You want to run Fast trains on Well used Older Tracks ?

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loca...36331.html

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 07:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Isn't California bankrupt? Or at the very least, drowning in debt that even Scrooge McDuck couldn't pay off?

No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

That is good to hear!

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 07:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Isn't California bankrupt? Or at the very least, drowning in debt that even Scrooge McDuck couldn't pay off?

No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

With your taxes rates, it's no damn wonder.

The road to Sochi rings a bell...

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 07:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Isn't California bankrupt? Or at the very least, drowning in debt that even Scrooge McDuck couldn't pay off?

No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

Being able to tax at will is a wonderful thing for those that can't control spending.

High Income Tax and Sales Tax Rate...SUCKS!

(05-13-2015 04:50 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 07:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Isn't California bankrupt? Or at the very least, drowning in debt that even Scrooge McDuck couldn't pay off?

No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

Being able to tax at will is a wonderful thing for those that can't control spending.

High Income Tax and Sales Tax Rate...SUCKS!

Ok. Leave CA.

(05-13-2015 05:20 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 04:50 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 07:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Isn't California bankrupt? Or at the very least, drowning in debt that even Scrooge McDuck couldn't pay off?

No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

Being able to tax at will is a wonderful thing for those that can't control spending.

High Income Tax and Sales Tax Rate...SUCKS!

Ok. Leave CA.

I have a great job and live in a beautiful place. Give and Take....

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 07:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Isn't California bankrupt? Or at the very least, drowning in debt that even Scrooge McDuck couldn't pay off?

No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

Cannabis cash?

(05-14-2015 07:47 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 05:20 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 04:50 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 07:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Isn't California bankrupt? Or at the very least, drowning in debt that even Scrooge McDuck couldn't pay off?

No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

Being able to tax at will is a wonderful thing for those that can't control spending.

High Income Tax and Sales Tax Rate...SUCKS!

Ok. Leave CA.

I have a great job and live in a beautiful place. Give and Take....

That's a very strong case you're making for California, then.

You're over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by lunatic radicals - but it's still good enough for you and there is enough of a pull factor to keep you from moving.

Interesting.

(05-20-2015 09:47 AM)oliveandblue Wrote:  

(05-14-2015 07:47 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 05:20 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(05-13-2015 04:50 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

Being able to tax at will is a wonderful thing for those that can't control spending.

High Income Tax and Sales Tax Rate...SUCKS!

Ok. Leave CA.

I have a great job and live in a beautiful place. Give and Take....

That's a very strong case you're making for California, then.

You're over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by lunatic radicals - but it's still good enough for you and there is enough of a pull factor to keep you from moving.

Interesting.

I make enough money to have enough money after the taxes and everything to live as well as I want.

Is this a place that I would retire to or move to to restart, not at all. I was offered a job here that was the equivalent of my dream job. It also doesn't hurt that I get to play Pebble Beach Golf Links every so often as well.

When I interview people that are coming in wanting to work here, I warn them about the area and how expensive it is.

Give and take.

(05-12-2015 11:42 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(05-12-2015 07:09 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Isn't California bankrupt? Or at the very least, drowning in debt that even Scrooge McDuck couldn't pay off?

No we've had a surplus in the annual budget for at least the past two years.

This is a farce. We have unfunded public employee pension liabilities of about $200 billion dollars (I've also seen this number estimated closer to $300 B). And nothing's being done about it while it just grows every year. So yeah, we've got a little more revenue than expense right now but only because we're kicking a MONSTROUS sized can down the road.

But sure, let's build a $100 billion high speed rail system that won't really be high speed (it's going to share rail with Amtrak!) and will be subsidized forever. Subsidies are nice.

(05-20-2015 12:51 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  It also doesn't hurt that I get to play Pebble Beach Golf Links every so often as well.

Screw you.

(05-20-2015 11:52 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 12:51 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  It also doesn't hurt that I get to play Pebble Beach Golf Links every so often as well.

Screw you.

(05-21-2015 12:57 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 11:52 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(05-20-2015 12:51 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  It also doesn't hurt that I get to play Pebble Beach Golf Links every so often as well.

Screw you.

Back when I was able to play golf, this was my dream course to visit.

I'd have no issue with trains in general or bullet trains in specific if it made financial sense. The Shinkansen in Japan seems to be an efficient and cost effective transportation method. But right now I can buy a plane ticket and get somewhere 3x faster than the fastest bullet train can get me there and all for practically the same price.

