Wouldn't an earthquake wreck this entire thing post installation?

$100B will buy 3000 one-way airline tickets from San Diego to San Francisco every day for over 1000 years.

ontherocks said:

---

I thought this was common knowledge, no need to show proof. Anyone that travels a lot knows how cheap it is to take a train vs a flight. Trains usually cost 40-70 euros for a flight that costs over 100 euros. Trains have much bigger seats, you don't have to show up more than a few minutes before either.

---

Subsidized vs non subsidized
That's why one is "cheaper"

You'd think this would be common knowledge too.

If private companies want to create a new rail network, go for it. There's a reason they don't.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

TheMasterplan said:

---

Bexar Ag said:

---

Toll roads are public?

---

Doesnt TxDOT operate those?

Also, irrelevant to this post but an airport can get you to more places than just Texas cities. So the argument that you still have to go somewhere when you fly doesn't make sense.

You can build an airport and go to way more places than a train.

Trains are OLD technology. You're stuck in the 1910s. There is evidence upon evidence that these all become a taxpayer boondoggle. Individuals and consumers have chosen by a large majority the car culture. Stop fighting progress.

---

People "have chosen" car culture due to a rigged playing field in which car infrastructure gets vastly more funding than everything else.

And if you want to use the "old technology" argument, recall that the first practical gasoline-powered automobile (Benz Patent-Motorwagen) was introduced in 1885.

---

The original "rigged playing field" in which one "infrastructure gets vastly more funding than everything else" was rail.
The government gave the railroads the land for the rail and vast swaths of adjacent land that could later be sold once it became valuable, gave them their own sets of laws, their own police powers, among other things. And yet it's still the victim.

The reason for car culture is the freedom to go anywhere, anytime, on road or off road, owner-operated, bucket of bolts or GT3 or brodozer.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

The reason for car culture is the freedom to go anywhere, anytime, on road or off road, owner-operated, bucket of bolts or GT3 or brodozer.

---

yep, so many authoritarians want to make vehicle ownership prohibitive and limit the middle class' ability to move independently.

Eff rail.

BQ_90 said:

---

Quote:

---

California’s High-Speed Rail project was originally estimated to cost $33 Billion.

Now they’ve spent $9.8 Billion, no track has been laid, and they estimate it will cost another $100B+ to complete.

For a single system that will be about 800 miles long.

Honestly impressive. https://t.co/LnwG6uxqMU pic.twitter.com/K7Ol5YCUBq

— Austen Allred (@Austen) June 21, 2023

---

Boondoggle, I'm not shocked that hedge is for it

---

Yep, this reads like a Hedge thread through and through.

Rapier108 said:

---

BQ_90 said:

---

Quote:

---

California’s High-Speed Rail project was originally estimated to cost $33 Billion.

Now they’ve spent $9.8 Billion, no track has been laid, and they estimate it will cost another $100B+ to complete.

For a single system that will be about 800 miles long.

Honestly impressive. https://t.co/LnwG6uxqMU pic.twitter.com/K7Ol5YCUBq

— Austen Allred (@Austen) June 21, 2023

---

Boondoggle, I'm not shocked that hedge is for it

---

Yep, this reads like a Hedge thread through and through.

---

Libs are quite literally delusional.

You can show them failed project after failed project and they simply won't believe it.

Just like Marxism. History means nothing to them.

Most new Yorkers serve zero purpose too. So it evens out.

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Annual cost of ownership is really not bad at all,

---

$10,728 per year for a new vehicle, according to the AAA.

Of course, a car is a lot cheaper if it's paid off, but you still have to pay for gasoline ($2700), insurance, maintenance, etc.

Edit: $5,264.58 on average, including new and old cars.

Why can't people understand that in THIS country 'high-speed rail' is generally a financial boondoggle?

Reno Hightower said:

---

Why can't people understand that in THIS country 'high-speed rail' is generally a financial boondoggle?

---

Some people don't understand what "population density" means...

I think the last time a liberal delivered a significant infrastructure project, it was FDR. I don't think any of these projects were ever intended to be built. Just siphon off tax dollars while pretending to work on something.

Buck Turgidson said:

---

I think the last time a liberal delivered a significant infrastructure project, it was FDR. I don't think any of these projects were ever intended to be built. Just siphon off tax dollars while pretending to work on something.

---

The New Deal, for all of the bad it gave us, did contribute a few good things, mainly the TVA and Grand Coulee Dam. Without the power from those, winning WWII would have taken a lot longer and probably would have meant conquering the Japanese Home Islands by invasion.

We've already had this thread half a dozen times.

Bexar Ag said:

---

If I don't need a vehicle for transportation (meaning I could walk, hop on a train, subway light rail) and get to where i need to go I wouldn't own a vehicle. Depreciating asset with tons of maintenance costs. Look at New Yorkers most in the city don't have cars cause they serve zero purpose

---

I see the point went straight over your head. Neither Houston nor Dallas are walkable in any capacity, and a high-speed train doesn't solve that problem. Your train tries to solve a problem that doesn't exist in a manner that's less efficient than planes.

Comparing NY or San Francisco to Houston or DFW is just plain stupid. Also, cars are much more cost effective than your tax dollars that are required for your transit ideas.

Rail is good. Do it right but the tinker toys is a democrat disaster and maintenance and operation sink hole. I know the subject well.

Just consider this my freinds. Travel I 10 and I 45 and notice the truck travel that is tearing up our highways requiring many funds to upgrade, expand and repair.

Rail is the 2nd least expensive form of goods transportation. Airlines have lobbied hard against passenger rail. Now see where we are.

Kvetch said:

---

Also, cars are much more cost effective than your tax dollars that are required for your transit ideas.

---

Citation needed.

Houstonag said:

---

Rail is good. Do it right but the tinker toys is a democrat disaster and maintenance and operation sink hole. I know the subject well.

Just consider this my freinds. Travel I 10 and I 45 and notice the truck travel that is tearing up our highways requiring many funds to upgrade, expand and repair.

Rail is the 2nd least expensive form of goods transportation. Airlines have lobbied hard against passenger rail. Now see where we are.

---

Plenty of people here not part of the airline lobby against it.

Kvetch said:

---

Neither Houston nor Dallas are walkable in any capacity, and a high-speed train doesn't solve that problem.

---

True: intracity travel != intercity travel.

But you are acknowledging that the lack of walkability is a problem to be solved, right?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Also, cars are much more cost effective than your tax dollars that are required for your transit ideas.

---

Citation needed.

---

See the current California HSR fiasco that has already been pointed out.

Reality is right here in this country and has failed massively and yet you train lovers keep trying to slam this square peg into a round hole.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Neither Houston nor Dallas are walkable in any capacity, and a high-speed train doesn't solve that problem.

---

True: intracity travel != intercity travel.

But you are acknowledging that the lack of walkability is a problem to be solved, right?

---

Sure, but cross country HSR doesn't solve that problem. That's a different topic.

Economics 101. Cost to benefit ratio with the cost being born by tax money.

I'm not opposed to any kind of rail. If it's so great now (finally), it's good that we have banned the state from interfering in the market so some companies/folks should be able to make a crap ton of money on building it.

Bexar Ag said:

---

I'm not the biggest fan of public transportation, I won't ride a city bus. That being said a hyper train of the Texas triangle would be great instead of driving or having to get on a plane. Why do I see so many Texans against it? Japan and Europe has them and they are typically cheaper than flying.

---

Extremely expensive. No high speed train in the world has ever existed profitably without government subsidies.

It doesn't make sense for Texas cities where it's impossible to get to many suburbs and exurbs with public transportation.

A much better solution in 10-15 years: add a lane all the way up i45 from Houston to Dallas solely for self driving cars. Set the speed limit to 100+. Profit.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

The main opposition is from airline lobbyists.

