California's High Speed Rail Disaster

[sappstuf]

Financially speaking of course..

Construction is set to begin in July. Not a single acre has been purchased yet.

It gets worse.

Farmland in the Central Valley has been going for about $28K an acre. The rail authority's budget anticipates about $8K. Something tells me they won't be ready to go by July. Delays cost money, of course. Plus that is a lot of acres that need to be bought, budget will be way off or it will be in the courts for a long time.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-land-20130127,0,6688039.story

It gets worse.

The anticipated total cost is around $68 Billion dollars... with a B. The Feds have promised $3.3 Billion and California is paying $2.7 Billion. Now, I understand that at this point, not knowing where every penny is going to come from, but $60 Billion?? You are going to break ground on a project of that size and not have a single clue where 90% of the funding is going to come from?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/california-rail-need-for-federal-aid-years-off-86579.html

This is like watching the proverbial slow motion train wreck.

For long travel distance, planes are faster.
For short travel distance, cars are more convienent.
Buses are vastly cheaper and more flexible for everything else.

I don't understand the fascination with 18th century technology that costs billions we don't have.

[okie52]

Solyndra is going to look very puny compared to this.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Well, it's not exactly 18th century technology. Presently, it takes at least 6 hours by car to travel from Sacramento to LA. It takes longer if you take a train to Bakersfield and then transfer to a bus the rest of the way.

The high speed rail would get you there in about 2 hours.

The land is so expensive because of demand for walnuts in Asia. Everyone is buying up land to grow walnuts.


Demand from China, Hong Kong and Turkey continues to drive the market for in-shell walnuts, Turner reported, with shipments to China and Hong Kong reaching 110 million pounds by year's end, compared with 72.1 million pounds in the same period of 2011.

Other strong growth markets for California walnuts were Vietnam, where shipments of in-shell nuts rose 154 percent to about 13.3 million pounds by year's end, and Japan, which buys shelled nuts, receiving 8.3 million pounds of nut meats, up 47 percent from the year before.

[okie52]

How about the shovel ready "stimulus" high speed rail that was going to Vegas?

[sappstuf]

Well, it's not exactly 18th century technology. Presently, it takes at least 6 hours by car to travel from Sacramento to LA. It takes longer if you take a train to Bakersfield and then transfer to a bus the rest of the way.

The high speed rail would get you there in about 2 hours.

The land is so expensive because of demand for walnuts in Asia. Everyone is buying up land to grow walnuts.

It takes an hour and 25 minutes to fly and costs $92. Rail cannot beat the time and will come nowhere near the price.

[badger]

Can't they just take one of their billions of highways, rip it up and turn it into a railroad track?

That way, they already own the land PLUS taking roads out will force commuters to take the choo choo train!

Choo choo... :P

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It takes an hour and 25 minutes to fly and costs $92. Rail cannot beat the time and will come nowhere near the price.

Sapp, it may be a boondoogle, but you are forgetting some relevant factors for the flying option.

[sappstuf]

Sapp, it may be a boondoogle, but you are forgetting some relevant factors for the flying option.

It is a boondoggle. And California is borrowing every single penny to build it which makes it even worse.

As for relevant factors, please don't tell me you think you are going to get on a train traveling 300mph holding 300 people without going through the same level of security as an airplane.

[yermom]

flying blows. i'd much rather take a 2 hr train ride than a 1 hr flight

[Midtowner]

We'll see whether it's a boondoggle 10-20 years from now. The high speed rail in Europe and Asia does just fine. No reason why it won't be a viable option her as well.

[sappstuf]

We'll see whether it's a boondoggle 10-20 years from now. The high speed rail in Europe and Asia does just fine. No reason why it won't be a viable option her as well.

No it doesn't. There is only one high speed route in the world that actually makes a profit... One. The Tokaido route from Tokyo to Osaka. All other bullet trains in the rest of Japan and the world all rely on either subsidies or massive subsidies.

The California budget is based on it operating and making a profit. In another words, pure fantasy.

Population density in the Western United States will keep passenger choo choo trains from being successful for the next 500 years. We can talk about it again then.

[Midtowner]

No it doesn't. There is only one high speed route in the world that actually makes a profit... One. The Tokaido route from Tokyo to Osaka. All other bullet trains in the rest of Japan and the world all rely on either subsidies or massive subsidies.

The California budget is based on it operating and making a profit. In another words, pure fantasy.

Population density in the Western United States will keep passenger choo choo trains from being successful for the next 500 years. We can talk about it again then.

When you say Western U.S., are you trying to suggest that the California Coast isn't very dense in population?

And transportation isn't about being profitable. It's about infrastructure which fuels the economy. Our roads and bridges sure as heck aren't profitable and we don't expect the oil and gas companies (outside of a few pennies per gallon sold which doesn't get close to covering the whole cost) or auto companies to pay for their infrastructure. In comparing trains to autos, the only fair way to compare would be to write off the entire construction cost (except for the engines and passenger cars) as government infrastructure provided for free or on the extreme cheap.

[Turd_Ferguson]

When you say Western U.S., are you trying to suggest that the California Coast isn't very dense in population?

