Democrats Promised a High Speed Rail for California Running by 2012

[candycorn]

We are talking about the UNITED STATES.

And you don't think trains that run in other nations can run here?

If you quit posting things about which you know NOTHING, you would not always prove yourself ignorant.

I'll let you go first.

If you did even the most rudimentary research, you would know that there are fewer than TEN high-speed-rail lines in the world that reach speeds of more than 200 mph.

Well, earlier you said there were none...

As you know, there has never, ever even been the suggestion that such a train would do 200 mph. Tops have been 125 and that's between stops.

so this is an improvement I guess.

To improve our commerce and infrastructure, we would be far, far, better off if we spent a tenth, or less, of what would be on a useless high-speed-rail system on upgrading and improving our freight lines.

What...more trucks on the same roads? It seems like a very short jump in logic (one that even the likes of you would be capable of making if they were to really try) that you could put some freight on these high speed rail lines. Now that you've established trains can go 200MPH....Long Beach to Denver....a little over a thousand miles. Can be done in about 5 hours at 200 MPH. A train can carry 40X what a truck can carry. Yep...there are some logistical hurdles to clear but this is a superior plan to help get some traffic off the freeways, pollution out of the sky and freight to distribution centers faster.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

And you don't think trains that run in other nations can run here?

I'll let you go first.

Well, earlier you said there were none...

so this is an improvement I guess.

What...more trucks on the same roads? It seems like a very short jump in logic (one that even the likes of you would be capable of making if they were to really try) that you could put some freight on these high speed rail lines. Now that you've established trains can go 200MPH....Long Beach to Denver....a little over a thousand miles. Can be done in about 5 hours at 200 MPH. A train can carry 40X what a truck can carry. Yep...there are some logistical hurdles to clear but this is a superior plan to help get some traffic off the freeways, pollution out of the sky and freight to distribution centers faster.

You can't put any significant amount of freight on HS rail without brining the speeds down significantly.

You also have some very serious engineering problems on your route, notably several very high and steep mountain chains that would prevent your trains from running at anything close to highspeed.

You can move far more freight by truck than you'll ever move by HS rail.

 

[Markle]

I guess because you're trying to wrap your head around an imaginary argument that nobody has made.

I'm not following that polluted stream of consciousness.

But here is my take. If you're talking about taking a bullet train from LA to SF...you probably would have a lot of takers. Having dealt with LA traffic, getting out of LA can take longer on the road than the bullet train would take for the entire trip. If you're talking about going from LA to Fresno...thats a disaster. SF to Bakersfield? Disaster. SD-to Sacramento? Probably a disaster.

Now... LA to Vegas in one hour or so? Great. LA to Seattle? Great. LA to San Antonio? Great. There is a reason why we still have multiple national bus chains. Add freight from the port of Long Beach and Port of LA to that as well...and now you can get around a chronic OTR trucker shortage.

Please! You're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Markle]

It's really not because we don't need it. Nobody is going to pay to take rail when they can fly there faster for the same cost of less. There are a handful of places where rail may be a viable option like the northeast corridor where some of it exists now. Other than that, the country is too large for it to make sense. Montenegro is the size of Rhode Island.

The Acela high-speed line is the only economically feasible line in the country. That is because there is a population of over 41 MILLION people who live along that line.

 

[candycorn]

Please! You're embarrassing yourself.

LOL... First you said trains can't hit 125MPH then stated that 11 hit 200MPH.... Reducing your "argument" to a meme was very easy. Have a nice night.

 

[Markle]

View attachment 638579

View attachment 638580

LOL... First you said trains can't hit 125MPH then stated that 11 hit 200MPH.... Reducing your "argument" to a meme was very easy. Have a nice night.

Please point us all to where I stated that high-speed trains cannot hit 125 mph. You can't!

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The Acela high-speed line is the only economically feasible line in the country. That is because there is a population of over 41 MILLION people who live along that line.

The problem there is also the density. Going to have a hard time maintaining high speed making a bunch of stops.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

I guess because you're trying to wrap your head around an imaginary argument that nobody has made.

I'm not following that polluted stream of consciousness.

But here is my take. If you're talking about taking a bullet train from LA to SF...you probably would have a lot of takers. Having dealt with LA traffic, getting out of LA can take longer on the road than the bullet train would take for the entire trip. If you're talking about going from LA to Fresno...thats a disaster. SF to Bakersfield? Disaster. SD-to Sacramento? Probably a disaster.

Now... LA to Vegas in one hour or so? Great. LA to Seattle? Great. LA to San Antonio? Great. There is a reason why we still have multiple national bus chains. Add freight from the port of Long Beach and Port of LA to that as well...and now you can get around a chronic OTR trucker shortage.

You wouldn't get enough riders in a thousand years to make it cost effective or economically viable.

At 200.00 per ticket you'd only need 525,000,000 to cover the projected initial cost which of course doesn't begin to figure in operating expenses.

 

[candycorn]

Please point us all to where I stated that high-speed trains cannot hit 125 mph. You can't!

Another meme.... Cool.

So

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Nah, people are just figuring out that democrats can't run anything except fascist dictatorships.

They are real good at destroying things, but they can't build a damned thing.

The Democrats would go bankrupt running a Taco Truck in E. LA and then blame it on the republicans.

 

[Weatherman2020]

If I remember right they blew like a billon dollars on that project without ever running any of the rails much less putting a train into operation.

It would sure be interesting to see just who made millions buying up and selling land for the right of way before it all collapsed.

In 2008 voters passed a bond for $10B to build a high speed rail from San Fran to LA.

The middle flat section between Fresno and Bakersfield is still not operational and costs $100B for just that section. So far. Additional cost overruns are expected.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

269 miles or divided by a train doing 200 MPH is getting you there in about 85-90 minutes. Not as fast as an airplane...true.

"With the new plan, a passenger could board a Metrolink commuter train at L.A.’s downtown Union Station, transfer to a Brightline West train at Rancho Cucamonga and be in Las Vegas in three and a half hours. That’s longer than flying time of less than an hour but comparable to total travel time when factoring in getting to and from crowded airports, checking in and going through security. It’s also likely to be faster than the typical car trip between L.A. and Vegas, which ranges from four hours to interminable when traffic and weather conditions are unfavorable."

High-Speed Las Vegas Train Back On Track As U.S. Reviews L.A. Extension

The only private passenger rail company in the U.S. thinks it may finally start building its $8 billion high-speed L.A.-to-Vegas train in 2023.

www.forbes.com

 

[Weatherman2020]

"With the new plan, a passenger could board a Metrolink commuter train at L.A.’s downtown Union Station, transfer to a Brightline West train at Rancho Cucamonga and be in Las Vegas in three and a half hours. That’s longer than flying time of less than an hour but comparable to total travel time when factoring in getting to and from crowded airports, checking in and going through security. It’s also likely to be faster than the typical car trip between L.A. and Vegas, which ranges from four hours to interminable when traffic and weather conditions are unfavorable."

High-Speed Las Vegas Train Back On Track As U.S. Reviews L.A. Extension

The only private passenger rail company in the U.S. thinks it may finally start building its $8 billion high-speed L.A.-to-Vegas train in 2023.

www.forbes.com

3 hours 15 minutes by car and you’ve got your own car at your destination vs 3 hour 30 minutes by train and you’re taking public transportation.

 

[Concerned American]

Do you know the meaning of eminent domain?

Certainly do. In some cases it can be construed as fair and just. In most modern cases it is anything but. Eminent Domain

 

[22lcidw]

I'm sure someone said the same thing about interstate highways, the Erie Canal, etc...

Most Progs live in more concentrated areas. But you like interfering with people in those hinterlands you do not like. It is to expensive to build in many areas or it has to be done piecemeal. The subways/elevated lines in New York just starting today would be impossible for the costs. They do slowly renovate and build a newer section once in a while.

 

[Orangecat]

View attachment 638579

View attachment 638580

You should move there and satisfy your choo-choo fetish. Americans dislike public transportation.

 

[Weatherman2020]

View attachment 638579

View attachment 638580

So name 5 American cities with the same population densities as Tokyo and Shanghai.

 

[Orangecat]

Well, this is from Google:

View attachment 638813

Not exactly 45 minutes according to them...and $277 isn't exactly cheap.

View attachment 638814

269 miles or divided by a train doing 200 MPH is getting you there in about 85-90 minutes. Not as fast as an airplane...true.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'm sure someone said the same thing about interstate highways, the Erie Canal, etc...

Would that $100B spent so far on the train to nowhere have any impact on the homeless in California?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

If I remember right they blew like a billon dollars on that project without ever running any of the rails much less putting a train into operation.

Hundreds of billions.

And not one piece of rail has been laid. Not one piece of rolling stock ordered or acquired.