and be handed over entirely to the private sector by about 2035.
@gibb1991 I thought that too about Palmdale at first, but the overhead maps don't tell the whole story.
The thing about going straight to the Ontario Airport is that you either have to tunnel for ten miles through the San Gabriel mountains, or build up and over the Cajon Pass, which is already crowded with stuff trying to get through.
Going around the mountains makes more sense because it's flat, and it's faster and cheaper to build.
Are these people against the interstate system? Are they against federal funding for airport expansion?
Light rail and high speed rail are not the sae thing Stossel...
Not to mention Stossel... go to Philadelphia, NYC, Boston, etc. and you'll see light rail trains are packed and needed especially during morning and evening commutes. When SEPTA striked in Philly the whole city literally was brought to a standstill...
Urban planners future vision is living spaces with higher densities. Urban planners predictions of the future are inevitably wrong. 8 percent of Americans work down town. Urban planners don't want to risk the free market will come up with a more perfect vision of the future. Automobiles cost 23 cents a mile to operate and trains cost four times as much to operate. Is the problem with Gridlock an the design of the highways?
There are roads which sometimes don't have traffic so what? And who would want to ride with a WILD animal?? Not me! Unless it was a pet that YOU put there! Ridership numbers show these trains are not empty. Your wrong! Either of these guys would ever ride a city bus unless it was for assignment. Once you build a highway your stuck with that for forever too! 85% of travel is by car which is now bad for the country. It's time to invest in rail.
@Cyrus992 But you do love government roads, their OK right? Rail should only be taxed to build roads and airports. And the ticket taxes of years ago used to build roads and airports along with trust funds later. They were ok? right! What about government airports, waterways? The trillion dollars in imported oil for a drive and fly society that's OK. These wars against us are expensive. Where could they get the money? If not for oil sales?
0:43 LOL! That's EXACTLY what it was like when I rode the AVE from Granada to Madrid!!! There were about 20 of us packed into one car. I got up to see if there was a vending machine in any of the other cars and was surprised to find them all completely EMPTY!
@Lojikbom Though what was the context? For all we know this was more of a dead head move, though at least they are getting some revenue, other types of transport operations have to balance equipment too, trucking, aviation, ships.
HSR is unique for public transit in that it never lacks for customers. It typically averages 110 mph with stops and will generally destroy competing air transportation at distances up to about 350 miles. Its not "small footprint" though. That's for sure.
I think it's completely geographical/cultural. Rail certainly makes sense in some places, but not others. I live in Florida and I WILL certainly ride High Speed rail if it ever goes from Miami to Orlando, but I would never ride a light rail from Miami to anywhere. We have a rail that goes from Miami to Jupiter but with all the stops it takes only slightly longer to drive and for only a small discount to the cost of driving.
Cato Institute = Libertarians. They would privatize the sidewalks if they could.
High Speed Rail competes with airlines. Light Rail competes with a city bus. Stoessel doesn't seem to know the difference.
Libertarians like markets unless they disagree with the market. Fact is, consumers prefer light rail, even if Randal O'Toole and the Libertarians don't see why.
One of the advantages of light rail is that it attracts real estate development because of its permanence.
10jimharper ... if consumers want HSR so bad, why isn't industry building it? Why is it heavily-subsidized wherever it does exist? Here in Cleveland, 60-70% of our (crappy) metro rail fare is subsidized.
I traveled by rail in Spain, both cross-country and the Madrid metro. It was awesome, but Spain's about twice the size of Oregon, it's not big. If the US were smaller, I could see it, but there's simply no real demand. If there were, people would already be riding AMTRAK.
Intransitman ... truckers do build their own super highways, through the gas taxes they pay.
If they want to build HSR and tack a rail-use user fee on top of the HSR ticket price to pay for maintenance and expansion, that's fine with me, b/c only the people using rail will be paying the fee, just like only the people who use the roads pay gas taxes.
Intransitman ... per Wikipedia, "In the United States, the fuel tax receipts are often dedicated or hypothecated to transportation projects so that the fuel tax is considered by many a user fee."
It's easier than paying a toll (a direct user fee), (ostensibly) goes directly into the maintenance and expansion of our auto infrastructure, and is mostly paid by people using roads, ergo it's a user fee.
Though it still proves the point, use of an infrastructure isn't being directly charged, it's the type of fuel that's being taxed. You're not driving a gas powered push lawn mower down a road.
Intransitman ... true, but as far as user fees (or taxes as it were) go, gas taxes are about the closest thing to a "good" tax or user fee as it gets.
Although I can't find a good statistic on how much gasoline cars use (as opposed to lawn mowers), I would imagine it's the vast majority. Even if someone were to use gas in their mower, chances are they drove to a gas station to get it.
Bullshit! OUr highways were first funded by federal money, from tax dollars out of every American's pocket, regardless if he or she uses the highway system at all. Gas tax itself eventually paid off the tax payer's initial investment.
@by78 Yes, the government spent billions to build an interstate highway system. Because they believed it was a good idea, however people are becoming car dependent, because there are so many cars, the government has to put taxpayer money into roads and wars for oil instead of investing in public transport. I'm sorry but it seems to me there is something wrong with the American government system, as they seem to be getting themselves into deeper sh*t all the time.
@Lojikbom What about the ticket taxes I paid untill 1965 up to 18% in some places. That were spent on roads and airports? We're all grown ups here. So let's be honest. The highways have all kinds of income other than road taxes. People who don't use rail will benefit, less traffic, lower gas prices, safer roads due to less cars. Rail crossings upgraded or removed. Tracks will be safer for dangerous cargo etc.
@Lojikbom I guess you don't ride it. You know why there's reservations on the long distance trains? Because years ago, when business hit bottom and turned around. People were standing in the aisles! The demand for service and there's lots of it. Is controlled by time of service and fares. Most of the country because of air and highway lobbys only has a one train a day network. Someplaces it's 3 days a week. 3 days of income with 7 days of costs!
@intercityrailpal This way if the train is sold out which happens alot. They just turn the business away. Amtrak will not release the numbers. But they turn away more business than they carry! That's with this downgraded, under sized rail network we have. I think most of the losses on the Cleveland network are the buses with low ridership and expensive oil. Cleveland has problems, but would be worse without the rail they have. The bus system might need to be reduced.
O'Toole's premise if followed in telecommunications would mean we would only have telephones to communicate with. The concept is a transportation system. Buses working with a light rail backbone with interconnectivity with High speed rail and yes planned development. We better get with it because Europe, and Asia have developed transportation systems with options.
Spend, spend, spend. That's all the democrats know how to do. And where will we get the money to pay for these trains? China, of course. This is like a guy who's already in hock up to his eyes borrowing more money because he wants to get a more technologically advanced car. No common sense. No responsibility. I want. I want. I want. Like a child.
@ericmarseille2 No it's not ignorance, it's deception. This guy knows fully well what he's saying, he's hoping you don't know or notice his bait and switch or notice that he's a complete liar, crazy, oil paid, bullshit, SOB.
Light Rail is NOT High Speed Rail. This interview is very misleading. O'Toole is from the Cato Institute which receives contributions from Chevron and Exxon Mobile, what do you expect him to say.
Buses sevice is great IN THE CITY, but cannot replace a train at high speed across a state. How can he say buses are cheaper to operate. They consume Diesel, High Speed Rail is 100% Electric. Add a renewable source and it's Clean. It's fast, Buses add to traffic on roads creating more pot holes ($).
Stupid Fox news. The plan is to build Hi-speed trains, not regular "in-city" trains. These are for traveling between cities, something to substitute air travel. First it's going to be controlled by the government then will open the door for private competition to join in, just like the telephone-lines last century.
It's a shame they didn't compare apples to apples. The high-speed rail system in California is not a light rail urban commuter system. They would have been better off comparing the Acela train that runs between DC & New York.
High speed rail is a good idea if you want to get someplace faster and don't like airplanes (for whatever reason), but it's hardly economic stimulus. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking tool. Besides, we need COMPETITION in rail, not just one gov't company in each area or state.
@whoo689 very true because most people doesn't travel by air, not only because of the high cost of airlines tickets, but people has health issue which would harm them when there flying high in the sky, for example, you have ear infection, you may be nauziated and other health issue. and what worst, in 20 years from now, they may raise up their security standard which mean you would have to strip down Naked, and put your cloths on the tray and run it through the x ray.
Although I don't agree on your first statement, I agree that competition is the best way for a country the size of the USA. The UK has a vast system of rail, and was privatized from British Rail in the 90's
This dude has a point. I live in Atlanta and the MARTA trains are better than the buses for the simple fact that an accident or traffic jam won't impact rail. This problem can be solve by dedicated, bus only lanes along interstate. If rather than building rail we built bus only lanes on the interstates, we could save cash and alleviate congestion.
The thing is, much of the evidence here is anecdotal, and gleaned from Fox Noise, and furthermore, light rail =/= high-speed, long distance rail. Come on, Cato, you can do better than this.
Plus, transit infrastructure is a necessity, not a luxury. look at cities like New York, Chicago, Tokyo, Moscow, London, Paris, Toronto, on and on, rail is indespensible.
With REAL high speed rail, we'd have a shot at making money on rail. Adam Smith even states that governments should contribute (cont'd)
to public works projects. By saing transit subsidies are unfair, you would need to allow commuter airlines to fail, repeal the Interstate Highway Act, and a host of other programs.
I believe that a public-private partnership could make a high-speed rail system work in places where there is enough population threshold to justify it- not in North Dakota, but Seattle-LA-San Diego, Boston-NY-DC, Chicagoland, and Texas.
Actually, if you read any of the things Randal O'Toole has written on rail, you would know that much of what he has to say is NOT anecdotal. That is merely used to persuade viewers.
Yes, this kind of infrastructure is necessary in the cities you listed, but what do they have in common? High population density, which is not the case all across the US. That is the difference between US and Europe, we have suburbs.
Rail in America overall is pretty good, and the fact that we're always stuck in traffic is an illustration of that. It's an easy way to get downtown for a baseball game, but I guess most Americans would rather get stuck in traffic than take public transportation. Their loss.
Car drivers also have no right to have the general taxpayer subsidize road construction and maintenance. That's why I think that all road expenses should be paid by gas taxes, except for the last few miles in residential areas (which should be paid for by the developers who put in the houses, and maintained by local property taxes) or roads that are amenable to tolls, such as mountain passes and bridges.
We should all pay for our own activities, and not expect to be subsidized by others.
So the train can drop you off exactly where you're going? I always assumed you'd have to walk to a station. If people really want to ride trains then the passengers can pay enough money for tickets to justify building the train without government subsidies.
Even Europe's giving up on rail. The Iberian Pensula found that planes were cheaper people movers that trains and canceled all of the highspeed rail projects. A better solution is cars that can also use high-speed train tracks for long distance travel. All of the advantage of cars and some of the advantages of trains.
"I will ride the train the day it stops at my house and has space for my grocery shopping". - Me
Kill all the subsidies and let the consumer figure it out.
No they didn't. The Barcelona Madrid line opened about two years ago and now has 80% of the travel market share.
A bit of searching led me to discover that a number of projects are still on the go. They are surging ahead, and certainly haven't cancelled the programme.
High speed rail might have some advantages over medium distances (say, 300-500 miles) in highly populated areas since you can just walk on and walk off. Personally, I enjoy riding on trains, too. But I don't claim to know what's most efficient. It's impossible to tell because government pays for almost all of our roads. Who knows what the real cost of our highway system is?
The problem with light-rail supporters is that they DON'T consider what commuters actually want: CONVENIENCE. A car is convenient because you can jump in and go anywhere at any time with no fuss.
Light rail here in Phoenix has one big thing going for it: it bypasses high-traffic zones and goes in a more direct line to many popular destinations. It is faster than driving across town and cheaper than paying for gas.
Light rail CAN work if it's properly designed...but most planners don't.
As if Atlas Shrugged wasn't coming true enough already, now there are going to be trains! I know the trains are being supported by the wrong side, but still, it's hard not to chuckle at the parallel.
Our rail system is falling apart and has visibly shrunk since its hay day. Until we actually start producing things again, freight will continue to be at low volumes. The rail industry was regulated to death and then nationalized. Our economy provides no incentive for growth but, rather, a steady, rotting decline. Until we are forced off gasoline, people will continue to travel on our congested, 100% taxpayer subsidized highway system in rail unfriendly spread out suburbs.
LOL They said: "Fuck the 21st century of turbo jet engines, the miracle of human flight and planes packed full of people traveling at 500mph, on demand, to every major city in the world... Let's go back to the 20th century and travel at half the speed to limited destinations, waste resources, and spread the suck around..."
