4 ms·

As a California usually in favor of all sorts of new technologies and futuristic projects, I am totally opposed to building this train system. The air travel in

As a California usually in favor of all sorts of new technologies and futuristic projects, I am totally opposed to building this train system. The air travel infrastructure is already in place and could work even better with an investment of a fraction of the $64B. Airplanes don't need expensive rails to ride on in the sky. What's better about getting into a coach of a train and rolling on the ground over getting in the coach of a plane and flying through the sky? Let's stick with what is and what works and spend the money on desalination plants, wind farms, solar plants and a smart electrical grid.

ubernostrum 10y ago
If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Most of the cost of air travel is hidden in places you don't think about, and might surprise you if you knew how much it added up to (or how much tax money -- in the US, around $300 million per year currently, and around $9m/year of it in California -- goes into subsidizing unprofitable air routes in order to keep airlines flying them, for sake of maintaining connectivity).
- billions 10y ago
  Per your numbers 64B / 9m per year = 7 thousand years California could continue subsidizing those air routes for the cost of the track. Can't you see the disparity in cost?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    That's to keep service on a few routes that get direct subsidies. That's not the cost of running the entire airport and air-travel infrastructure in the state, which also runs on a lot of direct or indirect taxes. And it's not the cost of building out that infrastructure in the first place. And I suspect that when you add it up you'll find that $64B is not much money compared to what having a well-developed air-travel network costs, and in fact this sort of argument is precisely the point people make when they argue for building out better rail service along major corridors: the cost seems steep when someone presents you with the bill up-front, but we routinely pay and have paid bills just as high or higher for things that we'd now yell and scream about if they got taken away.
- labrador 10y ago
  I didn't say it could be built in it's entirety for a fraction of the cost, I said the existing air travel infrastructure could be improved and made more efficient for a fraction of the cost.
kalleboo 10y ago
One problem with domestic air travel in the U.S. in particular is all the dead time in getting to the airport, security, boarding. In comparison, here in Japan you can show up at the airport 20 minutes before your departure time with no problems. If you didn't book a ticket in advance, make it 30 minutes to get a ticket from a vending machine. It really is an air-BUS. The question is what kind of security theater will end up applied to high-speed rail in the U.S.
- labrador 10y ago
  I'm afraid the same kind of security theater would apply to a high speed train, though the chances of it being driven into a building are low, it still would be a choice target. I would take a few billion out of that 64B price tag and improve air travel security to make the checkin process take less time and be less intrusive.
  - trome 10y ago
    Uhh, you can't take a train very far off its tracks, unlike a car, truck or plane.
    - labrador 10y ago
      > the chances of it being driven into a building are low That was a joke by the way.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    > improve air travel security to make the checkin process take less time and be less intrusive Air travel security in the US isn't meant to be good, it's meant to be visible

ubernostrum 10y ago

If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Most of the cost of air travel is hidden in places you don't think about, and might surprise you if you knew how much it added up to (or how much tax money -- in the US, around $300 million per year currently, and around $9m/year of it in California -- goes into subsidizing unprofitable air routes in order to keep airlines flying them, for sake of maintaining connectivity).

billions 10y ago
Per your numbers 64B / 9m per year = 7 thousand years California could continue subsidizing those air routes for the cost of the track. Can't you see the disparity in cost?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  That's to keep service on a few routes that get direct subsidies. That's not the cost of running the entire airport and air-travel infrastructure in the state, which also runs on a lot of direct or indirect taxes. And it's not the cost of building out that infrastructure in the first place. And I suspect that when you add it up you'll find that $64B is not much money compared to what having a well-developed air-travel network costs, and in fact this sort of argument is precisely the point people make when they argue for building out better rail service along major corridors: the cost seems steep when someone presents you with the bill up-front, but we routinely pay and have paid bills just as high or higher for things that we'd now yell and scream about if they got taken away.
labrador 10y ago
I didn't say it could be built in it's entirety for a fraction of the cost, I said the existing air travel infrastructure could be improved and made more efficient for a fraction of the cost.

kalleboo 10y ago

One problem with domestic air travel in the U.S. in particular is all the dead time in getting to the airport, security, boarding. In comparison, here in Japan you can show up at the airport 20 minutes before your departure time with no problems. If you didn't book a ticket in advance, make it 30 minutes to get a ticket from a vending machine. It really is an air-BUS. The question is what kind of security theater will end up applied to high-speed rail in the U.S.

labrador 10y ago
I'm afraid the same kind of security theater would apply to a high speed train, though the chances of it being driven into a building are low, it still would be a choice target. I would take a few billion out of that 64B price tag and improve air travel security to make the checkin process take less time and be less intrusive.
- trome 10y ago
  Uhh, you can't take a train very far off its tracks, unlike a car, truck or plane.
  - labrador 10y ago
    > the chances of it being driven into a building are low That was a joke by the way.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  > improve air travel security to make the checkin process take less time and be less intrusive Air travel security in the US isn't meant to be good, it's meant to be visible