CNN: "U.S. high-speed rail 'myths' debunked"

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
SCrails said:
Highways and other modes of transportation, like the airlines, are heavily subsidized, too."

Expert response: Not true
Click to expand...
OK, where exactly are all these American highways, who's construction and maintenance is not ever subsidized by our taxes? :angry:
 
That's a gross misrepresentation of what was said there.

"Not True" refers to the original comment:

"There are NO high speed rail projects in the world that are profitable. None. They are all taxpayer/government subsidized." -- CNN.com user "aksdad"
Click to expand...
The expert response in full:

Expert response: Not true
Reps. John Mica, R-Florida, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pennsylvania, chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials: "While many high-speed rail systems in the world rely on a government subsidy, this in no way means that rail operations cannot be profitable.
Click to expand...
 
I'm surprised that the congressmen listed are considered "experts", apparently all you need to do to be an "expert" anymore is be a politician.
 
ALC_Rail_Writer said:
I'm surprised that the congressmen listed are considered "experts", apparently all you need to do to be an "expert" anymore is be a politician.
Click to expand...
I was taken aback at that, also. But I liked two things about the article: 1) it documents a more reasoned conversation about rail; and 2) two Republican legislators contributed who aren't virulently anti-rail.
 
Ryan said:
That's a gross misrepresentation of what was said there.
Click to expand...
No, I quoted it in exact order it appeared. No misrepresentation was made at all, let alone gross.

I quoted the statement about other subsidies, and then entire Expert Response paragraph (short as it was) that immediately followed it. I think that any one reading that article, would clearly take such a strong rebuttal, to reflect against the statement made that was just made.
 
I don't think the article is quite as bad as you guys are all implying. While the organization with the typesetting and all could be improved, I actually think it's a pretty reasonable article. Hopefully, since it's on a mainstream not-Fox news network, more people will realize that HSR isn't the white-elephant boondoggle politicians and anti-rail jerks like to lead us to believe.

(I REALLY need to memorize my password for this site :p )
 
It's clearly what was meant. The article featured several "expert responses" to a single user submitted comment.

You excerpted a part of the "expert response", if you read the whole thing it's bleedingly obvious that it's not talking about highway subsidies.
 
Tony said:
Ryan said:
That's a gross misrepresentation of what was said there.
Click to expand...
No, I quoted it in exact order it appeared. No misrepresentation was made at all, let alone gross.

I quoted the statement about other subsidies, and then entire Expert Response paragraph (short as it was) that immediately followed it. I think that any one reading that article, would clearly take such a strong rebuttal, to reflect against the statement made that was just made.
Click to expand...
So from your comment above it appears that you still don't understand the somewhat confusing and odd structure of the article. The entire quote carrying the full context for that piece that you quoted would be:

Profitable? [My comment: This is the overall context]

Comment: "There are NO high speed rail projects in the world that are profitable. None. They are all taxpayer/government subsidized." -- CNN.com user "aksdad" [My comment: This is what CNN.com user commented]

Expert response: 'Not necessarily true' [My comment: Expert Response #1 to the CNN.com reader Comment above]

Robert Puentes at the Brookings Institution: "The Acela Express, Amtrak's high speed rail service along the Northeast corridor, has shown a positive return from its New York-to-D.C. route."

Highways, airlines: "And it's not fair to just point the finger at high speed rail. Highways and other modes of transportation, like the airlines, are heavily subsidized, too."

Expert response: Not true [My comment: Expert Response #2 to the CNN.com reader Comment above]

Reps. John Mica, R-Florida, chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pennsylvania, chairman of the Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials: "While many high-speed rail systems in the world rely on a government subsidy, this in no way means that rail operations cannot be profitable.

Other nations: "Private rail operators in Great Britain, such as South West Transport and Virgin Rail, compete for franchise intercity rail service contracts and regularly generate a profit. Rail routes in Japan and France turn a profit."

Private sector: "Rather than relying on the federal government and Amtrak to operate profitable passenger rail, we must put the focus on the private sector to develop and operate self-sustaining, profitable passenger rail in parts of the country where it makes sense."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a really noobish article; meaning that it doesn't touch on the really important points and it wrote the article in a way that makes it confusing to a reader that doesn't know about HSR.

Some arguements they left out:

People won't ride trains.

People won't ride trains unless the project is super expensive

People won't ride conventional speed trains

People won't want to pay for true HSR

Intercity rail won't work until there are feeder lines in the cities and suburbs.

Intracity rail is more important than Intercity rail

Amtrak can't be the provider of true HSR

The whole "Population density" argument...

Funding such a line or system is a political nightmare.

People confusing metric with imperial when referencing the speed of high speed trains around the world.

People overestimating the extent of foreign HSR networks and which countries have them.

HSR isn't as environmentally friendly as conventional speed rail.

Intercity rail isn't useful to most people as Intracity rail is.

We don't have the money to build an Intercity rail network.

Trains are an outdated 19th century technology.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
George Harris said:
Globalist, I hope you do not believe any of those nonsensical arguements you just listed.
Click to expand...
I don't. I listed them and recommended they be featured because there are people who believe those arguments.
mosking.gif
ohmy.gif
help.gif
 
Here's a link to a commentary from U.S. Representative Louise Slaughter (from New York State) about high-speed trains. This was in the May 9th Syracuse Post-Standard.

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2011/05/mondays_commentary_rep_louise.html

And a link to the editorial that appeared in that paper on April 26th. Representative Slaughter mentioned this editorial in her commentary.

http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2011/04/high-speed_rail_albany_should.html

I don't know if the Post-Standard puts things in an archive that requires payment to access the pieces after a period of time. For now, however, the links should work without any problem.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top