Posted on 12/28/2016 6:17:48 AM PST by artichokegrower
does anyone really want to go to either Madera or Shafter?
= = =
I can save half the money.
Make the line one-way — you can only leave Madera and Shafter.
And just wait till TSA discovers that they need to enhance service by inspecting all the travellers.
That comes out to $13k per foot.
I find it interesting that the same people who think this is feasible find the notion of building a much simpler wall ridiculous.
The rail line solves several problems unique to California:
It will pave over continuous stretches of fertile land;
It will reduce farming and those who farm who are mostly evil trump supporters who will be forced to either break up their farms or sell out;
The newly dissolved farms will make room for more housing developments for the expected boon of migrants from south of the boarder and Syria;
This in turn will pave over still more once fertile ground leading to increase importation of food from China and elsewhere which leads to a boon in other country’s low skilled labor;
The enormous tax revenues generated buy this huge and progressive undertaking will supply money to advertise for still more migrants and for free benefits of all kinds beyond what is now offered;
It will significantly increase the cost of fresh fruit and vegetables to the rest of America which has already achieved many of the above progressive goals.
Suetopia:
A nation or state run by lawyers.
How in the world does 1 mile of track or even double track cost $70 million unless there is massive fraud. If there’s a major bridge maybe. But it’s just some earthwork, ties and rail with simple electronics tossed in.
“It’s 110 miles between Madera and Shafter. That comes out to $70 million per mile. You can drive it in a car in an hour and one half. No offense but does anyone really want to go to either Madera or Shafter?”
I am opposed to the project but the way they’re building it is correct.
The US Route system failed because the first sections of the highways and parkways were built in the urban areas and then the politicians never appropriated the money to finish the rural sections that were supposed to connect the cities.
That’s why the Interstate system was first built in the rural areas and then the urban areas were constructed or improved.
Even with California’s HSR the local politicians in both the Bay Area and in LA tried to redo the plan and to build the local routes first and then...maybe...someday...in the indefinite far off future...someone else would pay for the connecting sections. The result would be two separate rail systems that served urban and suburban commuters but that would not at all connect the Bay Area and LA like it was supposed to.
I’m thinking they could expand and improve several regional airports on each end to handle 737-sized jets for a whole lot less money - and Southwest would fill up almost every flight.
I know what you mean.
In Denver they are doing an extension of the light rail along I-225.
It’s been under construction for well over 3 years. A simple extension. I imagine there is so much money involved none of the contractors can let go, padding the original estimate with overruns month after month. There is always a crew working there. Not many people understand, but always someone doing a little something.
Ironically, it will also serve the new VA hospital, which has gone from about $400 million to well over $2 BILLION and is more than 3 years behind schedule, and from the looks of it, even under Trump, almost a year from opening.
Buy a model railroad set for these libs. It’s a lot cheaper. The whole HSR in California is nothing but a taxpayer transfer to very wealthy and connected land owners, lawyers, tech companies, and cronies.
“he rail authority said $7.813 billion will be needed for the Madera-Shafter segment.”
For that kind of money, I-5 can be expanded to 4 lanes each way the entire length of the Central Valley. Use one of the new lanes for buses, and you’ve fixed your transit ‘problem’ for the next 50 years, and the remaining 3 lanes for cars will take care of that problem for another 20 years.
In fact, most of the road-bridges on that stretch can handle at least 5 lanes in each direction, they are very well built.
“Privatize all interstates.”
I guess we could. But if we don’t give monopoly protection to their routes, no one will buy them or want to operate them. If we do give monopoly protection, then the prices will be like Canada’s 407 ETR, at 40 cents a mile.
Maybe you have 40 cents per mile to burn for driving on a road that costs, at most, 10% of that value to maintain, but I sure don’t.
“$70 million a mile is way less than cost of building similar road capacity.”
I’m not sure who’s feeding you information, but you may want to check other sources. Whoever it is, they’re off by an order of magnitude (or more), at least for California’s Central Valley.
https://www.google.com/search?q=cost+of+building+interstate+lanes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
I will use rail transit when it has stops at my job, the grocery store and my kitchen. Otherwise it is much easier to drive.
Un fortunately that does not make dirty politicians rich.
“when a simple cloverleaf costs more than a billion dollars these days, $11 million a mile for a 6 lane superhighway doesn’t seem right.”
Sorry, simple cloverleafs (i.e., 2 small bridges in the center and about 2 miles of single lane pavement) DO NOT cost a billion dollars - maybe 6 million, but NOT one billion.
Now if you want to build a 5-level interchange between I-405 and I-105, complete with dedicated carpool ramps, requiring the acquisition of some of the most expense land in the country (near LAX), then you could, maybe, start to approach that price - but the area we’re talking about IN THIS ARTICLE is nowhere near that cost.
Again, we’re supporting our numbers with links, please do the same before throwing things around to only confuse people. Some of us price out infrastructure for a living.
LOL, that’s a stretch. The farmland is mostly fallow now in that part of the Valley (I drive it on a regular basis), and will remain that way unless Trump is able to get the water flowing. Even with that, no one actually WANTS to live there, so it will be many decades before any economic growth beyond farming arrives.
More likely it will just be a bunch of near-empty trains running a few times a day...for a while, and then nothing but dead tracks.
Willie, Willie Green, is that you?
Like you said fallow because there is no water - a manmade problem. So not a stretch - use your imagination and expand on what is there and what has happened elsewhere with the same land use policies to see the future - it’s plain, a plain dead end unless things change for the better.
“dead tracks.”
“That that That’s all folks,” as Porky would have said.
You’re forgetting all the luxury train stations with some politicians name on it.
They should spend this money on their defunct state pension system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.