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

[her209]

Both those things cost way the heck less than this project. The problem with this thread is that no one really understands how much $43 billion dollars is and no one has a basic familiarity with how much infrastructure costs are.

Here is an example of where they expanded LAX:
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/LAXDev/News_for_LAXDev/New TBIT 05 15.pdf

1200 additional passengers an hour. But I figure an airport is only busy for 4 hours a day and 5 days a week and the rest of the time the extra capacity is useless. That gives an increase of 1.248 million flights per year for a mere $1.5 billion dollars. If we double the costs and also include the needed expansion in SF, that would yield a cost of $6 billion for twice the capacity of this rail project or a cost of a mere $3 billion for equal capacity. $3B vs $86B (or $1.5B vs. $43B if you believe estimates). As you can see, air travel is way the heck cheaper. I'm too lazy to do the numbers for expanding the highway or additional highways but I reckon they are also much less than this project.

That would be $3B for each stop, not just between the two endpoints. I count 25 stops. That brings us to $75B. Hell, even going back to the $1.5B cost estimate, its $37.5B. And that's assuming there's an already existing building and airport to improve upon.

 

[IGBT]

yet another reason to divide calif. into two or three states. The legislature's illusion of omnipotence is wrecking financial havoc on the tax payers. Break up the state for a higher degree of accountability.

 

[K1052]

Both those things cost way the heck less than this project. The problem with this thread is that no one really understands how much $43 billion dollars is and no one has a basic familiarity with how much infrastructure costs are.

Here is an example of where they expanded LAX:
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/LAXDev/News_for_LAXDev/New TBIT 05 15.pdf

1200 additional passengers an hour. But I figure an airport is only busy for 4 hours a day and 5 days a week and the rest of the time the extra capacity is useless. That gives an increase of 1.248 million flights per year for a mere $1.5 billion dollars. If we double the costs and also include the needed expansion in SF, that would yield a cost of $6 billion for twice the capacity of this rail project or a cost of a mere $3 billion for equal capacity. $3B vs $86B (or $1.5B vs. $43B if you believe estimates). As you can see, air travel is way the heck cheaper. I'm too lazy to do the numbers for expanding the highway or additional highways but I reckon they are also much less than this project.

Project at LAX was a terminal upgrade. No new runways and they are basically out of space for any. Same at SFO where they'll never in a million years get the ok to do more fill into the bay. SFO and LAX are major international and domestic connection hubs not some podunk rural airport in Arkansas.

If you want an actual expansion project the O'Hare field modernization would be a better place to start, the price tag on that will be $15ish billion by the time it's done (and it's taken about a decade and still has a bit to go).

 

[xBiffx]

Same at SFO where they'll never in a million years get the ok to do more fill into the bay.

They might get the OK someday from above to send more of SF into the bay.

 

[Darwin333]

You mean these idiots, I mean liberals?

http://www.ushsr.com/ushsrmap.html

That is actually a pretty decent plan when you look at the entire thing.

The problem is we just can't get it done in todays world at any sort of reasonable cost in any sort of reasonable time. 50 years ago we could have done something like this but not today.

 

[Darwin333]

In fairness how many highway projects pay for themselves?

Hmm, that is a point that I haven't heard before.

 

[Ninjahedge]

With trains it is easier to document. Highways?

The questionable ones are the interstates across the mid-west. Ironically, their construction and the relatively low cost of gas is what crippled our railway industry.

If gas prices continue to dance around and start hitting European levels (sans their enormous taxes), we might see where the cost of a train outweighs trucking/auto transport.

Unfortunately, that will also promote hydrofracking and we will end up ruining a lot of our aquifers/watersheds and tundra.

*shrug*

 

[chowderhead]

Project at LAX was a terminal upgrade. No new runways and they are basically out of space for any. Same at SFO where they'll never in a million years get the ok to do more fill into the bay. SFO and LAX are major international and domestic connection hubs not some podunk rural airport in Arkansas.

If you want an actual expansion project the O'Hare field modernization would be a better place to start, the price tag on that will be $15ish billion by the time it's done (and it's taken about a decade and still has a bit to go).

Easy way to increase capacity on this route is for the airlines to switch to larger planes. Of course the secondary airports I mentioned have excess capacity. Many of the frequent users of this route are business travelers. California is planning on going into much more debt to subsidize business travelers who may or may not take this train. It's a complete waste of money.

 

[Pneumothorax]

I routinely commute to northern california from riverside county on an almost monthly basis. With current air fare and frequent flyer discounts, it's only costing me $175 round trip with 55 minute flights each way. With this 'hybrid' slow/fast rail approach, it's getting to the point of being ridiculous in which I would have to either drive through TONS of traffic up to lancaster (the current proposal's last leg of real high-speed rail) or board a metrolink (SLOW_ASS rail) with my luggage and swap over several trains (whilst moving my luggage) to finally get on the real high speed train in Lancaster and once I get near SF would have to get on several BART trains to get to my final destination. All the while making my trip take 4-5 times as long as just taking the plane from Ontario.

Now tell me how the hell this makes sense unless you live in the central valley (where the majority of the line will be HS)?

 

[Ninjahedge]

It won't. Not as planned.

The key is, it needs to be planned as to what would be the most widely utilized.

They usually are, and then right-of-way and politics get into it and make the Engineers cry.

 

[K1052]

Easy way to increase capacity on this route is for the airlines to switch to larger planes. Of course the secondary airports I mentioned have excess capacity. Many of the frequent users of this route are business travelers. California is planning on going into much more debt to subsidize business travelers who may or may not take this train. It's a complete waste of money.

Most carriers aren't going to want to re-buy their fleet if they still have useful life and nobody wants to spend on new large planes to duke it out in a low margin short haul market.

Secondary airports typically serve a local demand. People who fly into SFO are not going to want to switch to outlying airports. New York is dealing with this same problem where the Port Authority has been trying for years to relive stress on EWR/JFK/LGA to basically no avail.

 

[Pneumothorax]

It won't. Not as planned.

The key is, it needs to be planned as to what would be the most widely utilized.

They usually are, and then right-of-way and politics get into it and make the Engineers cry.

In other words, the only way it would be financially feasible is to adopt chinas eminent domain laws aka GTFO of your house else we bulldoze while you're in it.

 

[rchiu]

I routinely commute to northern california from riverside county on an almost monthly basis. With current air fare and frequent flyer discounts, it's only costing me $175 round trip with 55 minute flights each way. With this 'hybrid' slow/fast rail approach, it's getting to the point of being ridiculous in which I would have to either drive through TONS of traffic up to lancaster (the current proposal's last leg of real high-speed rail) or board a metrolink (SLOW_ASS rail) with my luggage and swap over several trains (whilst moving my luggage) to finally get on the real high speed train in Lancaster and once I get near SF would have to get on several BART trains to get to my final destination. All the while making my trip take 4-5 times as long as just taking the plane from Ontario.

Now tell me how the hell this makes sense unless you live in the central valley (where the majority of the line will be HS)?

Heh yeah, of course it doesn't make business sense. But liberals need their jobs and government spending.....

 

[Ninjahedge]

In other words, the only way it would be financially feasible is to adopt chinas eminent domain laws aka GTFO of your house else we bulldoze while you're in it.

Sadly, yes.

BTW, are you forgetting Robert Moses? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

Although he IS responsible for the breaking up and castrating of some NYC neighborhoods and the demolition of Penn Station, he did a lot to make transportation in NYC a bit less.... meandering.

I am NOT saying that we need to go as far as China, but in order to make these systems work, they ironically need to be run through the areas they would disrupt the most to accomplish.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Heh yeah, of course it doesn't make business sense. But liberals need their jobs and government spending.....

It ain't "liberals".

Can the crap man. Give a republican government long enough and they would do similar (or just cut taxes on capital gains so much that the money simply is not there).

Why does everyone have to slap labels on a topic in order to discuss it? Are we such sheeple that we need to categorize everything into simple polar opposites (even when they aren't)?

 

[Brainonska511]

Why does everyone have to slap labels on a topic in order to discuss it? Are we such sheeple that we need to categorize everything into simple polar opposites (even when they aren't)?

You must be new here.

 

[Pneumothorax]

It ain't "liberals".

Can the crap man. Give a republican government long enough and they would do similar (or just cut taxes on capital gains so much that the money simply is not there).

Why does everyone have to slap labels on a topic in order to discuss it? Are we such sheeple that we need to categorize everything into simple polar opposites (even when they aren't)?

Despite of what other posters have said here, Cali is a perfect example of one party rule. The last gov was a pure scrotum less RINO, run by his Dem wife. He felt so emasculated he had to cheat with his ugly ass maid to try to redeem his manhood. Anyways, it's easy to blame it on the libs here as even the most moderate dem in the state assembly is considered far left In other states. Also, after this novembers elections, the state assembly and senate will have full democrat 2/3rds majority so they can pass every fricken law without impunity. it's going to be interesting times.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[K1052]

Sadly, yes.

BTW, are you forgetting Robert Moses? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Moses

Although he IS responsible for the breaking up and castrating of some NYC neighborhoods and the demolition of Penn Station, he did a lot to make transportation in NYC a bit less.... meandering.

I am NOT saying that we need to go as far as China, but in order to make these systems work, they ironically need to be run through the areas they would disrupt the most to accomplish.

Moses wasn't personally responsible for the demolition of Penn Station but you could definitely accuse him of being a willful accomplice via his development schemes for the city. Ironic that now the city and Port Authority will end up spending billions to upgrade Penn and come nowhere near what once was there.

LaGuardia counterbalanced Moses to a large degree and in the post war years he really spiraled out of control. I think he would have happily leveled most of the city in order to better connect Long Island and New Jersey.

 

[Ninjahedge]

K. I agree. I think Moses did great, but "went too far". If you look at ALL of what he did, you can't help but see how much merit his plans had....


But he over-extended and ended up sacrificing things that he did not need to all in the name for a system that would be dated (automotive access) in 40 years.

So we take what we got in bits and pieces.


P, although you have a few points, slathering them with "scrotum less" and "blame it on the libs" detracts from them. It turns a cogent argument into partisan noise.

I know "other people do it", but do I have to repeat an inane parental slogan to get you to come back to discussion rather than flak-talk?

 

[GWestphal]

$43 billion seems like a lot, but I suppose there are secondary issues to take into account like expansion of development near the train line, decongestion of existing transit ways etc. Does seem like quite a bit of dough though...

 

[EagleKeeper]

$43 billion seems like a lot, but I suppose there are secondary issues to take into account like expansion of development near the train line, decongestion of existing transit ways etc. Does seem like quite a bit of dough though...

The secondary issues are what the promoters of the project want to project.
They underestimate by 200% and the over estimate the other by 100% at least.

There will be some development near the stops, eventually when there is sufficient demand (ridership).

Making it so the end points are not convenient to get to will affect ridership.
The cost point for the time vs flying has to be considered for ridership.
Adding multiple stops to get approval will slow the overall point to point ride which reduces the effectiveness.

If there are 3-4 points in the inland valley route; will those either become business destinations or feed enough riders to justify their stops and impact on the others.

Maybe only have 4 main points on the HSR and a feeder line to connect the political issues to the main points.

 

[Acanthus]

With trains it is easier to document. Highways?

The questionable ones are the interstates across the mid-west. Ironically, their construction and the relatively low cost of gas is what crippled our railway industry.

If gas prices continue to dance around and start hitting European levels (sans their enormous taxes), we might see where the cost of a train outweighs trucking/auto transport.

Unfortunately, that will also promote hydrofracking and we will end up ruining a lot of our aquifers/watersheds and tundra.

*shrug*

Buffet really is a genius

 

[EagleKeeper]

New solution

Vaccum rail

“provide 50 times more transportation per kWh (kilowatt hour) than electric cars or trains,” that construction would cost a tenth of high-speed rail and a quarter of freeways,

 

[xBiffx]

New solution

Vaccum rail

Seems appropriate for California since, you know, it sucks. OTH this seems like it would be a much better idea for a state with no money.

 

[waggy]

wow i forgot about profjohn. i kinda miss his threads and the flame wars they started.

yeah. its funny to see how the thread started and turned out. lol Profjohn was right all along heh (well kinda)


I would love to see more rail lines and faster ones. Though it looks as if the cost not going to allow it. Granted the size of the US and how spread out the people are kinda make it hard.

I would rather take a 2 day nice train ride from Chicago to Oregon then fly (i have family in Salem) but the cost are far more.

Same with going to see my dad. It's a 6 hour drive, no plane rides and don't think rail (may be wrong on that. think someone proved me wrong once on it. just can't remember)