• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Senate vote keeps bullet train alive(edited)

Re: California bullet train still a go

Phys251 said:
America is the only nation I know of that has such a loud faction of people who RESIST the development of passenger rail.
Click to expand...
When was the last time you rode Amtrack cross country? Know how much tickets run, what the schedule is, and how much money it loses every year?
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Phys251 said:
Both of you guys get back to me when gas is 7 bucks a gallon.
Click to expand...
You get that Light Rail is NOT FOR basic commuter traffic, right?
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

washunut said:
Just wondering if anyone posting in this thread has actually looked at the newest projections of cost to complete this project, number of riders, cost that must be charged to make this viable and time to complete before writing all of these inane posts?
Click to expand...

Passenger rail travel has never broke even except for commuter lines. All countries with modern passenger service subsidize like we do with the airlines here. The cost savings are in infrastructure, mostly highways which are much more costly to build and maintain per passenger mile. Of course you will say that Japan, Great Britain , France, China, Australia etc etc. are all being wasteful for not spending their money on private airports for billionaires private jets like we do instead of building a modern passenger rail system. You will be wrong of course. We dropped the ball on rail just like so many other technologies that now are developed elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
Re: California bullet train still a go

VanceMack said:
You get that Light Rail is NOT FOR basic commuter traffic, right?
Click to expand...

Exactly. In San Jose especially, all it does is take you to a more convenient spot to reach a bus that's actually taking you where you need to go, unless you're going to a the mall. It's a system that wasn't thought out well at all. Cal Train is even worse. The number of people who actually ride the thing can't possibly be enough to cover the costs of maintaining it. Same with BART. Every time I went on that ****ing thing, there were maybe a handful of people at any given time. It's not that people refuse to ride the trains, it's simply because car and bus gets people where they need to go better than rail does. Hell, for long distance travel across the states, people who can't afford air travel take the Greyhound, simply because stations can be found nearly anywhere, and they go everywhere. The train just isn't versatile enough.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

jamesrage said:
My city has about has about 400,000 people in it and our traffic jams are nowhere near as bad as LA. So yes spreading people out does make traffic problems better.
Click to expand...

The problem is not the traffic within the city but between other cities. The thing is, LA is a VERY spread out metroplex with freeways everywhere, yet they still all clog. Contrast that with New York City, which really doesn't have any worse traffic, and there are multiple options for getting from Point A to Point B.

If America was to restart the 20th century and cap all its metro areas at half a million people, then rural interstates would become horribly clogged. You'd just shift the problem, if not outright exacerbate it. The longer commutes take, the worse.

What benefits are there to having almost 4 million people crammed into 500 square miles?
Click to expand...

Cultural events. Pro sports teams. More opportunities for big business. Nonstop cross-country and international flights. And--this is the big one--not having to drive several hours to get all that.

Yes those are the positives, and there are a lot of downsides as well. Some people believe that the pros outweigh the cons, others don't.

jamesrage said:
My city is almost 200 Square miles.What good would a high speed rail service do for my city? It might be good for connecting connecting cities that are far apart but a high-speed rail service for in city use looks like it would amount to using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.
Click to expand...

You talking about within the city or to other cities? Within it, I don't think a metro area of 400k is enough to justify rail transit. But city-to-city entirely depends on what's around there. A place like Syracuse would be great, because it could be right on a Boston-Albany-Buffalo-Cleveland line. Colorado Springs, by contrast, has only one big city anywhere near it.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

iguanaman said:
Passenger rail travel has never broke even except for commuter lines. All countries with modern passenger service subsidize like we do with the airlines here. The cost savings are in infrastructure, mostly highways which are much more costly to build and maintain per passenger mile. Of course you will say that Japan, Great Britain , France, China, Australia etc etc. are all being wasteful for not spending their money on private airports for billionaires private jets like we do instead of building a modern passenger rail system. You will be wrong of course. We dropped the ball on rail just like so many other technologies that now are developed elsewhere.
Click to expand...

So it's a good idea, for a place that has serious revenue and debt issues, to build a train system that will add to those revenue and debt issues, because Japan and some other countries did it?
Is that really your thought process?
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

iguanaman said:
Passenger rail travel has never broke even except for commuter lines. All countries with modern passenger service subsidize like we do with the airlines here. The cost savings are in infrastructure, mostly highways which are much more costly to build and maintain per passenger mile. Of course you will say that Japan, Great Britain , France, China, Australia etc etc. are all being wasteful for not spending their money on private airports for billionaires private jets like we do instead of building a modern passenger rail system. You will be wrong of course. We dropped the ball on rail just like so many other technologies that now are developed elsewhere.
Click to expand...

OK, then do not avoid the question but use is as part of a response.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

I would just like to say that I think a bullet train for Cali is a great idea. It will create employment and, in the fullness of time, generate considerably more revenue than any Cali freeway ever has.

I have a dream: I would like to see a maglev rail line run from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, and another maglev line run from Chicago to Las Vegas.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Phys251 said:
Both of you guys get back to me when gas is 7 bucks a gallon.
Click to expand...

Meh, could live with that. My commute is 1 mile to the train station, traditional rail. I use mass transit everyday to go work. The argument for HSR as a tool for commuters is just silly. Are you expecting someone to commute daily from San Fran to LA? HSR doesn't make sense as a commuter tool as to make it viable and attractive to users, you need frequent stops. My train makes a stop every 5-10 minutes. For those short distances, HSR would just be stupid as it could never get anywhere near top speed.

So, HSR only makes sense as an alternative to air travel. Also, kind of strange considering California's latest initiatives to stop sprawl.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Phys251 said:
The problem is not the traffic within the city but between other cities. The thing is, LA is a VERY spread out metroplex with freeways everywhere, yet they still all clog. Contrast that with New York City, which really doesn't have any worse traffic, and there are multiple options for getting from Point A to Point B..
Click to expand...

Are all these people on the LA highway going from one city to another?If not then that high speed rail will not really do them any good.

If America was to restart the 20th century and cap all its metro areas at half a million people, then rural interstates would become horribly clogged. You'd just shift the problem, if not outright exacerbate it. The longer commutes take, the worse.
Click to expand...

No they wouldn't. Spreading people out means rush hour traffic is not a standstill. Constantly stopping, idling for a while and moving take a lot more time and gas than just driving 40-66 miles an hour on the highway.


Cultural events. Pro sports teams. More opportunities for big business. Nonstop cross-country and international flights. And--this is the big one--not having to drive several hours to get all that.
Click to expand...

You don't need a city of 4 million to have those things.My city of nearly 400,000 has a pro-sports team,so does my state capital which is a city of almost 600,000 My city also has a international airport,so does my state capital.Those cities also have international airports and big business.



You talking about within the city or to other cities? Within it, I don't think a metro area of 400k is enough to justify rail transit. But city-to-city entirely depends on what's around there. A place like Syracuse would be great, because it could be right on a Boston-Albany-Buffalo-Cleveland line. Colorado Springs, by contrast, has only one big city anywhere near it
Click to expand...

The metro area population is over 900,000.Its the city that has the population of nearly 400,000. Again high speed rail would do nothing for the people who work in the cites they live in. So it wouldn't matter if gas was 2.50 or 7.50.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Sig said:
I would just like to say that I think a bullet train for Cali is a great idea. It will create employment and, in the fullness of time, generate considerably more revenue than any Cali freeway ever has.

I have a dream: I would like to see a maglev rail line run from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, and another maglev line run from Chicago to Las Vegas.
Click to expand...

Giving money to bums would be a bigger economic boost than wasting money on a railroad to Las Vegas, so people can give gamble all their money away.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

If they took the same money and fixed their crumbling electrical infrastructure, perhaps they would stop hemorrhaging tech business. I doubt it though, they have so much they need to change to get back in the black. Don't hold out much hope. More federal bailouts in California's future.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Matt Foley said:
Giving money to bums would be a bigger economic boost than wasting money on a railroad to Las Vegas, so people can give gamble all their money away.
Click to expand...

The line would not have to necessarily terminate in Las Vegas. Indeed, it could eventually be a source of hi-speed transit for the whole of North America, and be fueled by nuclear power to keep costs down. Such a project could potentially create jobs in the millions.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Right. I'm going to go way out on a limb here and say that this will work even less well than Amtrak.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

I know where California can get all of the money it needs to build the bullet train. CalPERS and STIRS are loaded with cash.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Sig said:
The line would not have to necessarily terminate in Las Vegas. Indeed, it could eventually be a source of hi-speed transit for the whole of North America, and be fueled by nuclear power to keep costs down. Such a project could potentially create jobs in the millions.
Click to expand...

Hiring a million mimes trying to get out of invisible boxes would be just as economically beneficial.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

I think California should tear down the Hetch Hetchy Dam so that our furfriends and featherfellows can have more habitat. San Franciscans don't need the pure drinking water from Hetch Hetchy in the Sierras when they can have all of that potable water from their sewage system. Come on San Francisco, do the right thing.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

justabubba said:
budget $4.6 billion (in long term low interest bonds) to be able to inject $7.9 billion into a down economy
and wind up with a state of the art mass transit system
seems like a smart idea
Click to expand...

LOL. Ok the first leg is going to be Fresno to Bakersfield. Its as close to the middle of nowhere as California gets. Second the overruns are going to be well over 4.6 billion. Like triple. Third, I love how this is supposed to be a green project but they are getting a waiver for the environmental impact. Fourth, WHO THE **** PLANTS A TRAINLINE ALONG A FAULTLINE!

Its just so stupid it needs a new word to define it.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

The only way trains (fast, slow and light passenger) would be economically viable is if cars were taxed out of existence (including for the richie riches) and all the roads were turned into tracks.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Matt Foley said:
The only way trains (fast, slow and light passenger) would be economically viable is if cars were taxed out of existence (including for the richie riches) and all the roads were turned into tracks.
Click to expand...

That is exactly how Obamacare works, if you don't ride the damn train you will be taxed. Forcing you to ride it. They don't have to take your car away, just tax you if you don't ride the train. That is what California is going to do in their wisdom to build this 85 billion monstrosity. Big daddy government and all the state government now know all you have to do to force people to do what you want is TAX them.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

OpportunityCost said:
LOL. Ok the first leg is going to be Fresno to Bakersfield. Its as close to the middle of nowhere as California gets. Second the overruns are going to be well over 4.6 billion. Like triple. Third, I love how this is supposed to be a green project but they are getting a waiver for the environmental impact. Fourth, WHO THE **** PLANTS A TRAINLINE ALONG A FAULTLINE!

Its just so stupid it needs a new word to define it.
Click to expand...

And that new word to get you to ride that train is "TAX" you will be taxed if you don't ride it. This is the "force you to do" policy. Tax you if you don't do it. You're now going to see a lot of "Force Taxes" applied to every damn thing they want us to do. And we can thank Obamacare and the SCOTUS.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Matt Foley said:
The only way trains (fast, slow and light passenger) would be economically viable is if cars were taxed out of existence (including for the richie riches) and all the roads were turned into tracks.
Click to expand...

They have their place, California just hasn't figured out what that place is yet. Where rail really shines is moving industrial freight, and it's actually a very decent way to get from one major city to another for a lower cost than driving there. The problem stems from California treating rail as competition to cars, which it can never win.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

Lokiate said:
They have their place, California just hasn't figured out what that place is yet. Where rail really shines is moving industrial freight, and it's actually a very decent way to get from one major city to another for a lower cost than driving there. The problem stems from California treating rail as competition to cars, which it can never win.
Click to expand...

yup 10 letters
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

OpportunityCost said:
LOL. Ok the first leg is going to be Fresno to Bakersfield. Its as close to the middle of nowhere as California gets. Second the overruns are going to be well over 4.6 billion. Like triple. Third, I love how this is supposed to be a green project but they are getting a waiver for the environmental impact. Fourth, WHO THE **** PLANTS A TRAINLINE ALONG A FAULTLINE!

Its just so stupid it needs a new word to define it.
Click to expand...

Not a word.


An image.



political-pictures-joe-biden-heres-joe.jpg





California Rail: Such A Stupid Idea, It's The Kind Of Thing Joe Biden Would Come Up With.
 
Re: California bullet train still a go

OpportunityCost said:
LOL. Ok the first leg is going to be Fresno to Bakersfield. Its as close to the middle of nowhere as California gets. Second the overruns are going to be well over 4.6 billion. Like triple. Third, I love how this is supposed to be a green project but they are getting a waiver for the environmental impact. Fourth, WHO THE **** PLANTS A TRAINLINE ALONG A FAULTLINE!

Its just so stupid it needs a new word to define it.
Click to expand...

i hear you
it's not like there are millions of people living along that fault line
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom