California High-Speed Rail Thread

[Simfan34]

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.

<snip - discussion of alternatives>

The main problem with your example is that it neglects geography.  HSR from SF to LA is geographically going to be a lot more like Milan to Frankfurt than than Hamburg to Frankfurt.  You've got those California mountains to deal with plus unless you do not care about having any other stations along the way that might make use of the tracks and thus help defray the expense, you'll be detouring thru the Central Valley

The Diablos are not the Alps.

[Simfan34]

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry seems to be lining up to make some ludicrous objection to the project.

Kings County (who knows where that is) is calling CHSRA "arrogant" for attempting to overturn an activist judge's court rulings that ruled that the authority couldn't issue bonds because it wasn't proven that it was "necessary or desirable" to to so despite a publicly-passed measure authorising the state to do so and for not filing some nonsense paperwork. The New York Times has written disparagingly about endless "environmental review" and other regulatory processes in the past.

The property acquisition process is moving slowly with eight properties owned by resisting occupants being successfully seized. In my opinion, land owners who resist selling their land for the project should not be compensated when it is seized through eminent domain- for standing in the way of progress.

Meanwhile, some absolute idiots are complaining the trains are going too slow in order to cut costs while simultaneously complaining it is too expensive. Of course, the "blended approach" is a rather depressing idea, but it is the result of too many ignoramuses and small-minded localists having too much of a say in the process.

Of course, none of this surpasses the legendary idiocy of the (usually sane) George Will in 2011,  when he said that high speed rail would be "diminishing Americans' individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism," which of course would be redundant as we're already Maoists as a result of indoctrination through bus, plane, train, subway, and air gondola travel.

Small-minded ignorance wins again in today's America.

[Simfan34]

George Will once wrote a surprisingly brainless article suggesting high speed rail was an attempt to hoist collectivism upon America. Somehow we've managed to avoid the dangers of buses, planes, subways and trains until now.

[Simfan34]

I suppose you hate highways, too? And it is a strange assertion to claim only two high speed rail lines in the world are profitable, considering that the German ICE network regularly posts a profit, as does Korea's KTX, Japan's Shinkansen (overall), France's TGV... most of them, actually. So that's baseless.

It is utterly ludicrous when you you consider we pay upwards of $100 billion in gas taxes, tolls, and other fees each year to maintain roads, on top of $50 billion in state and local taxes, $10 billion to the Federal Highway Trust, and up to $20 billion to make up for the shortfall after all that. Meanwhile we give $3 billion to the FAA, and $8 billion for cruise ships, not to mention the billions we pour into airports. Compare that to the $1.5 billion the government spends on Amtrak per year. It's peanuts. If NIMBYs and ideologically deranged people get out of the way and allow the CAHSR to build its network along a logical route and in a reasonable timeframe there shouldn't be a problem.

I fear smallmindedness will win the day once again, however. Which seems to be the trend in this country these days.

[Simfan34]

I prefer whooshing through the countryside at 220 mph, thank you very much.

[Simfan34]

Or California Democrats who don't really care that much about it in the first place.

[Simfan34]

Hurray!

[Simfan34]

I can't wait to take the train from Merced to Fresno!

They're doing it in pieces- the worst pieces to start- and setting the whole scheme up to fail. Which would be a tragedy. Track-sharing in the Bay and SoCal? It's almost laughably bad.

[Simfan34]

I can't wait to take the train from Merced to Fresno!

They're doing it in pieces- the worst pieces to start- and setting the whole scheme up to fail. Which would be a tragedy. Track-sharing in the Bay and SoCal? It's almost laughably bad.

Its so sad that the same misunderstandings crop up so much. 

the initial segments will be operated by existing conventional services (among Amtrak's most popular, I might add) at higher speeds until they're able to run trains over Tehachapi pass. 

As so for track sharing, while it is certainly sub-optimal, electrification of the caltrain corridor provides the space needed to operate a blended service.  At the LA end, they'll make the track capacity they need, as metrolink doesn't run all that many trains up to Palmdale. It certainly doesn't preclude a future dedicated route. 

Many TGV lines use conventional speed terminal railroads to gain access to cities

Yes but the fact is by waiting to extend service to the main points on the line (ie SF and LA), this opens up opportunities for the funding for the eventual extension to the two cities. It's possible people may come crying about boondoggles, enough to shut it down before that happens (by 2028?)- which is especially a risk here in CA because of the ability to put it in a ballot initiative, where people are simply going to be hearing of staggering losses and anemic passenger numbers.

Without judicious use of the water cannon and the truncheon there will inevitably be massive delays and cost overruns- it's a matter of not losing the nerve, which only becomes more and more difficult as time drags on.

[Simfan34]

Funny how he doesn't throw in land acquisition costs.