The Obama Administration is planing on seeking funding for a $53 Billion high speed railroad project.
$53 Billion to Build High-Speed Rail Networks
Having visited Europe several times I personally believe a national high speed railroad is long over due. I was just wondering where everyone else stood on this topic: Will it provide the same benefits that it does in Europe? Will it get funding when in a period of spending cuts? etc.
| +50 | Interviews Are So Fake | 33 | 4h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 1d | |
| +29 | ADHD ! | 13 | 2h | |
| +28 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 2d | |
| +26 | Non-Competes Banned | 30 | 6s | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 22h | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 2d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 2d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
I think high speed rail has some potential here in the US. But you have to look at why it works so well in Europe: Many very large cities but none extremely far away from the other. Will we see a line running from New York to LA right away? Probably not. But I think it could start out in the midwest or along the east coast and branch out from there.
I would love to see a high speed rail network but I agree, the US has cities far apart... not like that is stopping China but our two countries are in very different situations. Its amazing to see the administration calling for these big spending binges and then declaring they will cut the deficit down... what a joke. I do think we need high speed rail but the government is in absolutely no position to pay for it right now... cut some entitlements first and make real progress on cutting the deficit, then come back with these new "investment" cough spending plans.
Just because you can, doesnt mean you should...
China is building all this shit to keep people busy and growth going up. We already have a high speed rail called the Acela. East coast is only feasible area for a HSR. This is Obama pipedreaming. We need better roads, bridges and tunnels.
Just because Europe has something doesn't mean we need it. Between the east coast and west coast you have Chcago and Texas, everything else is a small city. Out country is bigger than all of Europe to put things in perspective. Europeans also don't have the roads that we have.
HSR is a gimmick and moronic considering our economic enviroent.
Europe also has a much higher population density. Although, a high speed railroad would make my own life a hell of a lot easier. I really hope this idea is economically feasible for Long Island.
Gotta agree with ANT, before we spend cash we don't have on something w don't really need, we should focus on infrastructure.
An eastern seaboard high-speed line is really all we need, maybe a link between NY and Chicago as well. None of this Acela crap though. Unless trains are going 180mph you can't be calling it "high-speed."
I would rather have a high speed rail than another addition onto O'hare so more flights can get delayed
sb for the post kahuna. "Just because you can doesn't mean you should"
Maybe things have not been done perfectly with bringing the economy back on line but continuing to shove programs into the pipeline and show two faces on the important topic of budget is inefficient. Rather allow the shit to drain through the pipeline, then start pumping water again.
Obama says he wants to give 80% of Americans access to high-speed rails. It would be impossible to build in a cost-efficient way - just look to the underground rail b/w NY & NJ. They can build this in China b/c the people actually building the rails are getting paid garbage - while the cost of employing union workers to do this in America would be astronomical.
Where is the high speed rail going to be? The Northeast is the only place that high speed rail makes sense. America is far to spread out for high speed rail; 80 percent of Americans commute less than 40 miles everyday to work. There simply isn't the demand for it.
And how much will it cost for a one way trip? A train trip from NJ to Massachussetts already costs more than a flight.
Obama is grasping and these man on the moon ideas. We need sensible budget cuts and tax reductions. Remove the shackles from those who grow the economy.
I'm with ANT on this one. Although Europe is technically larger than the US, it's barely larger and Europe has a population density more than twice what America has...which makes HSR more feasible. So ultimately you are talking about twice as many people in just as much space, and as other posters have pointed out, many more highly populated cities within close proximity to one another and that lends itself to mass transportation.
Regards
I don't see what is stopping us from starting construction right now. How long could it really take to print $53 billion dollars? They could even start before they printed the money if they were really serious about it.
I find it hard to believe it only cost $53B to provide access to 80% of Americans. I agree with GoodBread. I think it only makes sense to build an eastern seaboard line. Obviously its much more feasible to start small and see how efficient it is. No ones going to pay the extra money to take a high speed line from say Indianapolis to St Louis or San Antonio to Dallas.
That being said, I think now is a good time to take on a massive infrastructure project. Regardless of what the deficit hawks say, money is cheap right now and we could use the jobs. Plus the US infrastructure is falling behind. Whatever happened to the good old American massive innovative infrastructure project?
will warren buffet make some $$ off this with his new rail road assets?
