BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
High Speed Rail is Better Than Air Travel

Currently intercity travel within the U.S. tends to favour air travel. This is often due to the large distances between cities within the U.S. which mean that driving is not a viable strategy should there be time constraints on travel. However, air travel has significant constraints as well such as long boarding times. This causes problems for those people who frequently commute and high speed rail is set to solve these problems. High speed rail provides a large number of significant benefits over air travel in this regard. This is because high speed rail can travel to city centres. Where airports, due to their size and the noise pollution they cause, are limited to the outskirts of a city, trains are not limited in the same way. As such, people can arrive in a much more central area, cutting large amounts of time off their journey. Secondly, high speed rail has no limits on wireless communication or internet in the same way that air travel does. As such, high speed rail is significantly more useful for anyone who wishes to work on the journey. Finally, the weather is incredibly problematic for air travel. This is especially true in the U.S. where a number of areas can be subject to unexpected snow or storms. By comparison, High Speed rail remains comparatively unhindered.[1] [1] “Convenience of High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association. http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/convenience.html
Highspeed Rail is Better than Upgrading Old Infrastructure

rovements to existing rail networks would ultimately fail to be viable as a replacement for highspeed rail. As British Transport Secretary (now reshuffled) Phillip Hammond states, "Opponents of the project have asked why we cannot simply upgrade our existing infrastructure to deal with this capacity challenge. But no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times and the transformation of our economic geography that a new high speed network would bring. Reliability would also deteriorate as we tried to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use lines. And another major upgrade to the West Coast Main Line would deliver years of disruption and huge economic cost."[1] Upgrading infrastructure may be an answer in some places, but not in all. There may not be the existing infrastructure to upgrade. The United States for example just does not have lines that could take both large numbers of passengers and the large amount of freight they already take. Moreover any upgrade of these existing lines would end up with a rail system which is uncompetitive with road and air transport, exactly why rail passenger transport ended in the 1930-50s in the United States despite having been running faster than Amtrak trains do today.[2] Further, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, with one track for each direction. For the Eurostar the typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs).[3] Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people,[4] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road.[5] [1] Hammond, Phillip. “High Speed Rail: the case for.” The Telegraph. 26/11/2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8160811/H... [2] “Ask Trains from November 2008”, Trains, November 2008, http://trn.trains.com/en/sitecore/content/Home/Railroad%20Reference/Ask%... [3] Elefteriadou, Lily, “Chapter 8 Highway Capacity”, Handbook of Transport Engineering, 2004, http://www.accessengineeringlibrary.com/mghpdf/0071450246_ar008.pdf [4] U.S. Department of Energy, “Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle”, Fact #257: March 3, 2003, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2003/fcvt_fotw257.html [5] High Speed Rail, Railsystem.net
High Speed Rail is environmentally friendly

Trains are the most sustainable and green form of transportation. Electric high speed rail is the most energy efficient of all trains. This is because trains have significantly high capacity but have very low power requirements in order to work by comparison to the number of passengers that they carry. Although this is to some extent dependant on how the power is generated the Eurostar (where power comes from French nuclear plants) emits only 11g GO2 per passenger kilometre from London to Paris compared to 180g for a car containing 1.2 passengers and 150g for a short haul flight.[1] A national high speed rail system would be the centrepiece of a sustainable America, and would significantly reduce congestion and America’s dependence on cars and the oil that fuels them. This would result in large cuts to carbon emissions. Any new system could be powered by renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal in order to make it even cleaner.  High speed rail could be integrated in to a sustainable network including local commuter rail and tramways so providing public transport networks that solve serious mobility, energy, environmental, economic, health, and social problems simultaneously.[2] [1] Pearce, Fred, “Greenwash: Time for rail to raise its game and cut emissions”, Greenwash guardian.co.uk, 22 January 2009, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/22/greenwash-train-travel [2] “Sustainability.” US High Speed Rail Association. http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/sustainability.html
High Speed Rail is Dangerous

Owing to the extremely high speeds of high speed rail, should there be a problem with the trains the chance of a catastrophic accident is greatly increased. This is because there would be no reaction time for the driver. Further, should there be a derailment the impact of the crash will be significant greater owing to the speed of the train. Should these accidents occur, the damage to the trains will obviously be catastrophic, but also the damage to the lines themselves will be incredibly significant. Should there be an accident and it is likely that if enough time passes there will be, the entire rail system in the area would require years to be able to regenerate. After the Hatfield Crash in the UK large sections of the whole network were shut down for up to a year.[1] [1] Pook, Sally and McIlroy, A.J., “’Danger’ rail lines may be closed’, The Telegraph, 21 October 2000, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1371197/Danger-rail-lines-may-be-...
High Speed Rail is Not Currently Economically Viable

