Yes and yes.Jay wrote:
Train station + kids is better? And that justifies $100BN?
I work for one of the biggest Engineering firms in the world, so.
I work for one of the biggest Engineering firms in the world, so.
Oh, so you stand to make a ton of money off the boondoggle. Cute.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Yeah - much better.Jay wrote:
Train station + kids is better? And that justifies $100BN?
Eurostar to Paris from London is way easier than flying to Paris from London and that's international.
Not that I think this idea makes any sense whatsoever.
kids: and then there's confined airplane cabin versus free to move around a bit trains.
Check the latimes article I linked. The proposed path is the longer scenic route. The companies that have experience with this sort of thing want to build along the 5 freeway because it's cheaper and will result in a faster route with more riders.Ilocano wrote:
Routes look fine to me (except the one to Vegas). I want high speed rail to get me to where I want to go, fast. I don't need it to go the scenic route. If I wanted the scenic route, I'll drive. Southbound from LA, Legoland is screwed though.mtb0minime wrote:
As a resident Californian and aspiring transportation engineer, I think what they're doing is completely batshit retarded. They refuse to heed advice from companies that have done high-speed rail before. They choose a path that is billions of dollars more expensive to build, will have increased travel times, and is out in the middle of nowhere where ridership will be lower. It's a no-fucking-brainer. Clearly the politicians are doing pandering and the engineers have no input.
Rider capacity/volume of traffic, and cost are two major factors in projects. The third major factor is safety. The safety factor will remain the same no matter what path they choose. Therefore, the obvious choice is to pick the option that is cheaper and has the potential to transport more people.
I was all for this project when they first mentioned it. But now I'm completely against it. Such a massive waste of money. It makes no sense whatsoever and seriously aggravates me.
I actually like riding the train, don't get me wrong. I can get out of my seat and walk around whenever I want without some pain in the ass telling me to buckle my useless seatbelt. I get to watch scenery go by outside of my window instead of blue sky. You don't have to worry about the weather keeping you stuck on the tarmac for hours, or diverting you to another airport. And compared to a car, where you need to pay attention the entire time and can't relax while traveling, it's a better use of time.
All that said, there is absolutely no point to building public infrastructure unless it is going to be used. This whole project is on par with the Bridge to Nowhere that was going to link Siberia with Alaska. It's a money loser and the taxpayer is going to be on the hook because of peoples romantic attachment to a largely obsolete form of travel.
All that said, there is absolutely no point to building public infrastructure unless it is going to be used. This whole project is on par with the Bridge to Nowhere that was going to link Siberia with Alaska. It's a money loser and the taxpayer is going to be on the hook because of peoples romantic attachment to a largely obsolete form of travel.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Eminent domain on the 5 would be insane.mtb0minime wrote:
Check the latimes article I linked. The proposed path is the longer scenic route. The companies that have experience with this sort of thing want to build along the 5 freeway because it's cheaper and will result in a faster route with more riders.Ilocano wrote:
Routes look fine to me (except the one to Vegas). I want high speed rail to get me to where I want to go, fast. I don't need it to go the scenic route. If I wanted the scenic route, I'll drive. Southbound from LA, Legoland is screwed though.mtb0minime wrote:
As a resident Californian and aspiring transportation engineer, I think what they're doing is completely batshit retarded. They refuse to heed advice from companies that have done high-speed rail before. They choose a path that is billions of dollars more expensive to build, will have increased travel times, and is out in the middle of nowhere where ridership will be lower. It's a no-fucking-brainer. Clearly the politicians are doing pandering and the engineers have no input.
Rider capacity/volume of traffic, and cost are two major factors in projects. The third major factor is safety. The safety factor will remain the same no matter what path they choose. Therefore, the obvious choice is to pick the option that is cheaper and has the potential to transport more people.
I was all for this project when they first mentioned it. But now I'm completely against it. Such a massive waste of money. It makes no sense whatsoever and seriously aggravates me.
But scenic? Nothing to see in those routes.
Just to put $100 Billion in perspective, we recently got awarded a $20 Billion 10 year IT contract for the National Institutes of Health.
That's nice. Stockton just filed for bankruptcy over $500M
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
boohoo f*ckin doo.
"While Stockton's bankruptcy troubles can be traced in part to the collapse of the housing market and the subsequent erosion of the city's tax base, for years city leaders also mismanaged and overspent funds, pushing the city into financial peril, analysts and current city officials say. Stockton cannot afford the $417 million it owes for retiree health benefits, city officials say, and this year a bank repossessed city-owned parking garages and a $40 million building the city had bought with plans for an upgraded City Hall. "
"While Stockton's bankruptcy troubles can be traced in part to the collapse of the housing market and the subsequent erosion of the city's tax base, for years city leaders also mismanaged and overspent funds, pushing the city into financial peril, analysts and current city officials say. Stockton cannot afford the $417 million it owes for retiree health benefits, city officials say, and this year a bank repossessed city-owned parking garages and a $40 million building the city had bought with plans for an upgraded City Hall. "
Stockton was always a good place to dump ragweed for profit.
also, with the help of a moderator, this derailment is moving along nicely.
also, with the help of a moderator, this derailment is moving along nicely.
Hey, Stockton is on the railway map.
yes. and this topic's all over the mapIlocano wrote:
Hey, Stockton is on the railway map.
Chris Christie turned down federal money to expand the NYC-NJ line. Which is too bad considering how crowded the line gets everyday.
That's awesome! So many people will visit and invigorate the economy through tourism!
Wait a second. Who the fuck wants to go to Stockton. Or Bakersfield. Or Fresno.
Wait a second. Who the fuck wants to go to Stockton. Or Bakersfield. Or Fresno.
i was in Fresno two weeks ago. longest year of my life.
not much into wine, huh?mtb0minime wrote:
That's awesome! So many people will visit and invigorate the economy through tourism!
Wait a second. Who the fuck wants to go to Stockton. Or Bakersfield. Or Fresno.
Are those cities as rednecky as the movies make them out to be?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I do like the fields in Delano.
when the dust bowl happened in the 30's, and Steinbeck wrote the Grapes of Wrath, where do you suppose those Okies wound up?Jay wrote:
Are those cities as rednecky as the movies make them out to be?
Demographics have changed drastically though since then.13urnzz wrote:
when the dust bowl happened in the 30's, and Steinbeck wrote the Grapes of Wrath, where do you suppose those Okies wound up?Jay wrote:
Are those cities as rednecky as the movies make them out to be?
what do they call Bartles & Jaymes in Mexico?Ilocano wrote:
I do like the fields in Delano.
Spoiler (highlight to read):
Dos Okies
It does seem like the train will connect the red dots...
But that's depending a lot on people in the central valley cities actually wanting to go to LA and SF often...
But that's depending a lot on people in the central valley cities actually wanting to go to LA and SF often...
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
See post #2.
Longer travel time (so long that they're worried it may not be under the limit required by the prop). Tens of billions higher cost. Don't care how many red dots in the middle it connects, still an awful idea.