Infrastructure I agree with, but it should still be roads. Fixing all the roads, bridges, and sewer systems alone across the US should give us enough jobs- and actual, useable infrastructure- to keep Democrats happy for a decade.
Second, even though rail in China is probably heavily subsidized, it's worth it. In two hours at 200 kmh, you can go along the Shanghai-Nanjing corridor- 40 million people. Those rail-cars are packed.
Good to see another Hokie. But I'm going to have to disagree with this push for high speed rail. Many of the states are effectively bankrupt, but will be forced to pick up the costs to service and maintain the rail lines. Ohio and Michigan, for example, both rejected billions of "free" federal dollars because there's no money to service the finished lines and, in many cases, no real need for high speed rail. The United States has to be one of the least densely populated countries in the developed world. Highways economically service the needs of the vast majority of the nation's geography.
We should definitely fix and upgrade our existing infrastructure, including highways, airports and power lines, before doing high speed rail. But that being said, there are plenty of places where HSR can have great potential, like the corridor from Boston to DC, or from San Francisco to LA. But it doesn't have to be all taxpayer money--public/private partnerships have been pretty successful for decades. We cannot remain the greatest nation on earth if we can't get anywhere.
High speed rail would be great for the US, that said, we need to be very careful and considerate about where to put lines --- as they're fucking expensive.
As far as I see it there are two places high speed rail could work well in the US (1) the northeast, connecting boston, DC, NY, etc. and (2) California, connecting LA, SF, etc.
I was interested in this when I heard about the proposed Chicago to St. Louis line because I love gambling trips to St. Louis. After hearing that the HSR could still make the trip 4+ hours (the drive is ~5) and it would cost Billions, I realized that this is a complete waste.
If Chicago to St Louis is 4+ hours how long would Chicago to NY be? Definitely not worth paying to take that train, I'd choose to fly.
This is the thing for me. I like the IDEA of HSR but I'm not too confident in the execution. A 3 hour trip to DC from NYC or something like that would be fucking incredible but it obviously isn't feasible at this point. I just wish we could stop throwing money at everything like that'll fix it.
A regular Amtrak train from DC to NY is around 3.5 hours as it is, and it travels at 110 mph and stops around 10 times. With a HSR line from DC to NY with trains traveling at 200 MPH, it would take a little over 1 hour to go from DC to NY.
HSR would be awesome in the Northeast but I don't know if it would be cost effective.
how obama even gets by in terms of his domestic budget is beyond me, all the man does is spend.
Michelle must do the bills at home, maybe he should give her the reigns for the country too.
I think Pfalzer hit the nail on the head with getting private companies involved, if job growth is what this is all about, the private sector needs to be where this shit comes from.
That being said, do you guys think this is even possible on the private level? Without government sponsorship, is this the sort of thing remotely viable financially? Would love to hear your thoughts guys.
Also, having lived in Europe, the train system really is awesome. As a native San Franciscan, I think a San Diego-LA-SF-Portland-Seattle-Vancouver line would be really fucking cool.
giving the fact that no private business has suggested something even remotely likely to Obama's HSR plan in the last few decades, we can tell just how successful this venture will be. Maybe if jet fuel prices sky rocket and there are some major improvements to HSR. Or maybe not.
lol where does he get his ideas?
Amtrak is government backed/owned and they are always losing money. Why do people think this will be any different. I go to NYC almost every other weekend from Philadelphia. I could pay 30-50 on Amtrak or 10 on a bus.
High speed trains sound cool, but where are we going to put them? How are we going to get the right of way for all this new track. The NE is highly populated. Are we going to have 200 MPH trains going through residential zones?
This is going to create jobs? Only thing this will create is debt and cost overruns.
I'm no expert but am I the only one that thinks 53B is a bit low?
I like the idea of HSR in the Northeast but not sure how practical or necessary it would be to connect 80% of America.
The federal government gave Florida $800MM in stimulus grants to build a high speed rail line that would run between Tampa and Orlando. While proponents see this as "free" mass transit from Uncle Sam, they often overlook the immense fixed costs that comes with operating a high speed rail system. The project will most likely go over budget and the state will get saddled with the operating expenses once the stimulus money dries up.
It doesn't stop there. Before construction on the line even started, Tampa tried to enact a $0.01 sales tax to finance the line, which was handily voted down last November (thank god).
One could even argue that the government insidiously gave the money to ensure that Florida will continue turning to the federal government for grants and favors to minimize the net loss from the rail system. Nothing good from pushing these high speed rail projects where they are not economically feasible.
Also, an interesting tidbit, there are only two high-speed rail lines that are profitable: Paris-Nice and Tokyo Nagoya.
The article actually says that those lines have broken even. Other lines turn an operating profit, including Acela. Plus, other means of transportation are bound to get more expensive as fuel costs rise. I'm not saying that HSR is a great project but let's keep a cool head here.
Also, the argument that Europe is more densely populated than America is only true in aggregate. NY-DC is more populated than the south of Spain.
True, that Florida high speed rail line was never going to work anyway, federal funding or no. I remember reading somewhere that it didn't run to either of the airports, which is obviously pretty stupid. Also, it doesn't even appreciably cut down on travel time or compete effectively with other forms of transit. It's all about location; enough people have to be able and willing to use it.
As far as the Northeast being very dense and all, one of the problems that Acela ran into is that the tracks make so many turns that it dramatically cuts down on speed, so it hardly gets up to full speed anyway. It might be necessary to find a way to lay down new track so the system can reach full potential. Again, bringing in the private sector is the way to go here--there has to be a way to make it all work.
Having grown up in CT, gone to school in Philly and worked in NYC I can say that I am very familiar with the various travel options and I RARELY use amtrak because its freaking expensive. Bolt bus costs a cool $10 average, compared to $45 on amtrak. So now Obama wants to spend (a lot more than 53B) on a rail system which will face all sorts of state problems, probably never even get 1/4 of the way done, or even if it does get constructed will end up costing way more than other forms of transportation, fuck me what a dumb idea.
The truth of the matter is, here in the US we use roads, we drive, we take buses and occasionally fly when its time sensitive or is far away. I agree with the improve our roads/tunnels/bridges, stop spending money on something that has an almost impossible shot to succeed.
If this was introduced during a surplus year (yea remember those actually existed once upon a time), I would still say its a moronic idea destine to fail. Given the current situation of US debt level coupled with the governments (on both sides of the party line mind you) reluctance to touch entitlements with a 10 foot pole which just so happen to make up well over 50% of the entire gov budget, it is absolutely reckless and dangerous (not to mention makes my head hurt so bad just thinking about it).
Fuck Obama, you are pissing me off again.
It's a good idea, but seriously, wouldn't have been nice if we spent the "stimulus" on actually useful projects like this one?
Here's an idea for Obama, stop spending money you don't have.
.
My mistake. I grabbed the quote from here (in bold):
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/006256.html
I read this one a few months back and linked to it w/o re-reading it.
Long story short, HSR is maybe a good idea, in the distant future. Right now it is silly and a waste. Obama needs to focus on more important crap. Bolt bus costs 10 bucks. Your going to have to compete with that. HSR will be another drain on the federal budget. How about pushing for the whole country to get high speed Internet first. Or fund that tunnel from NJ to NYC.
We really need to stop spending money left and right. I realize the economy is fragile right now, but government spending isn't going to save us. We need the private sector to increase hiring and they will only do that when people start spending again. That is going to take a little time.
I think sooner or later we will have a major high-speed rail system. Route selection is obviously paramount and should concentrate on covering only the longest distances between the largest hubs. Then they could just try to utilize conventional rail systems already in place, or other forms of transportation to reach outlying cities which are relatively near the few major hubs.
Possible layout? http://i53.tinypic.com/ritcue.jpg
Not a bad layout, but I saw we screw Phoenix and San Diego and go straight to L.A. through Vegas.
For those of you who wanted to know where the money was going, good map with preliminary allocations in the online Journal today: (I'm not sure if it's behind the paywall)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487043640045761320919512424…
Politically this is him giving a layup bargaining chip to the right. He's conceded in his own mind that he's going to give in on a lot of things that they want to reduce, but both sides have to look like theyre getting something out of the reforms. He's going to let Republicans concede on this in exchange for things he can tolerate.
Full disclosure: I use amtrak all the time so this would benefit me. I'm usually against the government playing venture capitalist in things that will surely lose money, but I won't mind the plan if they show tremendous discipline cutting back defense/medicare/Social Security liabilities. Of course, doing this makes it harder to sell people that they are getting less money in medicare, but it would be more tolerable from my (young working bodied) perspective.
And for those of you talking about infrastructure.. this IS infrastructure. Its laying the groundwork for them to come back with another plan in 10-15 years asking to connect the routes. Its beyond expensive, but so was the highway system that has paid dividends for decades. If you can do New York to miami or Chicago in 5 hours by rail, even at rates comparable to quicker airfare, the convenience will increase ridership and build up the areas inbetween. Ditto Vegas/LA/San Fran and the Chicago hub.
We defintely don't need to go replacing the existing rails for the "connector routes" (Chicago to LA) anytime soon, but if they find the money cutting from somewhere else this limited scope could be palatable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487043640045761320919512424…
[quote=HedgeMonkey]Politically this is him giving a layup bargaining chip to the right. He's conceded in his own mind that he's going to give in on a lot of things that they want to reduce, but both sides have to look like theyre getting something out of the reforms. He's going to let Republicans concede on this in exchange for things he can tolerate.
Full disclosure: I use amtrak all the time so this would benefit me. I'm usually against the government playing venture capitalist in things that will surely lose money, but I won't mind the plan if they show tremendous discipline cutting back defense/medicare/Social Security liabilities. Of course, doing this makes it harder to sell people that they are getting less money in medicare, but it would be more tolerable from my (young working bodied) perspective.
And for those of you talking about infrastructure.. this IS infrastructure. Its laying the groundwork for them to come back with another plan in 10-15 years asking to connect the routes. Its beyond expensive, but so was the highway system that has paid dividends for decades. If you can do New York to miami or Chicago in 5 hours by rail, even at rates comparable to quicker airfare, the convenience will increase ridership and build up the areas inbetween. Ditto Vegas/LA/San Fran and the Chicago hub.
We defintely don't need to go replacing the existing rails for the "connector routes" (Chicago to LA) anytime soon, but if they find the money cutting from somewhere else this limited scope could be palatable.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487043640045761320919512424…]
How does a train speeding by your town at 200mph build it up? In order for this to have any impact on your community you would have to have a train station and requisite population to support the need to make that train stop, thus delaying the arrival at the final destination which increases the travel time and ultimately the opportunity cost of taking the train vs. flying.
I think a HSR program is great in theory but in reality, the execution and management will be horrendously expensive and I don't think the ridership will be significant enough amongst the vacationers and the travel time won't be good enough for most people traveling on business.
Regards
This country does not need a high speed train. The logistics are impossible. How are we going to get right of way through NJ, NY, PA, etc. These are highly populated areas. The reason why the Acela sucks is because it is using freight tracks, going through grade level crossings. The train basically banks into turns which allows it to go faster than normal trains.
Why the hell would we need an across the country train? Fly if you want to go to LA. Zero reason to take a train that distance.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/High_Speed_Rail_Map_…
Outside of a few Western European countries, the majority of rail travel is going less than 125 MPH. I would imagine those trains go about the equivalent of Amtrak speed. The rest is countries using HSR to travel between major cities within those countries. This makes perfect sense. The rule of thumb is between 2-3 hours by plane, rail is optimal. Well this is the distance of many European capitals. Why? Because individual countries in Europe are the size of states here.
Only area that needs HSR is the North East. Acela needs to be upgraded.
Everyone also fails to mention the fact that outside of the NE, Amtrak doesn't own the track. All the private, shipping companies own the track.
High Speed Rail is cool, no doubt. Just because something is cool does not mean we need it. It will take forever to even get going, tons and tons of cost over runs and by the time it even starts getting built we will be in another recession.
I could rant forever. The whole idea of a HSR is to connect cities and provide increased mobility. Minneapolis does not need to be mobile. The NE needs mobility. These smaller cities have airports. What we need is improved roads, more bridges and tunnels, expanded and improved subways, CNG city buses, etc. People need to live in more urban environments.
Obama and Biden are complete morons for even bringing this up. Obama needs to be focused on kissing big businesses ass so they will open the flood gates on that cash and hire Americans. Government employment does not save the day. Every government employee hired is another bucket of water in a sinking ship.
GM went bankrupt because of pension and healthcare obligations, you would think the government would take the hint.
Post office is losing money, Amtrak is losing money, the budget is hemorrhaging. Why the hell would we want the government to start a project like this.
OMG, I just looked at the WSJ map. High Speed Rail to BUFFALO >????!!!!
I've spent a lot of time there, no one goes there and people generally don't come out of Buffalo. WTF are we building a train there?
Philly to Pittsburgh?? Moronic
LA to Vegas??
Texas is the only state I can agree with. They are home to a number of large cities, lots of open land, favorable weather and a strong power grid.
Birmingham Alabama?
Boys and Girls, this is what happens when you elect a moron that parrots "hope" over and over again. We should have elected one of those dolls with the string in the back.
Philly to Pittsburgh is to setup the eventual NY Chicago route, no other reason. LA/Vegas is at least a popular travel route (and also would benefit Harry Reid and constituents, obviously).
The Buffalo line is inexcusable, except you can bet Chuck Schumer has his hands in that (I've personally seen him on the Acela quite a few times so make what you will).
The line to the south serves to connect texas to the Northeast and be a 'we're sorry for screwing up Katrina" present to New Orleans. That long distance line should be the bottom of the totem poll.
But high traffic routes (NE corridor, Cali coastline, LA/vegas, Dallas Hub, Chicago Hub) are less idiotic.
Again, it all comes down to finding the money. If you're telling me we're going from spending as much on defense as the next 9 countries combined to the next 6 combined and using some of the leftover to fund this, I can live with it. If you're going to raise the retirement age by 1 month every two years and do tort reform, I can live with it. As an stand alone, its not worth the money.
Zero reason to take a train from NYC to Chicago. That distance, with the stops and issues involved, flying will still be better. Straight line is optimal.
LA--> Vegas is strictly for vacation purposes. Once again, fly or bus. No need to spend tax dollars to facilitate that. This is supposed to be about infrastructure, moving people, being green, etc.
High traffic areas might make sense, but they are incredibly infeasible. Texas, like i said, is the only one with a reasonable chance.
I have no issues with reducing defense spending. Doing it to piss the money away on this stupidity is ridiculous. One could argue that defense spending does a lot to simulate the economy. All the money is spend on American contractors and flows back to this country. Some of the largest DoD contractors are Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. These employ a ton of Americans. Hence the military-industrial complex.
High Speed Rail is a waste of money. No wonder Obama is pushing it. His dream is to bankrupt this nation and make it like a toilet. Sooner he goes back to that shit hole called Chicago we will be better off.
Non repellendus quidem veniam suscipit deserunt est. Illo veritatis delectus dolorem et distinctio. Consequatur quas voluptas beatae cum. Ut sapiente enim consequatur pariatur accusantium. Dolores impedit quia est dolor incidunt aut pariatur. Asperiores porro voluptate molestiae ex. Est laborum ducimus enim animi perferendis sequi in voluptatibus. Dolorum magni non blanditiis ab sed dicta.
Molestiae consequuntur quos necessitatibus quam unde. Assumenda provident repellendus modi eos aut iste similique. Quos voluptas mollitia et nihil modi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Libero impedit eaque eos velit qui. Consequatur explicabo nihil quibusdam consectetur enim rem. Natus rerum quos est quasi consequatur est. Molestiae laborum tempore ut ea tenetur quos veritatis. Distinctio enim et et quis ut rerum. Blanditiis optio et dolorem explicabo.
Animi voluptatem ut corporis aliquam quibusdam vel est. Qui aut ut temporibus sed corrupti qui autem. Sequi aliquam fugit quisquam sit sit.
Labore eius eligendi et omnis voluptas qui. Non enim iste quia voluptatem. Officia sed hic sint ut quia necessitatibus delectus. Minus doloremque dicta atque non unde. Eveniet dicta fugit molestias quas.
Velit dolorem aut eos asperiores. Sapiente perferendis ea suscipit explicabo dolor excepturi. Qui ut voluptatem amet in. Aut quo rerum consequatur omnis animi. Mollitia iure voluptatem iusto vel nisi dolor officiis. Eos sed facere voluptatibus hic qui fuga. Sed aliquam voluptatibus rerum aperiam minus eligendi vel.
Consequatur non omnis totam et ducimus sed error. Voluptas nihil nesciunt et quos. Suscipit placeat culpa rerum eos libero quidem maxime.