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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
"Jym Dyer" wrote in message
... Matt Casey writes: =v= Your vision is an appealing one, but it's not reality yet by a long stretch. Perhaps you and Joey Jolley could go on an envisioneering seminar. _Jym_ FYI - Matt Casey IS Joey Jolley. He's baaaaaaaaaaacccccck. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
On 11/5/2008 11:39 PM Jym Dyer spake thus:
Matt Casey writes: Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses. =1= First of all, Berkeley is doing no such thing. =2= Second, TOD (transit-oriented development) is supposed to mean that live/work amenities are within walking distance of transit stops, with car parking taking less priority. But in the Bay Area everything labelled "TOD" is built the other way around, with car accommodations getting top priority. Clearly there is much room for improvement. Uh, =Jym=, do you realize who you're talking back to here? Do you also attempt to carry on serious conversations with crank callers? Anyone who responds to this idiot is an idiot as well. -- Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
On Nov 5, 11:25*pm, Matt Casey wrote:
*California will become a car-free and aircraft-free state where all travel is by walking, biking, mass transit, airline travel will cease to exist, and the freeways and suburbs will be demolished and replaced with farmland, open space, wilderness, orchards, and wildlife habitat. * * *Cities in the Bay Area are already doing TOD projects and Berkeley is banning cars and replacing them with busses. Hi, Joey! You've assumed a new name. Congratulations! |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: Stupid people of this state. We are bankrupt and they pass a $2 Billion bond issue for a train. Actually, the bond election was for $9.95B. They do not use Amtrak now, or buses. They are, in record numbers. How do they expect a high speed train to pay for itself? The same way HSR service does everywhere else on the planet. Even the relatively slow Amtrak Acela pays for operations and its share of the infrastructure, and CAHSR would be significantly faster and thus able to attract more riders at lower costs and higher fares. BART pays it's drivers and station agents in excess of $80k a year. Good union that goes on strike when they do not get the excess salaries they want. If you're unhappy with standard union activity in your state, pass Right To Work legislation. How much do you think a ticket on the high speed rail will need to cost if it is to cover the $2 Billion plus operating costs? First of all, it is not claimed that fares will cover the initial infrastructure costs, just operations and maintenance plus a small profit. Second, if you care so much about this, try reading the published financial plan, which answers this specific question. Probably more than the $80 airplane ticket. No. See above. And the airplane ticket is on a taxpaying entity. Barely. The airline is losing money and they're operating from airports and terminals that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. S Airports are paid for by fees on airplanes that the fed's collect. Unions are OK until they over reach. And that is what the "Public Service" unions do. Private company unions have to base their demands on what the company can pay and stay in business. "Public Service" unions just force the highest wages possible. $80 for a station attendant or driver. GED education required. Maybe we should pay them the same as teachers aids. Most of the highspeed trains are in areas with lots of people and not real far distances. Europe is not real big, and the TGV from Avignon is still 3.5 hours and there is good public transport on the other end. How much is Amtraks subsidy a year? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message news Calif Bill wrote: I realise that is just a design drop in the bucket. Be cheaper to give free airline tickets. Assuming you didn't have to spend the tens of billions of dollars needed to expand (or even maintain) airports and highways to handle the same volume of passengers. Yes, CAHSR will be expensive. It's cheaper than the alternatives, though. Maybe if you could drive your car on to the train and go to LA cheaper and quicker than driving, they might have something. Nobody in the world has ever built high-speed auto trains, nor are the economics promising. Lots of places have profitable high-speed passenger trains, though. Better to build what we _know_ works. Are you going to suggest that the only way air service will be effective is if people can drive their cars onto the plane? That is the primary market that HSR competes with. S Other places have compact, public transit friendly destinations. If you could load the car on the train and then have you vehicle available, would be a big selling point. 4 hours and you are there and can sit and read or relax and not spend the time driving. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
Calif Bill wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message news Calif Bill wrote: Maybe if you could drive your car on to the train and go to LA cheaper and quicker than driving, they might have something. Nobody in the world has ever built high-speed auto trains, nor are the economics promising. Lots of places have profitable high-speed passenger trains, though. Better to build what we _know_ works. Are you going to suggest that the only way air service will be effective is if people can drive their cars onto the plane? That is the primary market that HSR competes with. Other places have compact, public transit friendly destinations. Indeed; that is a problem with most US cities. However, it does not deter people from flying; in fact, LA to SJ/SF is one of the busiest air routes in the country. Those cities _do_ have transit, and there are novel inventions such as rental cars and taxis for folks who refuse to use it or find it unhelpful for their trips. HSR would have less of a problem in this are than air, in fact, since the "suburban express" stop patterns would stop several times at each end, getting passengers closer to their destination than air and making transit and taxis more useful. If you could load the car on the train and then have you vehicle available, would be a big selling point. 4 hours and you are there and can sit and read or relax and not spend the time driving. I agree that would be wonderful. However, as I said, nobody in the world has ever built high-speed auto trains. The closest are the shuttles through the Chunnel, and that is at low speed, with the loading and unloading taking longer than the trip. Notice that those shuttles do _not_ run from Paris to London but only from one end of the Chunnel to the other. Oh, and it's crazy expensive, too. Moving autos requires a lot more space and fuel than just moving bodies. It is an interesting idea, perhaps one to test out once the system is built, but such an unproven and untried concept cannot be the basis for building the entire system. Start with what is known to work. S |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:13:55 -0600, Stephen Sprunk
