Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nudgetravel t1_jb6iobe wrote

Reply to comment by MeEvilBob in Every Sunday evening after a nice weekend... by MarkusAureliusDecim

"at over 100mph"

talk about setting a low bar. 186 is the average top speed in Europe. also these barely used railroad tracks are almost certainly not rated for safe operation of HSR

0

MeEvilBob t1_jb91s3o wrote

Why is it that every time someone has a problem with HSR, their go-to argument is that the tracks won't be upgraded at all, as though the way HSR works is to just put a fast train on any regular tracks.

1

nudgetravel t1_jb9g7nw wrote

Why is it that every time someone argues for HSR in the US, they fail to properly account for the actual cost to construct and maintain the service in the budget? Why is it always "Save Amtrak" and not encourage more competition? Why do people get mad when I say that rail and highways should exist without subsidies and that fare prices should reflect realistic revenue + advertising and real estate leases like any other business?

0

MeEvilBob t1_jb9hpq8 wrote

> Why do people get mad when I say that rail and highways should exist without subsidies and that fare prices should reflect realistic revenue

Why didn't you say that then instead of implying that HSR can't work in NH simply because the existing freight tracks are only currently maintained to support freight?

2

nudgetravel t1_jb9nsn2 wrote

The existence of freight tracks has nothing to do with the potential for HSR, particularly in a sparsely populated part of the state. They're going to have to lay down new rail without grade crossings anyway if it were ever to be built.

1

MeEvilBob t1_jb9ou94 wrote

>They're going to have to lay down new rail without grade crossings anyway if it were ever to be built.

See, there's my point, why is it that any time it's mentioned that efficient reliable passenger service isn't completely impossible someone always has to assume that the idea is to do it with absolutely zero upgrades to existing infrastructure?

The railroad corridor between Boston, Nashua, Manchester and Concord used to carry the bulk of the passenger service between Boston and Montreal (before the Northern Line was abandoned). It's not like this is a windy old spur to a mine we're talking about, 100 years ago this route carried all of what I-93 carries today.

I also think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the I-93 corridor between Concord and Manchester as well as the Everett Turnpike corridor between Manchester and Nashua is "sparsely populated".

Then there's the whole aspect of that you're the one saying HSR, I just said passenger rail. The MBTA runs over 100mph on one of their lines using standard commuter rail equipment.

1

nudgetravel t1_jb9wd6q wrote

I-93 and whatever future rail may exist should be privatized and not use eminent domain or taxes for their construction or operation.

1

MeEvilBob t1_jba66n0 wrote

Why? Is it because taxpayers who don't drive a car don't deserve infrastructure?

1

nudgetravel t1_jba7qhq wrote

Because taxation is theft. No transportation should receive subsidies.

1