# California getting crushed in high-speed rail race



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

California getting lapped in high-speed rail race - The Reporter


In the international race to build bullet trains, California is not only getting crushed by the likes of France and Japan but also Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
Dozens of powerful nations and even far-flung countries on every continent except Antarctica are asking the Golden State what's taking so long to join the bullet train club. The answer could come as soon as this week, when the state Legislature votes whether to start building the $69 billion rail line.

But don't start booking your tickets just yet: California must overcome more obstacles than the countries that have built the world's 10,000 miles of high-speed rail.

Europe has a train culture where gas is two to three times more expensive than it is in California. China uses dirt-cheap labor to build tracks at an alarming rate. South Africa needed fast trains to serve the World Cup, and the Middle East wants a faster pilgrimage to holy cities during Hajj and Ramadan.

California, meanwhile, has high labor costs and strict environmental laws, an awful formula for building a gigantic infrastructure project. We've built dozens of airports and freeways, generating the kind of sprawl and travel options that make a bullet train system harder to justify.

"For every person who says, 'Oh, I just got back from riding the TGV (bullet train) in France,' there is somebody else saying, 'Wait a minute, California is not like Spain or these other places,' " said Dan Richard, who Gov. Jerry Brown appointed to lead the project.
"Having said that, I don't think we can or should be blind to what's happened in these other countries because there are a lot of things to be learned."
<more>


----------



## Flopper (Jun 25, 2012)

Unfortunately, the cost of high speed rail in the US will prevent it from becoming the primary transportation system.  I think history will see the development of our highway system as a major mistake.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 25, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Unfortunately, the cost of high speed rail in the US will prevent it from becoming the primary transportation system.  I think history will see the development of our highway system as a major mistake.



Who built it?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> California getting lapped in high-speed rail race - The Reporter
> 
> 
> In the international race to build bullet trains, California is not only getting crushed by the likes of France and Japan but also Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
> ...



Liberalism is an awful combination.

different far left groups will sue the fuck outta state, counties, cities and towns to stop this.

and you will only have yourselves to blame when the cost goes over 69 billion and it's not half done.


----------



## MeBelle (Jun 25, 2012)

California can't afford and doesn't need a high speed bullet train.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Sure it does. If one could get from SF to LA in 2 1/2 hours it would cut the time to less than a flight. Right now the flight takes just under an hour plus the trip to and from both airports, and the need to arrive early for security etc.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Sure it does. If one could get from SF to LA in 2 1/2 hours it would cut the time to less than a flight. Right now the flight takes just under an hour plus the trip to and from both airports, and the need to arrive early for security etc.


Now, all you have to worry about are enough people traveling from LA to SF, and maybe a few stops in between, to have enough passengers who think it's  more attractive than driving and having their car on hand at the destination.

Poor silly lolberals....They still think America is Europe or Japan....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Never been on a high speed train in Europe, have you?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

The cities of Europe ain't San Francisco and LA.

Here....Down another hit of the brown stuff...It's far out!


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> The cities of Europe ain't San Francisco and LA.
> 
> Here....Down another hit of the brown stuff...It's far out!


What does that mean?


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> California can't afford and doesn't need a high speed bullet train.



and they don't want it:

Poll: Public opinion wanes on California bullet train plan - Los Angeles Times



> Voters have turned against California bullet train, poll shows
> _A strong majority of voters is against the bullet train project just as Gov. Brown is pressuring the Legislature to green-light the start of construction, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll finds._
> June 02, 2012|By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times
> 
> ...



The last guy's quote, Richard, remind me of Obama saying that Americans would like the health care reform laws as they became more familiar with it. Those numbers are still tanking, regardless of how SCOTUS rules.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > The cities of Europe ain't San Francisco and LA.
> ...


It means that you don't know shit from shinola.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 25, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Unfortunately, the cost of high speed rail in the US will prevent it from becoming the primary transportation system.  I think history will see the development of our highway system as a major mistake.



If by "history" you mean 'Lefty Wannabe Intelligensia,' then yes.


----------



## Intense (Jun 25, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> California can't afford and doesn't need a high speed bullet train.



What is really sad there too, is everyone will have to Commute Long distance to get to it.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jun 25, 2012)

Serious question, what would a high speed train solve other than bankrupting California further? I lived in Cali for 22 years and I can't think of one reason for a billion dollar speedy train other than to feed the ego that Cali has yet one more thing it can't afford.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


It means you've never traveled.
The driving time from LA to SF is about 6 - 6 1/2 hours if you don't stop. I'd rather relax on the train, use my computer, phone, or just enjoy the scenery.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...





Intense said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > California can't afford and doesn't need a high speed bullet train.
> ...





There you have it, folx!


----------



## Avorysuds (Jun 25, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw]Simpsons - Monorail - YouTube[/ame]

Cali needs 500,000,000,000 of these!


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



So you commute that daily?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Intense said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > California can't afford and doesn't need a high speed bullet train.
> ...


Commute to get to the train? Both train stations are in downtown .. same as in Europe.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



So they should build a high-speed train just for you? I hope you are prepared for some very, very expensive tickets.


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



I'm guessing you haven't ever been in LA?


----------



## Avorysuds (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Just wondering... How much do you think it will cost to make a train from SF to LA. Then where do you get this money so that you can relax, talk on the phone and type on your computer?

How much taxes do people pay... Do we still want UHC, or how do we pay for all this crap? We already run a 1.5 trillion dollar deficit and cali runs something like a 20 billion dollar deficit. What should taxes be for people to pay for all the welfare and welfare trains?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...




You really, really want the US to be Europe, don't you?


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

Annie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Or the SF/SJ Bay Area.

I'm guessing he hasn't been anywhere but in Brownacidville....


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Annie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


I lived there for years. The train station is downtown, like I said.


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



and if you live 80 miles out of downtown?


----------



## Intense (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Amtrak - Reservations - Fare Finder


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Uh-huh...Did you live in Redlands, Mission Viejo or Moreno Valley?


----------



## del (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



how many people live downtown do you suppose?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Annie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...


You're not making any sense.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 25, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > California getting lapped in high-speed rail race - The Reporter
> ...


And will never effectively service the people it claims to help.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Makes perfect sense to me.  If the nearest train station from my house is 80 miles from my house, I'm not going to use it.  High speed rail is worthless unless it gets fast enough to compete with airline travel in speed and price or cargo.  Otherwise you need light rail to handle 99% of American cities or you go berzerk with taxis which is even worse than people driving cars themselves.  Not to mention all the lost economic activity by losing the car culture.  Why do you think automakers used to be and in many ways still are the backbone of our manufacturing economy?  Because it involves so many other sectors of labor.

Rail transportation is past.  Cars are the future, and I say that wistfully because I'm a rail fan, but even I can see the hand writing on the wall.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


There's lots of business travel between LA and SF daily.
Are you aware of the fast train on the east coast from Boston to DC? It's half as fast as in Europe.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Are you aware that the phone and internet connections between Boston and DC are much faster and the fares are waaaaaaay cheaper?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



And it loses money every single year.


----------



## barry1960 (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



I live in California and travel by Amtrak train. I use my lap top, read journel articles, and answer my email while traveling. Amtrak is economical and well set up to work. I enjoy the scenery from Bakersfield to Oakland. I have also had occasion to travel from Los Angeles to San Diego. The scenery was beautiful along the ocean.

That said, California cannot afford high speed rail. It would not prove to be popular either. Despite the governor's support, people are against it. Amtrak is highly subsidized as would a high speed rail.The best option would be to use the money to expand Amtrak lines, and provide connection service between cities. For example, Amway does not go over the grapevine into Los Angeles. A line could be opened through Tehachappi (only for freight at present) or one built over the grapevine for a more direct route. Subway connections could be expanded within the LA area to better connect Amtrak with various locales.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Yes.  Now do it's fares pay for it's operation?  No.  What percentage of traffic between those cities is serviced by those trains?  8%?  4%?  Highways are better.  Much better because they can take almost 20 times the amount of traffic in the same space for a tenth the cost and often faster speeds at the convenience of the individual.  Nobody's held to the train's schedule.  Nobody has to stop where they don't want.

Sorry, but the choochoo era is over for everything but freight.

Oh, and the Acela needs far better tracks.  A capital investment nobody in this nation is interested in making save politicians who haven't figured out it's a fool's errand.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


Link?
That'll be hard since there's no service in CA yet.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 25, 2012)

barry1960 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


If the government had not nationalized rail travel, it may have prospered.  Unfortunately, because of that, it may be too late to ever revive it again in the hands of the private railroads who got out of the business because it went from a profit leader to loss leader slowly with the automobile, then rapidly with the Interstate and air travel.

That's what ended it.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


No phone and internet service in Fornicalia?

That's news to me....Gotta link?


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



So it's one of those, 'You'll love it when it's in place?' type of deals. No thanks.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Annie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...


Thank God Eisenhower, a Republlcan, didn't think like you when he built the US highway system.


----------



## Annie (Jun 25, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



So you admit, it is 'one of those.' How long did it take for Eisenhower to get this plan through? What shape was the economy in then? (Never mind, Europe and Asia were recovering from WWII under the Marshall Plan, while US economy was roaring). Now?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 25, 2012)

Annie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...


The US highway system is one of the reasons that the US prospered ... it put many to work.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2012)

The high speed rail line was not supposed to go from LA to San Francisco.   No one could afford to buy the land for one thing, which is the reason why the real proposed high speed rail was supposed to go from LA to Las Vegas right through less expensive desert.  Except the land in Los Angeles was too expensive, so the start of the rail line was out in the desert, in Victorville about half way to Vegas.  The voter approval for the rail was when it was 68 billion dollars.  That was low, the estimate really is 300 billion at a minimum.   The expectation that people in Los Angeles would drive half way to Las Vegas, park their car and take a train the rest of the way was a bit too optimistic.   Once on the road, having gone half way, most people would really just drive the rest of the way in.  Not pay $200.00 for a train ticket, pay $100.00 a day for parking, and then rent a car or take cabs in Las Vegas.


----------



## tjvh (Jun 26, 2012)

California is broke, and they wanna buy a est. $300 Billion dollar train set, just to be more like Europe... Have people lost their minds?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2012)

Annie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Driving from Orange County California to Las Vegas takes about 4 1/2 hours.  I've made that trip dozens of times.  To take the Amtrak is 11 hours.  Take the train from the Irvine station to Union Station downtown, then there is a layover while you wait for the Las Vegas train.  That's why there are no groups that take the train but charter a bus instead.   To be forced into an 11 hour train trip, a person has to have a serious reason.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2012)

tjvh said:


> California is broke, and they wanna buy a est. $300 Billion dollar train set, just to be more like Europe... Have people lost their minds?



Why do you think we want to stop it?


----------



## Sallow (Jun 26, 2012)

Oddball said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Oddball said:
> ...



Well neither do you.

Trains are an efficient mode of transportation; both for goods and people.

It's not the complete solution..but having mult-tier systems to move around the country makes a great deal of sense.

Trains, autos and planes.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


All the more reason for a fast train to Vegas.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

I don't think anyone in California would use it. It would have to be subsidized by the taxpayer to be cheaper than flying or driving


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2012)

Well, we do subsidize airlines.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Well, we do subsidize airlines.


I've no problem stopping all corporate and personal subsidies.  It's time to stop the government from picking winners and losers and subsidizing failure.

You?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Except the "fast train" isn't even working as a concept.  People will have to drive half way to even take the train.  Not to mention adding hundreds of dollars to the trip.   In my gas guzzler, I can make it to Vegas on a tank of gas.   Why would I want to drive to Victorville, pay $200.00 for a train ticket, $100.00 a day to park the car, and wait in the middle of the desert for hours for the train?    It's cheaper to fly than take the train.  The 11 hours it takes to go from LA to Vegas now isn't caused by slow trains, but the wait time.   They can't build a direct line from LA to Vegas because they can't afford the price of land!    The initial 68 billion dollars for the first leg of the train has already been upped to 300 billion and that won't see the rail line completed, just started.

They need to scrap this whole thing,  It was caused by libs saying "no matter how broke we are, I want the shiney new train to play with".


----------



## Oddball (Jun 26, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Efficient by whose criteria?

And since when is it your right to supplant your idea of "efficiency" over what someone who drives values more?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 26, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> barry1960 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Freight by rail can not compete with trucking except on long hauls and passenger carriage needs a lot of freight business to offset cost.  Rail transport of passengers is a casualty of of the development of our highway system.  Except in a few isolated corridors, I don't see how commuter trains would ever be profitable without government subsidy.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2012)

The reason rail is so popular and workable in Europe is because they've had it for a very long time.  When those rail lines were built land was very cheap, so was labor.   New York has a good subway system, in Boston it turned into the Big Dig.


----------



## del (Jun 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The reason rail is so popular and workable in Europe is because they've had it for a very long time.  When those rail lines were built land was very cheap, so was labor.   New York has a good subway system, in Boston it turned into the Big Dig.



the big dig had nothing to do with the subway, idiot. it was a highway project.

the first subway in the us was in boston.

edumicate your fat racist ass before you open your piehole.

otay?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > barry1960 said:
> ...


No kidding?  Really?  I had not known that.  As a rail fan I know a lot about the industry historically and that includes modern history.  One of the best things possible would be to shift long haul freight almost exclusively to rail.  RORO intermodal is one of the best, most efficient ways of hauling freight across this nation.  It's only when you're dealing with bulk and large amounts of freight to a single location does having a rail spur matter anymore and justify it.  But trucking is best if kept under a length of 150 miles or so.  It has the advantage of using the superior flexibility of roads, but cannot haul the same tonnages or as efficiently.

By the same token, this is why high speed rail fails for what the libs want.  It cannot get everyone within walking distance of 99% of America without a capital expense so great the costs outweigh the gains by many many multiples.  Combining short haul trucking to rail to ship is ideal for freight.  But because of air travel and the affordability of driving oneself, it is NOT ideal for passenger travel anymore. It's time to let the idea die and revert to private hands and see if some new innovator comes up with something brilliant.

Doubt it... but who knows?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The reason rail is so popular and workable in Europe is because they've had it for a very long time.  When those rail lines were built land was very cheap, so was labor.   New York has a good subway system, in Boston it turned into the Big Dig.




The Big Dig had nothing to do with the subway system in Boston. Why do you insist on making a fool of yourself by trying to play 'expert' on things you know nothing about? I notice you do this ALL THE DAMN TIME.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The reason rail is so popular and workable in Europe is because they've had it for a very long time.  When those rail lines were built land was very cheap, so was labor.   New York has a good subway system, in Boston it turned into the Big Dig.
> ...



I was really talking about boondoggles that cost much and produce nothing.   Why do you try to bait people into getting into pages and pages of senseless argument.  I notice you do it all the damn time.  You did it with Moonglow, Buford, OohPooPahDoo, Skydancer, GHook93, Dante, Jake Starkey, Huggy and Catzmeow.

The list is geting quite long isn't it?   All the people you want to waste their time with you and who refuse.  I'm not playing.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

Have you ever been to Boston?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...





No you weren't. What you said was quite clear. You were trying to sound like you knew what you were talking about but you had no fucking clue - AGAIN. It is an on-going pattern of behavior with you.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 26, 2012)

These big cities had trains & cable cars a hundred years ago. They are gone for a reason, because they suck & nobody wants to ride them. If you want to save gas, then get a moped.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

The Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington corridor is the only route that high speed rail would be profitable


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> The Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington corridor is the only route that high speed rail would be profitable




It would not be profitable there either.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington corridor is the only route that high speed rail would be profitable
> ...



It already is


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> These big cities had trains & cable cars a hundred years ago. They are gone for a reason, because they suck & nobody wants to ride them. If you want to save gas, then get a moped.


Actually, they are gone because of a conspiracy between the tire and automotive companies playing local politics.  That's a known fact, unfortunately.  That being said, it would have eventually died off in 90% of cities that used them for the same reasons.  Cars are simply a better way of getting around when you have the space, and America has the space.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington corridor is the only route that high speed rail would be profitable
> ...


Would not?  Try, isn't already and will never be.


----------



## MeBelle (Jun 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



You started with SF to LA. How did you get to Vegas?

California is BROKE and cannot afford a high speed bullet train.


----------



## MeBelle (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Have you ever been to Boston?



Yes! 

Woostah  too ...


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


I responded to post just before me, that you included in your post. You don't even read them, do you?


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The reason rail is so popular and workable in Europe is because they've had it for a very long time.  When those rail lines were built land was very cheap, so was labor.   New York has a good subway system, in Boston it turned into the Big Dig.


New rails had to be put down for the high speed trains in Europe.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Sure it does. If one could get from SF to LA in 2 1/2 hours it would cut the time to less than a flight. Right now the flight takes just under an hour plus the trip to and from both airports, and the need to arrive early for security etc.



There is NO ONE (i mean clearly NO ONE) including the study commission in charge who says there is even a TINY PRAYER that this train will go between LA and San Fran. 

The terminals will be 30 - 80 MILES from the City Centers at best.. It truely is as conceived a train to nowhere funded by BONDS and STIMULUS that is being tossed to consultants and rich partisian supporters who have been selling portions of the right of way for over 20YEARS!!!! BONDS were sold for this starting in 1998 and there is NOTHING to show for it.

And I could only write that after shaking off a hysterical laugh attack over this gem in the OP.. 



> China uses dirt-cheap labor to build tracks at an alarming rate. South Africa needed fast trains to serve the World Cup, and the Middle East wants a faster pilgrimage to holy cities during Hajj and Ramadan.


 

If that isn't quintessential Leftist economics.. We NEED a bullet train for 3 week World Cup event. Or We NEED a bullet train one month out of 12 for religious celebration..  Yeah, we should probably concede that race.. After all Cali is still paying for it's Hydrogen Hiway it doesn't have, the Embryonic Stem Cell facility that was meant to slap Bush that hasn't produced, and BILLIONS of other ill-conceived programs that will never produce..


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Sure it does. If one could get from SF to LA in 2 1/2 hours it would cut the time to less than a flight. Right now the flight takes just under an hour plus the trip to and from both airports, and the need to arrive early for security etc.
> ...


Link?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Link to what? The quote I pulled from YOUR OP or the ESCell facility or Hydrogen Hiway, or the fact that NO ONE is talking about getting on in San Fran and stepping off in Los Angeles?  I thought you'd KNOW that if you advocating that bankrupt Calis spend their last dime on this farce...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Only because Biden and Wall Streeters living in all those Litttle towns can get on from their fancy suburbs.. You think "hi-speed" means "stop every 12 miles?"


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

I will say one thing on the possible future of train travel being possible.

