California getting crushed in high-speed rail race

[Oddball]

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?

Link?
That'll be hard since there's no service in CA yet.

No phone and internet service in Fornicalia?

That's news to me....Gotta link?

 

[Annie]

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?

Link?
That'll be hard since there's no service in CA yet.

So it's one of those, 'You'll love it when it's in place?' type of deals. No thanks.

 

[Political Junky]

Are you aware that the phone and internet connections between Boston and DC are much faster and the fares are waaaaaaay cheaper?

Link?
That'll be hard since there's no service in CA yet.

So it's one of those, 'You'll love it when it's in place?' type of deals. No thanks.

Thank God Eisenhower, a Republlcan, didn't think like you when he built the US highway system.

 

[Annie]

Link?
That'll be hard since there's no service in CA yet.

So it's one of those, 'You'll love it when it's in place?' type of deals. No thanks.

Thank God Eisenhower, a Republlcan, didn't think like you when he built the US highway system.

So you admit, it is 'one of those.' How long did it take for Eisenhower to get this plan through? What shape was the economy in then? (Never mind, Europe and Asia were recovering from WWII under the Marshall Plan, while US economy was roaring). Now?

 

[Political Junky]

So it's one of those, 'You'll love it when it's in place?' type of deals. No thanks.

Thank God Eisenhower, a Republlcan, didn't think like you when he built the US highway system.

So you admit, it is 'one of those.' How long did it take for Eisenhower to get this plan through? What shape was the economy in then? (Never mind, Europe and Asia were recovering from WWII under the Marshall Plan, while US economy was roaring). Now?

The US highway system is one of the reasons that the US prospered ... it put many to work.

 

[Katzndogz]

The high speed rail line was not supposed to go from LA to San Francisco. No one could afford to buy the land for one thing, which is the reason why the real proposed high speed rail was supposed to go from LA to Las Vegas right through less expensive desert. Except the land in Los Angeles was too expensive, so the start of the rail line was out in the desert, in Victorville about half way to Vegas. The voter approval for the rail was when it was 68 billion dollars. That was low, the estimate really is 300 billion at a minimum. The expectation that people in Los Angeles would drive half way to Las Vegas, park their car and take a train the rest of the way was a bit too optimistic. Once on the road, having gone half way, most people would really just drive the rest of the way in. Not pay $200.00 for a train ticket, pay $100.00 a day for parking, and then rent a car or take cabs in Las Vegas.

 

[tjvh]

California is broke, and they wanna buy a est. $300 Billion dollar train set, just to be more like Europe... Have people lost their minds?

 

[Katzndogz]

I'm guessing you haven't ever been in LA?

I lived there for years. The train station is downtown, like I said.

and if you live 80 miles out of downtown?

Driving from Orange County California to Las Vegas takes about 4 1/2 hours. I've made that trip dozens of times. To take the Amtrak is 11 hours. Take the train from the Irvine station to Union Station downtown, then there is a layover while you wait for the Las Vegas train. That's why there are no groups that take the train but charter a bus instead. To be forced into an 11 hour train trip, a person has to have a serious reason.

 

[Katzndogz]

California is broke, and they wanna buy a est. $300 Billion dollar train set, just to be more like Europe... Have people lost their minds?

Why do you think we want to stop it?

 

[Sallow]

The cities of Europe ain't San Francisco and LA.

Here....Down another hit of the brown stuff...It's far out!

What does that mean?

It means that you don't know shit from shinola.

Well neither do you.

Trains are an efficient mode of transportation; both for goods and people.

It's not the complete solution..but having mult-tier systems to move around the country makes a great deal of sense.

Trains, autos and planes.

 

[Political Junky]

I lived there for years. The train station is downtown, like I said.

and if you live 80 miles out of downtown?

Driving from Orange County California to Las Vegas takes about 4 1/2 hours. I've made that trip dozens of times. To take the Amtrak is 11 hours. Take the train from the Irvine station to Union Station downtown, then there is a layover while you wait for the Las Vegas train. That's why there are no groups that take the train but charter a bus instead. To be forced into an 11 hour train trip, a person has to have a serious reason.

All the more reason for a fast train to Vegas.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't think anyone in California would use it. It would have to be subsidized by the taxpayer to be cheaper than flying or driving

 

[Political Junky]

Well, we do subsidize airlines.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well, we do subsidize airlines.

I've no problem stopping all corporate and personal subsidies. It's time to stop the government from picking winners and losers and subsidizing failure.

You?

 

[Katzndogz]

and if you live 80 miles out of downtown?

Driving from Orange County California to Las Vegas takes about 4 1/2 hours. I've made that trip dozens of times. To take the Amtrak is 11 hours. Take the train from the Irvine station to Union Station downtown, then there is a layover while you wait for the Las Vegas train. That's why there are no groups that take the train but charter a bus instead. To be forced into an 11 hour train trip, a person has to have a serious reason.

All the more reason for a fast train to Vegas.

Except the "fast train" isn't even working as a concept. People will have to drive half way to even take the train. Not to mention adding hundreds of dollars to the trip. In my gas guzzler, I can make it to Vegas on a tank of gas. Why would I want to drive to Victorville, pay $200.00 for a train ticket, $100.00 a day to park the car, and wait in the middle of the desert for hours for the train? It's cheaper to fly than take the train. The 11 hours it takes to go from LA to Vegas now isn't caused by slow trains, but the wait time. They can't build a direct line from LA to Vegas because they can't afford the price of land! The initial 68 billion dollars for the first leg of the train has already been upped to 300 billion and that won't see the rail line completed, just started.

They need to scrap this whole thing, It was caused by libs saying "no matter how broke we are, I want the shiney new train to play with".

 

[Oddball]

What does that mean?

It means that you don't know shit from shinola.

Well neither do you.

Trains are an efficient mode of transportation; both for goods and people.

It's not the complete solution..but having mult-tier systems to move around the country makes a great deal of sense.

Trains, autos and planes.

Efficient by whose criteria?

And since when is it your right to supplant your idea of "efficiency" over what someone who drives values more?

 

[Flopper]

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.

Freight by rail can not compete with trucking except on long hauls and passenger carriage needs a lot of freight business to offset cost. Rail transport of passengers is a casualty of of the development of our highway system. Except in a few isolated corridors, I don't see how commuter trains would ever be profitable without government subsidy.

 

[Katzndogz]

The reason rail is so popular and workable in Europe is because they've had it for a very long time. When those rail lines were built land was very cheap, so was labor. New York has a good subway system, in Boston it turned into the Big Dig.

 

[del]

The reason rail is so popular and workable in Europe is because they've had it for a very long time. When those rail lines were built land was very cheap, so was labor. New York has a good subway system, in Boston it turned into the Big Dig.

the big dig had nothing to do with the subway, idiot. it was a highway project.

the first subway in the us was in boston.

edumicate your fat racist ass before you open your piehole.

otay?

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Freight by rail can not compete with trucking except on long hauls and passenger carriage needs a lot of freight business to offset cost. Rail transport of passengers is a casualty of of the development of our highway system. Except in a few isolated corridors, I don't see how commuter trains would ever be profitable without government subsidy.

No kidding? Really? I had not known that. As a rail fan I know a lot about the industry historically and that includes modern history. One of the best things possible would be to shift long haul freight almost exclusively to rail. RORO intermodal is one of the best, most efficient ways of hauling freight across this nation. It's only when you're dealing with bulk and large amounts of freight to a single location does having a rail spur matter anymore and justify it. But trucking is best if kept under a length of 150 miles or so. It has the advantage of using the superior flexibility of roads, but cannot haul the same tonnages or as efficiently.

By the same token, this is why high speed rail fails for what the libs want. It cannot get everyone within walking distance of 99% of America without a capital expense so great the costs outweigh the gains by many many multiples. Combining short haul trucking to rail to ship is ideal for freight. But because of air travel and the affordability of driving oneself, it is NOT ideal for passenger travel anymore. It's time to let the idea die and revert to private hands and see if some new innovator comes up with something brilliant.

Doubt it... but who knows?