• 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!

High speed rail

Harry Guerrilla said:
Spain /= a country the size of a continent like the U.S.
Click to expand...

Complete non sequitur. 300 miles is 300 miles no matter where you are making your casual dismissal completely irrelevant. It is fact that people choose to use high speed trains when given the option, quite a lot. Notice how I brought evidence and not just talk?

Harry Guerrilla said:
It's just as safe and fast enough.
Click to expand...

No it is not. It takes more than you just saying so. It takes facts. Like... monorail will never cross a road. Monorail is wrapped around the track not just sitting on the track so derailment is much much less likely. Acela is running average speeds in the 70's. Top operating speed of 150 mph. Maglev top speed of 361 mph and an operating speed of 310 mph. It's not even comparable in the slightest.

Harry Guerrilla said:
You just won't admit that a national HSR system would cost more, than it's total economic benefit.
Click to expand...

No I won't. Because the only thing you've brought to the table is unsourced commentary. Meanwhile I'm bringing facts and links that refute pretty much everything you say.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Nice straw man.

It's not a "can't do" attitude, it's a "very stupid with negative economic value" attitude.
Click to expand...

More unsourced commentary based on how you feel rather than links. And being that you aren't backing up your claims it is clearly an attitude of "can't do" that is behind it.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
The Anaheim to Las Vegas corridor maglev train proposal.

The corridor, at a cost of $45 million per mile, can be constructed within the Federal Railroad Administration’s published range for “European style high-speed rail” cost per mile parameters. The preliminary cost estimate for the project is $12-$15 billion dollars which includes technology components, guideway infrastructure, stations, operation and maintenance facilities, right of way, and engineering construction management and training.
link...

Canine isn't shy in stating that Maglev technology is expensive. Actual construction costs are unknown, he says, "because no Maglevs have been built in the U.S. -- yet." In his interview with CGE below, Canine says he believes per-mile costs could be in the $13-14 million range
link...

I believe the Shanghai maglev train worked out to be around $70 million per mile and that was the first one ever built commercially meaning the price was at it's highest. As it gets more prominent the construction costs should go down significantly as does all new technology that gets more prominent use. Don't know where this billion per mile numbers are coming from.
Click to expand...

Between 13 and 45 million per mile, when the HSR in California is supposed to cost close to a billion?

Why the difference in estimates? If a HSR through the Central Valley is going to cost $98B, which was the latest estimate, it seems to me to be wishful thinking that a maglev could be built for even 4.5% of that amount, let alone 1.3%. I would be like looking at a new car for $30 grand, and then reading an estimate that you could buy a similar car for under $1,500. Most people wouldn't believe that low price.
 
And that's just the cost to build it.


How much does it cost to RIDE the thing? At the end of the day, there is a REASON why not many people do long distance trains, as compared to long distance bus. Or even air travel.

I don't see anyone addressing this.

Trains are REQUIRED in highly congested areas, countries with high populations, and therefor, high traffic, the same way trains are good in cities in the US.
 
KevinKohler said:
And that's just the cost to build it.


How much does it cost to RIDE the thing? At the end of the day, there is a REASON why not many people do long distance trains, as compared to long distance bus. Or even air travel.

I don't see anyone addressing this.

Trains are REQUIRED in highly congested areas, countries with high populations, and therefor, high traffic, the same way trains are good in cities in the US.
Click to expand...

The reason they don't ride them is because here, they are slow as cars and as costly as a plane flight. That is why. Fortunately, maglev's are not like that.

One-way tickets on the maglev between Las Vegas and Anaheim are proposed to cost $55, comparable to today’s airline fares and the pricetag estimated by DesertXpress for its service.
link...
Click to expand...

That's 266 miles for a $55 ride. No traffic. No stops. At around 310 mph. Flying past an extremely congested corridor.

From the same link:

While some critics have said maglev is unproven, Walter Buss, president of Transrapid International USA, said the Shanghai system already has traveled 4.1 million miles, carrying 20 million passengers, and it has a 99.8 percent on-time operating efficiency.
Click to expand...

Not to mention I've yet to see a solid link proving that ridiculous $billion per mile estimate.

*edit...

A March 2009 Government Accountability Office report lists the true estimated cost of the Las Vegas to Anaheim maglev project as $12.1 billion.
link...
Click to expand...

$12.1 billion for 266 miles. That means $1 billion per mile is beyond bunk. Unless someone can somehow convince me that Las Vegas is only 12.1 miles from Anaheim, CA.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Not to mention I've yet to see a solid link proving that ridiculous $billion per mile estimate.

*edit...



$12.1 billion for 266 miles. That means $1 billion per mile is beyond bunk. Unless someone can somehow convince me that Las Vegas is only 12.1 miles from Anaheim, CA.
Click to expand...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ndoggle-contd/2011/11/03/gIQAXqCNjM_blog.html

Included for you in that post is a breakdown by the California HSR Authority on why costs have more than doubled(inflation indexed 2010 $s) or tripled(2012 $s).

EDIT: I see where the confusion is coming from now that I read the report. The 1 billion/mile that I came up with was the current estimate cost of 100 billion covering the Fresno-Bakersfield line, but that was inaccurate. The 100 billion cost is for the entire line, running 465 miles. At that price, it comes out to $215 million / mile.

The money line though is this: "Is it possible that the pricetag could sink back down? In theory, yes, writes Levy, especially if the federal government were to kick in more money and demand more accountability. "

Apparently shifting the costs to some other entity means its now magically cheaper.
 
Last edited:
Samhain said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ndoggle-contd/2011/11/03/gIQAXqCNjM_blog.html

Included for you in that post is a breakdown by the California HSR Authority on why costs have more than doubled(inflation indexed 2010 $s) or tripled(2012 $s).

EDIT: I see where the confusion is coming from now that I read the report. The 1 billion/mile that I came up with was the current estimate cost of 100 billion covering the Fresno-Bakersfield line, but that was inaccurate. The 100 billion cost is for the entire line, running 465 miles. At that price, it comes out to $215 million / mile.

The money line though is this: "Is it possible that the pricetag could sink back down? In theory, yes, writes Levy, especially if the federal government were to kick in more money and demand more accountability. "

Apparently shifting the costs to some other entity means its now magically cheaper.
Click to expand...

Applying federal money to the equation will make the cost.... drop??? When has that ever happened?
 
poweRob said:
The reason they don't ride them is because here, they are slow as cars and as costly as a plane flight. That is why. Fortunately, maglev's are not like that.



That's 266 miles for a $55 ride. No traffic. No stops. At around 310 mph. Flying past an extremely congested corridor.

From the same link:



Not to mention I've yet to see a solid link proving that ridiculous $billion per mile estimate.

*edit...



$12.1 billion for 266 miles. That means $1 billion per mile is beyond bunk. Unless someone can somehow convince me that Las Vegas is only 12.1 miles from Anaheim, CA.
Click to expand...

55 bucks buys me about 1.5 tanks of gas in my civic, which can transport me from CT to SC. Sorry, but in my book, that's pretty darn expensive, especially considering it's my freaking train to begin with.
 
Re: High speed FAIL

Dittohead not! said:
Samhain said:
The money line though is this: "Is it possible that the pricetag could sink back down? In theory, yes, writes Levy, especially if the federal government were to kick in more money and demand more accountability. "
Click to expand...

Applying federal money to the equation will make the cost.... drop??? When has that ever happened?
Click to expand...


Probably about as often as involving the federal government has resulted in greater accountability. In other words, never.
 
Re: High speed FAIL

Bob Blaylock said:
Probably about as often as involving the federal government has resulted in greater accountability. In other words, never.
Click to expand...

I think the fed gov stepping in for accountability would mean they could provide the authority for right of ways where local governments can block while others allow making it near impossible because of such impediments. Meanwhile every car dealer in the area of local politicians are threatening their reelection if they don't do everything they can to keep it from happening.
 
Re: High speed FAIL

High speed rail would be awesome...as long as it's not funded with my tax money. I think the supporters of high speed rail should pool their money, find some big money investors and start building it.
 
Re: High speed FAIL

apdst said:
High speed rail would be awesome...as long as it's not funded with my tax money. I think the supporters of high speed rail should pool their money, find some big money investors and start building it.
Click to expand...

See, I agree with this. The government (fed or State) should have absolutely no financial obligation. CSW owns its train tracks and the property it sits on, why can't this be private venture? If the demand is there, as some here have claimed, why isn't this being attempted by the private sector?
 
Re: High speed FAIL

Fishstyx said:
See, I agree with this. The government (fed or State) should have absolutely no financial obligation. CSW owns its train tracks and the property it sits on, why can't this be private venture? If the demand is there, as some here have claimed, why isn't this being attempted by the private sector?
Click to expand...
only govt has pockets deep enough for this kind of venture....it ain't gonna happen...
 
Re: High speed FAIL

How is the private sector going to acquire the necessary land without eminent domain?

Someone suggested that the government build the tracks, but private enterprise buy and operate the rolling stock. That sounds reasonable to me, no different from private truckers operating on the interstates, or private airlines using the airports.
 
Re: High speed FAIL

Bob Blaylock said:
No, it doesn't.

Government doesn't have any pockets of its own. What it has is the power to stick its filthy hands into our pockets.
Click to expand...

The government has deep, deep pockets. The problem is, the only thing in those pockets currently is a MasterCard, and it's close to being maxed out. Don't look for any cash there.
 
Re: High speed FAIL

Dittohead not! said:
How is the private sector going to acquire the necessary land without eminent domain?

Someone suggested that the government build the tracks, but private enterprise buy and operate the rolling stock. That sounds reasonable to me, no different from private truckers operating on the interstates, or private airlines using the airports.
Click to expand...

When I lived in SC, they wanted to build a BMW plant there...which meant buying people's houses. Some people didn't WANT to sell their houses, even though BMW was offering them STUPID high prices. In walks uncle sam, and lo and behold, those people sold their houses.

There is long history of government forcing people to conform, even via emenent domain, in order to prove a "greater good" to the society it serves, even via supporting private enterprise. Or I guess I should say, ESPECIALLY via supporting private enterprise...
 
Re: High speed FAIL

I have a question regarding high speed rail and since the OP seems pretty darn knowledgeble about it, I'll pose this to him...


How much energy does this thing use? For instance, I claim I can go farther in my car on a tank and a half for the 50 bucks it costs to go 230 some off miles...but oil is a limited resource, and WILL continue to increase in price, unless we find a way to manufacture it artificially, which seems unlikely. In terms of energy, how much does it require to move this train? How much coal needs to burn to move it, or how many reactors need to operate? As compared to, say, a normal train, and airplane, and a passenger car. Hard question, i know, but I'm interested to know...
 
Re: High speed FAIL

KevinKohler said:
I have a question regarding high speed rail and since the OP seems pretty darn knowledgeble about it, I'll pose this to him...


How much energy does this thing use? For instance, I claim I can go farther in my car on a tank and a half for the 50 bucks it costs to go 230 some off miles...but oil is a limited resource, and WILL continue to increase in price, unless we find a way to manufacture it artificially, which seems unlikely. In terms of energy, how much does it require to move this train? How much coal needs to burn to move it, or how many reactors need to operate? As compared to, say, a normal train, and airplane, and a passenger car. Hard question, i know, but I'm interested to know...
Click to expand...


Here is some reading. I haven't made it all the way through but...

* These two links are PDF's.

http://lme.epfl.ch/webdav/site/lme/shared/import/migration/Herzberg.pdf

http://www.folketinget.dk/samling/20061/almdel/TRU/Bilag/361/363482.PDF
 
Re: High speed FAIL

KevinKohler said:
When I lived in SC, they wanted to build a BMW plant there...which meant buying people's houses. Some people didn't WANT to sell their houses, even though BMW was offering them STUPID high prices. In walks uncle sam, and lo and behold, those people sold their houses.

There is long history of government forcing people to conform, even via emenent domain, in order to prove a "greater good" to the society it serves, even via supporting private enterprise. Or I guess I should say, ESPECIALLY via supporting private enterprise...
Click to expand...

Locally, they put a stop to the use of imminent domain to buy land for private enterprise that would generate more tax money. Still, it's hard to see how any railroad or highway right of way could ever be purchased without it. Imagine if you had one acre in the way of an interstate about to be built. How much could you get?
 
Re: High speed FAIL

So, from the info, and a little research, I have derived, due to my personal genius, that high speed rail will be more energy conservative, than a 4 passenger car over a 100mile stretch, a normal train over...ANY mile stretch, ICE as well, AND about EQUAL to a decent sized airplane over, say, at least a 300 mile stretch. Shorter than 300 miles, the high speed rail wins. On an energy consumption argument, it has basis.



Food for thought.
 
Re: High speed FAIL

So the first big project is going to be a bullet train from nowhere to nowhere. Why? Because if they don't start construction by this time next year, they lose the $2+ billion of federal dough. Why aren't private firms rushing to invest? Cost is already predicted to be 3 times the original investment. Genius.
 
Re: High speed FAIL

KevinKohler said:
So, from the info, and a little research, I have derived, due to my personal genius, that high speed rail will be more energy conservative, than a 4 passenger car over a 100mile stretch, a normal train over...ANY mile stretch, ICE as well, AND about EQUAL to a decent sized airplane over, say, at least a 300 mile stretch. Shorter than 300 miles, the high speed rail wins. On an energy consumption argument, it has basis.



Food for thought.
Click to expand...

If you're such a genius then it shouldn't be too much of a problem for you to actually come up with some kind of links to back up that pile of horse manure.

Thanks in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom