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

[Brainonska511]

I will expect that they will acquire right of way along side existing tracks and build dedicated tracks.

You will not be able to run HSR on freight rail; AMTRACK has already experience this with non-HSR on freight tracks in the NE. 70-80 mph is the highest that those tracks can be navigated safely. They have said that the rail bed has to be rebuilt in areas.

Then the safety issue of putting HSR on a freight line. Even if there are dual lines, you do not want a passenger train to run down a freight.

Amtrak owns the NE corridor rails. They aren't freight rails. The limiting factors for speed are old catenary lines that provide the overhead power, track that isn't straight enough, and just the aging infrastructure. Coupled with no grade separation and shared rails with commuter lines, HSR is currently rather limited there.

But overall, you do really need separate passenger and freight lines. Freight traffic is slower and then you have the issue of people fighting for priority.

 

[Knowing]

I'll just leave this here.

 

[Fern]

Slap a pipeline on it, they'll LOVE it.

LOL

Fern

 

[bradly1101]

Here is your estimate...

Take the time they claim and double it.
Take the amount of money they claim and double or triple it.

$80 billion for a train that might get 20 million people a year?
How many years will it take to break even?

I can fly between the two for $150 round trip. So most you can charge for train might be $75-100.

At $100 a person you will only need 800 million people to ride the thing before it pays for itself. And that assumes NO operating costs...

And when oil is low priced like it is now, getting an average of 30MPG with gas at $2.45 it's only around $50 to drive it. Plus you get to drive past a cattle feedlot so vast that it extends to the horizon. The smell is unforgettable.

 

[glenn1]

I like all of the righties concern for California's economics, where were you when bush was spending trillions on wars of convenience?
Here we are trying to spend some money to benefit actual Americans and you are whining. Remember how proud you were that we were building schools and hospitals in Iraq?
The plans to go east to the central valley are absolutely idiotic however. Much like Obama's efforts to work with Republicans, bringing high speed rail out to the valley is not going to do anything but slow down the train. Compromising on everything leads to bad outcomes for everyone.
Make the train a straight shot from SF to LA.

And yet when a red state builds something like the "Creationism Theme Park" you probably don't simply say "Yep, that's spending some money to benefit actual Americans." California can build what it wants just as red states can but it's silly to think others won't comment on whether the money is being spent wisely or not. This clearly falls into the category of something that has arguable economic value since even if HSR already existed today it's questionable whether it could be economically competitive with air travel for the SF-LA route.

 

[Darwin333]

What I've never understood is why when freight is so much cheaper to move by rail than air, that people cost so much more. Why are the long distance routes easily double what a comparable plane ticket would be? And even these prices are subsidized? Crazy.

If you were moving a metric fuckton of dead bodies cross country it would be cheaper to do by rail. All those "creature comforts" us humans are used to, like seats and space between us and other passengers, headroom, bathrooms, etc... the little things take up a fuckton of space. OTOH coal doesn't have any of those needs so you get a big ass container and fill that bitch to the rim and even better the coal doesn't bitch about how long it takes to get from point A to point B.

With that said, I dunno if this train is a good idea or not but I can't help but agree with some other posters. IF we are going to continue to spend a fuckton more than we make (which I don't agree with but IF we are going to continue) then I would much rather be able to look back in 10 years and say "hey, at least we still got THAT thing right there". Either that or bigger and better directed energy weapons than we just started deploying because I think they are fucking cool as shit. Oh and railguns too. Not that I want to deploy them against other nations or people (don't laze me bro!!) but something about a 30KW laser shooting down an unmanned test drone is friggen cool as hell to me.

Personally I would get rid of Homeland Security and make a new "science" department that included agencies like NASA and I would give NASA's budget to the .mil and the .mils budget to the new "Homeland Science Department". If the Ruskies decide to get frisky and start rolling tanks down Pennsylvania Ave our new bad ass phasers will make short work of them. Hell maybe we could finally put lasers on sharks to patrol our coasts.

 

[Darwin333]

Autonomous high speed natural gas bus is the answer? Germany has autobahns, but they still use high speed rail, but we here need to have high speed buses on I-5. Yeah, whatever. Any other pie in the sky "alternatives?"

I got it!

We put two blimps up in SF with a bungee cord attached to both of them. Then we use a small train to pull the bungee cord back, slap the traveler in a seat and sling shot that fucker to wherever they are going. Just gotta place the nets to catch them in the right place and hope the "train conductor/launcher" remembers to carry the one.

How do I get a patent?

 

[Darwin333]

And yet when a red state builds something like the "Creationism Theme Park" you probably don't simply say "Yep, that's spending some money to benefit actual Americans." California can build what it wants just as red states can but it's silly to think others won't comment on whether the money is being spent wisely or not. This clearly falls into the category of something that has arguable economic value since even if HSR already existed today it's questionable whether it could be economically competitive with air travel for the SF-LA route.

To be fair, we know that trains actually work and creationism doesn't.

 

[IronWing]

I got it!

We put two blimps up in SF with a bungee cord attached to both of them. Then we use a small train to pull the bungee cord back, slap the traveler in a seat and sling shot that fucker to wherever they are going. Just gotta place the nets to catch them in the right place and hope the "train conductor/launcher" remembers to carry the one.

How do I get a patent?

Think super-magnetic slinkies.

 

[theeedude]

I'll just leave this here.

Siemens sums up energy efficiency another way, saying their Velaro train sets consume the equivalent of 0.33 liters of gasoline (about the amount of liquid in a can of soda) per seat per 100 km. And in terms of the environment, they emit about 14 gm of CO2/passenger/mile.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Regional

Boeing 737-900ER 2006 180 2.59 litres per 100 kilometres (91 mpg-US)[21]

Trains are just better. Plus you can do solar for the electricity.

 

[Nograts]

You might as well make that comment about anything with long stretches (eg: pipelines, highways...).

Hi, you must be retarded.

Not even close to the same thing. Blowing up a portion of a highway and guess what, you have disrupted traffic.

Blow a portion of a 220mph passenger train track carrying 100? 1,000? people, and guess what, you have a massacre.

 

[SergeC]

I can't wait, my business will literally use this train thousands of times a year, and my god will it be better than dealing with TSA at the airports.

 

[Brainonska511]

Not even close to the same thing. Blowing up a portion of a highway and guess what, you have disrupted traffic.

Blow a portion of a 220mph passenger train track carrying 100? 1,000? people, and guess what, you have a massacre.

Can you even point to any terrorist incident in which your puported scenario has played out? HSR systems have existed for some time in both Japan and Europe.

So we shouldn't build anything because of some rather irrational fear? Blow up a building with lots of people in it - that could be thousands of people. Blow up a pipeline over Nebraska - contaminate millions of people's drinking water. Blow up a heavily trafficked highway bridge, etc.

Actually, scrap the highway blowing up. Apparently cars create some sort of impenetrable shield to explosives, crashes, and falls from some height in your world. You should stop flying too - inadequately screened baggage throwers could smuggle explosives onto your plane.

 

[Nograts]

Can you even point to any terrorist incident in which your puported scenario has played out? HSR systems have existed for some time in both Japan and Europe.

So we shouldn't build anything because of some rather irrational fear? Blow up a building with lots of people in it - that could be thousands of people. Blow up a pipeline over Nebraska - contaminate millions of people's drinking water. Blow up a heavily trafficked highway bridge, etc.

Actually, scrap the highway blowing up. Apparently cars create some sort of impenetrable shield to explosives, crashes, and falls from some height in your world. You should stop flying too - inadequately screened baggage throwers could smuggle explosives onto your plane.

My statement was that I had neglected to think about the security aspect of 800+ miles of high speed rail track.

You shut that down with your (bad) example of highways and pipelines. Now you want to say because it's never happened we shouldn't worry about it?

Okay fine, blow up a pipeline and contaminate water. I'm sure all the Costco's and crap could cover the state for a few days. How hard would it be to get truckloads of water in? Not very.

And how many terrorist acts target Chinese and Japanese citizens proportional to the US or Western powers? Yeah, again horrible example.

Simple fact remains, something with the explosive power of a few sticks of dynamite could easily derail a 220mph train causing deaths in the 3 to 4 figure range. Doesn't mean we shouldn't build it, just means that pre-emptive measures would be added to the overall cost of this bogus train idea.

Your counter argument that we should ignore security outright and there is zero risk is retarded.

 

[K1052]

Simple fact remains, something with the explosive power of a few sticks of dynamite could easily derail a 220mph train causing deaths in the 3 to 4 figure range. Doesn't mean we shouldn't build it, just means that pre-emptive measures would be added to the overall cost of this bogus train idea.

The very worst derailment in HSR history had a 30% fatality rate. Trains are not super attractive from a terrorism standpoint except maybe a busy terminal with thousands of people but those really aren't different then any other large public space.

 

[Nograts]

The very worst derailment in HSR history had a 30% fatality rate. Trains are not super attractive from a terrorism standpoint except maybe a busy terminal with thousands of people but those really aren't different then any other large public space.

Good to know, and I agree, but my point is security would have to be (if it isn't already) factored in to that 800+ miles of track.

That would be an operating cost too, not a pay it and forget it type cost.

 

[K1052]

Good to know, and I agree, but my point is security would have to be (if it isn't already) factored in to that 800+ miles of track.

That would be an operating cost too, not a pay it and forget it type cost.

I'm certain realistic security measures are figured into the operating cost estimates.

 

[her209]

Europe HSR system

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/high_speed_railroad_map_europe_2008.gif

Chinas

http://surviveinchina.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/china-high-speed-rail.jpg

USA

USA! USA! USA! USA! ...

(damn caps filter)

 

[Darwin333]

My statement was that I had neglected to think about the security aspect of 800+ miles of high speed rail track.

You shut that down with your (bad) example of highways and pipelines. Now you want to say because it's never happened we shouldn't worry about it?

Okay fine, blow up a pipeline and contaminate water. I'm sure all the Costco's and crap could cover the state for a few days. How hard would it be to get truckloads of water in? Not very.

And how many terrorist acts target Chinese and Japanese citizens proportional to the US or Western powers? Yeah, again horrible example.

Simple fact remains, something with the explosive power of a few sticks of dynamite could easily derail a 220mph train causing deaths in the 3 to 4 figure range. Doesn't mean we shouldn't build it, just means that pre-emptive measures would be added to the overall cost of this bogus train idea.

Your counter argument that we should ignore security outright and there is zero risk is retarded.

Much cheaper to get some gunpowder (legally purchased at Wallyworld) and some ball bearings (also legally purchased) and fuck up a crowded area like a mall. If you have real explosives, like what would be required to derail a train, and holy shit you can kill a metric fuckload of people regardless of where they are.

So how much cost should we add to malls? The line BEFORE you go through TSA (you know, that bullshit line that at times can take an hour or more to go through to get on a plane, tons of folk around), private planes that don't have TSA, schools, sporting events, I dunno just about anywhere a bunch of people are gathered.

BE SCARED SON, THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!!!

 

[bradly1101]

I like all of the righties concern for California's economics, where were you when bush was spending trillions on wars of convenience?
Here we are trying to spend some money to benefit actual Americans and you are whining. Remember how proud you were that we were building schools and hospitals in Iraq?
The plans to go east to the central valley are absolutely idiotic however. Much like Obama's efforts to work with Republicans, bringing high speed rail out to the valley is not going to do anything but slow down the train. Compromising on everything leads to bad outcomes for everyone.
Make the train a straight shot from SF to LA.

My point is that you need to get people to ride it, and if it was part of a nationwide network with express trains and locals {like European countries) it could work. I spent a month gallivanting around Europe and never needed a car once, which was weird being from southern California; a place that used to be crisscrossed with trains now gone to automobiles. Now we're struggling to get them back.

 

[OverVolt]

Won't matter if the drought forces everyone to move.

I do think its a bad idea, actually. And I'm pro-infrastructure spending too.

 

[K1052]

Won't matter if the drought forces everyone to move.

I do think its a bad idea, actually. And I'm pro-infrastructure spending too.

The LA and SF metro areas aren't going to move....just pay more for water (waste water recycle, desal, etc) over the long term.

 

[momeNt]

This article states that the train will be an 800 Mile system (both ways?), but doesn't mention the time it would take. It's funny; the drive from L.A. to S.F. takes about six hours at 400 miles. By the time you get to the train station, the train makes all its stops and you get tranportation to your destination at the end of the line, how much time will be saved (if any)? Until a train system can logically replace a car or a plane it won't be successful.

One thing you don't have to do on a train is drive....

Also many trains cost the commuter less than driving themselves.

Not everybody has a car.

I have often taken a 2.5 hour train - probably 3 hours all things considered, to replace a 2.25 hour car drive.

 

[OverVolt]

The LA and SF metro areas aren't going to move....just pay more for water (waste water recycle, desal, etc) over the long term.

I'm honestly glad I don't live in Cali as it can't support the population over the next couple decades if it is indeed a cyclical drought and they accidentally overbuilt the carrying capacity of the area.

If they go with desal it will price people out of the area. Population is going to go down. When population goes down the tax base also goes down. You're probably in cali and just trying not to think about it

 

[theeedude]

I'm honestly glad I don't live in Cali as it can't support the population over the next couple decades if it is indeed a cyclical drought and they accidentally overbuilt the carrying capacity of the area.

If they go with desal it will price people out of the area. Population is going to go down. When population goes down the tax base also goes down. You're probably in cali and just trying not to think about it

Quoting another California doomsday prediction for posterity