Calif High Speed Rail project derailed

[Quantum Windbag]

There's no particular reason to compare trains exclusively with toll roads.

My point is that there is no more reason to require trains to fully pay for themselves through tolls than there is to require new freeways to pay for themselves through tolls.

I like hard science and facts. But, I haven't seen any hard science or facts concerning fast rail from SF to LA other than that a new ridership prediction would end up meaning that some or all of the route (unclear) wouldn't pay for itself. And, I'm pointing out that "pay for itself" isn't a requirement for freeways.

Also, I pointed out that it isn't a requirement that air travel pay for itself. So, it doesn't. And, it isn't a requirement that travel by ship pay for itself. So, it doesn't.

What happens when air travel doesn't pay for itself?

Airlines go out of business.

What happens when sea travel doesn't pay for itself?

Shipping and cruise lines go out of business.


You really have no concept of how business operates, do you?

Air travel, sea travel, road travel and rail travel are subsidized by the federal government.

Airlines NEVER pay their full way. We don't ask them to.

Your view is from inside the cocoon that our federal government provides to incubate private enterprise. You need to broaden your vision.

I think you have a weird understanding of what a subsidy is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This has always been the White Elephant project of all White Elephant projects. A hundred billion dollars, spent to benefit a very few people, at a time when California already has adequate road and air transportation, and is under staggering debts with its liberal politicians pouring on more and more.

Not sure what Obama has to do with all this, aside from the fact that massive Federal funds were coming in to help pay for it, even though most of the country would never had ridden on the train.

Then, to everyone's surprise, a judge actually announced that California had to obey the law.

That brought everything to a screeching halt.

Hopefully the second sentence of the article is correct.

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

Obama's High-Speed Rail Plan Loses Big in California Court

Conn Carroll | Nov 26, 2013

California Gov. Jerry Brown can not spend state bond revenues on President Obama's signature transportation project until the state can identify how they will pay for the entire $68 billion project, a California court ruled Monday. The decision almost certainly spells death for the project.

This August, Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) “abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law."

That law would be Proposition 1A (the “Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century&#8221, which required the CHSRA to identify “sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor” and complete “all necessary project level environmental clearances” before construction can begin.

At the time, Democrats sold Obama's high-speed rail plan as a $40 billion project. But that number quickly skyrocketed to more than $100 billion, after California voters approved it, of course.

There was a time when America was ready to take on challenges. Lincoln started the transcontential railroad during the civil war. Teddy Roosevelt gave us a national park system. FDR gave us a Social Security safety net. Eisenhower gave us the federal interstate system. Nixon gave us the EPA. Kennedy took us to the moon. Todays gop wants to take us back to 1950. Stop and think: When was the last time the republicans came up with ANY idea to move this country forward. All we have heard for the last 4+ years is NO, NO, NO. America can't do ANYTHING.
The United States is heading toward being a third world country and we can thank the gop for their war against the American people for making it so.

Lincoln used the pretense of transcontinental railroads to raise money for the war. The result was a hotbed of corruption and graft that never worked right, which is why no one used it and we ended up with a lot of bankrupt railroads.

 

[WillReadmore]

1. It works in urban areas, like the Eastern seaboard, where people routinely commute from one city to another. It fails everywhere else, including the area you said makes a profit earlier.
2. Toll roads don't cut me a check either, what's your point?
3. I oppose subsidies to airlines, and the only reason they exist is that brain dead nincompoops think that they should be able to fly instead of driving for an hour.
4. The fundamental reason to insist that business that provide freight and/or passenger service make a profit is that it makes less sense to insist that they don't.
5. Which brings us to...
6. Why don't freight lines get government subsidies? Why can they run at a profit, even though Amtrack can't?

1. 2.8 million people per year travel by air between SF and LA by air alone. We have a significant amount of commuting by air on the west coast due to distances. That rate is growing and by the years being planned for (many years in the future, due to construction time requirements) air traffic will be finding it very hard to grow. A solution is needed.
2. You have no point here. Toll roads are a small part of ground transportation.
3. ??
4. ??
5. Freight has different characteristics than does human cargo.

