California High-Speed Rail Thread

[bedstuy]

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.

Maybe you're right on this particular project.  I haven't really paid much attention to it.  However, I think it's fair to say that California has a massive traffic problem that will never be solved by building roads.  If you evaluate this project in that context and move forward with public transit in a bold way, the calculus of whether it's needed would change.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

The federal government will never pay for such a project on the East Coast, and no single state can do it either. California is literally the only place that can do this particular experiment -- and let's be fair, that's what this is, an experiment.

[muon2]

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.

I'm not sure I accept all the logic here. It seems that an LA-Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced-San Jose-SF link is comparable to the Paris-Lyon-Marseille TGV in length and would serve a greater population. There are domestic French flights, but that particular TGV line successfully competes and covers its operating costs. Other than Lyon there's not much in the way of major population centers between Paris and Marseille along that main French line either.

[King]

If Texas wasn't so anti-public services, it would actually be the best place in terms of major US cities and flat cheap empty land to try high speed rail in the US.  Dallas-Waco-Austin-San Antonio-Corpus Christi and El Paso-Midland-Austin-Houston would connect 90% of the state at the capital with clear interstate expansions on all sides (Tucson, OKC, NO)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I'm sure I accept all the logic here. It seems that an LA-Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced-San Jose-SF link is comparable to the Paris-Lyon-Marseille TGV in length and would serve a greater population. There are domestic French flights, but that particular TGV line successfully competes and covers its operating costs. Other than Lyon there's not much in the way of major population centers between Paris and Marseille along that main French line either.

France isn't nearly as mountainous (between its population centers) as California is.  So construction costs will generally be lower in France.

[muon2]

If Texas wasn't so anti-public services, it would actually be the best place in terms of major US cities and flat cheap empty land to try high speed rail in the US.  Dallas-Waco-Austin-San Antonio-Corpus Christi and El Paso-Midland-Austin-Houston would connect 90% of the state at the capital with clear interstate expansions on all sides (Tucson, OKC, NO)

The irony here is that TX, like most states, isn't opposed to major investments in airport infrastructure. In IL, O'Hare is in the midst of a $10 B upgrade, and there is continuing discussion of a new airport south of Chicago with a price tag of $5 B.

[Sbane]

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.

I'm sure I accept all the logic here. It seems that an LA-Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced-San Jose-SF link is comparable to the Paris-Lyon-Marseille TGV in length and would serve a greater population. There are domestic French flights, but that particular TGV line successfully competes and covers its operating costs. Other than Lyon there's not much in the way of major population centers between Paris and Marseille along that main French line either.

France isn't nearly as mountainous (between its population centers) as California is.  So construction costs will generally be lower in France.

It wouldn't be as high if they didn't have to save some random frog or if NIMBY mother lovers in Atherton and other such areas didn't get their panties all in a twist.

[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.

I'm not sure I accept all the logic here. It seems that an LA-Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced-San Jose-SF link is comparable to the Paris-Lyon-Marseille TGV in length and would serve a greater population. There are domestic French flights, but that particular TGV line successfully competes and covers its operating costs. Other than Lyon there's not much in the way of major population centers between Paris and Marseille along that main French line either.

Well, yes, but the big issue is the attractiveness of the train versus flying between the big population nodes, and how crowded the air lanes are, and how much weather interferes with them. In addition when you get to downtown Paris, you're in Paris. When you get to downtown LA, you are sort of nowhere. And then there is that patch between Sylmar and the base of the Central Valley down the hill from Lebec. It's rugged! Finally on I-5, through the Central Valley, one can drive at 75 miles per hour pretty consistently. It's the closest thing to an American autoban that we have I think. So the train is competing with vehicular traffic as well.

[muon2]

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.

I'm not sure I accept all the logic here. It seems that an LA-Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced-San Jose-SF link is comparable to the Paris-Lyon-Marseille TGV in length and would serve a greater population. There are domestic French flights, but that particular TGV line successfully competes and covers its operating costs. Other than Lyon there's not much in the way of major population centers between Paris and Marseille along that main French line either.

Well, yes, but the big issue is the attractiveness of the train versus flying between the big population nodes, and how crowded the air lanes are, and how much weather interferes with them. In addition when you get to downtown Paris, you're in Paris. When you get to downtown LA, you are sort of nowhere. And then there is that patch between Sylmar and the base of the Central Valley down the hill from Lebec. It's rugged! Finally on I-5, through the Central Valley, one can drive at 75 miles per hour pretty consistently. It's the closest thing to an American autoban that we have I think. So the train is competing with vehicular traffic as well.

The French were also quite clever in that the TGV stops at Charels de Gaulle Airport and Disneyland as well as Paris city. If you are traveling internationally you can get off the plane and onto the train (and vice versa) in relatively little time. We used it this spring to get from CDG to Disney in 10 min!

[Torie]

And thank heavens the train runs from O'Hare into the Chicago subway, L, train system. It's great! Wish it had been there, when I lived there. The great thing about Hudson, NY, is that you can hop on a train, and get to downtown Manhattan in less than 2 hours, and the trains run every hour. Fantastico!

[Sbane]

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.

I'm not sure I accept all the logic here. It seems that an LA-Bakersfield-Fresno-Merced-San Jose-SF link is comparable to the Paris-Lyon-Marseille TGV in length and would serve a greater population. There are domestic French flights, but that particular TGV line successfully competes and covers its operating costs. Other than Lyon there's not much in the way of major population centers between Paris and Marseille along that main French line either.

Well, yes, but the big issue is the attractiveness of the train versus flying between the big population nodes, and how crowded the air lanes are, and how much weather interferes with them. In addition when you get to downtown Paris, you're in Paris. When you get to downtown LA, you are sort of nowhere. And then there is that patch between Sylmar and the base of the Central Valley down the hill from Lebec. It's rugged! Finally on I-5, through the Central Valley, one can drive at 75 miles per hour pretty consistently. It's the closest thing to an American autoban that we have I think. So the train is competing with vehicular traffic as well.

Torie, don't you think the train could actually stimulate the growth of downtown LA? I know you are very familiar with this, but downtown LA and surrounding areas are growing very fast and the train only expedites it. The high speed rail will be good for LA, even better than it will be for the Bay Area (though not as much as the cities in the Central Valley).

I do agree that if rail and air cost the same, then air will likely win out. The key is to make it a little cheaper than air, and keep those prices consistent till departure time. So someone who needs to get to the Bay Area in two weeks from now, and the air prices are sky high, they have a very good option in high speed rail. People will prefer traveling by high speed rail over car though, all things being equal. There is no question about that. You can go fast on the 5, but the rail will go much faster than that in that sector. Sometimes with traffic and all that nonsense, it would take 8 hours to get from Irvine to Pleasanton. High speed rail will be much better than dealing with that (though more expensive, which is the issue).

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Replacing half of the bay bridge (2 miles of bridge replaced) cost 10% as much as this entire 800 mile HSR. There's clearly some serious anti-train propaganda going around.

The SF bay bridge collects $228 million a year in tolls, or $114 million for each half of the bridge. That $114 million will clearly never pay for the $6.5 billion half of a bridge replacement. So even toll bridges don't pay for themselves. But trains have to pay for themselves, because.

[Torie]

Replacing half of the bay bridge (2 miles of bridge replaced) cost 10% as much as this entire 800 mile HSR. There's clearly some serious anti-train propaganda going around.

The SF bay bridge collects $228 million a year in tolls, or $114 million for each half of the bridge. That $114 million will clearly never pay for the $6.5 billion half of a bridge replacement. So even toll bridges don't pay for themselves. But trains have to pay for themselves, because.

That is just a mortgage amortization formula. At 5% interest per annum, paying $114 million a year, or about  $9.5 million per month, $6.5 billion can be paid back in 27 years. The bridge pencils - and pays for itself. This assumes that the $114 million represents net revenues.

[Link]

That is just a mortgage amortization formula. At 5% interest per annum, paying $114 million a year, or about  $9.5 million per month, $6.5 billion can be paid back in 27 years. The bridge pencils - and pays for itself. This assumes that the $114 million represents net revenues.

It's not.  Your calculation ignores salaries and maintenance on an 8+ mile long heavily used toll bridge.  That revenue number is even with cars paying $6 during peak on weekdays and $5 on weekends.

If Texas wasn't so anti-public services, it would actually be the best place in terms of major US cities and flat cheap empty land to try high speed rail in the US.  Dallas-Waco-Austin-San Antonio-Corpus Christi and El Paso-Midland-Austin-Houston would connect 90% of the state at the capital with clear interstate expansions on all sides (Tucson, OKC, NO)

Let's see... American Airlines headquarters... Fort Worth.  Southwest Airlines headquarters... Dallas.  Continental Airlines headquarters... Houston (recently moved to Chicago after merger).  Rail ain't gonna happen in Texas. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Replacing half of the bay bridge (2 miles of bridge replaced) cost 10% as much as this entire 800 mile HSR. There's clearly some serious anti-train propaganda going around.

The SF bay bridge collects $228 million a year in tolls, or $114 million for each half of the bridge. That $114 million will clearly never pay for the $6.5 billion half of a bridge replacement. So even toll bridges don't pay for themselves. But trains have to pay for themselves, because.

That is just a mortgage amortization formula. At 5% interest per annum, paying $114 million a year, or about  $9.5 million per month, $6.5 billion can be paid back in 27 years. The bridge pencils - and pays for itself. This assumes that the $114 million represents net revenues.

Something is wrong with that math.

[pbrower2a]

Let's discuss Interstate 5 in the San Joaquin Valley -- the highway that Californians love to hate.  It's about 40 years old, and it is easy driving. To get between San Francisco and Los Angeles one usually took US 50 (now I-580) to Manteca and cut to US 99 (now CA-99) through the Valley. But that is one of the richest agricultural areas in America and it generates huge volumes of traffic even without such cities as Modesto, Fresno, and Bakersfield. Agribusiness generates huge volumes of freight for the value of the product. Since then, Fresno has become a giant city and Bakersfield, Modesto, and Merced have become large in their own right.If you are going north from Los Angeles or south and east from San Francisco only if one of the cities along the way is a destination or if one is going to King's Canyon or Yosemite. It's almost all freeway, but the exits are so close together that the weaving makes the drive stressful and dangerous.

US 101 is more scenic, as it goes through more rugged terrain. It has some modest-sized cities south of San Jose -- Salinas, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, and Ventura... but it goes through river valleys except where it goes into the mountains between them or follows a rugged coastline. Unlike CA-99 it doesn't have the large volumes of agribusiness traffic, so it is more civilized. Most of it is freeway now, but it is not particularly direct.  Someone with the time to use it instead of I-5 may like it better.

Most Interstates were built along or near the paths of heavily-traveled (at least by regional standards) highways. I-5 was built along a natural shortcut that didn't have much of a highway along it anywhere. As one goes north out of Greater Los Angeles the next city is Stockton (which is a dump, but it is a real city). If one is traveling a long distance, I-5 is the fastest and shortest route between the Bay Area and Los Angeles or anything in Arizona, New Mexico, or Texas. But it is monotonous.

[RosettaStoned]

 Totally pointless, because California is not built up with high speed rail lines, like Japan is. You would still need a car after arriving at your destination.

[Maxwell]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Frodo]

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom has bailed on the project.

Is California high speed rail now a Dead Man Walking?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom has bailed on the project.

Is California high speed rail now a Dead Man Walking?

I think Newsom is just trying to get some attention for himself since it's an election year, and no one cares about the Lt. Governorship. Quit trolling, Gavin, we know you were once a strong supporter of HSR.

[Frodo]

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom has bailed on the project.

Is California high speed rail now a Dead Man Walking?

I think Newsom is just trying to get some attention for himself since it's an election year, and no one cares about the Lt. Governorship. Quit trolling, Gavin, we know you were once a strong supporter of HSR.

In light of the fact that California voters have turned against the project, Newsom has more than a leg and an arm to stand on when he decided to join the tide of public opinion.   And when such a prominent public official bails out on the project, do you seriously think others won't follow the example he set? 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom has bailed on the project.

Is California high speed rail now a Dead Man Walking?

I think Newsom is just trying to get some attention for himself since it's an election year, and no one cares about the Lt. Governorship. Quit trolling, Gavin, we know you were once a strong supporter of HSR.

In light of the fact that California voters have turned against the project, Newsom has more than a leg and an arm to stand on when he decided to join the tide of public opinion.   And when such a prominent public official bails out on the project, do you seriously think others won't follow the example he set? 

The media coverage of HSR has been pretty negative, so 9 points down isn't bad. Only useless moderate heroes are going to flip.

[muon2]

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom has bailed on the project.

Is California high speed rail now a Dead Man Walking?

I think Newsom is just trying to get some attention for himself since it's an election year, and no one cares about the Lt. Governorship. Quit trolling, Gavin, we know you were once a strong supporter of HSR.

In light of the fact that California voters have turned against the project, Newsom has more than a leg and an arm to stand on when he decided to join the tide of public opinion.   And when such a prominent public official bails out on the project, do you seriously think others won't follow the example he set? 

Maybe CA will relinquish their federal funds, too. That would be enough to complete the Chicago-StLouis HSR.

[Franknburger]

For all those questioning the attractiveness of HSR connections, here a German example. Let's assume I am based somewhere near Hamburg and have a business meeting in Frankfurt / Main. The distance is around 500 km (a bit over 300 miles). By car, it takes me around 5 hours each way (including a toilet/ refreshing break, but excluding any traffic jam), which is above what I consider to be manageable for a one-day return-trip. That leaves plane and HSR as options. Let's furthermore assume that (a) the meeting comes at relatively short notice, say in four days, (b) travel time from my home to Hamburg Central Station and Hamburg Airport is equal, but (c) my meeting is somewhere in downtown Frankfurt, meaning it is some 15 minutes shorter to get their from the Central Station than from the airport.

So, here are my options (all checked today for travel on Thursday, Feb. 27):

1. By Plane: Preferred option is the 7:00-8:15 flight, just right to get into my meeting at 9:00. Alternatively, I can consider the 8:00-9:15 flight, and suggest my partner to start the meeting at 10:00. Though I don't know how long my meeting will take, to be on the safe side I want to be prepared to stay until 17:00. I might still be able to catch the 18:00-19:05 plane, but at rush-hour that's a bit risky, so I take the 19:00-20:05 plane instead. Turns out that tickets are still available, at a bargain of 549.54 Euros (of which 158,64 Euros are security fees and taxes). 
Considering check-in, boarding and exit times (hand-luggage only, but security may inspect my laptop), I should be at Hamburg airport at around 6:15, and leave it around 20:20, for some eight hours net meeting time in Frankfurt.

2. By HSR: There is no chance to make it to a 9:00 meeting by HSR, but the 6:07-9:28 ICE Sprinter is a convenient connection for a 10:00 meeting, which my business partner in Frankfurt should typically also accept.  Getting the 17:58 - 21:38 return train shouldn't be a problem at all (no traffic jam, just 1-2 underground stations, no check-in and security screening). Eventually, I could even make it to the 16:58 - 20:38 train. Since it is a train, I don't have to bother about over-booking and similar things, though may have to be prepared to sit in the bar (which is however, where I anyway might end up after a long meeting). All in all, I would have to be at the Hamburg train station around 6:00, and be out of it by 21:45 (or 20:45, if I am lucky), for some seven-and-a-half hours net meeting time in Frankfurt. Price? 255.50 regular, but they have a special offer for 159.80, if I give up flexibility on the morning train (which I need to take anyway), while maintaining the flexibility to take an earlier return train.

Bottom line: Plane travel "saves" me around 1.5-2 hours, but, as train travel is more flexible, that advantage may actually go down to just half an hour. I can use the seven hours spent in the train for working, preparing the meeting, and/or a few glasses of draught beer on the train bar after the meeting. Most of the travelling time when using the plane, I spend in taxis, check-in, boarding etc. - I may be able to use the laptop for maybe two-and-a-half hours of it. Can't use the phone from the plane, won't be able to talk to many people before my plane leaves at 7:00 (though I may be able to get a bit done from the taxi in Frankfurt). Anyway - not really convenient, and the most effective way to spend my time. And, finally, HSR costs half or even only a third of what I pay for the plane.

Oh, I forgot the coach option: 7:15 hours/ 17 Euros one way, and it may take you to the middle of nowhere. Fine for students and travellers, but otherwise...

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I opposed this from the start. I'm not quite sure what I think of that viewpoint surging in popularity, though. The idea of being in the majority on an issue is a little weird.