wrote: Calif Bill wrote: "Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message news Calif Bill wrote: Maybe if you could drive your car on to the train and go to LA cheaper and quicker than driving, they might have something. Nobody in the world has ever built high-speed auto trains, nor are the economics promising. Lots of places have profitable high-speed passenger trains, though. Better to build what we _know_ works. Are you going to suggest that the only way air service will be effective is if people can drive their cars onto the plane? That is the primary market that HSR competes with. Other places have compact, public transit friendly destinations. Indeed; that is a problem with most US cities. However, it does not deter people from flying; in fact, LA to SJ/SF is one of the busiest air routes in the country. Those cities _do_ have transit, and there are novel inventions such as rental cars and taxis for folks who refuse to use it or find it unhelpful for their trips. HSR would have less of a problem in this are than air, in fact, since the "suburban express" stop patterns would stop several times at each end, getting passengers closer to their destination than air and making transit and taxis more useful. If you could load the car on the train and then have you vehicle available, would be a big selling point. 4 hours and you are there and can sit and read or relax and not spend the time driving. I agree that would be wonderful. However, as I said, nobody in the world has ever built high-speed auto trains. The closest are the shuttles through the Chunnel, and that is at low speed, with the loading and unloading taking longer than the trip. Notice that those shuttles do _not_ run from Paris to London but only from one end of the Chunnel to the other. Oh, and it's crazy expensive, too. Moving autos requires a lot more space and fuel than just moving bodies. It is an interesting idea, perhaps one to test out once the system is built, but such an unproven and untried concept cannot be the basis for building the entire system. Start with what is known to work. S On which side of the San Andreas fault-line will those railroad folks be laying the rails? East or West? DCI |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
Calif Bill wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message ... Calif Bill wrote: Stupid people of this state. We are bankrupt and they pass a $2 Billion bond issue for a train. Actually, the bond election was for $9.95B. They do not use Amtrak now, or buses. They are, in record numbers. How do they expect a high speed train to pay for itself? The same way HSR service does everywhere else on the planet. Even the relatively slow Amtrak Acela pays for operations and its share of the infrastructure, and CAHSR would be significantly faster and thus able to attract more riders at lower costs and higher fares. BART pays it's drivers and station agents in excess of $80k a year. Good union that goes on strike when they do not get the excess salaries they want. If you're unhappy with standard union activity in your state, pass Right To Work legislation. How much do you think a ticket on the high speed rail will need to cost if it is to cover the $2 Billion plus operating costs? First of all, it is not claimed that fares will cover the initial infrastructure costs, just operations and maintenance plus a small profit. Second, if you care so much about this, try reading the published financial plan, which answers this specific question. Probably more than the $80 airplane ticket. No. See above. And the airplane ticket is on a taxpaying entity. Barely. The airline is losing money and they're operating from airports and terminals that cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Airports are paid for by fees on airplanes that the fed's collect. Airports are mostly paid for by local property taxes and parking revenues; the fees on tickets and fuel are a minor contribution. And there are no federal taxes on airplanes. Unions are OK until they over reach. And that is what the "Public Service" unions do. Private company unions have to base their demands on what the company can pay and stay in business. Hardly. There are hundreds of examples of industry unions demanding more than the company can pay, forcing it either into bankruptcy or off-shoring all the jobs -- either way leaving all those union workers on unemployment. Most of the highspeed trains are in areas with lots of people and not real far distances. Europe is not real big, and the TGV from Avignon is still 3.5 hours and there is good public transport on the other end. It is well-known from experience that HSR is competitive with air for trips of up to four hours, and Paris-Marseilles shows that the limit may actually be five hours. LA-SF/SJ will be under three hours. Lack of good transit at the other end may cut that down a bit, but that hurts air _more_ than it hurts rail. Either way, at the other end, the passenger must use a rental car or taxi if there is no transit available. However, since rail can more easily stop in more places than air, that improves access. In practice, most US airports are reluctant to connect to the rail transit that _does_ exist because it cuts down on their profits from parking structures, whereas intercity rail is almost always connected to the local rail transit infrastructure (if any exists). 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. S |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....
|
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 |