Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So compare California with the Midwest. CA estimates twice the riders and half the revenue. And the Midwest will build twice the infrastructure for the same estimated price as California.
Look at the current Acela numbers and compare them to the projections. Oops.
The 2009 Revenue was 409 Million , 2010 Revenue was 440 Million and last year it hit 480 Million......If you factor in the other Northeastern lines it comes to 760 Million.... The Projections are for the whole network not just the Acela....which would be replaced... I didn't have Cali's numbers , but in a state with that many regulations and other crap , the revenue is supposed to lower then the Midwest. The Midwestern Network is cheaper and larger then Cali , due to how there going to build it which is similar to the Northeast. The lines would either be next to or in the median of Interstates which saves alot of $$$ and that's how half the HSL's in Europe are built. The Terrain is also easier then Cali , hench why its cheaper same with Texas. The Ridership is a little off , while it includes the whole network for the Northeast , Cali & Cascadia , for the Midwest that's just the HSL's...if you factor in the mini HSL's it would double ridership. Each State in the Midwest and Northeast has a plan to build a mini HSL network / regional rail system to tie into the Large High Speed lines...
Despite the Fact the Gov's of Wisconsin and Ohio killed there projects , in the future they could come back. IL , IA , MI , MO , and MN are moving on building up there Regional Rail and Commuter Rail networks most of which should be built by 2035. Cincinnati , Cleveland , Indianapolis , Milwaukee , Madison , Twin Cities , Detroit , Columbus , St. Louis , Toledo , Lansing , Ann Arbor , Omaha , Des Monies , Louisville , Rochester and Dayton all have plans on creating , systems to tie into the HSR or regional network to connect the suburbs with the cities...
Well we did try to use a jet trubine electric Engines it was for fuel economy it was great at full power but had issues at low speeds do to the turbine though.
Where do people get the idea that high-speed rail is inherently a money loser? The evidence seems to show otherwise.
Wow! At first glance, you are on to something. But let's look further using YOUR links.
Quote:
....In fact, it is NOT a “very big if” whether the train can support itself. It’s actually highly likely that it will be able to do so. It’s not like California is proposing to do something radical and untested. We’ve known for 50 years that high speed rail works. And it turns a profit – in Japan and France, Spain, Russia, Taiwan, even the Amtrak Acela. And California compares favorably to those globally successful routes.
From your link "While paying for its hefty infrastructure costs may be ambitious, many high-speed rail systems cover their operating costs and even turn a small operating profit."
Do you understand what that means? No, they are not profitable. They are a huge money pit. Yes, they can barely cover their operating costs. But that doesn't even come close to being profitable. Profitable would mean they cover their operating costs plus the huge investment. They aren't even close.
Any business can be profitable if you ignore their infrastructure costs.
Wow! At first glance, you are on to something. But let's look further using YOUR links.
From your link "While paying for its hefty infrastructure costs may be ambitious, many high-speed rail systems cover their operating costs and even turn a small operating profit."
Do you understand what that means? No, they are not profitable. They are a huge money pit. Yes, they can barely cover their operating costs. But that doesn't even come close to being profitable. Profitable would mean they cover their operating costs plus the huge investment. They aren't even close.
Any business can be profitable if you ignore their infrastructure costs.
I don't think many people here have any idea about what these lines cost to build. If they don't know that they surely won't know about keeping the lines up.
I wonder how many here have ever looked at the Agenda 21 maps and how much like them these maps appear to be. I guess some of us have to realize that since we live in the middle of all this or the far west we won't be around long after Agenda 21 takes over.
"With all of the evidence indicating that HSR is an exceptionally costly and inefficient means of travel that only a few passengers choose to use, it is difficult to explain the obsession of some, including the President and members of his Cabinet, with this mode of travel."
"If we lose the railways we shall not just have lost a valuable practical asset whose replacement or recovery would be intolerably expensive. We shall have acknowledged that we have forgotten how to live collectively." Time to End the Costly High Speed Rail Program
Americans are individuals that prefer to drive their own car and go where ever they want, not just where Obama's HSR will take them.
Most of the work will be done by foreign companies anyway.
The obsession is the euroweenies have it and we, liberals, want to be like euroweenies so we have to have hi speed rail. After all their euroweenie friends probably make fun of em all the time because we don't have it so it's not fair.
Actually the folks in cali have to fight off the enviro kooks, which they haven't done yet, to get theirs going but still want to push foreward with gobs of taxpayer money on their rail to nowhere.
Those are a lot of fancy graphs. How much money would that mess cost to build? Up in the trillions I'd guess. What's three more zeroes though when we are broke as the country is right?
You'd be throwing your money away on a high speed rail system here in the USA as people wont give up the convenience of their cars to use it.. Americans are addicted to cars, the whole country is built around them, Other places in the world may have successful high speed rail transport systems where the people have no problems using the systems and the public transit infrastructure that is prevalent at each station,here in the US you could build a rail system between 2 cities but then you could be left with a sizable commute to your destination with no car or bus to get you there.
Basically most Americans would rather drive their cars to a destination unless its 1000K or more then they'd be more likely to take a plane than a train.
Where do people get the idea that high-speed rail is inherently a money loser? The evidence seems to show otherwise. If you want to get upset over government spending and waste, then you can scream against the interstate highway system, which cost taxpayers trillions of dollars but has never made a penny ever since it was built. Even the Amtrak Acela line, the fastest passenger train in the US is running at a profit. So much for the anti-rail propaganda. Let's look at the facts instead of relying on blind partisan ideology.
Of course, High speed rail will not work everywhere in the US. No one is proposing to build it on a national scale. That would be stupid. But in certain dense metropolitan regions that will attract high ridership levels, HSR makes a lot of sense.
I agree, that in high density areas, high-speed rail can work, as long as it is heavily subsidized by government.
Freight trains don't leave the yard until they have enough cargo to make a profit, passenger trains consume just as much fuel and infrastructure and maintenance expense, but passengers only pay a few bucks each, so profits are way down. Passenger trains also leave the station according to a schedule, regardless if they have any passengers on board or not. No passenger train makes a profit, they require heavy government subsides.
The country is mainly interested in a high-speed rail from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. all the hell way back to Chicago.
To be completed before next January.
If I was a betting person, I'd say the Obama train ride will be to NYC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
