Another example of high-speed fail
- Thread starter T. A. Gardner
- Start date
AProudLefty
He sucks Damocles' dick. :)
Point being?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
That building high speed fail in the US is a worthless idea that is nothing but a trillion dollar plus boondoggle. If it gets built, it won't get used, and will be the biggest public works failure in the history of the nation.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Twenty times the cost for four times the speed... California's high speed fail project has risen to almost $100 billion and they can't even move a train a foot down the track.
AProudLefty
He sucks Damocles' dick. :)
So you say.
BTW they said the same thing about many projects in the past. Guess how they felt afterwards?
You are anti progress. A Luddite.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
If it was so lucrative, private industry would build it. But passenger rail travel isn't profitable in the US, airlines are. The technological Neanderthals are those who want to return to the 19th century and use choo-choo trains for passenger travel.
AProudLefty
He sucks Damocles' dick. :)
It is projected to cost $80 billion, but some argue it will cost $100 billion. But it has not been built, and so has not cost that much, yet. As with any project that has not been built, it cannot be used.
Airlines have had a lot of trouble with profitability, so bad example.
Right now, there are different distances which passenger rail works better than planes. In the future... Who knows. There is evidence that trains could go faster than the speed of sound, where planes going that fast cause a lot of trouble.
Right now, if you want to get from New Jersey to New York City, or from Harlem to Wall Street, then planes really are not the solution. Going from NYC to DC also is often better done by rail.
If no one is using it, can it actually = progress ?
Its been around for a decade and use is declining. Thats not good.
Now I dont mind China hemorrhaging money over this apart from the fact that they will feel the pressure to try and recover at our expense. Partly why they put Biden in office in case you have not been connecting the dots.
Some of China's rails are heavily used. Other parts are newer, and meant to drive growth in the areas. Its use declined with Covid-19, but then rose again.
Most of the European fast rail system is heavily used.
AProudLefty
He sucks Damocles' dick. :)
People have been using Amtrak.
I gather you did not take the time to watch the video.
As to the Europe angle, it makes more sense there as Europe is far smaller than China or the US which keeps the costs a tad lower but it is still heavily subsidized and therefore difficult to assess the true value or lack thereof.
High speed rail could make sense in a few areas of the US. The Northeast for example where there is use of connections among NYC, Boston, Philly etc. Other areas where distances are far greater you have the problems Chiina has. Bigger is different.
Actually it's more complicated than that but with a mind like yours is just no point in going into the discussion The only thing you need to understand is that you're a moron
BidenPresident
Verified User
Gardner's every post: Duhhh, Dem bad duhhh.
I have friends who have actually ridden on Chinese railroads. There are lines that are above 90% occupancy.
Or put another way, if you cannot come together with written words with citations to trustable sources, I really am not going to believe you. A high production value video used to be slightly meaningful, but these days any 12 year old can put one together and load it up on YouTube.
Well, that is garbage. China has much higher densities of population than Europe. Europe is physically bigger than China, but has only half the population. Almost everyone in China lives in one fifth of the country, while Europeans live over four fifths of their continent.
The US has population densities like Europe in some sections of the country, but in one way better. While European population centers expanded haphazardly, American population centers often expanded along rail lines.
High speed rail definitely makes sense for 20% of the population, and depending on what assumptions you make, maybe as high as 90% of the population.
Then that 90% can pay for it. Zero value for Wyoming etc.
This is a project for states, not the federal govt.
Maybe the Federal Government will step in?
All that needs to be done to get people on trains if we were to build them (highly unlikely) is jack up the price of driving and flying. Our newly totalitarian government would certainly be willing to do that to "save the planet".