icanfly From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 76 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4755 times:
Today Governor Brown signed into the law the bill authorizing construction of the first segment of California's proposed high-speed rail network, scheduled to commence in early 2013:
To me, this has always seemed like a great infrastructure project, alongside the likes of Hoover Dam and the Interstate Highway Network of the 1950s and 60s. Imagine whizzing between downtown San Francisco and downtown LA in 2 hours 40 minutes!
Yes, at $68 billion, the price tag is steep, but surely the economic case is strong if HSR asborbs a substantial portion of traffic that would otherwise have used road or air travel, thereby reducing the need to build more freeways and airport runways and expansions in the future.
So I'm trying to understand where the opposition to the project is coming from?
PS - I'm aware HSR has been discussed on this forum before, but as far as I can tell the last thread was in 2010 and anyway I'd like to keep this discussion focused on California.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16316 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (11 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4736 times:
Quoting icanfly (Thread starter): So I'm trying to understand where the opposition to the project is coming from?
Like everything else, short sighted mentality. There are major projects all over the Country that were built during times of economic duress that we couldn't even begin to imagine living without today.
connies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted (11 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4693 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): Quoting icanfly (Thread starter):
So I'm trying to understand where the opposition to the project is coming from?
Like everything else, short sighted mentality. There are major projects all over the Country that were built during times of economic duress that we couldn't even begin to imagine living without today.
I think most case studies of HSR (or LRT for that matter) show that on a cash basis they're losers. However I think there is also an argument to be made for foregone costs, i.e., more freeways etc., that don't need to be built. The whole process of getting people to move from private transportation to a more public transportation is itself a big issue.
In Winnipeg, a mid-sized city (about 750k), there is a spirited debate about whether or not to go LRT. Current plans show Phase 1 as BRT (bus...) but beyond is not clear. All the BRT rights of way I believe are amenable to LRT if that is the decision. I think LRT is more saleable to the public than BRT, as the bus is seen, rightly or wrongly, as the refuge of the poor, students, and immigrants. The LRT, while much more expensive, is sexier and hipper, by comparison. Since I'm in the process of moving back to Winnipeg, this is an interesting civic debate.
wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 1856 posts, RR: 5 Reply 4, posted (11 months 5 days ago) and read 4632 times:
I live in California and I love trains, but Americans only know how to do freight trains. HSR is not for us. It's too expensive and competing against cars and planes will be a losing battle. Between SF and LA there must be some eight airports catering to travelers from all areas of each city and I would guess some 60-70 flights per day round trip. These typically run from $200-$300 each with a bit of notice.
Paris and Tokyo are clearly very different outcomes, trains make more sense in these places and there's a national commitment to HSR. Unfortunately, I'm wagering all my chips that HSR in California is going to be the greatest fiscal calamity in our state's history. But when your numb and cold all over from the explosive idiocy in Sacramento it just doesn't seem to matter anymore.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7506 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (11 months 5 days ago) and read 4606 times:
In politics, a "great idea" is a way to make great money for yourself and your cronies. Political capital (which HSR has) is something for shady characters to exploit and convert into real cash. California HSR would never be inexpensive, because there are so many powerful families to enrich by making it more expensive. As long as it gets funded (as an attractive concept, it will get funded), these powerful people are rewarded, and they will steal more in the future.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (11 months 5 days ago) and read 4582 times:
Should HSR be built in the Californian corridor: Absolutely.
Are public finances and governance in California beyond therapy: Absolutely.
Is '2' a reason to not do '1'. Absolutely not. Fix both.
Business Case? Why do you aske for a 'Business' case? This is public infrasturcture not a business venture. Ask for an INFRASTRUCTURE Case: net effect, indirect and direct, to the economy of doing or not doing the project. This is the way to measure value for public infrastructure. Then decide what should be 'sunk' as public cost (eg. HSLs) and what should be privatized and when (e.g rolling stock, passenger services), what should be regulated and government operated and what should be de-regulated and open to competiion and when. In Europe, Paris - Brussels; Paris - Frankfurt; Paris-London are deregulated and open to directly competing rail services on multi-100 billion Euro HSL's built by public investment. The payback to the countries participating is undisputed. e.g The new Dijon - Mulhouse LGV which opened last Dec is 100% in France, but was funded 50% by France, 25% by Germany and 25% by Switzerland in the clear recognition that each one's economies will indirectly benefits from the infrastructure and the stimulus permanantly so created.
[Edited 2012-07-23 10:54:00 by SA7700]
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (11 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4571 times:
Big boondogle if there was ever one.
Here are some reasons;
1) Its questionable how "high speed" this really will be. Now to reduce cost they are actually talking about using regular regional rail lines in both SoCal and Bay Area
2) Selected route is not a direct one between San Diego and SF basin, but more a zig-zag to add in as many communities as possible such as the Central Valley and garner their political support.
3) Due to the lower speed and extended routing, its not a time savings door to door over a plane.
4) What was sold as under a $30Bil project all said and done to voters, is now a $98Bil project. By the time its built imagine how much more it will be?
5) One expert after another (including ones in Japan and France as have been in the paper recently) have questioned the project
6) Unlike original intentions, it will not even now break even operationally. They are talking about $200 fares rivaling air fares, while ridership projections were found to be inflated.
7) Even the state oversight authority has serious questions as to how both the project was sold to voters, and how its been managed to date.
8) If they could do it over again, the voters of the state now oppose the project.
9) Lots of litigation awaits from communities, environmental groups etc...
Personally I hope its never completed, the plug is pulled, and the tax payer is taken off the hook for this terrible project.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 8, posted (11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4512 times:
Quoting icanfly (Thread starter): So I'm trying to understand where the opposition to the project is coming from?
Quoting icanfly (Thread starter): Imagine whizzing between downtown San Francisco and downtown LA in 2 hours 40 minutes!
That will be awesome. I would love to have more train service between the cities as well as within LA. Having said that, I just don't see it as a good investment. Talking about the one end of the line (LA), you have a city with not very good infrastructure as far as train services go. A high-speed rail link assumes that someone arriving in LA by train would then be able to go around the city by jumping on another train or high-speed public transportation option. There is no such thing around here, best case scenario they can go upto Hollywood and then back to Union St. Take any similar project in the world and you will see that the cities connected by HSR then have a good network within the city limits to feed the travelers around.
This is why people either drive to LA and then have their car to move around or they fly here and pick up a rental at the airport. Unless more commuter train lines are built in LA and actually get used, the HSR has little to offer.
AlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 618 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (11 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4496 times:
Quoting wingman (Reply 4): but Americans only know how to do freight trains. HSR is not for us. It's too expensive and competing against cars and planes will be a losing battle.
I agree. Sure, trains are cool, but spending $68 Billion on high-speed rail in the US does not make sense to me. Like you mention, there is no real way to compete with driving or flying.
It's a cool idea, but it's just not practical.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7): Big boondogle if there was ever one.
It absolutely - beyond ANY doubt - has to have a business case.
You admitted yourself in your post that this is an economic asset. Therefore, it must be run like a business. It must be self-supporting. Else, it is nothing but a fancy trophy politicians can selfishly add to their resumes. And there are a lot of gullible voters out there to keep voting them back into office.
And BTW, I don't think you have a good understanding of sunk costs - they are not something a rational person chooses to incur!
[Edited 2012-07-19 11:03:41]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
francoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3252 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4444 times:
The only way it would be able to compete with cars and airplanes is with a proper HST line: dedicated to high speed train, allowing for consistent high speed, with few stops, like San Diego - LA - SF - Sacramento.
If they start doing it on the cheap side, by mixing HS and non HS lines, adding stops at every little town on the way and adding to trip times, it will be a failure.
ACELA, on a similarly sized network, was very close to being a failure for these reasons, even though it serves a much denser market.
Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (11 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4438 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 1): Like everything else, short sighted mentality. There are major projects all over the Country that were built during times of economic duress that we couldn't even begin to imagine living without today.
Even the project's admittedly inflated numbers expect annual revenue of only somewhere around $2.3 billion per year in 2028. Let's assume the are correct (hah!) - that's still something like a 40 year payback on investment, NOT counting interest. Financially it is without question a boondoggle.
People like to compare it to the Golden Gate Bridge. But the bridge was funded locally, with a $35 million bond measure. The last of the bonds were finally paid off in 1971, 40 years after the project started, paying out in total $35 million in principle and $39 million in interest. The bridge paid off. I don't see the HSR project ever doing so.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7): 9) Lots of litigation awaits from communities, environmental groups etc...
People talk about 2.5 hours between downtown SF and LA - that will never happen. In built-up areas, trains will not be allowed to run flat out due to noise restrictions, for one thing. I'd say 4 hours of travel time would be more likely, maybe more.
One question I have. On European trains, there basically is no security. Will the TSA insist on airport-style check in and security, so that you have to get to the station at least an hour ahead of departure?
How many miles of freeway could be built for that? How many airport security lanes?
Quoting Flighty (Reply 5): In politics, a "great idea" is a way to make great money for yourself and your cronies.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 6): Business Case? Why do you aske for a 'Business' case?
