California High-Speed Rail Thread

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The big problem with California HSR is that you still need a car at your destination. Were not built up like Japan.

BART and the LA Metro will get you close to home in the bay area and LA, respectively. And both of them are adding new lines. The HSR improvements in the bay area will help Caltrain, too.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The big problem with California HSR is that you still need a car at your destination. Were not built up like Japan.

Zipcars claim to have a CA presence. I know them from Chicago and Champaign. I would imagine that this would be the sort of business model that would mesh well with HSR.

Zipcars has some competitors, such as City CarShare.

[ask_not]

What is the cost analysis of whether train service can pay for itself post-construction?

I don't have any papers in front of me, but there is literally no chance this will ever pay for itself. It is going to be a huge net loss.

  How about a high speed educaton  for h.s.  kids and adult education instead of this?

[Sbane]

I wish them the best of luck but there is no way this will make any money due to the prohibitive construction costs. Construction in California already costs more due to the hills and the earthquake risks. Throw in some mentally handicapped environmentalists and you start to understand why it takes so long to build anything in California. Due to them and the NIMBYS, many in Bay Area cities which voted 60%+ for HSR, the costs for the finished product will be out of this world. At that point it will either be uncompetitive vs air travel or it will be subsidized by the tax payers. Those who think there isn't a market for this don't know what they are talking about, but at the same time no one is going to pay more to travel by rail rather than plane.

If the legislature is serious about this, they should have tried to shield it from lawsuits somehow but I don't see it happening and the costs will keep ballooning.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I wish them the best of luck but there is no way this will make any money due to the prohibitive construction costs. Construction in California already costs more due to the hills and the earthquake risks. Throw in some mentally handicapped environmentalists and you start to understand why it takes so long to build anything in California. Due to them and the NIMBYS, many in Bay Area cities which voted 60%+ for HSR, the costs for the finished product will be out of this world. At that point it will either be uncompetitive vs air travel or it will be subsidized by the tax payers. Those who think there isn't a market for this don't know what they are talking about, but at the same time no one is going to pay more to travel by rail rather than plane.

If the legislature is serious about this, they should have tried to shield it from lawsuits somehow but I don't see it happening and the costs will keep ballooning.

Wouldn't be like that over here.

[Sbane]

I wish them the best of luck but there is no way this will make any money due to the prohibitive construction costs. Construction in California already costs more due to the hills and the earthquake risks. Throw in some mentally handicapped environmentalists and you start to understand why it takes so long to build anything in California. Due to them and the NIMBYS, many in Bay Area cities which voted 60%+ for HSR, the costs for the finished product will be out of this world. At that point it will either be uncompetitive vs air travel or it will be subsidized by the tax payers. Those who think there isn't a market for this don't know what they are talking about, but at the same time no one is going to pay more to travel by rail rather than plane.

If the legislature is serious about this, they should have tried to shield it from lawsuits somehow but I don't see it happening and the costs will keep ballooning.

Wouldn't be like that over here.

Hmm? I'm not clear on what you are trying to say....does high speed rail cost more than air travel in Europe?

[Franzl]

Often it does actually. Depends though. Tk he meant that most Europeans prefer travelling by rail in general, which is probably true.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wish them the best of luck but there is no way this will make any money due to the prohibitive construction costs. Construction in California already costs more due to the hills and the earthquake risks. Throw in some mentally handicapped environmentalists and you start to understand why it takes so long to build anything in California. Due to them and the NIMBYS, many in Bay Area cities which voted 60%+ for HSR, the costs for the finished product will be out of this world. At that point it will either be uncompetitive vs air travel or it will be subsidized by the tax payers. Those who think there isn't a market for this don't know what they are talking about, but at the same time no one is going to pay more to travel by rail rather than plane.

If the legislature is serious about this, they should have tried to shield it from lawsuits somehow but I don't see it happening and the costs will keep ballooning.

Wouldn't be like that over here.

You've got reasonably short distances such that once you include the time costs of security, takeoffs, and landings that it is possible for train trips to take less time than flights.  San Francisco to Los Angeles, especially with the circuitous route needed to avoid the coastal mountains, will not be shorter than flying, even on an express that makes no local stops.

[Sbane]

I wish them the best of luck but there is no way this will make any money due to the prohibitive construction costs. Construction in California already costs more due to the hills and the earthquake risks. Throw in some mentally handicapped environmentalists and you start to understand why it takes so long to build anything in California. Due to them and the NIMBYS, many in Bay Area cities which voted 60%+ for HSR, the costs for the finished product will be out of this world. At that point it will either be uncompetitive vs air travel or it will be subsidized by the tax payers. Those who think there isn't a market for this don't know what they are talking about, but at the same time no one is going to pay more to travel by rail rather than plane.

If the legislature is serious about this, they should have tried to shield it from lawsuits somehow but I don't see it happening and the costs will keep ballooning.

Wouldn't be like that over here.

You've got reasonably short distances such that once you include the time costs of security, takeoffs, and landings that it is possible for train trips to take less time than flights.  San Francisco to Los Angeles, especially with the circuitous route needed to avoid the coastal mountains, will not be shorter than flying, even on an express that makes no local stops.

I think if the train runs as fast as advertized, it will end up taking a little less time. But it won't make as much of a difference as it would make if SF and LA were about 200 miles apart as opposed to 400 miles.

A train to Vegas makes more sense I think....don't worry about driving in traffic (yes there is traffic in the middle of the desert..yay socal!)and start the party on the train before you even get to Vegas. The SF to LA traveler consists mostly of college students and those whose family is in the other metro area. They are more interested in getting to their destination fast and at a lower price.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Often it does actually. Depends though. Tk he meant that most Europeans prefer travelling by rail in general, which is probably true.

Yes, this is what I meant.

[greenforest32]

I remember looking at maps like these fondly

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I remember looking at maps like these fondly

Some of those look better than others. I don't know if Eugene-Sacramento would be that great a line, or the ones in the Mountain west. On the other hand, NY-Albany-Buffalo-Chicago with connections to Detroit, Toronto, and Montreal seems pretty good.

[Silent Hunter]

I think if the train runs as fast as advertized, it will end up taking a little less time. But it won't make as much of a difference as it would make if SF and LA were about 200 miles apart as opposed to 400 miles.

It ultimately depends on where your start and end points are in each city. I ran a quick calculation on a hypothetical trip from Santa Monica to central SF and came out with the train taking 15 minutes longer.

[Frodo]

This article is from a week ago, but as of now, there is nothing stopping this:

Judge allows California high-speed rail to move forward

November 17, 2012 |  8:12 am

A judge denied a request Friday from Central Valley farmers who sought to halt work on California's ambitious high-speed rail project, allowing work on the $68-billion project to continue at an aggressive pace.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley denied a request for a preliminary injunction, saying that the agency overseeing the project "acted reasonably and in good faith" in trying to comply with California environmental law.

Groups representing Central Valley farmers had hoped to stop the California High-Speed Rail Authority from all planning and engineering work because of their claims that the authority did not thoroughly weigh the potential environmental harms of the project.

Frawley did not rule on the merits of their case, which is expected to be heard this spring, but said he was persuaded that the state generally sought to comply with California's rigorous environmental laws, and that the potential harm to the state was much greater than the potential harm to farmers along the route.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I'm jealous.  It makes me want to move to California.

[King]

Good.  CA's mass transit system is one of the worst in the country.  

More effort needs to be made to get Californians to expand their cities vertically if they want to be sustainable.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I remember looking at maps like these fondly

That map looks beautiful.  I'll believe it when I'll see it of course.

[memphis]

So far, the pro argument is "it would be so cool." And the con argument is "it's completely impractical." Thing is, both of those statements are true. As much as it pains me to agree with Torie, the numbers don't make any sense, and there's no way around that, cool or not. All that said, it'd still be a heckuva lot better than GOP boondoggles like the War on Iraq.

[muon2]

We need better mass transit options in the US, but the best response to that problem is considerably less sexy than high-speed rail, which will probably never take off outside a few of the country's most densely-populated corridors. Adding bus routes, bringing our existing rail network out of the nineteenth century, and rethinking the nation's built environment should be higher priorities.

I would generally agree, but I wouldn't restrict thinking to densely populated corridors. I would look at rail between any pair of cities with frequent non-stop air service that is under an hour.

[Frodo]

Update: California's high speed rail project is on track to begin construction of its first leg in July.

[memphis]

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of an LA to Vegas Party Train. If only it actually went all the way to LA. No need for a designated driver. Of course, it'd be more for Vegas than for LA. It'd be a heckuva better investment than another glitzy casino/hotel project.

[Frodo]

Hopefully this is only a momentary setback:

California high-speed rail plans stopped in tracks

Melody Gutierrez
Updated 8:45 am, Tuesday, November 26, 2013

SACRAMENTO -- - A Sacramento judge put the brakes on California's plans to build a bullet train after dual rulings Monday blocked the sale of $8 billion in bonds and ordered the rail authority to rewrite its funding plans for the huge project.

Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that there was "no evidence in the record" to support the California High-Speed Rail Authority's request in March to sell the bonds from Proposition 1A, a $10 billion measure approved by voters in 2008 that allowed the bullet train project to move ahead.

In a separate but related case, the judge sided with the Kings County Board of Supervisors and two homeowners who sued the rail agency, saying it had failed to detail how the project will be financed, as legally required, before seeking bond money to begin construction.

[pbrower2a]

What is the cost analysis of whether train service can pay for itself post-construction?

I don't have any papers in front of me, but there is literally no chance this will ever pay for itself. It is going to be a huge net loss.

  How about a high speed education  for h.s.  kids and adult education instead of this?

High-speed trains are for areas of high population density and at least world-average income, as in Japan, China, and most of Europe. Acela turns a profit between Boston and Washington. California fits well.

It's not a question of good education for kids or accessible, resource-saving trains. We can use both and basically need them both.

[memphis]

No method of transport pays for itself. You may as well expect a small child to purchase his own meals.

[Torie]

I strongly doubt a rail from LA to SF will ever be finished. It makes zero sense. It's cheaper and to fly. It't not needed. It is not the Bowash corridor that needs high speed rail, because the air lanes are full and with bad weather, things descend into chaos. But the Bowash corridor has lots of folks all along the line, while between LA and SF is largely nothing. What a waste.