That’s disingenuous. You know you can’t finish a wall for 5 billion. But illegals make the economy bank. Transportation makes bank. The wall will hurt the economy. The train will help it. Math isn’t in the wall’s side, it will always be a drain.
Worse investment? $5 Billion for a Wall or $100 Billion for Light Speed Rail in California
- Thread starter FAUlty Gator
- Start date
That's pretty nice of you for not completely destroying that poster. However you know he's not gonna look into it further and continue being ignorant and repeating nonsense. So you're not actually doing him any favors.
Maybe you should look what I responded to.
I responded to someone who said that the train was better than the wall (which has nothing to do with economics) because it helped the economy. So, in pretty much on point.
Sure it does. The train improves infrastructure which provides jobs and economic benefits to the areas the train reaches.
#1 - The LA/SF rail line will not be operational for years.
#2 - The final, FINAL price tag will be well north of $100B
#3 - The proposed stations to catch the light rail are not advantageous to target markets (i.e. frequent business travelers
#4 - Once operational, it will syphen off travelers who already utilize other means of transportation (air travel, car). The infrastructure to support those employ more than what a high speed rail effort would. Therefore, no net-new riders and existing infrastructure workers would take a hit. If it were much cheaper and projected to turn a profit then you could argue this is worthwhile.
#5 - This train is already projected to not turn a profit.
#6 - The lifespan of the line is 100 years. If it opens on time in 2033, 25 years would have passed since inception. It will be deep in the red already and operate at a loss. Then, voters will need to approve funding plans to support rebuilding the damn thing for future generations by the time they take their first ride.
#7 - Autonomous cars may be well into production by 2033 and will operate at a far cheaper cost per mile than the train and offer privacy for riders. California should divert funds to invest in autonomous infrastructure which can be profitable.
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf
#2 - The final, FINAL price tag will be well north of $100B
#3 - The proposed stations to catch the light rail are not advantageous to target markets (i.e. frequent business travelers
#4 - Once operational, it will syphen off travelers who already utilize other means of transportation (air travel, car). The infrastructure to support those employ more than what a high speed rail effort would. Therefore, no net-new riders and existing infrastructure workers would take a hit. If it were much cheaper and projected to turn a profit then you could argue this is worthwhile.
#5 - This train is already projected to not turn a profit.
#6 - The lifespan of the line is 100 years. If it opens on time in 2033, 25 years would have passed since inception. It will be deep in the red already and operate at a loss. Then, voters will need to approve funding plans to support rebuilding the damn thing for future generations by the time they take their first ride.
#7 - Autonomous cars may be well into production by 2033 and will operate at a far cheaper cost per mile than the train and offer privacy for riders. California should divert funds to invest in autonomous infrastructure which can be profitable.
https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/california_high_speed_rail_report.pdf
I would say yes, especially given how miserable of an experience flying is these days. It certainly is a better benefit to cost ratio than a worthless wall on the border.
But I'm sure there are many people who would disagree with me.
You (as usual) forgot to add in drug smugglers, child sex traffickers, gang bangers, etc. But that would not fit your narrative.So our choices are:
Both seem like bad options to me.
Actually a wall (or what is left to be built) can be done with 5 billion (you just refuse to believe or see that). THe rail on the other hand will never make the 100 bilion back it is going to cost. Why are you so against LEGAL immigration? I am all for LEGAL immigration so those coming in can be properly vetted, like you and I when we (legal citizens) try to fly from A to B.
Please do tell me exactly what my narrative is bc I do get mixed signals from the resident republicans and democrats.
Their high speed rail project will easily lose 5B per year forever. There is no passenger rail system in the world that is profitable. None!
Huh?
https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/passenger-growth-and-international-success-boosts-db-profits
GERMAN Rail (DB) achieved a 5.2% increase in revenue in 2017 to €42.7bn which translated into a 37.1% jump in pre-tax profit to €968m, a 2.8% rise in adjusted Ebitda to €4.93bn, and a 10.6% increase in adjusted Ebit to €2.15bn.
DB’s CEO Dr Richard Lutz, who presented the financial results for 2017 in Berlin on March 22, attributes DB’s “favourable performance in 2017” to passenger growth and better performance outside Germany at passenger operator DB Arriva and freight and logistics subsidiary DB Schenker.
I agree, but I’d like to make an exception for the monorail at Disney. Also, Thomas the Train makes serious bank. Dude’s got t-shirt and pajamas line, toy line, dishware. He everywhere bro.
Your facts are wrong on the cost. And you’re inventing a position that I’m against legal immigration. You’re about to strike out.
Amtrak makes money when you factor in the cost to replace it with roads and cars.
They all are when you factor in the cost to replace them. You think too small.
You do know that it's legal for someone to walk up to our borders and request asylum, right?
Amtrak is quite profitable on it's rail lines shorter than 400 miles, which account for 80% of Amtrak's passengers........it's routes over 750 miles are the ones that bleed money.
As Adie Tomer, one of the report's co-authors, explained to me by phone, the best way to think of Amtrak is that it's essentially two different train systems rolled into one. One system is quite successful, the other isn't.
First, there are Amtrak's shorter passenger routes that run less than 400 miles and tend to connect major cities. Think of the Acela Express in the Northeast, or the Pacific Surfliner between San Diego and Los Angeles. These 26 routes carry four-fifths of Amtrak's passengers, or 25.8 million riders per year. And they're growing rapidly. Taken as a whole, these shorter routes are profitable to operate — mainly because the two big routes in the Northeast Corridor earn enough to cover losses elsewhere.
Then there are Amtrak's 15 long-haul routes over 750 miles. Many of these were originally put in place to placate members of Congress all over the country, and they span dozens of states. This includes the California Zephyr route, which runs from Chicago to California and gets just 376,000 riders a year. All told, these routes lost $597.3 million in 2012.
It was called the BROWNDOGGLE when I lived in Cali. It will likely never be completed ... but if it is, the only people who will ride will be people forced by the government to do so. It's already a total failure.
More proof that communist central planning fails every time.
Wall all day, CA has pissed the high-speed rail monies down their legs. USA is not EU, we don't and won't use rail for much travel, we are too independent.
Yes, but 11 million + during the past 4yrs didn't do that, they came in illegally. You know that, right?
As for the rail system - https://www.cato.org/policy-analysi...ed-states-should-not-spend-trillions-obsolete
Cute GIF but it can be done, especially now that someone that doesn't shat themselves in front of the Pope is back in town.
This is the number a guy like elon musk would pull out to get funding and then either never deliver or require more funding once he had you on the hook.
I disagree with the options.
The worst investment is @FAUlty Gator Kentucky Derby pool. That thing is oh for the decade. And counting!
But you’re going to change that this year, right?!
The worst investment is @FAUlty Gator Kentucky Derby pool. That thing is oh for the decade. And counting!
But you’re going to change that this year, right?!
Like most Americans you can’t see the bigger picture. Better modes of transportation increase economic outcomes. It’s better than flying.
Now if you want to make the point that the cost has spiraled from the original $45b estimate you’d have a point. Although most US infrastructure projects are over budget.
The wall was symbolic.