Long distance travel at high speed (coast to coast in at longest 24 hours) WITH own vehicle on board.  If that can be done for comparatively the same price as a plane ticket for a family of 4-5, they have a shot at doing that.  Of course, that would require an average speed of at least 150mph with short stops only at a few major hubs.

The catch is that you would have heavy trains with the need for eliminating grade crossings able to traverse 3000 miles approximately in a day.  The current track structure cannot handle it.  It'd take possibly a trillion dollars or more just to get the track laid, let along fight the legal battles to do it, and then consider the fact that this is also not in the budget for a large market either no matter what is said otherwise.

So, that's one outlandish possibility.  Almost an X Prize level of possible success and profitability.  aka, maybe someday a long way off.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever been to Boston?
> ...



U just love saying Woostah.. Dontcha?  I should teach you the correct pronounciation of LouisVille. (Lulvul)


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


I thought it was Loouhvul.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

Here ya go Junkie -- from an acceptable source.. 



> California High-Speed Rail Authority Releases Ambitious New Plan
> 
> *The revised plan would save money by merging the bullet train with existing commuter rail lines in the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles basin, where tracks would be electrified. *Nearly $1 billion in voter-approved bonds is available for upgrades to existing tracks, which officials say would speed up rail service and possibly generate more riders.
> 
> ...



Do you realize what an ordeal it is to ride CalTrain from San Jose to San Fran? I do.. It ain't gonna save you JACK in terms of time. But the key to the renewed interest in this zombie project is right in that quote.. 

It's about tying up the Calif. Tax and Cap carbon slush fund that EVERYONE wants to get their paws on.. Boy THAT'S gonna hurt the little guy...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...



Oh man -- that's almost perfect.. But I've never managed to catch the middle "u". Maybe a few more years of Southern exposure...


----------



## Flopper (Jun 26, 2012)

For whatever reason, I hated to see the disappearance of passenger trains. It was such a nice way to travel.  I suppose they'll never return to the US due to the cost.    

I spent two summers in Europe traveling mostly by train. It seem like wherever I wanted to go, there was a train leaving within 20 or 30 minutes.  For the most part, they were clean, comfortable, and fast.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



The Acela doesn't stop every 12 miles, only major cities

It is a very profitable run and is usually full


----------



## Avorysuds (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> I don't think anyone in California would use it. It would have to be subsidized by the taxpayer to be cheaper than flying or driving



I do like it when we can agree on things.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> I will say one thing on the possible future of train travel being possible.
> 
> Long distance travel at high speed (coast to coast in at longest 24 hours) WITH own vehicle on board.  If that can be done for comparatively the same price as a plane ticket for a family of 4-5, they have a shot at doing that.  Of course, that would require an average speed of at least 150mph with short stops only at a few major hubs.
> 
> ...



Isnt' that how you go thru the Chunnel? I thought you loaded your car on and sat and ate snails all the way back to London.. In the US, if they had Wi-Fi and carhops delivering finger food -- and maybe a plug to run your electric stuff --- that could be neat if there was a view.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jun 26, 2012)

There are some huge differences between the US and Europe. The US is fucking huge foe one. Building the tracks would span over thousands of miles to make it worth a shit and it would cost incredible amounts of money to achieve this goal.

The US never expanded with trains in mind either, this means that we have big cities that are pretty far from one another that act as individual hubs. The likeliness of someone working in SF who lives in LA is less than .00001%, even if there were a bullet train to get them there and here is why.

Costs & Time&#8230; That&#8217;s really all.
Costs: The tickets would be insanely priced and even still that would prolly not pay a quarter of what it would cost to keep the whole thing operational on a daily basis. How many people could this train move in a day, 3-5 thousand? That&#8217;s nothing, 300+ billion and subsidies to keep it moving would push California into the deficit oblivion.

Time: Who would use this train, they super rich? So are we building a train for the super rich? Who would start their day at 3:00am so they can get to the train by 4:30am so they can get to SF from LA by 7:00am after boarding and getting off so that they can commute to work and get there by 8:00am. 
Now all they need to do is get home! 

So let&#8217;s assume tickets are in the 200$ (grossly undercharged = no profit and running a deficit for the state), and it takes about 5 hours to get to work and 5 hours to get home&#8230; With an 8 hour day the &#8220;average joe&#8221; would be out around 400$ and 18 hours a day. So again, who is this train for?


----------



## Avorysuds (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I did a very quick google just to see. I don't know crap about this stuff, it was purely curiosity.  

I did "is Acela profitable?"

So it looks like it's not even close.

Is the Northeast Corridor really profitable? - Fred Frailey - Trains Magazine - Online Community: Forums and Blogs

*But in that Washington Post story, Boardman qualifies his statement in one important respect. To cover the Northeast Corridors capital costs, Amtrak still needs a government subsidy, he says. That is correct. How much are capital costs, on average? For the answer to that, go back to that same link and refer to page 4 of the 2009 report titled, Northeast Corridor State of Good Repair Spend Plan. There, it estimates the NECs annual, normalized capital needs the next 15 years as $368 million for infrastructure and equipment. Last fiscal years NEC operating profit of $61 million covers only one-sixth of that capital need.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

<<AvorySuds>> "who is it for?"

People who won't fly the SouthWest aerial cattle cars for $150?


----------



## Avorysuds (Jun 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> <<AvorySuds>> "who is it for?"
> 
> People who won't fly the SouthWest aerial cattle cars for $150?



The question was who will use it, not who would like to use it.

Who can afford to use it that has the time? So who are we building this 300 billion dollar train for. Southwest is privet, CBT (Cali-Bullet-Train) is not. One get's tax payer money and the other does not (or should not.)


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...






Only when it serves their purposes to cook the books to make it look that way. The entire Amtrack operation in the Northeast is a money pit. Throw a couple hundred billion in expense on top of that and...


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Have you ever been to Boston?
> ...





Not that again...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > <<AvorySuds>> "who is it for?"
> ...



Actually, I believe (almost certain) that the Commission plans on letting private operators take over at some point.. Can you believe that? 

Anyway -- Kudos on being cynical about the Acela profit.. THis is same govt propaganda about how the Post Office never costs taxpayers a penny. Or how dam efficient Medicare is because they don't count the inter-agency help they get from IRS, Treas, Auditing and other sources.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Here ya go Junkie -- from an acceptable source..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks, that video pretty much makes my point.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > I will say one thing on the possible future of train travel being possible.
> ...


Auto Train Transports You and Your Car - Lorton, VA - Sanford, FL | Amtrak

I've yet to figure out why they chose this route. But here's the basic model. It's heyday was in the 1970's. Unfortunately, it never ran well enough (thanks to government management among other reasons) to be profitable to be expanded. Great concept, but needs more private enterprise touches and innovation to make it work.

The big catch?

Passenger ticket 1 adult: $238.00
Vehicle fare: $169.00

So that's a $407.00 round trip one passenger one standard vehicle.  That's gotta go down by say 25-50% before it'd be viable to the general public, or be a lot better service.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



The Acela operates on a profit of $41 a passenger, the rest of the trains on the NEC lose money. 

Amtrak Loses $32 Per Passenger - Business Insider

The NEC corridor, like most US infrastructure, has been sadly neglected. The trains are old and much rail support electronics are ancient. Rails, stations, crossings, bridges, tunnels all need work

The price of a ticket will not make up for 60 years of neglect


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

Neglect is not the source of the problem. A lack of demand is. Add an inability to achieve profitability and there ya go.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> Neglect is not the source of the problem. A lack of demand is. Add an inability to achieve profitability and there ya go.



There are plenty of passengers on the Northeast corridor. AMTRAK loses money because Congressmen in Red States demand that passenger rail service be provided in their states

The line between San Antonio and LA loses $462 a passenger


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Neglect is not the source of the problem. A lack of demand is. Add an inability to achieve profitability and there ya go.
> ...




No, not plenty. Not relative to costs.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



What I don't agree with is, that sure, if you take a single area and find it makes a profit but discount the rest of the system that runs a huge deficit then it's not really honest. If updates were done that negative 32$ number would actually be much higher, even if you got more people to use the trains.

Id love to see more trains, and like most people have thought about how could you make it work, I just never can make it and if anything I see how pointless it would be to have them. 


I'd like to see trains get better but this bullet train crap just boggles the mind.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Isnt' that how you go thru the Chunnel? I thought you loaded your car on and sat and ate snails all the way back to London.. In the US, if they had Wi-Fi and carhops delivering finger food -- and maybe a plug to run your electric stuff --- that could be neat if there was a view.



Eurostar Train Schedules: Book Tickets & Passes - Rail Europe


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Isnt' that how you go thru the Chunnel? I thought you loaded your car on and sat and ate snails all the way back to London.. In the US, if they had Wi-Fi and carhops delivering finger food -- and maybe a plug to run your electric stuff --- that could be neat if there was a view.
> ...


Did you see the first Mission Impossible? That's the EruoStar through the Chunnel.
It's a great trip.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Avorysuds said:
> ...



As a passenger, taking the train between cities on the Northeast corridor is much easier than flying or driving. No traffic, no lengthy security searches and the train brings you right to the center of the city and links to mass transit. 

You can also work on the train, walk around, eat....have a beer or five

The problem is that AMTRAK has to serve 46 states with passenger service. No way to make money in most of the states


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> As a passenger, taking the train between cities on the Northeast corridor is much easier than flying or driving.





