StanH
Council Member
But Dawg, this time it'll be different! Honest!
AMTRAC--that's all I got to say bout that.
AMTRAC--that's all I got to say bout that.
I can't and would not try to generally answer that as it dependas on what connections you are looking at. The one I think is paying its own is Amtrak Acela but the tickets are $125 from Boston to NYC. One thing about the bullet train that we don't know is how many more would use it and how low the tickets can go to turn a profit for known failing lines we do have.Point to one anywhere in the world (except Japan) where commuter rail pays for itself.
Mr. Minotaur,They may be better off starting with Oakland as that tunnel runs underwater and that is daily commuters. SF to LA is going to take a lot more time and expense but they may be able to get it going by reaching for San Jose first before moving on to LA. Let the thing grow.
Oakland may be too close for their speed so maybe Sacramento or San Jose as mentioned. Interesting prospect.
It is bubbleheaded not to work with the infrastructer potentials you have or are handed. Keep in mind the commuter system is almost too expensive to run as we currently do it. You have to look to the future.Mr. Minotaur,
Not for nothing, but you are showing the bubbleheadedness of a liberal. That so-called tunnel between Oakland and San Francisco is already occupied by a little thing called BART. And having high speed rail between close cities makes no sense at all as the commute time by auto between the two is no different than the commute time to the station, waiting on a train, the train trip, then catching transportation (public or otherwise) between the train station and your final destination.
Bottom line, it is a massive waste of money on something that will be a nice ride that nobody will ever use.
Mr. Minotaur,It is bubbleheaded not to work with the infrastructer potentials you have or are handed. Keep in mind the commuter system is almost too expensive to run as we currently do it. You have to look to the future.
Amtrac is more than trains and has had issues all along. That does not mean that investing in future travel will have the same outcome as they currently have. All it means is they better do something. I suspect if commuters can get to LA or San Francisco in a very short time in complete comfort with lower costs it is not going to be an under-traveled route. It would almost as fast as going to the airport and being processed, catching your plane, and going through debarcation but a lost less hassle. It could be a mere 3 hour train ride if it went from SF to LA.AMTRAC is Bankrupt, Min
We understand Lukey.. you won't be happy until we all drive our gas guzzlers until the air is so foul we can't see the next signal and have drained every last drop of fossil fuel from the planet.High speed rail "not financially feasible?" But what about the joooobbbbssss???
Review urges delay in borrowing billions for bullet train
State-mandated panel concludes that the high-speed rail program 'is not financially feasible.' Gov. Jerry Brown's office signals that he isn't likely to be swayed by the findings.
My perspective is based more around the lowered cost fare, comfort and ease as well as knowing the commuter habits in those larger cities not politics. The panel may be accurate for a SF to LA run as this will be strating from scratch. I think connecting the Bay Area to SF may be a better first project and they can over time do the commections much as they did BART when it began. Try to discuss this without being rude as it is an interesting subject.Seems to ME the things you mentioned above would be the exact types of things examined by that State-mandated panel prior to them coming to the conclusion that the high-speed rail program "is not financially feasible".....................
Perhaps you too should try to view this while leaving your politics out of it, whatta ya think?
Me? I'm against wasteful government spending, whether it's underutilized infrastructure or useless military bases. It all works against us in a competitive world marketplace.America would rather spend it's money on weapons and useless military bases than high speed trains.....High speed will never happen...too many old geezers that would rather drive some gas guzzling SUV's and import the oil to do it....
Mr. Minotaur,Amtrac is more than trains and has had issues all along. That does not mean that investing in future travel will have the same outcome as they currently have. All it means is they better do something. I suspect if commuters can get to LA or San Francisco in a very short time in complete comfort with lower costs it is not going to be an under-traveled route. It would almost as fast as going to the airport and being processed, catching your plane, and going through debarcation but a lost less hassle. It could be a mere 3 hour train ride if it went from SF to LA.
If a model can be built in any major city and be for profit then cost does not matter does it. Our infrastructure has not been working as designed so we can't use it as a model of why we should not improve or invest can we?Mr. Minotaur,
So looking to the future to you is building a commute system that is vastly more expensive and inefficient than what we currently have?
Just curious why that makes sense to you.
No one here is arguing against ANY private, for profit rail project.If a model can be built in any major city and be for profit then cost does not matter does it. Our infrastructure has not been working as designed so we can't use it as a model of why we should not improve or invest can we?
Mr. Minotaur,If a model can be built in any major city and be for profit then cost does not matter does it. Our infrastructure has not been working as designed so we can't use it as a model of why we should not improve or invest can we?
Not sure I'd start with SF to LA. As I have said, I'd start with the commute cities like San Jose, Sacramento or Bay Area. They can eventually reach LA if it proves viable. There is a lot of commute between LA and SF but not daily commute so make the expansion prove itself.Mr. Minotaur,
Question. Why would anybody take the train to downtown LA, when the major commute airports in southern California are Onterio, John Wayne, Long Beach, and Burbank? The point being if you have business in Orange County, why would you take the train, just like why would you fly into LAX. Same thing applies if you have business in the inland empire, the San Fernando valley, or near long beach. With flying, you get options, you have close to a hundred of flights to choose from on any given day, to better get to your location, with the train, you're stuck with one schedule, one dead end point.
That is what I said early on. Private, for profit with government subsidies. Seems to me if they start small and make it prove itself there are many connecting cities that will give it a shot at working. In any case I love the bullet train for transportation and love that so many ride that the ticket sales are pretty low.No one here is arguing against ANY private, for profit rail project.
Not really saying that. It is more about there is no model for a peer group to define as profitable beyond cost. Certainly if the wish is to first do an LA to SF route, the odds are higher that the peer group could be correct. A modified daily commute destination would probably be a better model for them to build. That is all I am saying - consistantly.Mr. Minotaur,
Finally, you make some sense. So you acknowledge that since no model can be built in any major city, and per the independent peer group's analysis, there is no way that high speed rail in California will make a profit, it is a fools game to spend more money on it?
Mr. Minotaur,Not sure I'd start with SF to LA. As I have said, I'd start with the commute cities like San Jose, Sacramento or Bay Area. They can eventually reach LA if it proves viable. There is a lot of commute between LA and SF but not daily commute so make the expansion prove itself.