• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CA High Speed Rail

S

Suspicious-Teach8788

Lifer
Linky

- 2.5 hours LA to SF
- 450,000 new jobs
- Reduce CO2 emissions
- Up to 117 million pasengers / year by 2030
- Funding comes from 3 parts (1/3 from bond, 1/3 from federal matching funds, 1/3 from state transportation funds)

Do you guys think this is any good?

I'm a fiscal conservative and I say no. Proposition 1A's $9.95 billion is ridiculous. This state is broke, and bond debt is just as bad. I'm not denying HSR isn't great, but to me we don't need it. We don't have problems going fro SF to LA. We have other problems to worry about $10 billion can go fix our roads because our problem is in getting around to work. Build SF or LA a real subway system instead.
 
I am a strong proponent for rail but if an real subway in SF or LA can be built for 9.95 billion I would support it.
Unfortunately from what I know 9.5 billion wouldn't get you much in the form of subway.
 
I'm all for it. I think we should be looking towards the future and not the present. Its not going to get any cheaper and this 'needs' to be done. This will definitely help us build our states economy all the while curbing fossil fuels. I for one would definitely use the train and go to Socal more often if we had a different way other than air or car.
It should have been done yesterday.
 
It would be nice but I think it's just too expensive. Besides, I'd rather a high-speed rail to vegas instead. I plan on voting no.
 
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
It would be nice but I think it's just too expensive. Besides, I'd rather a high-speed rail to vegas instead. I plan on voting no.
Click to expand...

From a business perspective, a train to the Bay is much more important than a train to Vegas.
 
Originally posted by: Corporate Thug
I support it. 2.5 hours from LA to Bay without the hassle of an airport is amazing.
Click to expand...

i wonder how long until they impose the hassle of an airport.







texas had a company that paid a bunch of money to have a monopoly on building a high speed rail network in the texas triangle. southwest airlines sued them out of existence.

perry's TTC was to have high speed rail lines as well, but that project looks mostly dead right now.
 
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Linky

- 2.5 hours LA to SF
- 450,000 new jobs
- Reduce CO2 emissions
- Up to 117 million pasengers / year by 2030
- Funding comes from 3 parts (1/3 from bond, 1/3 from federal matching funds, 1/3 from state transportation funds)

Do you guys think this is any good?

I'm a fiscal conservative and I say no. Proposition 1A's $9.95 billion is ridiculous. This state is broke, and bond debt is just as bad. I'm not denying HSR isn't great, but to me we don't need it. We don't have problems going fro SF to LA. We have other problems to worry about $10 billion can go fix our roads because our problem is in getting around to work. Build SF or LA a real subway system instead.
Click to expand...

Get the facts straight. It's a $9.95 billion bond, $950 million will go to current rail, $9 billion to the project.
No way in hell we will get the $31 billion remainder from federal nor state.
It will cost at LEAST double of the $40 billion estimated cost. $80 billion likely cost to finish.
No way in hell they will charge $50/ticket.
It will probably take 30 years to finish.
CO2 reduction won't make a dent. In the meantime they will be pumping CO2 building something that might not ever get finished.
Operating costs will be at LEAST $1 billion/year.
 
Menlo Park wants it to go through the East Bay because it might effect some of their land values. You can get a shack there now by the tracks if you have a million or so.
 
Despite being expensive initially, it is an investment that will pay itself off in the future. All you have to do is keep the price of a ticket from LA to SF cheaper than the plane tickets and you will make all of the cost back. Even if the ride itself takes longer, the total trip is shorter because you don't have the airport hassle. There's no long security line, there's no reason to check in 2 hours early, etc. You buy your ticket and you get on the train.

Even if a train ticket to SF would cost 10% more than a plane ticket, I'd still take the train.
 
Sounds good in theory but like most CA projects it would probably go WAY over budget and do very little in the long run.
And looking at the plans its a frankly low speed train in comparison to ones in Europe and Japan - so why invest in old technology?
 
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Who wants to go to San Francisco?
Click to expand...

People with good taste. Win-win, they are happy for you not to come, too.

FYI, San Francisco is the third most popular tourism city in the US (after Las Vegas and New York; the musch larger Los Angeles, even with Disneyland and Hollywood, is seventh).

The right's fear of San Francisco is amusing.
 
Time to buy some Thyssenkrupp Transrapid stock.

At least I think this is one of their projects. Will certainly benefit the German economy...since Americans are too stupid to build trains anymore.
 
Originally posted by: Eeezee
Despite being expensive initially, it is an investment that will pay itself off in the future. All you have to do is keep the price of a ticket from LA to SF cheaper than the plane tickets and you will make all of the cost back. Even if the ride itself takes longer, the total trip is shorter because you don't have the airport hassle. There's no long security line, there's no reason to check in 2 hours early, etc. You buy your ticket and you get on the train.

Even if a train ticket to SF would cost 10% more than a plane ticket, I'd still take the train.
Click to expand...

Ill take a guess by judging the way Amtrak and any other mass transit rail system works across the US. You dont make any money at it. It is subsidized for the difference. Usually very heavily.

 
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Linky

- 2.5 hours LA to SF
- 450,000 new jobs
- Reduce CO2 emissions
- Up to 117 million pasengers / year by 2030
- Funding comes from 3 parts (1/3 from bond, 1/3 from federal matching funds, 1/3 from state transportation funds)

Do you guys think this is any good?

I'm a fiscal conservative and I say no. Proposition 1A's $9.95 billion is ridiculous. This state is broke, and bond debt is just as bad. I'm not denying HSR isn't great, but to me we don't need it. We don't have problems going fro SF to LA. We have other problems to worry about $10 billion can go fix our roads because our problem is in getting around to work. Build SF or LA a real subway system instead.
Click to expand...

Get the facts straight. It's a $9.95 billion bond, $950 million will go to current rail, $9 billion to the project.
No way in hell we will get the $31 billion remainder from federal nor state.
It will cost at LEAST double of the $40 billion estimated cost. $80 billion likely cost to finish.
No way in hell they will charge $50/ticket.
It will probably take 30 years to finish.
CO2 reduction won't make a dent. In the meantime they will be pumping CO2 building something that might not ever get finished.
Operating costs will be at LEAST $1 billion/year.
Click to expand...

9.95 billion bond. I know my facts. 950 million in current rail won't even get BART to SJ.

I don't like to throw out figures like $80 billion or more than $50/ticket, but going off those exaggerated benefits, they're counting on the federal government to step in and provide 1/3 of the financing (another 10 billion at least). Do you honestly think we're gonna pass a bill that includes $10 billion in spending on HSR in CA? I'd like to say $40 billion is CONSERVATIVE and based on how this government has been running these projects run OVERBUDGET, POORLY MANAGED, and then you should EXPECT DELAYS.

CO2 reduction will be critical. I did read that it will cost a lot to build this so sure it reduces overall, but no one ever talks about how much it costs to in the initial investment. Same goes with all those green-tech hippies.

I think the same goes financially. The plan is to have it self sufficient by 2030. What does that mean? It means by 2030 ticket prices will cover operating costs. What are the ridership estimates? 65 million. Hah. Acela only runs 3 million people in the NORTHEAST CORRIDOR. But let's give these dreamers credit. Hit 65 million people and you will be financially self sufficient. What about from 2014 to 2030 when we're running off additional funding? What about the INITIAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT. How long before your $40 billion pays back. Too long.


Originally posted by: Drakkon
Sounds good in theory but like most CA projects it would probably go WAY over budget and do very little in the long run.
And looking at the plans its a frankly low speed train in comparison to ones in Europe and Japan - so why invest in old technology?
Click to expand...

220 mph is not slow. It's perfectly fine. I've watched the THSRC build the HSR in Taiwan and it was a terrible process. Delay after delay. Scandal after scandal. Switching from HSR like Japan then to Europe, then blah blah blah. Way too much money used, way too much time. Now it's running fine, but not after too many hiccups. I'm sure it will pay off in the future because flying in Taiwan is not like flying from SF to LA. Nor is driving from Taipei to Kaohsiung like driving from SF to LA. You can't drive 90mph in 5 hours to cover the distance like people do now. Anyway, I plan on voting no.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Who wants to go to San Francisco?
Click to expand...

People with good taste. Win-win, they are happy for you not to come, too.

FYI, San Francisco is the third most popular tourism city in the US (after Las Vegas and New York; the musch larger Los Angeles, even with Disneyland and Hollywood, is seventh).

The right's fear of San Francisco is amusing.
Click to expand...

Its not fear, its more like disgust. You cant walk 5 feet in that city without tripping over an aging hippie who still thinks its 1968 or a homeless person.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top