---

This isn't true anymore if talking about Texas.

Southwest Airlines opposed the original manifestation of Texas HSR because it was publicly funded and they were running umpteen flights per day between DAL and HOU. But that was years ago.

Since that time, we've had two(?) attempts at HSR between Dallas and Houston that were privately funded (a lie) and Southwest did not put up any argument because of the change in funding mechanism and the fact that they no longer run flights between DAL and HOU at near the level they used to. So, it no longer competed with them at a level that bothered them.

Bexar Ag said:

---

That being said a hyper train of the Texas triangle would be great instead of driving or having to get on a plane.

---

Yup, driving or having to get on a train sounds magnitudes better.

High speed rail cannot be successful without routing help. It is a winner economically for the masses with no subsidy required. Fair value plus more for right of way acquisition. Same for highways, pipeline, highways, utilities, etc. Routes between major cities across the US is good and safer. The north east commuter has benefitted greatly from the US taxpayer as a whole. We have suffered in the South and Southwest.

In an urban environment buses is the true answer but not these tinker toy trains that have been built in Houston and Dallas.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Neither Houston nor Dallas are walkable in any capacity, and a high-speed train doesn't solve that problem.

---

True: intracity travel != intercity travel.

But you are acknowledging that the lack of walkability is a problem to be solved, right?

---

The lack of walkability is going to be a problem in huge, spread-out cities like Houston or DFW. I have zero desire to ever see any form of mass transit operating near my home. Nor do I have any interest in owning a couple of rooms off a common elevator in some residential tower like you find in NYC.

I will keep my truck and minivan, and walk to the neighborhood pool and park. I'm not walking 4-ish miles to the nearest park-and-ride, and certainly not interested in walking to do my shopping or place of employment.

The future is driverless cars or drones that take you where you need to go. Most people won't own one. They will operate like lime bikes or scooters, with some cities choosing to have their own fleets. You will be able to make lanes way smaller, and have way less cars on the road. Owning your own car in a major urban area will be a luxury for the rich, similar to how hunting is now.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

DannyDuberstein said:

---

Annual cost of ownership is really not bad at all,

---

$10,728 per year for a new vehicle, according to the AAA.

Of course, a car is a lot cheaper if it's paid off, but you still have to pay for gasoline ($2700), insurance, maintenance, etc.

Edit: $5,264.58 on average, including new and old cars.

---

Chop out new, pick the right make/model/year of car, and I'll easily get you far under the $5k. How donI know? I've got 2 teenagers and have been doing it at even their insurance prices. Used toyotas ftw; minimal maintenance cost while holding their value extremely well. Then let's talk about ticket prices on a break-even, non-govt funded rail.

BigRobSA said:

---

1) liberal money pit
2) riders would need a form of transport at the end point
3) stupid
4) money pit, a liberal one

---

All of the above. The infrastructure is just not there. We do not have walking cities. Everyone knows this. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Neither Houston nor Dallas are walkable in any capacity, and a high-speed train doesn't solve that problem.

---

True: intracity travel != intercity travel.

But you are acknowledging that the lack of walkability is a problem to be solved, right?

---

Why is it a problem? It's a problem if you are a proponent of high speed rail. Our cities are NEVER going to be European cities. They developed and grew at different times and around different modes of transportation. People are not going to move to cities from the suburbs and give up their cars so you can have your train.

BigRobSA said:

---

1) liberal money pit
2) riders would need a form of transport at the end point
3) stupid
4) money pit, a liberal one

---

Shut down the airports

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Neither Houston nor Dallas are walkable in any capacity, and a high-speed train doesn't solve that problem.

---

True: intracity travel != intercity travel.

But you are acknowledging that the lack of walkability is a problem to be solved, right?

---

Oh god.

Now you want ANOTHER TRAIN to go with your FIRST TRAIN?