California High-Speed Rail Thread

[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.

[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.

[pbrower2a]

The swiftest route would be parallel to Interstate 5, except that there are no cities between Stockton and Greater Los Angeles on Interstate 5 (as if we didn't already know that) ... this train is really being built to connect the southern Central Valley cities (Madera, Fresno, Tulare, and Bakersfield) to the much-richer Bay Area and the Southland. Maybe there would be some interesting connections -- Sacramento and Stockton; Salinas and Monterrey; San Diego; and (what would be extremely suitable destination for a super-train) Las Vegas.

Considering how expensive LA, Bay Area and Silicon Valley real estate costs are, it could have some commuting value for those who could start their workday commuting.