If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
On Nov 9, 8:44*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Calif Bill wrote: "Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: How much is Amtraks subsidy a year? For HSR? *Zero. *First of all, Amtrak doesn't operate any HSR trains. Second, the fastest train they operate, Acela, turns a profit, including its share of the NEC capital expenses. Then have a private company build the HSR. *Seems to be a profitable endeavor according to you. Operations is profitable (projected: $1B/yr); building the initial infrastructure will not be (one-time cost of $30B). *I The median cost estimate for running CAHSR is $3.6 B each year for its lifetime. Nobody outside the CAHSR organization thinks CAHSR will ever make a profit. That also tells you that no private company is likely to pay for construction f The more important question is how you'd pay two to three times as much for the additional highway and airport capacity that would be required to keep California's economy strong if CAHSR isn't built -- modes that pay back far less in local jobs, operating surplus, etc. The total cost of all the additional highway and airport spending saved by CAHSR is estimated to be $0.9B, a lot lower than the $45B to $80B estimated total cost for the high speed rail |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
On Nov 9, 9:08*pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Calif Bill wrote: "Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message ... The more important question is how you'd pay two to three times as much for the additional highway and airport capacity that would be required to keep California's economy strong if CAHSR isn't built -- modes that pay back far less in local jobs, operating surplus, etc. It is not going to require hsr to keep the economy running. *Maybe less government spending, but not a HSR. Not necessarily, no. *However, the economy _does_ require transportation to stay strong, and so the matter facing California (in fact, every state) is how best to provide it. *HSR will cost half to a third of what providing equivalent capacity via freeways and airports would cost. *So, if you want the least amount of spending for the most benefit, the obvious choice is to spend your transportation funds on the mode that gives the most return per dollar spent. More of your god damn lies. The highways and airport construction replaced by CAHSR is $0.9B You are apparently using CAHSR published which are well know from everybody including the Federal Goverment to be a total lie far from any reaistic estimate. I have sat through the briefing by the CAHSR and it extemely obvious that almost everything say is a lie for the sole purpose of selling the project so that Kopp and others can get very rich with the real estate deals that are beiing put together with the land they have bought near the route of the rail. If your government is indeed that incompetent, I suggest you talk to your elected officials and, if they don't listen, replace them. *Other states have no problems finishing multi-billion-dollar public works projects on time and under budget I think the same company that built the "Big Dig" in Boston is also building the CAhSR. Any body want to estimate the real cost of CAHSR. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Not necessarily, no. However, the economy _does_ require transportation to stay strong, and so the matter facing California (in fact, every state) is how best to provide it. HSR will cost half to a third of what providing equivalent capacity via freeways and airports would cost. So, if you want the least amount of spending for the most benefit, the obvious choice is to spend your transportation funds on the mode that gives the most return per dollar spent. That's the key issue here that many people don't understand. Spending $25-30B on freeways and airports is done piecemeal versus spending 10-15B on a single project. Every country that's done HSR has benefited enormously from it, even though there was grumbling about the cost. Now that Bush will be gone soon, the U.S. can begin working on infrastructure projects. We've really become a third world country in terms of our transportation infrastructure, thanks to the Republicans. Go to any modern Asian or European country, and look at their transportation systems. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
SMS writes:
Stephen Sprunk wrote: Not necessarily, no. However, the economy _does_ require transportation to stay strong, and so the matter facing California (in fact, every state) is how best to provide it. HSR will cost half to a third of what providing equivalent capacity via freeways and airports would cost. So, if you want the least amount of spending for the most benefit, the obvious choice is to spend your transportation funds on the mode that gives the most return per dollar spent. That's the key issue here that many people don't understand. Spending $25-30B on freeways and airports is done piecemeal versus spending 10-15B on a single project. Denver International Airport cost $4.8 billion in the early 90s. A similarly-sized airport would cost considerably more today. -- Patrick |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
SMS wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote: Not necessarily, no. However, the economy _does_ require transportation to stay strong, and so the matter facing California (in fact, every state) is how best to provide it. HSR will cost half to a third of what providing equivalent capacity via freeways and airports would cost. So, if you want the least amount of spending for the most benefit, the obvious choice is to spend your transportation funds on the mode that gives the most return per dollar spent. That's the key issue here that many people don't understand. Spending $25-30B on freeways and airports is done piecemeal versus spending 10-15B on a single project. Very true. Nobody bats an eye at an annual highway spending bill of $150B, but that's because it's done in chunks of a few million dollars at a time. California alone spends $12B/yr on highways -- far more than building the an HSR line will cost in any given year, which will is projected to be profitable after completion rather than needing annual subsidies forever like highways. S |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Queen Opens High Speed Rail Link - 14 years after the French.... | Furze Platt | Europe | 105 | November 13th, 2007 08:14 PM |
French set new rail speed record | ocelot | Europe | 1 | April 3rd, 2007 08:20 PM |
high speed internet at hotels | Billnech | USA & Canada | 6 | November 3rd, 2005 12:47 AM |
High speed rail | Green Hill | USA & Canada | 11 | September 20th, 2003 04:15 PM |
High speed rail | David Nebenzahl | USA & Canada | 2 | September 14th, 2003 09:16 AM |