Originally Posted By Manfried A few months back I participated in a high spirited discussion here about high speed rail. Many said it was worth it, I did not think it was and was glad our state (Florida) opted out. Check out this link: <a href="http://www.flgov.com/2011/11/01/in-case-you-missed-itbullet-train-project-nearly-triples-in-cost-98-5-billion-from-earlier-projections/" target="_blank">http://www.flgov.com/2011/11/0...ections/</a> I think that the continued cost overruns are just the beginning in the left, I mean, west coast state. And I also think that while high speed mass transit is laudable, at a certain point the cost is not worth it. Let the discussion begin.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA Living here in the Central Valley there has been lots of discussion. A. There is supposed to be a station stop in the City of Merced. B. They are talking about cutting through various locations that are considered prime farming / agriculture land (Central Valley does $2B a year in ag) C. The cost of the project - from San Francisco to Anaheim -- is $100 Billion and it keeps getting tossed around as this un-attainable, Yucca Mountain type of number. D. An article in today's paper stated that the project is do-able, even with a $100 Billion price tag, and that after it's completed in 2033 -- that it has potential to make money. I did some research, about the $100 Billion Dollar figure. Last month, Apple Computers reported that by the end of 2011, they will have $100 billion dollars in cash. That’s $100 billion. On hand. Facebook, expected to announce their IPO (Initial Public Offering) early next year, supposedly will do so with a valuation of $100 billion. Over the last 10 years, the motion picture industry has brought in over $10 billion per year -- $100 billion In Time magazine this month, a report showed that Americans, even during the economic downturn, waste time sitting in traffic – to the tune of over $100 billion per year. So, it's not un-attainable. I also don't quite understand people knee-jerk reaction to say that it's a 'boon-doggle' and that it will never work.
Originally Posted By Manfried The motion picture industry took 10 years to take in $100 billion. So, I guess you are saying it is okay for the government to spend $100 billion and more on a high speed railroad system of questionable value and that will certainly cost a lot more in overruns, and operational costs. Oh, and the report saying it will become profitable has got to be bogus.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I support high speed rail... we are one of the few highly developed countries without it. It is by far the "greenest" form of transit. Also... it is worth a HUGE amount to have an alternative to the crappy airlines.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed. Rail is more environmentally friendly, can cost less in maintenance, and 100bn for a 20 year programme creates jobs and economic simulation. Compared to how private companies waste more than that, it is worth the investment.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom I am so grateful I grew up in an area of the country with rail service ( and now the only place in the USA with high speed rail ). It just makes so much sense. This is another example where ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME. No matter what the arguement is High speed rail wins! It's cheaper to build and maintain then highways. With highways the only means of expansion is to add more lanes, thus eat up more land or make the lanes smaller. Clogging up the roads with idiot drivers who are distracted with cell phone, putting on make up, eating while driving, drinking while driving. As already pointed out, it is far, far greener than planes, or cars. And it is going to happen. The problem with all those cars is that if everyone is driving to say WDW, then WDW has to provide parking for all those cars, thus eating up yet more land. This is one reason why WDW, for example has their own transportation system so they don't have to have all those cars driving around to various places and having to provide parking for all those cars. Mass transportation works. High speed rail is cheaper to build than ligh rail. And in an age where we are quickly running out of "space" to widen roads and build massive parking lots ( like in your state of Florida), it is time to think outside the box! Walt Disney understood the significance of mass transportation systems. And unfortunately for many Americans the closest they have ever gotten to a boat, train or bus is while visiting WDW. PS: The Federal money allocated to FL has been given to CA. Who plans on installing High Speed rail service between San Fran all the way down to San Deigo, and over to Sacramento. Another high speed rail service is going in between CA and Los Vegas. With eventional plans to expand that service from Los Angles to Los Vegas.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Agreed, and with the rising cost of fuel, drill baby is not the answer. I remember the smogs of LA when I was a kid, as an asthmatic, it occassionally led to hospital visits when I was little. Since the improvements in alternative options in LA, it is no where near as bad. In the UK, the service is far from perfect, but it makes WDW seem like a joke. But I have noticed that as government has cut spending on rail, the amount of traffic has soared.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom High speed rail makes sense. But, it has to make sense to put it where you need it. I think the bigger arguement here is that just like a bridge to no where in Alaska, it may not make a lot of sense to spend $100 Billion to build a high speed rail service between Orlando, Florida and Tampa, Florida. You want to keep in mind that with high speed rail you have limited access. That high speed rail going in form Los Vegas to CA only has two stops, one in Vegas the other in CA with NO stops inbetween. What makes more sense it to push Acela service down to Richmond, VA and then progressively down to FL. Amtrack needs to be progressively upgraded. We should be talking about adding additional rails to existing rail lines and not additional lanes to highways. In many cases our current Amtrack service which travels at 85 mph is very adequate. We need to re building bridges so that traffic never crosses rail lines. New England did this for decades. We removed ever last crossing gate between Boston and NYC. We did whatever we had to do, built bridges going over rails, building bridges going under rails. We kept the trains running. It use to be that for the "milk" trains heading out of Vermont, the rails were so bad the milk would be butter by the time they got to Boston. Now the same trains ship Ben & Jerry's ice cream to the world. It doesn't happen over night, so no instant gratification here. But in the end it is a win, win situation.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom And then the arguement is cost? The Woodrow Wilson Bridge outside of Washington DC cost an estimated $1.3 Billion. Here in metro Atlanta at one interchange, again ONE interchange! The Georgia DOT built 13 bridges at a cost of one Billion dollars. Again that is ONE interchange. So your complaining about a high speed rail service between Los Angles to San Deigo, with a branch to Sacramento ( some of the most expensive property on the planet ) costing $100 Billion? Sounds like a bargain to me! Now where or not a bankrupt state like CA can afford that is a different issue.... if THERE.IS.NO.MONEY. Then there is no money (period). And when your a state like CA that will gladly throw Billions of dollars a year at Social Services specifically for illegal Mexicans, then I guess ever state has their priorities.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda Our newly elected Republican governor last year refused all money for a high speed line that would have linked Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinatti just because it was promoted by a Democratic administration. Currently there is no passenger service between those cities and the only way to connect with Amtrak is to drive to Cleveland.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I’m a big fan of rail service and have been on several of Amtrak's long-distance trains... the Empire Builder, Capitol Limited, Silver Meteor and Texas Eagle. I enjoy the bedroom accommodations even though they tend to cost considerably more than first class airfare. They say that the long-distance trains are the main money-losers for Amtrak and this is where I think better funding could INCREASE profitability. Even though sleeping accommodations are very expensive (4-5+ times base coach fare) they are almost always sold out months in advance. I'm sure Amtrak could sell out another sleeping car or two on almost all of it's long distance trains... IF they had the equipment. The greater number of high-fare passengers would improve the profitability of the long distance trains... another situation where you have to make an investment to improve profitability.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Oh, and the report saying it will become profitable has got to be bogus> Why? Because it doesn't toss around $100 Billion Dollars like Dr. Evil in the 'Austin Powers' movies? How do you know it's bogus?
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA One has to ponder how the Trans-Continental railroad, The Interstate Highway System, and even simple highways were ever approved and constructed. It's like Chavez Ravine all over again...
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>One has to ponder how the Trans-Continental railroad, The Interstate Highway System, and even simple highways were ever approved and constructed.<< Vision. Something in short supply these days.
Originally Posted By EdisYoda <<It's like Chavez Ravine all over again...>> Excuse me, that's Eastwood Ravine now!
Originally Posted By Manfried <<better funding could INCREASE profitability>> Huh? That sounds like a classic political speak.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Huh? That sounds like a classic political speak.>> Uhhhh.... no. It's the case in private industry too. At time you need to SPEND money to MAKE money. Why the heck do you think the tax code offers a reduced tax rate for income from capital gains... because investment is seen as a GOOD thing. At least everywhere except the government it seems... at least according to conservatives. It is only because of the Bass Ackward fund accounting that government bodies have to use that the U.S. appears to have a large deficit. If they could capitalize investments like roads, military equipment, etc and just recognize an annual depreciation charge-off like private business does things would look FAR better. No one except small Mom & Pops uses a cash-based accounting system... why is the government forced to?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom High speed rail just makes sense anyway. In the case of the highspeed rail going between Las Vegas and CA. The reasoning is that the Las Vegas airport will over the next several years be maxed out. CA proposed high speed rail is estimated to cost up to 86 Billion USD. So even the conservative estimates I have heard don't put it at 100 Billion USD. Meanwhile, Amtrack from DC south to Orlando is profitable. And regardless of price ( or profitability ) those rails need to be upgraded. VRE, Virginias commuter rail derailed just a couple of years ago immediately north of the Quontico USMC base. I've ridden those rails between Fredericksburg, VA and DC plenty of times and those are wooden rails where the trains have to slow down to 25 miles an hour in some spots. Completely inexcuseable in todays age. If the price of gasoline keeps going up OR if for some reason this is some kind of disruption to the world's oil supply; terrorist action, war breaks out. The only viable means of transportation is going to be rail service since that is the only means of transportation that can quickly convert ( which hasn't already been converted ) to biodiesel.
Originally Posted By Manfried Las Vegas airport is a long ways from being maxed out. It has plenty of room and landing slots. LAX is maxed out.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, LAS certainly needs some work when it comes to the security setup. I have NEVER seen security lines as bad as at LAS. Makes MCO look like a cake-walk. Not to mention that I have NEVER waited for my luggage as long as I do at LAS. Frankly, I've wondered if it is intentional to keep people playing the slots in the carousel area. Waiting 45-60 minutes for your luggage to arrive is NOT acceptable as far as I'm concerned.