And transportation isn't about being profitable. It's about infrastructure which fuels the economy. Our roads and bridges sure as heck aren't profitable and we don't expect the oil and gas companies (outside of a few pennies per gallon sold which doesn't get close to covering the whole cost) or auto companies to pay for their infrastructure. In comparing trains to autos, the only fair way to compare would be to write off the entire construction cost (except for the engines and passenger cars) as government infrastructure provided for free or on the extreme cheap.

How's your dog doing?

[OU68]

How's your dog doing?

heh

[yermom]

there is more to civilization than profit. i wouldn't mind subsidizing something that might improve the way the country is laid out

[yermom]

looks like the dog lover beat me to it.

[sappstuf]

When you say Western U.S., are you trying to suggest that the California Coast isn't very dense in population?

And transportation isn't about being profitable. It's about infrastructure which fuels the economy. Our roads and bridges sure as heck aren't profitable and we don't expect the oil and gas companies (outside of a few pennies per gallon sold which doesn't get close to covering the whole cost) or auto companies to pay for their infrastructure. In comparing trains to autos, the only fair way to compare would be to write off the entire construction cost (except for the engines and passenger cars) as government infrastructure provided for free or on the extreme cheap.

No where close to other cities in the world. Combine the population of Tokyo and Osaka and you have 53 million people. Los Angeles and Sacramento?? 25 million maybe 30.

$68 billion in infrastructure to cater to two specific places is not a good investment. In fact, it is a terrible investment.

O'Hare is in the middle of a $15 billion dollar renovation that includes all the runways and such. That helps the entire world. A silly $68 billion choo choo train from Sacramento to Los Angeles does even impact outside of the state and many places inside the state.

Horrible waste of money.

[badger]

It does sound like an unprofitable project, but perhaps they're going for the non-monetary side of things... the pollution that will be cut when people take the train instead of driving... the fuel saved when people aren't on a congested highway for hours... the kickbacks politicians will get when they figure out which lucky contractors get to build this thing... oh wait, non-monetary. Scratch that last one :P

[okie52]

No where close to other cities in the world. Combine the population of Tokyo and Osaka and you have 53 million people. Los Angeles and Sacramento?? 25 million maybe 30.

$68 billion in infrastructure to cater to two specific places is not a good investment. In fact, it is a terrible investment.

O'Hare is in the middle of a $15 billion dollar renovation that includes all the runways and such. That helps the entire world. A silly $68 billion choo choo train from Sacramento to Los Angeles does even impact outside of the state and many places inside the state.

Horrible waste of money.

But, but it's green.

[Boomer.....]

Soooooo you're saying that California doesn't have a lot of money laying around?

[sappstuf]

Soooooo you're saying that California doesn't have a lot of money laying around?

Projected $16 billion shortfall.... This year.

[Soonerjeepman]

there is more to civilization than profit. i wouldn't mind subsidizing something that might improve the way the country is laid out

cool..I need about $7K to buy this new 3 wheel car...I'll pm ya my addy and you can send me the check, since you don't mind paying for others! It'll save gas, pollution, spur economic growth...

[yermom]

i'd rather fund that than the charlie foxtrot going on in Afghanistan

[Soonerjeepman]

i'd rather fund that than the charlie foxtrot going on in Afghanistan

sweet! ;-)

[badger]

What did Texas do? Give foreign investors the right to collect tolls for 50 years in the Austin bypass in return for building it?

Maybe that's what Cali can do :D

[StoopTroup]

We just need to lower the costs in General Aviation so that we can travel by small Aircraft. Flying isn't that hard to learn. Keeping small aircraft out of Commercial Airline Traffic and Airports that handle Commercial Airline Traffic should be the First thing on the list. Then Airlines can get help and subsidized to improve the Commercial Aircraft Corporations who play games with each other and stiff the Companies they owe and never pay.

[Turd_Ferguson]

We just need to lower the costs in General Aviation so that we can travel by small Aircraft. Flying isn't that hard to learn. Keeping small aircraft out of Commercial Airline Traffic and Airports that handle Commercial Airline Traffic should be the First thing on the list. Then Airlines can get help and subsidized to improve the Commercial Aircraft Corporations who play games with each other and stiff the Companies they owe and never pay.


De-Unionizing the airlines would be the first start...

[yermom]

that gas is expensive.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

that gas is expensive.

In addition to hangar fees, maintenance, etc. My BIL just inherited a small plane from his dad. He said it costs him $12K a year before he even takes it up. He's trying to sell it because he doesn't make the coin his dad did.

[TAFBSooner]

What did Texas do? Give foreign investors the right to collect tolls for 50 years in the Austin bypass in return for building it?


Texas: It's several whole other countries.

[Sooner5030]

I'm not close to the situation but what was the overall objective of this project and how thorough was the cost/benefit analysis that was sold to the public to go along with this?

[OU68]

In addition to hangar fees, maintenance, etc. My BIL just inherited a small plane from his dad. He said it costs him $12K a year before he even takes it up. He's trying to sell it because he doesn't make the coin his dad did.

Two happiest days in a plane owners life...

