Quote:
Originally Posted by Spocket
I'm all for it right up until we get to the price tag. If the government is in charge of building any high speed rail link between any cities, it's bound to go way over budget. Even if it does come in at $25 billion...that's still $25 BILLION dollars. What in the world would make this so expensive ? Yes, nothing about it is cheap , I understand that but how much could special trains, track, property, and stations possibly cost ?
$25 billion bucks is a lot of money. I would go so far as to call it an excessive amount of cash for what we'd get. It's still slower than a plane so what exactly does $25 billion buy that we need even for convenience sake ?
Yeah, I can hear it all already "You're being negative" , "Why does it always come down to money for some people", and all the usual stuff from the folks who don't care about the cash if something is shiny enough. None of that will actually answer the questions I'm posing though so please, tell me what makes this a good way to spend that much cash. Make-work project ? Is it so "green" that it actually removes pollution from the air ? (Actually , I already know how some people are going to answer that so let me head you off at the pass. If the same people riding this high-speed link took the "regular" train right now for environmental reasons , we wouldn't "need" a high speed line anyway. They don't take the train today because it's faster and cheaper to take a plane or drive themselves. Being "green" takes a back seat to economics and convenience just like it always does)
Sorry guys but somebody has to ask these questions or we just end up with an echo chamber full of nodding heads.
|
Looking at the cost alone isnt really useful. A proper cost analysis would consist of the following:
"What are the costs and benefits of each of the following:"
a) High Speed Rail
b) Upgraded Highways and Airports
c) Doing Nothing
a) and b) both result in capital costs, obviously, but lessen economic inefficiency caused by gridlock. The real question is, if HSR is not built, how much money worth of roads and airports will need to be built in order to accomodate all that travel? And how do you account for costs such as extra cars and planes contributing to people developing asthma (i.e. health care costs)?
c) has no capital cost, but it costs you in economic productivity, and lifestyle in general.
As for the environmental thing, it doesnt really matter whether people care or not. As long as people take the train instead of the plane, the environment will benefit; their motivations for taking the train are irrelevant. The train would conceivably be faster than an airplane in terms of door-to-door travel time (since you dont need to show up 2 hours early to catch a train), so you get to a point where it's more convinient to take a train.
----------------------
In terms of building it, I think it would make most sense to start with a Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal route (obviously the busiest section), and then gradually extend it from each end, until it reaches Windor and Quebec City.
Prev
Hybrid Mode