Because if it doesn't have one, it's a bad idea. Do you know what you call a project with no business case? It's a money pit, and California has enough of those as it is.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7): Big boondogle if there was ever one.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7): 3) Due to the lower speed and extended routing, its not a time savings door to door over a plane.
Not to mention that I don't think it's likely that Southern California and the Bay Area will be dotted with train stations the way they are with airports. Do that and high speed isn't so high speed anymore. Rail might work decent from downtown LA to downtown San Francisco, but what if you're going to Ontario, Orange County, or Oakland?
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7): They are talking about $200 fares rivaling air fares, while ridership projections were found to be inflated.
So now you're paying the same amount to not really save any time. Nice.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
It absolutely - beyond ANY doubt - has to have a business case.
You admitted yourself in your post that this is an economic asset. Therefore, it must be run like a business. It must be self-supporting. Else, it is nothing but a fancy trophy politicians can selfishly add to their resumes. And there are a lot of gullible voters out there to keep voting them back into office.
And BTW, I don't think you have a good understanding of sunk costs - they are not something a rational person chooses to incur!
I don't think you understand my post. If this were a business initiative, a Business Case would be appropriate and necessary. It is not. It is a public infrastructure initiative. It needs an Infrastructure Case. Do you understand the difference?
Then you move to a hybrid public / private model for the underlying lines and the services respectively. Works elsewhere and would work in the US.
By 'sunk' costs was simply a way of saying, from the perspective of the Services running on top of the public infrastructure, the line costs are already 'sunk'. They may pay a service fee to the line carrier, but this is not designed to pay back the lines by itself.
Some people just don't like the idea of HSR. That's ok. Just say it.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7506 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4389 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13): So now you're paying the same amount to not really save any time. Nice.
Correct, minus the $100 billion and borrowing costs, and minus the annual operating subsidy it will need.
The free market has been able to create rail for over 150 years. Now, a new invention -- the aero-plane -- has replaced intercity passenger rail. This is because airplanes are utterly cheaper and faster. Also more environmentally friendly, in a low pax volume American context.
Beijing-Shanghai HSR probably is more environmentally friendly than A320s, but that is a catchment area of... half a billion people? So you can load up trains with >1,000 people.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4390 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 14): Some people just don't like the idea of HSR. That's ok. Just say it.
I lived in Europe for over 20 years. I love the TGV service, and for about a year I took the TGV twice a week from GVA to Paris. But the TGV works in France where gasoline costs $7-8 per gallon, and you pay an additional $100 in highway tolls for that same GVA-Paris trip if you took it by car.
Here we have free interstates, cheap gasoline. That makes it much harder for trains to compete. You also do not have centrally-located train stations, fully tied in to a city public transport system (except a a handful of east coast cities).
Sorry, I just don't see it working. A HSR line, with dedicated tracks, could work wonderfully between Boston, NYC and DC, but not in Cali, IMHO.
aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3338 posts, RR: 8 Reply 17, posted (11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4380 times:
Quoting icanfly (Thread starter): So I'm trying to understand where the opposition to the project is coming from?
The criticism is only growing, from what I see. The HSR project was jump started by Proposition 1A. As a proposition, it was enacted by California voters without any input from the legislature. Unfortunately, many ideas of the ideas that are enacted through the proposition process are because they're bad laws -- legislators know not to vote for them, but they appeal to voters. Clearly, California lawmakers realized the state faced enough challenges without building a $100 billion project.
Now the project is far more expensive than originally planned, which isn't too much of a surprise. The route is turning out to be highly controversial. Wealthy towns on the peninsula (SF's southern suburbs) don't want the noise and the traffic running through. Environmentalists have complained that one of the routes potentially endangers some kind of animal. There's a school in Bakersfield that's angry because the route would include bulldozing their facility.
And now estimates suggest that the train will be pretty slow (SF to LA in over two hours, compared to an air by air) and expensive (around $200, which is about what an air ticket costs).
The fact of the matter is that the US is not Europe. We're just far too spread out for this to be viable. The Bay's three airports and LA's five are enough to serve the intrastate market. To be honest, I'd much rather have Megabus come back than high speed rail introduced.
ER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2249 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (11 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4379 times:
Quoting icanfly (Thread starter): Imagine whizzing between downtown San Francisco and downtown LA in 2 hours 40 minutes!
I can imagine it but this line won't make it reality. This looks to be more of a "milk run" with too many stops en-route as LAXINTL points out in his post. He also makes many other valid points. I'd LOVE to see HSR in the US - I would definitely use it for trips of less than 1000 miles but it's fiscally impractical due to the up-front costs. Even if its expenditure is amortized over 50 - 75 years, people are not going to buy off on it because they see the big price tag at the beginning.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 19, posted (11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4365 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 15): The free market has been able to create rail for over 150 years. Now, a new invention -- the aero-plane -- has replaced intercity passenger rail. This is because airplanes are utterly cheaper and faster.
Do you not realize (or not care) that in the proposed HSR corridors all of these statements are clearly false? That is the reason they are proposed HSR corridors.
It's fine that you don't like HSR. Just say it. But with statements like those above, you convince noone.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4359 times:
Quoting aa757first (Reply 17): And now estimates suggest that the train will be pretty slow (SF to LA in over two hours, compared to an air by air) and expensive (around $200, which is about what an air ticket costs).
You do realize that city centre to city centre, a 2 hour train ride is much faster than a 1 hour flight, don't you?
HSR is walk on walk off, in Europe you only need about 10mns at the station before departure. By air you have:
- 45-75mns commute to a major airport
- 1 hr wait (plus delays) at the airport
- 1 hr flight
- 30mn to land and exit airport
- 45-75 mn commute to city centre
Total by air: 4hrs
Total by HSR: 2hrs City centre to City centre.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 22, posted (11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4348 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 20): You do realize that city centre to city centre, a 2 hour train ride is much faster than a 1 hour flight, don't you?
There isn't even a point of mentioning the "city centre to city centre" concept. There is not much going on in Downtown LA or its immediate surrounding areas. The places that most visitors would want to see or where most users of the HSR train would reside in are miles away from the city center (if you can call it that). Commuting from/to Union station, whether one chooses to drive or take the bus (no other real alternatives) is not very convenient.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 23, posted (11 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4333 times:
I think if the project wasn't horribly mismanaged it would have more support. Also, CA really shouldn't be spending more money, I mean come on. If they deem HSR important enough then they should cut some other projects from their budget and then build this HSR. But that's probably asking a lot of the CA government...
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14411 posts, RR: 26 Reply 24, posted (11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
Quoting lewis (Reply 22): There isn't even a point of mentioning the "city centre to city centre" concept. There is not much going on in Downtown LA or its immediate surrounding areas.
If you're trying to get to Monterey, Silicon Valley, Orange County, or Ontario for example, then the high speed rail is utterly useless.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 16896 posts, RR: 51 Reply 25, posted (11 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4402 times:
One of the projects tied into this endeavor is XpressWest (formerly known as DesertXpress), which is a privately funded venture (although they will have some financing done via the Federal Railroad Administration). They're planning on building a rail line initially between Las Vegas and Victorville, CA primarily on public lands (The right of way for I-15 as well as Bureau of Land Management land.) as well as a line between Victorville and Palmdale which would link their network into the Metrolink network as well as the California HSR network (Palmdale is one of the proposed stops of the San Francisco-L.A route.). Eventually XpressWest plans on service from Las Vegas to Phoenix as well as service from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City and Denver.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 26, posted (11 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4362 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24): If you're trying to get to Monterey, Silicon Valley, Orange County, or Ontario for example, then the high speed rail is utterly useless.
I would go as far as to say that the value added is not even good enough for areas in closer proximity to DTLA, like the Valleys, the west side and the beach cities/south bay. If LA had a more extensive underground system that could feed people to the HSR efficiently (or if the city was even built in a way to support such a system) then it would be a better investment. Right now, not so much.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 27, posted (11 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4371 times:
Quoting wingman (Reply 4):
I live in California and I love trains, but Americans only know how to do freight trains. HSR is not for us. It's too expensive and competing against cars and planes will be a losing battle. Between SF and LA there must be some eight airports catering to travelers from all areas of each city and I would guess some 60-70 flights per day round trip. These typically run from $200-$300 each with a bit of notice.
With a lot of inconvenience involved. Furthermore, walk-up fares are exorbitant and SFO in particular has a gigantic delay rate due to the fact that the 28s are too close together to allow tandem ILS approaches. Three hour delays are common at SFO. Then there's the TSA and the whole luggage pain.
HSR systems worldwide have spectacular on-time statistics. The average HSR delay in Japan for the entire system (including natural disasters) is about two seconds. There is no need to go through the whole TSA screening because you can't hijack a train. You just have to look for bombs. Luggage can be carried aboard and stored on shelves at the end of the cars. It's just a more pleasant experience overall, and typically walk-up fares are cheaper.
In Spain, people still do fly MAD-BCN, but the AVE has taken an enormous bite out of that market. People will even pay a premium to take AVE over a cheaper flight because it's so much more relaxing of an experience.
