R.Hubbell
February 3rd 04, 05:36 AM
On 02 Feb 2004 18:37:36 -0800 Bob Fry > wrote:
> I gotta wonder about this high-speed rail thing. Uh, don't we have
> airplanes that fly this route now? (SF/SAC to LA). Think about it:
> you can buy a lot of new airplanes, and improve airports, for 25+
> billion dollars.
>
> Suppose a new Boeing costs $50 million to purchase (wild guess). $25
That might get you a Gulfstream.
> Billion would buy 500 new airplanes! If each airplane flew just one
> roundtrip a day, and each held 200 passengers, that's 100,000 people
> you could carry per day, roundtrip. Seems like a lot.
>
> Oh, but the trains would go right where you want to go, wouldn't they?
> Maybe if you want to go downtown, but both Sac and L.A. are pretty
> spread out. Maybe that would work for S.F. But $25 Billion??
>
> I'll believe this when I see a decent train working between Sac and
> S.F. They still don't have reliable service between those two cities.
> Let's get something simple working before we spend many billions of
> dollars on something we've never done before, with very doubtful
> benefit.
I agree with the premise of getting the easy stuff working first then
launch into the hard stuff. But let's face it the "Big Dig" is winding
down (I think) in Boston and the country needs another over-priced, over-budget
pork-barrel project to be disgusted about. Think of all the jobs!
Of course no Americans want those jobs so let's let the labor go to the
illegal immigrants.
There will be endless EIRs, eminent domain issues up the wazoo, supplier
chicanery and contractor fraud.
And I estimate the cost to come at 75 Billion and for it to take 12 years longer
than the initial estimates.
But it will be an amazing thing when it's done and it will be over capacity
the first week it runs.
R. Hubbell
> I gotta wonder about this high-speed rail thing. Uh, don't we have
> airplanes that fly this route now? (SF/SAC to LA). Think about it:
> you can buy a lot of new airplanes, and improve airports, for 25+
> billion dollars.
>
> Suppose a new Boeing costs $50 million to purchase (wild guess). $25
That might get you a Gulfstream.
> Billion would buy 500 new airplanes! If each airplane flew just one
> roundtrip a day, and each held 200 passengers, that's 100,000 people
> you could carry per day, roundtrip. Seems like a lot.
>
> Oh, but the trains would go right where you want to go, wouldn't they?
> Maybe if you want to go downtown, but both Sac and L.A. are pretty
> spread out. Maybe that would work for S.F. But $25 Billion??
>
> I'll believe this when I see a decent train working between Sac and
> S.F. They still don't have reliable service between those two cities.
> Let's get something simple working before we spend many billions of
> dollars on something we've never done before, with very doubtful
> benefit.
I agree with the premise of getting the easy stuff working first then
launch into the hard stuff. But let's face it the "Big Dig" is winding
down (I think) in Boston and the country needs another over-priced, over-budget
pork-barrel project to be disgusted about. Think of all the jobs!
Of course no Americans want those jobs so let's let the labor go to the
illegal immigrants.
There will be endless EIRs, eminent domain issues up the wazoo, supplier
chicanery and contractor fraud.
And I estimate the cost to come at 75 Billion and for it to take 12 years longer
than the initial estimates.
But it will be an amazing thing when it's done and it will be over capacity
the first week it runs.
R. Hubbell