Posted on 12/26/2008 11:18:29 AM PST by goldstategop
Maybe they'll only be running southbound trains for those who want to get out of Oakland. :=)
Of course, the other question that could be asked: Who in their right mind wants to got to LA?
I'm on the bluff above the tract that begins the beach run next to the sand from Dana Point to at least Oceanside. I have
been watching developments re this 20 - 30 mile
stretch for years. Some interests are campaigning for an inland
route from Oceanside up to ??, but that will be as
expensive as tearing down beach side homes required to widen the
tract bed. CalTrans has held local meetings for community
input. Those guys come down from Sacramento and look like
over-educated greenies, who don't understand
why surfer greenies are so militant against mass trans. It's
a hoot.
See #40.
This is going to be fascinating - I don’t know what happens when a US state can’t make payroll.
The value of high speed rail only exists outside of urban areas. The further and flatter the distance, the greater the efficiency. Even greater efficiency is coordinating the HSR hubs with other trucking and air transport.
Nationwide, what makes sense is building an alternative system of airport hubs, away from populated areas, and for cargo only, with strict limits on any development around them. This not only radically improves cargo hauling, but reduces the strain on passenger airports.
Then, connecting those cargo hubs to high speed rail, again, far away from population centers. This rail quickly moves cargo to truck hubs closer to cities. And the trucks make the last leg (or first leg) of the cargo haul.
The idea to do something like this, yet very different, is found in the Plan Puebla Panama, the brainchild of the former president of Mexico, Vincente Fox. His idea was to turn southern Mexico into a giant transportation hub for both North and South America. For shipping, rail, air transport, and truck.
Heading North up either coast of Mexico would be superhighways with rail lines that would enter California on the West and the (now infamous) “Texas Corridor” on the East. This route would bisect the US all the way to Canada, with branches both East and West.
But the problem with all these brilliant ideas is that they are pipe dreams based on endlessly growing international trade. And, just like what we are now seeing with endlessly growing debt, at a particular point, it all collapses.
We have this in DFW with Alliance Airport.
It did pass. While it would be nice to have, Californians can expect the price to nominally triple, plus the drooling, thieving pigs populating the CA legislature ought not to be trusted with anything near this amount of funding.
“High Speed Rail To Nowhere (Another Useless Willie Green Thread Alert)”
Help me out here. What has this to do with Willie Green? So much so that you added to a title....what’s your point other than tormenting someone who can’t defend himself?
Is there a chance the track will bend?
“Heading North up either coast of Mexico would be superhighways with rail lines that would enter California on the West and the (now infamous) “Texas Corridor” on the East. This route would bisect the US all the way to Canada, with branches both East and West.”
That’s nothing but Calderons plan to get rid of all the mexicans that the ruling spanish in Mexico hate.
Oh no, you're not getting away with that one.
The marginal cost of a car trip is the price of gasoline and maybe the odd quart of oil. Yes, the total cost of ownership is higher, but if I already own a car those are already sunk. I'll make the decision based on the ticket price vs. the cost of gas.
Back when the show was actually funny...
Think New OrleaNS LEVEES. think big dig
They will rob the fund and build no rail line till thet get more and more and more money.i
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Show him the real-world economics of these goofball pork-barrel projects, and he'd claim (I suppose with a straight face, even) that critics always understated revenues. Point out that no light rail project in US history ever came within 30% of its backers' revenue projections, and (if he'd answer at all) he'd mumble some twaddle about ''unforeseen circumstances'' or some such thing.
Net bottom line: he was simply and not very pleasantly delusional on the subject.
A rare combination of Wesley Mouch and Gene Lawson, regarding light rail transport. Full of optimism, full of contempt for accounting, full of excuses when failing or failed...ultimately, just full of shjt.
Granted, the occasional trip isn't going to result in a lot of marginal costs. However, a lot of “occasional trips” do mean significantly greater marginal costs.
The more miles you put on your automobile, the more it depreciates. If you trade in your car frequently, you'll get less for a high-mileage car, than for a low-mileage one. If you drive your cars into the ground, you'd get there a lot sooner driving back and forth between LA and Oakland.
Suppose you have to make a round-trip each week. If that were all you used your car for, you'd wear it out in about 3 years. Then you could go to your dealer and sink a whole lot more money into a new one.
BTW, you left out the cost of tires. It's a relatively small item — but one that would add about $3.00 to $5.00 to a round-trip.
In favour of using an automobile, as opposed to trains and planes — if you're traveling with a family, you only have to pay for one car trip; as opposed to multiple tickets. Whether or not you amortize sunk costs, traveling by car is often the cheapest option for families.
To repeat what I said in my first posting — I'm not trying to defend the train project. I don't know enough about it — but, it does smell like a boondoggle. I was just making a simple point about using accurate comparative data.
It's safe to ignore that as the cost to getting to a train station is about the same. Southwest pays taxes and makes a profit as well as awards free travel. As a rule of thumb fares for public transit projects only cover 10% of the total cost.
Probably gallons of fuel burned tracks more accurately how fast a car depreciates than miles driven. Freeway miles are much easier on a car than around town driving. It's not fair to use normal per mile depreciation as being equal to long trip depreciation.
But think of all the politicians who will feel good about themselves for voting for this Graft-Corruption RR.
Pray for W, America and Our Troops
“It’s not fair to use normal per mile depreciation as being equal to long trip depreciation.”
That’s a good point.
Consider another another case — leased automobiles. If you’re approaching the mileage limit on your lease; you could be faced with mileage surcharges. If you use those extra miles for highway driving — the leasing company is the winner. If the mileage surcharge is (say) $0.20; it would cost you at least $75.00 each way, for a trip from Oakland to LA (on top of gas).
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.