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

[MovingTarget]

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.

I don't see it as competition with air travel, but a complement to it. It would really compete with short to medium range travel by car. You can avoid traffic and be a lot more comfortable on a train than you can in a car, but with the disadvantage of having to adhere to a schedule. It does compete with short-range regional flights, but is competitive in cost and lack of the invasive security and associated hastle of airports.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Then you would know that the air space above the country is also congested...

Airplanes operate in three dimensions, and since I don't see our skies blotted out with planes, I fail to see how we're in any way congested.

Do you have a source for your claim?

 

[ProfJohn]

Better than the 4 Trillion Dollar wars

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

Good points!!

Two more government projects that exceeded the budgets by at least 50% (for the plane) as for the war we shouldn't even start talking about how much that went over budget...

 

[MovingTarget]

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".

I have to agree with you. Those rail lines were, iirc, financed by the rail barons, which were so powerful in the country at the time as to be a danger to democracy. It doesn't matter who funds it, as long as it gets built in my opinon.

On your next point, we need to revamp the way we do infrastructure spending. If a company makes a bid for an infrastructure pricing, they should be held more accountable. If there are cost overruns, that is their fault, and they should eat the cost. They need to be more honest in their bidding. I do still belive that HSR would be expensive, but it could be done in an economically viable way.

 

[Engineer]

Good points!!

Two more government projects that exceeded the budgets by at least 50% (for the plane) as for the war we shouldn't even start talking about how much that went over budget...

Why shouldn't we be talking about it? Why is it OK to complain about this train and not complain about the wars?

 

[mchammer187]

Why shouldn't we be talking about it? Why is it OK to complain about this train and not complain about the wars?

Because it is something we can all agree on that was a huge waste of money?

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't see it as competition with air travel, but a complement to it. It would really compete with short to medium range travel by car. You can avoid traffic and be a lot more comfortable on a train than you can in a car, but with the disadvantage of having to adhere to a schedule. It does compete with short-range regional flights, but is competitive in cost and lack of the invasive security and associated hastle of airports.

As long as the train stops some place you want to be...

I don't California is dense enough to support this type of rail.

Cali has a density of 230 people per sq mile.

That compares to:
Japan 873
UK 660
Germany 593
Italy 518
China 363
France 295

I just don't see it working. Plus as I pointed out already. You would need 1 billion riders just to pay for building the thing.

 

[CanOWorms]

As long as the train stops some place you want to be...

I don't California is dense enough to support this type of rail.

Cali has a density of 230 people per sq mile.

That compares to:
Japan 873
UK 660
Germany 593
Italy 518
China 363
France 295

I just don't see it working. Plus as I pointed out already. You would need 1 billion riders just to pay for building the thing.

The train is only for the lower part of the state. The far geographic northern part is not very populated. The population density of where the train is used will be much higher.

 

[theevilsharpie]

It does compete with short-range regional flights, but is competitive in cost and lack of the invasive security and associated hastle of airports.

The cost comparison is false; rail is only cost-competitive with air travel because of heavy government subsidies. As far as airport hassle, you do have a point, but this a problem of politics and not anything inherent to air travel. If we start seeing a rash of rail bombings, expect to see the same level of security at train stations.

 

[Zorba]

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".

Dead wrong. How about giving them more land than the area of Texas!

"Each was required to build only 50 miles (80 km) in the first year; after that, only 50 miles (80 km) more were required each year. Each railroad received $16,000 per mile ($9,940/km) built over an easy grade, $32,000 per mile ($19,880/km) in the high plains, and $48,000 per mile ($29,830/km) in the mountains. This payment was in the form of government bonds that the companies could resell. To allow the railroads to raise additional money Congress provided additional assistance to the railroad companies in the form of land grants of federal lands. They were granted right-of-ways of 400 feet (100 m) plus 10 square miles (26 km2) of land (ten sections) adjacent to the track for every mile of track built.... The total area of the land grants to the Union Pacific and Central Pacific was even larger than the area of the state of Texas: federal government land grants totaled about 5,261,000,000 square meters and state government land grants totaled about 1,983,000,000 square meters." - Wiki

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.

How expensive do you think airports are? Runways normally cost over $1B each, at existing airports. That is a cost of more than $500M per mile, but I guess that doesn't fit into the current republican taking points.

