• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A tale of two trains: Brightline vs California high speed rail

aociswundumho said:
Florida's Brightline and California's high speed rail show the difference between capitalism and socialism when it comes to providing infrastructure. Yes, the market can and should provide infrastructure.

Brightline is:

1) Privately funded
2) Cost about 20 - 50 million dollars per mile
3) Was built in under 5 years.
4) Is fully operational, runs to 125mph, is profitable, and expanding.

California's high speed rail project is:

1) Government funded
2) The current projected cost for the full system is now over $200 million dollars per mile - over four times higher than brightline.
3) Voters approved the train in 2008 with a promise to connect san francisco to LA by 2020. But construction didn’t even begin until 2015, and nearly two decades later, not a single train is running. Meanwhile, cost overruns have pushed the price tag past $100 billion.


The results speak for themselves: one train serves the people, the other serves bureaucracies. One didn’t cost taxpayers a dime, the other cost them a fortune.

Click to expand...

LOL There is no comparison to the costs of building a new railroad in S. California and Florida. And Brightrail is hardly high speed rail either.
 
I took the Brightline just a few months ago. It was fast, clean, easy to use, and affordable. The stations were really clean and modern, too. I was very impressed.

It does go fast. We were zipping past busy streets at 110 MPH. One downside to the Brightline that we saw when it first came out is that motorists would try to sneak around the boom-gates only to discover too late that they'd underestimated the speed of the oncoming train.
 
Grizzly Adams said:
And for some reason you got confused when I challenged that same scenario to be implemented in California.
Click to expand...
I’m confused? You’re the one that made some strange comment saying I should move a train.
 
phoenix2020 said:
Yeah, Brightline is positively ancient compared to the rest of the world.
Click to expand...
Ancient as it may be, it's all we got. We're not much of a mass-transit state unless we're talking airline travel, so a high-speed train like Brightline is really nice!

I remember early in Obama's presidency where he wanted to give a bunch of states money to build maglev (I think it was maglev). Florida was like, "No! We don't want your money!"

I was pretty critical of Florida at the time for declining the money, but did any other state get a leg of the track that was proposed?
 
MaryJoLisa said:
Ancient as it may be, it's all we got. We're not much of a mass-transit state unless we're talking airline travel, so a high-speed train like Brightline is really nice!

I remember early in Obama's presidency where he wanted to give a bunch of states money to build maglev (I think it was maglev). Florida was like, "No! We don't want your money!"

I was pretty critical of Florida at the time for declining the money, but did any other state get a leg of the track that was proposed?
Click to expand...
High speed rail at scale is a major undertaking that requires national investment across a decade. You don’t get economies of scale with a bunch of states all trying to do their very different projects, and you don’t enjoy sustained streamlining over time if every 4 years there is a new person in Washington who wants to do everything differently. It has to be treated like Apollo or the national highway system.

Outside of select military (Ford class) and space (James Webb) efforts that span multiple administrations, our nation no longer has the appetite for such grand projects.
 
California's high-speed rail will never happen as long as California bureaucrats think that dicking around on endless land use studies and paperwork and labor requirements and environmental impact reports are more important than actually building a working train.
 
RF667799 said:
Ours work okay. I enjoyed a couple Amtrak trips I made in a sleeper between Illinois and Texas.

Do a lot of people ride our long distance trains?
Click to expand...
Our trains in the US cost as much as an airline ticket and take 4-5 times longer to get anywhere. Nobody wants that.
 
phoenix2020 said:
High speed rail at scale is a major undertaking that requires national investment across a decade. You don’t get economies of scale with a bunch of states all trying to do their very different projects, and you don’t enjoy sustained streamlining over time if every 4 years there is a new person in Washington who wants to do everything differently. It has to be treated like Apollo or the national highway system.

Outside of select military (Ford class) and space (James Webb) efforts that span multiple administrations, our nation no longer has the appetite for such grand projects.
Click to expand...

Therein is the issue. If the United States was a unitary system, it would be possible to institute a national rail system.

Amtrak doesn't count, being a shitty dinosaur relic.