[soonercruiser]

We'll see whether it's a boondoggle 10-20 years from now. The high speed rail in Europe and Asia does just fine. No reason why it won't be a viable option her as well.

And that is supposed to be deductive reasoning???
(National socialism worked well in Germany...it should do well here too???)

[soonercruiser]

i'd rather fund that than the charlie foxtrot going on in Afghanistan

Problem is....Obummer is already counting pulling out of Afghan as "cutting government spending".
He can't count it twice can he?????
:culpability:

[sappstuf]

Nothing in the content of this story should be surprising.. A 5th grader can spot the boondoggle that High-speed rail is..

What is surprising is that CNN did the story and did it very well.

After watching this story, a 3rd grader should be able to spot the giant waste of money that it is..

UBm0jg6QM90

Money quote:

"After $800 million it is still cheaper and many times faster to take the Greyhound bus from Seattle to Portland."

[yermom]

how long did it take for the Japanese trains to be developed?

4 years doesn't seem that long to me

[BigTip]

I often say about these type projects that....everyone wants to live in Disneyland, meaning people want these "cool" rail systems, just like the monorail at Disneyland and all the neato things there. People forget that it costs big bucks to visit Disneyland though.

[Midtowner]

Profit is a dumb way to measure government subsidized transportation. How profitable has the interstate system been in terms of the dollars it brings in directly?

You mean to say it costs billions a year to keep up and cost even more billions to build and brings in no direct revenue? SOCIALISM!

Of course, that's a really dumb way to measure the economic impact of what happens when we build an interstate highway, isn't it? The flow of people and products generates trillions of dollars for our economy. Infrastructure is an investment which allows businesses to flourish. Connecting California in such a way will give commuters a lot more options in terms of work sites and it will mean employers can think of more centralized locations for work sites because of the ability to attract workers from a much larger area. It is also an efficient means to transport tourists around California and can be huge in that sector. $68 billion might be a really good infrastructure investment if you look at what growth happens because of it.

Folks who are against this sort of investment are the same extremist twits who opposed MAPS in OKC. Look at where that got us.

[cleller]

The main thing that leaps out about the high speed rail, though, is how little there is to show for so much money. $12 Billion dollars so far, and hardly any progress.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Profit is a dumb way to measure government subsidized transportation. How profitable has the interstate system been in terms of the dollars it brings in directly?

You mean to say it costs billions a year to keep up and cost even more billions to build and brings in no direct revenue? SOCIALISM!

Of course, that's a really dumb way to measure the economic impact of what happens when we build an interstate highway, isn't it? The flow of people and products generates trillions of dollars for our economy. Infrastructure is an investment which allows businesses to flourish. Connecting California in such a way will give commuters a lot more options in terms of work sites and it will mean employers can think of more centralized locations for work sites because of the ability to attract workers from a much larger area. It is also an efficient means to transport tourists around California and can be huge in that sector. $68 billion might be a really good infrastructure investment if you look at what growth happens because of it.

Folks who are against this sort of investment are the same extremist twits who opposed MAPS in OKC. Look at where that got us.

Please show me the cost/benefit analysis of the high speed rail compared to the interstate highway system. How many people/goods are going to move via high speed rail vs. our crumbling roads and bridges? Where are scarce resources better spent?

Stupidity is believing that any investment is good investment. Any investment creates bubbles and rows of empty houses and empty condo buildings.

[FaninAma]

Projected $16 billion shortfall.... This year.

But, but, but The Gov of California, Moonbeam Brown, came out in January nad crowed about how the California state budget had been miraculously balanced thanks to the tax raising prop passed in the last election.

[Midtowner]

Well if they're still in land acquisition, by definition, there won't be much progress. Of course there'll be a lot of economic activity though. You don't pump $12 billion into a state's economy and expect nothing to happen.

[sappstuf]

The main thing that leaps out about the high speed rail, though, is how little there is to show for so much money. $12 Billion dollars so far, and hardly any progress.

Yep. And as the story from CNN describes so well, what is commonly referred to as "high-speed rail" is really "slow, but a little bit faster than it was rail"...

It is full bait-and-switch fraud job..

[FaninAma]

Well if they're still in land acquisition, by definition, there won't be much progress. Of course there'll be a lot of economic activity though. You don't pump $12 billion into a state's economy and expect nothing to happen.

True, true. If I went out and maxed out the $20,000 limit onmy credit card something would happen, too. First of all I would, unlike the state of California, be paying it off for many months to come. Second of all my wife would clobber me. But temporarily I would look very prosperous.

What is so hard about the concept of deficit spending being an illusion of prosperity that is so hard for you progressive knuckleheads to understand? It's like somebody turned loose my brother's teenagers with brand new Visa cards. You just have no grasp on economic reality.

[sappstuf]

But, but, but The Gov of California, Moonbeam Brown, came out in January nad crowed about how the California state budget had been miraculously balanced thanks to the tax raising prop passed in the last election.

He sure did..

Of course in February reality hit...


The governor's budget office advises in a report that the surprise $5-billion bump in revenue in January may be an accounting anomaly (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20130219,0,1532584.story).

