68 billion dollar high speed rail from LA to San Fran... (San Francisco: cost of, vs.)

[darkeconomist]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Has this been itemized? Link?

It's hard to estimate fairly. Interstate widenings can range from single digit millions per mile to tens of millions per mile. While widening I-5 from, say, Lebec to Stockton would be cheap (relatively) per mile, CAHSR wouldn't only connect Lebec to Stockton. To make an apples-to-apples comparison, two things would have to occur: (a) you'd have to estimate the cost of widening the route between Los Angeles proper and the Sacramento rail yards, with a spur to San Jose and SF; (b) you'd have to estimate equal throughputs of the new projects, i.e., estimate the new lanes needed to match the new throughput of an HSR route. Once you entered the cities, project costs would hit the tens of millions per mile almost immediately.

If you want an example of how much interstate widenings can cost taxpayers, search Google for articles on the I-10 work in Houston.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

You are assuming just going on HSR from point A to B. This does not take into account the amount of energy (extra) required to (a) get TO the station by driving since 99% of southern CA will not be within walking or mass transit distance to get to a station, and (b) having to take a rental car and drive extra distance since your destination will probably not be in that area either. Furthermore, the wait which will be required at the train station or security you'll have to go through may not make this time efficient vs. car. And what if you wanted to take some large items with you?

It does take into account getting to the station and from station to other destinations. Total miles with HSR include most miles on rail ... the other miles are roughly the same anyway. If you have to haul stuff, then you still have the option to drive. HSR isn't going to force people to not drive the same routes.

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Has this been itemized? Link?

No. No link. Do you think building highways is cheap? Acquiring additional land in greater widths than required by rail. Disrupting and re-routing traffic during construction. Altering utilities. Demolition, dirtwork, concrete, rebar, steel. Compare to a relatively narrow ribbon of double-track across mostly rural landscape.

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Because we don't have the money. We're 16 billion in the hole and the UC school system plus other school systems are about to take a big hit. At this time we cannot do both.

Nobody's got the money for anything -- except the bankers. And they create the new money, out of credit given as debt using minimal leverage ... and their system isn't designed for you to ever pay back all your debt -- or even much of it ... they don't even want you to pay down your debt. You work for them. Always have. Get used to it. You're not in the hole: you are fulfilling a function for bankers.

[ZhugeLiang]

Awesome, money we don't actually have to build a high speed train (which won't actually be high speed) that may never even get built. What the heck, we've already spent $500 million on the project without a single rail laid. As usual, the money put forth for a specific purpose in California is always diverted into something else (was used to patch up existing rail lines).

Shoot, the end points of the train already violate Proposition 1A. Between the enviro-crazies and the inevitable eminent domain issues that will arise, this is indeed a boondoggle, or a Browndoggle to be exact.

Looks like we already have a notable casualty from HSR:

California's biggest community college fights to survive - Yahoo! News

Prediction: we'll be left with pieces of rail sitting in the central valley that no one will use.

[leonard]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

So is this.

Hey they get it right occasionally.

Just like capitalists do, such as those that make the fire engine, hoses, etc.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by Fontucky

So is this.

And this.


This photo is published under a creative commons license - original LA highway | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by wrcousert

And this.


This photo is published under a creative commons license - original LA highway | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Ironically, this is precisely what 99% of southern Californians will have to go through to get to the high speed rail station! Or, take a patchwork of disjoint mass transit and eventually arrive at your destination at the same time as just driving up (or less time going through the airport).

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Ironically, this is precisely what 99% of southern Californians will have to go through to get to the high speed rail station! Or, take a patchwork of disjoint mass transit and eventually arrive at your destination at the same time as just driving up (or less time going through the airport).

I'd rather spend the time sleeping or playing with my laptop than behind the wheel.

I think it's too much money though. We can accomplish the same thing with Acela at a fraction of the cost.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Ironically, this is precisely what 99% of southern Californians will have to go through to get to the high speed rail station! Or, take a patchwork of disjoint mass transit and eventually arrive at your destination at the same time as just driving up (or less time going through the airport).

Now I still don't have a final opinion on whether this is a good thing or not ... a good time or not ... I tend to dislike modern infrastructure development (because I am a cranky old neanderthal). However, I am sure you can't drive from L.A. to San Francisco in two hours and forty minutes on I-5 / 101 no matter how light traffic might be ... when this is finished -- if it ever gets built -- one would not have to drive through city after city just to get to a station or to destination ... it is to be built in stages.

BTW: good idea or not ... good time or not ... high-speed rail will be built ... here and all over the country.

[wrcousert]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Now I still don't have a final opinion on whether this is a good thing or not ... a good time or not ... I tend to dislike modern infrastructure development (because I am a cranky old neanderthal). However, I am sure you can't drive from L.A. to San Francisco in two hours and forty minutes on I-5 / 101 no matter how light traffic might be ... when this is finished -- if it ever gets built -- one would not have to drive through city after city just to get to a station or to destination ... it is to be built in stages.

BTW: good idea or not ... good time or not ... high-speed rail will be built ... here and all over the country.

The days of the automobile are numbered. There's no way we could build enough freeways to handle a billion or more Americans. That day will probably arrive sooner than you think.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by wrcousert

The days of the automobile are numbered. There's no way we could build enough freeways to handle a billion or more Americans. That day will probably arrive sooner than you think.

Yeah ... not sooner than I think, though ... because I expect it pretty soon ... whether I like it or not, the world will continue to expand and suffer exploitation of resources -- until ......... "pop"