The wife and I looked into taking the train (just for fun, since its a train and all) to Texas for her cousin's wedding a few years ago. The tickets were only $50 less than plane tickets and only got us to New Orleans. We'd have had to drive another 500 miles in a rental car to get where we were going.

They want people to use it they have to find a way to make it cheaper. If a regular train costs as much as a plane trip what will a bullet train ticket cost? You have to make that train ticket cost closer to the car trip than the plane ticket for it to ever catch on.

(05-22-2015 11:32 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I'd have no issue with trains in general or bullet trains in specific if it made financial sense. The Shinkansen in Japan seems to be an efficient and cost effective transportation method. But right now I can buy a plane ticket and get somewhere 3x faster than the fastest bullet train can get me there and all for practically the same price.
The wife and I looked into taking the train (just for fun, since its a train and all) to Texas for her cousin's wedding a few years ago. The tickets were only $50 less than plane tickets and only got us to New Orleans. We'd have had to drive another 500 miles in a rental car to get where we were going.
They want people to use it they have to find a way to make it cheaper. If a regular train costs as much as a plane trip what will a bullet train ticket cost? You have to make that train ticket cost closer to the car trip than the plane ticket for it to ever catch on.

I am a proponent of high-speed trains and use them whenever I can in Europe and Japan. You are exactly right about the need to be competitive with other forms of transportation, something that the bureaucrats who run the US rail system fail to comprehend. Thy build a train that runs 80 when it's not dodging freights and don't understand why people don't flock to it. To be worth it, a high-speed train has to run on a separate track (in Europe, they're not the same gauge as freights) and go 200+ mph.

If you do those things, then it is truly competitive with air (when you factor in the time required to go to the airport, get through security, and allow for weather delays, versus the convenience of city center rail stations hooked directly to public transit) up to about 600 miles, and close enough to be competitive up to 800 miles, particularly for business travelers who can remain in close contact with offices, customers, and suppliers via cell and Internet throughout.

But that system is a far cry from what we call "high-speed rail."

(05-23-2015 05:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 11:32 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  I'd have no issue with trains in general or bullet trains in specific if it made financial sense. The Shinkansen in Japan seems to be an efficient and cost effective transportation method. But right now I can buy a plane ticket and get somewhere 3x faster than the fastest bullet train can get me there and all for practically the same price.
The wife and I looked into taking the train (just for fun, since its a train and all) to Texas for her cousin's wedding a few years ago. The tickets were only $50 less than plane tickets and only got us to New Orleans. We'd have had to drive another 500 miles in a rental car to get where we were going.
They want people to use it they have to find a way to make it cheaper. If a regular train costs as much as a plane trip what will a bullet train ticket cost? You have to make that train ticket cost closer to the car trip than the plane ticket for it to ever catch on.

I am a proponent of high-speed trains and use them whenever I can in Europe and Japan. You are exactly right about the need to be competitive with other forms of transportation, something that the bureaucrats who run the US rail system fail to comprehend. Thy build a train that runs 80 when it's not dodging freights and don't understand why people don't flock to it. To be worth it, a high-speed train has to run on a separate track (in Europe, they're not the same gauge as freights) and go 200+ mph.

If you do those things, then it is truly competitive with air (when you factor in the time required to go to the airport, get through security, and allow for weather delays, versus the convenience of city center rail stations hooked directly to public transit) up to about 600 miles, and close enough to be competitive up to 800 miles, particularly for business travelers who can remain in close contact with offices, customers, and suppliers via cell and Internet throughout.

But that system is a far cry from what we call "high-speed rail."

Not the best comparison but here goes;

Barcelona and Madrid are about 400 miles apart. If you want to travel between La Sagrada Familia and the Royal Palace for example (to make the travel to the city sights to be more realistic), then the options are as follows. Times are one way, prices are round trip to make plane prices comparable.

Car: 5h30 without traffic, about $200 in gas and tolls
Train: 3h10 (2h30 for train + 10 mins each side for taxi to/from station + 20 mins to board and alight), $235 or less than $100 if you book a few weeks ahead + taxis
Plane: 3h10 (1h20 for flight + 20 mins each side for taxi to/from airport + 1h30 for check in on one side and exit the other), $200-500 depending on when you book + taxis

If you want to go from Faneuil Hall in Boston to the White House in DC, which is a similar distance (439 miles) then your options are the following

Car: 6h40 without traffic, about $260 in gas and tolls
Train: 7h25 (6h40 for train + 25 mins total for taxis to/from station + 20 mins to board and alight), $350-500 plus taxis
Plane: 3h10 (1h15 for flight + 10 mins to Logan + 15 mins to WH from Reagan airport +1h30 for check in and exit), $180-350 depending on when you book + taxis

For that kind of journey in Spain, the train and car are the cheapest by half and the train and the plane are the shortest by half. You can also realistically take the train and return in one day. In the US, unless you're looking to travel in the next week or two, (in which case it's cheapest to go by car), the plane is the cheapest and it's also the shortest by half. In contrast to Spain where the train was both cheapest and fastest, in the US it's the slowest and most expensive.

It's clear that any HSR that doesn't go at least 200mph and offer a price point at least half as expensive as the plane ride is pretty much doomed to failure. Americans are willing to spend money for convenience and time. If you can't get HSR to fit in that middle ground between those three factors it won't work here. Maglevs in Germany and Japan are starting to break the 250mph barrier, I'd rather we wait for that to pan out before making these billion dollar taxpayer investments in obsolete technologies.

(05-23-2015 06:41 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  It's clear that any HSR that doesn't go at least 200mph and offer a price point at least half as expensive as the plane ride is pretty much doomed to failure. Americans are willing to spend money for convenience and time. If you can't get HSR to fit in that middle ground between those three factors it won't work here. Maglevs in Germany and Japan are starting to break the 250mph barrier, I'd rather we wait for that to pan out before making these billion dollar taxpayer investments in obsolete technologies.

I wonder if simply geography will prevent HSR here in the States. I'm not talking mountains and lakes, etc. The US is a big place.

(05-24-2015 06:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 06:41 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  It's clear that any HSR that doesn't go at least 200mph and offer a price point at least half as expensive as the plane ride is pretty much doomed to failure. Americans are willing to spend money for convenience and time. If you can't get HSR to fit in that middle ground between those three factors it won't work here. Maglevs in Germany and Japan are starting to break the 250mph barrier, I'd rather we wait for that to pan out before making these billion dollar taxpayer investments in obsolete technologies.

I wonder if simply geography will prevent HSR here in the States. I'm not talking mountains and lakes, etc. The US is a big place.

I can get a ticket for a 1 stop flight round trip from Charlotte to San Francisco that leaves next Friday afternoon and returns Monday morning for $693 (not including checked bags or anything else). That was on my very first search result. If I tried harder I could get it down to near $600 maybe. It's a 7.5 hr trip to SF and a 6.9 hr trip back with 30 minutes windows to change planes each way.

Coach seat on an AmTrak train to do the same is $606. For a little more than $300 more I can get a bed room on a sleeper car. I'd have to take The Cresent to DC (8hr trip). Wait 6hr in DC till for The Capitol Limited to take me 18 hrs to Chicago, where I'd wait 5 hrs to board The California Zephyr for a 2 DAY trip (had I taken the plane I'd be flying back home during this part) to the west coast. Now here's the kicker, the closest the train gets to SanFran is Emeryville, CA. I then have to hop a bus for an hour ride into the city.

I didn't want to embarrass AmTrak too much by looking up Greyhound for this trip.

The point of all that is the only people AmTrak can possibly appeal to currently are people with unlimited time on their hands and a near panic-mode fear of flying. That's not a good business model.

A Cross-America HSR has to be at least 300+ mph, doesn't stop at every station, and sub $300 for the entire trip. It has to have multiple trains doing the same line everyday to hit every station since there's no point in a 300mph train that has to stop every 20 minutes at the next city. Since the fastest "conventional rail" HST's are maxing out at 236mph, it stands to reason that a Cross-America HST would have to be MagLev; which ironically could be easier to do from a right-of-way standpoint since you would HAVE to have a whole new line.

The DC to Boston Acela line is a failure because of the conventional/non-dedicated tracks used and the pathetic speed that resulted. Had they dedicated themselves to making a "REAL" HSR people could be shuttling back and forth up the entire east coast by now in less than 12 hours.

Bottom line is if you're going to do HSR in the US you can't half-ass it like Acela. To answer your question about a Cross-America HSR being viable because of the size of the country: I'd say the size is more of a burden than a blessing for HSR. Like I showed above, you simply can't beat the convenience of air travel over distances of 500 miles. Even an east coast Boston to Miami HSR that could get you there in under 12 hrs would still lose out to getting on a plane at Logan and landing at Miami International in 4 hrs. That's a whole day on the beach missed!

HSR needs to focus on the under 500 mile market between major metro areas. As the current economic factors stands it will never take the 500+ mile business from the airlines.