But we are a Federal Republic, meaning you have 50 fiefdoms all pulling their own different direction.

And people are too in love with their cars.

And we have air travel.

I see no value in rail, unless there is a serious change in attitude of Americans towards public transit in general. We should be shit canning some of the rail we have in existence, not creating more unused/underused routes.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
Our trains in the US cost as much as an airline ticket and take 4-5 times longer to get anywhere. Nobody wants that.
Click to expand...

I do know the fares have gone up dramatically since I rode.
 
Safiel said:
Therein is the issue. If the United States was a unitary system, it would be possible to institute a national rail system.

Amtrak doesn't count, being a shitty dinosaur relic.

But we are a Federal Republic, meaning you have 50 fiefdoms all pulling their own different direction.

And people are too in love with their cars.

And we have air travel.

I see no value in rail, unless there is a serious change in attitude of Americans towards public transit in general. We should be shit canning some of the rail we have in existence, not creating more unused/underused routes.
Click to expand...
There should already be HIGH speed rail in many parts of this country. LA-SF, Chicago-Detroit-Indianapolis-St Louis, Dallas-Houston, Atlanta-New Orleans, just to name a few.

I recently had the opportunity for the first time to ride high speed rail in Italy. The trains were clean, spacious, smooth, quiet, and fast (160mph). I thoroughly enjoyed the experience.
 
Stealers Wheel said:
There should already be HIGH speed rail in many parts of this country. LA-SF, Chicago-Detroit-Indianapolis-St Louis, Dallas-Houston, Atlanta-New Orleans, just to name a few.

I recently had the opportunity for the first time to ride high speed rail in Italy. The trains were clean, spacious, smooth, quiet, and fast (160mph). I thoroughly enjoyed the experience.
Click to expand...

I would still be opposed, unless a real groundswell change in attitude regarding public transit and loss of love with cars occurred in the American public.

Not a fan of investing in infrastructure that will likely never be utilized to near capacity.
 
Safiel said:
I would still be opposed, unless a real groundswell change in attitude regarding public transit and loss of love with cars occurred in the American public.

Not a fan of investing in infrastructure that will likely never be utilized to near capacity.
Click to expand...
"If you build it, they will come."

When I was in Italy, there was no shortage of cars - anywhere. Yet, the trains were full.

All you have to do is give the customers something they want, even if they don't know what that is. Just ask Apple.
 
NJBob said:
The Acela does more than that on the Northeast Corridor running from DC to Boston.
Click to expand...
Only in stretches..... it tops out at about 150 for about 15 minutes between Boston and Providence, which I had the privilege of riding last summer (with my speedometer on my tray table). It does about 120 through New Jersey. For the most part, the Acela falls far short of a high speed train. Some of Amtrak routes to have trains with speeds over 100, but again for short stints. Though from New York to Washington, the trains generally operate about 100. They also top 100 on the Harrisburg line and as well as just south and just west of Albany. (note: I am a bit of an Amtrak geek -- I love Amtrak)

I did have the privilege of riding the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Kobe and Kobe and Osaka many, many years ago. I remember it being remarkably smooth. At times it seemed we were standing still. What a way to travel. If we actually had high speed rail in the US, we would reduce congestion in the skies by probably a 1/4 to a 1/3.
 
MaryJoLisa said:
Ancient as it may be, it's all we got. We're not much of a mass-transit state unless we're talking airline travel, so a high-speed train like Brightline is really nice!

I remember early in Obama's presidency where he wanted to give a bunch of states money to build maglev (I think it was maglev). Florida was like, "No! We don't want your money!"

I was pretty critical of Florida at the time for declining the money, but did any other state get a leg of the track that was proposed?
Click to expand...

Maglev is one of those things that look amazing on paper but in reality is ultra expensive and shit.

Both the UK and Japan are building super expensive new high speed rail projects and didn't choose maglev because despite decades of research it just isnt ready for prime time.
One of the big things against it is that the trains are stuck on that track and can't use any other and no other trains in the country can use the track.
It's also why I don't think Hyperloop will ever be anything but a giant vanity project.

