Comments on: California’s High Speed Rail Could Cost $98 Billion http://inhabitat.com/californias-high-speed-rail-could-cost-98-billion/ Green design & eco innovation for a better world Fri, 17 May 2013 18:49:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc By: adamclark1 http://inhabitat.com/californias-high-speed-rail-could-cost-98-billion/comment-page-1/#comment-361406 adamclark1 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 03:10:58 +0000 http://inhabitat.com/?p=319138#comment-361406 "...California's growing population"?!? That's news to me. People and businesses are fleeing like rats off a sinking ship. The author hints at the impracticality of such an expensive project, but doesn't dare to make the logical conclusion that California is taking a huge gamble spending money they don't have to build a monumentally expensive rail line that nobody knows if anyone will actually use. "$352 million profit per year, even if ridership is low." Lay off the drugs, man. There are only two high-speed rail lines in the whole world that turn a profit, and they barely break even with almost 100% ridership on every train. California, listen up. Here's what you do. Step 1: Whatever route you want the train to take, make a road instead of a rail. Elevate the lane slightly to restrict access. Step 2: Announce that you are taking bids from private companies for a 100-passenger bus that goes 100 MPH and the lowest MPG possible. Step 3: Take the $75 Billion you just saved by not building the rail, and PAY OFF YOUR DEBT. “…California’s growing population”?!? That’s news to me. People and businesses are fleeing like rats off a sinking ship. The author hints at the impracticality of such an expensive project, but doesn’t dare to make the logical conclusion that California is taking a huge gamble spending money they don’t have to build a monumentally expensive rail line that nobody knows if anyone will actually use.

“$352 million profit per year, even if ridership is low.” Lay off the drugs, man. There are only two high-speed rail lines in the whole world that turn a profit, and they barely break even with almost 100% ridership on every train.

California, listen up. Here’s what you do. Step 1: Whatever route you want the train to take, make a road instead of a rail. Elevate the lane slightly to restrict access. Step 2: Announce that you are taking bids from private companies for a 100-passenger bus that goes 100 MPH and the lowest MPG possible. Step 3: Take the $75 Billion you just saved by not building the rail, and PAY OFF YOUR DEBT.

]]> By: adamclark1 http://inhabitat.com/californias-high-speed-rail-could-cost-98-billion/comment-page-1/#comment-361403 adamclark1 Tue, 15 Nov 2011 02:50:06 +0000 http://inhabitat.com/?p=319138#comment-361403 "...California's growing population"?!? That's news to me. People and businesses are fleeing like rats off a sinking ship. The author hints at the impracticality of such an expensive project, but doesn't dare to make the logical conclusion that California is taking a huge gamble spending money they don't have to build a monumentally expensive rail line that nobody knows if anyone will actually use. "$352 million profit per year, even if ridership is low." Lay off the drugs, man. There are only two high-speed rail lines in the whole world that turn a profit, and they barely break even with almost 100% ridership on every train. California, listen up. Here's what you do. Step 1: Whatever route you want the train to take, make a road instead of a rail. Elevate the lane to restrict access. Step 2: Announce that you are taking bids from private companies for a 100-passenger bus that goes 100 MPH and the lowest MPG possible. Step 3: Take the $75 Billion you just saved by not building the rail, and PAY OFF YOUR DEBT. “…California’s growing population”?!? That’s news to me. People and businesses are fleeing like rats off a sinking ship. The author hints at the impracticality of such an expensive project, but doesn’t dare to make the logical conclusion that California is taking a huge gamble spending money they don’t have to build a monumentally expensive rail line that nobody knows if anyone will actually use.

“$352 million profit per year, even if ridership is low.” Lay off the drugs, man. There are only two high-speed rail lines in the whole world that turn a profit, and they barely break even with almost 100% ridership on every train.

California, listen up. Here’s what you do. Step 1: Whatever route you want the train to take, make a road instead of a rail. Elevate the lane to restrict access. Step 2: Announce that you are taking bids from private companies for a 100-passenger bus that goes 100 MPH and the lowest MPG possible. Step 3: Take the $75 Billion you just saved by not building the rail, and PAY OFF YOUR DEBT.

]]> By: caeman http://inhabitat.com/californias-high-speed-rail-could-cost-98-billion/comment-page-1/#comment-359428 caeman Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:44:54 +0000 http://inhabitat.com/?p=319138#comment-359428 High-Speed Rail is the great boon-doggle of our time. It is the answer to all our problems! Right? Well, no. As with any rail-based system, it is still limited to where it can go and the maintenance costs are exceedingly higher than that of maintaining roads for ye olde bus. High-speed rail uses are lot more energy, far more than any solar array could provide. The future of commuter travel is the motorcycle. They are efficient with gas usage. They weight much less than car, using less resources to build and maintain, and they impart less damage to road systems. High-Speed Rail is the great boon-doggle of our time. It is the answer to all our problems! Right? Well, no. As with any rail-based system, it is still limited to where it can go and the maintenance costs are exceedingly higher than that of maintaining roads for ye olde bus. High-speed rail uses are lot more energy, far more than any solar array could provide.

The future of commuter travel is the motorcycle. They are efficient with gas usage. They weight much less than car, using less resources to build and maintain, and they impart less damage to road systems.

]]>