Originally Posted By Manfried <<Uhhhh.... no. It's the case in private industry too.>> Come on, get real. Spending more money in private industry usually makes sense because someone who understands actually making money pencils it out so they understand the possible return on their investment. Since when has a politician, or a politically oriented "investment" penciled out as making money? Maybe back when there was the homestead law, or the give away the land law to the railroads. But high speed rail, while laudable, has a high cost, that will continue to go up and will never pay for itself, much less really reduce dependence on energy or all those other high falutin ideas. The trains will not make hardly a dent in the traffic because they just won't run often enough to get people off the roads. The trains will hold what? 500 to 800 people on a good day? And how many will run? When you consider that there are something like 50,000 people on the road at any given time for the California route being considered between San Fran and LA, how does that $100 billion actually pencil out as a good investment?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Amtrak's Acela high-speed train runs 15 times (both ways... 30 trips total) between NYC and Washington DC every day. Each trainset hold 300 people. So you are talking about 9,000 people a day, not 500. The Acela Express handles 37% of ALL combined air and rail traffic between NYC and DC every day. Total passengers during 2010 was 3.2 million passengers, which amounts to over 97% of their 9,000 person per day capacity. By the way, Acela operates at a profit. There is no reason to think that a high-speed corridor between LA and SF could not do as well. Do your homework and come back and discuss this stuff when you know the facts!
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom RoadTrip, you left out the Boston to NYC folks. I don't want to give the impression that the Acela ONLY runs between NYC and DC. It runs between Boston and DC, with stops in each state along the way. The entire idea behind Acela was to crate a fast affordable means or transportation between Boston - NYC. And then NYC - DC. Amtrack would like to redirect the rails between Boston - NYC so that they do not go through RI or CT. This move would cut one hour off the Acela between Boston - NYC. The Amtrack people are thinking outside the box. They are looking at ALL viable options. As RoadTrip said, Amtrack and Acela are profitable along the Northeast corridor. Those trains run constantly! The normal Amtrack trains run at 85 MPH. The Acela runs at 150 MPH. A fun trip. Many people in the Northeast use Amtrack and Acela since the train stations are primarily located in downtown areas. It is faster to take the Acela say between Providence, RI to DC, than it is to fly. As you have to first drive to the airport in RI ( actually located in Warwick, RI ) get through security, wait for your flight, then fly to Dulles, get your bagage, get a cab or take a bus to DC. The Acela picks you up in downtown Providence and take you directly to Union Station in downtown DC. While on the train you can get up and walk around. The seats are like sofas and far more comfortable than being herded into a plane. I would highly recommend an Amtrack experience for everyone out there, even a short one. After all "we" all own Amtrack, why not see what it is like and draw your own conclusions? I have ridden Amtrack many times, ok never long distance. But lots of trips between Providence to Boston, Providence to NYC, southern NJ to NYC, southern NJ to Atlantic City and Fredricksburg, VA to DC. The scenery varys but far more scenery than what you see from HWY 95. The trip from Fredricksburg, VA up to DC follows the James River right up to Potomac River, incredible trip. I had assigned seats and ended up on the cafe car drinking coffee and eating breakfast while the train was traveling alongside the James River. You would swear that DC was built in the middle of the wilderness! There are some spectacular sights in this country which can only been seen by train. Train travel is night and day different to what air travel is like post 9-11.
Originally Posted By Manfried <<Do your homework and come back and discuss this stuff when you know the facts!>> Can you leave the insults out please?
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom What is the west coast's reluctance to high speed rail? I just don't get it! How many times has California gone to the Federal Government asking to be bailed out. And here we have an example of the Federal Government handing over tens of millions of dollars, no strings attached and California is hesitant. And then everyone else in the country has to convince Californians that high speed rail is in California's best intrest. Weird!
Originally Posted By Manfried I don't think the Washington to NYC comparison is the same as LA to SF. A much more centralized population base in both cities in the northeast. LA is very spread out, I used to drive there a lot. SF has some mass transit in its area to service its spread out suburbs. Still the cost of putting that train in, is it fair to the other half of the state that lives no where close or care about it to have to pay for it? I also think that the CA one will cost more like $200 billion when and if they are ever done with it.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom <<I don't think the Washington to NYC comparison is the same as LA to SF. A much more centralized population base in both cities in the northeast.>> "Alex, I'll take large east coast cities for $200". Here are the lists of "stops" along the Acela route from NYC to DC. 1) NYC 2) Newark, NJ 3) Iselin, NJ 4) Trenton, NJ 5) Philadelphia, PA 6) Wilmington, DE 7) Baltimore, MD 8) Washington DC Every last one of these stops is a major city or in a major metropolitan area. 4 of those stops are in major cities with major airports ( yet another ingenious thing to do ). According to Amtrack, ridership since 2000 is up 36%. Much of this because of the increase in gasoline prices. Everytime gasoline prices go up ridership on Amtrack goes up. We see this too in metro Atlanta. Everytime gasoline prices go up public transit ridership goes up. The entire trip duration on taking an Acela train from Boston to DC is 7 hours. Again, Amtrack wants to redirect the rails to avoid the states of RI and CT. This would cut an hour off that trip. Making the trip time from Boston to DC 6 hours. Which is definately comparable to how much time it would take if you were to get to Logan airport in Boston, MA then fly to Dulles airport outside of DC and then commute into downtown DC. <<LA is very spread out,>> Which raises the need for a good rail service in metro LA. Simular to "the T" in Boston, "Metro" in DC, "L" in Chicago. There is no way that such a rail system is going to surpass the NYNJ Transit Authorty which spans everything from Philadelphia,PA to Long Island and CT.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <What is the west coast's reluctance to high speed rail? I just don't get it!> Me either. It seems to be 'in vogue' to be skeptical and cynical and to think of the high speed rail as the 'road to nowhere' and 'over priced' and a 'boondoggle.' Interstate 5 used to be called the 'road to nowhere' -- that is until it was completed and became one of the most used freeways in the state of California.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>and California is hesitant<< California's central valley is our "red state" -- distrustful of government (but don't get between them and those farm subsidies). High speed rail is popular in the larger cities -- San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles. But in the more conservative areas, that's where the outcry is coming from. Even though they'd benefit from it, too.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Sure, it's going to cost some. But at least in the end you end up with a "Hoover Damn". Even if a portion of it was built Californians would benefit.
Originally Posted By Manfried Well I, for one, am glad we are not pursuing high speed rail here. Knowing the engineers here, they'd build it over a sinkhole.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Even if a portion of it was built Californians would benefit.<< I agree. Short term and long term benefits, like most public works projects.
Originally Posted By Manfried <<like most public works projects.>> Some are good, some are not. Let's talk about that Alaskan bridge to nowhere, eh? What I wish we would do as a country before we spend any money on high cost rail projects is fix the infrastructure we have. Now that would be an investment in the country.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I don't think it's necessarily an either-or proposition. We definitely have highways, bridges etc that need work done right away.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<<<Do your homework and come back and discuss this stuff when you know the facts!>> Can you leave the insults out please?>> I don't think my comment was any more insulting than yours. <<Huh? That sounds like a classic political speak.>> And if you are going to discuss the topic, you SHOULD have some knowledge of the topic at hand. Your statement that the train would only handle 500-800 passengers per day was totally ludicrous. There are 350,014 air passengers per MONTH between Los Angeles and San Francisco... the 18th most highly traveled route in the WORLD. Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_passenger_air_routes" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...r_routes</a> I see no reason why high-speed rail between those two cities would not be at least as successful as Acela is in the East.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo And there is another factor. If it is fast enough, central and affordable, many of the California tourists would be quite likely to use it as there is so much to see compared to flying. The distance between us and Disneyland Paris is just that little bit shorter than sf to la. It is faster to take the train than fly the route these days. With flying it tAkes us an hour to get to the airport, park, take the bus (another 30 mins), queue to check in (must be done 2 hours before if you want to sit together if taking a budget airline), board the plane, taxi, an hour flight, wait to get off, collect baggage, and then get on a bus or rent a car and 45 minutes to DLP. So a 6 hour journey (it is almost as quick to drive). Eurostar however, we drive 10 mins to station. An hour into London. At the same station for us we check into eurostar at least 20 mins before. 2.5 hour journey and arrive closer to the gates of DLP than the contemporary is to the MK. So 4 hours ,more convenient and costs less than flying sometimes, sometimes a little more.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Exactly Dave! From where I lived in RI. I could walk to the end of the block, get on a bus and take the bus to Providence (20 minutes), then another bus to either Logan airport in Boston, MA (0ne hour), and then fly anywhere in the world. OR I could walk 2 blocks to the train station and take the Amtrack train either into Boston OR points south ( NYC). In other words it gives you MORE options. You have other choices other than "driving" to the airport to actually get somewhere. Also there is a huge convenience factor here. In New England we typically get inclement weather; fog, snow storms, etc. You would be watching the news and first they would give a weather report saying a foot of snow will be dumped that evening. Then sports would come on and they would say that the Bruins would be playing that night in Boston Garden against the Montreal Canadiens. You'd look at your friends and say, "Hey lets head up to Boston tonight to catch the hockey game". Then someone would say some about the forcasted snow storm. And everyone else would just say lets take the train. The trains all have plows on them, and they keep running. There are times when the highways and airports are shut down but the trains always keep running. You also don't have to worry about parking. The trains stations are located in downtown areas, a short walk or taxi can get you where you need to go. No worries about your car getting damaged or stolen. There really are times when a car truely can be a burden. And I for one am tired of seeing needless parking lots everywhere. And in the grand scheme of things it is far cheaper to maintain a rail line than a highway system.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom In a day and age where we are quickly running out of "space", billion dollar bridges and tunnels, high speed rail service just makes so much more sense. Like I said, even if the price tag is $100 Billion and no one is putting the estimates that high. It is still a bargain over billion dollar bridges. For a billion dollars you can build a few miles of rail service. What CA needs to do is to build their high speed rail in segments ( just like everyone else ). Look at how much territory BART in San Fran covers and that was all built in segments.
Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom Excellent article in the Los Angles Times, which covers everything. And the Bullet Train is expected to turn a profit. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-train-20111104,0,7045793.story" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/news/op...93.story</a>
