Calif High Speed Rail project derailed

[Ernie S.]

Yeah. You still haven't explained how it benefits me in Kentucky.

You folk in Kentucky aren't reliable Democrat voters. You're on your own.

Ha!

But, Kentucky benefits from projects in their state made possible by extra tax from CA plus all that extra blue grass (or whatever) CA buys from them as a result of the extra business activity and the money that throws off plus the international impact of a stronger US economy.

Every state has projects that receive some amount of federal funding - hopefully not as quid pro quo but as good investments in America.

Investing in America isn't all that bad an idea.

Where is the 100 billion infrastructure project to move bluegrass> This is a purely California project, no doubt for the benefit of a pelosi relative.

 

[WillReadmore]

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

Yeah, like Mitch McConnell and his bridge. It does happen.

But, it's pretty hard to argue that the federal government should ignore the need for infrastructure that is important to the success of US businesses.

We do have the power to make things happen that otherwise simply would not happen - and thus make American business stronger.

McConnell's dam. Pay attention.

As for CA's toy train, one word for you: Amtrak. Two more words: Money pit.

There is no sane reason to expect a high-speed rail line serving only one state to turn a profit.

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.

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

Yeah, like Mitch McConnell and his bridge. It does happen.

But, it's pretty hard to argue that the federal government should ignore the need for infrastructure that is important to the success of US businesses.

We do have the power to make things happen that otherwise simply would not happen - and thus make American business stronger.

How is high speed passenger rail important to the success of any business other than the companies building the project?

 

[Political Junky]

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

Yeah, like Mitch McConnell and his bridge. It does happen.

But, it's pretty hard to argue that the federal government should ignore the need for infrastructure that is important to the success of US businesses.

We do have the power to make things happen that otherwise simply would not happen - and thus make American business stronger.

McConnell's dam. Pay attention.

As for CA's toy train, one word for you: Amtrak. Two more words: Money pit.

Amtrak: 40 Years, $40 Billion | National Review Online

When Congress created it in 1970, Amtrak was intended to be a profitable enterprise; instead, it has cost taxpayers a total of $40 billion. According to a 2009 study by the Pew Charitable Trust, 41 of Amtrak’s 44 lines lost money in 2008. Per-passenger losses ranged from $5 per passenger on the Northeast Regional to $462 on the Sunset Limited line, which runs all the way from New Orleans to Los Angeles. According to the Amtrak inspector general’s September 2010 semiannual report, the rail service covered only about 84 percent of its operating costs in fiscal year 2010.​

There is no sane reason to expect a high-speed rail line serving only one state to turn a profit.

It takes about 14 hours to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles on Amtrak. Is it any wonder that it doesn't make money?

 

[WillReadmore]

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

If that were the case, wouldn't it be more likely that Blue states would be the beneficiaries?

Yet, the fact is that blue states are net donor states while red states get more than the contribute.

And the fact is Obama has wasted billions on cronies and donors.

This thread isn't about our president.

It's about a business decision.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, like Mitch McConnell and his bridge. It does happen.

But, it's pretty hard to argue that the federal government should ignore the need for infrastructure that is important to the success of US businesses.

We do have the power to make things happen that otherwise simply would not happen - and thus make American business stronger.

McConnell's dam. Pay attention.

As for CA's toy train, one word for you: Amtrak. Two more words: Money pit.

There is no sane reason to expect a high-speed rail line serving only one state to turn a profit.

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.

Wishful thinking is not sufficient reason to spend billions of dollars.

Amtrak is simply never going to turn a profit. Hell, they can't even make money on food.

Amtrak food service: How to lose money on $9.50 cheeseburgers | The Economist

JOHN MICA, the Republican chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure committee, has held many hearings on Amtrak, America's government-run passenger rail company, over the past few years. Few, though, have drawn as much attention as an August discussion of—what else!—hotdogs and beer, when Mr Mica noted that, over the past three decades, Amtrak has not once broken even on its food offerings.

--

Labour costs are part of Amtrak's problem, but they're not the heart of it. That honour goes to the company's unprofitable, unpopular, slow and generally indefensible long-haul routes. Like most of Amtrak's problems, the food-service losses—even the labour-cost portion of them—stem mostly from long-haul services. The food car on the Acela Express from New York to Washington, DC, is not the problem—it's the food service on trains like the Empire Builder and the Texas Eagle that really puts a strain on Amtrak's budget. According to testimony from Amtrak's inspector general (PDF), a full 87% of the railway's food-service losses are incurred on long-distance services. At $78m annually, the labour costs alone associated with providing food on Amtrak's long-haul routes exceed total revenue from food service ($57.9m) on those routes. That's not true of food service on north-east-corridor trains, where the company loses a comparatively tiny $9m annually after accounting for both food and labour costs.​

Amtrak is a failure. Unquestionably. I don't know why you keep defending it.

 

[daveman]

Yeah, like Mitch McConnell and his bridge. It does happen.

But, it's pretty hard to argue that the federal government should ignore the need for infrastructure that is important to the success of US businesses.

We do have the power to make things happen that otherwise simply would not happen - and thus make American business stronger.

McConnell's dam. Pay attention.