@Surhotchaperchlorome The road starting at the end of your drive way is subsidized by default, even O'Toole has said;"Highways are there regardless of economic conditions".
In all seriousness, "Highspeed Rail" is an oxymoron. It's not "highspeed". Japan's rail system is highpeed. China has a highspeed rail system. Germany has a highspeed rail system. The U.S. has no plans for any real highspeed rail.
No one is using the train in the US because the current rail infrastructure is the US is rubbish.
HSR are not "necessary"... USA, welcome among the third world countries !
SuperThe86 1 month ago
Every industrialized country around the world is investing in high-speed rail. Meanwhile, the United States is sitting with its thumbs up the nation's collective ass because the oil companies want to see what remains of the American economy collapse as petroleum prices for cars and planes skyrocket over the next few years and decades. Fortunately for the fossil-fuel industry, there are enough propaganda outlets, like Fox and the W.S.J., to ensure that the country runs itself into the ground.
CommunityBuildersSB 4 months ago
We need to end the subsidies for it all! When rail and highways are on an even playing field, consumers will make the best decision.
Right now we have empty trains and one person in every car!
AtibbsSPARTAN 4 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN You're over looking the street in front of your home, it's there regardless of economic conditions.
Intransitman 3 weeks ago
I need to invest in a string tie.
It's 1903. . . HOW many newfangled cars are there actually using all these damn expensive high-falutin' streets?
RondelayAOK 6 months ago
0:56 Had it been a weasel instead of a coyote the commentary would have been :
"look at that lone French passenger on the TGV high speed network"
I still get a bang at that sumptuous piece of soviet-inspired propaganda!!!
Just imagine that happening in front of a French or Japanese audience, just imagine them swinging between laughing to tears and indignation!
ericmarseille2 8 months ago
@ericmarseille2
Have you looked at the population density in those countries?
AtibbsSPARTAN 4 months ago
Politicians like Obama and Biden are just mob bosses who hand out stolen loot to their cronies.
MillionthUsername 9 months ago
"The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Edward H. Crane, who remains president and CEO, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the oil conglomerate Koch Industries, Inc." Says a lot right there, these are the people who are behind this video.
Ham549 11 months ago 5
@Ham549
CATO supports eliminating ALL subsidies to corporations...oil included....who got the most money from BP??? Oh wait....Obama
AtibbsSPARTAN 4 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN In a very selective sense they do.
Intransitman 3 weeks ago
So far this the only thing of obamas that I support. And you really cannot compare it to any form of transport in the us because no other systems are even similar to it. High speed Is NOT light rail and Amtrak goes 70 mph on old tracks. These trains can go 220 mph.
kndqaz 1 year ago
I barely see the liberty that is recieved from sprawl aka. post WWII development patterns.
Dont listen and STOP Randal O Toole! He seems like a fraud. He and Wendell Cox are part of the lobbyist groups that created this WWII type growth in the first place to CONTROL us.
They falsely act as libertarians to support the oil, cement, big box, asphalt, etc.. companies because Kunstler's ideas destroy their revenues!
Notice how O Toole does not support a "free market" New Urbanism like I do
Cyrus992 1 year ago
@Cyrus992 You're absolutely right, O'Toole is a fraud.
Intransitman 3 weeks ago
@Intransitman
Good point...
However, I do not believe New Urbanism and Sustainible Development are the answers to our concerns. Neither coded car-dependent developments are...
Check out "Cyrus Planing" from Cyrus992
Cyrus992 2 weeks ago
@Cyrus992 Nothing is perfect, though to exclude some thing just, because it is different like Fox News, O'Toole & Cato are saying isn't right.
Intransitman 2 weeks ago
You are forced to live in isolated subdivision and driving through meaning less collector roads
You are forced to deal with HOA, Mello Ross, and high property tax payments to maintain the masterplan
You are forced to deal with land-use segregation and codes by public planners who DICTATE on where we should live.
You do not have the option of living above the store if you work there
You are limited in the street dimensions by the public planners
A lot of sprawl is subsidized.
Cyrus992 1 year ago
How in the world you are getting freedom in sprawl?
The house you choose is limited by codes and restrictions where is isolated from the daily needs of the household.
Business cannot choose to be in a marketable mixed of retail and office
People cannot choose what transportation choice they have and are forced to pay car payments, registration, DMV, maintenance, gas, insurance, land to store the cars, and traffic tickets.
People do not have the option to meet their social needs.
Cyrus992 1 year ago
Exactly, what is about sprawl that benefits O'Toole?
His special interest group that benefits from sprawl. He poses himself as a libertarian to get some attention when he support a development that controlled by building codes and land use segregation.
His Houston example is a joke, but mixed-use and diverse planning is profitable and marketable to developers, and residents.
Same can be mentioned about Wendell Cox
Cyrus992 1 year ago
OMG I will be paying for it!?! Just like I am paying for the high way and airports?
Ham549 1 year ago 6
@Ham549
Did you watch the entire video? The subsidies are about 20 times higher than highways per passenger mile
AtibbsSPARTAN 4 months ago
@AtibbsSPARTAN You could travel one block to get to the grocery store or you could travel ten miles to get to the grocery store, more distance can distort things.
Intransitman 3 weeks ago
OMG I will be paying for it!?! Just like I am paying for the high way and airports?
Ham549 1 year ago
8 Billion for rail is like giving someone a fiver and telling them to pick up groceries for a month for a family of 10.
williejenkins666 1 year ago
Hey what the heck? Somebody spammed two of my comments!
th3gtr 1 year ago
These guys just blow my fuses. 3:00 Bus systems, hmmmmm. Won't that make us more dependent on oil companies and tire manufacturers? Those companies couldn't be the same ones that owned National City Lines 70 years ago could they? You know, the National City Lines company which bought up all the light rail systems in large American cities and discontinued their service or made their operations so inefficient that people were forced to take buses and automobiles?
