The Great Fantasy . . .

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I'm so glad that this thread, which is about how delusional the Obamabots are, has turned into a debate about the great things a commuter train can do for the economy long term.

 

It's like they're making fun of themselves.

 

I know. This is the biggest waste of money ever. California wants to spend $10 billion for a high speed train between LA and SF that almost nobody will use. This borrowed money will cost taxpayers $20 billion to pay back. How far would just $1 billion go towards research for alternative fuels at some of the best research facilities in the world right here in California?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Yeah, light rail, high speed rail, that's going to move what % of the population, what % of the cargo??

It's a shame Barry is already killing the best form of alternative transportation fuel.

You can't be serious.  The only shame is that right wing politics are getting in the way of an infrastructure project that would exponentially improve America's mass transportation systems, and put hundreds of thousands of people to work, while also lowering our overall dependence on foreign oil.


http://green.yahoo.com/blog/daily_green_news/24/obama-s-high-speed-light-rail-plan.html

Obama's announcement today amounts to a promise to choose quickly where that money will be spent. What we know today is that the money will go to projects in as many as 10 regions:

   1. Northern New England line
   2. Empire line running across New York State (east to west)
   3. Keystone corridor through Pennsylvania (east to west)
   4. Southeast network connecting the District of Columbia to Florida and the Gulf Coast
   5. Gulf Coast line extending from eastern Texas to western Alabama
   6. A corridor in central and southern Florida
   7. A Texas-to-Oklahoma line
   8. A California corridor from San Francisco to Los Angeles
   9. A corridor in the Pacific Northwest.
  10. The Northeast corridor between Washington and Boston (already operational)

The plan actually covers most of the country.  The last time America did something like this was back during the Eisenhower administration, when the government implemented its interstate highway system. 

 

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm so glad that this thread, which is about how delusional the Obamabots are, has turned into a debate about the great things a commuter train can do for the economy long term.

 

It's like they're making fun of themselves.

 

I know. This is the biggest waste of money ever. California wants to spend $10 billion for a high speed train between LA and SF that almost nobody will use. This borrowed money will cost taxpayers $20 billion to pay back. How far would just $1 billion go towards research for alternative fuels at some of the best research facilities in the world right here in California?

Why would nobody use it? That sounds like a typical Californian's wet dream. I personally would love high speed rail in Kansas, but I will admit that nobody would use it here.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I'm so glad that this thread, which is about how delusional the Obamabots are, has turned into a debate about the great things a commuter train can do for the economy long term.

 

It's like they're making fun of themselves.

 

I know. This is the biggest waste of money ever. California wants to spend $10 billion for a high speed train between LA and SF that almost nobody will use. This borrowed money will cost taxpayers $20 billion to pay back. How far would just $1 billion go towards research for alternative fuels at some of the best research facilities in the world right here in California?

Why would nobody use it? That sounds like a typical Californian's wet dream. I personally would love high speed rail in Kansas, but I will admit that nobody would use it here.

Regardless of whether anyone uses it (anyone that's lived anywhere with light rail, knows no one will use it), it's NOT a boon for the economy.  There isn't one single coherent argument why a high speed commuter train is a good idea from an economic or infrastructure standpoint.  FYI, this is the hilarious part.

It probably would be really cool.  Especially if you like toy trains, are afraid to fly, or think traveling like they did in the olden days is fun.  Maybe they'd even let you wear a pocket watch, or ride in the caboose! 

You know what else would be cool?  If instead of using a boring commuter train to send people from downtown in one city to downtown in another, they sent you in a tube like they use at the bank drive-thru.  WOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHH.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I'm so glad that this thread, which is about how delusional the Obamabots are, has turned into a debate about the great things a commuter train can do for the economy long term.

 

It's like they're making fun of themselves.

 

I know. This is the biggest waste of money ever. California wants to spend $10 billion for a high speed train between LA and SF that almost nobody will use. This borrowed money will cost taxpayers $20 billion to pay back. How far would just $1 billion go towards research for alternative fuels at some of the best research facilities in the world right here in California?

Why would nobody use it? That sounds like a typical Californian's wet dream. I personally would love high speed rail in Kansas, but I will admit that nobody would use it here.

Regardless of whether anyone uses it (anyone that's lived anywhere with light rail, knows no one will use it), it's NOT a boon for the economy.  There isn't one single coherent argument why a high speed commuter train is a good idea from an economic or infrastructure standpoint.  FYI, this is the hilarious part.

It probably would be really cool.  Especially if you like toy trains, are afraid to fly, or think traveling like they did in the olden days is fun.  Maybe they'd even let you wear a pocket watch, or ride in the caboose! 

You know what else would be cool?  If instead of using a boring commuter train to send people from downtown in one city to downtown in another, they sent you in a tube like they use at the bank drive-thru.  WOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHH.

If people would use light rail, it would definitely be a boon to the economy. Reduced fuel demand would lower costs. Less traffic on the interstate system would reduce maintenance costs and reduce the need for improving that infrastructure. These trains travel faster than 150 miles per hour, so I really don't know why anybody would rather drive from San Francisco to LA than ride the train, assuming the costs are reasonable.

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

I'm so glad that this thread, which is about how delusional the Obamabots are, has turned into a debate about the great things a commuter train can do for the economy long term.

 

It's like they're making fun of themselves.

 

I know. This is the biggest waste of money ever. California wants to spend $10 billion for a high speed train between LA and SF that almost nobody will use. This borrowed money will cost taxpayers $20 billion to pay back. How far would just $1 billion go towards research for alternative fuels at some of the best research facilities in the world right here in California?

Why would nobody use it? That sounds like a typical Californian's wet dream. I personally would love high speed rail in Kansas, but I will admit that nobody would use it here.

Regardless of whether anyone uses it (anyone that's lived anywhere with light rail, knows no one will use it), it's NOT a boon for the economy.  There isn't one single coherent argument why a high speed commuter train is a good idea from an economic or infrastructure standpoint.  FYI, this is the hilarious part.

It probably would be really cool.  Especially if you like toy trains, are afraid to fly, or think traveling like they did in the olden days is fun.  Maybe they'd even let you wear a pocket watch, or ride in the caboose! 

You know what else would be cool?  If instead of using a boring commuter train to send people from downtown in one city to downtown in another, they sent you in a tube like they use at the bank drive-thru.  WOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSHHHHHHHH.

If people would use light rail, it would definitely be a boon to the economy. Reduced fuel demand would lower costs. Less traffic on the interstate system would reduce maintenance costs and reduce the need for improving that infrastructure. These trains travel faster than 150 miles per hour, so I really don't know why anybody would rather drive from San Francisco to LA than ride the train, assuming the costs are reasonable.

There is no doubt some would use it, but the problem is once you get there, there is not a good transit system once you arrive. SF isn't too bad if you are staying in the downtown area, but LA is pathetic in that regard (and many more). It is not a cost effective prospect and a waste of money, but really cool.

I have taken the TGV from Paris to London and it was great, mainly because they have good public transit in both cities.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

you know what would help fuel prices, building $10 billion worth of refineries in California.


The effect of the high speed rail on fuel prices and highway maintenance is zilch, nada, nothing.  It's hilarious (see above posts) that people actually believe this.
A train that goes from one point in a huge metro area to single point in another huge metro area is not the beginning of a solution to traffic or fuel costs, it's like the very last step.  


The nationwide high speed rail plan is not going to happen.  There is no political will behind it, no money to build it, and no facts supporting its merit.

[OregonSmock]

Like I said, manufacturing companies, steel foundries, engineers, construction workers, etc, etc. would all benefit from implementing a new light rail infrastructure.  Just like with the interstate highway system, the light rail systems would pay for themselves over the long-term.  Not only would it put hundreds of thousands people to work, but it would also decrease our carbon footprint over the long term, and it would decrease the United State's long term reliance on foreign oil. 

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Like I said, manufacturing companies, steel foundries, engineers, construction workers, etc, etc. would all benefit from implementing a new light rail infrastructure.  Just like with the interstate highway system, the light rail systems would pay for themselves over the long-term.  Not only would it put hundreds of thousands people to work, but it would also decrease our carbon footprint over the long term, and it would decrease the United State's long term reliance on foreign oil. 

and there it is   

 

Thank you beemer, thank you

[pike]

Like I said, manufacturing companies, steel foundries, engineers, construction workers, etc, etc. would all benefit from implementing a new light rail infrastructure.  Just like with the interstate highway system, the light rail systems would pay for themselves over the long-term.  Not only would it put hundreds of thousands people to work, but it would also decrease our carbon footprint over the long term, and it would decrease the United State's long term reliance on foreign oil. 

Not really...given that the US consumes what... ~10 million barrels of oil a day? Then say, x amount of people ride these rail lines each day which costs plenty of energy to move around themselves. The net savings couldn't be more than 50k - 100k barrels a day...which is less than 1 percent. I mean, it's not like millions of people will be riding these every day. Granted, one percent is a start, but the cost/benefit is so small that we need to find other ways to be foreign oil independent that this.

*Also, not against the rail system

[pike]

But the point of the thread is that Osama was supposed to "stick it" to big oil, and we still haven't seen him even attempt to do so.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

But the point of the thread is that Osama was supposed to "stick it" to big oil, and we still haven't seen him even attempt to do so.

He's too busy:
1. closing Gitmo,
2. "creating or saving" millions of jobs,
3. building an economy that "works for everyone"
4. "changing" "the way" others view our country
5. fighting the wars that "make sense"

 

[AbeFroman]

High speed rails have been a terrible idea since the Simpsons made fun of it.

I know 3D movies are popular again, but lets please try and leave most of the ideas from the 80s back in the 80s

[Rage Against the McKee]

High speed rails have been a terrible idea since the Simpsons made fun of it.

I know 3D movies are popular again, but lets please try and leave most of the ideas from the 80s back in the 80s

Yeah, being able to travel 3 times faster than driving for half the price of flying sure would suck.

[pike]

There a good idea to provide jobs and stuff, but for lessening our "carbon footprint  " they're almost worthless.

Our society isn't built to be energy efficient, like it or not.

Even if we had a subway system in every city it wouldn't decrease oil dependence that much. People are still gonna drive to Wal-Mart, church, school, where ever.

[OregonSmock]

There a good idea to provide jobs and stuff, but for lessening our "carbon footprint  " they're almost worthless.

Our society isn't built to be energy efficient, like it or not.

Even if we had a subway system in every city it wouldn't decrease oil dependence that much. People are still gonna drive to Wal-Mart, church, school, where ever.

They can drive electric cars, then. 

[sonofdaxjones]

How can you say that??   They have pricing out already?   Plus we are probably decades away from "3x's faster than cars" Rail in this country, we're just now getting, "a little faster than car" passenger rail.  



Really love the "reduce our carbon emissions" talking point, because we'll literally be decades if not centuries away from working off the carbon footprint of the actual construction and manufacturing of these rail systems.   Now, if Obama wasn't $hitting all over fuel cells, you could see that "working off" time whittled down significantly.    What Obamabots et. al. don't understand is the most of the products used in "reducing the carbon footprint" are built using a carbon based process.    If you take the largest wind turbines now for example, each turbine has several years before that individual turbine hits carbon neutrality.    Now take a process that will take hundreds of thousands of tons of steel, plastics, composites, machinary to build and you're looking at a whole lotta time before you can even sniff carbon neutrality.  

[pike]

There a good idea to provide jobs and stuff, but for lessening our "carbon footprint  " they're almost worthless.

Our society isn't built to be energy efficient, like it or not.

Even if we had a subway system in every city it wouldn't decrease oil dependence that much. People are still gonna drive to Wal-Mart, church, school, where ever.

They can drive electric cars, then. 

Well, I'm assuming you know that those use energy too, thus you're talking about reducing emissions in which case is irrelevant since global warming is a hoax. So, stay on topic Beems.

