Tweet
Originally posted by DanS
View Post
-
The LA to Vegas route was estimated a few years back (2005 if I remember correctly) at $10 billion and that was if both California and Nevada donated the land right away free of charge. That's just one route and it would cost more then the whole $8 billion so I'd say $8 billion is just a drop in the bucket compared to what we need. Hell, California's relatively bare bones system is estimated to cost around $40 billion of which only $10 billion has been raised so far. $80 billion would be more like it.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate. -
The $10 billion figure is for bullet trains. I'm suggesting your normal 110 mph average (max 150 mph) electrified high speed rail. Acela-class service.Last edited by DanS; February 25, 2009, 13:56.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Why does the federal government need to pay for these rail projects, anyway? If an LA to Vegas high-speed train line is so beneficial, why aren't California and Nevada willing to cough up the money to make it happen? Besides the fact that California is almost bankrupt, of course.Comment
-
I agree wholeheartedly.
A system should be set up so that the jurisdictions benefitting from the service pay for it. We would see better service that way.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I think the gov't has to do it so that a right of way can be obtained through eminent domain. Trying to negotiate property by property would take forever, and there'd be holdouts.Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut View Post
BTW: California has already allocated $9 billion to build a Santa Ana to San Francisco high-speed line. [God bless our high-spending voter initiatives.
]
Comment
-
I'm sure before all is said and done the states will pony up some serious cash. That said just like the interstate freeway system the Feds are the only ones with the cash to really make these sort of projects possible. Then of course there is the whole interstate commerce clause of the Constitution which makes facilitating interstate commerce a duty of the Federal government.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
Normally, the federal government pays about 1/4th of the infrastructure costs for subways, with all operating subsidies provided by the local jurisdictions. That's the split for the new silver line to Dulles. Total cost of about $5 billion.
If there was a will, then the local jurisdictions would find a way to replace this quarter share.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
It used to be the Feds paid all the costs for things like Interstate Freeways because they facilitated new economic activity and improved the lives of ordinary citizens. In fact back in those days America was one of the most developed countries on the planet so I'd rather copy that model instead of some Reaganisque "why bother" mantra which caused us to fall behind everyone else.
The fact is when air travel got shut down in this country after 9/11 it showed how we're totally dependent on one form of transportation for even medium distance travel in this country. We need to have multiple transportation options and the fact that global climate change is real so we're going to have to cut back on green house gases (combined with the fact that high speed rail pollutes WAAAAAYYYYYY less then air travel) means we need to start planning for the future. Bullet trains are a good investment for our country's future and the Feds need to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
[action=DanS]chuckles[/action]I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
I think the gov't has to do it so that a right of way can be obtained through eminent domain.
The California and Nevada state governments can do this.
As for comparing the Interstate Highway System to high-speed rail in California/Nevada, it really doesn't wash. The Interstate system was a truly national infrastructure program that provided benefits to every state in the Union. High-speed rail in California, otoh, is nice for Californians but provides almost no benefit to taxpayers in the other 49 states. Why should people in the rest of the country pay for a high-speed rail system they'll likely never use?Comment
-
Following that reasoning, the Interstate Highway System should have never been built because no highway goes through all 50 states. No army base could ever be built because no base protects all 50 states.Comment
-
You are a moron. The Interstate Highway System very much does go through all 50 states. A high-speed passenger rail network in California does not. In fact, there's no proposed high-speed passenger rail system that goes through all 50 states. Even the biggest proponents of passenger rail don't think that's a good idea.Comment
-
First, the rail line you're talking about goes from California to Nevada -- that's interstate. It connects to the nation's railsystem -- that interstate. Other high-speed railsystems will be built elsewhere in the nation, and eventually, they'll all link up -- that's interstate.
I repeat: To say the federal government cannot build an interstate railline is as moronic as saying it cannot build an interstate highway.Comment
-
First, the rail line you're talking about goes from California to Nevada -- that's interstate.
And this benefits taxpayers in the other 48 states in what way?
It connects to the nation's railsystem -- that interstate.
The improvement is only in California and maybe Nevada. Again, why should taxpayers in the other 48 states pay for a rail upgrade that doesn't benefit them?
Other high-speed railsystems will be built elsewhere in the nation, and eventually, they'll all link up -- that's interstate.
Bull****. Where's your evidence for this?
To say the federal government cannot build an interstate railline is as moronic as saying it cannot build an interstate highway.
No wonder your argument doesn't make any sense. You're arguing against a strawman.
Comment
-
Drake, you could look up 30 posts or so, to the map of suggested HSR systems
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
Comment