In your opinion.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > As a passenger, taking the train between cities on the Northeast corridor is much easier than flying or driving.
> ...


That's why they call it the free market.  Vote for the best method with your hard earned dollar.  Most direct form of democracy in the world.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



I always take trains in England because the driving is so intimidating. Americans need to buy and read a British driver's handbook and not think they know it all. And I've liked doing Hamburg to Amsterdam.. But castles and stuff go by too quickly.. It's always -- I wish "I could have stopped there" experience. 

I'd like to do the Chunnel. 

And Big Fitz ---- OF COURSE -- Sanford, Florida.. I grew up in Daytona Beach. I KNEW it sounded familiar. Lots of tourists used that when Daytona still was a family place..


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > As a passenger, taking the train between cities on the Northeast corridor is much easier than flying or driving.
> ...



I've driven, flown and taken the train between most cities on the Northeast corridor. On a weekend, driving is usually easier. But on a work week, the train is the easiest way to avoid gridlock rush hour traffic. 
I used to take a shuttle plane between NY and Boston or NY and DC. After 9-11, it became a lot harder to check in and ended up being not worth the aggravation 

That's my opinion. What do you base your opinion on?


----------



## RoadVirus (Jun 26, 2012)

Annie said:


> Poll: Public opinion wanes on California bullet train plan - Los Angeles Times
> 
> 
> 
> > Its projected cost has roughly doubled....



Gee...who didn't see *that* coming? Introducing Big Dig 2.0


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Do you think you are the only person who has traveled in that heavily traveled area?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 26, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Poll: Public opinion wanes on California bullet train plan - Los Angeles Times
> ...



At least the Big Dig had a purpose.. 

This is like Greece discussing plans for a new Parthenon..


----------



## del (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



why must you always be a dickhead, moto?


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



That's what passes as your opinion?


----------



## MeBelle (Jun 26, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



No I don't read.... 
Ever consider alternate settings?
Negged for insulting when a simple question was asked.


----------



## MeBelle (Jun 26, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



My fave is hearing a pilot say 'Norfolk'...they fawk it all up!


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

del said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Who are you talking to, douchebag?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Wake up the hampster and get that wheel in your skull moving.


----------



## del (Jun 26, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



you, dickhead

did i s-s-s-s-stutter?


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 26, 2012)

del said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...




No, you once again presented yourself as the fucking loser that you are. No, you are not 'cute,' you are not 'funny,' you are just a fucking loser. You will never be anything more.


----------



## rdean (Jun 26, 2012)

Republicans say we can afford to rebuild Iraq, but not this country.

Examples of U.S.-funded projects:

 Health clinics. The United States had planned to build 150 clinics by 2005 at a cost of $88.5 million. Construction took four years longer and cost nearly four times more to complete 133 of the planned clinics.

 Prison. The United States spent $40 million to build a prison for 3,600 inmates north of Baghdad. But the U.S. canceled the project in 2007 because of security problems and poor construction, and the half-built prison probably never will be finished, Bowen said.

 Electricity. Iraq's capacity to generate electricity rose to 6,000 megawatts last year, five years later than U.S. officials had predicted in 2004. The United States has spent $4.9 billion on electricity projects.

Goal: Add capacity to provide an additional 1.1 million cubic meters per day, serving 5.2M people; not cost estimate given
Result: Added capacity to treat 1 million cubic meters per day by Oct. 2009, serving more than 5M people; cost $1.6 billion

Goal: Increase supply to 6,000 megawatts by 2004; no cost estimate given
Result: Supply increased to 6,000 megawatts in 2009; cost $4.9 billion

 U.S. SPENDING FOR IRAQ RECONSTRUCTION

Year	Spent	Cumulative total
2003	$1.8	$1.8

2004	$5	$6.8

2005	$9.3	$16.1

2006	$8.8	$24.9

2007	$7	$32

2008	$5.8	$37.8

2009	$6.8	$44.6

Rebuilding Iraq: Slow but steady progress - USATODAY.com

No wonder Republicans think of this as a GREAT SUCCESS.

They love Iraq more than they love America.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 26, 2012)

an article from March 2010.  Little out of date now, ain't it?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 27, 2012)

Avorysuds said:


> There are some huge differences between the US and Europe. The US is fucking huge foe one. Building the tracks would span over thousands of miles to make it worth a shit and it would cost incredible amounts of money to achieve this goal.
> 
> The US never expanded with trains in mind either, this means that we have big cities that are pretty far from one another that act as individual hubs. The likeliness of someone working in SF who lives in LA is less than .00001%, even if there were a bullet train to get them there and here is why.
> 
> ...


I think most people like the idea of fast commuter trains, but when you look at the cost, it's just not practically to build them today.  Europe and the US took totally different paths in developing  transportation.  With our crumbling highway systems and increasing fuel cost, history may decide we didn't go in the right direction, but that's water under the bridge.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 27, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Avorysuds said:
> 
> 
> > There are some huge differences between the US and Europe. The US is fucking huge foe one. Building the tracks would span over thousands of miles to make it worth a shit and it would cost incredible amounts of money to achieve this goal.
> ...



More likely, its a bridge under the water


----------



## KissMy (Jun 27, 2012)

Stockton, California declared bankruptcy today becoming the largest U.S. city ever to file for bankruptcy & dumb-ass democrats think they have money to throw away on trains from last century.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 27, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Because there is NO proposed rail line from SF to LA.  The only initiative voted on was to appove a rail line from LA to LV.   A high speed rail from SF to LA doesn't exist anywhere but your posts.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 27, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Stockton, California declared bankruptcy today becoming the largest U.S. city ever to file for bankruptcy & dumb-ass democrats think they have money to throw away on trains from last century.



Stockton is in the Central Valley.  When the Court shut off the water to the Central Valley farms, Stockton has no more reason to exist.


----------



## rdean (Jun 27, 2012)

Funny how Republicans get so excited by the demise of America.  When did they become "co-sponsors" with al Qaeda?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 27, 2012)

Not the demise of America, the demise of obama's america.


----------



## rdean (Jun 27, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> an article from March 2010.  Little out of date now, ain't it?



 Health clinics. The United States had planned to build 150 clinics by 2005 at a cost of $88.5 million. Construction took four years longer and cost nearly four times more to complete 133 of the planned clinics.

Goal: Increase supply to 6,000 megawatts by 2004; no cost estimate given
Result: Supply increased to 6,000 megawatts in 2009; cost $4.9 billion

-----------------------------------------------------

Not really.  Republicans want to close health clinics here.  They don't want a dime spent on our aging electrical grid.

Come on right wingers.  You can't deny it.  Mitt said "Less Police, firefighters and teachers".  That's the republicans policy.  Every good businessman knows you have to spend money to make money.  The deficit will never be paid down if this country doesn't create jobs and Republicans said, "Government can't create jobs".  Corporations have already said without demand they won't either.  Can't the dumbfucks figure out what's next without jobs and with an aging infrastructure no Republican will spend a cent on?  Duh!!!!


----------



## MeBelle (Jun 27, 2012)

rdean said:


> Funny how Republicans get so excited by the demise of America.  When did they become "co-sponsors" with al Qaeda?



California is a DEM controlled state rdeany...shocker ain't it??


----------



## rdean (Jun 27, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how Republicans get so excited by the demise of America.  When did they become "co-sponsors" with al Qaeda?
> ...



So?  It's Republicans who are bringing down the country.  Not even you can deny it.

See, I can prove they are and you can't prove they aren't.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Stockton, California declared bankruptcy today becoming the largest U.S. city ever to file for bankruptcy & dumb-ass democrats think they have money to throw away on trains from last century.
> ...



Turning off the water to the Valley was another brilliant Obama accomplishment. - NOT!!! Obama is a fucking idiot!!!


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 27, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > MeBelle60 said:
> ...


The California High-Speed Rail project is a planned high-speed rail system in the state of California and headed by the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA). Initial funding for the project was approved by California voters on November 4, 2008, with the passage of Proposition 1A authorizing the issuance of US$9.95 billion in general obligation bonds for the project. The CHSRA is currently tasked with completing final planning, design, and environmental efforts. *The system would serve major cities including Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale, Los Angeles, Anaheim, Riverside, Irvine, and San Diego. As of April 7, 2012, the High-Speed Rail's last stop will be at Los Angeles.*
California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 27, 2012)

rdean said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...


Are you that newly discovered enzyme that breaks down intelligence, Stupidinase? Idiotic beyond the pale.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



The bolded weasel word there is "The System". I showed you the recent plan for the system from the Commission.. The "HIGH SPEED" part is gonna terminate a good 40 minute to 1hour commute away from each destination.. It will LINK with existing CalTrain systems that do have terminals in those cities.. 

It's a bad dream, and don't worry.. There are thousands of voters in Calif. who never stood a chance of understanding the diff between "the dream" and "the reality".. Now they want their money back.. 

For crying out loud it's 2022 and $15BILL just to start BakersField to bankrupt Fresno.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


Link?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

I told you --- It's in my previous post.. Fuck Wikipedia go get some recent press on it..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

Sorry for getting snippy PJ -- it's been a hard day.. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5519266-post82.html

Those fancy maps on the Wiki use existing "low speed" train lines once into San Jose on the north end and Riverside??? on the south end..  Much of those lines are at street crossing grade and the Commission is being sued by 12 cities for just adding traffic to those lines...


----------



## del (Jun 27, 2012)

rdean said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



rational people know that one can't prove a negative.

both parties suck-only hacks like you claim otherwise.

you're a leftie warbler.


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 27, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Sorry for getting snippy PJ -- it's been a hard day..
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5519266-post82.html
> 
> Those fancy maps on the Wiki use existing "low speed" train lines once into San Jose on the north end and Riverside??? on the south end..  Much of those lines are at street crossing grade and the Commission is being sued by 12 cities for just adding traffic to those lines...


Both your source and mine say that the trains would run between SF and LA. *That's what my post was about.*
I do realize that the plans have trouble.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 27, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for getting snippy PJ -- it's been a hard day..
> ...



We're wasting time here because this brainfart is just another way to run Cali off the bankruptcy cliff faster than their Hydrogen Hiway or StemCell Research Facility ever could.

BUT -- the problem is -- *you've never ridden Caltrain from the Gilroy Garlic Festival back into San Fran main station*.     From the HuffPost article previously linked.. 



> The revised plan would save money by merging the bullet train with existing commuter rail lines in the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles basin, where tracks would be electrified.



The current commission plan is to take the fantasy train over the Pacheco Pass (which the environuts vehemently object to) and into Gilroy where it can link up to the Caltrain tracks. 

From THERE -- it's 45 - 50 minutes at less than 50 mph on COMMUTER RAILS. Same deal at the LA end (might even be longer). So that's adding almost 2 hours to the trip and is NOT high speed at all. 

The communities along those routes are ALL opposing the plan because of the disruption due to track upgrades required and the fact that those tracks have about 2 road crossings per mile and the Cali folks don't like waiting at the crossings in the middle of Menlo Park and Burlingame. 

There is no plan for a "bullet train" from San Fran to Los Angeles. Best result is that Jerry Brown follows his conscience and kills this turkey NOW. Before the turkey kills the state.

Your link shows the propaganda version of the plan as THO -- it's all one seamless "system".. It's not.. In fact -- the concept changes weekly, but the public is paying for a huge bait and switch. 

BOTH articles are wrong about the amount of money already committed because I helped SF peninsula Libertarians OPPOSE "hi speed rail" bonds as far back as 1998. It a real zombie of a hoax..


----------



## Political Junky (Jun 28, 2012)

Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
<excerpts>
They have proposed dramatically shifting the high-speed rail project's focus by cutting back on planned construction in the Central Valley and instead spending billions on immediate rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to rail advocates who have been briefed on the idea, Plan B's top priorities include:
A $2 billion tunnel through downtown San Francisco to bring commuter rail service &#8211; and, eventually the bullet train &#8211; into the city's new Transbay Transit Center from the Caltrain station more than a mile away.
$1.5 billion in Los Angeles-area rail improvements, including a redesign of Los Angeles Union Station's rail access and construction of rail overpasses. Together, the projects would speed rail service for hundreds of Amtrak and Metrolink trains each day and end chronic traffic bottlenecks.
<more>
Some senators push for shift in bullet train plan | rail, project, train - News - The Orange County Register


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 28, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
> <excerpts>
> They have proposed dramatically shifting the high-speed rail project's focus by cutting back on planned construction in the Central Valley and instead spending billions on immediate rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
> 
> ...



Makes more sense to improve rapid transit infrastructure

Bullet train only makes sense if their are major metropolitan areas between LA and SF to help fill the trains. If you are only going point A to point B, you might as well fly. Lot cheaper than laying track


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
> ...



That's what the problem is.  Land is too expensive in major metropolitian areas to build a rail line.  The only place it can be built is where there isn't a major metropolitan area.


----------



## rightwinger (Jun 28, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...




BART in SF is not too bad. Getting around LA is a bitch no matter what time of day you go. Either way, existing transportation around LA sucks and cannot support the people who need to use it. 
LA cannot keep kicking this down the road


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Los Angeles will go the way to Stockton.  It can hold off bankruptcy only a couple of more years.   Los Angeles can't even afford to fix its potholes.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 28, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...


They can be glad they don't deal with winter freezes.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
> <excerpts>
> They have proposed dramatically shifting the high-speed rail project's focus by cutting back on planned construction in the Central Valley and instead spending billions on immediate rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
> 
> ...



All that is just rearranging the deck chairs and spending money that they don't have. A new terminal for San Fran would be nice -- but it doesn't change the painful LOW SPEED trip from Gilroy to SF. It's less painful for a lot of folks than dragging their car to the city, but it will never be a convienience or an improvement over commuting the coast by air shuttle. 

Can't speak for LA -- but their rail and subway system is far less successful than the SF Bay one -- so go spend the money.. Not gonna get a HIGH SPEEED rail service any closer to reality..


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 28, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Bart IS pretty good. We used to get on at SFO and go to Oakland A's games. Let u off right at the stadium ramp.. Problem was --- it never got down the peninsula side to Palo Alto, Silicon Valley or ANY of those dense areas. ON PURPOSE.. 

There was always a veiled racism behind the opposition to doing that. The "liberals" who bragged about peninsula "quality of life" didn't want Oakland gangs roaming Stanford Shopping Center. That's the reality behind "open public access" in a large urban area.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 28, 2012)

LA is another city that really shouldn't exist.


----------



## Handsomelad (Jun 29, 2012)

We need high speed rail in this country.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2012)

Handsomelad said:


> We need high speed rail in this country.



No.. You WANT high speed rail in this country..


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Well shame on them for not wanting to be willing victims.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 29, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I'm not saying they didn't have a point.. But I'm sure that NONE of those Palo Alto/Atherton super-libs would ever consider that veiled racism... "quality of life" meaning -- our Blacks at Stanford Shopping Center are all like Condi Rice and Morgan Freeman.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jun 29, 2012)

Handsomelad said:


> We need high speed rail in this country.


Like a hole in the head. Please.... do explain why we NEED High Speed Rail.

Please take into account the following:

Economic benefit
Economic impact
Accessability and ease of use
expected ridership
expected costs for service per passenger
taxation required to keep in operation.
Effectiveness versus highway connections to the same service areas


----------



## KissMy (Jul 2, 2012)

Carlyle will build a high speed train from Bakken, North Dakota to Philadelphia, PA



> Backed by JP Morgan to supply feedstock and buy the plant's fuel, Carlyle and Sunoco will construct a high-speed train to feed the refinery with cheap domestic crude, reducing that huge costs associated with importing oil that pushed the plant to the brink of closure over the past year.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 2, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Carlyle will build a high speed train from Bakken, North Dekota to Phillidelphia, PA
> 
> 
> 
> > Backed by JP Morgan to supply feedstock and buy the plant's fuel, Carlyle and Sunoco will construct a high-speed train to feed the refinery with cheap domestic crude, reducing that huge costs associated with importing oil that pushed the plant to the brink of closure over the past year.


That's high speed freight.  There has ALWAYS been a market for that.  Even moreso with RORO Intermodal making transshipping a breeze.  It's faster to put the freight on a train and ship it across the continent to be reloaded in LA than go through the Panama Canal.

The high speed part is relative, and not as good as a pipeline.

Also, it's a classic example of why the government did not need to save GM.  Somethig that valuable hits the market at a cut rate price, someone's ALWAYS going to pick up the pieces and run with it, making it better.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 2, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Carlyle will build a high speed train from Bakken, North Dakota to Philadelphia, PA
> ...



I doubt rail is cheaper than canal. Rail is 4 times higher per freight ton mile than a ship.

Air 82 cents per ton mile
Truck 26 cents per ton mile
Rail 2.9 cents per ton mile
Barge 0.72 cents per ton mile
Pipeline 1.49 cents per ton mile

Many different countries are designing freight pipelines that are 4 times cheaper than trains.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 2, 2012)

It's a company, it can build anything it can.  If we had a private company that wanted to build a high speed rail line for passengers, good for them.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 2, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


Digging a canal from SD to Philly is what you would call... cost prohibitive.  Rail's where it's at for that route.  Pipelines work for liquid bulk or gas bulk.  Not boxes and crates or solid bulk.

Rail may not be cheaper than canal, but it's about 20 times faster, and that has value too.


----------



## Meister (Jul 2, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> California getting lapped in high-speed rail race - The Reporter
> 
> 
> In the international race to build bullet trains, California is not only getting crushed by the likes of France and Japan but also Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
> ...



The nearly bankrupt state of Ca. has no funding for it.  People in Ca. don't use what's available to them with gov. transportation for the most part right now.  They like their own wheels.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 3, 2012)

Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.


----------



## Meister (Jul 4, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.



And yet seems to be operating at a loss every year. Having said that,the Bay area is just a small area of Ca.  I'm talking about Ca. as a whole.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 4, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.


If they were successful, there would be no need for a tax. Their ridership would pay for it all.

Did you know there is not one major municipal public transit system in the nation that is self sufficient? Even the private contractors get taxpayer money to cover the operational shortfall.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 4, 2012)

As many times as foreign interests have proposed building a mass transit rail line in the US, not one has found it to be profitable.  That's why no one has done it.

Even in places where there is mass transit, the ridership is so scarce lines are being eliminated.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 4, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> As many times as foreign interests have proposed building a mass transit rail line in the US, not one has found it to be profitable.  That's why no one has done it.
> 
> Even in places where there is mass transit, the ridership is so scarce lines are being eliminated.



The lefty "sustainable" agenda has painted themselves into a corner with public transit.

You want EXPANDED ridership on Bart? Take it out over Livermore Pass or past Fremont down to Milpitas and Morgan Hill and pick up a HUGE increase in ridership.. Why can't that be done? 

Because it's in conflict with the Bay Area Urban Planning vision.. The goal is to CONCENTRATE development in the Urban area and to REDUCE SUBURBAN SPRAWL.. Leftist planners HATE easy transit from the burbs.. So you'll never see either REAL REDUCTIONS in commute traffic or IMPROVED highways into urban centers..


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 4, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Millions use Bart and Muni in the Bay Area of California.
> ...


So do you propose we get rid of all transit that doesn't pay for itself?
That could cause some serious traffic problems.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 4, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Unfortunately, the cost of high speed rail in the US will prevent it from becoming the primary transportation system.  I think history will see the development of our highway system as a major mistake.



how about airports? they a mistake too?


----------



## Trajan (Jul 4, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> California getting lapped in high-speed rail race - The Reporter
> 
> 
> In the international race to build bullet trains, California is not only getting crushed by the likes of France and Japan but also Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan.
> ...



a) Jerry Brown was going to provide executive pardons for environmental issues, yup, he was ready.
 b) the costs are so huge that flying is still a better deal,because the costs is so high the price of the project is so high, the rail ticket which was supposed to be competitive to get people on the train and off airplanes or out of cars,  as a viable alternative no longer works, the costs are now close to one another there fore the saved time by flying is still much more attractive.  
c) the time to complete went to 2033  from 2020...yes you heard that right,  the cost went from $34 BILLION, yes Billion to $98.5 Billion, yes, it just short of tripled....in 3 years of planning...
d) Amtrak has a presence here in the state.....why not use that? I'll tell you why, becasue no one rides it.....and,  the time to rail from Anaheim to SF by Amtrak is only beaten by 2.5 hours via HI speed rail.....


----------



## Meister (Jul 4, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Unfortunately, the cost of high speed rail in the US will prevent it from becoming the primary transportation system. * I think history will see the development of our highway system as a major mistake*.



Tell that to all the truckers in the US.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 5, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Simple way to solve the problem. Phase it out. Take the money no longer given to transit over time and upgrade the infrastructure accordingly. Cities like LA and Portland are vastly under vascularized for their transportation needs. If there develops a need for public transit, or the area retains it, it will develop at a fair market price that the public is willing to pay and keep the business in service sans taxation.

When the Metropolitan Council was looking at a government shutdown in MN back in the spring of 2011 they informed the ridership what theywere going to do.

1. layoff drivers.
2. rate hike
3. service cuts in hours and runs.

Guess how they were going to do it?

1. layoff all part time and full time drivers with under 2 years seniority, spiking unemployment locally.
2. raise rates 50 cents to a dollar across the board making the local routes 2-3 bucks between rush and non rush and express up to 4 and 5 dollars respectively.
3. End all express commuter routes that bring in the most money and are highest paying with fewest troubles because, and I quote "Those people have cars and the inner city people have no way to get to and from work." Yeah, those same inner city people who stiff the farebox 10 times more often and complain about paying a buck fifty.

So, yeah, what a great way to handle the issue of cut revenues... take away the best revenue streams and drive people away while keeping ingrates and theives who feel they're entitled, instead of doing the world a favor by taking mass transit.

So, I have no sympathies for keeping public transit that's unaffordable for ingrates who think they're owed it. Walk it, bitches.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 5, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Do Roads Pay For Themselves?


> Highway advocates often claim that roads &#8220;pay for themselves,&#8221; with gasoline taxes and other charges to motorists covering &#8211; or nearly covering &#8211; the full cost of highway construction and maintenance. They are wrong.
> 
> Highways do not &#8211; and, except for brief periods in our nation&#8217;s history, never have &#8211; paid for themselves through the taxes that highway advocates label &#8220;user fees.&#8221; Yet highway advocates continue to suggest they do in an attempt to secure preferential access to scarce public resources and to shape how those resources are spent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > As many times as foreign interests have proposed building a mass transit rail line in the US, not one has found it to be profitable.  That's why no one has done it.
> ...



You are right.  That is the vision.   Make transportation so expensive and so difficult that people move from the suburbs back to the cities in high rises.   It's what the Mayor of Los Angeles had in mind when he started his vertical living projects in Hollywood.   Cities so dense that it's possible to walk or bike to work, or take a local shuttle.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



It's the only way to compete with China. Their workers live within walking distance to their work. Even if our pay was equal they would still beat us.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 5, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


So you should be all for mass transit.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 5, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...


Gas taxes are essentially road user fees. Something pedestrians and bikers never pay for.  Mass transit subsidies are from everybody to benefit a few.  That makes it a wealth transfer.  This is particularly true when mass transit is not even CLOSE to viable due to lack of population density.  Not every place has a 1000/sq mile density.

Now to highlight the acme of stupidity, MN just passed a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment requiring that no less than 40% be set aside for mass transit and bike trails.  That means, if you look carefully, 100% of all transportation funds can be siphoned off from private transportation to mass transit and bike trails state wide.

Da fuck does bemidji need bike trails everywhere for?  Does Ely have the need for a high efficiency mass transit for people in it's area?  Roads can go to hell in a heartbeat in MN thanks to the climate.  And with this constitutional amendment to their state, they don't have to do a damn thing about it, as long as they fund the bus routes and roads and build bike trails in the twin cities.

Let's talk about a bike tax, or pedestrian tax?  When are they going to pay for their portion of use on things they use?


----------



## KissMy (Jul 5, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



Why? - We are subsidizing roads & air lines already. Adding in rail just means it will take more people off the roads & out of the air increasing the subsidies on those to sectors, not to mention adding in a rail subsidy. Transportation cost will jump up all the way around & so will the subsidies.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2012)

California Bullet-Train Funds Approved - WSJ.com


----------



## Meister (Jul 6, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> California Bullet-Train Funds Approved - WSJ.com



Doesn't surprise me at all, they can't afford it but that never stopped them before.
Oh, next time why don't you use a link to where we don't have to subscribe to get the entire context of the article, PJ?


----------



## Trajan (Jul 6, 2012)

yup, its all academic now.....

thread at-


http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...leg-oks-funding-for-high-speed-rail-line.html


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 6, 2012)

"Well Trent, here we are flat broke.  What are we going to do about it?"

"I don't know Brandon, but you know what makes me feel better when I'm broke?"

"What, Trent?"

"Overdraft my credit and buy something shiny, pretty and basically useless!"

"Wonderful!  Let's buy two!  That must be better!"


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 6, 2012)

Austerity continues to shrink our infrastructure.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 6, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Austerity continues to shrink our infrastructure.


No.  Bad civic spending does that.  We buy high cost, low value transit infrastructure and wonder why it sucks.  We shove all kinds of eco-ordinances on people and wonder why they leave the area.  We waste money on frivolities and sexy toys that have good PR and ignore the practical effective things that make our lives better.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 7, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Austerity continues to shrink our infrastructure.



That must be why California bought the new Bay Bridge spans from China.. 

The crux of the matter is that innovation is stalled in this country due to uncertainty.

The one measure of certain growth and job creation is the IPO index. It's has stalled out at record low levels in recent years. All that regulation makes HUGE companies stronger and NEW companies virtually impossible. The choice has NOTHING to do with how much or little "austerity" we practice. It's like kicking the tires when the problem is in the engine.


----------



## RoadVirus (Jul 8, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> California Bullet-Train Funds Approved - WSJ.com



That explains the flushing sound.


----------



## RoadVirus (Jul 8, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> The crux of the matter is that innovation is stalled in this country due to uncertainty.



All done by one man.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 8, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Austerity continues to shrink our infrastructure.



even if that were so, what does that have to do with cali's hi speed rail?


----------



## Trajan (Jul 8, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Well, we do subsidize airlines.



you apparently don't know the difference between a subsidy and tax deductions ...


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 8, 2012)

Trajan said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Austerity continues to shrink our infrastructure.
> ...


Transportation is infrastructure.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > California Bullet-Train Funds Approved - WSJ.com
> ...



Can we get a moment of silence please to remember the formerly great state of California?

I can scratch Jerry Brown off of my short list of political heroes.. I thought he would tackle the issues.. Not much gold left in the Golden state.. I hope they like their choo-choo in 2030. Maybe in some Mad Max world -- it'll make more sense..


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 10, 2012)

One political party absolutely loves the idea of the modern rail system, both as a boon for business and commerce, and, incidentally, perhaps as a bit of a boondoggle for its political buddies.

Guess which party.

It&#8217;s the GOP, 150 years ago. The rail system I&#8217;m talking about is the railroad to the Pacific. It was a very wide plank in the Republican Party platform in 1856 and 1860, and a dream of Abraham Lincoln&#8217;s that he never lived to see realized.
<more>
Is California's high-speed train on track or off the rails? - latimes.com


----------



## Meister (Jul 10, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> One political party absolutely loves the idea of the modern rail system, both as a boon for business and commerce, and, incidentally, perhaps as a bit of a boondoggle for its political buddies.
> 
> Guess which party.
> 
> ...



Difference is that this highspeed rail is like reinventing the wheel......again.  

Been there and done that.  Now, Ca. and the feds really don't have the funds for thie project......but they're going to do it anyway...go figure.


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 10, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> One political party absolutely loves the idea of the modern rail system, both as a boon for business and commerce, and, incidentally, perhaps as a bit of a boondoggle for its political buddies.
> 
> Guess which party.
> 
> ...


Well I guess one party grew with the times and technology.  In 1860, the Transcontinental railroad was a modern technological marvel.  I suggest you read Stephen Ambrose's "Nothing Like It In The World".  There are also many books as to how big of crooks the builders were when the moral hazard was risked by involving public moneies through the Credit Mobilier scandal and the Oakes Brothers.

Lincoln was a railroad lawyer for a period of time before he was elected to office.  He helped define how railroad bridges are built in a method that made both riverboats and railroads happy.  Of course he was gung ho for railroads.  It was the first method of travel that went faster than any living animal hauling more mass than anything in the world.

Now?  Shit, a single semi trailer weighs more than some trains from that era.  The interstate and air travel have proven to be bigger, better, faster and more efficient forms of travel and offer much more freedom.  Airlines are the new railroads, forcing everyone to live by their schedule.  Land transportation no longer needs to for passenger travel.  Freight is the only area left where the efficiencies of rail travel are amplified.

So you can keep your 150 year old example.  The GOP of today seems to not be that interested in regressing to that era again.  You want to hitch up the surrey and go into town?  A brown little surrey with a fringe on top?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 10, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> One political party absolutely loves the idea of the modern rail system, both as a boon for business and commerce, and, incidentally, perhaps as a bit of a boondoggle for its political buddies.
> 
> Guess which party.
> 
> ...



Ya Know.. You must be brilliant because my wife came up with the same argument.. Telling me that I'd probably have been against the IntraContinental railway.. Problem is -- I had a good answer. At the time, the only option to get there was horse, wagon, supplies and lots of guns for the Indians. There was a clear and present NEED. This boondoogle has not much need. In fact, it will NEVER directly pay itself back.. That takes hope and imagination to justify it...


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 10, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > One political party absolutely loves the idea of the modern rail system, both as a boon for business and commerce, and, incidentally, perhaps as a bit of a boondoggle for its political buddies.
> ...


What most people who bring up that argument forget is that within 15 years of the original being done, 4 more trans-continentals were completed or under construction.  2 of them through the northwest as the Great Northern and Northern Pacific.  The Southern Pacific connected New Orleans and Los Angeles.  I'm blanking on the other one.  

The point?  It was going to happen.  Just not as early or as costly as the others.


----------



## RoadVirus (Jul 11, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > Political Junky said:
> ...



California doesn't deserve a moment of silence. It's been a painful boil on America's ass for too long.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 13, 2012)

so some insider horse trading, feather bedding as usual.....


Updated July 13, 2012, 6:45 p.m. ET

How Insider Politics Saved California's Train to Nowhere
The high-speed rail line may never be built, but it will save a few Democratic seats.


snip-

But sell it they did. The rail authority promised voters that the train wouldn't require a subsidy and that the feds and private sector would pick up most of the $33 billion tab. Expecting a free ride, voters leapt on board and approved the initiative in November 2008. Not long afterward, the authority raised the price to $43 billion.

Investors refused to plunk down money without a revenue guarantee&#8212;that is, a subsidy&#8212;from the state, which wasn't forthcoming. California's attorney general, whom we now call Gov. Jerry Brown, declined to investigate the bait-and-switch.

As soon as he took office, President Obama tried to help the state with $2.4 billion in stimulus money. A year and a half later&#8212;and two weeks before the 2010 midterm elections&#8212;the White House offered an additional $900 million, provided that the $3.3 billion sum be spent in the sparsely populated Central Valley. That is, in the congressional districts of Mr. Costa and fellow Blue Dog Democrat Dennis Cardoza, both of whom had provided critical votes for ObamaCare in March 2010 and were then in political peril.

snip-

But in Washington, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood had different plans. Two months ago, he threatened to claw back federal funding if Sacramento didn't green-light construction before summer's end. "We can't wait," he said. And why not? Because Republicans were threatening to claw back the money if they took the White House and Senate in November.

Mr. Brown used that threat to demand that legislators authorize $2.7 billion in state bonds before they adjourned this week. He sweetened the deal for Bay Area and L.A. legislators by adding $2 billion for regional rail projects. Included was $700 million to bail out&#8212;"modernize"&#8212;Silicon Valley's insolvent Caltrain.


"The whole thing was carefully staged to allow [dissenting Democrats like Mr. Simitian] to speak about their no votes just before their vote was taken. But Brown knew he had his 21 votes in his pocket," says Bay Area economic analyst Bill Warren. Democrats gave their OK, he says, because they wanted money for local rail projects and construction jobs. "I doubt if any of them actually believe in their hearts that the rail system will ever be completed." 

Regardless, the Bay Area and L.A. will likely get their pound of taxpayer flesh. Next year taxpayers will have to start paying interest on the rail bonds&#8212;about $380 million annually for the next 30 years&#8212;assuming investors bite. That's nearly as much as the governor is proposing to cut from higher education if voters don't approve his millionaires' tax initiative in the fall.

more at-

Allysia Finley: How Insider Politics Saved California's Train to Nowhere - WSJ.com


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 13, 2012)

Trajan said:


> so some insider horse trading, feather bedding as usual.....
> 
> 
> Updated July 13, 2012, 6:45 p.m. ET
> ...



Back in the 90s, I helped draft some of Anti-Rail bond positions that got printed in the Cal. Voter Handbook for the initiatives. The Lib Party got involved because NO politician or other group was opposing them. $BILLS were tossed to special interests to acquire right of way that was never used for improvements and they all passed. Costing Californians TWICE the approved amounts because it went on the Credit Card. Some of those same dollars that now they can't afford. 

The misrepresentation has been going on for DECADES, because I remember the PRO statements touting that improvements in CalTrain would "bring high speed rail service between L.A. and San Fran closer to reality".. NONE of that happened. It's got pissed into the Bay.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 14, 2012)

We are going to pack citizens into small apartments close to work just like China to reduce energy wasted transporting people back & forth to work, school & shopping. Currently even if Chinese workers took home the same pay as we do, they would still save $4,000.00 a year on fuel over US workers. They live near work making them far more efficient than US.

In this photo provided by the New York Mayor's office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, center, stands with Amanda Burden, left, Department of City Planning Director, and Commissioner Mathew Wambua, Department of Housing Preservation and Development, in the kitchenette area of a full-scale mockup of a 300 square foot apartment.





NYC Planners Turning Toward Tiny, Micro-Unit Dwellings (Bonus: 1-Square-Meter House)



> Now, New York City planners are more formally catching onto the trend, thinking studio apartments measuring no more than 300 square feet might be attractive to a growing population of singles and two-person households.
> 
> Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday invited developers to propose ways to turn a Manhattan lot into an apartment building filled mostly with what officials are calling micro-units  dwellings complete with a bathroom, built-in kitchenette and enough space for a careful planner to use a fold-out bed as both sleeping space and living room.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Okqa7qdAPbo"]One SQ Meter Home[/ame]


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 14, 2012)

KissMy said:


> We are going to pack citizens into small apartments close to work just like China to reduce energy wasted transporting people back & forth to work, school & shopping. Currently even if Chinese workers took home the same pay as we do, they would still save $4,000.00 a year on fuel over US workers. They live near work making them far more efficient than US.
> 
> In this photo provided by the New York Mayor's office, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, center, stands with Amanda Burden, left, Department of City Planning Director, and Commissioner Mathew Wambua, Department of Housing Preservation and Development, in the kitchenette area of a full-scale mockup of a 300 square foot apartment.
> 
> ...


Of course, the quality of life is complete shit, but what do they care?

And leftists often complain of overcrowding animals and livestock, but in humans?  meh.  fuck em.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 14, 2012)

Big Fitz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > We are going to pack citizens into small apartments close to work just like China to reduce energy wasted transporting people back & forth to work, school & shopping. Currently even if Chinese workers took home the same pay as we do, they would still save $4,000.00 a year on fuel over US workers. They live near work making them far more efficient than US.
> ...


They're copying Eastern Europe. We visited coastal cities in eight countries along the Baltic Sea one year, and were shown dwellings smaller than that were built and inhabited by city dwellers since the 16th century. The idea looked like misery to me, too. Maybe it will bolster the restaurant industry, though, in NYC with fewer foreign visitors visiting America due to oil prices.


----------



## FireFly (Jul 15, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Stockton, California declared bankruptcy today becoming the largest U.S. city ever to file for bankruptcy & dumb-ass democrats think they have money to throw away on trains from last century.
> ...



It ain't just Stockton or just the water shut off area.

San Bernardino is the third California city to file bankruptcy in less than a month.

The entire state of California will soon go bankrupt due to the costs of Illegal Immigrants & solar power. Now the idiots want to add trains to their financial burden.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 15, 2012)

FireFly said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


With one minor detail: they want the rest of the US to pay for it, the US who said it would support border states' issues, but cannot afford to either.

The psychology of fully supporting deadweights should have been calculated into the equation by those so willing to part with other people's money to pay for non-citizens' emergency, medical, prescriptions, legal, incarceration, educational, emotional, nutritional, clothing, electricity, sanitation, communication devices, maternal, safety, security, retirement, and now drugs, smokes and contraception; and the hostility it would elicit by those who are not reimbursed by society, but have to work for it plus provide for some asshole politician's twenty-two million foreign guests so they will vote for and re-elect him over traditional citizens' protests of his.

I keep hearing foreigners mouth the phrase, "stupid Americans," even after we help their citizens and bankrupt border states in doing so. 