The cost to "modernize" ORD will be at least $15B Link, but yeah, lets just go plop airports everywhere. Lets not even discuss the massive amount of land required and noise issues.

 

[MovingTarget]

As long as the train stops some place you want to be...

I don't California is dense enough to support this type of rail.

Cali has a density of 230 people per sq mile.

That compares to:
Japan 873
UK 660
Germany 593
Italy 518
China 363
France 295

I just don't see it working. Plus as I pointed out already. You would need 1 billion riders just to pay for building the thing.

1 billion riders over the course of the life of the system is definitely feasible without inflation. Rail infrastructure lasts a long time.

On your other point, thats where light rail comes into play. Even in my state, which isn't exactly known for its teeming metropolises, used to have an excellent light rail system in its larger cities. Talk to anyone from the WWII generation. You used to be able to take a streetcar between any neighborhood you wanted in greater Birmingham for a measely 5¢. Since then, those lines were torn up to be replaced with bus routes. Then, despite its necessity, ridership plunged after the civil rights movement. Public transportation is now a complete joke. You used to be able to go just about anywhere on the old troop trains as well, which my grandfather and his new wife took to their honeymoon in the smokey mountains. That is what happened back then. If you needed to go somewhere, you could get reasonably close with rail. Today, with HSR, you could get between any metro area, which should have its own light rail system, if both were built. That is what we need to do...build it. We know it is possible, if only we had the will.

 

[alphatarget1]

Just to keep this on topic- the costs of the project should be going DOWN, not UP. After the 2008-2009 housing crashes it should be a lot cheaper for authorities to use eminent domain to seize land for the project. I think well-planned infrastructure spending is good for the country, but I don't know why taxpayers can't be given a more reasonable estimate on project costs (building and operating) before being asked to foot the bill.

My $0.02.

 

[theevilsharpie]

How expensive do you think airports are? Runways normally cost over $1B each, at existing airports. That is a cost of more than $500M per mile, but I guess that doesn't fit into the current republican taking points.

The cost to "modernize" ORD will be at least $15B Link, but yeah, lets just go plop airports everywhere. Lets not even discuss the massive amount of land required and noise issues.

O'Hare is a huge international airport, which provides services that rail can't touch.

I'm referring to smaller regional airports, which I guarantee don't cost billions.

 

[alphatarget1]

1 billion riders over the course of the life of the system is definitely feasible without inflation. Rail infrastructure lasts a long time.

I don't think one should only look at the cost/benefit ratio alone. A lot of these decisions are made based on other factors. Being CA I'm sure greenhouse gas emissions factors hugely into building this project. I'm not going to say whether I agree or disagree with it, it's just how things work in the decision-making level, or at least how they are supposed to.

And I'm sure there was a lot of fighting when the alignment was selected, between municipalities who want stations in their cities for revenue/jobs. Most if not 100% of the decisions made are not engineering based- it's politics based.

Rail infrastructure does last a long time but you do need to maintain it, and CA has earthquakes...

 

[ProfJohn]

The train is only for the lower part of the state. The far geographic northern part is not very populated. The population density of where the train is used will be much higher.

It still doesn't add up.

The two train systems that support the entire northeast of the country from DC to Boston only have 10 million riders per year.

And the population of that area is at least one third larger than the area covered by the Cali train AND the north east corridor is actually smaller than San Fran to San Diego.

 

[MovingTarget]

The cost comparison is false; rail is only cost-competitive with air travel because of heavy government subsidies. As far as airport hassle, you do have a point, but this a problem of politics and not anything inherent to air travel. If we start seeing a rash of rail bombings, expect to see the same level of security at train stations.

Sorry, air travel has been subsidized quite heavily by all levels of government as well. Remember all the airline bailouts, bankruptcies, and mergers a few years back? What about all the subsidies to airports for their construction and continued operation? What about the subsidies to the airplane manufacturors by the federal government in the name of defense? Rail lines don't even pale in comparison.

On your second point, you'd have to say the same thing about busses too. With airports, that security can be provided because air travel is much more concentrated. While travel by rail is concentrated, it isn't feasible to implement the same type of security. Can you imagine the TSA at every DC metro stop? It simply wouldn't work. My position on terrorism is that we need to return to a pre-9/11 mentality and stop wasting so much treasure on invasive security measures. When there is a will, there is a way, no matter how much security is present.

 

[Zorba]

Airplanes operate in three dimensions, and since I don't see our skies blotted out with planes, I fail to see how we're in any way congested.

Do you have a source for your claim?

Go read up on Reduced Vertical Separation Minima. This system was introduced because of congested airspace. It was implemented, even though it adds a lot of cost to the maintenance program of airlines, to counteract congestion issues.

 

[CanOWorms]

It still doesn't add up.

The two train systems that support the entire northeast of the country from DC to Boston only have 10 million riders per year.

And the population of that area is at least one third larger than the area covered by the Cali train AND the north east corridor is actually smaller than San Fran to San Diego.

I imagine that the usage won't be the same. It may be more, it may be less. Perhaps there is much more movement between Southern and Northern CA than DC and Boston.

 

[JSt0rm]

Airplanes operate in three dimensions, and since I don't see our skies blotted out with planes, I fail to see how we're in any way congested.

Do you have a source for your claim?

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

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Mos...shington-like-I-5-at-rush-hour-115614709.html

https://jethead.wordpress.com/tag/airspace-congestion/

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1066887

i could go on. Do I need to?

 

[theevilsharpie]

Sorry, air travel has been subsidized quite heavily by all levels of government as well. Remember all the airline bailouts, bankruptcies, and mergers a few years back? What about all the subsidies to airports for their construction and continued operation? What about the subsidies to the airplane manufacturors by the federal government in the name of defense? Rail lines don't even pale in comparison.

Wikipedia
According to the United States Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics, rail and mass transit are considerably more subsidized on a per passenger-mile basis by the federal government than other forms of transportation; the subsidy varies year to year, but exceeds $100 dollars (in 2000 dollars) per thousand passenger-miles, compared to subsidies around $10 per thousand passenger-miles for aviation (with general aviation subsidized considerably more per passenger-mile than commercial aviation), subsidies around $4 per thousand passenger-miles for intercity buses, and automobiles being a small net contributor through the gas tax and other user fees rather than being subsidized. On a total subsidy basis, aviation, with many more passenger-miles per year, is subsidized at a similar level to Amtrak.

 

[ProfJohn]

The cost to "modernize" ORD will be at least $15B Link, but yeah, lets just go plop airports everywhere. Lets not even discuss the massive amount of land required and noise issues.

ORD is the third busiest airport in the world with 60 million passengers per year.

Compare that to a system that will cost 3 times as much and will be lucky to get a third as many people through its doors.

 

[alphatarget1]

ProfJohn- when oil gets to 150-200 dollars a barrel (which is probably only a matter of time with the declining dollar), trains could become cost-competitive compared to cars and planes...

 

[dmcowen674]

The hate for the country the OP spits out on a daily basis is incredible.

He doesn't know anything about the subjects he spews vitriol on.

It's vitriol for the sake of vitriol.

As more Americans can no longer afford cars or to drive these rail projects will be a life line for the once proud middle class that has been pushed to poverty. But of course that is what the OP wanted. He gets his wish and rants about it at the same time, what a country.

 

[theevilsharpie]

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

http://www.king5.com/news/local/Mos...shington-like-I-5-at-rush-hour-115614709.html

https://jethead.wordpress.com/tag/airspace-congestion/

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1066887

i could go on. Do I need to?

You've got a link to conference on congestion problems at huge Asian and Middle East airports, an article about an unfortunate collision between two recreational aircraft, a blog entry about aircraft controllers cutting corners on airspace authorization to get aircraft through faster, and a research paper on congestion management.

Yeah, you do need to go on, because I'm not seeing a huge problem here.

I'm not denying that congestion of airspace can be a problem, especially around large international airports. However, I'm still not convinced that it's such a pressing issue that it merits huge investments in a land-based transportation method that the government has already had to nationalize in the past due to a lack of popularity.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm not denying that congestion of airspace can be a problem, especially around large international airports. However, I'm still not convinced that it's such a pressing issue that it merits huge investments in a land-based transportation method that the government has already had to nationalize in the past due to a lack of popularity.

But we're just talking about one project here. I don't think it makes sense to connect Denver to Los Angeles but this LA-SF connection would be popular for a lot of Californians.