Obama plans high-speed money shredder, made in China.

[Steeplerot]

seems like a better way would be to build lanes on our existing interstate hwys that would be for semis only.

This just encourages more cars. The point is to get them off the road as they are inefficient for commutes. Lay dual track and you have the capacity of another whole freeway for about the same amount of right-of-way as another freeway lane. You also have flexibility on days of increased ridership for whatever reason. (freeway bridge down because of accidents or being upgraded? At least half the traffic is still moving.)

 

[alphatarget1]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/14/the_enemies_of_good_government_108870.html

 

[werepossum]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/14/the_enemies_of_good_government_108870.html

I don't generally look at links without commentary, but due to your post history I did. Glad I did, it's a good read. Thanks!

 

[ShawnD1]

I don't generally look at links without commentary, but due to your post history I did. Glad I did, it's a good read. Thanks!

This part is what is interesting
"Despite the subsidies, Amtrak does not provide low-cost transportation. Longtime critic Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute recently planned a trip from Washington to New York. Noting that fares on Amtrak's high-speed Acela start at $139 one-way, he decided to take a private bus service. The roundtrip fare: $21.50. "

It's like that up north as well. Taking a Greyhound bus across the country is far cheaper than taking the train. Roads are for people, rails are for millions of pounds of cargo.

 

[Drako]

I'm pretty sure that there are only two types of people that think the California High-speed Rail is a good idea: thieves and idiots.

High speed rail may be money well spent in other parts of the country, but in California, it's clearly a boondoggle wasting the tax payers money.

 

[Acanthus]

What is the lefts obsession with trains? I'll never understand it.

If you want to modernize our transportation why don't we build more interstates and airports that can take more volume.

Trains are extremely efficient.

Although i strongly disagree with GE-China building anything government funded... The train concept is a good idea.

Expanding highways will not shorten my travel times.
Building airports will not reduce the insane cost of flying.

 

[Genx87]

Trains are extremely efficient.

Although i strongly disagree with GE-China building anything government funded... The train concept is a good idea.

Expanding highways will not shorten my travel times.
Building airports will not reduce the insane cost of flying.

In what metric are they extremely efficient? Moving tons of coal and product across this country? I agree. Moving people? The market has said otherwise.

 

[Imp]

This part is what is interesting
"Despite the subsidies, Amtrak does not provide low-cost transportation. Longtime critic Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute recently planned a trip from Washington to New York. Noting that fares on Amtrak's high-speed Acela start at $139 one-way, he decided to take a private bus service. The roundtrip fare: $21.50. "

It's like that up north as well. Taking a Greyhound bus across the country is far cheaper than taking the train. Roads are for people, rails are for millions of pounds of cargo.

Ha, I went on a 300 Km (or whatever 5 hours at ~150 Km/h is) trip last year. Took a train there, and a bus back. It was about 5 hours versus 12 hours, but $150 verus $30.

The only "downside" to the bus ride was that I had to make a crossover in another city where the bus station is located in cracktown.

 

[PeshakJang]

Building airports will not reduce the insane cost of flying.

If the government directly subsidized airlines with the same money it uses to subsidize trains, costs would be significantly lower.

As I showed, prices for trains such as BART would have to double just to come close to being self-sufficient.. and that's just for a short commuter trip.

 

[Acanthus]

If the government directly subsidized airlines with the same money it uses to subsidize trains, costs would be significantly lower.

As I showed, prices for trains such as BART would have to double just to come close to being self-sufficient.. and that's just for a short commuter trip.

Did you miss the part where the government already severely subsidizes airlines?

How many times have the major airlines been bailed out?

 

[Genx87]

Did you miss the part where the government already severely subsidizes airlines?

How many times have the major airlines been bailed out?

According to the link 5 dollars per 1000 passenger miles vs 186 for rail. I'd prefer it be nothing but if airlines are severaly subsidized. What can we consider rail that has 37 times the money subsidized by the govt per 1000 passenger miles?

The only time I can think of the feds bailing out the airlines was in 2002 after 9-11 crushed air travel for a time in a time of recession. I was opposed to it then as I would be opposed to it now.

 

[Acanthus]

According to the link 5 dollars per 1000 passenger miles vs 186 for rail. I'd prefer it be nothing but if airlines are severaly subsidized. What can we consider rail that has 37 times the money subsidized by the govt per 1000 passenger miles?

The only time I can think of the feds bailing out the airlines was in 2002 after 9-11 crushed air travel for a time in a time of recession. I was opposed to it then as I would be opposed to it now.

passenger-miles?

Of course over tremendous distances you'll find aircraft cheaper...

Amtrak and a new high speed rail system are not the same animal. The main reason Amtrak needs subsidies is low ridership. I would never consider Amtrak to visit my parents 500 miles from my home at any price. It doesn't save me any time vs driving.

If i could cut my commute time in half, I would strongly consider paying for a ticket as long as it beats my cost of gas + fair wear and tear on my vehicle. I'm sure a lot of Americans feel the same way.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Go bitch about hte BMW cars made in the USA that are then exported to China you morons.

 

[Genx87]

passenger-miles?

Of course over tremendous distances you'll find aircraft cheaper...

Amtrak and a new high speed rail system are not the same animal. The main reason Amtrak needs subsidies is low ridership. I would never consider Amtrak to visit my parents 500 miles from my home at any price. It doesn't save me any time vs driving.

If i could cut my commute time in half, I would strongly consider paying for a ticket as long as it beats my cost of gas + fair wear and tear on my vehicle. I'm sure a lot of Americans feel the same way.

Do you really expect the subsidies to go away with a HSR system? The cost to maintain and build are higher than Amtrak. Fares will have to be higher to recoup those loses or subsidies higher. I really dont see HSR being any more friendly from a market perspective than Amtrak.

And this comes back to your claim about being extremely efficient. You should qualify that statement since you are admitting over longer distances airplanes are better. What is the distance that trains become extremely efficient for moving passengers? In my world anything over 350 miles aircraft, anything less and it is a car.

 

[werepossum]

This part is what is interesting
"Despite the subsidies, Amtrak does not provide low-cost transportation. Longtime critic Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute recently planned a trip from Washington to New York. Noting that fares on Amtrak's high-speed Acela start at $139 one-way, he decided to take a private bus service. The roundtrip fare: $21.50. "

It's like that up north as well. Taking a Greyhound bus across the country is far cheaper than taking the train. Roads are for people, rails are for millions of pounds of cargo.

Agreed. We really wanted to take a trip by train, we just weren't willing to spend more money and more time than flying PLUS have to set up for more than twelve hours before reaching sleep car accommodations. If I have to spend more than four or six hours sitting up, I'm going to either fly or drive, both of which were faster and considerably cheaper to boot.

But even though trains are less efficient at moving people, they offer the large advantage of being somewhat fuel independent. Commuter light trains can run on electrified rails, which means they can run on any source, and can also benefit greatly from hybrid technology by storing and reusing the breaking energy. Larger long distance trains can run on natural gas or alcohol instead of diesel. And as automated safety programs get better, track density can increase considerably, especially by using multiple tracks that allow multiple trains to share tracks more safely.

Eventually we will probably be forced to trains; as oil gets more expensive, even the richest countries won't be able to afford individual automobiles. So it would be nice to have this technology even if it isn't practical for the vast majority at the moment. It just wouldn't be so nice that we should run out and borrow billions more to get it before it's practical. (And I'm hoping that fast-charging electrics and hybrids will allow us to retain our personal automobiles anyway.)

 

[Acanthus]

Do you really expect the subsidies to go away with a HSR system? The cost to maintain and build are higher than Amtrak. Fares will have to be higher to recoup those loses or subsidies higher. I really dont see HSR being any more friendly from a market perspective than Amtrak.

And this comes back to your claim about being extremely efficient. You should qualify that statement since you are admitting over longer distances airplanes are better. What is the distance that trains become extremely efficient for moving passengers? In my world anything over 350 miles aircraft, anything less and it is a car.

Running empty trains is not efficient.

Running full trains is efficient.

This is not a hard concept.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

There have been several plans for highspeed rail in Texas that have never come to fruition, I think it would be a great idea for our area.

With the majority of the states population grouped in the five cities of Dallas, Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio it makes it possible to link all five cities with less than 1000 miles of track. And in this area maybe more than any other regional city to city travel is already robust enough to support it.

For me this type of travel would be a no brainer if it were available. I occasionally have to travel from DFW to Houston on business and the two options I have are
drive an hour to DFW airport and deal with parking and airport security to take a 45min plane ride and rent a car or drive 3 1/2 hours, highspeed rail would be a better option.

And I would use the rail system extensively for vacation travel and visits to friends and relatives. For example from where I live it's about a 2 1/2 hour drive to Austin and I travel there a couple of times a year on long weekends and such, but if I could hop on a train and be there in 45min-1hr I would probably triple my visits to Austin, and to San Antonio and the gulf coast for that mater.

Bring on the bullet train!

 

[K1052]

This part is what is interesting
"Despite the subsidies, Amtrak does not provide low-cost transportation. Longtime critic Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute recently planned a trip from Washington to New York. Noting that fares on Amtrak's high-speed Acela start at $139 one-way, he decided to take a private bus service. The roundtrip fare: $21.50. "

It's like that up north as well. Taking a Greyhound bus across the country is far cheaper than taking the train. Roads are for people, rails are for millions of pounds of cargo.

That private bus service rolls over a subsidized public road(s). Comparison fail. Also it takes a hell of a lot longer.

Since there aren't going to be any new highways built in established urban areas and the cost of expanding many of the high traffic airports in the Northeast Corridor is also in the MANY billions of dollars each (or not even possible in some cases) and fraught with environmental problems (potential lawsuits) there is going to be little choice but to use HSR.

 

[chucky2]

I can't wait until the HSR tracks go across the Liberal Beatle mating grounds. Surely the libs are going to go batsh1t crazy with multi-decade lawsuits to get the HSR project scrapped....oh, this'll be good...buwhahaha....

 

[K1052]

If the government directly subsidized airlines with the same money it uses to subsidize trains, costs would be significantly lower.

As I showed, prices for trains such as BART would have to double just to come close to being self-sufficient.. and that's just for a short commuter trip.

So you propose that people should be flying from say OAK to SFO?

BART's competition as a local mass transit service is the car.

 

[K1052]

I can't wait until the HSR tracks go across the Liberal Beatle mating grounds. Surely the libs are going to go batsh1t crazy with multi-decade lawsuits to get the HSR project scrapped....oh, this'll be good...buwhahaha....

Compared to new airport construction or expansion, environmental opposition will be minimal. Any routing will follow existing highway or rail rights of way so pretty much any argument brought would be without merit.

 

[ShawnD1]

That private bus service rolls over a subsidized public road(s). Comparison fail.

commuter bus = 1% of the traffic on any given highway and therefore responsible for 1% of the road's cost
commuter train = 100% of the traffic because the rail is built specifically for this train

 

[chucky2]

Compared to new airport construction or expansion, environmental opposition will be minimal. Any routing will follow existing highway or rail rights of way so pretty much any argument brought would be without merit.

Doesn't matter. If it merely threatens to disrupt the Liberal Beatle, just the mere threat, then a multi-decade lawsuit must be hashed out. And I'm sure the ACLU will bring it against whoever is pushing HSR, because, the ACLU looks out for those who care about the Liberal Beatle, they are in no way at all biased.

And I strongly doubt existing rights of way will be utilized for 100% of the HSR rail projects. With unlimited money come unlimited HSR dreams.....

Chuck

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

You are not going to get 40 mpg on the 880 going through the heart of the east bay snag. You also should look at estimated times. Sure, you can get there cheaper if you have a amazing car, perfect driving conditions (880? lol!) and a few hours to burn in the east bay traffic and smog. Enjoy sucking exhaust while the BART passes your asses by unimpeded by surface gridlock.

Bullshit. I used to drive up to visit my girlfriend on weekdays. She went to school in Berkeley while I did work in SJ. In the worst commutes I've taken 1.5 hours. But I usually make it within 1:15. It's a 1 hr drive typically.

