[Qnpqbpac]

It's strange how you're quick to criticize anything that you perceive (politically?) to be ripping off the public, yet you are silent about the companies in this thread and others. Do you think these people have been "sucking off the public nipple?"

So they should go ahead and build something that will likely go well over it's expected budget, and when complete require ongoing subsidies or be unaffordable to it's potential users.

Show me how any transportation system is really self-supporting.

By your thinking, mass transit in NYC is a failure, because it isn't profitable. But would the city be profitable without it?

Let's not build anything unless it can operate as a business. Except the financial sector of course. When it fails, business rules no longer apply, and it can be subsidized.

Still more narrow thinking from the Party of No.

[c-cialis]

The question would be this:

How much money would need to be spent if a large portion of the workers on this project had to get welfare or other assistance?

I do not believe it is here, but aren't many people asking for programs to get people who are ON Welfare to "do something" for the money?

While I agree that it is NOT efficient, and there will be several areas where money is most definitely wasted, I also see where this is not a 100% loss. So long as we actually HIRE AMERICAN COMPANIES to do this, and do it CORRECTLY, this could be a better way to create a "stimulus" than a few hundred dollar "tax break".

[ddxbovMQ]

Meh.

The problem here is simple.

What use is a high speed train going to be if the location and stops are decided by the general public? I read that the current planned route has so many weird stops and transfer requirements at its main destinations, that many would not want to use the service because of the inconvenience.

I would like to see a high speed rail from SF to LA, but not if it has to stop 8 times along the way and drop you off 45 minutes from either....

The issue with your conclusion is that it is constructed from a false premise: there are no significant issues whatsoever with regards to transfers to other local, regional or long distance transportation systems. The authority's high speed plans detail a substantial effort to create and emphasize transfers and connections to the system upon completion, as well as wherever they can before that time. During construction there will perhaps be some interesting connections necessitated, but if one expects a flawless transition to full build-out for a mammoth infrastructure project, not only are they wrongheaded, they are boneheaded indeed.

[valentinesdayyy]

You do realize that the subways were originally built by private companies who expected to make a profit on it, the Interborough Rapit Transit Company, and Brooklyn - Manhattan Transit Company (IRT and BMT). The city then decided it wanted to take them over, and build third system, the Indepent Rapid Transit (IND) as subsidized competition to put them out of business.

So originally they were self supporting until the gov't screwed with them.

It's strange how you're quick to criticize anything that you perceive (politically?) to be ripping off the public, yet you are silent about the companies in this thread and others. Do you think these people have been "sucking off the public nipple?"


Show me how any transportation system is really self-supporting.

By your thinking, mass transit in NYC is a failure, because it isn't profitable. But would the city be profitable without it?

Let's not build anything unless it can operate as a business. Except the financial sector of course. When it fails, business rules no longer apply, and it can be subsidized.

Still more narrow thinking from the Party of No.

[Battwenue]

Couple of things..


First, there is a big old "discussion" of this here:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthre...igh+speed+rail

And one of the points is just how many places this train will travel to... 25 stops and counting:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Cahsr_map.svg

10 stops from SF to LA.

One person was complaining about getting off in SF and having to BART around to get to where he was going (I cannot say that that is 100% valid, as if you were to take the plane, you would still need to cab/rental/BART around SF).

My point being, that when you get too many people deciding what towns are "important" to include, you end up getting a "rapid transit" that takes too long to make it practical.

The biggest key here for use, more than just cost, is whether or not this system will or will not be a bigger PITA to those that use it (security, check-in, delays, space/comfort levels).

[FreeOEMcheapestPHOTOSHOP]

You do realize that the subways were originally built by private companies who expected to make a profit on it, the Interborough Rapit Transit Company, and Brooklyn - Manhattan Transit Company (IRT and BMT). The city then decided it wanted to take them over, and build third system, the Indepent Rapid Transit (IND) as subsidized competition to put them out of business.

So you want to go back over 100 years and try to make a valid comparison, and draw a conclusion that all would be OK with the subways today if govt didn't "screw with them."

Passenger railroads were built by companies wanting to make a profit. They abandoned them when passenger railroads were no longer profitable.

You avoided the question of TODAY: Is the NYC subway a failure or it is partly responsible for the profitability of the city?

[Rasklad]

BBMW, I am uncertain if you are unaware or are dismissive of the truth that high speed railway systems can and do earn operating profits the world over, some significantly above their expenses. SNCF's TGV system, for example, earned profits of a half billion Euros during the worst of the recession. Once the capital costs of building high speed rail and it's associated infrastructure are paid, the actual business of operating the trains can be particularly lucrative, much the same way trucking companies earn large revenues off completed interstate roadway systems. Buttressing that example, too, is the fact that California intends to run its trains through a private operator on public infrastructure, again akin to private trucking companies and the interstate.

In the truest sense of the word, this will be an economic stimulant. In the next decade or two, tens of thousands of men and women will be earning living wages undertaking blue collar work that does not require advance training beyond how to operate a bulldozer or a shovel, how to pour concrete or string up catenary wire, how to assemble pre-fabricated train car and locomotive components, etc. Other businesses will be established to support these workers and to sap a bit of their newfound wealth. Additionally, we must factor in the many professionals who will also be advancing the system's progress through white-coillar work in some for or another.

This project is bigger than a stimulus, and no high speed railway system should be considered merely as such. They have numerous benifits that should break down partisan barriers:

1. They open and expand new markets while rejuvenating old ones.
2. They allow for an equitable distribution of jobs and residents throughout a region.
3. They expand tourism options exponentially.
4. They unclog strained airport runways and freeways of their intercity traffic and does so efficiently and while earning profits.
5. They are a safe and greener, and simply additional, alternative to cars and planes in a nation that cherishes choice.
6. Running on electricity permits their continued operation during oil price shocks and emergencies and directs petroleum dollars away from dictators.
7. They complement and bolster already existing infrastructure and cities.
8. They move massive amounts of people more efficiently over their prescribed distances than any other mode of transportation.
9. And so forth.

[Grapappytek]

Or they'll build it, and people will still prefer to fly or drive, as they've been doing for decades.

LA spent billions to built a very nice subway system, that very few people actually use. Why, because the topology/commuting patterns of LA doesn't lend themselves to mass transit. There's no reason to thinkg the HSR would be any different.

[Weislenalkata]

I am in for #9.

[SaraKonradtt]

In all fairness BBMW, HSR cannot be directly compared to the love of driving in LA.

As much as people love to drive (ironically) out there, once you start getting above 2 hours, it stops being "fun" for any purpose other than wasting time:

http://goo.gl/maps/9tfH

6.5 hours, no traffic, is a bit much for a business trip.

Now, if check-in on the train is quick, and you get a nice table to sit at, have a drink, read a book or watch TV on the way over rather than running around an airport, being scanned, then crammed into a coach class seat (or a lazy-boy recliner for boku bucks) you might prefer train over plane even if the costs were similar.

The problem is, do you really need to stop at Sylmar? Gilroy? I don't think I have EVER heard of those places before.....