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

[bfdd]

Seriously?
Inappropriate slurs, like you've employed below, are against forum rules. And this post stikes me as trolling; it's primary purpose is a vehicle for insults. I see from your moderator notes that you should know better; you have a notable record of infractions.

You've earned another vacation

Fern
Super Moderator

profjohn, we need it to bring our northern californian and southern californian cultures together. i really hate those fucks, but if i could go up to san fran on the cheap on a train i'd do it all the time. just like the queers up there would probably like to come down here and visit west hollywood.

 

[JSt0rm]

Don't know. But I paid for it since it was a privately built road in a new subdivision...

Do you think all roads should be privately built?

 

[glenn1]

More facts for the liberals...

Why do you care what liberals waste their money on? A train, no matter how wasteful, is still more useful than spending money on the typical Democratic constituent.

 

[JSt0rm]

Why do you care what liberals waste their money on? A train, no matter how wasteful, is still more useful than spending money on the typical Democratic constituent.

He prefers spending money on war.

 

[CanOWorms]

So true....

And I assume that a train running from Boston to NYC to Phily to DC might get a few tourists... not like four of the greatest and most important cities in the country get many visitors...

California gets many tourists, and the same tourists visit multiple places within California. I don't imagine too many tourists booking NYC and DC both in one trip.

 

[Budmantom]

Obarry made a great investment making those great signs + all of those shovel ready jobs...

idiot.

I know and yet he's the leader of the free world.

 

[Budmantom]

He prefers spending money on war.

Libya?

 

[mchammer187]

Better than the 4 Trillion Dollar wars

382 Billion Dollar Joint Strike Fighter Project +~50 billion development costs

 

[ProfJohn]

Why do you care what liberals waste their money on? A train, no matter how wasteful, is still more useful than spending money on the typical Democratic constituent.

Because half the money is going to come from the Federal government...

Also, $43 billion can build:

14,000 miles of extra freeway lanes at $3 million a mile.
or
4,300 miles of NEW four lane freeways at $10 million a mile.
or
2,150 miles of NEW freeways at $20 million a mile <- California costs.

LA to San Fran is 382 miles, 293 miles on I-5. For $43 billion you could build another 10 lanes to this freeway. Five in each direction and STILL save some money...

LA to NYC is 2,790 miles if you can keep the cost to mile to below $15 million a mile you could build a new freeway across the country...

 

[1prophet]

Hey! Jobs and infrastructure... What a great idea!

ESAD, rightwing twits!

Even if China is the main contractor?

 

[ProfJohn]

BTW the Federal Highway Administration has a yearly budget of $70.5 billion.

So this little stretch of train track will cost 50&#37; of what the federal government spends in a WHOLE year on freeways nationwide... and people think this is a good idea?

 

[HendrixFan]

BTW the Federal Highway Administration has a yearly budget of $70.5 billion.

So this little stretch of train track will cost 50% of what the federal government spends in a WHOLE year on freeways nationwide... and people think this is a good idea?

Where do you think the money goes?

 

[Engineer]

BTW the Federal Highway Administration has a yearly budget of $70.5 billion.

So this little stretch of train track will cost 50% of what the federal government spends in a WHOLE year on freeways nationwide... and people think this is a good idea?

So the entire 43 billion is federal?

 

[JSt0rm]

Because half the money is going to come from the Federal government...

California gives more to the fed then it receives. How about you worry about your little intelligent design southern state and we will worry about our huge economic powerhouse state.

 

[MovingTarget]

Because half the money is going to come from the Federal government...

Also, $43 billion can build:

14,000 miles of extra freeway lanes at $3 million a mile.
or
4,300 miles of NEW four lane freeways at $10 million a mile.
or
2,150 miles of NEW freeways at $20 million a mile <- California costs.

LA to San Fran is 382 miles, 293 miles on I-5. For $43 billion you could build another 10 lanes to this freeway. Five in each direction and STILL save some money...

LA to NYC is 2,790 miles if you can keep the cost to mile to below $15 million a mile you could build a new freeway across the country...

Relying on freeways only to expand our transportation system is extremely shortsighted. Do you really think that we can keep adding roads and cars on them indefinitely? That is extremely inefficient. High speed rail makes sense, especially over the long run. It reduces gridlock on the freeways we have and reduces our use of fossil fuel for transportation purposes, which is vital for national security. You used to be able to get near just about anywhere via regular passenger train, so don't tell me we can't rebuild that infrastructure so that we can again with high speed rail.

 

[JSt0rm]

pj is just a troll. He picked this topic from his chain hate emails and ran with it. Fact is California is awesome and we do shit. NC is the moist pubic hair of the country and nobody gives a fuck about how well this unemployed white neocon lives in that shit.

 

[ProfJohn]

So the entire 43 billion is federal?

I don't know the breakdown... could look at their site.

Perhaps 25-50% if not more.

But can California afford this thing even if the Feds pay 50%??? They have $20 billion to spare?


Look high speed trains sound awesome. Would be great to have a network like this across the country:

But we can't afford it. We just got downgraded and we are $15 trillion in debt and now we want to waste our money on projects that will make us feel good about ourselves?

$112 million a MILE!!! That is freaking crazy!!

 

[theeedude]

I don't know the breakdown... could look at their site.

Perhaps 25-50% if not more.

But can California afford this thing even if the Feds pay 50%??? They have $20 billion to spare?


Look high speed trains sound awesome. Would be great to have a network like this across the country:

But we can't afford it. We just got downgraded and we are $15 trillion in debt and now we want to waste our money on projects that will make us feel good about ourselves?

$112 million a MILE!!! That is freaking crazy!!

With 10% unemployment, we can't afford not to build infrastructure like this.

 

[nobodyknows]

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...

I hate to admit it, but I think he has a point on this one.

 

[Pens1566]

Someone didn't meet their posting quota for last month and has to make up for it to keep his jobby job.

 

[MovingTarget]

California gives more to the fed then it receives. How about you worry about your little intelligent design southern state and we will worry about our huge economic powerhouse state.

Don't lump all of us in with the ID crowd. We don't begrudge California its train. I wish it well because I'd love to one day be able to benefit from its success, taking HSR from Huntsville to Mobile, not to mention the jobs building and operating it.

 

[MovingTarget]

[/b]

I hate to admit it, but I think he has a point on this one.

True, but how long does rail infrastructure last? Tracks we lay down today can still be operating a century from now or longer with proper maintenance. In that sense, it is a better investment than interstate highways. Just look at what rail did for the country before the advent of the interstate system.

 

[nobodyknows]

True, but how long does rail infrastructure last? Tracks we lay down today can still be operating a century from now or longer with proper maintenance. In that sense, it is a better investment than interstate highways. Just look at what rail did for the country before the advent of the interstate system.

As far as i'm aware, the taxpayers didn't pay anything for the railroad that connected the East coast with the West coast..

Anyway, this is about cost. Infrastruture at ANY cost is not neessarialy a good thing and when things start going 3X over it's budget then someone, someplace is "packing the puppy".

 

[theevilsharpie]

Just look at what rail did for the country before the advent of the interstate system.

Back when rail dominated transportation, the only alternatives were beast-driven wagons and, later, slow, unreliable, and expensive personal automobiles.

Today, high-speed rail is competing with air travel. Traveling by plane is faster, there's more flexibility in routes, it doesn't have the environmental impact of rail, and you can plop an airport pretty much anywhere.

I'm all for smart investment in national infrastructure, but high-speed rail sounds like an overly-expensive solution to a problem we've already solved.

 

[JSt0rm]

I'm all for smart investment in national infrastructure, but high-speed rail sounds like an overly-expensive solution to a problem we've already solved.

Then you would know that the air space above the country is also congested and we need a multiprong approach to transportation that takes advantage of all ways of travel.