Las Vegas Sun

November 22, 2009

Currently: 51° | Complete forecast | Log in

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Economic crisis an opportunity to be greener

Michael Pravica, Henderson

Sunday, March 1, 2009 | 2:05 a.m.

Regarding a story last week by the Associated Press about Las Vegas and the Midwest seeking $8 billion from the stimulus bill for fast trains:

Instead of focusing on partisan and local-state bickering and politics that can likely kill the high-speed rail initiative, we should focus on building a national high-speed rail system that will revolutionize travel, aid the environment and reduce our dependence on imported energy. President Dwight D. Eisenhower did this for the national highway system about 50 years ago and we should do this for a national high-speed rail system today.

From a physics standpoint, travel by rail stands as the most energy-efficient, low friction means of long distance transportation.

If we can transport people and goods at speeds of 300 mph via high speed trains, we will reduce the need for other wasteful and pollution-laden forms of long distance transportation such as trucks and airplanes that leave long-lasting greenhouse gas in our upper atmosphere.

In this economic crisis, we have a unique opportunity to create novel markets by constructing infrastructure and trains for high-speed rail just as Europe, Japan and many other countries are doing. This effort will diminish our dependence on imported fossil fuels, reduce the ever-increasing congestion on our crumbling roads, and assuage the strain on our environment.

The writer is a professor of physics at UNLV.

Discussion: 11 comments so far…

  1. By jfnance32
    3/1/09 at 7:12 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    It is silly to spend money on boondoggle projects. It is extreme waste of money to spend on projects that hurt productivity and not increase productivity.

    Also, this is money that is being charged to our children and children's children economy. They will have to work harder and do with less to deal with all the debt that we are charging to them.

    High-speed rail will not move that many people and it would cost tons of money per rider.

    They are wanting to spend $80 billion on a high speed rail system between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Just an FYI, it will take more than $80 billion to build. Then the taxpayers will have to kick in hundreds of millions of dollars each year to bring down the price of a ticket it so that they could attract riders. Right now, taxpayers fund over $1,200 per rider per ticket on Amtrack trains that travels from NYC to Las Angeles.

    That is highly inefficient spending. It is a productivity drag on the economy.

    $80 billion could purchased over 1,000,000 round trip tickets between LAS and LAX. The annual money that would be given to high-speed rail could purchase another 100,000's of tickets each year.

    High-speed rail would be a boondoggle project.

  2. By pmmart
    3/1/09 at 8:11 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    People who oppose the idea of a high speed rail aren't looking at similar projects that have been wildly successful.. a prime example of the potential would be the Las Vegas Mono-rail.

  3. By PhilVentura
    3/1/09 at 7:29 p.m.
    Suggest removal

    Yeah, and that boondoggle in Iraq!

  4. By pravica
    3/1/09 at 10:03 p.m.
    Suggest removal

    I suppose that our mission to space some 50+ years ago would have been considered a "boondoggle" by today's standards. We are still reaping the benefits from that expensive decision that ended up putting Americans on the moon.
    Regardless of how expensive Amtrack is, the Europeans and Japanese have made high speed rail an economically-viable reality. We could learn alot from them.

  5. By uddeboda
    3/2/09 at 12:02 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    When considering the German and the French projects, these are super high speed trains that run on special tracks, very straight.

    The Swedes also have high speed trains that runs on the exisiting tracks, with plenty of curves thru the forests. The tracks on curves were lifted slightly on the outside rail, and the trains were given tilting under carriages, so the train tilts on the curves, but still maintaining high speeds

  6. By gmag39
    3/2/09 at 8:44 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    nance, it's called progress. You know, the wheel, sliced bread, the automobile; Yes, I know, it WILL cost you another fry out of your happy meal.

  7. By jfnance32
    3/2/09 at 9:18 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    Oh.....it is progress to waste billions of dollars that your children and their children will have to pay off by working harder and doing with less.

    Hmmmmm...not sure if that is progess.

    Let's do some math.

    $80 billion just to begin to build one high speed train system from Disneyland to Las Vegas.

    That money could buy around 1,000,000 airfare round trip tickets between LAX and LAS.

    Add in the other in tens of billions to finish the train and add in the tens of millions in taxpayer cash needed annually to keep ticket prices low enough to get people to afford to ride the train.........one could buy 100,000's each year in more airfare roundtrip tickets.

    Yep....you think that is progess.

  8. By ksand99
    3/2/09 at 9:27 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    It is funny. jfNance32 forgot about when Bush slashed taxes and took us to war, spending even more than this stimulus package and adding that debt onto the backs of our children.

    Did he complain? Nope. He's one of Bush's biggest defenders on this site.

    Now he wants to get his knickers in a twist about a stimulus package which will build roads, bridges, etc for all of us to use?

    That's some mighty convenient (and morally tone-deaf) outrage.

  9. By jfnance32
    3/2/09 at 9:59 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    I have never defended Bush's spending.

    Bush did some good things like appoint jurists and defend this country.

    I think that is funny about people who point to Bush's deficit spending.

    People saying that Bush was very bad to spend so much and run up the debt.

    Yet, they are jumping up and down that Obama will spend much much more and generate double perhaps triple the deficits that Bush did.

    Obama is doing what Bush did but only more.

    Hmmmm.........Obama is giving a ringing endorsement of Bush's deficit spending!

  10. By ksand99
    3/2/09 at 10:02 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    You have defended the war, which was the subject of Bush's spending. Therefore, you defended the deficit spending. Can't have a war without spending, genius!

    Now you want to clutch your pearls at Obama's spending? You can't have it both ways, jfNance32.

  11. By jfnance32
    3/2/09 at 11:09 a.m.
    Suggest removal

    Complaining about Bush's deficit spending and then praising Obama's deficit spending is having it both ways.

    I have defended the war and that does generate deficit spending.

    I am willing to overlook Obama's deficit spending on his Afghanistan war.

    According to Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the USA spent around $900 billion on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

    That is over a 7 year period.

    Obama in his first month has requested over $3.5 trillion in new deficit spending to be spent over the next 2 years.

    Hmmmm....that puts things in perspective does it not.

Post a comment

Commenting requires registration.

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Full comments policy.

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

OR Create an account (It's free)

  • Most Read
  • Discussed
  • Most E-mailed

Complete Listing

Calendar »

  • 21 Sat
  • 22 Sun
  • 23 Mon
  • 24 Tue
  • 25 Wed

All events on Saturday »