th3gtr 1 year ago
And maybe these guys kinda forgot that highways and airports were so heavily subsidized after WWII that the PRIVATE railroad companies couldn't compete and eventually went bankrupt in the 1960's and 1970's. Isn't that why we have Amtrak and had Conrail in the first place? The fact that we pay $300-$600 BILLION every year in subsidies to roads and highways must have slipped their minds. Another fact about rail is that it takes less energy to move the same amount of weight as it does trains. Less
th3gtr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
friction between steel wheel and steel rail than between tire and asphalt. So it's more energy efficient, but they must have taken that into account, otherwise they would have mentioned it! And the guy claims in the video a rail transportation system is going to "control where people live." Hmmm, isn't that controlling urban sprawl? Won't controlling urban sprawl help preserve biodiversity and limit habitat destruction and degradation? Is automobile the safest transportation method?
th3gtr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I mean, 50,000 people die every year in the U.S. from automobile accidents. I'm sure if airplanes and trains were that dangerous, people would still use them. Wait a minute, this video is titled and started off as "High-speed rail," but then it ends with the two blasting "light-rail." I sure hope they know what they're talking about because high-speed rail and light-rail aren't the same thing. That would be like comparing Shinkansen to BART. I mean, this guy is an "expert." on this topic.
th3gtr 1 year ago
I'm sure he's read every article and multiple 80+ page studies on CAHSR and other HSR systems around the world like some of us have that say that high-speed rail can be economical and convenient like it is in Japan, France, Germany, Taiwan, China, Spain, Italy, South Korea and Sweden and a few other countries. Even profitable! Just saying, there may be some inconsistencies about this video...
/:(
th3gtr 1 year ago
@th3gtr So when you build high-speed trains, 300-600 billion bucks will end? Of course not. Road will still be used.
Amtrak is a failure, BTW. It loses at least a billion bucks a year.
williejenkins666 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Did you think? I guess not. When people take high-speed trains, the demand for highways will go down. Eventually, the demand will be so low that it won't be cost-effective to keep maintaining them and they will be dismantled. And why do you think Åmtrak isn't covering its costs? B/c there's no demand for it. Why isn't there demand for it? B/c people are using cars and thinking its a convenient and cheaper alternative. It's "cheaper" if it's supported by $300-$600 billion in annual subsidies.
th3gtr 1 year ago
Now if you were to weigh $300-$600 billion against the $1 billion that you say, which one is going to weigh more? Hmmmm... If enough people ride the rails again, Amtrak may cover its costs and actually make profit. If it's profitable, then why not just let private companies(which tend to run things more efficiently than public groups) run the system? Ever heard of JNR becoming privatized into six JRs? You should look into it. Now to make people get out of their cars and on trains...
th3gtr 1 year ago
You have to make people pay the real price of traveling by car. That means no gov. subsidies to pay for roads and highways(b/c railroads pay to maintain their right-of-way themselves), include the price of lost biodiversity, pollution(noise and air), and other externalities caused by automobile transportation in gasoline prices, and eliminate $85 million in annual parking subsidies. It should also be commonly known that we lose 50,000 people annually to auto-related accidents, motor vehicles
th3gtr 1 year ago
use one-third of the world's oil consumption, and that in general, automobiles for everyone is not a sustainable way of living. Yes, like you said, some people will still use the car. But they will be paying a very high and actual price of using cars for transportation. My point is that because of our current policies, we are making the automobile be very convenient compared to other forms of transportation, but at a very high cost.
th3gtr 1 year ago
@th3gtr When gasoline starts hitting $5/gallon then you'll see efforts to implement biodiesel because at that price it becomes economically feasible. Then as that technology progresses, you'll see costs go down or new technologies implemented that make things better for everyone.
Cars running on batteries are great for city living, not so good for someone towing a boat/trailer or freight.
Our current policies are screwing everything up for many reasons.
williejenkins666 1 year ago
@williejenkins666 You are correct here. Our current policies ARE screwing up EVERYTHING for all kinds of reasons... So why don't we CHANGE them?
sparky577 1 year ago
@sparky577 Because there are too many powerful people in the way manipulating everyone to do what THEY think is best rather than simply what is best.
HSR simply doesn't work in the way many liberal-types think. It is not a viable option for mass transit because it is simply point-a to point-b travel. People aren't going from A to B and they don't want to use 3 different tranportation methods to get to their destination.
HSR is an EXCELLENT alternative to air travel for short trips (100-150mi.)
williejenkins666 1 year ago
@sparky577 People who think HSR should be done any and everywhere are oblivious to reality.
HSR sharing rails with freight companies is also an issue. I am of the belief that HSR lines should be independent...they can run alongside other tracks, but should not share them.
It would cost more, but if done well the investment would be well worth it. I have ideas, I'll have to write them down to see if they are practical since most HSR applications are not.
WI was gonna do Mil to Mad. RIDICULOUS!
williejenkins666 1 year ago
@williejenkins666 I don't see how the point you made in your last comment was related to my last point, but personally, I think we should lean towards a mass transportation system instead of just changing the type of power source of our cars. Biodiesel and electric cars are nice, but people are still driving. 50,000 auto-related deaths per yr in the U.S. Unacceptable for plane or train industry. Also, we will still be dependent on the same tire companies that partly owned National City Lines.
th3gtr 1 year ago
@th3gtr Mass transportation is a lousy model. Just look at the map of the USA and you'll know why.
Maybe someone like yourself thinks the USA should roll back to the 1800's... I'll bet you call yourself a "progressive" too... lol. Dolt.
williejenkins666 1 year ago
@williejenkins666 Well, what kind of map? A political map? Geographical map? Be specific. If you look at a current map of the railroads of the U.S., you'll find it is nothing compared to what it used to be in the early 1900's. It can be improved. We have to change our demands.
Why is it that every right-winger I meet has to childishly call anyone who disagrees with him/her a name and then laugh at it? That doesn't help solve anything.
th3gtr 1 year ago
@williejenkins666 Your counter-argument does not make sense at all. What's your point? HSR is the answer to a demand for a convenient, fast, and efficient mode of transportation. With two metropolitan areas(SFBA and LAMA), several Central Valley cities(Sac, Bake, Fres, Mer), SanD, and possible Vegas and cities in Arizona, there will be demand.
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Comment removed
th3gtr 1 year ago
Guess what stops at Traffic Lights and only goes as fast as traffic? BUSES! Trains win.
pawpawnorth 1 year ago
Hell no Portland's light-rail isn't like that.
papasmurf520 1 year ago
Tchoo Tchoo!...Here comes high speed rail (Video of some 50's soviet-inspired diesel (steam?) train)...ROFL...I still have a bang from this vid!
"Why not taking the bus?" Says the old geezer!!!!
Simply unbelievable...Genuine soviet propaganda...OMG, I can't get past over it.
And since I want my joy to be at its highest, I'll watch the vid on the aerotrain, thinking the old schmock would probably believe it to be some super sci-fi project designed by mad French scientists coming from the future!
ericmarseille2 1 year ago
FOX just hates democratics thats it
PimpinZelda812 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Randal O'Toole is a fucking idiot. RANDAL, WHY DON'T YOU DO US ALL A FAVOR AND DIE ALREADY??
evantis121 1 year ago
A follow up to my last comment: That's just Wisconsin taxpayers, not national. I may be a Republican, but I HATE the CATO Institute. They are extremely biased and are completely against any progess whatsoever. They are jus another group that tries to get their way. The Reps and the Dems have them both, and all of them SUCK.
gibb1991 1 year ago
The current taxation per taxpayer with Amtrak is $1.50 a year. If we paid $15 per year for a few years, we could have a world-class, self-supportive high speed rail network. There's lots of taxation debate with upgraded Wisconsin rail. Do the math, at $10 million in subsidies (it's a 110 mph diesel service, not true HSR), it would cost the taxpayer about $2-$3 per year. Is that so bad? I think that's perfectly reasonable. The highway and the $1 billion interchange in one city? $360.
gibb1991 1 year ago
FAct Since Japan introduced high-speed bullet trains it has lost more than half its market share to the automobile. Since Italy, France, and other European countries opened their high-speed rail lines, rail's market share in Europe has dwindled from 8.2 to 5.8 percent of travel. If high-speed rail doesn't work in Japan and Europe, how can it work in the United States?
quizerry 1 year ago
@quizerry Actually, that's not true. More than 75% of moderate to long distance travel in Europe is done by high speed train. Example: The TGV carries 94% of the Paris-Bordeax air-rail market share and produces quite a profit. Several of its lines are already completely paid off.
gibb1991 1 year ago
Republicans will call this socialism and block it. Progress be damned! We have so much oil to sell!
flyingpigstuff 1 year ago
I can not understand all these people's IGNORANCE! I am almost getting the feel that a majority of Americans are so ignorant. Do not use Amtrak as an example you jackass, Amtrak is one of the worst rail systems in the WORLD. I do not want to offend patriotic Americans, but as I used to live in country where we make 5 times less money than you I can still say transportation there is better. It takes intelligence to operate a profitable business no matter what, Amtrak has shown otherwise. Rail FTW
ecologist96 1 year ago
I guess the OTHER coyote took that picture.
lenojames 1 year ago
@lenojames Must have been related to the coyotee seen at a Quiznos in Chicago. BTW I'm not joking!
Intransitman 1 year ago
America is slowly becoming a third world country. They already have been overpast by many other countries with high-speed rails.
LOOOOOOSERS XD!!!!
vikusa2008 1 year ago
Very Sneaky, Starts with High Speed Rail and then the whole conversation is about Light rail. Then they take video of an empty rail car somewhere In Washington that is proabably not even on a revenue run but heading to the rail yard or somthing and they say that's american rail. They are a complete joke!
Go To Japan, Spain, France and take video of the High Speed Trains and you'll see real train travel.
DaaYay 1 year ago
Randal O'Toole is a hypocrite. Despite his opposition to new rail starts, both urban and intercity, he is a member of a railfan group in the Portland area. And Stossel is a brainless twit!
mjarail 1 year ago 4
@mjarail Also O'Toole is funded by Koch Oil interests, like wise with the rest of Cato. So what he says is pretty much bogus socio-economic crap.
Intransitman 1 year ago
By the way, the California system and the $8 billion that Biden was talking about, were in reference to HIGH-SPEED rail.
O'Toole in Stossel are arguing against LIGHT rail! Two different subjects.
lenojames 1 year ago
First, "subsidies per passenger mile" is nothing but a distraction. The only reason it's lower for highways is because so many people use highways.
But then, the Highway subsidy does not include the individual cost of each automobile traveling on it. With rail, the subsidy covers the vehicle as well.
Rail subsidies ensure the proper safety and upkeep of all trains. With highways, you are at the mercy of every bad driver and poorly maintained car around you.
lenojames 1 year ago 2
@lenojames Buses are cheap, but they have to sit at the same red lights and traffic jams as cars do. Trains can be given their own right-of-way, or even their own grade separation for nonstop service.
You can be distracted while on a train. You can read while on the train. You can do your makeup while on a train. You can talk on your cell phone and text while on a train. And as long as you don't disturb anyone, you can ride a train while you're drunk too.
lenojames 1 year ago
@lenojames And true high speed rail doesn't use subsidies.
gibb1991 1 year ago
@gibb1991 If you're looking for HSR without public funds, look into DesertXpress.
It's privately funded. It gets people out of their cars. And eventually, it will connect with the CAHSR system and roll right in to LA, SF, and SD.
But then again, it won't reach it's full potential without the CAHSR system, which is publicly funded.
lenojames 1 year ago
@lj Yes, I've been watching their movements for quite some time. I respect the men who have the cahonies to make that kind of investment, more power to them. As far as I know, the only plans for extensions are to Los Angeles via Palmdale (which I think makes no sense, if you look at the maps, a connection to Ontario Airport is better). The CHSRS may be paid for publicly for initial contruction, but it's expected to pay itself off and be handed over entirely to the private sector by about 2035.
gibb1991 1 year ago
@gibb1991 I thought that too about Palmdale at first, but the overhead maps don't tell the whole story.
The thing about going straight to the Ontario Airport is that you either have to tunnel for ten miles through the San Gabriel mountains, or build up and over the Cajon Pass, which is already crowded with stuff trying to get through.
Going around the mountains makes more sense because it's flat, and it's faster and cheaper to build.
lenojames 1 year ago
@lenojames Ah, yes that does make sense.
gibb1991 1 year ago
Are these people against the interstate system? Are they against federal funding for airport expansion?
Light rail and high speed rail are not the sae thing Stossel...
Not to mention Stossel... go to Philadelphia, NYC, Boston, etc. and you'll see light rail trains are packed and needed especially during morning and evening commutes. When SEPTA striked in Philly the whole city literally was brought to a standstill...
jackooboy1 1 year ago
Urban planners future vision is living spaces with higher densities. Urban planners predictions of the future are inevitably wrong. 8 percent of Americans work down town. Urban planners don't want to risk the free market will come up with a more perfect vision of the future. Automobiles cost 23 cents a mile to operate and trains cost four times as much to operate. Is the problem with Gridlock an the design of the highways?
davepamn 1 year ago
There are roads which sometimes don't have traffic so what? And who would want to ride with a WILD animal?? Not me! Unless it was a pet that YOU put there! Ridership numbers show these trains are not empty. Your wrong! Either of these guys would ever ride a city bus unless it was for assignment. Once you build a highway your stuck with that for forever too! 85% of travel is by car which is now bad for the country. It's time to invest in rail.
intercityrailpal 1 year ago 2
I love rail.. BUT NOT WHEN IT S FUNDED BY THE GOVERNMENT!!!
Cyrus992 2 years ago
@Cyrus992 But you do love government roads, their OK right? Rail should only be taxed to build roads and airports. And the ticket taxes of years ago used to build roads and airports along with trust funds later. They were ok? right! What about government airports, waterways? The trillion dollars in imported oil for a drive and fly society that's OK. These wars against us are expensive. Where could they get the money? If not for oil sales?
intercityrailpal 1 year ago 2
@intercityrailpal
No.. I actually believe that privatization would do better, FYI...
Cyrus992 1 year ago
0:43 LOL! That's EXACTLY what it was like when I rode the AVE from Granada to Madrid!!! There were about 20 of us packed into one car. I got up to see if there was a vending machine in any of the other cars and was surprised to find them all completely EMPTY!
Lojikbom 2 years ago
@Lojikbom Though what was the context? For all we know this was more of a dead head move, though at least they are getting some revenue, other types of transport operations have to balance equipment too, trucking, aviation, ships.
Intransitman 2 years ago
HSR is unique for public transit in that it never lacks for customers. It typically averages 110 mph with stops and will generally destroy competing air transportation at distances up to about 350 miles. Its not "small footprint" though. That's for sure.
10jimharper 2 years ago
I think it's completely geographical/cultural. Rail certainly makes sense in some places, but not others. I live in Florida and I WILL certainly ride High Speed rail if it ever goes from Miami to Orlando, but I would never ride a light rail from Miami to anywhere. We have a rail that goes from Miami to Jupiter but with all the stops it takes only slightly longer to drive and for only a small discount to the cost of driving.
xdhawkii 2 years ago
Cato Institute = Libertarians. They would privatize the sidewalks if they could.
High Speed Rail competes with airlines. Light Rail competes with a city bus. Stoessel doesn't seem to know the difference.
Libertarians like markets unless they disagree with the market. Fact is, consumers prefer light rail, even if Randal O'Toole and the Libertarians don't see why.
One of the advantages of light rail is that it attracts real estate development because of its permanence.
10jimharper 2 years ago
10jimharper ... if consumers want HSR so bad, why isn't industry building it? Why is it heavily-subsidized wherever it does exist? Here in Cleveland, 60-70% of our (crappy) metro rail fare is subsidized.
I traveled by rail in Spain, both cross-country and the Madrid metro. It was awesome, but Spain's about twice the size of Oregon, it's not big. If the US were smaller, I could see it, but there's simply no real demand. If there were, people would already be riding AMTRAK.
Lojikbom 2 years ago
@Lojikbom Why don't truckers build their own super highways, instead of lobbying government for freeways?
Intransitman 2 years ago
Intransitman ... truckers do build their own super highways, through the gas taxes they pay.
If they want to build HSR and tack a rail-use user fee on top of the HSR ticket price to pay for maintenance and expansion, that's fine with me, b/c only the people using rail will be paying the fee, just like only the people who use the roads pay gas taxes.
Lojikbom 2 years ago
Gas taxes aren't user fees, they are sales taxes on gas, for that matter why use the guise of the military.
Intransitman 2 years ago
Intransitman ... per Wikipedia, "In the United States, the fuel tax receipts are often dedicated or hypothecated to transportation projects so that the fuel tax is considered by many a user fee."
It's easier than paying a toll (a direct user fee), (ostensibly) goes directly into the maintenance and expansion of our auto infrastructure, and is mostly paid by people using roads, ergo it's a user fee.
Lojikbom 2 years ago
Sorry, some one driving an electric car isn't putting in a penny towards gas taxes.
Intransitman 2 years ago
Intransitman ... partly because no one's driving an electric car.
Lojikbom 2 years ago
Though it still proves the point, use of an infrastructure isn't being directly charged, it's the type of fuel that's being taxed. You're not driving a gas powered push lawn mower down a road.
Intransitman 2 years ago
Intransitman ... true, but as far as user fees (or taxes as it were) go, gas taxes are about the closest thing to a "good" tax or user fee as it gets.
Although I can't find a good statistic on how much gasoline cars use (as opposed to lawn mowers), I would imagine it's the vast majority. Even if someone were to use gas in their mower, chances are they drove to a gas station to get it.
Lojikbom 2 years ago
That's also the political can of worms.
Intransitman 2 years ago
@Intransitman People with gas powered machines like lawn mowers and other equipment pay gas taxes :(
intercityrailpal 1 year ago
Bullshit! OUr highways were first funded by federal money, from tax dollars out of every American's pocket, regardless if he or she uses the highway system at all. Gas tax itself eventually paid off the tax payer's initial investment.
by78 2 years ago
@by78 Yes, the government spent billions to build an interstate highway system. Because they believed it was a good idea, however people are becoming car dependent, because there are so many cars, the government has to put taxpayer money into roads and wars for oil instead of investing in public transport. I'm sorry but it seems to me there is something wrong with the American government system, as they seem to be getting themselves into deeper sh*t all the time.
ecologist96 1 year ago
@Lojikbom What about the ticket taxes I paid untill 1965 up to 18% in some places. That were spent on roads and airports? We're all grown ups here. So let's be honest. The highways have all kinds of income other than road taxes. People who don't use rail will benefit, less traffic, lower gas prices, safer roads due to less cars. Rail crossings upgraded or removed. Tracks will be safer for dangerous cargo etc.
intercityrailpal 1 year ago
@Lojikbom I guess you don't ride it. You know why there's reservations on the long distance trains? Because years ago, when business hit bottom and turned around. People were standing in the aisles! The demand for service and there's lots of it. Is controlled by time of service and fares. Most of the country because of air and highway lobbys only has a one train a day network. Someplaces it's 3 days a week. 3 days of income with 7 days of costs!
intercityrailpal 1 year ago
@intercityrailpal This way if the train is sold out which happens alot. They just turn the business away. Amtrak will not release the numbers. But they turn away more business than they carry! That's with this downgraded, under sized rail network we have. I think most of the losses on the Cleveland network are the buses with low ridership and expensive oil. Cleveland has problems, but would be worse without the rail they have. The bus system might need to be reduced.
intercityrailpal 1 year ago
@10jimharper Cato & O'Toole are selective liberatarians more leaning towards corporate despotism.
Intransitman 2 years ago
2012! Norfolk, Va. was suckered and Virginia Beach is about to get suckered into a Money pit!
voteDRNO 2 years ago
O'Toole's premise if followed in telecommunications would mean we would only have telephones to communicate with. The concept is a transportation system. Buses working with a light rail backbone with interconnectivity with High speed rail and yes planned development. We better get with it because Europe, and Asia have developed transportation systems with options.
ausborn 2 years ago
Spend, spend, spend. That's all the democrats know how to do. And where will we get the money to pay for these trains? China, of course. This is like a guy who's already in hock up to his eyes borrowing more money because he wants to get a more technologically advanced car. No common sense. No responsibility. I want. I want. I want. Like a child.
jedsil 2 years ago
@jedsil
Oh come on get off the left right blame train will ya??
These rats work together taking turns playing good cop.. bad cop
These pretty trains are not making a dent anywhere across the globe, they are over priced eyewash/candy!
unsheepled 2 years ago
@jedsil There are plenty of big government Republicans too.
Intransitman 2 years ago
You market fundamentalists make me sick.
diapasonify 2 years ago
ROFL! Too IGNORANT to make the distinction between high speed rail and light rail!!!!!!!!
Ignorance and arrogance, the cocktail intoxicating America :)
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE ; The US, the new USSR!!
ericmarseille2 2 years ago 6
@ericmarseille2 No it's not ignorance, it's deception. This guy knows fully well what he's saying, he's hoping you don't know or notice his bait and switch or notice that he's a complete liar, crazy, oil paid, bullshit, SOB.
DaaYay 1 year ago
Light Rail is NOT High Speed Rail. This interview is very misleading. O'Toole is from the Cato Institute which receives contributions from Chevron and Exxon Mobile, what do you expect him to say.
Buses sevice is great IN THE CITY, but cannot replace a train at high speed across a state. How can he say buses are cheaper to operate. They consume Diesel, High Speed Rail is 100% Electric. Add a renewable source and it's Clean. It's fast, Buses add to traffic on roads creating more pot holes ($).
DaaYay 2 years ago 4
@DaaYay Other than the big oil & automaker money Cato gets. The owner of Fox News Rupert Mudoch was a former board member of the Cato Institute.
Fox News; We talk, you obey!
Intransitman 2 years ago
Stupid Fox news. The plan is to build Hi-speed trains, not regular "in-city" trains. These are for traveling between cities, something to substitute air travel. First it's going to be controlled by the government then will open the door for private competition to join in, just like the telephone-lines last century.
zoalallah 2 years ago
"theres lots of bus drivers making a hundred thousand dollars" ??? where ? on the moon
zeitgeisthero 2 years ago
It's a shame they didn't compare apples to apples. The high-speed rail system in California is not a light rail urban commuter system. They would have been better off comparing the Acela train that runs between DC & New York.
oaklucas 2 years ago
High speed rail is a good idea if you want to get someplace faster and don't like airplanes (for whatever reason), but it's hardly economic stimulus. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking tool. Besides, we need COMPETITION in rail, not just one gov't company in each area or state.
whoo689 2 years ago 2
@whoo689 very true because most people doesn't travel by air, not only because of the high cost of airlines tickets, but people has health issue which would harm them when there flying high in the sky, for example, you have ear infection, you may be nauziated and other health issue. and what worst, in 20 years from now, they may raise up their security standard which mean you would have to strip down Naked, and put your cloths on the tray and run it through the x ray.
sideslide23 1 year ago
Although I don't agree on your first statement, I agree that competition is the best way for a country the size of the USA. The UK has a vast system of rail, and was privatized from British Rail in the 90's
Welwyn22 1 year ago
This dude has a point. I live in Atlanta and the MARTA trains are better than the buses for the simple fact that an accident or traffic jam won't impact rail. This problem can be solve by dedicated, bus only lanes along interstate. If rather than building rail we built bus only lanes on the interstates, we could save cash and alleviate congestion.
ls1z28chris 2 years ago
Atlas Shrugged
darkwhitedirewolf 2 years ago
@darkwhitedirewolf Not even, the guys at Cato selectively push for government where it's convenient for them, like freeways.
Intransitman 2 years ago
The thing is, much of the evidence here is anecdotal, and gleaned from Fox Noise, and furthermore, light rail =/= high-speed, long distance rail. Come on, Cato, you can do better than this.
Plus, transit infrastructure is a necessity, not a luxury. look at cities like New York, Chicago, Tokyo, Moscow, London, Paris, Toronto, on and on, rail is indespensible.
With REAL high speed rail, we'd have a shot at making money on rail. Adam Smith even states that governments should contribute (cont'd)
FortunaFortesJuvat 2 years ago
to public works projects. By saing transit subsidies are unfair, you would need to allow commuter airlines to fail, repeal the Interstate Highway Act, and a host of other programs.
I believe that a public-private partnership could make a high-speed rail system work in places where there is enough population threshold to justify it- not in North Dakota, but Seattle-LA-San Diego, Boston-NY-DC, Chicagoland, and Texas.
FortunaFortesJuvat 2 years ago 2
Actually, if you read any of the things Randal O'Toole has written on rail, you would know that much of what he has to say is NOT anecdotal. That is merely used to persuade viewers.
Yes, this kind of infrastructure is necessary in the cities you listed, but what do they have in common? High population density, which is not the case all across the US. That is the difference between US and Europe, we have suburbs.
gabenovotny 2 years ago
@gabenovotny Europe has suburbs too, though there's nothing anti-suburban with things like suburban trains.
Intransitman 2 years ago
Rail in Europe is good.
Rail in America overall is pretty good, and the fact that we're always stuck in traffic is an illustration of that. It's an easy way to get downtown for a baseball game, but I guess most Americans would rather get stuck in traffic than take public transportation. Their loss.
mitchblatt1dot1com 2 years ago 3
I can't listen while I'm staring at that tie....
032125 2 years ago
I want to ride a train or subway - much faster than a bus.
Bus's get stuck in traffic. Buses and cars get in horrible accidents, and people are injured or die. Buses use gas, which is expensive.
I don't want to drive a car. How can private industry do that? If you guys can think of something, I'll be all for it.
By the way, the Metro rail in Los Angeles is VERY busy. Unfortunately, it hardly goes anywhere....
ltlblugrl 2 years ago
You have every right to ride a train or subway.
But you have no right to force others to pay for your train or subway. That's nothing better than theft.
If fares and ad fees and voluntary contributions totally funded your rail system, I'd have no problem with it.
But the only way most trains and subway systems can function is by being subsidized by people who never use it and would prefer not to pay for it.
Gandhi would never approve of such force.
freesk8 2 years ago 3
@freesk8 Though you have no problem with forcing people to drive? Freedom comes with a price.
Intransitman 2 years ago
Car drivers also have no right to have the general taxpayer subsidize road construction and maintenance. That's why I think that all road expenses should be paid by gas taxes, except for the last few miles in residential areas (which should be paid for by the developers who put in the houses, and maintained by local property taxes) or roads that are amenable to tolls, such as mountain passes and bridges.
We should all pay for our own activities, and not expect to be subsidized by others.
freesk8 2 years ago
So the train can drop you off exactly where you're going? I always assumed you'd have to walk to a station. If people really want to ride trains then the passengers can pay enough money for tickets to justify building the train without government subsidies.
UncommonThinker 2 years ago
Even Europe's giving up on rail. The Iberian Pensula found that planes were cheaper people movers that trains and canceled all of the highspeed rail projects. A better solution is cars that can also use high-speed train tracks for long distance travel. All of the advantage of cars and some of the advantages of trains.
"I will ride the train the day it stops at my house and has space for my grocery shopping". - Me
Kill all the subsidies and let the consumer figure it out.
XCritonX 2 years ago 2
No they didn't. The Barcelona Madrid line opened about two years ago and now has 80% of the travel market share.
A bit of searching led me to discover that a number of projects are still on the go. They are surging ahead, and certainly haven't cancelled the programme.
Gazza2 2 years ago
@XCritonX No such thing has taken place in Europe. BTW the road in front of your home isn't judged on a profit or loss basis for it's existence.
Intransitman 2 years ago
Trains are great for industry, but not for travel.
sniper6081 2 years ago
High speed rail might have some advantages over medium distances (say, 300-500 miles) in highly populated areas since you can just walk on and walk off. Personally, I enjoy riding on trains, too. But I don't claim to know what's most efficient. It's impossible to tell because government pays for almost all of our roads. Who knows what the real cost of our highway system is?
RMMHS4RP 2 years ago
The problem with light-rail supporters is that they DON'T consider what commuters actually want: CONVENIENCE. A car is convenient because you can jump in and go anywhere at any time with no fuss.
Light rail here in Phoenix has one big thing going for it: it bypasses high-traffic zones and goes in a more direct line to many popular destinations. It is faster than driving across town and cheaper than paying for gas.
Light rail CAN work if it's properly designed...but most planners don't.
Calbeck 2 years ago 6
i think its cause we just want so badly to be europe!
hoosherdaddy 2 years ago
another place to put in the body scanners.
ddamico3 2 years ago 4
if people do not see the future of high speed rail they have not paid attention to the rest of the world.
the day will come when oil becomes to expensive for average people and congestion not worth it.high speed rail would work if people could use it.
Fucking buses?your joking right?! guess he never rode a bus then. Subways which are not the best in this country are WAY more efficient than cars.
zoticus1 2 years ago 4
more oversimplification by a 'tard with zero integrity
regresseur 2 years ago
Anyone else see that series premiere of Human Target?
Lmao, they had a brand new $18 billion high speed train and the brakes were faulty.
Great timing.
MooseOfReason 2 years ago
As if Atlas Shrugged wasn't coming true enough already, now there are going to be trains! I know the trains are being supported by the wrong side, but still, it's hard not to chuckle at the parallel.
fullmetalchymist 2 years ago 3
Our rail system is falling apart and has visibly shrunk since its hay day. Until we actually start producing things again, freight will continue to be at low volumes. The rail industry was regulated to death and then nationalized. Our economy provides no incentive for growth but, rather, a steady, rotting decline. Until we are forced off gasoline, people will continue to travel on our congested, 100% taxpayer subsidized highway system in rail unfriendly spread out suburbs.
chuska8383 2 years ago 13
I say ultra-high speed mono-rail is better.
TheAtheistPaladin 2 years ago
John Stossel is awsome, I love him. And O'Toole is great too
a4finger 2 years ago
@a4finger They're both thugs.
Intransitman 2 years ago
Road subsidies only pay for 1% of auto travel?
I find that hard to swallow, given that almost our entire highway sytem is public.
If it's true, though, I just made up my mind on road privatization.
CountArtha 2 years ago 3
I don't trust O'Toole's subsidy numbers.
End all the subsidies and see what is really economical.
Peak oil is here. Airlines and autos are at their peak.
mcgrawtim123 2 years ago
LOL They said: "Fuck the 21st century of turbo jet engines, the miracle of human flight and planes packed full of people traveling at 500mph, on demand, to every major city in the world... Let's go back to the 20th century and travel at half the speed to limited destinations, waste resources, and spread the suck around..."
#facepalm
Friggin sad...
enotdetcelfer 2 years ago
I wondered what happened to Cornell Sanders
ryno99 2 years ago 2
"'We subsidize other transit forms.'"
Which is just an argument from common practice.
I have a better idea.
Don't subsidize any of them. :P
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 2
@Surhotchaperchlorome The road starting at the end of your drive way is subsidized by default, even O'Toole has said;"Highways are there regardless of economic conditions".
Intransitman 2 years ago
As the saying goes: "Government: a bridge to nowhere."
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago 6
lmao!! rail rail rail rail rail
In all seriousness, "Highspeed Rail" is an oxymoron. It's not "highspeed". Japan's rail system is highpeed. China has a highspeed rail system. Germany has a highspeed rail system. The U.S. has no plans for any real highspeed rail.
Pvtjamesryan2 2 years ago