CA High Speed Rail

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Turkish

Rail tracks cost less than a 4 lane highways per mile. At least in Europe.

as land acquisition cost is probably the largest portion, that would make sense. though i would also imagine that once the land is purchased putting in an asphalt roadway is cheaper than putting in an electrified high speed rail system.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: 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?

It is in the federal governments best interests to help improve states infrastructure. The additional commerce, jobs, tourism etc.. generates additional tax revenue for both the state and the fed. Who takes more out of your paycheck state or fed?

Still not the right time to do it imo just making a point.

But its not in the state's interest enough to improve its own infrastructure, so the other 49 states have to pay for it?

Shrug.

No wonder we have huge transportation pork bills.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: 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?

It is in the federal governments best interests to help improve states infrastructure. The additional commerce, jobs, tourism etc.. generates additional tax revenue for both the state and the fed. Who takes more out of your paycheck state or fed?

Still not the right time to do it imo just making a point.

But its not in the state's interest enough to improve its own infrastructure, so the other 49 states have to pay for it?

Shrug.

No wonder we have huge transportation pork bills.

You mean like the great Republican wet-dream...The Bridge to Nowhere?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: 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?

It is in the federal governments best interests to help improve states infrastructure. The additional commerce, jobs, tourism etc.. generates additional tax revenue for both the state and the fed. Who takes more out of your paycheck state or fed?

Still not the right time to do it imo just making a point.

But its not in the state's interest enough to improve its own infrastructure, so the other 49 states have to pay for it?

Shrug.

No wonder we have huge transportation pork bills.

You mean like the great Republican wet-dream...The Bridge to Nowhere?

Basically, yeah. Instead we have a train to nowhere.

Although there is a slight difference. Road/air transportation already exists between LA and SF.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Basically, yeah. Instead we have a train to nowhere.

I'd much rather take the "train to nowhere" instead of idling in LA traffic or heading out to the enormously convenient and time saving LAX for a flight.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: winnar111
Basically, yeah. Instead we have a train to nowhere.

I'd much rather take the "train to nowhere" instead of idling in LA traffic or heading out to the enormously convenient and time saving LAX for a flight.

Errr, you'll still have to idle in LA traffic once you reach the city...and Amtrak already runs a line between the 2 cities if you want to take that.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: winnar111
Basically, yeah. Instead we have a train to nowhere.

I'd much rather take the "train to nowhere" instead of idling in LA traffic or heading out to the enormously convenient and time saving LAX for a flight.

Errr, you'll still have to idle in LA traffic once you reach the city...and Amtrak already runs a line between the 2 cities if you want to take that.

In about quadruple the time...

The general idea is to make local transit available from these stations on the route too. Mass transit (bus/rail/lr), taxies, rental cars, etc...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Amtrak already runs a line between the 2 cities if you want to take that.

Ya, one train a day, for 10 hours' time to get there.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: BoomerD
You mean like the great Republican wet-dream...The Bridge to Nowhere?

Basically, yeah. Instead we have a train to nowhere.

Although there is a slight difference. Road/air transportation already exists between LA and SF.

Ferry transportation is in place for the small 'bridge to nowhere' location.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052
Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

Moving run ways at Chicago will cost $60 million?

$15B

The Initial run from SF to LA is spected to cost atleast 40 billion.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052
Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

Moving run ways at Chicago will cost $60 million?

$15B

The Initial run from SF to LA is spected to cost atleast 40 billion.

Uh, less than half that actually around $16ish Billion (I did misremember total cost). The California bond initiative covers $9B for the HSR and another $1B for local rail to it. The rest would come from federal funds which isn't uncommon for large transportation infrastructure projects.

 

[ICRS]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052
Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

Moving run ways at Chicago will cost $60 million?

$15B

The Initial run from SF to LA is spected to cost atleast 40 billion.

Uh, less than half that actually around $16ish Billion (I did misremember total cost). The California bond initiative covers $9B for the HSR and another $1B for local rail to it. The rest would come from federal funds which isn't uncommon for large transportation infrastructure projects.

What are you talking about?

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in..._Proposition_1A_(2008)


Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.


However according to wiki the 9.95 billion will only cover half the cost of the SF. LA route. Which will cost atleast 20 billion dollars. With typical cost over run expect it to cost over $40 billion.

Remember the Benecia Bridge had over a 400% cost overrun.

Mistake 800 miles is because it is to sacramento and san fran.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052
Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

Moving run ways at Chicago will cost $60 million?

$15B

fool, $9 billion bond, $10+ billion federal funds, $10+ billion state funds. It will cost $40-80 billion.

 

[Drift3r]

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.

So which state are you from ? Please don't say Ohio.

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Turkish

Rail tracks cost less than a 4 lane highways per mile. At least in Europe.

as land acquisition cost is probably the largest portion, that would make sense. though i would also imagine that once the land is purchased putting in an asphalt roadway is cheaper than putting in an electrified high speed rail system.

Not sure... but considering how the Iraq War cost the U.S. economy more than $3 trillion, even if this project ran $30-40 billion, its still pocket change.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052
Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

Moving run ways at Chicago will cost $60 million?

$15B

The Initial run from SF to LA is spected to cost atleast 40 billion.

Uh, less than half that actually around $16ish Billion (I did misremember total cost). The California bond initiative covers $9B for the HSR and another $1B for local rail to it. The rest would come from federal funds which isn't uncommon for large transportation infrastructure projects.

What are you talking about?

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/in..._Proposition_1A_(2008)


Prop. 1A asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority.


However according to wiki the 9.95 billion will only cover half the cost of the SF. LA route. Which will cost atleast 20 billion dollars. With typical cost over run expect it to cost over $40 billion.

Remember the Benecia Bridge had over a 400% cost overrun.

Mistake 800 miles is because it is to sacramento and san fran.

The $40B estimate (certainly will be higher) was for the complete system. You can't run around touting that as the what the SF-LA leg will cost.

Ok, the alternative is that we never build any further infrastructure because of the cost overruns on the Benecia bridge. No new roads, sewers, electrical lines, tracks, bridges, ports, etc ever again.

Step back and examine how fucking stupid that position is. Infrastructure projects are prone to running over budget to one degree or another. Benecia and the Big Dig are particularly egregious examples but thousands of other projects across the country are completed close to budget or slightly over but you never hear about it.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ICRS

Originally posted by: K1052
Assuming a 50% cost overrun the initial HSR segment form SF to LA will cost about what Chicago is spending to move the runways at ORD.

I know people have a tendency to flip out at the large upfront cost of HSR but try to keep things in perspective. Hell, the Pentagon has thrown away sums of money that make this look like pocket change for programs that never come to fruition.

Moving run ways at Chicago will cost $60 million?

$15B

fool, $9 billion bond, $10+ billion federal funds, $10+ billion state funds. It will cost $40-80 billion.

The total segment funding comes to about 25B for the LA-SF route though a decent portion of that will end up being spend on routing local transit to the HSR stations. The HSR itself shouldn't cost more than about $15B plus or minus a few billion. Considering the free falling real estate market and construction grinding to a halt (reduced materials costs) I'd say now is the time to get the most for the money.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: 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.

I cant disagree Amtrak is poorly run. But it still costs the govt to keep it afloat. The others are usually city or state run and the cost of the ticket is well below the cost of the seat. The reasoning by the brilliant operators(politicians) is if the ticket cost what it truely costs then people wouldnt ride the train. Another example of govt trying to create a market that isnt there.

Secondly without knowing the specifics of "other" countries train system like subsidizing the costs using public funds or forcing people onto trains via high taxation. It isnt an apple and apple comparisons. In the United States mass transit rail systems do not pay for themselves via ticket prices. I wouldnt expect anything different with this train system in California. They may have 50 dollar tickets but it wont have anything to do with the cost of the system and the rest of the cost will be made up with a gas tax or siphoning off the general fund.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Genx87

I cant disagree Amtrak isnt poorly run. The others are usually city or state run and the cost of the ticket is well below the cost of the seat. The reasoning by the brilliant operators(politicians) is if the ticket cost what it truely costs then people wouldnt ride the train. Another example of govt trying to create a market that isnt there.

Secondly without knowing the specifics of "other" countries train system like subsidizing the costs using public funds or forcing people onto trains via high taxation. It isnt an apple and apple comparisons. In the United States mass transit rail systems do not pay for themselves via ticket prices. I wouldnt expect anything different with this train system in California. They may have 50 dollar tickets but it wont have anything to do with the cost of the system and the rest of the cost will be made up with a gas tax or siphoning off the general fund.

Amtrak isn't profitable for a lot of reasons. Low gas prices in until the last few years, lack of investment, poor management, and having to run on trackage shared with freight (causing delays).

No metropolitan mass transit system in the world is profitable through fare collection. Some do better than others but at the end of they day they are subsidized through tax revenue. Then again so are the cars we drive and the roads we drive on.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Genx87

I cant disagree Amtrak isnt poorly run. The others are usually city or state run and the cost of the ticket is well below the cost of the seat. The reasoning by the brilliant operators(politicians) is if the ticket cost what it truely costs then people wouldnt ride the train. Another example of govt trying to create a market that isnt there.

Secondly without knowing the specifics of "other" countries train system like subsidizing the costs using public funds or forcing people onto trains via high taxation. It isnt an apple and apple comparisons. In the United States mass transit rail systems do not pay for themselves via ticket prices. I wouldnt expect anything different with this train system in California. They may have 50 dollar tickets but it wont have anything to do with the cost of the system and the rest of the cost will be made up with a gas tax or siphoning off the general fund.

Amtrak isn't profitable for a lot of reasons. Low gas prices in until the last few years, lack of investment, poor management, and having to run on trackage shared with freight (causing delays).

No metropolitan mass transit system in the world is profitable through fare collection. Some do better than others but at the end of they day they are subsidized through tax revenue. Then again so are the cars we drive and the roads we drive on.

Most of these things don't pay for themselves, so we can't expect much although the CA HSR folks think it will by 2030. Maybe it will, but the capital investment needed initially is just too large. $22.2 billion more than we take in? Hah.

 

[JS80]

You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Genx87

I cant disagree Amtrak isnt poorly run. The others are usually city or state run and the cost of the ticket is well below the cost of the seat. The reasoning by the brilliant operators(politicians) is if the ticket cost what it truely costs then people wouldnt ride the train. Another example of govt trying to create a market that isnt there.

Secondly without knowing the specifics of "other" countries train system like subsidizing the costs using public funds or forcing people onto trains via high taxation. It isnt an apple and apple comparisons. In the United States mass transit rail systems do not pay for themselves via ticket prices. I wouldnt expect anything different with this train system in California. They may have 50 dollar tickets but it wont have anything to do with the cost of the system and the rest of the cost will be made up with a gas tax or siphoning off the general fund.

Amtrak isn't profitable for a lot of reasons. Low gas prices in until the last few years, lack of investment, poor management, and having to run on trackage shared with freight (causing delays).

No metropolitan mass transit system in the world is profitable through fare collection. Some do better than others but at the end of they day they are subsidized through tax revenue. Then again so are the cars we drive and the roads we drive on.

AFAIK all mass transit in Hong Kong are privately owned and they make a lot of $$$.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

I believe the term we should coin this is Obamanomics. Should be interesting to see how he manages to give so much away with a simple repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the top 5%.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1
AFAIK all mass transit in Hong Kong are privately owned and they make a lot of $$$.

I've heard that they have quite the incredible "card" system that automatically bills you depending on how far you go (among other things).

Perhaps their system could be used as a model for something here.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JS80
You almost must be drinking Obama economic magic juice if you think ticket fares will cover the cost of operations.

I believe the term we should coin this is Obamanomics. Should be interesting to see how he manages to give so much away with a simple repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the top 5%.

I think this calls for a Perot type chart with numbers and arrows and all that. I have to agree that repeal of Bush's cuts won't provide enough to give the tax relief he's talking about unless he assumes there will be only a million or so tax payers left in the 95%