California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I guess I would fall into that catagory.

I want this to not double in price from the 2008 estimates.

I don't want the state to use tax dollars for a project that will impact very little people, and people that most likely have money compared to the average resident.

That's pretty much it. I don't know the exacts on time tables or anything, I am sure it could be better or worse, whatever. My main issue is with the insane cost increases and the fact that the taxpayers are paying for a project most will never use, most can't afford, and otherwise will not impact them in anyway(it won't take cars off the road, only take seats away from planes).

Speaking of planes, nobody seems to care about the runaway costs of the F-35 program. The Tea Party is never anywhere to be seen with military costs.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Speaking of planes, nobody seems to care about the runaway costs of the F-35 program. The Tea Party is never anywhere to be seen with military costs.

Probably because the funding the military and keeping us safe is a tad higher on the priority scale than HSR.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by T-Pain

HSR would keep us safer than our military does simply by getting people out their cars, preventing thousands or even millions of auto accidents.

"Living in a cave with no electricity would keep us safer by not having to supply power, preventing thousands and thousands of deaths"

There is no logic in those sorts of arguments and you assume that a) car accident deaths will be prevented by the millions with HSR and b) insinuate that we would be a safer society with HSR being chosen over the military in an ultimatum.

Next.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Probably because the funding the military and keeping us safe is a tad higher on the priority scale than HSR.

No one is suggesting we should not spend money on defense to keep our country safe and prepared in case of conflict, but your comment reads like someone who has absolutely no idea just how perverse the American military industrial complex really is. A budget larger than all other countries combined. That should be disgusting to all Americans, not something to be proud of or make excuses for. There is no fatter pig at the trough than the American defense contractor.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

No one is suggesting we should not spend money on defense to keep our country safe and prepared in case of conflict, but your comment reads like someone who has absolutely no idea just how perverse the American military industrial complex really is. A budget larger than all other countries combined. That should be disgusting to all Americans, not something to be proud of or make excuses for. There is no fatter pig at the trough than the American defense contractor.

Lol. I am proud of our military and would be more than happy increasing its budget.

[Busy Bee]

Okay pal.

[RCDC]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

...funding the military M.I.C....

Fixed.

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Lol. I am proud of our military and would be more than happy increasing its budget.

Homeless vets might think otherwise.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by T-Pain

HSR would keep us safer than our military does simply by getting people out their cars, preventing thousands or even millions of auto accidents.

Building out the ENTIRE HSR in California would probably prevent 1 car accident a year. Its replacing air travel, not cars.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Building out the ENTIRE HSR in California would probably prevent 1 car accident a year. Its replacing air travel, not cars.

Not true. Many of the high-speed rail trips will be itineraries such as LA - Bakersfield or Fresno - San Jose, replacing auto trips.

There are approximately 35,000 auto fatalities in the United States each year. In addition to the human tragedy, there was one study that estimated that vehicle crashes cost our economy nearly one trillion dollars annually. The cost of accidents avoided by passenger rail replacing vehicle trips is a tangible and significant benefit.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Not true. Many of the high-speed rail trips will be itineraries such as LA - Bakersfield or Fresno - San Jose, replacing auto trips.

That's one of the great advantages rail has over planes - one train can serve multiple journeys - it covers the LA-SF, LA-Bakersfield, LA-Fresno, SF-Bakersfield, and SF-Fresno all at once.

And these are pretty decent-sized cities. The Fresno area has about the same population as Albuquerque, Buffalo, Memphis, and Oklahoma City.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by sammyg

That's one of the great advantages rail has over planes - one train can serve multiple journeys - it covers the LA-SF, LA-Bakersfield, LA-Fresno, SF-Bakersfield, and SF-Fresno all at once.

And these are pretty decent-sized cities. The Fresno area has about the same population as Albuquerque, Buffalo, Memphis, and Oklahoma City.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area

Yes, I think people are just being purposefully obtuse. Here in Washington, DC, when people take the train through the Northeast Corridor, they don't just go from Washington to New York or Washington to Boston. Passengers go to Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Trenton, etc... Some passengers will travel the entire corridor but many others will go to intermediate stations.

This is entirely similar to how CA high speed rail will operate. Some passengers will go from LA - San Francisco but some will go from Irvine to Palmdale, LA - Bakersfield, Fresno - San Jose, etc...

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Not true. Many of the high-speed rail trips will be itineraries such as LA - Bakersfield or Fresno - San Jose, replacing auto trips.

There are approximately 35,000 auto fatalities in the United States each year. In addition to the human tragedy, there was one study that estimated that vehicle crashes cost our economy nearly one trillion dollars annually. The cost of accidents avoided by passenger rail replacing vehicle trips is a tangible and significant benefit.

Significant is subjective at this point. Most wrecks happen around the home because that's where most people drive. Sure, you are probably more likely to be killed going 70 on the highway than going 40 in the city, but I think the point still stands.

All I am saying is if you want to say that this will be a project to help reduce auto accidents, it needs to be like number 60 on any list. It's not enough to even mention, IMO.

[aquablue]

You decide to build a train and take a decade to plan it, you finish it properly or else you are a laughing stock in my eyes. A stretch of HSR between two insignificant cities is a waste of money, it needs to go to a big city now. America still can't do rail like Asia or Europe do, it's pathetic they can't even finish what they start.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by T-Pain

HSR would keep us safer than our military does simply by getting people out their cars, preventing thousands or even millions of auto accidents.

What happens when an invading military strikes our infrastructure first? -- Things like roads, bridges, seaports, airports and railways.


The reason we have what we have is because the military defends against this threat. Lol. Thanks for the laugh!!!

[Busy Bee]

Invading military? Who would want to try and occupy this country with all the crazy armed people we have?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Invading military? Who would want to try and occupy this country with all the crazy armed people we have?

I appreciate the recognition that us crazy people would help keep out foreign invaders lol

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I appreciate the recognition that us crazy people would help keep out foreign invaders lol

Why should crazy Americans scare away armed soldiers when they can not scare away unarmed aliens?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by electricron

Why should crazy Americans scare away armed soldiers when they can not scare away unarmed aliens?

It scares me that you are being serious in asking that.

One scenario would be an invading army where killing would be justified. While the other is a political issue that doesn't involve us learning a new language or being forced to live under a foreign government. Nevermind that most of those insane gun lovers you guys like to make fun of are following the law. Murder is illegal...

I felt dumb just writing all that out lol

[sammyg]

Can we seriously get another thread just for political nonsense like this?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Yes, I think people are just being purposefully obtuse. Here in Washington, DC, when people take the train through the Northeast Corridor, they don't just go from Washington to New York or Washington to Boston. Passengers go to Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Trenton, etc... Some passengers will travel the entire corridor but many others will go to intermediate stations.

This is entirely similar to how CA high speed rail will operate. Some passengers will go from LA - San Francisco but some will go from Irvine to Palmdale, LA - Bakersfield, Fresno - San Jose, etc...

That's actually not true, though. Most Acela traffic is NYC-DC. There aren't particularly high Amtrak volumes anywhere but NY Penn, Philly, and DC.

And the CA corridor isn't analogous. The NE Corridor only works because NY is at the center, and NY is primarily transit-oriented. And the secondary CA cities are extremely sprawly and car-oriented, and impractical for HSR. There's no real market for Bakersfield, which doesn't have a corporate base, strong core, or transit orientation, where someplace like Wilmington or New Haven has all three attributes.