The liberals $43 billion train to no where...

[wirelessenabled]

Perspective...

The big dig...
9 years behind schedule.
Almost triple its original cost.

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge
5 years behind schedule
Over double its original cost
And that is just ONE fucking bridge!!!

Iraq War Nearly .... well you can't come up with how over budget it is because VP Dick Cheney said we would make money by invading Iraq. Selling their oil, remember? Oil sales would pay for the War.

Nearly $1 trillion dollars later, what has been accomplished? What good have we done for the US economy?

 

[Patranus]

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge
5 years behind schedule
Over double its original cost
And that is just ONE fucking bridge!!!

Incorrect.
It is for 1/2 of one bridge that took less than 3 years to build the ENTIRE thing (with tunnel)

 

[Patranus]

I agree that there are numerous positive residual effects largely being ignored by the anti-HSR neigh sayers here.

People already don't ride the train from SF to LA (or LA to SF).
What makes you think people are going to use this boondoggle.

The tickets are going to be more than 3x the cost of a plain ticket and the trip will take a lot longer.

Not really seeing any need being filled by this project except California's need to piss away money.

 

[MovingTarget]

Those are benefits of commuter rail systems, not hsr

HSR would help with those things, but overall, people won't take full advantage of HSR without a complementary commuter rail system. Its great to be able to travel between cities efficiently on an HSR line, but if you can't get anywhere in that city without a car, whats the point? The car wins every time.

I'm all for this type of infrastructure development, but we shouldn't be deploying it for cities that don't have extensive public transit systems. We should be focusing more on commuter rail for the time being.

 

[dmcowen674]

I bet if a republican proposed this deal, the thread title would be "CHOO CHOO, bitches!" or something along the lines of that.

Choo Baby Choo if Reagan proposed it I'm sure

 

[JSt0rm]

People already don't ride the train from SF to LA (or LA to SF).
What makes you think people are going to use this boondoggle.

The tickets are going to be more than 3x the cost of a plain ticket and the trip will take a lot longer.

Not really seeing any need being filled by this project except California's need to piss away money.

1. fact, cali pays more in federal taxes then they receive in "boondoggle" projects.

2. Tickets will be 3x the cost of a plane ride in 75 years? Our airspace is full we can't put very many more planes up there without some significant change.

3. Where do you live? If you don't live in cali how do you think to know what we will do or won't do?

 

[Patranus]

HSR would help with those things, but overall, people won't take full advantage of HSR without a complementary commuter rail system. Its great to be able to travel between cities efficiently on an HSR line, but if you can't get anywhere in that city without a car, whats the point? The car wins every time.

I'm all for this type of infrastructure development, but we shouldn't be deploying it for cities that don't have extensive public transit systems. We should be focusing more on commuter rail for the time being.

Except for the fact that it is cheaper and faster to travel by air and people don't use the system that is in place today.

 

[JSt0rm]

Except for the fact that it is cheaper and faster to travel by air and people don't use the system that is in place today.

Again, with population growth we will not be able to put more people in the sky. You have to concede this issue. So we need to look at alternatives to moving large amounts of people around.

 

[MovingTarget]

Except for the fact that it is cheaper and faster to travel by air and people don't use the system that is in place today.

Not necessarily. Its cheaper/faster if you are going long distances, but shorter regional hops are quite competitive. Besides, you don't have to show up to the train station crazy early to be searched, herded like goats, etc. Its much more convenient when done correctly. You can't neglect the obvious convenience factor. For example, it would cost me $35 to go between Tuscaloosa and New Orleans on the non-hsr crescent line. Travelling by car or plane just doesn't compare. If that line were HSR, you bet people would be using it. It would be a boon to the regional economy.

People don't use the current system because it is inadequate for our needs. You must have commuter rail (or similar) systems in metro areas in order to make use of these inter-city routes. Hell, I used to go between Birmingham and Mobile on the old train route (if it were still open) because I had transportation options with family members. If I didn't have those options and had to rely on public transit - I'd be SOL and have to drive the entire way.

But in the context of this thread, I am not from California. I can only recall my own driving/riding/flying experiences in my region. If California thinks that their transportation dollars are best spent on HSR infrastructure, I think thats great. Its their choice based on their experience/situation.

 

[chowderhead]

A lot of people commute between these areas on a regular basis in CA, am i way off base here? I don't live in CA, but i've heard about the horrific traffic and commute times. ESPECIALLY in the bay area and LA.

no one commutes 400 miles from San Francisco and LA daily. They would move to one city or the other. HSR does very little for traffic congestion or commute times as most people commute less than 1 hour each day to and from work in their car. HSR does nothing for those commuters. The priority should be a focus on public transportation options that millions use each day like BART/MuNI/East Bay Transit, and freeway upgrades, bridges, etc. These things affect millions of people daily. Spending billions on public transportation and road upgrades, commuter lines will have an immediate impact. HSR is a subsidy for business travelers 10-20 years from now with no guarantee there will ever be the demand.

The flight data shows currently that there is excess capacity along the SFO/LAX corridor. Airlines can simply shift airplanes and capacity as demand increases or decreases. Secondary airports are nowhere near capacity. Tracks cannot be moved easily once laid in response to changes in demographics. There has been no interest from the private sector because they know this is a money pit with very little chance of ever breaking even.

 

[davmat787]

Again, with population growth we will not be able to put more people in the sky. You have to concede this issue. So we need to look at alternatives to moving large amounts of people around.

All but one flight between SFO-LAX uses narrow body aircraft, and Skywest even flies EMB-120 commuters. One solution is to use a larger capacity aircraft like United does with its one 777 flight. Airlines will usually match the capacity demand if they have the airframes to do so.

 

[ShawnD1]

no one commutes 400 miles from San Francisco and LA daily.

This. I'm a huge supporter of public transit, and I ride the bus every day, but long distance rails just don't make a lot of sense.

If people really want to help with traffic problems, they would focus on improving transportation between suburbs and the city. That would actually help.

 

[JSt0rm]

All but one flight between SFO-LAX uses narrow body aircraft, and Skywest even flies EMB-120 commuters. One solution is to use a larger capacity aircraft like United does with its one 777 flight. Airlines will usually match the capacity demand if they have the airframes to do so.

That sounds like a solution... For a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_traffic_flow_management

 

[Ns1]

i do not want this

 

[K1052]

I'm all for this type of infrastructure development, but we shouldn't be deploying it for cities that don't have extensive public transit systems. We should be focusing more on commuter rail for the time being.

Real HSR (220mph) in the Northeast would be wildly successful. The NEC hooks directly into established and well used local transit systems that already carry millions of riders daily. Implementation would run $100-$120B, seems like a better deal than CA HSR at this point.

Chicago would also be a good candidate for fast rail links of 110mph+ to Detroit (in the works), St. Louis (construction nearly complete), Milwaukee, and Indianapolis.

 

[RampantAndroid]

As much as I hate to see more spending when there's no money, this country needs more rail, and less air. Going across the country, I'd LOVE to use rail...but it just makes no sense. Going Amtrak from Lancaster -> Manhattan is almost not worth it...it's almost cheaper to fly. There's something wrong there.

 

[Ns1]

As much as I hate to see more spending when there's no money, this country needs more rail, and less air. Going across the country, I'd LOVE to use rail...but it just makes no sense. Going Amtrak from Lancaster -> Manhattan is almost not worth it...it's almost cheaper to fly. There's something wrong there.

I looked at 5-10 different rail trips for my recent vacation and flying was cheaper EVERY TIME.

 

[Lanyap]

They could cut the cost in half by using illegal immigrants.

 

[MovingTarget]

Real HSR (220mph) in the Northeast would be wildly successful. The NEC hooks directly into established and well used local transit systems that already carry millions of riders daily. Implementation would run $100-$120B, seems like a better deal than CA HSR at this point.

Chicago would also be a good candidate for fast rail links of 110mph+ to Detroit (in the works), St. Louis (construction nearly complete), Milwaukee, and Indianapolis.

I imagine it would be as your public transit systems are much more highly developed/deployed. My personal experience is that of a Southerner, where our public transit systems rival that of the third world. I wish that we had the light rail systems that other regions had. Heck, I wish we had the railcar systems of a few generations ago..

 

[Patranus]

Again, with population growth we will not be able to put more people in the sky. You have to concede this issue. So we need to look at alternatives to moving large amounts of people around.

You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true.

 

[JSt0rm]

You can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true.

wtf?

Are you saying we won't run out of airspace? Or must you just argue every fucking thing?

http://www.ameinfo.com/159070.html

http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_07/06_1149/

from the link

April 2007

Jim DeArmon, The MITRE Corporation
Craig Wanke, The MITRE Corporation
Dan Greenbaum, Jr., The MITRE Corporation
Lixia Song, The MITRE Corporation
Sandeep Mulgund, The MITRE Corporation
Steve Zobell, The MITRE Corporation
Neera Sood, The MITRE Corporation

ABSTRACT

In the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS) a function called traffic flow management (TFM) seeks a balance between resource capacities and the demands placed upon them by air traffic. In general, capacity cannot be manipulated, and it is necessary for demand to be altered to meet a reduced capacity. Typically, demand can be altered in time (via delay, i.e., slowing flights so that the number per unit time is reduced) or space (via rerouting, when specific airspace sector capacity is reduced, e.g., during severe en route weather). This paper discusses the use of probability modeling for assessing airspace capacity, and discusses comparison of three techniques for generating solutions to the problem.


Fucking retards like you make it impossible to have any kind of discussion in this fucking place.

 

[Patranus]

Fucking retards like you make it impossible to have any kind of discussion in this fucking place.

Neither of those links backs up your claim that we are running out of airspace rather infrastructure. It ignores ever increasing infrastructure as well as the ever increasing plane size.

 

[PeshakJang]

wtf?

Are you saying we won't run out of airspace? Or must you just argue every fucking thing?

Bigger, faster planes. It's not something that can only be applied to rail, you know.

Air traffic capacity can be manipulated much more easily than rail traffic. Switch planes, reroute, ground, etc. This you can't deny.

Plus, how will it be easier/cheaper to acquire the *massive* right-of-ways required for HSR?

What about the environmental impact? There would be more lawsuits from left-wingers to block construction than you could count.

Once you start basing HSR claims on actual economic impact studies and completely account for the costs involved, without hand-waving and pseudomathematics, we can talk. So far, that has never happened, anywhere, ever.

 

[theeedude]

They should build it in more populated areas first. There is a lot of affluent commuters that have 1 hr+ commute which would be willing to pay up to save 1 hour a day if that could be cut in half. This would be SF<->Silicon Valley and Orange County<->LA type of commuter. I think central valley people are not as likely to use trains. Not as affluent and also more spread out with less developed public transit, and less traffic as of now.

 

[JSt0rm]

Neither of those links backs up your claim that we are running out of airspace rather infrastructure. It ignores ever increasing infrastructure as well as the ever increasing plane size.

Your right we can just make bigger planes forever.

Bigger, faster planes. It's not something that can only be applied to rail, you know.

Air traffic capacity can be manipulated much more easily than rail traffic. Switch planes, reroute, ground, etc. This you can't deny.

Plus, how will it be easier/cheaper to acquire the *massive* right-of-ways required for HSR?

What about the environmental impact? There would be more lawsuits from left-wingers to block construction than you could count.

Once you start basing HSR claims on actual economic impact studies and completely account for the costs involved, without hand-waving and pseudomathematics, we can talk. So far, that has never happened, anywhere, ever.

Im not saying this hasn't gone over budget. Are you saying there have been no economic impact studies done? I'm not going to look it up. I will trust you if you say it. If someone comes in later and says they did i will think your a big fat douchebag but for now I will believe you when you say none did these studies.