[Rage Against the McKee]

How can you say that??   They have pricing out already?   Plus we are probably decades away from "3x's faster than cars" Rail in this country, we're just now getting, "a little faster than car" passenger rail.  

The fares are not announced yet, of course, but the California rail system will likely have fares at about 50% of plane tickets. Also, the San Francisco to LA trip is scheduled to take 2 hours 40 minutes, which is twice as fast as driving. A longer trip would allow the train to stay at 160 mph for a longer period of time, and would approach being 3 times faster than driving.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/08/getting-the-price-right-how-much-should-high-speed-fares-cost/

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

How can you say that??   They have pricing out already?   Plus we are probably decades away from "3x's faster than cars" Rail in this country, we're just now getting, "a little faster than car" passenger rail.  

The fares are not announced yet, of course, but the California rail system will likely have fares at about 50% of plane tickets. Also, the San Francisco to LA trip is scheduled to take 2 hours 40 minutes, which is twice as fast as driving. A longer trip would allow the train to stay at 160 mph for a longer period of time, and would approach being 3 times faster than driving.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/08/getting-the-price-right-how-much-should-high-speed-fares-cost/

Nice source.   


How has this country survived all these years without a slightly faster way to travel than by driving????   It's such a great idea!  I can't believe NONE of the existing railroads thought of it!!!  Thank god for the government and all its amazing innovation!!!  Can you imagine how many people a day drive from downtown SF to downtown LA, park and get out of their cars???  I know, ridiculous numbers of people!!!  This could solve the worlds oil crisis overnight!!!  I'm stunned that just mentioning the idea hasn't driven down the price of oil!!!  Thank god our infrastructure was so ruined so we could have these brilliant revelations!!!! 

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

How can you say that??   They have pricing out already?   Plus we are probably decades away from "3x's faster than cars" Rail in this country, we're just now getting, "a little faster than car" passenger rail.  

The fares are not announced yet, of course, but the California rail system will likely have fares at about 50% of plane tickets. Also, the San Francisco to LA trip is scheduled to take 2 hours 40 minutes, which is twice as fast as driving. A longer trip would allow the train to stay at 160 mph for a longer period of time, and would approach being 3 times faster than driving.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/08/getting-the-price-right-how-much-should-high-speed-fares-cost/

It predicts strikingly varying ridership outcomes depending on the cost of its future services; in 2030, with the full system operating, the agency estimates 93.1 million yearly trips

93 million passengers?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

How can you say that??   They have pricing out already?   Plus we are probably decades away from "3x's faster than cars" Rail in this country, we're just now getting, "a little faster than car" passenger rail.  

The fares are not announced yet, of course, but the California rail system will likely have fares at about 50% of plane tickets. Also, the San Francisco to LA trip is scheduled to take 2 hours 40 minutes, which is twice as fast as driving. A longer trip would allow the train to stay at 160 mph for a longer period of time, and would approach being 3 times faster than driving.

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/08/getting-the-price-right-how-much-should-high-speed-fares-cost/

It predicts strikingly varying ridership outcomes depending on the cost of its future services; in 2030, with the full system operating, the agency estimates 93.1 million yearly trips

93 million passengers?

Wow, in 20 years, upon full implementation this thing will transport about 250k people a day (likely an inflated figure given the source).  This is about 1/3 the daily ridership of the CTA rail system (buses not included). 

This is waaaaayyy more pathetic than I originally thought.   

[michigancat]

saw warren buffet is investing heavily in rail. (Not passenger rail, mind you.)

[john "teach me how to" dougie]

saw warren buffet is investing heavily in rail. (Not passenger rail, mind you.)

I agree with Buffet on this one. Rail freight is definitely a worthwhile investment and the most efficient way to transport goods.

[michigancat]

saw warren buffet is investing heavily in rail. (Not passenger rail, mind you.)

I agree with Buffet on this one. Rail freight is definitely a worthwhile investment and the most efficient way to transport goods.

water is more efficient