If you're not familiar with this monument to leftist incompetence here is one source of info. Plenty of non-partisan site will echo this (biased) site...
https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/california-high-speed-rail-goes-way-track

They'll ride to the capitol district in style.

C@LAg said:

---

WTF you talking about?

there are few fans of high speed rail on this forum, let alone this entire site.

---

Truth. If there was a dime over 50cents to be made, this wouldn't need to be a political boondoggle. Private industry would kill for it. But this is one of the many industries where politicians are bought and paid for.

Case in point... Kirk Watson's push for the Leander to Austin rail (paid for by taxpayers)... bought (in kickbacks aka political donations) to be a State senator by the rail and engine manufacturers... fails as a State senator and then goes back to Austin as Mayor to suck more taxpayer money for other rail/infrastructure boondoggles.

C@LAg said:

---

WTF you talking about?

there are few fans of high speed rail on this forum, let alone this entire site.

---

And the only ones that claim to be got their teeth kicked in trying to defend it.

Yep, the Austin rail I see almost daily with virtually no riders ever on it with extremely rare exceptions.

Not sure if this is new money thanks to one of the Biden spendapalooza bills, or money that Trump refused to release, but it's a drop in the bucket when looking at the total cost of this **** show, which, as of now, is estimated between $88 billion and $128 billion.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why-californias-high-speed-rail-is-taking-so-long-to-complete.html#:~:text=The%20latest%20estimates%20from%20the,to%20the%20high%20price%20tag.

They are building the easy part first, in hopes that they will be so far along on that the money for the hard part will materialize from somewhere.

C@LAg said:

---

WTF you talking about?

there are few fans of high speed rail on this forum, let alone this entire site.

---

I wish I could be a fan, if it were economically viable and convenient. I would probably travel a lot more than I do now. But we all know it would squander billions, ridership levels would never meet predictions, and the end it would be just as unpleasant as flying is today.

I'm picturing traveling MARTA from coast to coast. Or better yet, there are tons of YouTube videos of Brits trying to ride Greyhound across the country. And it's not as bad as you think, it's even worse.

torrid said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

WTF you talking about?

there are few fans of high speed rail on this forum, let alone this entire site.

---

I wish I could be a fan, if it were economically viable and convenient. I would probably travel a lot more than I do now. But we all know it would squander billions, ridership levels would never meet predictions, and the end it would be just as unpleasant as flying is today.

I'm picturing traveling MARTA from coast to coast. Or better yet, there are tons of YouTube videos of Brits trying to ride Greyhound across the country. And it's not as bad as you think, it's even worse.

---

It's a classic liberal idea. It sounds cool so they just love the idea of it. They look at Europe and Japan and don't understand why it won't work here. You tell them why it won't work and they ignore you. Then they plot a new way to spend more money on it.

FWIW as bad as Watson is in Austin he is SOOOO much better than the communist alternative that was up against him. He's just an old school corrupt Democrat that looks at taxpayers as a piggy bank. The new breed want to burn everything down.

The CEO of the High-speed rail authority is getting his pay! $360,000 a year plus other pay rounds out compensation to near $400,000!!

InfantryAg said:

---

If you're not familiar with this monument to leftist incompetence here is one source of info. Plenty of non-partisan site will echo this (biased) site...
https://www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/california-high-speed-rail-goes-way-track

---

Mono Rail
Mono rail

Mono Rail!

aggie93 said:

---

torrid said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

WTF you talking about?

there are few fans of high speed rail on this forum, let alone this entire site.

---

I wish I could be a fan, if it were economically viable and convenient. I would probably travel a lot more than I do now. But we all know it would squander billions, ridership levels would never meet predictions, and the end it would be just as unpleasant as flying is today.

I'm picturing traveling MARTA from coast to coast. Or better yet, there are tons of YouTube videos of Brits trying to ride Greyhound across the country. And it's not as bad as you think, it's even worse.

---

It's a classic liberal idea. It sounds cool so they just love the idea of it. They look at Europe and Japan and don't understand why it won't work here. You tell them why it won't work and they ignore you. Then they plot a new way to spend more money on it.

FWIW as bad as Watson is in Austin he is SOOOO much better than the communist alternative that was up against him. He's just an old school corrupt Democrat that looks at taxpayers as a piggy bank. The new breed want to burn everything down.

---

So is Brightline in Florida a classic liberal idea that somehow seems to work? I have not taken it yet, but would consider it?

Highspeed rail would be a fantastically useful alternative in the US. I took the Acela for the first time about a year ago and took the train in England this past year from London to Portsmouth. No reason it cannot work here just takes someone telling the environmentalist to **** off.

Newsom, Kamala, Harris, and other politicially connected CA elites all bought up the land for this on the cheap before it was ever announced.

Of course they are going to get their bag now they they run the show at the federal level

fka ftc said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

torrid said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

WTF you talking about?

there are few fans of high speed rail on this forum, let alone this entire site.

---

I wish I could be a fan, if it were economically viable and convenient. I would probably travel a lot more than I do now. But we all know it would squander billions, ridership levels would never meet predictions, and the end it would be just as unpleasant as flying is today.

I'm picturing traveling MARTA from coast to coast. Or better yet, there are tons of YouTube videos of Brits trying to ride Greyhound across the country. And it's not as bad as you think, it's even worse.

---

It's a classic liberal idea. It sounds cool so they just love the idea of it. They look at Europe and Japan and don't understand why it won't work here. You tell them why it won't work and they ignore you. Then they plot a new way to spend more money on it.

FWIW as bad as Watson is in Austin he is SOOOO much better than the communist alternative that was up against him. He's just an old school corrupt Democrat that looks at taxpayers as a piggy bank. The new breed want to burn everything down.

---

So is Brightline in Florida a classic liberal idea that somehow seems to work? I have not taken it yet, but would consider it?

Highspeed rail would be a fantastically useful alternative in the US. I took the Acela for the first time about a year ago and took the train in England this past year from London to Portsmouth. No reason it cannot work here just takes someone telling the environmentalist to **** off.

---

High speed rail loses money everywhere. The French started it, and they have exactly one line that covers operating expenses. It would be even less likely to be financially viable in most of the US because our cities are not optimal for public transportation. Take the train to London or Paris, and you travel the final mile to your destination by public transportation, and then get around those cities by public transport. Take the train to Dallas or Houston, and you will likely end up with a rental car or a lot of Uber trips because you get around those cities by private vehicle (and if you own a vehicle, it's cheaper to take your own).

If highspeed rail in California is such a good idea why do they need taxpayer funds for it? Florida build their Brightline rail system with private funds.

AggieUSMC said:

---

If highspeed rail in California is such a good idea why do they need taxpayer funds for it? Florida build their Brightline rail system with private funds.

---

People might get rich from that duh.

InfantryAg said:

---

High speed rail has been a decade plus money pit. Billiins of dollars spent and 0 miles of track laid down.

Now the fed is gonna bail them out, although the problem still won't be fixed.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/12/05/california-to-receive-6-billion-federal-investment-for-high-speed-rail/

This will make Bostons "big dig" look like a bargain.

---

Just wait till the Fed.gov uses our taxpayer dollars to bail out the entire stat of California when the pass, and can't pay for, Reparations.

Rail is cheap in comparison.

You see, if there's just trains to move around, the government or war or Dr. Evil can stop the trains and nobody goes anywhere. If everybody has a car, though, it becomes a lot harder to control transportation.

fka ftc said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

torrid said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

WTF you talking about?

there are few fans of high speed rail on this forum, let alone this entire site.

---

I wish I could be a fan, if it were economically viable and convenient. I would probably travel a lot more than I do now. But we all know it would squander billions, ridership levels would never meet predictions, and the end it would be just as unpleasant as flying is today.