So much for evening rush hour? Look. BART makes it BARELY worth it to take. It's $8.60 to Downtown Berkeley and that's a 50 minute ride from Fremont. Half of your jam on the 880 is between 237 to Stevenson which is like 25 minutes of my drive already. So why the hell would I pay up the ass to sacrifice mobility once I'm in town? I'd have to walk my ass 20 minutes to her place and then not be able to go anywhere else because... I'm stuck on foot. And good luck with $2 AC Transit fares unless I decide to be an ass and make myself a fake Cal AC Transit pass I enjoyed when I was in school.

But seriously. HSR is a romantic idea. I'd love HSR in the US, but it's just not worth it. What are we talking about here? The typical HSR from SF to LA? It's nice but the 6 hour drive isn't so bad. Especially when you have a friend. We were talking the whole trip down and the next thing you know we were in Irvine. The 5 isn't a traffic nightmare, and if anything, I'd rather see them extend BART around the whole Bay Area and make it a TRUE subway with multiple lines in the city or in the Silicon Valley. Light Rail is ridiculous. My ex took 1 hr to go from Campbell to Mtn View. An easy 15 minute drive took 1 hour on the fucking light rail. Are you kidding me? I could bike faster than that pathetic train.

So you propose that people should be flying from say OAK to SFO?

BART's competition as a local mass transit service is the car.

It's a pretty shitty competition. 250,000 riders a day only. Compare this to a true subway anywhere you go in the world. I remember when Taipei Mayor Chen Shui Bian (the now incarcerated scandalous former president) visited the Bay in the late 90s to check out BART. And then look at what the Taipei MRT is today. Isn't it like 1.5 million riders a day? Holy crap. I used to have to learn the bus routes, and now I just go 100% MRT when I'm there. Try that in the Bay.

But seriously. The only time I take BART is to go to Cal football games. At $8.60 a pop, it's still a lot to swallow. But it beats looking for parking unless I get there early in the morning to hang out with my friends. Even for A's or Warriors games, I always go with a friend, and the drive is easy as it is. Throw on HOV lanes and you already pay for the parking at the stadium. Of course, parking at the BART station makes it even cheaper. Just having 1 guy carpool with you already defeats BART's costs. Sorry. Public transportation fails in the Bay Area.

This? or smooth sailing on the train chilling on the laptop after work? Choices choices.

I will be in the tunnel bypassing this mess, thanks.

And btw, most commuters do not pay for individual tickets, now factor in the monthly BART pass with its flat fee, low hassle fare payment of swiping a card through the gates, then compare it to your fuel/maintance/taxes/bridgetolls for a car all month. No comparison if you use your head.

I'll go out and say that if you have to deal with this, you epic fail. I've dealt with this ONCE in my life and then I learned. You go on the 880 ramp, you get off Grand Ave. You take a right and you get on the 80W from there. Then you keep right and you go with all the cheaters who use the shoulder because it WILL become a Fasttrak lane in about 10 seconds. Then you get on the bridge and you laugh at the people who wait 30 minutes to get onto the bridge.

Honestly, the commute isn't that bad if you have Fastrak to begin with. That's probably a snapshot of as worst as it gets, usually on weekends actually when all the idiots drive into the city. The weekday commute is actually quite decent for me. Yes I used to volunteer in the evening in the city, and did morning commutes to Daly City sometimes. It's not that bad.

 

[chowderhead]

If the government directly subsidized airlines with the same money it uses to subsidize trains, costs would be significantly lower.

As I showed, prices for trains such as BART would have to double just to come close to being self-sufficient.. and that's just for a short commuter trip.

EXACTLY, I am not sure why you are arguing with this guy about BART which isn't even HSR and has had to rely on gov't subsidies. But at least hundreds of thousands of people will take BART. Who is going to take HSR down from SF to LA if the plans are to stop in every cowtown in the Central Valley like Borden and Corcoran that they are proposing. The money can be better spent making BART or Amtrak/NE corridor better. This is a complete waste of money and Obama should be ashamed for charging more debt onto future generations.