There are some people who really like passenger trains. They see passenger trains, including some really fast ones, in Europe and Asia and want such in the US. To get those trains, they want big bucks from the US Federal Government.
In the US, NYC is there and spends a lot of money on various public and commons projects. Passenger trains are an example.
We will not build another NYC, and how NYC spends money on trains, etc. does not generalize elsewhere in the US at all well.
For the US, for people, as they travel, for nearly all miles, say, commuting and shopping, to and from school, etc. there are lots of origin-destination pairs. Trains can't serve that many origin-destination pairs. First, can't lay that much track. Second, can't start, accelerate, and stop a 100 ton train with several hundred people just to pickup or let off just 1-4 people at a time, and that is what the many origin-destination pairs would require.
Also on a train, tough to carry all the stuff for shopping -- an SUV is much better. Also on a train, tough to carry all the stuff for a family visit to grandma's, either across the country or even just across town -- an SUV is much better. For a soccer mom with several kids, her own and some neighbors', an SUV is much better than a train for keeping all the kids, their sports equipment, etc. together.
As has been fully clear in the US since the end of WWII, nearly everywhere in the US, passenger trains flop.
Then, now there is another stake through the heart of passenger trains -- the TSA.
In nearly all the US, for nearly all their transportation, people prefer private cars and public roads paid for with gas taxes to trains. Otherwise they prefer airplanes.
Trump wants to do a lot on US infrastructure, but I don't think that will include more on passenger trains.
They are passenger trains. With rare exceptions, passenger trains in the US flop. High speed rail passenger trains will also flop.
It's simple: Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, in the US, with rare exceptions, passenger trains flop.
For passengers, too many of the reasons for the flop also hold for high speed trains, maglev trains, trains in vacuum tubes, trains above ground on long legs, trains underground, trains on old style rails, small trains, long trains, trains through big cities, trains between pairs of big cities, trains in areas such as the Rust Belt. They all flop.
Why? They are not very attractive to the passengers who too often would rather take their personal SUV or an airplane. They cost too much per passenger served.
Sorry 'bout that.
I've explained here over and over, long and short.
There are people now who just came out of the woodwork again, once more, as off and on going back at least to 1950 or so, and are pushing passenger trains in the US -- high speed, in tubes, on magnetic rails, on traditional tracks, between cities, through cities, in selected areas, say, the Midwest Rust Belt, between selected pairs of cities, e.g., LA and SF, etc. They are all trains. In the US, they will lose big bucks. The only way to build or operate them is to use the tax system to force people to pay for them.
So, now the people who want trains, and their Federal $$$$$ subsidies, see Trump's infrastructure push, smell $$$$$, are out of the woodwork, and are pushing passenger trains. One of the last things pushed was Solyndra. Before that it was blocking CFCs and ruining the AC in two of my cars. Before that it was blocking DDT and, thus, increasing a lot of disease from mosquitoes -- killed a lot of people.
There are some people who view their careers as selling projects. They come up with a long list of emotional reasons, get a lot of publicity, get donations, lobby for Federal subsidies, and that's their job. They just want to sell their projects. They want to be on your back and in your pocket. They want to use the legal and tax system to force you to do what otherwise you would not do. They use NYC and SF as big examples, but those examples don't apply elsewhere in the US. The examples from Europe, Japan, and China don't apply in the US.
Again, again, again, again, the US had passenger trains, from each little cross road to each other little cross road. After WWII, private cars on roads paid for by gas taxes killed the passenger trains for a really simple reason: People didn't like passenger trains and preferred their cars or airplanes. That's just the truth.
Why did people not like passenger trains? I've explained here over and over and over, short, long, medium, etc.
In simple, blunt, bottom line terms, for nearly all of the current US or anything like it, passenger trains are just total junk engineering ideas -- junk. The trains try to force a lot of people to share some one track, but in fact in reality nearly none of those people want to be on that track because it isn't close to where they started or where they want to be.
Again, once again, it doesn't matter how fast the trains are because even if the high speed trains were infinitely fast, they would still flop because they just can't serve enough origin-destination pairs. People would waste time waiting for the first train, waste time for each stop of that train (to stop and start a 100 ton train is EXPENSIVE), and waste time between each change of trains, and still usually they wouldn't really get within even a mile of where the heck they wanted to go. Due to all the time stopping, the revenue per hour for the train is too darned small.
Look, passenger trains are just some pie in the sky, some emotional appeal, to force you to buy something you don't want. The people forcing you are after your money.
I can see it now: Trump wants some infrastructure plan and tries to get it through Congress. Yup, I-84 and I-684 are really rough and need new surfaces; I-84 likely needs more lanes.
So, some train lobbying effort gets to some Congressman and explains how the train subsidies will help his campaign finances and jobs and votes in his district. So, as part of legislative compromise, (that's where you should either not cross the street then or run as fast as you can to cross the street but compromise and walk across slowly) the Congressman goes along with Trump's proposal but only if the proposal includes some train pork for the Congressman and his district. That's not new. As part of this, the lobbying effort understands, as they have for may other projects, e.g., CFCs and DDT, that they need a big PR effort to get the public ready for the tax dollars for these trains.
Here's an example of how this works: Most Congressmen are desperate for campaign funds. Well, there is Speaker of the House Paul Ryan. For the Republicans to elect him to that position, part of his job is to raise money for the campaigns of Republican Congressmen. Ryan is expected to raise ballpark $30 million a year. So, when see what Ryan does, e.g., dragging his feet here and there, making one absurd statement after another, here's what he is really doing: He is adding PR his donors like, the donors who provide the $30 million. So, he is at least pretending to push the interests of those donors. So, Ryan won't even pick up a pencil with less than six weeks of posturing about writing instruments. It's all 99 44/100% total BS, but that's how he gets his $30 million. Then, after a lot of such PR posturing and total BS, nonsense statements, with a lot of public support to do the right things, with a lot of poorly publicized deals, out of the view of the headlines, then, often, maybe, Ryan will be able to do the right, obvious thing he knew about right away at the beginning. That's much of why often it takes Congress so long to act. It's the effect of money on politics as we know far too well.
There is a solution, a really fast, overwhelmingly powerful, never fail, 900 pound gorilla solution: Inform the citizens and have them inform their representatives in Congress. Without fail, when enough phone calls and letters arrive in Congress to say that high speed rail is a scam, that will be the end of high speed rail, and no amount of special interest lobbying and campaign donations, free trips to Aruba, etc. will have any effect at all.
And, how to inform citizens? Sure, now, the Internet, e.g., HN. Why am I doing this? Good government. I'm not being paid. I'm taking my time, getting down voted, etc. to shine a bright light on the scam.
Since 99+% of HN readers should agree with me, I should win. So far, I'm losing.
Gee, high speed rail is just so dreamy!!!
Here I'm calling BS, flim-flam, fraud, pork barrel, money wasting, subsidy, pay-off, kick-back, force you to buy something you don't want scam. I don't like scams. Fewer than 1% of US citizens should like it. Wise up: You are being had.
Such scams have happened too often in the past. Maybe with the Internet, we can cut down on the scams.
Recall the recent Sharyl Attkisson book and statement: IIRC, "Essentially everything you read in the media was put there by someone with a special interest who wants to influence your opinion." So, these scams via the media are not just the exceptions but the rule, the usual thing. Sure, in the media, we recognize the ads except Sharyl Attkisson is saying that essentially all the rest is also ads.
Well, here I'm not running ads. I've explained the passenger rail scam. If you can't understand, then that's sad for our country.
Again: can you make this more concise? I really tuned out when I saw this wall of text, and I didn't see my question answered in the first sentence or two before you went into your exposition (in fact, it seems you ignored my question).
I was astoundingly "concise" and answered your specific question in my first, short sentence:
You asked
> Are you suggesting that a metro system, like MTA or BART, is the same as a high speed rail? They serve fundamentally different purposes.
and my answer started with
> They are passenger trains.
That's the answer directly to your question, in the first sentence and just four words. So, the answer is right there, right up front, the first thing, nicely "concise", in just four words.
Apparently you did not see those four words as answering your question. Well, then, my four word answer was too "concise". So, I went on with what you call a "wall of text" and explained just why being a "passenger train" is the problem, different "purposes" or not, fast or slow, long or short, etc. The answer to your question is right there, short, concise, right at the beginning, in just four words and, then, if that is too short, with lots of detail.
I typed it in. All you have to do is read it. If the four word answer is too "concise", then read the "wall of text".
You're calling rail a scam (a system that works marvelously in Europe and Japan for example) and saying that the "rail industry" is out for your tax dollars, but.... did you forget about the massive highway construction industry and automotive industry?
My view is that the auto industry has long and usually paid for itself as people buy cars (there was the 2008 bailout). For the highways, my understanding is that the Federally funded ones are paid for from the Highway Trust Fund which gets the Federal part of gasoline taxes. IIRC (I don't have good data) is that that fund is a favorite for raiding for money for other projects, maybe even trains.
So, I don't see cars as a scam. Passenger trains? Yes. Cars? No.