I'm picturing traveling MARTA from coast to coast. Or better yet, there are tons of YouTube videos of Brits trying to ride Greyhound across the country. And it's not as bad as you think, it's even worse.

---

It's a classic liberal idea. It sounds cool so they just love the idea of it. They look at Europe and Japan and don't understand why it won't work here. You tell them why it won't work and they ignore you. Then they plot a new way to spend more money on it.

FWIW as bad as Watson is in Austin he is SOOOO much better than the communist alternative that was up against him. He's just an old school corrupt Democrat that looks at taxpayers as a piggy bank. The new breed want to burn everything down.

---

So is Brightline in Florida a classic liberal idea that somehow seems to work? I have not taken it yet, but would consider it?

Highspeed rail would be a fantastically useful alternative in the US. I took the Acela for the first time about a year ago and took the train in England this past year from London to Portsmouth. No reason it cannot work here just takes someone telling the environmentalist to **** off.

---

It won't work here except in a very limited capacity for certain cities and that is if everything is done properly.

It works better if you have areas where people don't tend to own cars and live close to a city center and people tend to go to the same places. The US is simply too spread out and hub and spoke. We also have excellent highways and airports already that are more efficient and practical.

Part of the appeal of trains is getting people away from cars and independence, that's a big reason why liberals love them. They love the idea of the collective and then being in control of the collective.

twk said:

---

High speed rail loses money everywhere. The French started it, and they have exactly one line that covers operating expenses. It would be even less likely to be financially viable in most of the US because our cities are not optimal for public transportation. Take the train to London or Paris, and you travel the final mile to your destination by public transportation, and then get around those cities by public transport. Take the train to Dallas or Houston, and you will likely end up with a rental car or a lot of Uber trips because you get around those cities by private vehicle (and if you own a vehicle, it's cheaper to take your own).

---

You misspelled Japan as "the French".

And it does not lose money everywhere.

There is a place for it in the US - see the Acela line referenced that meets the objectives of connecting transportation hubs. The rail in Texas was doomed from the poor choice of station locations. Both Dallas and Houston continue to add light rail lines. If they got tough on crime they could have workable mass transit.

Much of the US lends itself to covering mass distances via high-speed rail. Again, its not a panacea but I think it has a place. The LA to Vegas line could work out very nicely.

fka ftc said:

---

twk said:

---

High speed rail loses money everywhere. The French started it, and they have exactly one line that covers operating expenses. It would be even less likely to be financially viable in most of the US because our cities are not optimal for public transportation. Take the train to London or Paris, and you travel the final mile to your destination by public transportation, and then get around those cities by public transport. Take the train to Dallas or Houston, and you will likely end up with a rental car or a lot of Uber trips because you get around those cities by private vehicle (and if you own a vehicle, it's cheaper to take your own).

---

You misspelled Japan as "the French".

And it does not lose money everywhere.

There is a place for it in the US - see the Acela line referenced that meets the objectives of connecting transportation hubs. The rail in Texas was doomed from the poor choice of station locations. Both Dallas and Houston continue to add light rail lines. If they got tough on crime they could have workable mass transit.

Much of the US lends itself to covering mass distances via high-speed rail. Again, its not a panacea but I think it has a place. The LA to Vegas line could work out very nicely.

---

Brought up the japanese which was my thought.

They seem to have the system working at a level not many could accomplish... is theirs all state funded? Is it functioning in the black or red?

https://www.cato.org/blog/lesson-japans-high-speed-trains

Quote:

---

The Japanese National Railways (JNR) was a stateowned company that nonetheless had earned seven years of profits when it opened the TokyoOsaka bullet train in 1964. Supposedly, that rail line earned a profit, even paying back its capital costs, but JNR didn't. It lost money in 1964 and never again had a profitable year.

One reason it lost money was that Japanese politicians insisted that it build more highspeed rail lines into areas that cost more but produced fewer riders than the first route. Another was that politicians protected railroad jobs so that JNR had to employ more than twice as many workers as it really needed.

---