Train to Nowhere: Full Speed Ahead

[Torie]

The article speaks for itself. This 70 billion idea and counting is insane. The train will never be built (other than maybe the nowhere to nowhere segment, but I doubt that too). But what will happen is 10 billion or something will be flushed down the toilet by a state that should declare bankruptcy, if only it were legal. The Feds certainly won't be kicking in any more money either.

[muon2]

IL seems to have taken a quite different approach. There seems to be a more incremental approach on the Chicago to St Louis proposal. The approval actually began in 2004 and the initial plan is to add track and improve crossings to bring the speed up to 110 mph. The state's commitment is $400 million to upgrade the existing service of five trains a day each way with $1.2 billion from the Feds. The upgrades are scheduled for completion by 2017. Based on those results, the state can look at next steps which may include further speed increases.

[opebo]

10 billion or something will be flushed down the toilet

Better this toilet than the 'golden toilet bowl' of the exploiters, Torie.

[memphis]

10 billion or something will be flushed down the toilet

Better this toilet than the 'golden toilet bowl' of the exploiters, Torie.

Or the month or so of the war in Iraq that the $10,000,000,000 would buy. Where were all these deficit hawks during the war years?

[© tweed]

a national public-sector high-speed rail development project has long been a dream of mine, since my stoner days of 2009, when my buddy and I considered how much more awesome the US would be had we spent a few trillion on a high-speed rail project instead of occupying Iraq.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

IL seems to have taken a quite different approach. There seems to be a more incremental approach on the Chicago to St Louis proposal. The approval actually began in 2004 and the initial plan is to add track and improve crossings to bring the speed up to 110 mph. The state's commitment is $400 million to upgrade the existing service of five trains a day each way with $1.2 billion from the Feds. The upgrades are scheduled for completion by 2017. Based on those results, the state can look at next steps which may include further speed increases.

They are doing some incremental improvements in the SF and LA areas, such as along the Caltrain line from San Jose to San Francisco.

The current estimate is $68 billion in future inflated dollars, or around $45 billion in current dollars.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

a national public-sector high-speed rail development project has long been a dream of mine, since my stoner days of 2009, when my buddy and I considered how much more awesome the US would be had we spent a few trillion on a high-speed rail project instead of occupying Iraq.

There definitely seems to be a double standard of what is considered waste when it's large military projects or the Iraq war, versus something that will actually help society.

Imagine if we had done some useful things with that $1+ trillion we blew on Iraq. High speed rail for the whole country. Or a permanent base on Mars, or a cure for cancer or something. But right-wingers don't speak of that money as being wasted. But we'd rather kill a bunch of brown people and have China kick our asses technology wise this century. Idiots.

[greenforest32]

I don't think the states alone have the resources to build a national high-speed rail system and it's going to be another decade before we see federal spending on this issue again if Republicans truly have gerrymandered a lock on the House.

I'm sure we can find some money for another war or bank bailout though.

[Sbane]

The sad thing about this project, and something the lefties here should really look at seriously, is that it will be environmentalists that will have killed this project. And yes this project will be killed. I would vote to kill it if given a chance and I am sure a majority of Californians agree with me. Does this mean that I don't like high speed rail or that I think it is a bad idea? No, of course not. Indeed, I did vote for the bond measure to create the high speed rail system. But I have to come to realize this state is full of a bunch of retard nimby dumbfukcs and that is why we cannot build anything nice anymore. Some stupid lizard or who knows what is more important than building something of this scale that really had the chance of transforming how people traveled within the state, and perhaps within the nation. But no, that will not happen due to the stupid environmentalists. Oh, the irony.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The sad thing about this project, and something the lefties here should really look at seriously, is that it will be environmentalists that will have killed this project. And yes this project will be killed. I would vote to kill it if given a chance and I am sure a majority of Californians agree with me. Does this mean that I don't like high speed rail or that I think it is a bad idea? No, of course not. Indeed, I did vote for the bond measure to create the high speed rail system. But I have to come to realize this state is full of a bunch of retard nimby dumbfukcs and that is why we cannot build anything nice anymore. Some stupid lizard or who knows what is more important than building something of this scale that really had the chance of transforming how people traveled within the state, and perhaps within the nation. But no, that will not happen due to the stupid environmentalists. Oh, the irony.

Carefull there, you are verging on being politically incorrect, a capital crime in CA.

[Silent Hunter]

IL seems to have taken a quite different approach. There seems to be a more incremental approach on the Chicago to St Louis proposal. The approval actually began in 2004 and the initial plan is to add track and improve crossings to bring the speed up to 110 mph. The state's commitment is $400 million to upgrade the existing service of five trains a day each way with $1.2 billion from the Feds. The upgrades are scheduled for completion by 2017. Based on those results, the state can look at next steps which may include further speed increases.

110mph? Is that it? We can get 140mph in this country on the East Coast Main Line.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

IL seems to have taken a quite different approach. There seems to be a more incremental approach on the Chicago to St Louis proposal. The approval actually began in 2004 and the initial plan is to add track and improve crossings to bring the speed up to 110 mph. The state's commitment is $400 million to upgrade the existing service of five trains a day each way with $1.2 billion from the Feds. The upgrades are scheduled for completion by 2017. Based on those results, the state can look at next steps which may include further speed increases.

110mph? Is that it? We can get 140mph in this country on the East Coast Main Line.

Going faster than 110mph will generally require building along new rights of way with shallower curves.  That's what is keeping us from building truly high speed rail in the corridors that could use it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The sad thing about this project, and something the lefties here should really look at seriously, is that it will be environmentalists that will have killed this project. And yes this project will be killed. I would vote to kill it if given a chance and I am sure a majority of Californians agree with me. Does this mean that I don't like high speed rail or that I think it is a bad idea? No, of course not. Indeed, I did vote for the bond measure to create the high speed rail system. But I have to come to realize this state is full of a bunch of retard nimby dumbfukcs and that is why we cannot build anything nice anymore. Some stupid lizard or who knows what is more important than building something of this scale that really had the chance of transforming how people traveled within the state, and perhaps within the nation. But no, that will not happen due to the stupid environmentalists. Oh, the irony.

I understand that there are some environmental lawsuits against it, but those could just be NIMBYs. In any case, I imagine that most environmentalists are for this. The choice between California HSR and 5 more airport runways, and thousands of new freeway lane miles is pretty obvious.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The sad thing about this project, and something the lefties here should really look at seriously, is that it will be environmentalists that will have killed this project. And yes this project will be killed. I would vote to kill it if given a chance and I am sure a majority of Californians agree with me. Does this mean that I don't like high speed rail or that I think it is a bad idea? No, of course not. Indeed, I did vote for the bond measure to create the high speed rail system. But I have to come to realize this state is full of a bunch of retard nimby dumbfukcs and that is why we cannot build anything nice anymore. Some stupid lizard or who knows what is more important than building something of this scale that really had the chance of transforming how people traveled within the state, and perhaps within the nation. But no, that will not happen due to the stupid environmentalists. Oh, the irony.

I understand that there are some environmental lawsuits against it, but those could just be NIMBYs. In any case, I imagine that most environmentalists are for this. The choice between California HSR and 5 more airport runways, and thousands of new freeway lane miles is pretty obvious.

O really?  The brand new rights of way that significant sections of any high-speed rail project will require will probably use up more land than any equivalent airport/freeway construction.   And that assumes that it doesn't turn into a low-usage white elephant so that those freeway and airport expansions don't get built anyway.  A case can be made that under certain conditions high-speed rail would be the eco-friendly option, but that those conditions actually are the case is far from obvious.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The sad thing about this project, and something the lefties here should really look at seriously, is that it will be environmentalists that will have killed this project. And yes this project will be killed. I would vote to kill it if given a chance and I am sure a majority of Californians agree with me. Does this mean that I don't like high speed rail or that I think it is a bad idea? No, of course not. Indeed, I did vote for the bond measure to create the high speed rail system. But I have to come to realize this state is full of a bunch of retard nimby dumbfukcs and that is why we cannot build anything nice anymore. Some stupid lizard or who knows what is more important than building something of this scale that really had the chance of transforming how people traveled within the state, and perhaps within the nation. But no, that will not happen due to the stupid environmentalists. Oh, the irony.

I understand that there are some environmental lawsuits against it, but those could just be NIMBYs. In any case, I imagine that most environmentalists are for this. The choice between California HSR and 5 more airport runways, and thousands of new freeway lane miles is pretty obvious.

O really?  The brand new rights of way that significant sections of any high-speed rail project will require will probably use up more land than any equivalent airport/freeway construction.   And that assumes that it doesn't turn into a low-usage white elephant so that those freeway and airport expansions don't get built anyway.  A case can be made that under certain conditions high-speed rail would be the eco-friendly option, but that those conditions actually are the case is far from obvious.

No one seemed to care when freeways were gobbling up farmland.

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/09/where-were-the-farmers-when-valley-freeways-were-widened/

[Silent Hunter]

IL seems to have taken a quite different approach. There seems to be a more incremental approach on the Chicago to St Louis proposal. The approval actually began in 2004 and the initial plan is to add track and improve crossings to bring the speed up to 110 mph. The state's commitment is $400 million to upgrade the existing service of five trains a day each way with $1.2 billion from the Feds. The upgrades are scheduled for completion by 2017. Based on those results, the state can look at next steps which may include further speed increases.

110mph? Is that it? We can get 140mph in this country on the East Coast Main Line.

Going faster than 110mph will generally require building along new rights of way with shallower curves.  That's what is keeping us from building truly high speed rail in the corridors that could use it.

Or you just get tilting trains.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

IL seems to have taken a quite different approach. There seems to be a more incremental approach on the Chicago to St Louis proposal. The approval actually began in 2004 and the initial plan is to add track and improve crossings to bring the speed up to 110 mph. The state's commitment is $400 million to upgrade the existing service of five trains a day each way with $1.2 billion from the Feds. The upgrades are scheduled for completion by 2017. Based on those results, the state can look at next steps which may include further speed increases.

110mph? Is that it? We can get 140mph in this country on the East Coast Main Line.

Going faster than 110mph will generally require building along new rights of way with shallower curves.  That's what is keeping us from building truly high speed rail in the corridors that could use it.

Or you just get tilting trains.

Tilting trains aren't entirely a magic bullet.   On portions of its route in the Northeast Corridor, the Acela trains aren't allowed to tilt because of clearance problems with trains on adjacent tracks.