Calif High Speed Rail project derailed

[Quantum Windbag]

It can't. No more than California can benefit from a train going 180 mph going from one desert town to another desert town benefits the state.

As explained multiple times now, it is being built in segments.

Suggesting that each segment must be fully justified as if no other segment existed is ridiculous.


A traveler from SF to LA will cross a number of segments - at 180 mph.

The law actually requires them to have funding in place for the entire project because the business plan they submitted for approval by the voters said that they wouldn't dig up one spadeful of dirt until they did. They want to change the rules now, without getting approval from the voters, because they can barely get enough money to build a small part of the project where no one will use it.

But, please, keep pretending you aren't why this project is doomed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Overall, Amtrak BLEEDS money. It should be defunded and privatized.

Comparison to Amtrak must be done with significant care, as the vast majority of Amtrak has little similarity to this system other than that it is on rails.

Actually, every national rail system in the world looses money. That makes comparisons all too accurate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Freeways are and have been a good investment that has paid dividends.....can't say that about the rails, and that also means this high speed overpriced rail that will cost taxpayers billions in the end.

The freight capacity of our rail lines has been important from the early 1800's and before through to today.

During much of that time, it was by far the best way for humans to cross our nation.

We simply haven't invested in rail for passenger use, thus a lot of our rail system doesn't go where passengers want to go with the comfort and speed that passengers can demand today.

I doubt we'll be seeing long cross country fast rail anytime soon, as I doubt it can compete with air travel. But, for mid range distances where getting to (and through) airports is an appreciable portion of the air travel time, and where there is high demand for travel, ignoring rail can be a bad idea.

During all of that time people used all sorts of alternative means of transportation because they could see that rail really wasn't all you think it is.

 

[WillReadmore]

Overall, Amtrak BLEEDS money. It should be defunded and privatized.

Comparison to Amtrak must be done with significant care, as the vast majority of Amtrak has little similarity to this system other than that it is on rails.

Actually, every national rail system in the world looses money. That makes comparisons all too accurate.

Every non-toll road in the world loses money, too, if that's how you want to look at it.

We have the federal aviation system along with the NTSB working on air travel, and they don't write us a check.

As for Amtrak, it wasn't designed for modern competition. That's why all the plans for replacing it with something that meets the needs of TODAY rather than the 1800's.

We would be strangled if we used the roads built as of 50 years ago, too.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Amtrak has lines that run in the black. The line from here in Seattle to Portland, OR is such a line. There are also such lines in the north east.

Plus, the fast rail being designed is competitive with air travel. So, making presumptions based on weak understanding of slow rail travel is a huge mistake.


Also, CA isn't "only one state" - it's the highest GDP state in the union and has distances that are greater than the size of most other states. The fact that you can go that far and not cross a state border certainly makes no difference to the GDP of the USA.

You should run for political office. You're full of shit.
For the most part Amtrak SUCKS.....it's inconvenient and slow. For example.To get from Savannah, GA to NYC is takes two trains 6-8 hours worth of layovers and 22 hours to complete the trip.
It's 3-4 hours by air at roughly the same fare as the trains. I can drive it in 12 hours and spend less than $100 on fuel.
Plus many Amtrak stations are in some of the worst crime ridden areas of cities through which is passes. The station near here is not secure. It is in a high crime neighborhood. It is poorly lit. It is not secured by fencing. Anyone at any time can access the property. Including criminals. and there are lots of them living near the station. So to avoid being robbed or shot, many people drive to other stations along the line and catch the train there. Who needs that nonsense.
Now why would I use Amtrak?
I would LOVE to use rail service to get to where I want to go.

Excactly! The old rail infrastructure is often too slow, sometimes doesn't have internet, isn't as comfortable as it could be, and doesn't particularly go where people need to go today. It often runs on unimproved rails that are bouncy with train cars that don't even tilt as they take corners.

But, it's rather silly to use THAT as a reason for not building trains that are competitively fast, comfortable, and go where you DO what to go, don't you think?

With roads, we're spend decades condemning land and paving beautiful freeways that are integrated with systems that get you right to where we need to go, spending hundreds of billions of dollars. With rail, we have pretty much just let it sit as it is. That takes a toll.

Spending hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money for the benefit of a very few is not the way to go.
I made suggestions earlier in the thread. I stand by them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Comparison to Amtrak must be done with significant care, as the vast majority of Amtrak has little similarity to this system other than that it is on rails.

