tandempower

It's no problem. Through widespread austerity the people of the world can work to make Texas the energy-waste Mecca of planet Earth. The perimeter of the lonestar state can be lined with wind generators to capture all the high-pressure energy runoff from all the motor-vehicles, air-conditioners, and hot pavement+sand. The power from the wind can be re-routed back to the interior of the state where it will build up as waste heat that rises up as a huge sand vortex that can be used as a tornado to launch houses to Oz, which can be justified as military funding against wicked witches who are hording all the magic ruby/silver slippers that would eliminate the need for high-speed rail by simply allowing people (and their little dogs too!) to click their heels back to Kansas.

rossiny

I personally love trains and would love to see a network built. and linked then to other transit once you get off the plane, because one with out the other is pointless also. Right now the BIG GUNS , are held by the car, airline, and oil industries. Unless people start dropping down from air pollution or some super huge calamity nothing will change. And of rant, rant, rant...
ps, and no magic ruby slippers is gonna bring us back home if that goes down. Click click..

tandempower

If money is invested in more trains, the economy will take the money and buy new cars with it. Then, advocates for the trains will milk the maintenance of the system for years even though ridership is low, i.e. because they want to keep creating jobs for people to keep making their car payments, auto-insurance payments, etc.

I read that Lyft is claiming that personal motor-vehicle ownership is in its death knell, but usually that just leads to rallying to save the industry. At some point when the economy and society have broken down enough (if that ever happens), then people will be laying tracks by hand just to have human-powered rail cars, which are easier to push than push wagons on dirt roads or broken down pavement. Until then, rail will probably just continue to be a clever way to pump money around in an economy that sustains growth by keeping everyone making car payments monthly throughout their lives.

wipekitty

Wow, old thread, but still a relevant issue.

There was a similar issue regarding a high speed railway from Minneapolis/St Paul to Chicago a few years back. This would have been delightful for folks like me, who live in the middle of nowhere but have business associates in places like the Twin Cities, Madison, and Chicago (not to mention people who already live in these areas, and want to get back and forth). Without viable transit between cities, many of us can, and will, just end up relocating to larger population centers.

The story...https://www.twincities.com/2018/01/1...-now-at-least/

rossiny

never looked at it that way about making continual payment to keep economy going, but may have a point..isn't kinda sad we are locked into this loop? 🚳🔄

Mobile 155

Texas isn't alone. Even California and the progressive Governor there has it's doubts. There has been a massive cut back on the California HSR.


" On February 12, 2019, Governor Gavin Newsom in his first State of the State address announced that, while work would continue on the 171-mile (275 km)[9] Central Valley segment from Bakersfield to Merced, the rest of the system would be indefinitely postponed, citing cost overruns and delays " Looks like even with money, support and Infrastructure some things cannot go against the will of the people?

tandempower

The question is what is causing the "cost-overruns and delays." When you say it's "the will of the people," that implies these problems are intentionally caused to obstruct the project from being achieved in a timely and (cost)efficient manner. If that's the case, there should be a way to hold the obstructionists accountable for their behavior. If people are allowed to exercise collective political will by obstructing public transit projects, they are taking away transportation choice and thus coercing driving and flying as defaults without good alternatives. Further, there is no way to balance such obstruction by obstructing highways and airports because that would result in widespread problems without other alternatives to choose.

Mobile 155

1. I have no questions about what is causing the overruns. (I could guess.)

2. And I am not implying anything.

3. The governor of the state has simply admitted to what the voters have known for 11 years.

4. The only obstruction might be people not being willing to dig deeper to pay more taxes for a train they don't plan on using.

5. As they used to say, you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink applies to citizens as well.

tandempower

The question isn't why the taxpayers don't want to pay taxes but why the costs overran their earlier estimates.

What I'm calling obstruction is raising the costs in order to run the budget out. Which contractors are doing that and why? Is it that they think they can get more money that way, or that they want to drive the costs up to the point the taxpayers give up on the project?

jon c. 

That's the norm with most such projects. Proponents tend to underestimate total costs at the outset to help sell their idea. Then the projects always take more time to get off the ground and by the time actual construction begins, costs have escalated due to inflationary pressures.

tandempower

I don't buy that. Costs have to be estimated accurately and 'inflation' isn't a force of nature; it's a deliberately exploitative move by people/businesses who don't care about the project except as a way to milk money from government/investors.

This is why you can never invest in any public works project. It's a wonder all the roads and highways that get built do. If contractors would create the same kinds of cost-overruns for automotive infrastructure as for rail projects, there would be no highways and people would be angry about it.

Mobile 155

Two things here. If you followed Jon C point then you would see it might have some merit. Everything is not a conspiracy somethings are a problem with the project. But if you aren't going to use a or invest in a public works project it is hard to see how you will fund a HSR in any state. That was why I highlighted your response.


Maybe if you bothered to look at what the voters wanted when they voted for the train in the first place you would better understand how the state government failed the voters. The vote was for a train from San Francisco to L.A. Down the coast in a relatively straight shot. The cost estimate was based on getting right of way for that route and the project managers had told the federal government that they had that covered. The second problem is people between San Francisco and L.A. weren't as interested because the flight to either city from most cities in between is short, up in the air, have a drink and get ready to land in about an hour.and a half for $150.00 to $250.00 round trip. The train would take twice as long. The next problem was the property along the coast is very expensive and powerful people live there. The State ran into a massive NIMBY resistance movement from cities and counties all along the way. Then they decided to move the rail to the central valley. The food basket of the state. The Train was being built to run from Merced to Bakersfield, two low population cities in that valley. It akes more than two hours to drive to Merced from San Francisco and another two hours to drive from Bakersfield to L.A. If they did get a HSR built, unlikely now, it would take an hour to get between Merced to Bakersfield. That is five hours rather than and hour and a half by air.


So Jon C is correct the planners deceived the public with a massive underestimate of the cost, the route and the time frame. it has been more than 11 years and they still do not have a clear right of way and they are maybe five time over budget. And not the Federal government is starting to cancel millions in grants to the state and may sue to get some of the money already spent back.


In short it was a project desired by the few that would be paid for by the many and they didn't keep their promise to the many.


Most of this is just my opinion from watching these things unfold for all of these 11 years. But the train has been a joke for most of that time. At least half of the public called the HSR the train to nowhere. The other half wouldn't be using it anyway. Now I believe anyone over 50 will not live to see a HSR from San Francisco to L.A. Far too many people are leaving the state because of taxes so getting them to dig deep is highly unlikely.

tandempower

Absolutely. If the project designers truly underestimated costs in order to doom the project to cost-overruns, that would be a form of obstruction in itself. But I think the challenge with funding alternative transportation infrastructure in an economy addicted to personal motor-vehicles is that you have to fund it below the levels that pay for everyone involved to buy a car. Otherwise you just end up with a fiscal stimulus project for the automotive economy.

It really all depends on what kind of society you want to achieve. If you are looking at the long-term future, there's not a lot of future for widespread jet air travel. Jet engines are too limited in terms of how much fuel efficiency they can achieve. Rail, on the other hand, is practically unlimited in how much fuel efficiency it can achieve without take-offs and landings and with all the mass/inertia of the train connected into a single train. So for super fuel-efficient long-distance travel, rail is the only real option, and if it takes more time, you just have to accept that for the sake of reducing fossil fuel use.

Yes, well it will be interesting to see some in-depth investigation of how the costs were estimated and how they have changed since then. It would be great if they could hold businesses and property owners liable for inflation.

A long train can hold more people more efficiently than a bunch of jet aircraft, so I would hardly call rail an elite form of transportation compared with air travel. It's actually the opposite, only massive investment in air travel makes it look like an efficient form of mass transit, the same way automotive transit does, but in terms of actual fuel-efficiency and industrial waste, they are not as efficient as rail, bus, bicycle, and walking.

The way transportation infrastructure in general works is a joke. It's obviously designed by people who put money-making over fuel-efficiency and infrastructure-footprint minimization.

Mobile 155

tandempower

The problem is that they are trying to entice people into choosing trains by making them fast and convenient instead of just putting limits on air travel. Once air travel reaches its limits, which should be progressively reduced for the sake of carbon conservation, people will have to look for a more fuel-efficient alternative, whether it's fast trains, slow trains, buses, or whatever.

Lemond1985

I can't believe no one has posted this yet. Some of Phil Hartman's best work on the show, other than Troy McClure:

rumrunn6

was sent to Dallas for work for a month 'bout 40 yrs ago. took a weekend to visit Galveston. met a woman twice my age. it was a good time. was late for work Monday cuz the drive was so far, cough. cough, even in my Mustang rental. my girlfriend back home was not happy when she called at 9am looking for me. a high speed train would have been handy!

canklecat

Reminds me of a Dallas politician in the early 1980s who actually did do a song and dance routine in support of regional rail. Not even kidding. It was shot down every time for decades.

I grew up using public transportation in New York so it seems sensible for some areas. Texas and much of the US is too large and spread out for it to be efficient everywhere.

​​​​​​ But now that I've used the train several times between Fort Worth and Dallas, I wouldn't want to go back to driving that particular route.

downtube42

We're darned lucky previous generations built sanitary sewers.

50PlusCycling

In America, high speed rail programs are mainly a huge cash grab committed by politicians, lawyers, engineers, and consulting firms. The costs of legalese and red tape are higher than the cost of construction.

In principle, high speed trains sound good, you can go great distances at reasonable prices very quickly, and you don't have to deal with the hours of nonsense one must endure at airports. But with a country as mired in red tape as America, high speed rail will never be achieved. When you consider new road and highway projects, which as a rule, are finished for far more (often several times more) than the original contracted cost, and often more than a decade (or decades) behind schedule, there is no hope for high speed rail.

Here in Japan, the Shinkansen (bullet trains) are popular and widely used. They are privately owned, developed, and maintained. When a new line is built, all the property along the line is bought for market value. Property owners cannot sue to stop the sales. If the line is built next to your home, there is nothing you can do but endure the sound, or move. You will not be compensated for any loss in value of your home or property. When people buy homes in Japan, they are usually careful to make sure that they are not located in any place were such building projects will occur. More than one person here has bought a condo with a nice view of the mountains or ocean, only to have a new condo building constructed new door only 15cm away, and there is nothing one can do to prevent it.

In Japan, such projects are seen as necessary for the country, and the economy. In America they are simply boondoggles which are begun to loot as much taxpayer money as possible into the pockets of politicians, law firms, contractors, and suppliers. This is the main reason why infrastructure is crumbling in America today, the contracting system is so corrupt that nowadays it cost far more to paint a bridge than it use to build one from scratch. How much money was spent on California's high speed rail system? And how much railway was built for that money? At a cost of $89 million per mile, very little.

As for the train systems here in Japan, they are run to make a profit, and are not subsidized by the taxpayers. High speed rail is not cheap in Japan, a reserved seat on the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka will cost more than $300 one way. On the positive side, Tokyo Station and Shin Osaka Station are located in city centers, meaning you can easily get from the station to wherever you have to go, without having to deal with airport security, baggage check in, or baggage claim (you take your bags onto the train with you).

Even if California had managed to built it's high speed rail line, as it is a state-run project, it would incur the usual losses to the taxpayers, and any benefit to the economy would be more than wiped away by losses incurred in it's operation. Japan Railways used to be government owned, but lost so much money that the taxpayers revolted. The entire system was privatized, efficiency greatly improved, and JR has earned a profit ever since. The government retains a minority stake in the company, and their cut of the profits is significant. Such a thing could never happen in America, where "profit" is seen as a dirty work, yet the mass losses looted from the pockets of taxpayers seems perfectly acceptable.

Lemond1985

"Japan Railways used to be government owned, but lost so much money that the taxpayers revolted."

^^^ Needs to happen here ^^^

It's a sad day for our country when someplace like Japan teaches us how representative govt is supposed to work, buy hey, at least it's working somewhere.

Rollfast

You don't want high speed rail in Texas, you can't stop it in the middle of nowhere and talk to the train on the other side.

Mobile 155

The government hasn't done well with running a passenger rail in the us for a great number of years. There is no reason to believe the State of Texas or California will do any better. Unlike Japan, a Country smaller than California, we can not mandate the cost of property or where the trains run with no regard to the wishes of the people they run next to. But just a short question of reasoning here is how well the Government has do so far making rail a viable system of transportation for the masses here is a link that makes a point.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-a...0OD17R20150528

Rollfast

That's a joke, son, I said a joke.

fietsbob

Sub Atomic Particle physics discoveries could have been in Texas, but the plan was cancelled,
and so CERN has all those Physicists and Nobel laureates working there..

anti science anti any public infrastructure other than everyone has to buy a car.. and a Big Pickup Truck..






...