Very few in the Democratic aisle are bothering to listen to taxpayers they've come to use as their modus operandi for a wealthy future for themselves and only the people they know will vote for them in their push to get rid of inconvenient government devices such as the Bill of Rights freedom our republic started out observing as mankind's inalienable rights.

By the same token, Republicans have doubled down to the business of being more conservative and conscientious about not passing spendthrift measures that will indenture the next generation with out-of-control interest to pay. Unfortunately, it is so easy to belittle people who faithfully do the hard work of supporting all those in society who aren't able to do for themselves due to youth, old age, or disability, and it pays so well, some politicians are simply using taxpayers as cash cows for their pet rock projects that assure re-election and even more spending.

We've become a society that has traded in free enterprise and its entrepreneurs for the ball-and-chain deal of promoting never-satisfied parasites because we tolerated damning the givers to bless the takers.


----------



## Trajan (Jul 15, 2012)

not to be outdone..


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 15, 2012)

Trajan said:


> not to be outdone..


Makes sense for densely populated, high rent places like NYC and SF.
How did this get diverted from high-speed rail?


----------



## Big Fitz (Jul 15, 2012)

High speed rail is a cornerstone of smart growth inhumane desires to make everyone live in sardines while making the world off limits.  It's the goal of control freaks.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 19, 2012)

California high-speed rail is signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown - Los Angeles Political Buzz | Examiner.com

Governor Jerry Brown on Wednesday signed the bill passed by legislators to build a high-speed rail traveling from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It was only fitting for him to sign the bill in both cities who will benefit from the rail. The high-speed rail will cut traveling time between the two cities by 40%; it&#8217;ll take three hours via the rail. Other routes such as Sacramento, San Diego and other routes between will be eliminated. The cost for the high-speed rail has tripled since the original budget was released. If the high-speed rail is considered a success in the future, the state could reconsider the Sacramento and San Diego routes.

This is a great step in the right direction not only for the state of California, but for the nation. Many developed countries are investing in high-speed rail as a sign to prove to the world how advanced they&#8217;re. The lead country in high-speed railing is China. With a population of 1.4 billion, high-speed rail could boost the middle-class and help create more middle-class families. China is well ahead of the game; the USA is just starting to build.
<more>


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2012)

Unless it is like the ones in Japan or china. Well, it is a waste of money. If it doesn't go at least 150 mph and can compete with the plane for less money it will go no where.

5 New Super Trains on Fast Track to World's Fastest Bullet - Popular Mechanics


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 19, 2012)

Make one like this that goes between LA to San fransico at 400 mph. Then maybe it will compete with the airplane. THE AIRPLANE is what must be beaten to be economical. 

*5. California-Nevada Maglev
 Top Speed /// 311 mph | Distance /// 268 miles
Technology /// magnetic levitation 

The Plan /// Many proponents of maglev technology think that the best chance of constructing a futuristic, 300-mph-plus train would be to build it mostly across flat desert land. The topography would make it relatively easy to construct and wouldn't require raised rails or expensive tunnels. It would also be easier to gain rights of way across the desert where there is likely to be little community protest. And there's the tantalizing possibility of tapping into solar or wind farms for the system's electrical needs, thus making it a zero-carbon-footprint mode of transportation. What better place to build such a train than between southern California and Nevada? The California-Nevada maglev proposal is supported by a long list of tech companies and others under the aegis of the American Magline Group. The last federal transportation bill earmarked $45 million to do a preliminary study and work on the project, including an environmental impact assessment in the desert.

The initial stage of the line, however, would run between two Los Angeles suburbs from Ontario, Calif., to Orange County for commuters. Eventually the line would continue, stretching all the way to Las Vegas. The consortium claims the system could be built within five years, but that assumes the federal money is there to support it. So far, the Federal Railway Administration has argued against the project, recommending instead that the money go to shoring up existing railways. Moreover, there are several other maglev proposals competing for Federal dollars, including a proposed line in the Baltimore-Washington corridor, an Atlanta to Chattanooga route, and a maglev project for Pittsburgh's international airport. *


----------



## Meister (Jul 19, 2012)

Just glad that I no longer live in Ca.  I'd be pissed if I was, now I just can sit back and laugh at the stupidity of the state government and "Moonbeam".


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 20, 2012)

Florida Governor Rick Scott refused money for a high speed train, because it would aid Florida's economy .. good republican.
God forbid the economy should improve while Obama in in office.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 20, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Florida Governor Rick Scott refused money for a high speed train, because it would aid Florida's economy .. good republican.
> God forbid the economy should improve while Obama in in office.



Can a bullet train compete with the plane? I thought our cities were too far apart to be economical within the United states.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 20, 2012)

Matthew said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Florida Governor Rick Scott refused money for a high speed train, because it would aid Florida's economy .. good republican.
> ...


They *do* compete with planes in Europe and Asia.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 20, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Florida Governor Rick Scott refused money for a high speed train, because it would aid Florida's economy .. good republican.
> God forbid the economy should improve while Obama in in office.



What he did is refuse to spend Floridian money on a financial disaster. It's called good governance.. He's smart enough to know that the Feds won't be around when the program hits the dozens of overruns and budget busters that would be inevitable.

Florida does not have a commute corridor. (except maybe Melbourne to Orlando and that's only 60 miles.) And the tourist industry doesn't want folks on high speed trains. They want them stopping at all the Stuckeys, and the kids screaming to stop at Gator Jungle on the way to Disney.. 

Seems the governor might know a little more about Florida's economy than a free-spending partisian than you..


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jul 20, 2012)

It wouldn't be economical, but it sure would be cool if California built a bullet train from LA to San fransico that went 500 mph. Maybe have it loop and go to the capital on its way back. 

We would only be doing it to show that we're better than China...But isn't that enough? We did it against the USSR. Call it the freedom bullet train just to spit at them.


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 7, 2012)

Texas and California's Contrasting High-Speed Rail Attempts


----------



## driveby (Sep 7, 2012)

Who do liberals love these faggot fucking trains so much?......


----------



## mamooth (Sep 7, 2012)

I"ve never heard of a "faggot fucking train" before. Is it some kind of a train-based gay outing thing?

Given how familiar driveby seems with the concept, perhaps he can explain it to us.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 7, 2012)

mamooth said:


> I"ve never heard of a "faggot fucking train" before. Is it some kind of a train-based gay outing thing?
> 
> Given how familiar driveby seems with the concept, perhaps he can explain it to us.



It's the train that has stops at the ends of rainbows and Hersey Pa.


----------



## driveby (Sep 7, 2012)

mamooth said:


> I"ve never heard of a "faggot fucking train" before. Is it some kind of a train-based gay outing thing?
> 
> Given how familiar driveby seems with the concept, perhaps he can explain it to us.



The concept you aren't familiar with is how to make a witty comeback.....


----------



## Trajan (Sep 7, 2012)

Two Thumbs said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> > I"ve never heard of a "faggot fucking train" before. Is it some kind of a train-based gay outing thing?
> ...



and unicorns shit money to pay for it.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Sep 7, 2012)

Trajan said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > mamooth said:
> ...



Hay is for horses.

So what do we feed these magical unicorns?

Bullshit?

no, we need bullshit for methane and green fuels.

Horseshit?

no, I love irony, but that's a bit much.

I KNOW!!

SOLENT GREEN!!


----------



## Trajan (Sep 7, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Sp-VFBbjpE]IT'S PEOPLE! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## RoadVirus (Sep 8, 2012)

driveby said:


> Who do liberals love these faggot fucking trains so much?......



It's the "Bob Jones has one, so we have to have one!" argument. In this case, substitute "Bob Jones" with China or Europe. Forget the fact that we no use for it, we have to have one because someone else has one.


----------



## Meister (Sep 8, 2012)

RoadVirus said:


> driveby said:
> 
> 
> > Who do liberals love these faggot fucking trains so much?......
> ...



That does seem to be the arguement from the libs


----------



## ScienceRocks (Sep 8, 2012)

If it can go 500 mph and has a solid purpose. Why not???


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2012)

Matthew said:


> If it can go 500 mph and has a solid purpose. Why not???



Because it costs as much as 40 airplanes that can go 500mph? And will take 20 years to build? 

Or because you need transportation SYSTEMS -- not a feelgood souvenier attraction that will 40 years to show "a profit"? 

But mainly because NO ONE will choose an airline ticket with more than one stop for a reason.. And a high speed train with limited access needs a dependable clientele that will REGUARLY buy tickets. There's not too many of those corridors in a country this big. And the ones that EXIST and are CANDIDATES will never support 500mph except in very limited parts of it's path. Like the SF to LA run for instance. Or NY to Wash.


----------



## Political Junky (Sep 9, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> > If it can go 500 mph and has a solid purpose. Why not???
> ...


You've not travelled on high speed trains, right?
BTW, I think 500mph was meant to be funny.


----------



## Unkotare (Sep 9, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> You've not travelled on high speed trains, right?.






Why do you say that?


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 9, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Matthew said:
> ...



Actually I have. And I probably wouldn't use it here in the states.. Don't need to. 
And I'm glad you brought up that point about 500mph.. Because I've been attacked for EMPHASIZING verbage in caps to avoid confusion.. I DO IT because natural inflections in conversation tells a LOT of context. What I SHOULD have done is ---





> Because it costs as much as 40 airplanes that can go 500mph? And will take 20 years to build?



Note that capping just that one little word -- changes the whole direction and context of that statement with regard to the 500mph.


----------

