Well this Californian thinks it's a waste of money. I can see the benefit of a high-rail line on the east coast because it can connect so many metro areas in one route. However, there's really not very much between LA and the Bay Area.
Well this Californian thinks it's a waste of money. I can see the benefit of a high-rail line on the east coast because it can connect so many metro areas in one route. However, there's really not very much between LA and the Bay Area.
This is from the California High Speed Rail Authority or other proponents of the project so take it with a grain of salt but if half of this materialized it should ameliorate the costs somewhat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
The CHSRA projects that construction of the system will create approximately 150,000 construction jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs[4] by creating new commuters that will use the system.
Proponents of high speed rail claim the Los Angeles-San Francisco will generate a net surplus of US$2.23 billion by 2023, although critics[who?] point to the significant losses at Amtrak, Caltrain and other similar services to show that these profits may not materialize. Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express service, however, generates an operating surplus[18] that is used to cover operating expenses of other lines.
Since the trains will be completely grade-separated, there is no threat of interfering with automobile and pedestrian traffic. The project also involves grade-separation for existing rail lines with which it will share rights-of-way along part of its length, further improving safety on these lines and eliminating car traffic delays.
Since high-speed trains (based on fossil fuel electricity generation) use one-third the energy of airplanes (per person) and a fifth of that used by cars (with one person),[19] California High-Speed Rail will also eliminate 12 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year by off-setting passenger car and airplane use. This is the equivalent of removing more than one million vehicles from the state's roads and freeways. It will also lessen California's dependence on foreign oil by up to 12.7 million barrels per year.
The CHSRA projects that the system will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."[4]
[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
The CHSRA projects that construction of the system will create approximately 150,000 construction jobs and 450,000 permanent jobs[4] by creating new commuters that will use the system.
Proponents of high speed rail claim the Los Angeles-San Francisco will generate a net surplus of US$2.23 billion by 2023, although critics[who?] point to the significant losses at Amtrak, Caltrain and other similar services to show that these profits may not materialize. Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express service, however, generates an operating surplus[18] that is used to cover operating expenses of other lines.
Since the trains will be completely grade-separated, there is no threat of interfering with automobile and pedestrian traffic. The project also involves grade-separation for existing rail lines with which it will share rights-of-way along part of its length, further improving safety on these lines and eliminating car traffic delays.
Since high-speed trains (based on fossil fuel electricity generation) use one-third the energy of airplanes (per person) and a fifth of that used by cars (with one person),[19] California High-Speed Rail will also eliminate 12 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year by off-setting passenger car and airplane use. This is the equivalent of removing more than one million vehicles from the state's roads and freeways. It will also lessen California's dependence on foreign oil by up to 12.7 million barrels per year.
The CHSRA projects that the system will "alleviate the need to spend more than $100 billion to build 3,000 miles of new freeway, five airport runways, and 90 departure gates."[4]
[edit]
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
^ all of that is based on their over statement of riders.
They are suggesting 60? million a year while others are saying 20 million might be more likely.
Amtrak's record suggests even less.
Only 1.5 million people a year fly from San Fran to LAX. Another 700,000 fly San Fran to San Diego.
So that is only 2.2 million people a year flying from San Fran south.
The train would be a total waste of money...
They are suggesting 60? million a year while others are saying 20 million might be more likely.
Amtrak's record suggests even less.
Only 1.5 million people a year fly from San Fran to LAX. Another 700,000 fly San Fran to San Diego.
So that is only 2.2 million people a year flying from San Fran south.
The train would be a total waste of money...
I can't comment as I don't really know much about this. But 43 billion seems like a lot for something like this.
I guess it will all come down to cost and marketing, and the experience. If you can sell it right who knows what will happen.
I guess it will all come down to cost and marketing, and the experience. If you can sell it right who knows what will happen.
SFO is just one airport in the bay area. There is also Oakland and San Jose. I believe that the rail is also going to Sacramento.
Only liberals would think spending dozens of billions of dollars on technology of the 1800's would solve problems in 2011.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Where is that photo of straws????
Seriously... how many fly a year from San Fran area to LA or San Diego? 3-4 million?
Remember you are building a train system that will need 1 BILLION riders to pay for itself! The numbers aren't there.
BTW amusing how the guy who hates Europe wants to build a European style train system...
theeedude
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2006
- 35,787
- 6,198
- 126
Plus a tonne of people drive. Plus a tonne of people are unemployed and could use infrastructure job.
I don't think that it needs 1 billion riders. Your numbers require a lot of assumptions and restrictions. Moreover, there are a lot of people who drive between SFO and LAX. Many of those people will be taking the train.
I don't hate Europe itself, just many of their governments. I applaud their stance on gay rights. I also applaud them on their public transportation system (while also condemning their restriction on individual car transportation).
I'd like a Japanese style system though
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,816
- 1,126
- 126
This OP is more ridiculous than usual for the OP. Nothing found to bitch about here unless you are a partisan fool living in a different State.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
The system will cost $43 billion to build.
Even at $100 profit per person it would still need 430 million riders to cover its construction costs.
Now I can fly round trip for less than $150 so they idea that they can charge $100+ for a one way ticket from San Fran to LA is a fantasy.
Also, Alcela generated $400 million in revenue a year. At a 50% profit rate ($200 million a year) it would take 215 years to pay for the building of this thing.
There HAS to be something better to waste money on...
Why does it need to cover the construction costs? Some things just cost money and don't directly generate income. However, it will indirectly generate income.
Moreover, they can make direct profits beyond just ticket prices. The stations may lease restaurant/news stand space. The passengers can be sold beverages/drinks on the trains. Advertising can be put up in the stations and on the trains. Maybe they can have wifi access on the trains for a fee. Perhaps some limited cargo can be put on board (for USPS, UPS, FedEx). Airlines don't generate all their income from ticket prices. Neither will HSR.
There might be something better, but this one seems pretty good!
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
Originally Posted by ProfJohn 
There HAS to be something better to waste money on...
Obviously he is paid to post his vitriol.
There HAS to be something better to waste money on...
Obviously he is paid to post his vitriol.
The problem is Caltran. Every project is a giant joke. Why they get away with it I don't know. Expanding a freeway by a lane takes them years and billions of dollars. When you drive by them you just see them standing around doing nothing most of the time.
The problem is that California really needs this. I mean who doesn't need a 6 hour commute to work each day? At least this idea is better than the high speed rail from Los Angeles to Vegas.
On a serious note though if you ever took Amtrak from San Diego to Northern California it is a giant joke. San Diego to San Fransisco took like 14 hours. Maybe more. Was a couple years ago.
The problem is that California really needs this. I mean who doesn't need a 6 hour commute to work each day? At least this idea is better than the high speed rail from Los Angeles to Vegas.
On a serious note though if you ever took Amtrak from San Diego to Northern California it is a giant joke. San Diego to San Fransisco took like 14 hours. Maybe more. Was a couple years ago.
Perhaps it will take 20 years for the project complete, including planing stage, and delays, etc...
What is the population growth projection for the area in 20-25 years?
California population for 2010 is 37.2 millions, and 46.4 million is projected for 2030.
Is is safe to say that the SoCal area will be some where around 32-34 millions if it is now 25 millions.
How much will fuel cost in 2030?
How many cars will there be in traffic by then?
What is the projected inflation by 2030-2035?
What is the saving on not having to built more or large freeways for the additional population?
I would dare say people will be more than happy to pay $75 a ticket to commute to/from San Diego-LA (perhaps $100 per trip would still be lucrative, and the rail way would carry 2-3X the current volume of Acela Express).
Urban planning 101.
Last edited:
LOL_Wut_Axel
Diamond Member
- Mar 26, 2011
- 4,310
- 8
- 81
Obama (and democrats) isn't a liberal, moron. The US is so fucked up we call moderate-to-mild conservatives "liberals".
But WTH else can we expect from a thread coming from you?
But WTH else can we expect from a thread coming from you?
Any type of public transportation will be assaulted by conservatives because it might involve less people sitting in their SUVs and masterbating to Rush Limbaugh. If you don't drive it means you're consuming less fuel, which means less profit for the oil industry, less profit for people selling cars, and generally less profit for some corporate wanker too stupid to do anything else. The real fig leaf is Cali spending this kind of money on the project isn't what scares them. It's the loss of potential profit.
The bad thing about this is public transportation in the U.S. is a pathetic joke compared to Europe. Here we have a standing model of an infrastructure that actually works, and works effing well, but we can't implement it in the U.S. because we're scared of a bunch of bible thumping posers with bad hair cuts calling us "socialists".
The bad thing about this is public transportation in the U.S. is a pathetic joke compared to Europe. Here we have a standing model of an infrastructure that actually works, and works effing well, but we can't implement it in the U.S. because we're scared of a bunch of bible thumping posers with bad hair cuts calling us "socialists".
LOL_Wut_Axel
Diamond Member
- Mar 26, 2011
- 4,310
- 8
- 81
Wow, what a compelling argument. You only get this on P&N; probably why I almost never come here. This section of the forum is filled with 3x more idiots than OT.
And BTW, he is a conservative. Just because someone is a bit less conservative than the "republicans" doesn't make him a liberal; he's far from it. But this is the USA, the place where libertarians are anarchists, conservatives are "republicans", and democrats are liberals. Leave it up to the US and its citizens to completely fuck up what words actually mean and to resort to using words like "liberal" as if they automatically had a negative connotation while not knowing WTH the word means and entails in the first place.
/rant
Last edited:
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 53,782
- 48,476
- 136
There is the small fact that HSR will actually be faster than taking the plane. Under 3 hours from downtown LA to downtown SF is not doable unless you have a chartered jet at your disposal and don't have to worry about the whole airport process.
Given California's projected population growth over the next few decades disregarding rail as a transport mode is massively shortsighted, particularly as higher oil prices appear here to stay.
comparing HSR to steam locomotives is like comparing a 777 to the plane that flew at kitty hawk or a Bentley to a Model A
I am not that pro HSR, they want to do a chicago > STL route that would stop in my town and I think its largely a giant waste of money. but it makes MORE sense out east and in Cali. maybe in TX and FLA with links between the major systems.
mostly because flying sucks balls anymore
I agree with Profjohn, CA can't build this system. The Bay bridge is going to be the most expensive bridge ever built by the time it's done, Bart has always relied on taxes to survive, why should we expect a train to be any better? Every public works project in this state ends up costing several times the original estimate, it's foolish to think a train will be different.
ARRA (aka 'stimulus') projects came in at 15 to 20 percent under budget on average.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter