IDBillzFan Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 That is the only route that I see as a good money maker. The booze car alone would be profitable for the week by lunch time Monday. Bachelor and bachelorette parties alone would rake in the cash. The only thing more fun than flying to Vegas from LA with a bunch of girls heading to a bachelorette party is flying to Vegas from LA the day before the porn convention starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) They are taking bids for a high speed rail from LA to SF. The first part they want to build is from an empty area near Fresno to an empty area near Bakersfield. Edited February 10, 2011 by Wacka Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Rochester to Santa Barbara, CA; United Airlines, round trip, two people, $900, ten hours each way, wheel chair assistance for the spouse enroute. 'Splains to me why I want to even consider taking a train? Plug almost any departure and destination points into your own example and try to make a case for a network of high-speed rail.... Just give the billions of dollars to several states for study purposes and get on to the next boondoggle. Of course, the above is rendered moot if there is a chance that the projected passengers for the Rochester, NY fast ferry project would now commit to riding the high-speed trains of tomorrow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The first part they want to build is from an empty area near Fresno to an empty area near Bakersfield. Also known as the Buffalo Light Rail Part Deux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Also known as the Buffalo Light Rail Part Deux Or maybe it's an application of the Field of Dreams theory of urban development If you build it they will come Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) The light rail system they put in that circles all the JFK airport terminals and then connects the airport to the railroad station in Queens (AirTrain) is a HUGE success. Just saying..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTrain_(JFK) Edited February 10, 2011 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The light rail system they put in that circles all the JFK airport terminals and then connects the airport to the railroad station in Queens (AirTrain) is a HUGE success. Just saying..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirTrain_(JFK) And this relates to intercity or commuter rail travel .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 And this relates to intercity or commuter rail travel .... Forget it, he's rolling... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peace Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Rochester to Santa Barbara, CA; United Airlines, round trip, two people, $900, ten hours each way, wheel chair assistance for the spouse enroute. 'Splains to me why I want to even consider taking a train? Just because it doesn't make sense to ride a train 2000 miles doesn't mean trains don't make sense on other routes, as has already been discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) And this relates to intercity or commuter rail travel .... The primary point many are making that light rail, no matter WHERE its utilized, is a boondoggle. I am simply countering that with an example of a light rail application that is very successful. And if you bothered to read the wiki, theres plans to expand it to reach lower Manhattan and other locations, which might still not put it on the scale of INTER city travel, but still make it a very good, workable system for INTRA city travel. So there. Edited February 10, 2011 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 (edited) The primary point many are making that light rail, no matter WHERE its utilized, is a boondoggle. I am simply countering that with an example of a light rail application that is very successful. And if you bothered to read the wiki, theres plans to expand it to reach lower Manhattan and other locations, which might still not put it on the scale of INTER city travel, but still make it a very good, workable system for INTRA city travel. So there. The primary point was that rail travel from nowhere to nowhere is a boondoggle. But rail travel from one of the busiest airports in the US linking to the busiest commuter railroad in the US is not quite the same. So there. ps - I would read the wiki link if you knew how to properly post links. Edited February 10, 2011 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Would Toronto to Buffalo be worth anything? What about the whole Boston/DC(which might as well be Richmond) corridor getting to Toronto? Other then that I like the LA to Vegas idea along with San Diego maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I can fly to DC in 45 mins from Philly and the train takes, let's say, 2 hours. You'd have a hard time convincing me to deal with an airport in the NE corridor cities (DC, Baltimore, Wilmington, Philly, NY, Boston). The train, and, the fact that you used to be be able to pay $25 to the airport, and get there in 8 mins, from anywhere in Center City, is one of the reasons I moved to Philly way back when. Few if any cities can beat those terms, and Philly is by far the cheapest to live in compared to DC, Boston, NYC. If you are going to be traveling for work, Philly is tough to beat. I think we can all agree that the train is great. The problem is: "when it works". Nice rant... really. But, seriously, did you read what I wrote? Most of what I posted was an argument against the train. And that last jab... about the $53mill.. I thought was obvious sarcasm. Apparently not. Just a quick thought... you asked when is that my $53mill to bandy about. Well, as a taxpayer paying city, state, and federal taxes, at least a portion of that money is mine. But, that's neither here nor there. Just thought you should take that into consideration when you throw statements like that out there. Sarcasm, using which definition? The "I am going to say that it's not big deal to spend 53 million, but that's not what I really mean" definition? Spare us. What about everybody else Dan? If you want to piss away your money, you go right ahead. But if you are going to forcibly take $$$ from those of us who really contribute to society, beyond just showing up at our jobs, and then piss it away, yes, we have every right to call you an idiot and say no. OC, before you blast me mercilessly again, don't take any of that as an argument in support of the train system. I'm merely stating opinion that a high speed train would be faster (and almost certainly cheaper) than flying from Philly to DC. I will offer this for rebuttal though... who paid for the nation's interstate and intrastate highway system? How is that the train system has to be privatized and the highways don't? Dan, that fact that you fear my blasts makes me . It is what I feed on. Dan, you were right to fear being blasted. Because, you are about to be blasted again. WE ALREADY DID THE HIGH-SPEED THING FROM PHILLY TO NYC. It's called the Acela, and it was, is, and will continue to be, a failure, at least on some level. It either doesn't go as fast as advertised, or, it breaks down(2x as likely as the regular train), or, it's not working today, and you end up over-paying for what ends up being a regular ticket, and if you want your money back/adjusted, you have to go through the trials of job waiting in line. I guarantee you that just the INITIAL project budget for Acela was at least 4X 53 million? How do I know? Because my downstairs neighbor was doing one of the senior engineers (as in mechanical, not conductor) for the Acela project. One night, albeit drinking, he told me "we have spent so much money on planning, and government nonsense, and nothing on engineering, these things are sure to break down all the time". And, sure enough, they have. I'll second that, on the principle that people think of the European/Japanese model when they talk about "high speed rail", and that model simply isn't going to work outside of a few areas (the northeast corridor, maybe the CA coast between San Diego and SF, maybe Atlanta-to-Miami) in the US, as we're so much more spread out. It's even less "we're a car culture" than it is "we're not a train geography". Yes, shocking, we aren't a tiny, pissant nation, therefore, tiny pissant solutions don't work for us. "But...but...but..in Europe they..." <--STFU Just because it doesn't make sense to ride a train 2000 miles doesn't mean trains don't make sense on other routes, as has already been discussed. Did you know that Pittsburgh, PA has a subway? No, I'm being serious. Somebody decided long ago that it made sense for a Subway to be put into a city whose design is a cross between Dr. Suess and M.C. Escher. So, who exactly gets to decide on the definition of "make sense"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 I think it's 53 BILLION, not Million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The primary point was that rail travel from nowhere to nowhere is a boondoggle. But rail travel from one of the busiest airports in the US linking to the busiest commuter railroad in the US is not quite the same. So there. ps - I would read the wiki link if you knew how to properly post links. No, its NOT quite the same. Im only pointing out that light rail when used for the right purpose can and does work. The right tool for the right job. Its a simple concept. And if you clicked the link, you get an immediate redirect to the right one. Youre too lazy for two clicks of a mouse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Bring back the Rochester to Toronto high speed boat ferry. That was a success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 ... Sarcasm, using which definition? The "I am going to say that it's not big deal to spend 53 million, but that's not what I really mean" definition? Spare us. What about everybody else Dan? If you want to piss away your money, you go right ahead. But if you are going to forcibly take $$ from those of us who really contribute to society, beyond just showing up at our jobs, and then piss it away, yes, we have every right to call you an idiot and say no. Dan, that fact that you fear my blasts makes me . It is what I feed on. Dan, you were right to fear being blasted. Because, you are about to be blasted again. WE ALREADY DID THE HIGH-SPEED THING FROM PHILLY TO NYC. It's called the Acela, and it was, is, and will continue to be, a failure, at least on some level. It either doesn't go as fast as advertised, or, it breaks down(2x as likely as the regular train), or, it's not working today, and you end up over-paying for what ends up being a regular ticket, and if you want your money back/adjusted, you have to go through the trials of job waiting in line. I guarantee you that just the INITIAL project budget for Acela was at least 4X 53 million? How do I know? Because my downstairs neighbor was doing one of the senior engineers (as in mechanical, not conductor) for the Acela project. One night, albeit drinking, he told me "we have spent so much money on planning, and government nonsense, and nothing on engineering, these things are sure to break down all the time". And, sure enough, they have. ... Yes... I fear your "blasts". If that helps you sleep at night, by all means I'm shaking over here. The thought of your stinging rhetoric leaves me chilled. ..whatever. See that's sarcasm. It's kinda like how I might write a post expressing several arguments as to why the high speed train wouldn't work and then end with a ... yeah but what the hell spend the money anyway statement. It's how I might respond to Wacka's correction that's its billion, not million's of dollars. See a sarcastic response to further illustrate the absurdity of it would be... "Million.. Billion what's the the difference? Just move a few zeroes around." You, on one hand, would over react and claim how crazy a notion that is and conclude that I'm a tax and spend liberal that's lost touch with reality. A more rational, thinking person would read that and think obviously this guy is joking and let it go. Tip: one way you can usually pick up on sarcasm is when someone trivializes an outlandish statement. You say what about everyone else that's worried about spending the money. I should listen to them. I don't know any poll numbers for whatever good they may be, but for the sake of argument, what if the majority of people on the east coast want to spend the money? Shouldn't their voices be heard? Is yours the only one that matters? At one point, I recall arguing with someone here about building sand barriers in the gulf to keep the oil off the coast. Well, I thought it was a waste of money, as it turns out, it was. But, enough people supported and argued for it that they took my tax dollars and wasted it on a project that did absolutely nothing to keep oil off the LA coast. The lesson is we can't all, always get what we want. For every thing you don't want the government to do, there's someone out there that wants it done. Who's right? Who's wrong? That changes from day to day. I'm sure you disagree with that because you're always right and have all the bestest answers. As Wacka pointed out, we're talking $53Billion with a B, so yes I'm sure the 4X53Million is a good starting point. Doing some googling, the best I could find is that from 1971-2009, Amtrak got $5 billion from USDOT and $4Billion of that went to the Northeast Corridor. So, you gotta figure the Acela Express got the lion's share of that. So let's estimate it's cost at $2-3 Billion. Interestingly, Amtrak says the Acela Express is the only one of it's lines that make a profit. Making about $300million/year in 2005. I'm not sure what any of this has to do with anything other than to point to the massive amounts of money that have been spent on the Acela train, already. But none of it really addresses the concerns that I and others have brought up regarding the success of a high speed train. That's ok though, because I'm sure you've stopped reading and already prepared your response to rant about me wanting to spend Billions of your money now on something that I've clearly said I doubt will be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 No, its NOT quite the same. Im only pointing out that light rail when used for the right purpose can and does work. The right tool for the right job. Its a simple concept. And you would have a point if someone was arguing otherwise. I think it's pretty obvious that rail transit in dense urban areas makes a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Fire department, no. But it's a fair comparison to roads & airports. I honestly don't know if a fair study comparing different modes of public transit have ever been done. There are a lot of variables to consider, ranging from the existing railroad infrastructure and rights of ways to trying to retrofit them for vehicular use and dumping more cars on the roads leading into cities which can't handle the traffic load. For that reason, railroads may still be the best alternative in heavily populated areas. I agree. Wasn't there a whole inter-urban rail system in place prior to the 1950's??? Just a thought... How would they make it secure? Wouldn't it be easy pickings for terrorists? Rail that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I agree. Wasn't there a whole inter-urban rail system in place prior to the 1950's??? Just a thought... How would they make it secure? Wouldn't it be easy pickings for terrorists? Rail that is. IMO, yes. There's zero security getting onto trains. Unless there's some "hidden" security that we don't see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts