Originally Posted By Manfried And Spokker I hear all your points. I want high speed rail in Florida, but I also want a way to pay for it. So I think the bond approach takes all the politics out of it.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Mr X - I am not being childish as I can back up my arguments with facts.*** No, you can't. Unless you have some research that indicates commuter and high speed rail are more detrimental to the ecosystem than other methods. Got a link for that? ***Something you obviously cannot as you can only resort to childish insults. If you want to take part in this debate then grow up and act like an adult*** Says the guy who berates and insults posters on a regular basis. Sorry if I don't take your retort seriously, it's just that you've come across as an abrasive person on many occasions recently and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Not that I mind abrasive when it comes along with informative insight and a good perspective. Unfortunately, you offer neither, you just insult people for the fun of it and add nothing special to the discussion. Like you did here. So, go ahead and offer up those facts if you can. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.
Originally Posted By TP2000 >>"Unless you have some research that indicates commuter and high speed rail are more detrimental to the ecosystem than other methods."<< There was an interesting symposium held at UC Berkely in '09 that came to the conclusion flying from LA to San Fran would have a lower carbon footprint than taking the bullet train, barring a complete collapse of all air and highway intra-state travel where all 8 million California travelers per year only take the train. A snippet from the Berkely symposium... <<"Horvath’s life-cycle analysis of the three modes suggests that high-speed rail will produce some 10 million metric tons of CO2 per year during construction. Furthermore, electricity to run the trains must be primarily generated from coal-fired plants, leading to additional greenhouse gas emissions once HSR is operational. The only way to recover the environmental costs of this mega project is to assure a high passenger load from the start; otherwise, the carbon footprint of air travel would be significantly less. “Fewer people taking the train in the first couple of years counts heavily against HSR in terms of emissions,” Horvath concluded.">> <a href="http://innovations.coe.berkeley.edu/vol3-issue9-nov09/highspeedrail" target="_blank">http://innovations.coe.berkele...peedrail</a> Personally, the whole "carbon footprint" thing is a laughable fad and terrible joke. What's the carbon footprint of you reading this here with your laptop fired up and server farms beaming it around the planet? Shouldn't you be reading a book instead of killing the planet by grazing through LaughingPlace.com? But while I give a mouse's patootie about carbon, I do care about what this bullet train is going to cost to maintain year after year. Who is going to run this system in California? Who will staff it, operate it, maintain it? The rails, the trains, the maintenance yards, the stations, the personnel? Will the bullet train staff be government employees with boisterous unions demanding free health care and lavish pensions with a retirement age of 55 for conductors and baggage clerks and lounge car hostesses? Who will staff and operate and maintain this California rail system for the next 50+ years? The DMV? The Highway Patrol? Amtrak? Some new government agency with swampy bueracracy and little financial oversight? None of those questions have even begun to be answered, or even mentioned. It's all about getting billions more from DC, AKA as "free money" that apparently grows on cherry trees lining the Potomac River. No one has addressed how and who will keep this sprawling and expensive rail system running year after year from 2020 onward through the 21st century. I wished I'd thought to consider all that before I voted yes on that bullet train bond measure back in '08.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "A snippet from the Berkely symposium..." That argument only works if we don't have to build any other infrastructure. A bulldozer sends soot into the air when it's being used to build train tracks just as well as when it's building roads. Some Central Valley politicians want to use the federal HSR money to widen highway 99 instead. If we took all of that money and put it into equivalent road and air projects instead, the construction of those projects would also result in carbon emissions. "Who is going to run this system in California? Who will staff it, operate it, maintain it? The rails, the trains, the maintenance yards, the stations, the personnel?" My speculation is that it will either be Amtrak or a foreign company with experience in operating high speed trains, but those things have not been formally resolved. "Will the bullet train staff be government employees with boisterous unions demanding free health care and lavish pensions with a retirement age of 55 for conductors and baggage clerks and lounge car hostesses?" They will be employees of whoever wins the bid to run trains on the route. "None of those questions have even begun to be answered, or even mentioned." Those questions will not be answered until the environmental reviews are completed and the federal funding issue resolved. Those questions have been mentioned and considered many times. "No one has addressed how and who will keep this sprawling and expensive rail system running year after year from 2020 onward through the 21st century." I have heard that 4 days in the Middle East would actually pay to build this thing, give or take a day or two. It will most likely achieve an operating profit as long as it is built between Los Angeles and San Francisco as planned.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones By the way, new Amtrak conductors are making under $20 per hour now. The usual wage for a conductor was $20 per hour in 2007. This should please some.
Originally Posted By TP2000 I'm fascinated by the fact that no private company has stepped forward in a bid to OPERATE the system for California. The only companies that have been in contact with the California High Speed Rail Authority are those who want to SELL us trainsets and equipment that we will pay for with the free money that grows on cherry trees in Washington DC. I have attended a CHSR open house held in the OCTA offices in Orange, and follow the news on their CHSR Authority website. No one is wooing us to run this thing, only to sell us their products. Virgin is held up as the big example of a private company running a passenger railroad in Britain. But Virgin has received Billions in operating subsidies since the mid 1990's, most recently 1.5 Billion Pounds to keep their long distance trains from London to Glasgow running. Virgin isn't running "their" rail system (which was originally built and paid for by British Rail) without huge government subsidies to keep the trains running each year. But it's branded with the Virgin logo, so it gets used as a very rare example of a private passenger railroad. Eurostar gets Billions in operating subsidies to remain in service. Japan Rail is subsidized up to its neck, as only the Tokyo-Osaka route ekes out a profit each year. Same with every other government owned high speed rail system; subsidies year after year to keep the things running.
Originally Posted By Manfried Facts bubble up Mr X, and I do berate only those who come across as something other than intelligent.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "I'm fascinated by the fact that no private company has stepped forward in a bid to OPERATE the system for California." No one will until there is a clearer picture of what the route will look like, for one thing. They are still in the draft environmental review phase. The SF-SJ section is in jeopardy due to lawsuits (if the plaintiffs prevail, then don't worry, the project isn't happening). I can't imagine anyone making a commitment until that segment is settled, at the very least. "Virgin is held up as the big example of a private company running a passenger railroad in Britain. But Virgin has received Billions in operating subsidies since the mid 1990's, most recently 1.5 Billion Pounds to keep their long distance trains from London to Glasgow running." The trains that Virgin operates in the UK aren't true high speed rail. Many are speedy, but not high speed rail. In fact, there is a similar controversy over building true HSR in the UK as there is here. "Same with every other government owned high speed rail system; subsidies year after year to keep the things running." Are you confusing capital subsidies with operating subsidies? No one is saying that high speed rail will pay back its capital subsidies. That is tax money that will be paid to build the infrastructure, similar to how roads and airports are built with public dollars (and don't forget air traffic control systems and the FAA). However, most high speed rail systems around the world make an operating profit (as does Amtrak's Acela Express). And I say most to be careful. I'm not aware of one that doesn't. You can also look at farebox recovery ratios for transit in general. London's Underground pays for itself through fares, as do all of the Japanese systems. European transit in general hovers around 40-60%. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...ry_ratio</a> US transit figures are much lower due to our insistence of looking at transit as welfare mobility for the poor, so fares are lower than they should be. I'd like to see us model our big city transit systems after Toronto's. But I'm getting off point. In any case, I feel that I'm being honest about the performance of rail and transit, and I would expect the same candor from anti-rail folks. <a href="http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/" target="_blank">http://subsidyscope.org/transp...funding/</a> More information on road funding with a state-by-state breakdown: <a href="http://subsidyscope.org/transportation/highways/funding/state/" target="_blank">http://subsidyscope.org/transp...g/state/</a> Check out California's situation.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm wondering what your official definition of HSR would be...do you consider Acela to be such?
