CA High Speed Rail

[the unknown]

Wow, I'm surprised so many people are for this, and not as skeptical as I am. Haven't any of you seen the Simpsons D:? The figures seem to be unrealistic, and like everyone said, its going to cost many more times what they are saying. It seems like a lot of possibilities for mismanagement of money and "unforseen" problems that make this much more expensive or impossible to complete. Though I was young at the time, I seem to recall the LA subway system taking many many more years to complete that originally thought, the cost rising even more as they found granite rock slabs that chewed up their tunneling gear.

With the financial problems CA already has, coupled with the national financial troubles, I can see this as being a "delayed indefinitely" project.

 

[imported_cambit69]

as a California resident and voter, I plan to vote no on Prop 1A for these reasons:

1. Way to expensive (3x the estimated cost) Look at the SF Bay Bridge's cost over-runs and delays
2. California is on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot afford this project
3. Prime example of pork barrel spending, Look at Big Dig project in Massachusetts and you'll get an idea of what this will be like
4. The people pushing for this to go through at the capital are the ones that will benefit from it, at the expense of taxpayers
5. There's already Amtrak rail that goes from SF-LA (8h instead of 2.5hr) $50 one-way ticket
6. There's no way, that once completed a ticket would go for $50, my estimate is $125-150 and for that price you can take a plane which is faster.

 

[SickBeast]

Will this new rail line serve a use in terms of freight?

IMO rail infrastructure is more far-sighted than road infrastructure.

How much more energy efficient is a train compared to a plane or a car? I've read that a Honda Civic is more fuel efficient than a passenger airplane. Planes just save people time.

 

[BrownTown]

California is pretty much the asshole of the country so far as I am concerned, just another idiotic proposal to spend more money then they make, and people wonder why this retarded country is going to hell.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
California is pretty much the asshole of the country so far as I am concerned, just another idiotic proposal to spend more money then they make, and people wonder why this retarded country is going to hell.

It seems you've missed the funding issue.... It is not like they are going to take the money today from the cash register.. they will float bonds and get matching from the Feds and use the fund that is set up to provide this kind of infrastructure...
More importantly, this kind of public work project puts people to work who pay tax and pay bills and buy stuff that stimulates the economy... sorta Demand Sided thinking..

The only issue is to get the voter approval then wait until paper is a viable vehicle again. California's current issue of 'running short' is not new.. it happens a lot and has in the past. Today's reality, however, makes funding via the paper float not viable as one might imagine.. No crisis in California that needs a hand out... but a Federal 'loan' is reasonable and proper under the circumstances given that the Feds are the responsible folks for the issues current in this country...

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: BrownTown
California is pretty much the asshole of the country so far as I am concerned, just another idiotic proposal to spend more money then they make, and people wonder why this retarded country is going to hell.

It seems you've missed the funding issue.... It is not like they are going to take the money today from the cash register.. they will float bonds and get matching from the Feds and use the fund that is set up to provide this kind of infrastructure...
More importantly, this kind of public work project puts people to work who pay tax and pay bills and buy stuff that stimulates the economy... sorta Demand Sided thinking..

The only issue is to get the voter approval then wait until paper is a viable vehicle again. California's current issue of 'running short' is not new.. it happens a lot and has in the past. Today's reality, however, makes funding via the paper float not viable as one might imagine.. No crisis in California that needs a hand out... but a Federal 'loan' is reasonable and proper under the circumstances given that the Feds are the responsible folks for the issues current in this country...

Why the hell should they get federal matching funds for an intrastate project?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Ballatician
Why are so many people afraid of San Francisco? It's hilarious.

The gays are spreading!!! Oh noes...

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Ballatician
Why are so many people afraid of San Francisco? It's hilarious.

The gays are spreading!!! Oh noes...

I think these people are afraid of the GAY TRAIN from San Francisco.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: babylon5
When government officials tell you something will cost $X dollars, the real figures is triple at least + more.

Witness the retrofit of the Bay Bridge. Not nearing completion and now 19 years after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. And way way way over budget.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: sandorski
California with its high population is a very good place to build such a thing. If you want decreased Pollution, decreased Fuel Consumption, and affordable Travel for the Masses, High Speed Rail makes a lot of sense.

It makes sense. Problem is, the economy's in the tank.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Ok... no train seems to be the vote here.... How about we invest in some bombs and drop them... they are rapid as they descend and except for a small bit of smog or dust or other pollution they are clean ... sorta. IF you ride on one... it will be a one way trip but you'll get a bang out of it.. well... there are some costs we need to add in... the Aircraft Carriers and planes and all that to transport them to the location and well.. we would create jobs just like the HSR.. The funds don't come from the States so that is a plus unless you count the people in the States...
I think Debt Financing LT assets is a wise adventure... bombs are good for urban renewal and all that but then you have to rebuild the place.. more money...
I vote Yes on the measure

This is a fresh perspective. The cost of the Iraq war would cover this HSR system in 6 months.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Muse

Originally posted by: sandorski
California with its high population is a very good place to build such a thing. If you want decreased Pollution, decreased Fuel Consumption, and affordable Travel for the Masses, High Speed Rail makes a lot of sense.

It makes sense. Problem is, the economy's in the tank.

The HSR will probably take at least a decade to design, fund, and build.

Odds are we'll see a recovery before then.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Genx87

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.

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.

I suggest that Amtrak and the others are just very poorly run.

Trains work everywhere else in the world. I haven't checked out the numbers, but I'd expect a rail company to be more profitable than an airline.

1) Electricity costs less than jet fuel
2) You don't need a huge fleet of trains (although each train is very expensive - but how much more expensive than a 747?)

The biggest cost probably comes from laying track. I don't really know anything about trains, so correct me if I'm wrong. It just seems odd that the trains in Europe are profitable yet the trains in America are not.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Who wants to go to San Francisco?

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.

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.

Or a gay!

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Corporate Thug

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.

From a business perspective, a train to the Bay is much more important than a train to Vegas.

I don't know, if you could hook up the casinos and Disneyland that would bring a lot of tourist dollars into SoCal . . .

"Hey mom and dad . . . send your tykes to the Magic Kingdom while you play the slots! It's only a short train ride away!"

Isn't this already in the works? I heard someone was trying to build a maglev from Vegas to Disneyland.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: cambit69
5. There's already Amtrak rail that goes from SF-LA (8h instead of 2.5hr) $50 one-way ticket

Actually, the prices are highly variable. One day they may be $50, the next they may be $150.

I'm not sure why they vary so much, but it's true.

 

[theeedude]

This is long overdue. Yeah, I am for it. Yeah it's expensive, but it's infrastructure that we are going to need.
How much does it cost to add airport and freeway capacity. Plus now is best time with recession and unemployment to put people to work building infrastructure.
I mean interstate highway system was expensive too, but now it's a no brainer.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
California is pretty much the asshole of the country so far as I am concerned, just another idiotic proposal to spend more money then they make, and people wonder why this retarded country is going to hell.

The feeling is mutual, BrownTown, and while I try to avoid using people's handles for mockery, yours does add one point to my side of the argument.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: cambit69
as a California resident and voter, I plan to vote no on Prop 1A for these reasons:

1. Way to expensive (3x the estimated cost) Look at the SF Bay Bridge's cost over-runs and delays
2. California is on the verge of bankruptcy and cannot afford this project
3. Prime example of pork barrel spending, Look at Big Dig project in Massachusetts and you'll get an idea of what this will be like
4. The people pushing for this to go through at the capital are the ones that will benefit from it, at the expense of taxpayers
5. There's already Amtrak rail that goes from SF-LA (8h instead of 2.5hr) $50 one-way ticket
6. There's no way, that once completed a ticket would go for $50, my estimate is $125-150 and for that price you can take a plane which is faster.

1. Bay Bridge is a complex engineering project involving a design that has never been built on large scale, doesn't apply here.
2. True, but CA should slash spending, namely welfare and all that other prison stuff. Maybe we can outsource the prison system to somewhere cheaper.
3. Again, complexity wise not comparable to Big Dig.
4. Maybe.
5. Too slow.
6. We don't want regional jets clogging up the skies. There is no reason why SF-LA should be flown, too short of a distance.

 

[BoomerD]

I think it'd be a great thing...but the timing sucks. The state just can't afford it right now. I'll vote no...this time.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I think it'd be a great thing...but the timing sucks. The state just can't afford it right now. I'll vote no...this time.

I agree. We have too many people working and don't need all those jobs.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is long overdue. Yeah, I am for it. Yeah it's expensive, but it's infrastructure that we are going to need.

:thumbsup:

A rail system is superior to the highway system. I'm fully in favor of developing it.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: BoomerD
I think it'd be a great thing...but the timing sucks. The state just can't afford it right now. I'll vote no...this time.

I agree. We have too many people working and don't need all those jobs.

Actually...NO. The state, especially the construction industry is in sore need of jobs, but how will we pay for this? With the FUBAR'd budget compromise Ah-Nold and the lazyslature just passed, we're already fucked...adding another $10 Billion to the problem isn't gonna work...This is yet another problem of Kahleeforneeya's "governing by proposition," it creates all sorts of new laws, without having any way to pay for them.

Do we NEED this HSR? NO, not really a NEED, but it would be a good thing, for the economy, for business and tourism travelers, maybe even for the environment, but the ability to PAY for isn't there.

I worked heavy construction for over 30 years and worked several years for one of the contractors who built the LA subway project and the BART extension into Daly City...(just not on those jobs) If he ends up with any part of the job, (and I expect he'll end up with a HUGE part of it) you can be guaranteed costs will nearly triple.
The same contractor got the job retrofitting the Richmond-San Rafel bridge in 2000. Final bid, about $485 million. Final construction cost, just under $1 billion.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Do we NEED this HSR? NO, not really a NEED, but it would be a good thing, for the economy, for business and tourism travelers, maybe even for the environment, but the ability to PAY for isn't there.

Funny, that doesn't stop Washington DC.

 

[ICRS]

I would vote yes, but I am not sure.

I am positive it will cost atleast twice the amount they say it will and take twice as long to build. Also I am disapointed they didn't go with the MagLev technology. Its trains are safer, smoother, and much faster.

The bay bridge isn't the only thing with cost overrun. Look at the Benecia-Martinez Bridge. Started in 1995, it was suppose to be compeated by 2000 and cost only $200 million dolllars. The bridge ended up being compleated in 2007 and it cost over $1.3 billion dollars.

I see the same type of cost overrun here too.