| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| After 15 years of study CA's high speed rail viability a mystery |
| 2011-05-19 |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #11 The whole thing is idiotic. How are you going to provide security for 300 miles of track? What happens to passengers going 200 mph when the train hits a cement truck parked on the tracks? What kind of security can you provide that will prevent that? How much is that security going to cost? At least with an airplane you only have to provide security at each end point - not the entire trip. |
| Posted by: Leigh 2011-05-19 23:17 |
| #10 The Attorney fess will cost more than the land. Eminent Domain - Partial Takings Often, the government needs only a portion of a particular property, such as a strip of land needed for street widening. In those cases, just compensation is determined not only by the value of the part taken, but also by the damage to the remaining property. Such damages are called “severance damages,” i.e., damages caused by severance of the remainder from the part taken. “Severance damage” as a general proposition, is the amount of damage to the remaining portion of the parcel which is caused by the severance of the remainder from the part taken, or by the construction and operation of the project for which the property is taken. Severance damages may be minimal or non-existent in some cases. In others, they can be quite high — sometimes approaching the value of the entire property. California Eminent Domain Law Group |
| Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC 2011-05-19 16:13 |
| #9 I suspect regular rail would carry a lot more passengers if the price were half what air fare costs. Not exactly, currently for instance Amtrak is subsidized by taxpayers to reduce fares. Problem is it runs on the same lines as normal freight trains (which have higher profit margins for their respective rail companies) and hence its schedule is limited to the freight trains schedules. The real problem with rail traffic is that its not profitable. You are only running revenue so long as there is a train on the track with people moving along on it. Whenever that track does not have a train on it, its basically idle eating up maintenance costs. To further exacerbate the dilemma a study was done showing that when train travel distances exceed 1 to 2 hours people start preferring planes (this alone pretty much wrecks the whole high speed transit idea to LA unless you can get that train to do the distance in under 3 hours). As a final nail in the coffin is land purchasing price. In order to build the rail line the state or whoever the hell is going to run the line needs to own the track (see above for maintenance costs on this) which means buying up the land its on, which in turns means when land owner find out their land is wanted they will charge an arm and a leg for it. You can basically expect $40 billion to just pay for the land itself. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2011-05-19 15:49 |
| #8 Time to hire a committee to analize the study. I know a guy, yeah he's a relative, but college isn't challenging enough, see?, thats why the grades are bad. He's good on the phone, and can draw a train like nobody else. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-05-19 14:02 |
| #7 Seems we could do a lot with that money, other than build a rail line that would be too expensive to ride anyway. I suspect regular rail would carry a lot more passengers if the price were half what air fare costs. |
| Posted by: Fred 2011-05-19 14:00 |
| #6 Everyone wants to go fast to someplace. Problem is that someplace is a differentplace for nearly every one. Which is way Cars are better than Rails in non high density areas. |
| Posted by: The Other Beldar 2011-05-19 12:05 |
| #5 If no one has come up with a convincing rationale by now, maybe there isnÂ’t one. Of course there is a convincing rationale. Just depends on who needs convincing. Right now those that need convincing are the pols that are probably getting kick-backs (aka campaign funds) from the various "studiers" and prospective contractors and all the unions that figure to make a mint. Oh, you meant a rationale that would show it was good for the economy and the taxpayers? There, not so much. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-05-19 11:39 |
| #4 Yet after all that, no one really knows whether it's worth doing. Everyone knows it's not worth doing. The studies are attempts to justify the unjustifiable. |
| Posted by: DoDo 2011-05-19 11:31 |
| #3 Everyone wants to go fast to someplace. Are they willing to pay? Then there is this nasty problem of getting capital funding from a bankrupt state and federal govt. It would be cheaper to have electric cars and periodic quick chargers on existing freeways than build a bazillion dollar high speed 19th century rail line. Just sayin'. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2011-05-19 11:06 |
| #2 wow Fifteen years have passed, and millions of dollars have been spent on studies since the state first passed a law creating a high-speed rail program. Yet after all that, no one really knows whether itÂ’s worth doing. If no one has come up with a convincing rationale by now, maybe there isnÂ’t one. |
| Posted by: Beavis 2011-05-19 10:58 |
| #1 Are all the roads put together in California worth $43Billion? Seems we could do a lot with that money, other than build a rail line that would be too expensive to ride anyway. |
| Posted by: bigjim-CA 2011-05-19 10:48 |