Originally Posted By TP2000 "Are you confusing capital subsidies with operating subsidies?" No, I'm not. Those are two very separate things. I was talking about operating subsidies. For instance, in 2006 Virgin Trains required a 1.4 Billion Pounds (2.8 Billion Dollars) subsidy to keep the London-Glasgow line in operation through 2012. That's a rail line long since built and paid for in the early 20th century by British Rail. But they need the subsidy to keep the trains running in 2011. How much will train tickets cost from LA to San Fran? And how much will that ticket actually cover the actual cost of the trip? In January I paid 59 bucks each way to fly 50 minutes from LA to San Fran for a short trip to the de Young museum. Interestingly, the CHSR Authority has removed from their website the ability to look up projected fares between cities. Hmm. But they still have the time of 2 Hours 38 minutes between San Fran and LA available. When the ability was there, the fare was pegged at around 110 bucks for LA to San Fran via high speed rail. I wonder if that 110 bucks really does cover the entire cost of the ticket, based on extremely, extremely optimistic projections of 5+ Million people per year taking the train, when 8 Million people per year currently fly or drive. Personally, I take Amtrak all over the western US. I'm on a Surfliner or Cascade every few months, and from LA to Seattle or Portland a few times a year on the fabulous Coast Starlight, and occasionally the Southwest Chief back East or the California Zephyr to Denver. So many of these high speed rail cheerleaders have never even been on Amtrak, and wouldn't know the proper tip to a sleeping car attendant for making up a Roomette if their life depended on it (10 bucks a night is a good guideline for Roomettes, by the way. More for Bedrooms.) But it's so gosh-darned hip to ooze about carbon footprints and that meaningless word "sustainability" while they jet off on a plane to their latest vacation, driving the Prius with appropriate leftist bumper stickers on the rear to the airport, naturally. Hypocrites make me puke. Something tells me if high speed rail is ever built here, most hipper-than-thou rail cheerleaders won't know how to get to the train station. Ha!
Originally Posted By FerretAfros "Interestingly, the CHSR Authority has removed from their website the ability to look up projected fares between cities. Hmm. But they still have the time of 2 Hours 38 minutes between San Fran and LA available." That's because the time regulation comes from the voter-approved Prop 1A. There's nothing in there about pricing, so we'll see how that ends up. I've heard that they're aiming for about half of what it would cost to fly. Maybe people should have thought of all this stuff before they went out an approved it. Gotta love California...
Originally Posted By leobloom >> So many of these high speed rail cheerleaders have never even been on Amtrak, and wouldn't know the proper tip to a sleeping car attendant for making up a Roomette if their life depended on it (10 bucks a night is a good guideline for Roomettes, by the way. More for Bedrooms.) << What's that got to do with anything? >> But it's so gosh-darned hip to ooze about carbon footprints and that meaningless word "sustainability" while they jet off on a plane to their latest vacation, driving the Prius with appropriate leftist bumper stickers on the rear to the airport, naturally. Hypocrites make me puke. << That's a common criticism of environmentalists by the drill-baby-drill crowd (and maybe you're not part of it, but your opinion sounds similar to theirs). But the problem with the hypocrisy argument in this case is that there's virtually no way NOT to be a hypocrite to some extent. If you're reading this online, chances are you're part of the problem. However, the idea of wanting sustainable development and looking for ways to improve our earthly condition shouldn't upset you. I prefer people whose hearts are in the right place over the FoxNews types who "know" so much more about science than the scientific community does.
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "For instance, in 2006 Virgin Trains required a 1.4 Billion Pounds (2.8 Billion Dollars) subsidy to keep the London-Glasgow line in operation through 2012." Like I said, that's not real high speed rail. The top speed on their Pendolino trains is 140 MPH, but the infrastructure limits it to 125 MPH. Amtrak also receives a subsidy of around a billion, but recovers 85% of operations through revenues. I feel that's appropriate. "In January I paid 59 bucks each way to fly 50 minutes from LA to San Fran" Consider not comparing today's airline prices to tomorrow's train prices. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=12952702" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/Business...12952702</a> I wonder how often we are going to be seeing articles like this. "Interestingly, the CHSR Authority has removed from their website the ability to look up projected fares between cities." The idea of fare scenarios seemed too daunting for the media to understand. There are actually three fare scenarios in which train fares are pegged at 50, 75 and 100 percent of 2030 airline fares. The scenarios can be found in the business plan. Each one has different revenue and ridership projections. The operator will make the final decision on what to charge most likely. "So many of these high speed rail cheerleaders have never even been on Amtrak" How could you possibly know that?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones You can find the business plan and all ancillary documents here: <a href="http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Business_Plan_reports.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca....rts.aspx</a> Anybody have a link to the business plan for the I-5 widening in South Orange County? How about the 57 widening? 91 widening?
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones You're also comparing average high speed trian fares to the lowest fare you can get on Southwest. The $59 fare (now $64), is the lowest priced, non-refundable, advance-purhcase fare. Not everybody pays that price, either because they cannot purchase in advance or because they must fly from a less popular airport. That $59 fare (now $64, $74.70 with taxes and fees) is available from LAX-SFO. SNA-SFO is a $94 base fare plus taxes and fees. Instead of schlepping to LAX, I could take a 10 minute bus ride to Anaheim Station, closer to where I live, and board a high speed train, not just to SFO, but to San Jose, the Central Valley or Los Angeles. And a lot of people are going to be in a position to do just that.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<But it's so gosh-darned hip to ooze about carbon footprints and that meaningless word "sustainability" while they jet off on a plane to their latest vacation, driving the Prius with appropriate leftist bumper stickers on the rear to the airport, naturally. Hypocrites make me puke.>> What an arrogant and ignorant statement to make. People who drive a hybrid or LEV have a much lower footprint than those who drive SUVs. Taking public transportation commuting to and from work also shrinks the carbon footprint. And this person driving their Prius to the airport for their annual getaway has a much smaller footprint than that SUV commuter who does the 'stay-cation' at home every year. Traveling by rail isn't always an option, especially when traveling back east. Good for you that you have that time luxury, but many people simply do not. No one is a hypocrite who makes a conscious effort to reduce their carbon footprint whenever and wherever they can.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox How long is it going to take to build HSR in this country, even if we started construction today? Five years? Ten years? It's not going to happen overnight. What is the projected cost of jet fuel for the year 2020? Currently, it's about $2.79 per gallon. Estimates for 2020 range between $3.18 to $3.85 per gallon. The average cost for 2010 was about $1.96 per gallon. Given the rising demand for oil in China and India, I wouldn't be surprised to see jet fuel prices reach those 2020 projected levels long before then. This is why we need to build HSR systems now. Not later, but now. These projects will take close to 10 years to complete, so the longer we wait to begin them, the worse our transportation options will be in the future. That non-refundable $59 airfare in 2011 could very easily become $159 within the next ten years. And that will be the cheapest rate you'll be able to purchase with a myriad of restrictions. Who's going to afford that, with the continuation of stagnant or decreasing wages? We will run out of oil in a few decades. It will become more and more expensive to remove from the ground, driving the cost skyward. What other choice do we have as a nation, that's so spread out across the continent? Food is only beginning to be grown locally again, but the bulk of it is still shipped from the farms to the cities across hundreds and hundreds of miles of rail and road. Transportation is our nation's life blood, and it's in dire need of an overhaul. HSR is just one part of the overall landscape, but an important one, just the same.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan skinnerbox, you're looking forward, thinking about the future, trying to plan ahead. That's crazy! Don't you know that we have a God-given right to slurp up all the fossil fuels we can right here and right now? We can worry about high speed rail and such some other time, like when it's too late. A crisis is much more fun. Removing tongue from cheek, can you imagine this current congress having the vision to build an interstate highway system, subway lines and various other large scale infrastructure projects? They'd be saying "covered wagons were good enough for our forefathers!" They may get us there yet.