As for CA's toy train, one word for you: Amtrak. Two more words: Money pit.

Amtrak: 40 Years, $40 Billion | National Review Online

When Congress created it in 1970, Amtrak was intended to be a profitable enterprise; instead, it has cost taxpayers a total of $40 billion. According to a 2009 study by the Pew Charitable Trust, 41 of Amtrak’s 44 lines lost money in 2008. Per-passenger losses ranged from $5 per passenger on the Northeast Regional to $462 on the Sunset Limited line, which runs all the way from New Orleans to Los Angeles. According to the Amtrak inspector general’s September 2010 semiannual report, the rail service covered only about 84 percent of its operating costs in fiscal year 2010.​

There is no sane reason to expect a high-speed rail line serving only one state to turn a profit.

It takes about 14 hours to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles on Amtrak. Is it any wonder that it doesn't make money?

So why are we still flushing money down the Amtrak toilet?

 

[Ernie S.]

I'd bet you'd be opposed to the freeway today if it was being built now.

The Intestate highway System unquestionably benefited interstate commerce, with is within the scope of the eneumerated powers of the Federal Government. This project is for the sole benefit of moving people uneconomically within the confines of a single state. It has no benefit for the people of Kentucky or Alabama or even Connecticut. It is outside of the scope of the commerce clause.

 

[Ernie S.]

You folk in Kentucky aren't reliable Democrat voters. You're on your own.

Oh, yes, I forgot -- the left sees the Treasury as a means of paying back cronies and supporters.

If that were the case, wouldn't it be more likely that Blue states would be the beneficiaries?

Yet, the fact is that blue states are net donor states while red states get more than the contribute.

Who is benefiting from this project, again?

 

[Clementine]

That sucks. Even Iraq has high speed rail. Pretty embarrassing for a superpower.

Embarrassing to not have the same things other dictatorships do? I hope Obama doesn't throw a tantrum over this.

 

[daveman]

If that were the case, wouldn't it be more likely that Blue states would be the beneficiaries?

Yet, the fact is that blue states are net donor states while red states get more than the contribute.

And the fact is Obama has wasted billions on cronies and donors.

This thread isn't about our president.

It's about a business decision.

It's about a shitty business decision.

 

[Ernie S.]

If that were the case, wouldn't it be more likely that Blue states would be the beneficiaries?

Yet, the fact is that blue states are net donor states while red states get more than the contribute.

And the fact is Obama has wasted billions on cronies and donors.

This thread isn't about our president.

It's about a business decision.

A piss poor one, like most that have come out of Washington in the last 5 years.

 

[Political Junky]

Apparently, the Right can't see the advantage of two hours vs fourteen hours for the same trip.

 

[WillReadmore]

McConnell's dam. Pay attention.

As for CA's toy train, one word for you: Amtrak. Two more words: Money pit.

There is no sane reason to expect a high-speed rail line serving only one state to turn a profit.

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.

Wishful thinking is not sufficient reason to spend billions of dollars.

Amtrak is simply never going to turn a profit. Hell, they can't even make money on food.

I just posted to you that Amtrak IS making money on specific routes.

CA is talking about a specific route with known demand that they can fill a route with a business plan for that route.

Posting stuff about Amtrak in general is not an adequate rebuttal.

 

[WillReadmore]

Who is benefiting from this project, again?

The USA.

 

[WillReadmore]

And the fact is Obama has wasted billions on cronies and donors.

This thread isn't about our president.

It's about a business decision.

It's about a shitty business decision.

Yes - it might be.

But, we haven't seen any evidence of that posted here yet.

 

[daveman]

Apparently, the Right can't see the advantage of two hours vs fourteen hours for the same trip.

And you would be wrong. I see a great deal of advantage.

I just don't see why I have to pay for it, since I'm never going to take advantage of that advantage.

 

[daveman]

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.

Wishful thinking is not sufficient reason to spend billions of dollars.

Amtrak is simply never going to turn a profit. Hell, they can't even make money on food.

I just posted to you that Amtrak IS making money on specific routes.

CA is talking about a specific route with known demand that they can fill a route with a business plan for that route.

Posting stuff about Amtrak in general is not an adequate rebuttal.

It is, actually, since Amtrak as a whole is about $40 billion dollars in the red.

They can't even make money on a burger that costs nine and a half bucks.

 

[WillReadmore]

And the fact is Obama has wasted billions on cronies and donors.

This thread isn't about our president.

It's about a business decision.

A piss poor one, like most that have come out of Washington in the last 5 years.

I can understand there being arguments along that line. The cost for the full route is certainly huge.

So far, I'm not sure what those arguments are. That is, I haven't seen the figures or the specific assumptions made by their business plan that identify this as a bogus plan.

I do believe they have a real transportation issue. If they want normal economic growth, I don't see how their transportation infrastructure is going to expand to match.

 

[daveman]

This thread isn't about our president.

It's about a business decision.

It's about a shitty business decision.

Yes - it might be.

But, we haven't seen any evidence of that posted here yet.

Dood. It's government. Specifically, it's CALIFORNIA government.

California government is notorious for gathering money in big piles, setting it on fire, and dancing naked around it.