[Bourbon St Sooner]

$12 billion spent and they still have the highest unemployment rate in the nation. Charge up the credit card some more, because any investment is good investment.

[cleller]

Yep. And as the story from CNN describes so well, what is commonly referred to as "high-speed rail" is really "slow, but a little bit faster than it was rail"...

It is full bait-and-switch fraud job..

Also, when you hear "high speed rail" you automatically get an image of the sleek trains of Europe/Japan/China. Do any of those trains actually exist in the USA? Will they?

[sappstuf]

how long did it take for the Japanese trains to be developed?

4 years doesn't seem that long to me

...


Five years after the beginning of the construction work, in October 1964, just in time for the Olympic Games, the first modern high speed rail, the Tōkaidō Shinkansen, was opened between the two cities.

[jkjsooner]

True, true. If I went out and maxed out the $20,000 limit onmy credit card something would happen, too. First of all I would, unlike the state of California, be paying it off for many months to come. Second of all my wife would clobber me. But temporarily I would look very prosperous.

What is so hard about the concept of deficit spending being an illusion of prosperity that is so hard for you progressive knuckleheads to understand? It's like somebody turned loose my brother's teenagers with brand new Visa cards. You just have no grasp on economic reality.

There's a difference between maxing out a credit card to buy junk and getting a loan to invest in something.

I agree that deficit spending just for the sake of the economic benefit that the money brings to the economy (i.e. not investing in something tangible) is normally foolish. However, in times of recession the theory is that the government should borrow and pay back during boom times. The idea is that this can flatten the economic swings somewhat. There's also the idea that government has a unique ability to prevent catastophe such as the near banking collapse we had a few years ago.

But you are right, I wouldn't suggest throwing away money just to spur the economy.

[FaninAma]

JK,

A little deficit spending may be productive but in economics(and other scientific fields) we must consider the law of diminishing returns where the yield curve(benefit) flattens out and even becomes negative with ever increasing spending and monetary stimulation. I don't think there is any doubt that we have reached the flattening out or even the downturn in the benefit curve in this country.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Yep. And as the story from CNN describes so well, what is commonly referred to as "high-speed rail" is really "slow, but a little bit faster than it was rail"...

It is full bait-and-switch fraud job..

Sapp, you mean it is NOT the bullet train type fast as in Japan and Europe? That is what I was assuming.

If not, why so expensive? lay regular track and put a regular passenger train service in... I won't even argue abut using freight rail tracks, but I bet there is a ROW that could be used to speed up land acquisition...

Mid- you have some points on government and profit IMO. A strategic government plan for California would be to connect the major urban centers with something that allows timely, efficient transit between cities. If it cannot beat airplanes with all the extra time to airport, security, etc, then I wonder if it would really be adopted by people. Not that an alternative would not be strategic, but one also has to expect it to be used...

[pphilfran]

The best part of the vid (I haven't watched the entire thing) is the sign behind the speaker...U S H S R.....and then they positioned the camera so the speaker blocks out the H.....

I will comment when I see the end of the vid...

[olevetonahill]

Can some one explain the NEED for this? I dont really care what the **** Cal does, Im just wondering why its even needed?
With Telecommunication's developed to the point they are , why is there a NEED to get from SF to LA in 2 hours?

[Curly Bill]

Can some one explain the NEED for this? I dont really care what the **** Cal does, Im just wondering why its even needed?
With Telecommunication's developed to the point they are , why is there a NEED to get from SF to LA in 2 hours?


Since we're heading down the road towards European style socialism, we need European style high-speed rail as well.

[Midtowner]

Can some one explain the NEED for this? I dont really care what the **** Cal does, Im just wondering why its even needed?
With Telecommunication's developed to the point they are , why is there a NEED to get from SF to LA in 2 hours?

Giants fans could very easily attend a game in Anaheim and be back home at a reasonable hour. Business travel, tourism, etc. There are plenty of opportunities for economic growth which would be realized. The question for a government is not whether direct revenue offsets the cost of the project enough to justify it, but whether total revenue from economic expansion will offset. It is not hard to imagine in 10 years, such a thing won't generate economic growth far outpacing its initial cost and upkeep.

[Curly Bill]

My answer is better.

...and more accurate.

[pphilfran]

I know I am going to get the chit beat out of me but over the long term I am in favor of HSR...

Let me clarify...

This is a 30 or 40 year project....think about traffic congestion problems in the big cities in 40 years...

If you ever want HSR to work you must have exceptional local public transportation at both ends of a line....it will be obscenely expensive due to congestion...but it ain't gonna ever get less congested or less expensive and think about traffic congestion problems in the big cities in 40 years...

Put in true, dedicated HSR lines...again, obscenely expensive...but do them a piece at a time....if you stay away from the coasts at the start you will find a lot more open country and less obscene costs....

KC to St Louis
KC to Denver
Denver to Salt Lake
KC to OKC
OKC to Dallas
Dallas to Houston
Dallas to San Antonio
Most of those would only cost 100 billion or less.... :)

Don't try to take the HSR main line into the city proper...find the cheap way around just outside the burbs...then match up the city mass transit to the same depot...

Actually, the biggest obstacle is that Americans love their cars...we dream about cars....worship cars...it is going to be tough for many to give them up...though late last year I read a report that the teens of today don't relish a car as we did in the past...a better chance at riders from this young group...

I could go on and on but that is enough ammo for you alls....

[olevetonahill]

Can some one explain the NEED for this? I dont really care what the **** Cal does, Im just wondering why its even needed?
With Telecommunication's developed to the point they are , why is there a NEED to get from SF to LA in 2 hours?


Since we're heading down the road towards European style socialism, we need European style high-speed rail as well.


Giants fans could very easily attend a game in Anaheim and be back home at a reasonable hour. Business travel, tourism, etc. There are plenty of opportunities for economic growth which would be realized. The question for a government is not whether direct revenue offsets the cost of the project enough to justify it, but whether total revenue from economic expansion will offset. It is not hard to imagine in 10 years, such a thing won't generate economic growth far outpacing its initial cost and upkeep.


My answer is better.

...and more accurate.

Heh, I agree with ya CB
Matlock you stated some of the Benefits but not any NEEDS.

Hell By your thinkin I want a Highspeed Rail between Wister and Norman so I can make a trip to see OU play in one day

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I would visit LA more often if the high speed rail was operational.

[badger]

I would visit LA more often if the high speed rail was operational.

I don't mind them checking into alternative transportation in areas with stand still traffic. A few areas of Houston could probably benefit from something like that.

But for longer distance travel, you have to think that airplanes are always going to be the primary alternative to just driving there.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Put in true, dedicated HSR lines...again, obscenely expensive...but do them a piece at a time....if you stay away from the coasts at the start you will find a lot more open country and less obscene costs....

KC to St Louis
KC to Denver
Denver to Salt Lake
KC to OKC
OKC to Dallas
Dallas to Houston
Dallas to San Antonio
Most of those would only cost 100 billion or less.... :)

Don't try to take the HSR main line into the city proper...find the cheap way around just outside the burbs...then match up the city mass transit to the same depot...

...

Sounds like the underground high speed tube transport that was used in the made-for-tv movie Genesis II. that was some great engineering! And the mutant - 2 belly button Mariette Hartly was fantastic and HOT!

[REDREX]

Rail was cutting edge -----In the 1880's--------------This is a stupid thing to build

[olevetonahill]

I would visit LA more often if the high speed rail was operational.

Hell jaun, I'd Visit the Moon if there was a High speed shuttle back an forth.
Again you talkin CONVENIENCE not need.

[Midtowner]

Heh, I agree with ya CB
Matlock you stated some of the Benefits but not any NEEDS.

Hell By your thinkin I want a Highspeed Rail between Wister and Norman so I can make a trip to see OU play in one day

Benefit vs. need is pretty subjective. Ask some 'ole fart 60 years ago whether we need a 4 lane interstate highway system, many would object. I mean, doesn't our existing federal highway system work? Can't I get my kicks on Route 66? It goes from A to B, anything else is luxury.

But we invested anyhow and now have some amazingly valuable infrastructure which is almost central to the flow of our economy. High speed rail could mean a huge increase in the flow of people and things in the economy.

[pphilfran]

Sounds like the underground high speed tube transport that was used in the made-for-tv movie Genesis II. that was some great engineering! And the mutant - 2 belly button Mariette Hartly was fantastic and HOT!

Vision...you must have vision....

[olevetonahill]

Benefit vs. need is pretty subjective. Ask some 'ole fart 60 years ago whether we need a 4 lane interstate highway system, many would object. I mean, doesn't our existing federal highway system work? Can't I get my kicks on Route 66? It goes from A to B, anything else is luxury.

But we invested anyhow and now have some amazingly valuable infrastructure which is almost central to the flow of our economy. High speed rail could mean a huge increase in the flow of people and things in the economy.

Are you really this dense?
How in holy hell can you even think about tryin to compare the two?

There was and still is a NEED for a Interstate highway system.Sure there were Benefits along with it But the NEED was there.

I dont see many jumpin on the Highway to run across the country just because they can, Most do it because theres a real need,

[pphilfran]

For a cost comparison....the new Denver International Airport cost 4.8 billion in 1995 dollars....

[sappstuf]

I know I am going to get the chit beat out of me but over the long term I am in favor of HSR...

Let me clarify...

This is a 30 or 40 year project....think about traffic congestion problems in the big cities in 40 years...

If you ever want HSR to work you must have exceptional local public transportation at both ends of a line....it will be obscenely expensive due to congestion...but it ain't gonna ever get less congested or less expensive and think about traffic congestion problems in the big cities in 40 years...

Put in true, dedicated HSR lines...again, obscenely expensive...but do them a piece at a time....if you stay away from the coasts at the start you will find a lot more open country and less obscene costs....

KC to St Louis
KC to Denver
Denver to Salt Lake
KC to OKC
OKC to Dallas
Dallas to Houston
Dallas to San Antonio
Most of those would only cost 100 billion or less.... :)

Don't try to take the HSR main line into the city proper...find the cheap way around just outside the burbs...then match up the city mass transit to the same depot...

Actually, the biggest obstacle is that Americans love their cars...we dream about cars....worship cars...it is going to be tough for many to give them up...though late last year I read a report that the teens of today don't relish a car as we did in the past...a better chance at riders from this young group...

I could go on and on but that is enough ammo for you alls....

You are lucky I have one hand in a cast and can't type a full response.... ;)

Here is a flight from Catania to Milan on Ryanair


No Tax
Departure
Catania-Fontanarossa 22:10
Arrival
Milan (Bergamo) 23:59
1 x Adult € 10.24

Rate: € 10.24
Tax EU261: € 2.50
Online Check-In: € 7.00
ETS Levy: € 0.25
Amminstrative expenses: € 7.00
Taxes: € 0.00
Italian Domestic VAT € 4.54
Tax Credit Card : € 0.76
Total cost: € 32.29

I can pay 32 Euro and get there in less than 2 hours or take the train for 12 hours(up to 19 hours). I would tell you the price, but the rail website would never load(i'm betting it isn't low enough to lose 10 hours minimum compared to air)... Rail is losing the battle even in Europe.

You speak of thinking ahead. Well I believe that in 40 years, planes will be faster, more efficient and even more flexible than they are now without spending hundred of billion on unneeded infrastructure.

[Soonerjeepman]

guess I'm a cheap bastard...kind of~

$280 to drive to Denver and back from KC with 3 days from Boulder to Dillon to ski areas...much cheaper than 2 airplane tickets...plus we had a car.

[pphilfran]

You are lucky I have one hand in a cast and can't type a full response.... ;)

Here is a flight from Catania to Milan on Ryanair



I can pay 32 Euro and get there in less than 2 hours or take the train for 12 hours(up to 19 hours). I would tell you the price, but the rail website would never load(i'm betting it isn't low enough to lose 10 hours minimum compared to air)... Rail is losing the battle even in Europe.

You speak of thinking ahead. Well I believe that in 40 years, planes will be faster, more efficient and even more flexible than they are now without spending hundred of billion on unneeded infrastructure.

What happened to your hand?

[olevetonahill]

What happened to your hand?

Hes got that Baitus disease and had to have it fixed.

[sappstuf]

What happened to your hand?

http://www.kleinertkutz.com/services/common-conditions/volar-plate-avulsion-injury

Not very sexy, but it put my hand in a cast for 3 weeks...

[sappstuf]

Hes got that Baitus disease and had to have it fixed.

It is the getting old disease more than anything...

[olevetonahill]

It is the getting old disease more than anything...

Naw, You was a baitin and yer hand slipped and smacked the stall.:single_eye:

[sappstuf]

Naw, You was a baitin and yer hand slipped and smacked the stall.:single_eye:

I would never make a rookie mistake like that after decades of practice...

[Jacie]

Tear up the roads, let em walk.

[BermudaSooner]

You are lucky I have one hand in a cast and can't type a full response.... ;)

Here is a flight from Catania to Milan on Ryanair



I can pay 32 Euro and get there in less than 2 hours or take the train for 12 hours(up to 19 hours). I would tell you the price, but the rail website would never load(i'm betting it isn't low enough to lose 10 hours minimum compared to air)... Rail is losing the battle even in Europe.

You speak of thinking ahead. Well I believe that in 40 years, planes will be faster, more efficient and even more flexible than they are now without spending hundred of billion on unneeded infrastructure.

If you've ever been on Ryan Air, you may choose the 12 hour train. That is the worst airline I've ever flown....by far. I think they are the ones that wanted to put a standing room section to cram more people in. Although I did pay EUR 5 (plus about EUR 20 in taxes) to fly from Stanstead to Dublin some time ago. Very cheap....but not sure I'd do it again.

[Boomer.....]

I like how we can talk about spending tens and hundreds of billions of dollars like it's nothing. It's not like this country has a debt problem or anything.

[sappstuf]

If you've ever been on Ryan Air, you may choose the 12 hour train. That is the worst airline I've ever flown....by far. I think they are the ones that wanted to put a standing room section to cram more people in. Although I did pay EUR 5 (plus about EUR 20 in taxes) to fly from Stanstead to Dublin some time ago. Very cheap....but not sure I'd do it again.

The cheapest train I could find for the same day as the plane ticket will take 13 hours and cost 116 Euro(one way). That is traveling at the cheapest rate in Second Class. And the cost of eating at least 2 meals on the train that you would not on the plane should be factored in.

So sure, Ryan Air might treat you like a second class passenger, but they are going to do it 11 hours faster and about 85 Euro cheaper.

[badger]

Tear up the roads, let em walk.

Not a bad idea if they're hurting for land to put train tracks on. I think motorists that cling to their cars would be miffed in a traffic jam is they saw a high speed choo-choo train speed by them as they sit idle-ish for awhile, waiting for traffic to clear.

There's a train track between the two sides of Tulsa's Broken Arrow Expressway. A few mornings when I used to get stuck in BA traffic I pondered why it wasn't a commuter train.

I hate driving, so if there was a feasible and reliable alternative I would take it.