Actually, every national rail system in the world looses money. That makes comparisons all too accurate.

Every non-toll road in the world loses money, too, if that's how you want to look at it.

We have the federal aviation system along with the NTSB working on air travel, and they don't write us a check.

As for Amtrak, it wasn't designed for modern competition. That's why all the plans for replacing it with something that meets the needs of TODAY rather than the 1800's.

We would be strangled if we used the roads built as of 50 years ago, too.

The difference is that the people who ride the trains pay for them just like the people who ride in a toll rode.

But, please, keep making yourself part of the problem instead of trying to be part of the solution, it makes my life easier when the other side has people like you to deal with.

 

[WillReadmore]

Actually, every national rail system in the world looses money. That makes comparisons all too accurate.

Every non-toll road in the world loses money, too, if that's how you want to look at it.

We have the federal aviation system along with the NTSB working on air travel, and they don't write us a check.

As for Amtrak, it wasn't designed for modern competition. That's why all the plans for replacing it with something that meets the needs of TODAY rather than the 1800's.

We would be strangled if we used the roads built as of 50 years ago, too.

The difference is that the people who ride the trains pay for them just like the people who ride in a toll rode.

But, please, keep making yourself part of the problem instead of trying to be part of the solution, it makes my life easier when the other side has people like you to deal with.

I said "every non-toll road" in order to talk about roads that don't have a toll. These roads do not write you a check. Yet, we still see them as important public infrastructure. In fact, we build more of them even though some of them can be incredibly expensive.

With air fair, we pay public money to support the FAA and the NTSB to do everything from install and operate radar and other expensive equipment and control flights, do air traffic control, do security work, analyze weather data, etc. That stuff does not write us a check, either - we pay for it through taxes (with help from an airline contribution).

The same for sea travel. We have the coast guard, port security and customs, navigation systems and their maintenance, weather analysis and reporting, etc.

So, quite frankly, I'm not so sure all modes of transportation really need to write us a check. We have too many cases where we see that there are winning arguments for that not being the case.


As for your snippy comments about "the problem", I'd like to point out that the problem being addressed here is transportation. Fast rail is one proposal concerning this problem. It may or may not be the right decision, but when we go about making that decision, I'm going to continue to push toward having that decision made with as much sanity as possible.

I'm sorry to hear you picked a "side" - I do not see that as a good way of going about reaching the best conclusion possible.

 

[percysunshine]

Ok, let's cut to the chase. California High Speed Rail was a really stupid idea. The parts of it that have been built should be preserved as a memorial, and as a warning to future stupidity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Every non-toll road in the world loses money, too, if that's how you want to look at it.

We have the federal aviation system along with the NTSB working on air travel, and they don't write us a check.

As for Amtrak, it wasn't designed for modern competition. That's why all the plans for replacing it with something that meets the needs of TODAY rather than the 1800's.

We would be strangled if we used the roads built as of 50 years ago, too.

The difference is that the people who ride the trains pay for them just like the people who ride in a toll rode.

But, please, keep making yourself part of the problem instead of trying to be part of the solution, it makes my life easier when the other side has people like you to deal with.

I said "every non-toll road" in order to talk about roads that don't have a toll. These roads do not write you a check. Yet, we still see them as important public infrastructure. In fact, we build more of them even though some of them can be incredibly expensive.

With air fair, we pay public money to support the FAA and the NTSB to do everything from install and operate radar and other expensive equipment and control flights, do air traffic control, do security work, analyze weather data, etc. That stuff does not write us a check, either - we pay for it through taxes (with help from an airline contribution).

The same for sea travel. We have the coast guard, port security and customs, navigation systems and their maintenance, weather analysis and reporting, etc.

So, quite frankly, I'm not so sure all modes of transportation really need to write us a check. We have too many cases where we see that there are winning arguments for that not being the case.


As for your snippy comments about "the problem", I'd like to point out that the problem being addressed here is transportation. Fast rail is one proposal concerning this problem. It may or may not be the right decision, but when we go about making that decision, I'm going to continue to push toward having that decision made with as much sanity as possible.

I'm sorry to hear you picked a "side" - I do not see that as a good way of going about reaching the best conclusion possible.

I know what you said, you compared passenger trains to public roads, which is absurd, so I compared them to toll roads, which at least makes sense because the only people that pay for a toll road are the people that use it.

By the way, the side I picked was hard science and facts. Like I said, people like you, that ignore both, make my life easier.

 

[WillReadmore]

I know what you said, you compared passenger trains to public roads, which is absurd, so I compared them to toll roads, which at least makes sense because the only people that pay for a toll road are the people that use it.

By the way, the side I picked was hard science and facts. Like I said, people like you, that ignore both, make my life easier.

There's no particular reason to compare trains exclusively with toll roads.

My point is that there is no more reason to require trains to fully pay for themselves through tolls than there is to require new freeways to pay for themselves through tolls.

I like hard science and facts. But, I haven't seen any hard science or facts concerning fast rail from SF to LA other than that a new ridership prediction would end up meaning that some or all of the route (unclear) wouldn't pay for itself. And, I'm pointing out that "pay for itself" isn't a requirement for freeways.

Also, I pointed out that it isn't a requirement that air travel pay for itself. So, it doesn't. And, it isn't a requirement that travel by ship pay for itself. So, it doesn't.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know what you said, you compared passenger trains to public roads, which is absurd, so I compared them to toll roads, which at least makes sense because the only people that pay for a toll road are the people that use it.

By the way, the side I picked was hard science and facts. Like I said, people like you, that ignore both, make my life easier.

There's no particular reason to compare trains exclusively with toll roads.

My point is that there is no more reason to require trains to fully pay for themselves through tolls than there is to require new freeways to pay for themselves through tolls.

I like hard science and facts. But, I haven't seen any hard science or facts concerning fast rail from SF to LA other than that a new ridership prediction would end up meaning that some or all of the route (unclear) wouldn't pay for itself. And, I'm pointing out that "pay for itself" isn't a requirement for freeways.

Also, I pointed out that it isn't a requirement that air travel pay for itself. So, it doesn't. And, it isn't a requirement that travel by ship pay for itself. So, it doesn't.

There is no sane reason to mention toll roads at all when we are talking about rail, yet your brought them up as a deflection when you claimed that non toll roads, which don't earn money, all lose money. I just attacked your idiocy in terms any idiot that talks about toll roads would understand.

I gave you way too much credit for intelligence, be sure I will endeavor not to treat you like you can think ever again.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Overall, Amtrak BLEEDS money. It should be defunded and privatized.

Comparison to Amtrak must be done with significant care, as the vast majority of Amtrak has little similarity to this system other than that it is on rails.

The comparison is spot on.
That Amtrak is a government operated entity.
The California rail system would be a state operated entity.
Time and time again government has proven itself to be a very poor manager of taxpayer resources. Whether state or federal, the general public no longer trusts government with their money. Projects of this magnitude are a perfect example of how NOT to do things.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Comparison to Amtrak must be done with significant care, as the vast majority of Amtrak has little similarity to this system other than that it is on rails.

Actually, every national rail system in the world looses money. That makes comparisons all too accurate.

Every non-toll road in the world loses money, too, if that's how you want to look at it.

We have the federal aviation system along with the NTSB working on air travel, and they don't write us a check.

As for Amtrak, it wasn't designed for modern competition. That's why all the plans for replacing it with something that meets the needs of TODAY rather than the 1800's.

We would be strangled if we used the roads built as of 50 years ago, too.

Umm, how can something that does not take in funds lose something it never had?
Non toll roads are for the most part funded by fuel taxes and bond issues.
That was a really dumb statement you made there.
The FAA, air travel network, security, etc are funded by federal and state taxes added to the price of a ticket for carriage.
What plans for replacing Amtrak? There are no plans.
BTW, the NTSB is an investigative arm of the federal government.
The Board's primary function is to regulate Air and rail systems. And to investigate all incidents and accidents.

 

[daveman]

How long before this project begins to pay for itself? If we say... 20 years, how many riders does the train have to carry. Remember, this is passenger only service so let's see.
Right now, you can fly from LA to San Francisco for $100. The project will cost roughly 100 Billion so, 100 B/20 years is $5,000,000,000 per year divided by $100 dollars per trip, or a yearly ridership of 50 million or 15 of every 100 US citizens.

Never happen. Simply not possible.

 

[daveman]

Overall, Amtrak BLEEDS money. It should be defunded and privatized.

Comparison to Amtrak must be done with significant care, as the vast majority of Amtrak has little similarity to this system other than that it is on rails.

Not really. Amtrak was sold to the American people with the premise that it would break even, or generate a profit.

It never has.

CA's toy train is being sold to the American public that it will break even, or generate a profit.

It never will.

 

[daveman]

Because it will help your betters get around, so you should be happy to pay for it.

And by "betters", you mean "those who think Amtrak is a success and CA's half-trillion dollar unfunded pension mandate is evidence liberals know how to effectively manage an economy".

Actually, I meant the new feudal lords of California who are quite happy to drive the middle class out of the state by restricting access to housing, high taxes, and policies that keep the serfs who make life easy for the lords from being able to leave.

I think your set is a subset of my set.

 

[daveman]

I know what you said, you compared passenger trains to public roads, which is absurd, so I compared them to toll roads, which at least makes sense because the only people that pay for a toll road are the people that use it.

By the way, the side I picked was hard science and facts. Like I said, people like you, that ignore both, make my life easier.

There's no particular reason to compare trains exclusively with toll roads.

My point is that there is no more reason to require trains to fully pay for themselves through tolls than there is to require new freeways to pay for themselves through tolls.

I like hard science and facts. But, I haven't seen any hard science or facts concerning fast rail from SF to LA other than that a new ridership prediction would end up meaning that some or all of the route (unclear) wouldn't pay for itself. And, I'm pointing out that "pay for itself" isn't a requirement for freeways.

Also, I pointed out that it isn't a requirement that air travel pay for itself. So, it doesn't. And, it isn't a requirement that travel by ship pay for itself. So, it doesn't.

What happens when air travel doesn't pay for itself?

Airlines go out of business.

What happens when sea travel doesn't pay for itself?

Shipping and cruise lines go out of business.


You really have no concept of how business operates, do you?

 

[Political Junky]

Well, airlines and airports do get subsidies.

 

[WillReadmore]

Actually, every national rail system in the world looses money. That makes comparisons all too accurate.

Every non-toll road in the world loses money, too, if that's how you want to look at it.

We have the federal aviation system along with the NTSB working on air travel, and they don't write us a check.

As for Amtrak, it wasn't designed for modern competition. That's why all the plans for replacing it with something that meets the needs of TODAY rather than the 1800's.

We would be strangled if we used the roads built as of 50 years ago, too.

Umm, how can something that does not take in funds lose something it never had?
Non toll roads are for the most part funded by fuel taxes and bond issues.
That was a really dumb statement you made there.
The FAA, air travel network, security, etc are funded by federal and state taxes added to the price of a ticket for carriage.
What plans for replacing Amtrak? There are no plans.
BTW, the NTSB is an investigative arm of the federal government.
The Board's primary function is to regulate Air and rail systems. And to investigate all incidents and accidents.

No, federal tax dollars beyond fuel tax go to roads and bridges

No, the FAA is not fully funded by our air travel:
https://www.google.com/#q=federal+aviation+administration+funding

The plan in CA is a plan to replace Amtrak

I'm a pilot. I know what the NTSB does, and you are right that it isn't all flight related. But, the NTSB contribution to transportation safety in the US is a critical element of all our modes of transportation. Considering it some sort of extra or unneeded ancillary activity makes no sense.

This notion that the federal government has no role in US infrastructure is pure nonsense.

 

[WillReadmore]

Overall, Amtrak BLEEDS money. It should be defunded and privatized.

Comparison to Amtrak must be done with significant care, as the vast majority of Amtrak has little similarity to this system other than that it is on rails.

Not really. Amtrak was sold to the American people with the premise that it would break even, or generate a profit.

It never has.

CA's toy train is being sold to the American public that it will break even, or generate a profit.

It never will.

1. Amtrak is certainly worth examination, as it can help us determine when and where rail could be effective.

2. roads and bridges don't write you a check (outside of some toll roads). Airlines don't fully carry their load, either. There isn't a fundamental reason to demand that transportation generates a profit from direct operations. Transportation infrastructure is a fundamental necessity for private sector prosperity in the USA.

That is an important way it pays us.

I'm not suggesting that users should not pay for infrastructure they use. I'm just saying that full repayment by users isn't some sort of absolute. Or, at least it never has been so far.