California getting crushed in high-speed rail race

What does that mean?
It means that you don't know shit from shinola.
It means you've never traveled.
The driving time from LA to SF is about 6 - 6 1/2 hours if you don't stop. I'd rather relax on the train, use my computer, phone, or just enjoy the scenery.

Just wondering... How much do you think it will cost to make a train from SF to LA. Then where do you get this money so that you can relax, talk on the phone and type on your computer?

How much taxes do people pay... Do we still want UHC, or how do we pay for all this crap? We already run a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit and cali runs something like a 20 billion dollar deficit. What should taxes be for people to pay for all the welfare and welfare trains?
 
California getting lapped in high-speed rail race - The Reporter


In the international race to build bullet trains, California is not only getting crushed by the likes of France and Japan but also Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
Dozens of powerful nations and even far-flung countries on every continent except Antarctica are asking the Golden State what's taking so long to join the bullet train club. The answer could come as soon as this week, when the state Legislature votes whether to start building the $69 billion rail line.

But don't start booking your tickets just yet: California must overcome more obstacles than the countries that have built the world's 10,000 miles of high-speed rail.

Europe has a train culture where gas is two to three times more expensive than it is in California. China uses dirt-cheap labor to build tracks at an alarming rate. South Africa needed fast trains to serve the World Cup, and the Middle East wants a faster pilgrimage to holy cities during Hajj and Ramadan.

California, meanwhile, has high labor costs and strict environmental laws, an awful formula for building a gigantic infrastructure project. We've built dozens of airports and freeways, generating the kind of sprawl and travel options that make a bullet train system harder to justify.

"For every person who says, 'Oh, I just got back from riding the TGV (bullet train) in France,' there is somebody else saying, 'Wait a minute, California is not like Spain or these other places,' " said Dan Richard, who Gov. Jerry Brown appointed to lead the project.
"Having said that, I don't think we can or should be blind to what's happened in these other countries because there are a lot of things to be learned."
<more>

Liberalism is an awful combination.

different far left groups will sue the fuck outta state, counties, cities and towns to stop this.

and you will only have yourselves to blame when the cost goes over 69 billion and it's not half done.
And will never effectively service the people it claims to help.
 
I lived there for years. The train station is downtown, like I said.

and if you live 80 miles out of downtown?
You're not making any sense.
Makes perfect sense to me. If the nearest train station from my house is 80 miles from my house, I'm not going to use it. High speed rail is worthless unless it gets fast enough to compete with airline travel in speed and price or cargo. Otherwise you need light rail to handle 99% of American cities or you go berzerk with taxis which is even worse than people driving cars themselves. Not to mention all the lost economic activity by losing the car culture. Why do you think automakers used to be and in many ways still are the backbone of our manufacturing economy? Because it involves so many other sectors of labor.

Rail transportation is past. Cars are the future, and I say that wistfully because I'm a rail fan, but even I can see the hand writing on the wall.
 
California getting lapped in high-speed rail race - The Reporter


In the international race to build bullet trains, California is not only getting crushed by the likes of France and Japan but also Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
Dozens of powerful nations and even far-flung countries on every continent except Antarctica are asking the Golden State what's taking so long to join the bullet train club. The answer could come as soon as this week, when the state Legislature votes whether to start building the $69 billion rail line.

But don't start booking your tickets just yet: California must overcome more obstacles than the countries that have built the world's 10,000 miles of high-speed rail.

Europe has a train culture where gas is two to three times more expensive than it is in California. China uses dirt-cheap labor to build tracks at an alarming rate. South Africa needed fast trains to serve the World Cup, and the Middle East wants a faster pilgrimage to holy cities during Hajj and Ramadan.

California, meanwhile, has high labor costs and strict environmental laws, an awful formula for building a gigantic infrastructure project. We've built dozens of airports and freeways, generating the kind of sprawl and travel options that make a bullet train system harder to justify.

"For every person who says, 'Oh, I just got back from riding the TGV (bullet train) in France,' there is somebody else saying, 'Wait a minute, California is not like Spain or these other places,' " said Dan Richard, who Gov. Jerry Brown appointed to lead the project.
"Having said that, I don't think we can or should be blind to what's happened in these other countries because there are a lot of things to be learned."
<more>

Liberalism is an awful combination.

different far left groups will sue the fuck outta state, counties, cities and towns to stop this.

and you will only have yourselves to blame when the cost goes over 69 billion and it's not half done.
And will never effectively service the people it claims to help.
There's lots of business travel between LA and SF daily.
Are you aware of the fast train on the east coast from Boston to DC? It's half as fast as in Europe.
 
Last edited:
Liberalism is an awful combination.

different far left groups will sue the fuck outta state, counties, cities and towns to stop this.

and you will only have yourselves to blame when the cost goes over 69 billion and it's not half done.
And will never effectively service the people it claims to help.
There's lots of business travel between LA and SF daily.
Are you aware of the fast train on the east coast from Boston to DC?
Are you aware that the phone and internet connections between Boston and DC are much faster and the fares are waaaaaaay cheaper?
 
Liberalism is an awful combination.

different far left groups will sue the fuck outta state, counties, cities and towns to stop this.

and you will only have yourselves to blame when the cost goes over 69 billion and it's not half done.
And will never effectively service the people it claims to help.
There's lots of business travel between LA and SF daily.
Are you aware of the fast train on the east coast from Boston to DC? It's half as fast as in Europe.

And it loses money every single year.
 
What does that mean?
It means that you don't know shit from shinola.
It means you've never traveled.
The driving time from LA to SF is about 6 - 6 1/2 hours if you don't stop. I'd rather relax on the train, use my computer, phone, or just enjoy the scenery.

I live in California and travel by Amtrak train. I use my lap top, read journel articles, and answer my email while traveling. Amtrak is economical and well set up to work. I enjoy the scenery from Bakersfield to Oakland. I have also had occasion to travel from Los Angeles to San Diego. The scenery was beautiful along the ocean.

That said, California cannot afford high speed rail. It would not prove to be popular either. Despite the governor's support, people are against it. Amtrak is highly subsidized as would a high speed rail.The best option would be to use the money to expand Amtrak lines, and provide connection service between cities. For example, Amway does not go over the grapevine into Los Angeles. A line could be opened through Tehachappi (only for freight at present) or one built over the grapevine for a more direct route. Subway connections could be expanded within the LA area to better connect Amtrak with various locales.
 
Liberalism is an awful combination.

different far left groups will sue the fuck outta state, counties, cities and towns to stop this.

and you will only have yourselves to blame when the cost goes over 69 billion and it's not half done.
And will never effectively service the people it claims to help.
There's lots of business travel between LA and SF daily.
Are you aware of the fast train on the east coast from Boston to DC? It's half as fast as in Europe.
Yes. Now do it's fares pay for it's operation? No. What percentage of traffic between those cities is serviced by those trains? 8%? 4%? Highways are better. Much better because they can take almost 20 times the amount of traffic in the same space for a tenth the cost and often faster speeds at the convenience of the individual. Nobody's held to the train's schedule. Nobody has to stop where they don't want.

Sorry, but the choochoo era is over for everything but freight.

Oh, and the Acela needs far better tracks. A capital investment nobody in this nation is interested in making save politicians who haven't figured out it's a fool's errand.
 
It means that you don't know shit from shinola.
It means you've never traveled.
The driving time from LA to SF is about 6 - 6 1/2 hours if you don't stop. I'd rather relax on the train, use my computer, phone, or just enjoy the scenery.

I live in California and travel by Amtrak train. I use my lap top, read journel articles, and answer my email while traveling. Amtrak is economical and well set up to work. I enjoy the scenery from Bakersfield to Oakland. I have also had occasion to travel from Los Angeles to San Diego. The scenery was beautiful along the ocean.

That said, California cannot afford high speed rail. It would not prove to be popular either. Despite the governor's support, people are against it. Amtrak is highly subsidized as would a high speed rail.The best option would be to use the money to expand Amtrak lines, and provide connection service between cities. For example, Amway does not go over the grapevine into Los Angeles. A line could be opened through Tehachappi (only for freight at present) or one built over the grapevine for a more direct route. Subway connections could be expanded within the LA area to better connect Amtrak with various locales.
If the government had not nationalized rail travel, it may have prospered. Unfortunately, because of that, it may be too late to ever revive it again in the hands of the private railroads who got out of the business because it went from a profit leader to loss leader slowly with the automobile, then rapidly with the Interstate and air travel.

That's what ended it.
 

Forum List

Back
Top