 

[WillReadmore]

Airlines are private businesses. Their income is generated by cargo. US Mail and business travel. Leisure travel COSTS airlines money. If air carriers never flew another family to and from their vacation destination, the management would not lose a wink of sleep.
In fact, airlines do not charge nearly enough for leisure travel. Fares today are the same as they were 30 years ago when adjusted for inflation.
Do you really think the $400 round trip fare from Atalanta to Las Vegas costs less than the $400 ticket from Atlanta to Buffalo,NY? Of course not. The trip to Vegas costs the carrier more but the competition among carriers dictates the fare at that price. Good for passengers. Bad for the airlines. Enter the federal subsidies. And even with those, the typical carrier still loses money.
The only reason fares are priced as they are is the carriers fear the specter of empty seats
The carriers would rather sell a ticket at break even or a slight loss than go wheels up with unoccupied seats.
If the government would stop messing around in the affairs of private business, there would be no need for air system subsidies.

The federal support enters in regardless of decisions made due to competition between airlines.

The federal government operates the air through a giant network of controllers, radar, weather facilities, radio beacons, satellites and other hardware. It has a large regulations arm that covers certification and testing of pilots and equipment and the setting of procedures used by air carriers. It has a safety arm that is part of the NTSB.

Airlines contribute, but do not cover the cost of this system.

This has little to do with the pricing of fares (which is what air carriers do) nor does it affect the incredible advances airlines have made in efficiency in packing their planes with passengers.

 

[WillReadmore]

What's your point?
BTW you had better check the definition of 'government subsidy'. Also you may want to make sure you understand the context of what a subsidy really is.

I use the word "subsidy" a little loosely, because various kinds of transportation infrastructure get help from the government in slightly different ways.

My point is that our government has a role in ensuring safe and adequate transportation throughout our nation and even internationally.

The fact that one mode may get that support in one way and another mode gets it in another way is not important to the argument that our federal government has a role in solving transportation problems. It IS interesting, however, in showing some of the flexibility and creativity that we have in providing that governmental support,.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. It works in urban areas, like the Eastern seaboard, where people routinely commute from one city to another. It fails everywhere else, including the area you said makes a profit earlier.
2. Toll roads don't cut me a check either, what's your point?
3. I oppose subsidies to airlines, and the only reason they exist is that brain dead nincompoops think that they should be able to fly instead of driving for an hour.
4. The fundamental reason to insist that business that provide freight and/or passenger service make a profit is that it makes less sense to insist that they don't.
5. Which brings us to...
6. Why don't freight lines get government subsidies? Why can they run at a profit, even though Amtrack can't?

1. 2.8 million people per year travel by air between SF and LA by air alone. We have a significant amount of commuting by air on the west coast due to distances. That rate is growing and by the years being planned for (many years in the future, due to construction time requirements) air traffic will be finding it very hard to grow. A solution is needed.
2. You have no point here. Toll roads are a small part of ground transportation.
3. ??
4. ??
5. Freight has different characteristics than does human cargo.

The Coast Starlight runs from LA to Seattle, how many of those people who fly use it?

None? Seriously?

Gee, imagine that.

 

[WillReadmore]

1. It works in urban areas, like the Eastern seaboard, where people routinely commute from one city to another. It fails everywhere else, including the area you said makes a profit earlier.
2. Toll roads don't cut me a check either, what's your point?
3. I oppose subsidies to airlines, and the only reason they exist is that brain dead nincompoops think that they should be able to fly instead of driving for an hour.
4. The fundamental reason to insist that business that provide freight and/or passenger service make a profit is that it makes less sense to insist that they don't.
5. Which brings us to...
6. Why don't freight lines get government subsidies? Why can they run at a profit, even though Amtrack can't?

1. 2.8 million people per year travel by air between SF and LA by air alone. We have a significant amount of commuting by air on the west coast due to distances. That rate is growing and by the years being planned for (many years in the future, due to construction time requirements) air traffic will be finding it very hard to grow. A solution is needed.
2. You have no point here. Toll roads are a small part of ground transportation.
3. ??
4. ??
5. Freight has different characteristics than does human cargo.

The Coast Starlight runs from LA to Seattle, how many of those people who fly use it?

None? Seriously?

Gee, imagine that.

The coast starlight isn't competitive with air travel between LA and Seattle. It's both too slow and not a good price tradeoff. Also, that route isn't a high volume route for any mode of transportation. So, I think it will be a long time before fast rail goes over the Siskihyou mountains - it's just unlikely to be a sound business case for federal or state investment.

But, I'm sure you aren't suggesting that successfully postulating a route where fast rail is inappropriate is an argument that ALL fast rail routes are inappropriate, as that would be really stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[Political Junky]

This has always been the White Elephant project of all White Elephant projects. A hundred billion dollars, spent to benefit a very few people, at a time when California already has adequate road and air transportation, and is under staggering debts with its liberal politicians pouring on more and more.

Not sure what Obama has to do with all this, aside from the fact that massive Federal funds were coming in to help pay for it, even though most of the country would never had ridden on the train.

Then, to everyone's surprise, a judge actually announced that California had to obey the law.

That brought everything to a screeching halt.

Hopefully the second sentence of the article is correct.

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

Obama's High-Speed Rail Plan Loses Big in California Court

Conn Carroll | Nov 26, 2013

California Gov. Jerry Brown can not spend state bond revenues on President Obama's signature transportation project until the state can identify how they will pay for the entire $68 billion project, a California court ruled Monday. The decision almost certainly spells death for the project.

This August, Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) “abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law."

That law would be Proposition 1A (the “Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century&#8221, which required the CHSRA to identify “sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor” and complete “all necessary project level environmental clearances” before construction can begin.

At the time, Democrats sold Obama's high-speed rail plan as a $40 billion project. But that number quickly skyrocketed to more than $100 billion, after California voters approved it, of course.

There was a time when America was ready to take on challenges. Lincoln started the transcontential railroad during the civil war. Teddy Roosevelt gave us a national park system. FDR gave us a Social Security safety net. Eisenhower gave us the federal interstate system. Nixon gave us the EPA. Kennedy took us to the moon. Todays gop wants to take us back to 1950. Stop and think: When was the last time the republicans came up with ANY idea to move this country forward. All we have heard for the last 4+ years is NO, NO, NO. America can't do ANYTHING.
The United States is heading toward being a third world country and we can thank the gop for their war against the American people for making it so.

Lincoln used the pretense of transcontinental railroads to raise money for the war. The result was a hotbed of corruption and graft that never worked right, which is why no one used it and we ended up with a lot of bankrupt railroads.

At one time, when the trains were well cared for and ran on time, lots of folks used them. Amtrak is far outdated.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. 2.8 million people per year travel by air between SF and LA by air alone. We have a significant amount of commuting by air on the west coast due to distances. That rate is growing and by the years being planned for (many years in the future, due to construction time requirements) air traffic will be finding it very hard to grow. A solution is needed.
2. You have no point here. Toll roads are a small part of ground transportation.
3. ??
4. ??
5. Freight has different characteristics than does human cargo.

The Coast Starlight runs from LA to Seattle, how many of those people who fly use it?

None? Seriously?

Gee, imagine that.

The coast starlight isn't competitive with air travel between LA and Seattle. It's both too slow and not a good price tradeoff. Also, that route isn't a high volume route for any mode of transportation. So, I think it will be a long time before fast rail goes over the Siskihyou mountains - it's just unlikely to be a sound business case for federal or state investment.

But, I'm sure you aren't suggesting that successfully postulating a route where fast rail is inappropriate is an argument that ALL fast rail routes are inappropriate, as that would be really stupid, wouldn't it?

Trains aren't competitive with air travel? Who'da thunk it?

That's right, all the people that have been telling you that trains aren't competitive with air travel since you stuck your ignorant nose into this thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There was a time when America was ready to take on challenges. Lincoln started the transcontential railroad during the civil war. Teddy Roosevelt gave us a national park system. FDR gave us a Social Security safety net. Eisenhower gave us the federal interstate system. Nixon gave us the EPA. Kennedy took us to the moon. Todays gop wants to take us back to 1950. Stop and think: When was the last time the republicans came up with ANY idea to move this country forward. All we have heard for the last 4+ years is NO, NO, NO. America can't do ANYTHING.
The United States is heading toward being a third world country and we can thank the gop for their war against the American people for making it so.

Lincoln used the pretense of transcontinental railroads to raise money for the war. The result was a hotbed of corruption and graft that never worked right, which is why no one used it and we ended up with a lot of bankrupt railroads.

At one time, when the trains were well cared for and ran on time, lots of folks used them. Amtrak is far outdated.

Was that back when they used unicorn farts to power street lamps?

 

[WillReadmore]

Trains aren't competitive with air travel? Who'da thunk it?

That's right, all the people that have been telling you that trains aren't competitive with air travel since you stuck your ignorant nose into this thread.

Even today's trains are competitive with air travel in certain cases. For example, the Seattle to Portland train goes from downtown Seattle to downtown Portland, thus dodging the many miles to the airport on each end as well as the time requirement and flight restrictions of security. So, the fast flight time makes no difference overall and it's more expensive. Also, in a train one may walk around, etc.

More cases of this exist on the east coast.

Fast trains can be competitive in more cases.

You're looking for some trivial generality. It just doesn't work that way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Airlines are private businesses. Their income is generated by cargo. US Mail and business travel. Leisure travel COSTS airlines money. If air carriers never flew another family to and from their vacation destination, the management would not lose a wink of sleep.
In fact, airlines do not charge nearly enough for leisure travel. Fares today are the same as they were 30 years ago when adjusted for inflation.
Do you really think the $400 round trip fare from Atalanta to Las Vegas costs less than the $400 ticket from Atlanta to Buffalo,NY? Of course not. The trip to Vegas costs the carrier more but the competition among carriers dictates the fare at that price. Good for passengers. Bad for the airlines. Enter the federal subsidies. And even with those, the typical carrier still loses money.
The only reason fares are priced as they are is the carriers fear the specter of empty seats
The carriers would rather sell a ticket at break even or a slight loss than go wheels up with unoccupied seats.
If the government would stop messing around in the affairs of private business, there would be no need for air system subsidies.

The federal support enters in regardless of decisions made due to competition between airlines.

The federal government operates the air through a giant network of controllers, radar, weather facilities, radio beacons, satellites and other hardware. It has a large regulations arm that covers certification and testing of pilots and equipment and the setting of procedures used by air carriers. It has a safety arm that is part of the NTSB.

Airlines contribute, but do not cover the cost of this system.

This has little to do with the pricing of fares (which is what air carriers do) nor does it affect the incredible advances airlines have made in efficiency in packing their planes with passengers.

That's your version of the facts. To which you may feel as though you are, but are not entitled.

 

[WillReadmore]

That's your version of the facts. To which you may feel as though you are, but are not entitled.

I don't know what that means, but you are certainly free to dispute what I've said.

It would be great if, when you do so, you would add a link.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Trains aren't competitive with air travel? Who'da thunk it?

That's right, all the people that have been telling you that trains aren't competitive with air travel since you stuck your ignorant nose into this thread.

Even today's trains are competitive with air travel in certain cases. For example, the Seattle to Portland train goes from downtown Seattle to downtown Portland, thus dodging the many miles to the airport on each end as well as the time requirement and flight restrictions of security. So, the fast flight time makes no difference overall and it's more expensive. Also, in a train one may walk around, etc.

More cases of this exist on the east coast.

Fast trains can be competitive in more cases.

You're looking for some trivial generality. It just doesn't work that way.

The flight time is 50 mins give or take. The train takes 4 hours. Give or take. The avg Amtrak fare is around $65 one way.
By car, from downtown to downtown. It's 177 miles. Drive time in normal traffic according to googlemaps, 2 hrs 45 mins.
In a car that gets 30 mpg, it's about 5.5 gals of gas or about $17.50.
Now with the train, one must use a taxi to get to their final destination.
The fixed initial charge is $2.50 then $2.70 for each mile. $0.50 per minute wait time. So if the trip from the train station is 5 miles, that's $13.50 plus $0.50 per minute time not in motion. So if in that 5 miles the taxi has to stop at half of the traffic lights let's say there are 20 traffic lights. With each cycle lasting 3 mins, that's $1.50 for each red light X 10. So that $13.50 cab ride is now $28.50 plus tip. A 15% gratuity is expected. So add another $4 and change, round up to $5 tip...So that cab ride is now $33.50. So the 4 hour train trip which on the low side cost $61 plus the cab ride one way is $94. $188 round trip.
Now, the auto takes 25% less time, no cab fare and parking is generally about $10 per day in most garages. On street parking controlled by the city is roughly $2 per hour. $4 in the commercial core.
Based on those costs, and the extra time Amtrak takes to make the distance, the car beats the train all day long and twice on Sunday.

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's your version of the facts. To which you may feel as though you are, but are not entitled.

I don't know what that means, but you are certainly free to dispute what I've said.

It would be great if, when you do so, you would add a link.

Have you noticed you are the only one battling to spend $100 billion of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY for the shiny train?

 

[westwall]

That's your version of the facts. To which you may feel as though you are, but are not entitled.

I don't know what that means, but you are certainly free to dispute what I've said.

It would be great if, when you do so, you would add a link.

Have you noticed you are the only one battling to spend $100 billion of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY for the shiny train?

He's hoping to skim a few million off the top.

 

[The T]

That's your version of the facts. To which you may feel as though you are, but are not entitled.

I don't know what that means, but you are certainly free to dispute what I've said.

It would be great if, when you do so, you would add a link.

Have you noticed you are the only one battling to spend $100 billion of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY for the shiny train?

And one with no purpose but to make politicians look good and a vortex that sucks money.

 

[The T]

That's your version of the facts. To which you may feel as though you are, but are not entitled.

I don't know what that means, but you are certainly free to dispute what I've said.

It would be great if, when you do so, you would add a link.

Why should he provide a link to refute what he stated and history bears out of worthless public works projects that hardly anyone but moochers take advantage of?

Socialist tripe. I suggest YOU provide links showing how beneficial it is when people refuse to give up their liberty to transport themselves on their terms?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Trains aren't competitive with air travel? Who'da thunk it?

That's right, all the people that have been telling you that trains aren't competitive with air travel since you stuck your ignorant nose into this thread.

Even today's trains are competitive with air travel in certain cases. For example, the Seattle to Portland train goes from downtown Seattle to downtown Portland, thus dodging the many miles to the airport on each end as well as the time requirement and flight restrictions of security. So, the fast flight time makes no difference overall and it's more expensive. Also, in a train one may walk around, etc.

More cases of this exist on the east coast.

Fast trains can be competitive in more cases.

You're looking for some trivial generality. It just doesn't work that way.

It takes 3 hours to drive from Seattle to Portland, that makes a horse and buggy competitive with a plane when the government requires you to show up 2 hours early to get treated like a terrorist.

 

[WillReadmore]

That's your version of the facts. To which you may feel as though you are, but are not entitled.

I don't know what that means, but you are certainly free to dispute what I've said.

It would be great if, when you do so, you would add a link.

Why should he provide a link to refute what he stated and history bears out of worthless public works projects that hardly anyone but moochers take advantage of?

Socialist tripe. I suggest YOU provide links showing how beneficial it is when people refuse to give up their liberty to transport themselves on their terms?

You missed what he commented on.

AND, I had posted a link in support of my statement in an earlier post on this thread.

(I'm pretty sure your last sentence needs some editing.)