It sounds great to have trains going 600mph but actually building it is an engineering nightmare.
 
upsideguy said:
Only in stretches..... it tops out at about 150 for about 15 minutes between Boston and Providence, which I had the privilege of riding last summer (with my speedometer on my tray table). It does about 120 through New Jersey. For the most part, the Acela falls far short of a high speed train. Some of Amtrak routes to have trains with speeds over 100, but again for short stints. Though from New York to Washington, the trains generally operate about 100. They also top 100 on the Harrisburg line and as well as just south and just west of Albany. (note: I am a bit of an Amtrak geek -- I love Amtrak)

I did have the privilege of riding the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Kobe and Kobe and Osaka many, many years ago. I remember it being remarkably smooth. At times it seemed we were standing still. What a way to travel. If we actually had high speed rail in the US, we would reduce congestion in the skies by probably a 1/4 to a 1/3.
Click to expand...
That’s true.

High speed rail will only occur is a few places. East Coast, LA to SF and LA to Las Vegas. In most areas the distances are too great and trips would take too long. People would rather endure air flight or drive.
 
aociswundumho said:
Florida's Brightline and California's high speed rail show the difference between capitalism and socialism when it comes to providing infrastructure. Yes, the market can and should provide infrastructure.

Brightline is:

1) Privately funded
2) Cost about 20 - 50 million dollars per mile
3) Was built in under 5 years.
4) Is fully operational, runs to 125mph, is profitable, and expanding.

California's high speed rail project is:

1) Government funded
2) The current projected cost for the full system is now over $200 million dollars per mile - over four times higher than brightline.
3) Voters approved the train in 2008 with a promise to connect san francisco to LA by 2020. But construction didn’t even begin until 2015, and nearly two decades later, not a single train is running. Meanwhile, cost overruns have pushed the price tag past $100 billion.


The results speak for themselves: one train serves the people, the other serves bureaucracies. One didn’t cost taxpayers a dime, the other cost them a fortune.

Click to expand...

 
CaughtInThe said:
Click to expand...


While this is great there's a reason Maglev wasnt chosen in Europe or Japan who also have amazing high speed rail.
It's vastly more expensive to build and maintain and the trains can only be used on that specific track.
We have thousands of miles of hst tracks so why build an entirely new system just for a single line?
 
marduc said:
You do know there is a substantial difference in the topography of the two states, yes?

A state where the elevation varies between sea level and a MAX altitude of 345 feet (in the panhandle not on the Brightline route) is going to most assuredly have a DRASTICALLY lower cost compared to a state that is chock full of mountains, yes?

But yeah you, you got them now! Comparing a flat railroad across Florida is absolutely comparable to California with thousands if not tens of thousands of feet in elevation change between any two given cities.
Click to expand...
The route between Merced and Bakersfield is pretty flat and even that segment isn't live yet.
 
NJBob said:
I’m confused? You’re the one that made some strange comment saying I should move a train.
Click to expand...
The obvious implication was that you duplicate Acela in California. Were that not enough, the implication became an explicit statement in the next reply I made to you.

Yet here you are, still apparently unable to figure out what's going on.
 
MaryJoLisa said:
Ancient as it may be, it's all we got. We're not much of a mass-transit state unless we're talking airline travel, so a high-speed train like Brightline is really nice!

I remember early in Obama's presidency where he wanted to give a bunch of states money to build maglev (I think it was maglev). Florida was like, "No! We don't want your money!"

I was pretty critical of Florida at the time for declining the money, but did any other state get a leg of the track that was proposed?
Click to expand...
China has an operating maglev line that travels at over 450mph.
 
It is easy to economically build straight rails on flat ground such as in Florida.

California is going to cost more in mountains. Way more. It's a physical thing. It has nothing to do with whether it is publicly funded.

The original Trans Continental Railway faced the same issue. The straight flat stretches were a piece of cake to build. Slapped down miles a day. Going through the mountains was way more work intensive. Months of labor and dynamite to get one mile.

And they did it with immigrant labor!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom