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

[theeedude]

And to that end I'm trying to find the cost per mile of track in Europe, but I'm not find readily available sources. I'll try to do more searching. I'm willing to bet it's a lot cheaper than the projected CA cost though. If there's one thing American politicians are good at, it's pissing away money at a faster rate than anyone on the planet.

You need to compare similar terrain. Anyways, let's not build anything anymore, let's just save money. Because that's what works best.

 

[Screech]

There's a pretty huge difference between not spending money, spending money efficiently, and spending money inefficiently

 

[theeedude]

There's a pretty huge difference between not spending money, spending money efficiently, and spending money inefficiently

Money spending just has to be more efficient than the alternative. At a time of labor market slack, the alternative is paying unemployment benefits and social welfare transfers. When there is a shortage of workers, then you have to start making choices, until then, build, baby, build.

 

[K1052]

And to that end I'm trying to find the cost per mile of track in Europe, but I'm not find readily available sources. I'll try to do more searching. I'm willing to bet it's a lot cheaper than the projected CA cost though. If there's one thing American politicians are good at, it's pissing away money at a faster rate than anyone on the planet.

My recollection that is is something like 60-70% of cost in the US. There is also the problem of us never actually having built such a system in the first place whereas those nations have been continually expanding/improving their rail networks in the intervening decades. Experience and institutional knowledge takes time and money to build, they have major advantages in that department. Also the number of qualified contractors in the US for major transportation projects is shockingly low due to an overall low level of investment and steady projects.

 

[Screech]

Money spending just has to be more efficient than the alternative. At a time of labor market slack, the alternative is paying unemployment benefits and social welfare transfers. When there is a shortage of workers, then you have to start making choices, until then, build, baby, build.

Sure, no disagreement there, but do you really think spending hundreds of millions to lay a few miles of track is the best way to employ people (in terms of people employed per $)? Cmon, let's be serious here, that's ridiculous. Building roads for express buses, expanding freeway interchanges, --all could be done with a much better use of that money. The really funny thing is that at the current program cost projection we could literally build entirely new airports for SD, Oakland, SF, and Sacremento and it would probably be cheaper and produce far more jobs and far more economic activity in the long run. Or we could try to make a new california-based CCC, I'm always a fan of more trees and parks.

 

[K1052]

The really funny thing is that at the current program cost projection we could literally build entirely new airports for SD, Oakland, SF, and Sacremento and it would probably be cheaper and produce far more jobs and far more economic activity in the long run.

Well in the case of SF, Oakland, and SD I'd really like to know where you intend to do that. Physically I mean.

Just the new Bradley intl terminal at LAX was $2B by itself.

 

[sandorski]

My recollection that is is something like 60-70% of cost in the US. There is also the problem of us never actually having built such a system in the first place whereas those nations have been continually expanding/improving their rail networks in the intervening decades. Experience and institutional knowledge takes time and money to build, they have major advantages in that department. Also the number of qualified contractors in the US for major transportation projects is shockingly low due to an overall low level of investment and steady projects.

I haven't looked into the details, but suspect the majority of the Cost is simply acquiring the Land needed for such a project. Once a corridor is in place, future upgrade Costs will be more in line with other nations who have had the corridors in place since foreverish.

 

[K1052]

I haven't looked into the details, but suspect the majority of the Cost is simply acquiring the Land needed for such a project. Once a corridor is in place, future upgrade Costs will be more in line with other nations who have had the corridors in place since foreverish.

Yes, land acquisition cost is substantial (600-700 million) even in the central valley segment alone. Plus all the cost of dealing with so many individual landowners, appraisals, counties, and possible eminent domain actions.

 

[BoberFett]

So to summarize:

US spends 50% more than Europe on healthcare: OMG we waste so much money we need to be more like the Europeans!

US spends 50% more then Europe on trains: Stop complaining, things just cost more in the US.

As I said, make up your minds.

 

[master_shake_]

is the repubs 7.7 trillion dollar stimulus bill better or worse than this?

 

[Screech]

Well in the case of SF, Oakland, and SD I'd really like to know where you intend to do that. Physically I mean.

Just the new Bradley intl terminal at LAX was $2B by itself.

sure, but if we are talking about an amount of money in excess of 40 billion, we can be totally ridiculous. More importantly, a new terminal can actually deliver economic activity (ie more flights to airports that already exist)......whereas the 20 miles of track that that same amount of money might get you (or is it 17 miles? eh w/e) doesn't really give you anything without the remaining 380 (or whatever it ends up being to pacify the central valley) if you want SF to LA.

SD -- >go a bit south and fill in the wetlands (ie out near San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex for SD)
Oakland --> the same but out by richmond (BART already goes there)
SF ....ok, you got me there, lol, that's hopeless (well without filling in another substantial porton of the bay)

also, FWIW: I was basing my pulling numbers out of my ass on new airports loosely on this
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/conc4en/tbl_completedairports.html

 

[Screech]

I haven't looked into the details, but suspect the majority of the Cost is simply acquiring the Land needed for such a project. Once a corridor is in place, future upgrade Costs will be more in line with other nations who have had the corridors in place since foreverish.

I was also under the impression that a significant fraction of the cost (not sure if it is a majority but certainly a large amount) was for land aquisition particularly in some of the more difficult parts ie close to LA. But that again speaks to what I was saying just above -- if your goal (and I'm replying to senseamp here, not you, sandorski) is to employ people with your taxpayer dollars during a recession, then haggling in court for how many millions of taxpayer dollars you are going to shell out for a chunk of land isn't an efficient way to do it -- when that money is finally spent it hasn't actually built anything at all, it has simply transferred property.

 

[K1052]

So to summarize:

US spends 50% more than Europe on healthcare: OMG we waste so much money we need to be more like the Europeans!

US spends 50% more then Europe on trains: Stop complaining, things just cost more in the US.

As I said, make up your minds.

Did we stop providing medical care for 50 years?

This is an extremely poor comparison.

 

[BoberFett]

Did we stop providing medical care for 50 years?

This is an extremely poor comparison.

Great, build half your train and we'll figure out the rest later.

 

[K1052]

sure, but if we are talking about an amount of money in excess of 40 billion, we can be totally ridiculous. More importantly, a new terminal can actually deliver economic activity (ie more flights to airports that already exist)......whereas the 20 miles of track that that same amount of money might get you (or is it 17 miles? eh w/e) doesn't really give you anything without the remaining 380 (or whatever it ends up being to pacify the central valley) if you want SF to LA.

SD -- >go a bit south and fill in the wetlands (ie out near San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex for SD)
Oakland --> the same but out by richmond (BART already goes there)
SF ....ok, you got me there, lol, that's hopeless (well without filling in another substantial porton of the bay)

also, FWIW: I was basing my pulling numbers out of my ass on new airports loosely on this
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/conc4en/tbl_completedairports.html

Federally protected (and owned) wetlands usually are a poor choice to attempt siting a municipal airport on. So that's probably not really going to work. Miramar has been proposed but killed at least a couple times due to local opposition and small fact that the Navy still uses it.

There is no suitable land out in Richmond I'm aware of. Filling the bay is a no go for environmental and political reasons. Same goes for SF.

Even if you wanted to spend the money it would never get done.

 

[Screech]

Federally protected (and owned) wetlands usually are a poor choice to attempt siting a municipal airport on. So that's probably not really going to work. Miramar has been proposed but killed at least a couple times due to local opposition and small fact that the Navy still uses it.

There is no suitable land out in Richmond I'm aware of. Filling the bay is a no go for environmental and political reasons. Same goes for SF.

Even if you wanted to spend the money it would never get done.

A poor choice certainly, but seems easier than turning Oceanside or Palomar into Oceanside or Palomar International, lol. But yes, it will never happen. Miramar is a much better option but will similarly never happen. I was looking just west of north richmond but its a moot point for the reasons you identify. That said, if it was doable (and anything is with enough political will and a strong desire to burn money) those still seem to me to be better uses of money than the current state of things.

 

[theeedude]

Sure, no disagreement there, but do you really think spending hundreds of millions to lay a few miles of track is the best way to employ people (in terms of people employed per $)? Cmon, let's be serious here, that's ridiculous. Building roads for express buses, expanding freeway interchanges, --all could be done with a much better use of that money. The really funny thing is that at the current program cost projection we could literally build entirely new airports for SD, Oakland, SF, and Sacremento and it would probably be cheaper and produce far more jobs and far more economic activity in the long run. Or we could try to make a new california-based CCC, I'm always a fan of more trees and parks.

Not mutually exclusive. Japan has high speed rail, freeway interchanges, buses, airports. So does China, so does Europe. What's ridiculous is making a false choice out of it.

 

[theeedude]

sure, but if we are talking about an amount of money in excess of 40 billion, we can be totally ridiculous. More importantly, a new terminal can actually deliver economic activity (ie more flights to airports that already exist)......whereas the 20 miles of track that that same amount of money might get you (or is it 17 miles? eh w/e) doesn't really give you anything without the remaining 380 (or whatever it ends up being to pacify the central valley) if you want SF to LA.

SD -- >go a bit south and fill in the wetlands (ie out near San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex for SD)
Oakland --> the same but out by richmond (BART already goes there)
SF ....ok, you got me there, lol, that's hopeless (well without filling in another substantial porton of the bay)

also, FWIW: I was basing my pulling numbers out of my ass on new airports loosely on this
https://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch4en/conc4en/tbl_completedairports.html

There is no room for new airports in populated areas, and old ones are already will need to be running at full capacity, even with HSR, as CA keeps growing, despite predictions from various right wing Cassandras.

 

[theeedude]

So to summarize:

US spends 50% more than Europe on healthcare: OMG we waste so much money we need to be more like the Europeans!

US spends 50% more then Europe on trains: Stop complaining, things just cost more in the US.

As I said, make up your minds.

The right really has nothing but cynicism to offer America. Shining city on a hill indeed.

 

[werepossum]

I'd suggest letting our border patrol handle it.

:whiste:

With their current training they'd be required to back off several miles from the actual track and tow a trailer full of diapers . . .

You have to admit, a popular argument from the left is "Europe does it and it's the greatest thing ever." Trains, healthcare, etc.

Of course when someone brings up that very European VAT, the American left starts screeching about "It's regressive!", "You hate the poor!", "You just want to cut taxes for the rich!", or "The VAT would have to be 87%!"

+1

Express trains are a known technology. Simply because stops exist doesn't require every train to stop at every stop.

Really ought to be two sets of tracks or at least two scheduled sets of trains. With a dual track one high speed train could run non-stop between major population centers while a second stops at each community, or trains could be staggered, a non-stop high speed train coming through followed by the commuter. Have to either schedule it so that the high speed makes two complete runs to the commuter's one-way, or else provide shunts at scheduled break points to allow the non-stop to come through. Could even do that with one set of tracks with shunts, but probably get a lot of delays and greatly increase the chance of a catastrophic collision.

 

[werepossum]

There is no room for new airports in populated areas, and old ones are already will need to be running at full capacity, even with HSR, as CA keeps growing, despite predictions from various right wing Cassandras.

The rest of the country likes the idea of making it difficult for people moving to California to get out again, especially conveniently.

 

[Screech]

Not mutually exclusive. Japan has high speed rail, freeway interchanges, buses, airports. So does China, so does Europe. What's ridiculous is making a false choice out of it.

If we have $40 billion dollars to spend on infrastructure, I tend to be of the opinion that it should be spent on 1) the best thing, 2) the second best thing, 3) the third best thing......etc in that order. That is not a false choice; that is being realistic. You don't spend on the 100th best thing first just because someone else has managed to do things 1 through 100.

edit: though I should probably say, the lack of room for easy airport expansion in populated areas is a very good argument in favor of the train

edit2: I am also fairly entertained at the deference everyone seems to have towards the idea that building or expanding airports is impossible. $40billion can make a lot of things happen, even if a wildlife preserve is in the way

 

[theeedude]

If we have $40 billion dollars to spend on infrastructure, I tend to be of the opinion that it should be spent on 1) the best thing, 2) the second best thing, 3) the third best thing......etc in that order. That is not a false choice; that is being realistic. You don't spend on the 100th best thing first just because someone else has managed to do things 1 through 100.

Voters of CA decided the best thing was HSR.

 

[K1052]

Really ought to be two sets of tracks or at least two scheduled sets of trains. With a dual track one high speed train could run non-stop between major population centers while a second stops at each community, or trains could be staggered, a non-stop high speed train coming through followed by the commuter. Have to either schedule it so that the high speed makes two complete runs to the commuter's one-way, or else provide shunts at scheduled break points to allow the non-stop to come through. Could even do that with one set of tracks with shunts, but probably get a lot of delays and greatly increase the chance of a catastrophic collision.

The blended segment from San Jose to SF that will be shared with Caltrain includes long passing tracks to be added at various points in the corridor and the implementation of a Positive Train Control system. Also HSR will most likely be operating at 110mph between the two and spend some of that time slowing down/accelerating for the intermediate stations.

Caltrain has a 100ish page study of blended operations posted on their website if you want to read it.

 

[Screech]

Voters of CA decided the best thing was HSR.

Right, and for that reason it should be attempted, I just think that the logic behind that choice is either terrible or nonexistant. Or spoken more plainly, I'm only debating about whether or not this was the right choice.....but my opinion (and everyone else's here) is basically irrelevant (what else is new, this is ATPN lol)

edit: and I was primarily responding to your statement that as long as we aren't at full employment we should build build build. I agree at least partway but I think this project is a terrible approach to that problem for the reasons stated previously.

Also, where did the voters of california vote on all those other options?