REMINDER: Siteowner has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, Siteowner reserves the right to review the Materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such Materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. Siteowner has no obligation to display or post any Materials provided by you. Siteowner reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or Materials that Siteowner deems necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. To further read the rules and terms of agreement of this Forum, click here.
Quote: frvcvs has got nothing to base his supposed ridership counts on this dream train....
paradoxically, your argument fails the same way.
If it was faster, significantly cheaper than flying Southwest, I'd say it "may" have it's merits. But, it has neither of those qualities.
A majority of California's population will NEVER use this, and if some do, it will be mostly for the novelty, not the necessity. The local lines may get used some use, but the portion between Palmdale and Merced will be lucky to have 10% capacity. Cost effective? I seriously doubt it.
It might help the SF to Sacmo traveler, but the route is sure a round-about way of doing it, probably only slighter faster than driving.
Quote: The majority of the cost is completely UNFUNDED. There's a $3 billion seed fund from the feds that will need to be paid back once the first piece of rail or spike get driven in the ground.
Is this true skully? Saying it is, how is the state gonna come up with 3 billion before the first spike is driven. I remember in the beginning of the year they were cutting out school busing for rural students.
-------------------- "That's their respect for me... I got leid," Rabbit Kekai
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7166
Loc: Carlsbad
It's pretty childish to attempt to justify supporting one type of boondoggle by citing the dismal returns on another boondoggle.
The interstate system solved an existing problem and in the process gutted the viability of rail traffic in the west. Bringing back a mode of travel to the west that has already been rendered redundant and obsolete is neither bold nor progress. Over this distance it's barely any faster on a door-to-door basis, it's not cheaper than taking a car nor is it likely ever going to be cheaper; and most of all it's not as flexible. By your own account that's precisely why you take your car to work instead of a rail system that goes the same way.
I mean, if we want to go backwards we could always commission the construction and operation of a fleet of coastal ferries to carry passengers on a scenic 3-hour trip up the coast. That ought to satisfy the romantic and leisurely urges you seem to want to assign to travelling.
Moreover, there's hardly any land to be purchased or infrastructure to build and maintain with that type of transit.
Post Extras:
JEwing
Rabbitt Bartholomew status
Reged: 04/12/04
Posts: 9964
Loc: Carlsbad
Quote: frvcvs has got nothing to base his supposed ridership counts on this dream train....
paradoxically, your argument fails the same way.
If it was faster, significantly cheaper than flying Southwest, I'd say it "may" have it's merits. But, it has neither of those qualities.
A majority of California's population will NEVER use this, and if some do, it will be mostly for the novelty, not the necessity. The local lines may get used some use, but the portion between Palmdale and Merced will be lucky to have 10% capacity. Cost effective? I seriously doubt it.
It might help the SF to Sacmo traveler, but the route is sure a round-about way of doing it, probably only slighter faster than driving.
And you ignore all the inconvenient factors of air travel. You forget that you need to be at an airport hour(s) prior to departure. You forget that you're charged for checked luggage. You forget that you need to wait on TSA (who you conservetards love to bitch about) screening lines, get wanded, searched, etc. Air travel is hardly easy and convenient. We're just conditioned to know what to expect. But that hour long flight between LAX and SFO usually amounts to more like 3hrs all said and done which is roughly the same time that this train is projected to take. I have no idea about costs of this rail line for passengers but I do know that airfare has been steadily increasing and is at the mercy of unstable oil prices. I used to be able to fly to SF and back for $39 each way. Those deals are pretty rare these days. I went a few weeks ago with about a weeks notice and southwest would've cost me over $300 round trip so I opted to drive the 6hrs each way. Sure there are deals to be found but they're few and far between, especially if you're not planning these trips weeks in advance.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
Surfdog
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 04/22/01
Posts: 5712
Loc: Oceanside,CA
Quote: frvcvs has got nothing to base his supposed ridership counts on this dream train.
He's basically saying "build it and they will come".
The Train of Dreams. Build it and it will miraculously pay for itself.
Who cares if hardly anyone uses it. It will create some government funded jobs for a few years, and some conductors can oversee some mostly empty cars, for what will probably be a $100+ billion project, if it ever finishes.
And like others have mentioned. The majority of the cost is completely UNFUNDED. There's a $3 billion seed fund from the feds that will need to be paid back once the first piece of rail or spike get driven in the ground. The dems in Sacmo are foaming at the mouth for any $$$$ at this point, and I see them squandered before they even lay one piece of track in the cornfields between Bakersfield and Merced.
Yes, lets build it and enormous ridership will just............appear.
I'm pretty sure I never made a claim about ridership counts. Did I? I never said enormous ridership will be pounding the pavement to ride this line the day the first train makes it's maiden voyage. We are a nation that's pretty set in our ways it's gonna take some time for anything new like this to catch on. I'm sure all you naysayers will be waiting eagerly a month after this thing starts running to say "Only XXXXXXXXX amount of people are riding this thing. It's a collosal failure, I told you so!!! " But that's expected from a shortsighted fool like you.
We spent almost a trillion dollars in iraq for what exactly? What did we get out of that besides more physical therapists, prosthetic specialists and shrinks employed by the VA? You didn't seem to have a problem with that spending.
Frankly I'd rather spend a hundred billion here employing people and investing in our infrastructure and take that chance. You seem to forget that the gov't isn't a business. It's not supposed to be run like a business. It's here to serve us not profit off of us. As I said earlier look at something like the interstate system. It's something we all use and clearly you think it's the best option. But when it was first proposed as a massive endeavor with a cost of hundreds of billions that took 35yrs to complete your attitude would see it as an investment with no immediate return and you'd certainly poo poo it. That's what gov't gives us and thats why we can't think of gov't like a business and we can't trust businesses to serve us the way the government does.
And for those of you who say we shouldn't look to other nations for influence when it comes to transit Dwight Eisenhower's support for the interstate system stemmed from his appreciation of the german audobahn.
HUGE difference between the Interstate Hwy/FREE-way system and a bullet train between LA and SF/Sacmo in California and the USA.
EVERYONE uses the FREE-way system. Comparitively, very few will use the bullet train between LA and SF. Even after it's been around for 10 years. How full are the current Metro-link and Amtrak trains between LA/SD and LA/SF routes? And those are beautiful scenic routes (for parts of them at least)? They've been around for 30-50 years.
Shaving a hour or 2 at the most from those "slow-train" routes is not enough to beat flying. And like you glossed over, if we need TSA security on these trains, which I highly suspect will be needed, it will not speed up the pre-boarding lags of flying any less.
-------------------- did you surf today?
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7166
Loc: Carlsbad
I could actually see the utility of an express rail between Sacramento and San Francisco. I can see the utility of an commuter train from Victorville - San Bernardino - Riverside - Corona - Anaheim - Costa Mesa. Those are lines that would get heavily used if they ran on an hourly basis 24/7 with 30-minute intervals during the rush hour periods.
Quote: frvcvs has got nothing to base his supposed ridership counts on this dream train.
He's basically saying "build it and they will come".
The Train of Dreams. Build it and it will miraculously pay for itself.
Who cares if hardly anyone uses it. It will create some government funded jobs for a few years, and some conductors can oversee some mostly empty cars, for what will probably be a $100+ billion project, if it ever finishes.
And like others have mentioned. The majority of the cost is completely UNFUNDED. There's a $3 billion seed fund from the feds that will need to be paid back once the first piece of rail or spike get driven in the ground. The dems in Sacmo are foaming at the mouth for any $$$$ at this point, and I see them squandered before they even lay one piece of track in the cornfields between Bakersfield and Merced.
Yes, lets build it and enormous ridership will just............appear.
I'm pretty sure I never made a claim about ridership counts. Did I? I never said enormous ridership will be pounding the pavement to ride this line the day the first train makes it's maiden voyage. We are a nation that's pretty set in our ways it's gonna take some time for anything new like this to catch on. I'm sure all you naysayers will be waiting eagerly a month after this thing starts running to say "Only XXXXXXXXX amount of people are riding this thing. It's a collosal failure, I told you so!!! " But that's expected from a shortsighted fool like you.
We spent almost a trillion dollars in iraq for what exactly? What did we get out of that besides more physical therapists, prosthetic specialists and shrinks employed by the VA? You didn't seem to have a problem with that spending.
Frankly I'd rather spend a hundred billion here employing people and investing in our infrastructure and take that chance. You seem to forget that the gov't isn't a business. It's not supposed to be run like a business. It's here to serve us not profit off of us. As I said earlier look at something like the interstate system. It's something we all use and clearly you think it's the best option. But when it was first proposed as a massive endeavor with a cost of hundreds of billions that took 35yrs to complete your attitude would see it as an investment with no immediate return and you'd certainly poo poo it. That's what gov't gives us and thats why we can't think of gov't like a business and we can't trust businesses to serve us the way the government does.
And for those of you who say we shouldn't look to other nations for influence when it comes to transit Dwight Eisenhower's support for the interstate system stemmed from his appreciation of the german audobahn.
HUGE difference between the Interstate Hwy/FREE-way system and a bullet train between LA and SF/Sacmo in California and the USA.
EVERYONE uses the FREE-way system. Comparitively, very few will use the bullet train between LA and SF. Even after it's been around for 10 years. How full are the current Metro-link and Amtrak trains between LA/SD and LA/SF routes? And those are beautiful scenic routes (for parts of them at least)? They've been around for 30-50 years.
Shaving a hour or 2 at the most from those "slow-train" routes is not enough to beat flying. And like you glossed over, if we need TSA security on these trains, which I highly suspect will be needed, it will not speed up the pre-boarding lags of flying any less.
And you're still the one making claims that you have yet to support.
Is there TSA screening for Acela and the rest of the rail lines in this country? Why would this be any different? Next.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
Surfdog
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 04/22/01
Posts: 5712
Loc: Oceanside,CA
Quote: I could actually see the utility of an express rail between Sacramento and San Francisco. I can see the utility of an commuter train from Victorville - San Bernardino - Riverside - Corona - Anaheim - Costa Mesa. Those are lines that would get heavily used if they ran on an hourly basis 24/7 with 30-minute intervals during the rush hour periods.
I agree 100%. This bullet train is a "wanna-be" commuter train. The real needs are to connect the outlying suburbs and ex-urbs (way out there 'burbs) to the local city centers. These should be built with this $3 billion seed fund first. Not the cornfield version between Merced and Bakersfield.
I have a feeling this train is going to be "sent to the cornfield" before the first track ever gets laid.
-------------------- did you surf today?
Post Extras:
Surfdog
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 04/22/01
Posts: 5712
Loc: Oceanside,CA
Quote: frvcvs has got nothing to base his supposed ridership counts on this dream train.
He's basically saying "build it and they will come".
The Train of Dreams. Build it and it will miraculously pay for itself.
Who cares if hardly anyone uses it. It will create some government funded jobs for a few years, and some conductors can oversee some mostly empty cars, for what will probably be a $100+ billion project, if it ever finishes.
And like others have mentioned. The majority of the cost is completely UNFUNDED. There's a $3 billion seed fund from the feds that will need to be paid back once the first piece of rail or spike get driven in the ground. The dems in Sacmo are foaming at the mouth for any $$$$ at this point, and I see them squandered before they even lay one piece of track in the cornfields between Bakersfield and Merced.
Yes, lets build it and enormous ridership will just............appear.
I'm pretty sure I never made a claim about ridership counts. Did I? I never said enormous ridership will be pounding the pavement to ride this line the day the first train makes it's maiden voyage. We are a nation that's pretty set in our ways it's gonna take some time for anything new like this to catch on. I'm sure all you naysayers will be waiting eagerly a month after this thing starts running to say "Only XXXXXXXXX amount of people are riding this thing. It's a collosal failure, I told you so!!! " But that's expected from a shortsighted fool like you.
We spent almost a trillion dollars in iraq for what exactly? What did we get out of that besides more physical therapists, prosthetic specialists and shrinks employed by the VA? You didn't seem to have a problem with that spending.
Frankly I'd rather spend a hundred billion here employing people and investing in our infrastructure and take that chance. You seem to forget that the gov't isn't a business. It's not supposed to be run like a business. It's here to serve us not profit off of us. As I said earlier look at something like the interstate system. It's something we all use and clearly you think it's the best option. But when it was first proposed as a massive endeavor with a cost of hundreds of billions that took 35yrs to complete your attitude would see it as an investment with no immediate return and you'd certainly poo poo it. That's what gov't gives us and thats why we can't think of gov't like a business and we can't trust businesses to serve us the way the government does.
And for those of you who say we shouldn't look to other nations for influence when it comes to transit Dwight Eisenhower's support for the interstate system stemmed from his appreciation of the german audobahn.
HUGE difference between the Interstate Hwy/FREE-way system and a bullet train between LA and SF/Sacmo in California and the USA.
EVERYONE uses the FREE-way system. Comparitively, very few will use the bullet train between LA and SF. Even after it's been around for 10 years. How full are the current Metro-link and Amtrak trains between LA/SD and LA/SF routes? And those are beautiful scenic routes (for parts of them at least)? They've been around for 30-50 years.
Shaving a hour or 2 at the most from those "slow-train" routes is not enough to beat flying. And like you glossed over, if we need TSA security on these trains, which I highly suspect will be needed, it will not speed up the pre-boarding lags of flying any less.
And you're still the one making claims that you have yet to support.
Is there TSA screening for Acela and the rest of the rail lines in this country? Why would this be any different? Next.
You didn't answer my question on existing LA/SD and LA/SF ridership, and how that will be increased substantially?
All it will take is one terrorist threat to a passenger train, and TSA will be all over it. Does the attack in Spain a few years ago ring a bell?
-------------------- did you surf today?
Post Extras:
urchin
Michael Peterson status
Reged: 10/20/04
Posts: 2135
"In California, the registration tax is calculated by the current value of the vehicle. As a result, older and more inexpensive vehicles will have a low registration fee, whereas newer and more expensive vehicles will have fees in the hundreds of dollars."
nothing's "free" you pay to drive on that not-free-way.
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7166
Loc: Carlsbad
I strongly doubt this system will affect car ownership in the state or reduce the amount of taxes already being collected for the highways or significantly affect the use of those highways. It's an entirely new and additional cost from beginning to end.
"In California, the registration tax is calculated by the current value of the vehicle. As a result, older and more inexpensive vehicles will have a low registration fee, whereas newer and more expensive vehicles will have fees in the hundreds of dollars."
nothing's "free" you pay to drive on that not-free-way.
I think a part of the tax per gallon of gas goes to road building and maintenance in California. Used to anyway.
-------------------- "That's their respect for me... I got leid," Rabbit Kekai
Post Extras:
ifallalot
Duke status
Reged: 12/17/08
Posts: 18022
Loc: Carlsbad, CA
Quote: I strongly doubt this system will affect car ownership in the state or reduce the amount of taxes already being collected for the highways or significantly affect the use of those highways. It's an entirely new and additional cost from beginning to end.
i agree. i was only pointing out that a freeway isn't free.
Post Extras:
Surfdog
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 04/22/01
Posts: 5712
Loc: Oceanside,CA
Quote: I strongly doubt this system will affect car ownership in the state or reduce the amount of taxes already being collected for the highways or significantly affect the use of those highways. It's an entirely new and additional cost from beginning to end.
i agree. i was only pointing out that a freeway isn't free.
Of course the freeway isn't really "free". Nothing, absolutely nothing is "free", including our freedoms. Maybe the air we breath, but there's a price on trying to keep it breathable.
Our state and sales tax pays for all of it. At least we're not charged AGAIN to use it, like this bullet train will. This obviously doesn't apply to toll roads, either. Those are part state and county funded.
Quote: frvcvs has got nothing to base his supposed ridership counts on this dream train.
He's basically saying "build it and they will come".
The Train of Dreams. Build it and it will miraculously pay for itself.
Who cares if hardly anyone uses it. It will create some government funded jobs for a few years, and some conductors can oversee some mostly empty cars, for what will probably be a $100+ billion project, if it ever finishes.
And like others have mentioned. The majority of the cost is completely UNFUNDED. There's a $3 billion seed fund from the feds that will need to be paid back once the first piece of rail or spike get driven in the ground. The dems in Sacmo are foaming at the mouth for any $$$$ at this point, and I see them squandered before they even lay one piece of track in the cornfields between Bakersfield and Merced.
Yes, lets build it and enormous ridership will just............appear.
I'm pretty sure I never made a claim about ridership counts. Did I? I never said enormous ridership will be pounding the pavement to ride this line the day the first train makes it's maiden voyage. We are a nation that's pretty set in our ways it's gonna take some time for anything new like this to catch on. I'm sure all you naysayers will be waiting eagerly a month after this thing starts running to say "Only XXXXXXXXX amount of people are riding this thing. It's a collosal failure, I told you so!!! " But that's expected from a shortsighted fool like you.
We spent almost a trillion dollars in iraq for what exactly? What did we get out of that besides more physical therapists, prosthetic specialists and shrinks employed by the VA? You didn't seem to have a problem with that spending.
Frankly I'd rather spend a hundred billion here employing people and investing in our infrastructure and take that chance. You seem to forget that the gov't isn't a business. It's not supposed to be run like a business. It's here to serve us not profit off of us. As I said earlier look at something like the interstate system. It's something we all use and clearly you think it's the best option. But when it was first proposed as a massive endeavor with a cost of hundreds of billions that took 35yrs to complete your attitude would see it as an investment with no immediate return and you'd certainly poo poo it. That's what gov't gives us and thats why we can't think of gov't like a business and we can't trust businesses to serve us the way the government does.
And for those of you who say we shouldn't look to other nations for influence when it comes to transit Dwight Eisenhower's support for the interstate system stemmed from his appreciation of the german audobahn.
HUGE difference between the Interstate Hwy/FREE-way system and a bullet train between LA and SF/Sacmo in California and the USA.
EVERYONE uses the FREE-way system. Comparitively, very few will use the bullet train between LA and SF. Even after it's been around for 10 years. How full are the current Metro-link and Amtrak trains between LA/SD and LA/SF routes? And those are beautiful scenic routes (for parts of them at least)? They've been around for 30-50 years.
Shaving a hour or 2 at the most from those "slow-train" routes is not enough to beat flying. And like you glossed over, if we need TSA security on these trains, which I highly suspect will be needed, it will not speed up the pre-boarding lags of flying any less.
And you're still the one making claims that you have yet to support.
Is there TSA screening for Acela and the rest of the rail lines in this country? Why would this be any different? Next.
You didn't answer my question on existing LA/SD and LA/SF ridership, and how that will be increased substantially?
All it will take is one terrorist threat to a passenger train, and TSA will be all over it. Does the attack in Spain a few years ago ring a bell?
The attack in spain was in 2004. We've been running trains steadily for 8yrs since then. Where's the TSA? Where's the spanish equivalent of the TSA on the madrid system? Stop pulling poop out of your ass and acknowledge that there's lots of aspects of air travel that are far less than convenient and you're making an unfair comparison when you'll only acknowledge the hour of air time between SFO and LAX.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
GWS
Duke status
Reged: 01/11/02
Posts: 32188
Loc: Dustopia
Quote: frvcvs has got nothing to base his supposed ridership counts on this dream train.
He's basically saying "build it and they will come".
The Train of Dreams. Build it and it will miraculously pay for itself.
Who cares if hardly anyone uses it. It will create some government funded jobs for a few years, and some conductors can oversee some mostly empty cars, for what will probably be a $100+ billion project, if it ever finishes.
And like others have mentioned. The majority of the cost is completely UNFUNDED. There's a $3 billion seed fund from the feds that will need to be paid back once the first piece of rail or spike get driven in the ground. The dems in Sacmo are foaming at the mouth for any $$$$ at this point, and I see them squandered before they even lay one piece of track in the cornfields between Bakersfield and Merced.
Yes, lets build it and enormous ridership will just............appear.
I'm pretty sure I never made a claim about ridership counts. Did I? I never said enormous ridership will be pounding the pavement to ride this line the day the first train makes it's maiden voyage. We are a nation that's pretty set in our ways it's gonna take some time for anything new like this to catch on. I'm sure all you naysayers will be waiting eagerly a month after this thing starts running to say "Only XXXXXXXXX amount of people are riding this thing. It's a collosal failure, I told you so!!! " But that's expected from a shortsighted fool like you.
We spent almost a trillion dollars in iraq for what exactly? What did we get out of that besides more physical therapists, prosthetic specialists and shrinks employed by the VA? You didn't seem to have a problem with that spending.
Frankly I'd rather spend a hundred billion here employing people and investing in our infrastructure and take that chance. You seem to forget that the gov't isn't a business. It's not supposed to be run like a business. It's here to serve us not profit off of us. As I said earlier look at something like the interstate system. It's something we all use and clearly you think it's the best option. But when it was first proposed as a massive endeavor with a cost of hundreds of billions that took 35yrs to complete your attitude would see it as an investment with no immediate return and you'd certainly poo poo it. That's what gov't gives us and thats why we can't think of gov't like a business and we can't trust businesses to serve us the way the government does.
And for those of you who say we shouldn't look to other nations for influence when it comes to transit Dwight Eisenhower's support for the interstate system stemmed from his appreciation of the german audobahn.
HUGE difference between the Interstate Hwy/FREE-way system and a bullet train between LA and SF/Sacmo in California and the USA.
EVERYONE uses the FREE-way system. Comparitively, very few will use the bullet train between LA and SF. Even after it's been around for 10 years. How full are the current Metro-link and Amtrak trains between LA/SD and LA/SF routes? And those are beautiful scenic routes (for parts of them at least)? They've been around for 30-50 years.
Shaving a hour or 2 at the most from those "slow-train" routes is not enough to beat flying. And like you glossed over, if we need TSA security on these trains, which I highly suspect will be needed, it will not speed up the pre-boarding lags of flying any less.
And you're still the one making claims that you have yet to support.
Is there TSA screening for Acela and the rest of the rail lines in this country? Why would this be any different? Next.
You didn't answer my question on existing LA/SD and LA/SF ridership, and how that will be increased substantially?
All it will take is one terrorist threat to a passenger train, and TSA will be all over it. Does the attack in Spain a few years ago ring a bell?
The attack in spain was in 2004. We've been running trains steadily for 8yrs since then. Where's the TSA? Where's the spanish equivalent of the TSA on the madrid system? Stop pulling poop out of your ass and acknowledge that there's lots of aspects of air travel that are far less than convenient and you're making an unfair comparison when you'll only acknowledge the hour of air time between SFO and LAX.
On distances over 200-300 miles, a large majority of Californians either fly, drive or bus (cheapest, least comfortable). Trains are the 2nd to last choice at best, for distances, except for those with fear of flying.
Getting to and from a larger train terminal is not all that much different than an airport or bus terminal. You still need separate transpo at each end. Add check-in luggage for an extended trip, and see what the waits will be like.
-------------------- did you surf today?
Post Extras:
GWS
Duke status
Reged: 01/11/02
Posts: 32188
Loc: Dustopia
I still don't think there are enough people making that trip to justify a redundant mode of travel.
Let's be honest here. Which route do you think will rack up more riders on a daily basis:
- LA to Sacramento (15 stops in between)
- Victorville to Costa Mesa (4 stops in between) - Moreno Valley or Beaumont to the east side of LA's Metro system (4 stops in between) - Santa Clarita to the north side of La's Metro system
I mean, if you're all about serving the people then doesn't it make sense to try and serve as many people as possible and put the HSR ego on the back burner? I'm pretty sure those EuroHipster systems didn't put their long distance carts before their many local commuter horses, if you know what I mean.
Quote: I still don't think there are enough people making that trip to justify a redundant mode of travel.
Let's be honest here. Which route do you think will rack up more riders on a daily basis:
- LA to Sacramento (15 stops in between)
- Victorville to Costa Mesa (4 stops in between) - Moreno Valley or Beaumont to the east side of LA's Metro system (4 stops in between) - Santa Clarita to the north side of La's Metro system
I mean, if you're all about serving the people then doesn't it make sense to try and serve as many people as possible and put the HSR ego on the back burner? I'm pretty sure those EuroHipster systems didn't put their long distance carts before their many local commuter horses, if you know what I mean.
couple things.
1) you do realize there won't be 15 stops on the express route. An express train will stop in SF, San Jose, LA and SD making it much faster.
2) There's 15 million people in LA, SF & SD.
3) Funding from this endeavor will be dedicated to bolstering local transit. The bill includes $2 billion for local projects. San Francisco won't need much as they have a pretty good system in place. LA & SD could use a lil help.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Quote: I still don't think there are enough people making that trip to justify a redundant mode of travel.
Let's be honest here. Which route do you think will rack up more riders on a daily basis:
- LA to Sacramento (15 stops in between)
- Victorville to Costa Mesa (4 stops in between) - Moreno Valley or Beaumont to the east side of LA's Metro system (4 stops in between) - Santa Clarita to the north side of La's Metro system
I mean, if you're all about serving the people then doesn't it make sense to try and serve as many people as possible and put the HSR ego on the back burner? I'm pretty sure those EuroHipster systems didn't put their long distance carts before their many local commuter horses, if you know what I mean.
couple things.
1) you do realize there won't be 15 stops on the express route. An express train will stop in SF, San Jose, LA and SD making it much faster.
2) There's 15 million people in LA, SF & SD.
3) Funding from this endeavor will be dedicated to bolstering local transit. The bill includes $2 billion for local projects. San Francisco won't need much as they have a pretty good system in place. LA & SD could use a lil help.
That's the main thing: there's currently a much bigger need for improvements at the local and regional levels than for the long distance line.
Would the Acela line - which is supposedly Amtrak's most profitable route on a nationwide basis - be as successful if the hub cities had the equivalent of San Diego's transit system? I highly doubt it.
I'm not a fan of make-work projects in general, but if the politicians are going to do it then some of those projects will have a better chance at breaking even than others.
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7166
Loc: Carlsbad
Quote: I still don't think there are enough people making that trip to justify a redundant mode of travel.
Redundant? So what is the future mode of travel in California, a car?
Well, putting aside the fact that many travelers for that route already prefer to fly, why is the continued use of cars assumed to be a problem? Are you basing that assumption on the idea that cars will always use gasoline or diesel?
BTW, as a point of fact the reason for the military is in support of our foreign policy, which itself is based on our trade-based economy. You know, the one that made us rich in the first place. So yes, there is usually an economic element to our use of the military. That foreign policy effectively extended our golden age past its expiration date so in that respect it did serve us well economically in the past. I think that cost-benefit ratio has reversed and it's time to reorganize, but that doesn't alter the reasons we were using it in the first place.
Quote: I still don't think there are enough people making that trip to justify a redundant mode of travel.
Redundant? So what is the future mode of travel in California, a car?
Well, putting aside the fact that many travelers for that route already prefer to fly, why is the continued use of cars assumed to be a problem? Are you basing that assumption on the idea that cars will always use gasoline or diesel?
BTW, as a point of fact the reason for the military is in support of our foreign policy, which itself is based on our trade-based economy. You know, the one that made us rich in the first place. So yes, there is usually an economic element to our use of the military. That foreign policy effectively extended our golden age past its expiration date so in that respect it did serve us well economically in the past. I think that cost-benefit ratio has reversed and it's time to reorganize, but that doesn't alter the reasons we were using it in the first place.
And what are we trading for in the region that has been front and center in just about every military conflict we've been involved in over the past 25yrs?
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
FecalFace
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 11/21/08
Posts: 6716
Loc: down there by the harbor
Quote: I still don't think there are enough people making that trip to justify a redundant mode of travel.
Redundant? So what is the future mode of travel in California, a car?
Well, putting aside the fact that many travelers for that route already prefer to fly, why is the continued use of cars assumed to be a problem? Are you basing that assumption on the idea that cars will always use gasoline or diesel?
BTW, as a point of fact the reason for the military is in support of our foreign policy, which itself is based on our trade-based economy. You know, the one that made us rich in the first place. So yes, there is usually an economic element to our use of the military. That foreign policy effectively extended our golden age past its expiration date so in that respect it did serve us well economically in the past. I think that cost-benefit ratio has reversed and it's time to reorganize, but that doesn't alter the reasons we were using it in the first place.
I'm not talking about fuel I'm talking about how inifecient car travel is in California and how preposterous is the notion that we can expand the roads forever to follow the traffic growth. It's unbelievable to me that you think that having a single person per car, sitting in traffic jam for hours is an acceptable mode of travel for you.
As for your weak military argument, that's a helluva inefficient business model and the one that deserves to fail. If it was up to the "free market" you so cherish it would have failed long ago but since it's up to the tax payer to keep it afloat, with not a word of criticism from either side, we will continue to throw money down the military drain.
-------------------- I suggest putting a teacher in every gun store.
Post Extras:
ratfink
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 07/15/08
Posts: 6442
Loc: Texas Gulf de Mexico
Quote: russian trains are plentiful and always packed. the subway system in moscow and st. petersburg makes new york's look like a slow moving sh!thole...well, not hard to do. but it's been in their culture for a long time. most people just don't have cars.
here tho...meh.. people love their cars. austin finally finished their train, after i guess about 10 years. it's only like three cars and they recently put mirror tint on the windows so people can't see how empty it is.
a shame...i'd use it, but i don't live in the 'burbs.
i'd love a train to the coast though. i'd be the worst nightmare...a weekend train warrior!
Weekend warrior! here we come! you and me Urch, I'll spot us the rental when we get to LaLa.
F*ck Russia...if the USA made schit cars like these, we'd all be on the rail too
Surfers endorsing cattlecars, sheeesh.
Quote:
Quote:
wow. Are you seriously that stupid? or is all that rain seeping into your brain? my reference to "coast" does not mean l.a. and as for those pics..well, i guess you really are an idiot.
my congratulations, mr. east texas wanna be redneck dumbass. that's a mighty fine argument you brought to the table.
What crawled up your azz? I referenced the lightrail proposed for LA-Las Vegas and San Francisco...hence LaLa as the hub.
PS, I don't live in East Texas. I currently live in an area that goes back 4 generations for me, hardly a "wannabe-redneck". And the rain, thank you, is a most welcome blessing to the farmers and ranchers who put the food on your ungrateful table.
I included you in a friendly and comic gesture with pics of cars from the Eastern Bloc. I guess my effort to have some fun with you was a mistake.
Have a nice day...
there is nothing funny about your post at all. it consists of hatred, ignorance and ridicule.
Here ya go, you crank, I'll get you a matching sippy cup if you want.
Post Extras:
GDaddy
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 01/16/06
Posts: 7166
Loc: Carlsbad
Like I said, our return on investment on these last two aren't going to be very good so that's going to factor into the planning as we go forward.
The other thing to remember is that our military is deployed all over the world. Fighting in a shooting war is only one use of a military. Sailing an aircraft carrier off the coast of Korea can also have economic ramifications with respect to our trading partners in S Korea and other neighboring nations.
Quote: Like I said, our return on investment on these last two aren't going to be very good so that's going to factor into the planning as we go forward.
The other thing to remember is that our military is deployed all over the world. Fighting in a shooting war is only one use of a military. Sailing an aircraft carrier off the coast of Korea can also have economic ramifications with respect to our trading partners in S Korea and other neighboring nations.
please stop thinking about governing like a business investor. This is why people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney need to stay the fvck out of government.
-------------------- "[Rush] doesn't influence me either - merely reinforces what I already know" - 23rdstMB
Post Extras:
Steak
Kelly Slater status
Reged: 11/09/10
Posts: 8221
Loc: No Country for Old Men
The repubs dont care about the TRILLIONS of dollars that the war costs because its good for business. Their buddies make all the profit and we pay it all out of our pockets. Then they keep it offshore and it never makes its way back into the economy.
Suddenly something comes along that costs a fraction of that and they claim to be "fiscally responsible" and dont understand where the money comes from
Just more political hypocrisy that proves the whole game is a joke.
-------------------- Bomb Hills not Countries.
Post Extras:
FecalFace
Phil Edwards status
Reged: 11/21/08
Posts: 6716
Loc: down there by the harbor
Quote: Like I said, our return on investment on these last two aren't going to be very good so that's going to factor into the planning as we go forward.
The other thing to remember is that our military is deployed all over the world. Fighting in a shooting war is only one use of a military. Sailing an aircraft carrier off the coast of Korea can also have economic ramifications with respect to our trading partners in S Korea and other neighboring nations.
You addressed zero points I raised.
-------------------- I suggest putting a teacher in every gun store.
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
" But that's expected from a shortsighted fool like you.
page 6. It's a train wreck about a train wreck.
