• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

More high speed fail in Ca.

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
It seems that the peer review group that was set up by the legislature to check the feasibility and reasonableness of the plan failed it. No surprise to me. There's been a sharp drop in public support for the project as people have learned that they were lied to by the proponents of the high speed rail line about how much it would cost, how long it would take and how many jobs it would produce. Maybe they can start a new commission to see if the proponents of high speed rail ever told the truth about any part of the project before they put it to the public's vote?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/01/state-bonds.html

"Gov. Jerry Brown has said he intends to ask the Legislature this month to appropriate and sell bonds to raise billions of dollars to start construction of the project.

But that plan is facing an increasingly skeptical Legislature and general public. And now, lawmakers would have to disregard the recommendation of the very group it directed to guide it on the project if they decide to approve the bond issue."
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,799
1,540
136
The CA high speed rail line has always been, and will always be, a boondoggle.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
More theft through legislation. To a lot of these politicians the idea that this project wasn't feasible was a very distant second to getting votes and the amount of $$$ they could lift of the folks they are representing if they passed the project.

What the politicians see in a project like this is a trough of money they can eagerly lop up with their buddies. The folks interested in getting this project passed lied about just about every facet of the project to get it passed while using tax payer money to fund and spread those lies. Now they are asking for billions and billions.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,799
1,540
136
All infrastructure is; I vote Willoughby!
Not all infrastructure. There are currently 60 flights from LAX to SFO tomorrow (1/5/12) with the price of all of them being $177 after taxes and fees. That doesn't include any flights from surrounding airports.

If the cost of the rail project baloons to $67 billion (and let's be realistic, if undertaken it will cost MORE than that) that would be $134 million per mile. That doesn't include operating costs. If you assume ridership to be half of what the Washington-New York-Boston Acela is and you assume the operating subsidy to be equal to what Amtrak gets, that would be a subsidy of $4,000 per trip.

California could spend $67 billion on infrastructure in SF and LA (and not connecting them) and create more jobs, faster, for less money, and enact time savings that average people can use and not just politicians and executives on expense accounts all without needing continued taxpayer subsidies.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,368
740
126
few weeks back on NPR I heard that the tickets were going to be more expensive then airplane :biggrin:
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
Not all infrastructure. There are currently 60 flights from LAX to SFO tomorrow (1/5/12) with the price of all of them being $177 after taxes and fees. That doesn't include any flights from surrounding airports.

If the cost of the rail project baloons to $67 billion (and let's be realistic, if undertaken it will cost MORE than that) that would be $134 million per mile. That doesn't include operating costs. If you assume ridership to be half of what the Washington-New York-Boston Acela is and you assume the operating subsidy to be equal to what Amtrak gets, that would be a subsidy of $4,000 per trip.

California could spend $67 billion on infrastructure in SF and LA (and not connecting them) and create more jobs, faster, for less money, and enact time savings that average people can use and not just politicians and executives on expense accounts all without needing continued taxpayer subsidies.
Just out of curiousity, why the hell does it cost $134 freaking million a mile??? Jesus Christ, is the track made of gold or something?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,947
2,324
126
few weeks back on NPR I heard that the tickets were going to be more expensive then airplane :biggrin:
If it was roughly the same transit time with no TSA bullshit I would be happy to pay more to avoid the 2 hours of added airport bullshit since 9/11. Unfortunately, I am willing to bet a months pay that the high speed rail would have equal TSA bullshit.
 

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I'm a Californian and not opposed to HSR. In general, I like the idea. However, with the enormous price tag on this I can't support it any more. If they're going to sell this to the public here they're going to have to come up with a better and more cost-efficient proposal.

- wolf
 
Last edited:

Steeplerot

Lifer
Mar 29, 2004
13,051
6
81
Just out of curiousity, why the hell does it cost $134 freaking million a mile??? Jesus Christ, is the track made of gold or something?
What you are being mislead by is the fact that this figure is for procuring the last few miles of right-of-way in downtown Los Angeles.

Like the rest of the misinformation on the subject the devil in in the details.

But then this is about affirming some folks silly ideology through outrage, not facts, standard "fare" for this forum. ;)
 
Nov 29, 2006
14,586
2,358
126
Just out of curiousity, why the hell does it cost $134 freaking million a mile??? Jesus Christ, is the track made of gold or something?
Actually its more like 175 million per mile if you use google maps distance of 381 miles from SF to LA :p

But to answer your question it just simple math :p

$67,000,000,000/381miles=175million(and change)/mile
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
$175 million per mile... what a bargain! :p Only in the mind of a dimlib. Last I checked it was going to be $90 plus billion, so it's more than $200 million per mile.
 

DesiPower

Lifer
Nov 22, 2008
15,368
740
126
$175 million per mile... what a bargain! :p Only in the mind of a dimlib. Last I checked it was going to be $90 plus billion, so it's more than $200 million per mile.
We should give the contract to Walmart and China.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,708
1
0
Not all infrastructure. There are currently 60 flights from LAX to SFO tomorrow (1/5/12) with the price of all of them being $177 after taxes and fees. That doesn't include any flights from surrounding airports.

If the cost of the rail project baloons to $67 billion (and let's be realistic, if undertaken it will cost MORE than that) that would be $134 million per mile. That doesn't include operating costs. If you assume ridership to be half of what the Washington-New York-Boston Acela is and you assume the operating subsidy to be equal to what Amtrak gets, that would be a subsidy of $4,000 per trip.

California could spend $67 billion on infrastructure in SF and LA (and not connecting them) and create more jobs, faster, for less money, and enact time savings that average people can use and not just politicians and executives on expense accounts all without needing continued taxpayer subsidies.
Ridiculous,
recently i priced chicago to nyc amtrak trip and it came in at 40% more than a spirit air flight. That and amtrak takes 20 hrs versus 2.5 on the plane.

How does it cost so much? I prefer rail travel to flying, but not at 4/10 premium.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
What you are being mislead by is the fact that this figure is for procuring the last few miles of right-of-way in downtown Los Angeles.

Like the rest of the misinformation on the subject the devil in in the details.

But then this is about affirming some folks silly ideology through outrage, not facts, standard "fare" for this forum. ;)
The misinformation originally came in the original Proposition. The people were lied to by the proponents of the high speed rail about it's location, it's cost, it's schedule and it's benefits. The Attorney General of California at the time it was proposed and passed should never had let it reach the ballot.
Unfortunately for the people the Attorney General at the time was a particular lying piece of shit who didn't protect the interests of the people or the State.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Las Vegas had a similar boon doggle back in the 05 time frame.

The were pushing for light rail claiming the cost would be less and it would attract commercial development at the locations.

No one was listen when it was pointed out that the stops were impractical along the back of the strip and it missed the airport.

Eventually at the last minute, the idea was shot done because of the cost per mile and the glaring routing errors.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
If it was roughly the same transit time with no TSA bullshit I would be happy to pay more to avoid the 2 hours of added airport bullshit since 9/11. Unfortunately, I am willing to bet a months pay that the high speed rail would have equal TSA bullshit.
I believe they are in the process of expanding the TSA to train service.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
$175 million per mile... what a bargain! :p Only in the mind of a dimlib. Last I checked it was going to be $90 plus billion, so it's more than $200 million per mile.
Think of all the stimulating that larger cost will do to the economy!
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,086
493
126
Las Vegas had a similar boon doggle back in the 05 time frame.

The were pushing for light rail claiming the cost would be less and it would attract commercial development at the locations.

No one was listen when it was pointed out that the stops were impractical along the back of the strip and it missed the airport.

Eventually at the last minute, the idea was shot done because of the cost per mile and the glaring routing errors.
I thought they built that? It runs behind the resorts on both sides of the strip right? I have been on it once.
 

actuarial

Platinum Member
Jan 22, 2009
2,814
0
71
I thought they built that? It runs behind the resorts on both sides of the strip right? I have been on it once.
I rode on some kind of rail that connect the casinos as well. I actually found it pretty convenient.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,799
1,540
136
If it was roughly the same transit time with no TSA bullshit I would be happy to pay more to avoid the 2 hours of added airport bullshit since 9/11. Unfortunately, I am willing to bet a months pay that the high speed rail would have equal TSA bullshit.
Since some of the funding is to be Federal appropriations you can damn well bet that they'll insist on the TSA "guarding" such a high-profile target.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY