• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Zargon said:
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
Click to expand...

You don't think trains will become the same way if they become popular?

At the price its costing CA to buid this imagine a train connecting several points to TX or FL.. it would be like a couple trillion dollars.
 
Here is another prediction. The estimate for ridership will be higher than what they see. 95 million a year? lmao. 260,000 people a day? Good luck.

This is a better "estimate" of the traffic we can expect to see between San Francisco and LA. About 2 million\year. Air traffic is about 1.5 million on that route right now and I am estimating cars take up another 500,000 a year.

And one more prediction. So many lawsuits will be slapped on this project due to endagered species or ecosystem destruction it wont be done before 2050.

Infrastructure projects should build infrastructure that is useful. Not build high speed trains a handful of people want.

I wouldnt have a problem with this if Federal dollars werent being wasted.
 
What's with the left and their hard on with trains? Oh duh it's a boondoggle for the contractors that pay to keep them elected.
 
JS80 said:
What's with the left and their hard on with trains? Oh duh it's a boondoggle for the contractors that pay to keep them elected.
Click to expand...

What's with the right and their hard on for small boys? Oh duh, it's just a bullshit generalization I made up.
 
To a certain extent, air travel and rail aren't meant to stand alone and be profitable - they literally are infrastructure, things a country needs to have in order to attract and keep investment on its shores. Same with cheap(ish) energy and access to water.

As long as A) population growth estimates show this is worth it and B) the route of the track goes through major centres and doesn't go around them because it's too expensive otherwise, this sounds like a winner of a plan.
 
yllus said:
To a certain extent, air travel and rail aren't meant to stand alone and be profitable - they literally are infrastructure, things a country needs to have in order to attract and keep investment on its shores. Same with cheap(ish) energy and access to water.

As long as A) population growth estimates show this is worth it and B) the route of the track goes through major centres and doesn't go around them because it's too expensive otherwise, this sounds like a winner of a plan.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We don't look at highways and try and determine how much "profit" we can make to make it worthwhile.
 
No one is going to take a fucking train from LA to SF that will take 3 hours to get there. It takes 1 hour to fly for $100 who's going to take a stupid ass train
 
HendrixFan said:
Exactly. We don't look at highways and try and determine how much "profit" we can make to make it worthwhile.
Click to expand...

If we provided the cars and then subsidized the cost to transport people I sure would. Roads are utilized by people driving their own vehicle who then pay license fee's and gasoline taxes to fund those roads. This train wont be paid for by the few people who will utilize it.
 
JS80 said:
No one is going to take a fucking train from LA to SF that will take 3 hours to get there. It takes 1 hour to fly for $100 who's going to take a stupid ass train
Click to expand...

One hour flights?

The time it takes to get / in out of the airport adds at least 2 and a half hours to that. Plus, LA International isn't exactly a hop, skip, and a jump from downtown LA particularly during rush hour.

As long as they don't add too many intermediary stops (or have express trains that go straight from end-to-end), the ride shouldn't take more than 2 hours. And that's 2 hours without the hassle of checking bags, standing in line, or anything like that.

The Acela from Boston to New York isn't exactly a speed demon, but it's a lot faster than flying and a lot more convenient than driving.
 
3 hours by train? That might actually be better than flying when you factor in security, parking, etc. That 1 hour flight generally is more when you consider that most people don't live right next to Oakland or SFO.

I still think the cost makes the idea stupid though. They need to figure out a way to get mass transit to work in the bay area before worrying about a LA-SF train. The north bay is a giant mess.
 
140 miles between the endpoints? That should be no more than an hour's train ride, maybe a bit less. If they can't build HSR to do it - and the Japanese can, ergo, so can Americans - then scrap the whole project and wait until it can be done right.
 
JS80 said:
No one is going to take a fucking train from LA to SF that will take 3 hours to get there. It takes 1 hour to fly for $100 who's going to take a stupid ass train
Click to expand...

$100 is one way, so that'd be $200 round trip. For half that it'd be well worth it. You can leave after work on friday for a trip and be there by 9 friday night and then leave @ 5 Sunday and be home in time to catch True Blood. A lot more people would be traveling too and fro just because it's so convenient.
 
ProfJohn said:
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...
Click to expand...

Well I am sure you would gladly pay more than 250 for the probing that is done at the airport by a TSA grunt. In the time I get to the airport and get frisked and wait at the terminal, I can travel between SF and LA which is awesome.

As HSR progresses and SD is included down the line, think of all the cars taken out of I5 traffic. They will have tons of traffic just between SD and LA.

This is a great project and I am all for it.

I dont support the fucking defense [offence] budget where the fucks are spending atleast a Trillion dollars a year, this is not even 10 Percent of it, spread out over 10 years. It is peanuts and provides employment for hundreds of thousands.
 
cirrrocco said:
Well I am sure you would gladly pay more than 250 for the probing that is done at the airport by a TSA grunt. In the time I get to the airport and get frisked and wait at the terminal, I can travel between SF and LA which is awesome.

As HSR progresses and SD is included down the line, think of all the cars taken out of I5 traffic. They will have tons of traffic just between SD and LA.

This is a great project and I am all for it.

I dont support the fucking defense [offence] budget where the fucks are spending atleast a Trillion dollars a year, this is not even 10 Percent of it, spread out over 10 years. It is peanuts and provides employment for hundreds of thousands.
Click to expand...

The TSA will be in these stations eventually. Bank on it! Especially after AQ sends one off the tracks at 220 mph killing everbody in the process.

It will take a neglible amount of cars of the roads. Dont waste your time trying to build an HSR to take cars off the road.
 
Genx87 said:
If we provided the cars and then subsidized the cost to transport people I sure would. Roads are utilized by people driving their own vehicle who then pay license fee's and gasoline taxes to fund those roads. This train wont be paid for by the few people who will utilize it.
Click to expand...

So people will ride the train for free?
 
theevilsharpie said:
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.
Click to expand...

ProfJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...


Last estimate I saw about 5 years ago was that to add a runway to TUL was going to cost between $750M and $1B.

A "small regional" airport that could support commercial air travel still consumes at least 3 to 4 square miles. How much do you think it would cost to buy up 4 square miles of land in LA, San Fran, San Diego and every other city that will have a station along this train route? How are you going to convince the airlines to add capacity to all these routes, since many regional routes are money pits, meant as feeders for the mainline carrier, and if the airline adds regional routes between two regional airports, there is no feeding to the mainline routes.

So again, I don't think you can really just "plop" airports anywhere you want forever. At some point the current airports will reach capacity (look at the capacity caps at several airports already) and the airport will need to be expanded or a new one built, with buy in from the airlines, both options are very expensive.
 
The closed repubs don't have the foresight to see the benefits this will bring to CA's economy. It's about time we moved into the 21st century. I think this should still proceed.
 
Genx87 said:
The TSA will be in these stations eventually. Bank on it! Especially after AQ sends one off the tracks at 220 mph killing everbody in the process.

It will take a neglible amount of cars of the roads. Dont waste your time trying to build an HSR to take cars off the road.
Click to expand...

Well those traveling won't have to worry about the traffic.

The more I think about it the more it seems like a great idea to me. I can assure you that a lot of people would be using it, people who normally wouldn't bother traveling by car because of the hassle, the time and the expense.

This would also cut down on business expenses for a lot of companies.
 
Red Dawn said:
Well those traveling won't have to worry about the traffic.

The more I think about it the more it seems like a great idea to me. I can assure you that a lot of people would be using it, people who normally wouldn't bother traveling by car because of the hassle, the time and the expense.

This would also cut down on business expenses for a lot of companies.
Click to expand...

So for the few people who will ride the train the govt should spend billions so they wont have to ride in gridlock and give business an expense break? Makes logical sense. I enjoy it when big govt liberals are advocating govt projects to save evil corporations money 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top