The economic investment required for a high speed rail system to be implemented in the U.S. is substantial. Currently, the American deficit is at a level that is bad enough that S&P has downgraded the rating on American debt. Given that this is true and that the public spending required for high speed rail is substantial and a situation is caused where the American government would have to increase the flow of money out of its coffers. Even the lowest estimates by the California High-Speed Rail Authority are around $45 billion and it is likely to be much higher.[1] As such the deficit level within the U.S. could stand to increase from a system that would not provide benefit for another five years at least, if it provides benefit at all. At this time, investment in such an area is not needed when the result of such investment could be greater repayments on American bonds that reverse any economic benefits that the system stands to give.[2] As such, extra spending within the current economic climate needs to show significant long term benefits as well as show at least some signs of being able to immediately help the economy, otherwise there is too great a risk that comes from extra public spending. [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’, http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/financing_costs.aspx [2] “US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade.” BBC. 06/08/2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14428930
High Speed Rail will not be a successful long term business investment.

The issue with high speed rail is that it is a case of a government providing what is essentially a private good. The market that will use high speed rail will be people who wish to commute between cities quickly, generally rich businesspeople. As such, the market for such a product is incredibly niche. Further, the price of high speed rail will still be higher than plane and the journey times between most cities that aren’t very close together already will still be longer. As such, it seems that there is an incredibly small market for such a product. The reason a market for this product does not exist already is that no private company could ever make a profit from the product owing to the low demand among consumers for it.[1] Therefore, the only way to make the product work would be to ensure that the product is significantly cheaper than the competition. Unfortunately the only way to do this would be through large subsidies for train use, meaning that high speed rail would continue to make a net loss for the U.S. government for years to come. Further, any benefit in terms of jobs created for people in local communities will be incredibly low, for example with automatic barriers very few staff are needed at stations. Instead for the same amount of money, the government could easily implement policies which placed solar panels in every home, allowing them to generate and export their own power. Whilst this wouldn’t create jobs, it would increase income for people in the area and would likely help the environment to a significantly greater extent.[2] [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009 http://reason.org/blog/show/the-pragmatic-case-against-hig [2] “High-Speed Rail and the Case Against Private Infrastructure.” The Atlantic. 16/07/2010 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/09/high-speed-rail-and-...
Job creation

To say the job numbers are questionable is an understatement. The Department of State issued a report in August putting the estimated number at between  5-6000.[1] Furthermore, Trans-Canada, one of the major shareholders has backed off larger estimates in public, floating figures in the 20-25,000 range. TransCanada's initial estimate of 20,000 — which it said includes 13,000 direct construction jobs and 7,000 jobs among supply manufacturers — is far more conservative.[2] Why the discrepancy? The Washington Post investigated and found that the same author of the Keystone report, Ray Perryman also wrote a report predicting massive job gains from a Wind Farm project. Among the predicted jobs were: “51 dancers and choreographers, 138 dentists, 176 dental hygienists, 100 librarians, 510 bread bakers, 448 clergy, 154 stenographers,  865 hairdressers, 136 manicurists, 110 shampooers, 65 farmers, and (our favorite) 1,714 bartenders.“[3] Furthermore all of these estimates ignore potential job losses they may affect existing workers in the oil industry once the Pipeline is complete. It is perfectly possible that there will be a net loss of jobs. As for the Unions, it will provide short-term construction jobs, which is why they support it. But almost any project would do the same. [1] United States Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, ‘Executive Summary Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project’, 26 August 2011, http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KX... [2] Kessler, 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-... [3] ibid
Rejecting the pipeline bid would worsen US relations with Canada

Canada’s friendship with the United States is based on shared values, interests and a shared language, things it does not and never can share with China in the foreseeable future. As such, while delaying approval of the Keystone Pipeline might well cost the United States a pipeline, it is unlikely to cost America Canadian friendship. Furthermore, while the delay of the Pipeline project may well have made the Chinese bid more attractive, the fact that the Chinese government already owns 10% of the Canadian oil industry and was willing to put up the money[1] for a Pipeline is an indication that they may well be willing to a build a second Pipeline of their own regardless of what the United States does, even if it does not make economic sense in the short-run. [1] Radia, Andy, ‘Should the Harper government allow Chinese ownership of Alberta’s oil sands’, Canada Politics, 13 October 2011, http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/harper-government-allow-c...
Environmental risks