[pphilfran]

Not a bad idea if they're hurting for land to put train tracks on. I think motorists that cling to their cars would be miffed in a traffic jam is they saw a high speed choo-choo train speed by them as they sit idle-ish for awhile, waiting for traffic to clear.

There's a train track between the two sides of Tulsa's Broken Arrow Expressway. A few mornings when I used to get stuck in BA traffic I pondered why it wasn't a commuter train.

I hate driving, so if there was a feasible and reliable alternative I would take it.

You are talking about a local system...true high speed needs to pop off 2 or 3 hundred mile runs....minimum...

And without superior local mass transit the mid range stuff won't make it..

And if the mid range stuff can't make it then the long range route won't since they will rely on the mid range for support...

You don't want to have to drive the train station....wait for your train....ride to destination....rent a car or take a cab...not on a 100 mile trip...you could drive it faster....

You need to be able to step off that train and walk across a concourse to catch a ride on the local system...

[sappstuf]

You are talking about a local system...true high speed needs to pop off 2 or 3 hundred mile runs....minimum...

And without superior local mass transit the mid range stuff won't make it..

And if the mid range stuff can't make it then the long range route won't since they will rely on the mid range for support...

You don't want to have to drive the train station....wait for your train....ride to destination....rent a car or take a cab...not on a 100 mile trip...you could drive it faster....

You need to be able to step off that train and walk across a concourse to catch a ride on the local system...

Long range will never work.. 200 to 300 miles is your money shot. South Korea's high speed rail runs between Seoul and Busan and it has a couple of things going for it.. 73% of all South Koreans live in those 2 cities(50% in Seoul alone). Seoul's population density is twice that of New York's and is the highest in the industrialized world(That is a lot of potential riders). The distance is 255 miles.. Perfect for a train. Nothing in our country comes close to those things that are needed for high speed rail around the country.

The South Korea high speed rail is a relatively new line and the max speed is 196 miles an hour.

So let us look at something a little longer range, Chicago to Denver is about 1000 miles. IF we can build a train that can average 200 mph, not top speed like above, it would take 5 hours... That is IF there are no intermediate stops. Realistically, you are looking at 6 hours, maybe 6.5... Maybe.

Right now on Expedia I can get a nonstop flight for $138(taxes included) that will take 2.5 hours... I see other tickets with one stop that makes it in 4 hours 10 minutes still beating the train by 2 hours..

Trains cannot beat the speed and they will never beat the price because the nature of trains limit healthy competition..

Trains are great at moving cargo in this country, not people.

[pphilfran]

Long range will never work.. 200 to 300 miles is your money shot. South Korea's high speed rail runs between Seoul and Busan and it has a couple of things going for it.. 73% of all South Koreans live in those 2 cities(50% in Seoul alone). Seoul's population density is twice that of New York's and is the highest in the industrialized world(That is a lot of potential riders). The distance is 255 miles.. Perfect for a train. Nothing in our country comes close to those things that are needed for high speed rail around the country.

The South Korea high speed rail is a relatively new line and the max speed is 196 miles an hour.

So let us look at something a little longer range, Chicago to Denver is about 1000 miles. IF we can build a train that can average 200 mph, not top speed like above, it would take 5 hours... That is IF there are no intermediate stops. Realistically, you are looking at 6 hours, maybe 6.5... Maybe.

Right now on Expedia I can get a nonstop flight for $138(taxes included) that will take 2.5 hours... I see other tickets with one stop that makes it in 4 hours 10 minutes still beating the train by 2 hours..

Trains cannot beat the speed and they will never beat the price because the nature of trains limit healthy competition..

Trains are great at moving cargo in this country, not people.

What does a one armed guy living in a foreign country know?

Overall, basically, I agree with you...but I will offer a few weak counterpoints....

You don't have to really build the long runs...all the short runs connected together make up the long distance travel...there might not be much long range travel but it really won't cost anything extra to run a few long range runs if demand is there...

It will take 20 or 30 years to build the thing so don't just think about current conditions...how much is av gas going to sell for 30 years in the future?

I am more of a local mass transit kind of guy...we can't build enough roads to stop current congestion and I can't begin to imagine the traffic in Houston or Dallas in 30 years....

[sappstuf]

What does a one armed guy living in a foreign country know?

Overall, basically, I agree with you...but I will offer a few weak counterpoints....

You don't have to really build the long runs...all the short runs connected together make up the long distance travel...there might not be much long range travel but it really won't cost anything extra to run a few long range runs if demand is there...

It will take 20 or 30 years to build the thing so don't just think about current conditions...how much is av gas going to sell for 30 years in the future?

I am more of a local mass transit kind of guy...we can't build enough roads to stop current congestion and I can't begin to imagine the traffic in Houston or Dallas in 30 years....

Just think of it as me having this debate with one arm tied behind my back... ;)

You listed some cities before, here they are according to population density with world rank:

Rank Country Population Land area (in sqKm) Density (people per sqKm)
rank popul area people per sqkm
125 Denver USA 1,985,000 1,292 1,550
128 Salt Lake City 888,000 598 1,500
141 San Antonio 1,328,000 1,056 1,250
148 Dallas/Fort Worth 4,146,000 3,644 1,150
149 Houston 3,823,000 3,355 1,150
172 St. Louis 2,078,000 2,147 950
179 Kansas City 1,362,000 1,514 900
181 Oklahoma City 747,000 835 900

6 Seoul/Incheon South Korea 17,500,000 1,049 16,700

I just had to start over on this post... #$%$$^% cast!

Anyway... Seoul has a population larger than all of those cities.... Combined! The entire population of Chicago rides Seoul's subway every day(I find that amazing).

Seoul is about the same size as San Antonio with 13.5 times the population. It is the population of New York city in half the size. The subway is compact like the city but can still move massive amounts of people to the HSR easily. Houston, is more than 3 times the physical size of Seoul. That means a subway in Houston has to cover a much larger square area with less people. Your plan to stop HSR at the outskirts of town means people could spend an hour on the subway just to get to the HSR. It is too inefficient. You would have to take HSR into downtown even though it still wouldn't work and cost billions more..

For HSR to work you need thousands upon thousands to make the choice to ride HSR every single day. The Seoul/Pusan route has more than 10 times the potential ridership of OKC/KC every single day. It makes sense for them. It does not make sense for us. It still won't make sense 40 years from now.

Besides. Flying cars will have been invented by then and we won't need the infrastructure... ;)

[Turd_Ferguson]

Besides. Flying cars will have been invented by then and we won't need the infrastructure... ;)

When they do, I'm quite sure there will be the same stupid bastards hovering at the end of an on ramp getting on a JEP route...

[olevetonahill]

When they do, I'm quite sure there will be the same stupid bastards hovering at the end of an on ramp getting on a JEP route...

And some other idiot will pull out to pass. :victorious:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I really don't know the economic feasibility of the fast train. But my daughter planned a last minute trip to LA and I just bought airline tickets from Sacramento to the Ontario CA airport for this weekend. Cheapest I could find was $400 roundtrip. Most airlines were charging more.

It would have been so much nicer to have a high speed rail option. And I doubt they would double the ticket price for last minute purchases.

[jkjsooner]

Right now on Expedia I can get a nonstop flight for $138(taxes included) that will take 2.5 hours... I see other tickets with one stop that makes it in 4 hours 10 minutes still beating the train by 2 hours..

Trains cannot beat the speed and they will never beat the price because the nature of trains limit healthy competition..

Trains are great at moving cargo in this country, not people.

It works really well in the northeast corridor. It's more expensive than flying but I think that's an issue with demand and with Amtrak using that line to recoup some of its costs elsewhere.

If you've ever taken the train in the NE you'll see just how much more relaxing it is than trying to fly between those cities.

I'm not disagreeing with your main premise except that it doesn't apply universally.

[pphilfran]

Ok, most everyone has derailed HSR...

How about this wild *** idea...

Let's call em car trains....

All cars are equipped with a driver program...uses GPS and vision systems...testing already going on in US and Europe...
All cars have a front and rear electromagnetic "lock" system....
Hit the highway and the driver system moves up behind another vehicle and tailgates the snot out of it...electromagnets automatically lock the cars together...
A train of 30 or more cars trained together at 80 mph...and nobody is driving..
You arrive at your destination and your electromagnetic locks disengage and you automatically pull out from the train...
The two halves trains that you left merge back together into one...

[sappstuf]

Ok, most everyone has derailed HSR...

How about this wild *** idea...

Let's call em car trains....

All cars are equipped with a driver program...uses GPS and vision systems...testing already going on in US and Europe...
All cars have a front and rear electromagnetic "lock" system....
Hit the highway and the driver system moves up behind another vehicle and tailgates the snot out of it...electromagnets automatically lock the cars together...
A train of 30 or more cars trained together at 80 mph...and nobody is driving..
You arrive at your destination and your electromagnetic locks disengage and you automatically pull out from the train...
The two halves trains that you left merge back together into one...

Why limit it to 80?

[pphilfran]

Any faster and you would probably be skeered....

[sappstuf]

Any faster and you would probably be skeered....

The only time I am skeered in a vehicle is when my wife is driving...

And the last time I was skeered was after my eye surgery and I wasn't supposed to open my eyes. I still think of myself less a man for giving her the keys....

[EnragedOUfan]

Having lived in Germany for 4 years and utilizing their train system, its hogwash hearing arguments against more high speed rail here in the U.S....

This country can dig and lay Keystone pipeline across farmland, but it can't lay a set of tracks in California?

High speed rail is very efficient in Europe. If we had ICE trains that could connect you to major cities across the US that was priced right, people would use them.

[okie52]

Having lived in Germany for 4 years and utilizing their train system, its hogwash hearing arguments against more high speed rail here in the U.S....

This country can dig and lay Keystone pipeline across farmland, but it can't lay a set of tracks in California?

High speed rail is very efficient in Europe. If we had ICE trains that could connect you to major cities across the US that was priced right, people would use them.

Germany has over 3 times the population of Texas in an area half as large. Population densities do make a difference.

[cleller]

To paraphrase Will Rogers, California will be the first state to ride to the poor house on high speed rail.

The irony is they won't actually have it running before they get to the poor house.