Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

itsfuckingpizzatime t1_j9wznv3 wrote

Reply to comment by Randomperson1362 in High-Speed Rail Project Will Create Over 10,000 Jobs in California by gammapsi05

Yeah that’s not the point. This isn’t a communist job program. It’s fucking infrastructure.

16

Randomperson1362 t1_j9wzts7 wrote

Which is fine, I'm just pointing out that 10,000 jobs isn't really a great success when you are spending 100 billion dollars.

11

tacosdepapa t1_j9xgazx wrote

Think of the revenue from tourism. I’m in Southern California and would be spending weekends going up and down the coast if I could get to Northern California in three hours and I don’t have to drive. This project would payoff tenfold. I’ve taken scores of trains up and down all over Europe in the past 20 years but have only been on amtrack twice in the U.S. lived in L.A. all my life. It’s time to get this project done. I won’t enjoy it but my children will.

3

kippypapa t1_j9zld06 wrote

That train already exists. An extra couple of hours is what’s holding back your travels? If an extra few hours of travel time is what’s holding back this amazing tourist spend, then I’d argue that the demand isn’t sufficient for it to be built. It’ll also be expensive like HSR is in Europe compared to other modes of travel. If a foreign tourist can pay $100 or $50 but the cheaper option takes longer, they’ll take the cheaper option because they’re on vacation, they’re not in a hurry.

4

eh_brah t1_j9zn4e1 wrote

That's flawed thinking, it's not about jobs created, it's about infrastructure value -- jobs are a bonus.

For example, BART only employs 3500 people, yet cost 2B to build. "Oh no it costs 500K per job", but the infrastructure moves 26M people annually and without it the bay traffic would be even more unbearable.

Over 2M people fly annually between LAX and SFO alone, with ground travel magnitudes larger. Yes rail is an expensive project, but the value created would pay itself over multiple times. For example, The SF/Oakland bridge was $6B dollars to build, but they get $800M in tolls per year. ROI potential for these types of infrastructure is huge.

1

Randomperson1362 t1_j9zndwh wrote

This train is also projected to be slower, and more expensive than flying, so all 2 million are not going to switch to the train.

3

eh_brah t1_j9zvuw0 wrote

I didn't say that. I'm merely pointing out that there are a large amount of travel between norcal/socal that can be replaced with a bullet train.

The bullet train will be comparable to a plane ticket and coming in at an estimated $86 each way. A bullet train could take only 3 hours, which beats the 6-7 hour drive and half a day you spend at the airport. TSA, pre-boarding, waiting on the tarmac, enduring your 32" economy legroom, baggage claim, and all the unnecessary overhead.

In any country with a bullet train, telling someone you want to fly to the next major city is usually met with "yeah you could, but why the hell would you do that? Why not take the train?"

1

Ragnar_DanneskjoldSr t1_j9xhx7y wrote

I don't know the specifics about this project, but a nationwide high-speed rail implementation is an investment. Not an expensive.

−1

itsfuckingpizzatime t1_j9x02lh wrote

I mean, if it took more people to build, wouldn’t it just cost more?

It just shows the majority of the costs are not labor. Question is, where is the money going?

−2

atl_cracker t1_j9x1xxh wrote

> where is the money going?

consultants.

that's usually the short answer version of public-private ventures costing way more than they should.

15

Lanian55 t1_j9xi0zm wrote

Don't forget eminent domain of expensive California real estate.

6

duderguy91 t1_j9xjmep wrote

Just FYI, the spelling is eminent.

11

Lanian55 t1_ja0s2q4 wrote

That it is good sir! Always happy to improve my diction. (Fixed)

2