Almost any form of producing and transporting oil risks an environmental disaster if things go wrong, as was demonstrated in the summer of 2010 by the major British Petroleum spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Historically however land-based Pipelines have been far safer than Oil Freighters or off-shore platforms because of the ease of access, which means that spills can usually be responded to rapidly. The real damage with the BP Spill was due to its isolated location in deep water and the consequent difficulty of reaching it. Furthermore, fears of the carbon emissions are flawed because they are based on the assumption that if the Pipeline is not approved the Tar Sands will not be developed. But this is not the case. The Canadian Government has already shown interested in an alternative Chinese proposal which would see a Pipeline built to deliver the oil to the Pacific, and eventually to the Chinese market.[1] If the oil is going to be burned one way or another, it is best for the United States to do it, because the United States enjoys higher fuel efficiency standards and generally cleaner vehicles. [1] Yahoo news, 2012, http://news.yahoo.com/harper-visit-china-seek-deeper-economic-ties-202731193.html
America should not become more dependent on oil

History does show that renewable technology tends to develop when it is economically efficient.  Alternatives to fossil fuels will be found when fossil fuels are too expensive to buy, and therefore people are willing to buy what is initially an inferior product. It is only then after general adoption, that the inferior product will improve to the point at which it is equal to the product it is replacing. The fact is that as long as there are large scale supplies of fossil fuels available, and those supplies are plentiful enough to be affordable, consumers will be unwilling to accept the inferior performance they will get from electric cars, or the inferior comfort of smaller vehicles. The EU, with a far superior public transportation system is a bad comparison with the United States, as it is likely that the price at which Americans would accept the same sort of compromises is much higher, and no amount of environmental concern or preaching about alternative energy will generate the political capital to force them to if they don’t have to. Furthermore, what the opposition ignores in this argument is that it is often the poor who will suffer the most from artificially high fuel prices. Raising prices will increasingly make driving a luxury good, limiting the mobility of low income workers. This will both reduce their standard of living (i.e. ability to take vacations) and reduce their options for work and therefore for advancement.
The pipeline will reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern and Latin American oil

Currently, the United States imports nearly two-thirds of its Petroleum, with the leading suppliers including nations such as Nigeria, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.[1] Due to political instability and the difficult US relations with these nations, US supplies cannot be considered secure, and with the results of research into alternative sources of energy being decades away from fruition the United States needs alternative sources of oil today. One option is Canada, which is individually already the United States’ single largest energy supplier. Canada’s known reserves total 179 billion barrels, placing it third behind Saudi Arabia, but some estimates have put its total at as high as 2 trillion barrels.[2] The XL Pipeline project would help bring this oil overland into the United States. On the Canadian end, the increased market access would lead to rapid development, which in turn would increase Canadian capacity to the level to which it could reach a much greater portion of US demand. Furthermore, the United States enjoys close relations and an open border with Canada, meaning that this oil will likely arrive without the strings attached that come from buying from Venezuela or the Middle East. In the case of the latter the Pipeline would allow the US to disengage from the region to a degree. Even if hypothetically Canadian relations were to turn frosty, the existence of the pipeline would nevertheless ensure that the US would remain the only viable market. [1] U.S. Energy Information Administration, ‘U.S. Imports by Country of Origin’, http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm [2] Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, ‘Alberta’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry’, http://www.capp.ca/getdoc.aspx?DocId=111607&DT=NTV
Job creation

The XL Pipeline project has the potential to create a large number of jobs, both in its construction, and in refining and processing at its terminal points within the United States. Keystone Pipelines has produced a report which indicates that the Pipeline should create 118,000 jobs, with as many as 250,000 in total after spinoffs have been counted.[1] Labor Unions have accepted this line and are aggressively lobbying for the Pipeline,[2]  even though it means siding with Republicans and against their own party. Furthermore, Politicians ranging from Jon Huntsman to Bob Casey have embraced the job-creating p[3]otential of the Project. [1] The Perryman Group, ‘The Impact of Developing the Keystone XL Pipeline Project on Business Activity in the US’ June 2010, http://www.perrymangroup.com/reports/TransCanada.pdf [2] Fox, Liam, ‘Unions Back Keystone XL Pipeline Threatens Clash with Occupy Movement’, News Junkie Post, 3 December 2011, http://newsjunkiepost.com/2011/12/03/unions-back-keystone-xl-pipeline-th... [3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Keystone pipeline jobs claims: a bipartisan fumble’, Washington Post, 14 December 2011, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/keystone-pipeline-...
Rejecting the pipeline bid would worsen US relations with Canada

Canada’s Oil reserves will be of major strategic value in the next century. Currently the United States is Canada’s preferred trading partner and strategic ally, both because of a history of past cooperation, and because the US is both more willing and able to support Canadian claims to the Arctic than China. The Pipeline would consolidate this relationship, ensuring that the development of Canada’s reserves would occur with the American market in mind, because once built, it would be far more expensive to build a second Pipeline than to simply use the existing one. The United States, is not however, Canada’s only option. Canada is determined to sell the oil one way or another, and an American refusal will not save the environment. What it will do is make Canada look elsewhere. The Canadian government publicly floated a joint-Canadian-Chinese pipeline proposal which would bring the oil to the Pacific after the Obama Administration delayed consideration of the project until after 2012.[1] Just as the Keystone Pipeline would lock Canada into the US Market, a decision to develop Canadian reserves with the Chinese market in mind would be difficult to reverse, and undermine the energy independence of the United States rather than secure it. [1] Tan, Florence, and Hua, Judy, ‘Analysis: Harper’s bet may pay off; China open to Canadian oil’, Reuters, 25 November 2011, http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-harpers-bet-may-pay-off-china-open-045143...
Environmental risks

There are serious environmental factors that should be fully examined before any decision is made to approve the Pipeline project. For one thing, the Pipeline will mostly extract Oil from Tar Sands. Extracting oil from tar sands is much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution. One result of this process, the Canadian Environmental Ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions.[1] Former NASA Climatologist James Hansen has suggested that if the Pipeline is completed it is “Game Over for the Planet”. [2] Furthermore, the path of the proposed Pipeline will bring it close to the Ogallala Aquifer which provides 30% of the United States’ total irrigation supply and 82% of the drinking water to the 2.3 million people who live within the region it serves. Furthermore, within that region is just under 20% of all US agricultural production.[3] A major spill along the Pipeline would have the potential to render the entire Aquifer unusable. [1] Girling, Russell K., ‘The proposed Keystone XL pipeline will be built responsibly’, The Hill’s Congress Blog, 13 July 2011, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/171321-the-p... [2] Mayer, Jane, ‘Taking it to the streets’, The New Yorker, 28 November 2011, http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/11/28/111128taco_talk_mayer#i... [3] US Geological Survey, ‘High Plains Regional Ground-Water Study’, http://co.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/hpgw/factsheets/DENNEHYFS1.html
America should not become more dependent on oil

A successful development of the Pipeline would deepen the Unite States’ dependence on Oil, and undermine the drive towards renewable fuels. Historically, consumers switch fuels not when alternatives are available, but when economic forces cause costs to rise to such a point that it becomes inefficient not to switch.  This is one reason why the EU has found such success with taxes on gasoline which brought its price above 4$ a gallon long before it reached that price on the market. The result was a rush to adopt smaller and more fuel efficient cars, and to ration other energy consuming hardware. The main result of the Keystone Pipeline will be to lower fuel costs in the short-term, under pricing electric cars and alternative fuel sources. When gas prices finally rise, as they eventually will, the United States will find itself far behind the rest of the World in renewable technology. Given that renewable technology will be one of the major sources of economic power in the next few decades, choosing short-term savings over-long term investment seems like a bad idea.
The pipeline will reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern and Latin American oil

The XL Pipeline, upon its completion would simply be replacing one source of Oil dependency with another. And what Canada makes up for in political friendliness, could be undone by the fact that US oil would be coming from a much smaller number of sources. Furthermore, resolving US supply problems will not solve the global energy shortage that will arrive as Oil deposits shrink and Chinese demand rises. Oil will remain a source of political instability. The only true path to energy independence is to find alternative renewable sources that do not leave the United States and the rest of the world dependent on resources that are limited both in amount and in their geographical locations. The XL Pipeline might even undermine these efforts as it will create a false sense of security.