After Voting..."NO"

[dapoes]

I know in the past they tried to get the casinos's to subsidize a high speed rail. The casino's balked for the same obvious reasons, you can shuttle more people via plane then train and the costs were too extreme considering the benefit.

 

[Dignity]

but there is an 8 billion dollar provision for high-speed rail projects across the country..and 12 to 14 billion.."unspecified"

8 billion is hardly enough to build a brand new network..that is why it is to be competitive..

I recall a proposal from Eugene to Vancouver.. and of course the Anaheim to Vegas..

 

[Dignity]

I know in the past they tried to get the casinos's to subsidize a high speed rail. The casino's balked for the same obvious reasons, you can shuttle more people via plane then train and the costs were too extreme considering the benefit.

I believe there is a 69 dollar fare between Long Beach and Vegas... some airlines are cheaper..some go on the hour!

why would a Casino subsidize anything? they wouldnt.. (they dont have to)

now the trolley in Florida thats a winning hand if you ask me! 500 thousand is a drop in the bucket compared to these other plans that make no sense what-so-ever!

 

[eolesen]

Sure, a plane can shuttle more people from LGB/SNA/LAX to LAS. But can they also shuttle people between Anaheim, Barstow, Victorville and Las Vegas?...

Any high speed rail service is likely to have a couple stops. Even the Acela Express between WAS and NYP makes four or five stops on the way. And it's the on/off traffic which makes Acela profitable. It's not just people going from WAS to NYP, but you've also gota few going WAS-PHL, plus a few BAL-EWR, and a few PHL-NYP. There's no way the trains could be break even if they were nonstops, and the stops only account for about 60 seconds of station time plus another 60-90 seconds for acceleration/deceleration. Adds a few minutes to the trip, but also makes all the difference on P&L.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

SFO-OAK/LAX/SAN..High speed rail will be an ENORMOUS success, because of the FEW stops in places like Long Beach/San Jose.

After speaking to a Close Friend(Former AA Sales and MKT. in BOS)( Now sales and MKT. for the whole Northern div. of Amtrak) there Is heavy talk of NOT having to "Electrify"(which is very costly)...NYC/ALB, or SFO/LAX/SAN, but just do an A+ upgrage on the roadbed, and bring on(new) Diesel Locomotives that can go 125 mph.(Acela goes 150). Lets NOT forget, for the businessman...it's "downtown-to-downtown"(and to board), he/she doesn't have to remove their "undies" for the TSA MORONS !

 

[dapoes]

SFO-OAK/LAX/SAN..High speed rail will be an ENORMOUS success, because of the FEW stops in places like Long Beach/San Jose.

After speaking to a Close Friend(Former AA Sales and MKT. in BOS)( Now sales and MKT. for the whole Northern div. of Amtrak) there Is heavy talk of NOT having to "Electrify"(which is very costly)...NYC/ALB, or SFO/LAX/SAN, but just do an A+ upgrage on the roadbed, and bring on(new) Diesel Locomotives that can go 125 mph.(Acela goes 150). Lets NOT forget, for the businessman...it's "downtown-to-downtown"(and to board), he/she doesn't have to remove their "undies" for the TSA MORONS !

You obviosly know nothing about the So Cal, nor California in general.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Well if your right ???................................I'll have to rely on the good folks who DO live in So. Cal,...who Overwhelmingly voted to support and BUILD ..HIGH SPEED Rail.

Ah,.............but "What the HEL* do THEY know(Right dapoes :wacko: ).....cause THEY only LIVE THERE !!!!!

 

[dapoes]

Well if your right ???................................I'll have to rely on the good folks who DO live in So. Cal,...who Overwhelmingly voted to support and BUILD ..HIGH SPEED Rail.

Ah,.............but "What the HEL* do THEY know(Right dapoes :wacko: ).....cause THEY only LIVE THERE !!!!!

What you fail to realize is this idea (So Cal- N Cal route) has been proposed over the last 12 years. And it always falls flat for two reasons. When they do their feasibility studies they conclude that 1) California is extremely mountainous thereby creating huge problems for high speed rail. High speed rail although very fast is also low on "torque" as opposed to diesel rail engines. High speed rail is not engineered for climbing. 2) The feasibility study also shows that the actual projected costs reach $80-$100 billion, far more then the $10 billion proposed. California is broke so the chances of this happening is slim to none.

 

[Dignity]

Sure, a plane can shuttle more people from LGB/SNA/LAX to LAS. But can they also shuttle people between Anaheim, Barstow, Victorville and Las Vegas?...

Any high speed rail service is likely to have a couple stops. Even the Acela Express between WAS and NYP makes four or five stops on the way. And it's the on/off traffic which makes Acela profitable. It's not just people going from WAS to NYP, but you've also gota few going WAS-PHL, plus a few BAL-EWR, and a few PHL-NYP. There's no way the trains could be break even if they were nonstops, and the stops only account for about 60 seconds of station time plus another 60-90 seconds for acceleration/deceleration. Adds a few minutes to the trip, but also makes all the difference on P&L.

that is an interesting way to look at it...but probably some would feel..why take the train (with mulitiple stops) when they can just take a nonstop flight for 69.00 (and be there in a hour).

the train would more than likely need to make several stops in order to be successful...(that sort of defeats the purpose if the intent is high speed trains getting you to the slots ASAP..)

to me, its the idea to take the full 8 billion and apply it to a proposed anaheim-vegas high speed train...that makes no sense at all what-so-ever...not necessarily the idea of a high speed train used where it would make sense..

 

[Dignity]

1) California is extremely mountainous thereby creating huge problems for high speed rail. High speed rail although very fast is also low on "torque" as opposed to diesel rail engines. High speed rail is not engineered for climbing. 2) The feasibility study also shows that the actual projected costs reach $80-$100 billion, far more then the $10 billion proposed. California is broke so the chances of this happening is slim to none.

those are valid points..

people may infact want the high speed trains, but the problem may be..

a mountain in the way...

..80 to 100 billion more than likely is the lower end of the spectrum.. with the terrain the costs would be outrageous..

a train to offset the LA traffic might be a better idea? (if they want to spend billions.. I would rather see a train everyday people can use to get around a city than a train to the Casino)

now..in reality..

even if the train to vegas project went through....

this is more than likely what would happen..

1) half way through the project they would finally realize its complete BS and stop... while the rest of the money ends up..who knows where...

or

2) completed project...the only people who would ride the train to.. 'gamble the rest of your life savings away'..

would be...of course Harry Reid (that is a given...while more than likely wearing a conductors hat and repeatedly saying...'this is kewl' and 'choo-choo')

..and a senior citizen gambling group.(and the only way they would be on the train.. is if the group rates on the train is cheaper than the bus)