But beyond that, this stretch isn't just about San Francisco and Los Angeles. There will be smaller communities along the alignment all the way down that have only limited (or very expensive) air access at this time because it's all RJ traffic. People in Visalia will be able to come to San Francisco in 1.5 hours, not 4.5 hours and they'll be able to do it for 10% of the current fare.
HSR may not be the answer for cross-country travel, but between adjacent city-pairs it makes fantastic sense.
mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3016 posts, RR: 2 Reply 28, posted (11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4362 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 11): The only way it would be able to compete with cars and airplanes is with a proper HST line: dedicated to high speed train, allowing for consistent high speed, with few stops, like San Diego - LA - SF - Sacramento.
You missed San Jose.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24): If you're trying to get to Monterey, Silicon Valley, Orange County, or Ontario for example, then the high speed rail is utterly useless.
Why? It runs right up the center of Silicon Valley with a stop in San Jose. Monterey is closer from the train station than it is from SJC.
Some keep trying to get it coastal further north and make San Jose a spur but that is just stupid.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 29, posted (11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4359 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): People talk about 2.5 hours between downtown SF and LA - that will never happen. In built-up areas, trains will not be allowed to run flat out due to noise restrictions, for one thing. I'd say 4 hours of travel time would be more likely, maybe more.
The whole point is that it will be able to do exactly that. It's being designed with below-grade rights-of-ways in built-up areas.
Quoting francoflier (Reply 11): The only way it would be able to compete with cars and airplanes is with a proper HST line: dedicated to high speed train, allowing for consistent high speed, with few stops, like San Diego - LA - SF - Sacramento.
Your TGV has a lot of stops on any given line. So do most other HSR systems. The thing is that a given train doesn't stop at every single station. The stations have sidings for trains that will stop there, while express trains will continue on the express track.
There might be a train departing from San Francisco to Los Angeles every fifteen minutes. But only two or three trains a day stopping in, say, Visalia.
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 31, posted (11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4345 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
But beyond that, this stretch isn't just about San Francisco and Los Angeles.
Surely though, such an expensive infrastructure is mainly targeting the two biggest urban centers it is connecting no? I doubt the smaller communities in between can solely support such a service.
You bring good examples of cities connected with HSR but in all those cases, there is an urban system that offers a "continuation" to the HSR ride. The way I see it, LA is kind of a dead end to such a system and I do not see it attracting the number of riders the project is claiming. I just don't see it as a good investment and there is a high risk of it being under-utilized for a very long time. I am not one of the people that is just against rail, I would love to have a train to go to work or travel around CA, but I just don't see a good business case in this.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 32, posted (11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4348 times:
Quoting lewis (Reply 32): Surely though, such an expensive infrastructure is mainly targeting the two biggest urban centers it is connecting no? I doubt the smaller communities in between can solely support such a service.
I didn't say they could. I said they would greatly benefit from it.
Quoting lewis (Reply 32): You bring good examples of cities connected with HSR but in all those cases, there is an urban system that offers a "continuation" to the HSR ride. The way I see it, LA is kind of a dead end to such a system and I do not see it attracting the number of riders the project is claiming.
It is unfortunately true, but there is a very large LA public transit system called the freeways. We don't think of it as "public transit" because you need your own car to access it, but that is the closest thing that LA has and it's even publicly funded. On the SF side, the train will start at the Transbay Terminal, which has access to BART and MUNI with CalTrain only a few blocks away. On the LA side there will be ample opportunity to rent a car.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31): A stop that makes it take that much longer to get to San Franciso.
It doesn't need to stop there on every trip, does it?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31): Of course Monterey also has its own airport with no less than eight flights from Los Angeles each day.
Do you know how much they cost? Three weeks in advance, the cheapest I can find is $350 one-way.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 33, posted (11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4335 times:
Here is a screen shot of the prelim route between LA and SF. Its almost 100-miles longer than straight line as it zig-zags around a bit.
Note the downtown LA to downtown SF will have 9 enroute stops !
While it says 2:38 travel time, that is with the previous plan of using dedicated HSR track. With legislature approval 2-weeks ago, the train will now use regular regional tracks in the LA Basin (and likely Bay Area also), slowing things down. So travel time migent be north of 3 hours then.
Also the latest projected one-way fare is $106 now. Interestingly this compares almost exactly with the $105 average airline fare per the DOT in the market. (Mindful, if you plan ahead you can book $59 fares regularly).
Quoting lewis (Reply 22): There isn't even a point of mentioning the "city centre to city centre" concept. There is not much going on in Downtown LA or its immediate surrounding areas. The places that most visitors would want to see or where most users of the HSR train would reside in are miles away from the city center (if you can call it that). Commuting from/to Union station, whether one chooses to drive or take the bus (no other real alternatives) is not very convenient.
This indeed is a big point.
For instance for myself I would have to take a 30-minute drive, and pay and park at Union Station. This is not an improvement over driving to LAX.
To get to the HSR station, people will have to drive far an wide. They can probably access a local airport SNA, BUR, LGB, LAX,
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
stasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3270 posts, RR: 6 Reply 34, posted (11 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4310 times:
Quoting icanfly (Thread starter): So I'm trying to understand where the opposition to the project is coming from?
It's a misuse of funding. This sexy, high-tech, high speed train will cater to wealthier business travelers and tourists - not to the average California resident. I've said it before on this topic, and once again - the appropriate use of mass transit funding should support local mass transit within California! Transit that the working poor, seniors, students, and the handicapped can benefit from. Not some grandiose "Jetson" style HSR that the average Californian could care less about and openly dismiss as a "rich man's toy" Yes, it would lead to some employment, especially during construction, but it's a band-aid, not a permanent fix to the state's long-term unemployment problem. As was previously noted, there are PLENTY of airports between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Expand and improve the existing mass transit infrastructure within the state - a lot of it is literally falling apart!
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
I agree, I would rather see a fraction of that money go to maintaining, improving and expanding existing networks first, before taking up such a grand project that will end up having to deal with the existing infrastructure 'holes'.
aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3338 posts, RR: 8 Reply 36, posted (11 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4282 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 20): You do realize that city centre to city centre, a 2 hour train ride is much faster than a 1 hour flight, don't you?
As another poster pointed out, Americans don't travel city center to city center. We travel from Irvine to Walnut Creek and Los Altos to Long Beach.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 20):
- 45-75mns commute to a major airport
- 1 hr wait (plus delays) at the airport
- 1 hr flight
- 30mn to land and exit airport
- 45-75 mn commute to city centre
These times are very inflated. Except for LAX and SFO, the airports I mentioned tend to be smaller and pretty user friendly -- the terminals aren't too big and they aren't so delay prone. Also, since there's three airports in the Bay and five in LA, the commute time is cut down.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): But beyond that, this stretch isn't just about San Francisco and Los Angeles. There will be smaller communities along the alignment all the way down that have only limited (or very expensive) air access at this time because it's all RJ traffic. People in Visalia will be able to come to San Francisco in 1.5 hours, not 4.5 hours and they'll be able to do it for 10% of the current fare.
This project costs close to $100 billion. At that cost, bus service is better for smaller communities. California can barely spend money where it matters. This isn't the time to be taking on such a huge project.
Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 35): I've said it before on this topic, and once again - the appropriate use of mass transit funding should support local mass transit within California! Transit that the working poor, seniors, students, and the handicapped can benefit from. Not some grandiose "Jetson" style HSR that the average Californian could care less about and openly dismiss as a "rich man's toy"
This is a good point. There are a handful of people I know who travel between the Bay and LA. They're either paid to do so for business or are very rich. The other people are going to be very price sensitive. $210 round trip is not going to be an incentive for increased travel between the two cities.
AlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 618 posts, RR: 1 Reply 37, posted (11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4273 times:
Quoting francoflier (Reply 11): If they start doing it on the cheap side, by mixing HS and non HS lines, adding stops at every little town on the way and adding to trip times, it will be a failure.
Quoting francoflier (Reply 11): ACELA, on a similarly sized network, was very close to being a failure for these reasons, even though it serves a much denser market.
The fares for Acela also happen to be through-the-roof.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): In built-up areas, trains will not be allowed to run flat out due to noise restrictions, for one thing.
A similar thing happened for the new commuter rail line here in Portland. People were whining left and right about train whistles.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): On European trains, there basically is no security.
In the US, too. Amtrak claims they have undertaken "heightened security measures" but in reality it's all a joke. They try to make you believe there's high security by making you show your ID every two seconds, for example. If you handed a ticket to a train employee marked for travel on July 19, 2013 instead of July 19, 2012, I doubt they'd notice.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): Will the TSA insist on airport-style check in and security
Not really sure but my assumption would be no.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 12): so that you have to get to the station at least an hour ahead of departure?
So what? That's how early I get to the station for Amtrak travel.
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 13): How many miles of freeway could be built for that? How many airport security lanes?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): Here we have free interstates, cheap gasoline. That makes it much harder for trains to compete. You also do not have centrally-located train stations, fully tied in to a city public transport system (except a a handful of east coast cities).
You make an excellent point, Dreadnought.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 20): 45-75mns commute to a major airport
You must live a long ways from your airport!
Quoting Flighty (Reply 21): Air travel is here today. SFO-LAX is not that difficult to fly.
Absolutely.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): Furthermore, walk-up fares are exorbitant and SFO in particular has a gigantic delay rate due to the fact that the 28s are too close together to allow tandem ILS approaches. Three hour delays are common at SFO.
You make flying sound like it's supposed to be some sort of terrible thing.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): Then there's the TSA and the whole luggage pain.
What "luggage pain?"
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): Luggage can be carried aboard and stored on shelves at the end of the cars.
Wait... You'd rather drag your bag onboard a train and lift it onto a luggage rack instead of having someone do all of that for you? I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you...
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): HSR may not be the answer for cross-country travel
Where did you get that idea? And under what circumstances does cross-country travel need an "answer?"
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34): Here is a screen shot of the prelim route between LA and SF.
wingman From Spain, joined May 1999, 1856 posts, RR: 5 Reply 38, posted (11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4274 times:
Two other points to consider in being against the plan...first, neither SF nor LA have anything resembling decent public transportation. That's another thing that differentiates successful HSR in other countries. You can arrive in Pairs, Osaka, Lyon, Munich, London or Tokyo and get positively anywhere in the near metro area with safe, clean, reliable public transportation. Simply non-existant in California. Second, we have a perfect example right here in our own country to draw lessons from...Amtrak and Acela on the Eastern Seaboard. Look up economic catastrophe in the encyclopedia and you'll see those two logos.
Again, I love trains and given the choice would take one over a plane any day of the week. But if I'm on business from SF to LA and my business is taking me anywhere except downtown LA I just don't see the point. Too much sprawl, too many proven alternatives, and simply not enough money. We're broke, and broke ass people can't afford $68B gambles. It's whacked.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 39, posted (11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4268 times:
By the way -- does anyone think the airlines will allow a train to chip away at their service?
Southwest will surely and handily undercut the projected $212 train fare. Add in the sheer convenience of SWA being able to connect 5 local SoCal airports with 3 in the Bay, the mix-match options for the consumers will be great.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 40, posted (11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4272 times:
Quoting aa757first (Reply 37): s another poster pointed out, Americans don't travel city center to city center. We travel from Irvine to Walnut Creek and Los Altos to Long Beach.
Another big point.
LA County alone is over 4,000 sq miles. The notion that people will drive hours to reach a train station is nuts itself.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 41, posted (11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4259 times:
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 38): You make flying sound like it's supposed to be some sort of terrible thing.
It is. Have you taken a flight lately? It's a stressful and unpleasant experience.
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 38): Wait... You'd rather drag your bag onboard a train and lift it onto a luggage rack instead of having someone do all of that for you? I'm sorry, I don't quite follow you...
It's no harder than dragging it to the check-in counter and retrieving it from the carousel... except you don't have to wait for it and it's not going to get lost.
When I arrived at Barcelona Sants station on the Ave, I grabbed my bag, walked up to the street, took a cab, and was flopping down on the bed in my hotel room less than 20 minutes later. You cannot do that with an airport.
Tell me... have you ever once taken HSR? If you haven't, then I suggest you do before you comment.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 42, posted (11 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4242 times:
As others have said, I think LA and SF need a better local transit first. The convenience of HSR is reduced if they just plop you in the middle of the city. I think connecting DC with NYC would work better since both have bigger subway systems, for example.
I love HSR... I was able to travel through 4 European countries just on rail and local transit. I don't see that happening in much of the US at all, but I see it in larger cities if they get decent local systems and build from there
No, it's not. Well, perhaps it's stressful and unpleasant if you get to the airport an hour before your flight leaves, run to security, then bolt to your departure gate as the door closes behind you. I'd call that stressful and unpleasant. However, if you plan ahead, give yourself some time, and just relax, you'll be fine. That's what I do every time and never once have I had a stressful and unpleasant experience when flying.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43): It's no harder than dragging it to the check-in counter and retrieving it from the carousel.
Still don't agree with you there.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43): except you don't have to wait for it and it's not going to get lost.
Not once have I ever had to wait more than 10 minutes for checked bags to arrive. Airlines do a wonderful job transferring bags to your final destination, even if your inbound flight is delayed and your connecting flight is on time. I've been pleasantly surprised multiple times.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43): When I arrived at Barcelona Sants station on the Ave, I grabbed my bag, walked up to the street, took a cab, and was flopping down on the bed in my hotel room less than 20 minutes later. You cannot do that with an airport.
I take it you don't really like travel!
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 43): Tell me... have you ever once taken HSR? If you haven't, then I suggest you do before you comment.
Please do not put words into my mouth. I said nothing of that sort.
I was curious as to why your beliefs on travel are so ill-intentioned.
GEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1468 posts, RR: 2 Reply 44, posted (11 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4185 times:
Quoting icanfly (Thread starter): So I'm trying to understand where the opposition to the project is coming from?
Sorry I haven't had time to read the previous replies, but I can answer your question easily, without reading anything;
It's not that there's anything wrong with HSR..............HSR is just fine in places where the population will use it, and I might mention.................in places where the people who want it have some idea of how they're going to pay for it.
Having a bridge from California to Hawaii seems like a marvelous idea for a few pin-heads that are afraid to fly, and hate boats; the problem ( problems ?) obviously outweigh the "advantages" by a margin of nine zillion to 3; so if only a few dozen pin-heads are desirous of driving their Bentley's to Honolulu, and the thing costs 179.999 zillion trillion to build, and requires 750, 999 workers to maintain, it's starting to look just a wee-tad "impractical and non-cost-effective" don't you see ?
That should give you a rough idea of why building a HSR in California is such a dumb idea; California is so flat broke......( no, they're billions BEYOND broke, they have borrowed so much money already, ( with no earthly possibility to pay it back), not to mention the fact...............unlike the Japanese, ( who obviously LOVE to ride trains), and ditto the Europeans, and I have no idea how many Asians, the native Californians LOVE to DRIVE their gas-guzzlers, and fly in their airplanes, and ride their mountain bikes...................
There are thousands of "good ideas" out there, but until they become cost-effective, until there is a sufficient demand for them, they are bound to remain just what they are now..................some air-head's..........( think: Gov. "Moon Beam's) silly idea.
I have often contemplated getting me a Lear Jet ( until I got to checking out what the monthly payments are......plus the insurance, parking, and most importantly............I don't even know how to fly a piper cub ! So I have discarded the Lear Jet "idea", in favor of buying this new 27 inch iMac I have finally taken out of the box and am attempting to learn how to operate the thing. ( And I think Gov. "Moon Beam" needs to do the same thing............get himself a new iMac or a new iPod, and forget about trying to get Californians to ride fast trains.
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3016 posts, RR: 2 Reply 45, posted (11 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4107 times:
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30):
A stop that makes it take that much longer to get to San Franciso.
You do understand that San Jose is the larger city right? And that San Francisco's economy is piggybacked on Silicon Valley's? Why would the third largest city in the state be bypassed? Are you saying all those currently flying into SFO are actually going to SF?
Quoting BMI727 (Reply 30): Of course Monterey also has its own airport with no less than eight flights from Los Angeles each day.
Oh get real. Few in the Monterey Penninsula fly out of Monterey, it has a population of 26,000. The bulk of Monterey Bay population lives north closer to San Jose. Hwy 17 is littered with airport shuttles to SJC. Monterey is a non-issue.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 32): It doesn't need to stop there on every trip, does it?
Why shouldn't it? I could see a case against Gilroy, but bypassing the engine of California's economy is ridiculous and will lose massive support for this project.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7738 posts, RR: 27 Reply 46, posted (11 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4080 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 20): Total by HSR: 2hrs City centre to City centre.
It is irrelevant to talk about city centers with built environments such as those in California, with the exception of a few densely-populated upscale hamlets and the city of San Francisco.
There are established formulas for determining the necessary local ridership and population density to make HSR viable. Based on what I've seen so far, and especially colored by my experience with a radically different rail setup in Japan, it's very hard for me to see the business case being there.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33):
Here is a screen shot of the prelim route between LA and SF. Its almost 100-miles longer than straight line as it zig-zags around a bit.
Note the downtown LA to downtown SF will have 9 enroute stops !
This is not really the problem with the system. The Tokaido shinkansen line is actually relatively similar, and has a zigzag route due to traversing a wide variety of terrain. There are places where it runs below best possible speeds to counter environmental concerns like tunnel boom effect. The problem is the lack of a good economic case for the project.
Quoting mham001 (Reply 45): And that San Francisco's economy is piggybacked on Silicon Valley's?
The economics of the Bay Area are not as simplistic as they seem. Weight has shifted heavily back to San Francisco over the last few years, and SF has always had a symbiotic, if not complimentary, relationship with the South and East Bay areas since the 1960s at the very least. Prewar you can make an argument for definitive economic centers but in the last 50 years there was a marked specialization of different centers of the regional economy.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16936 posts, RR: 57 Reply 47, posted (11 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
Quoting mham001 (Reply 45): Why shouldn't it? I could see a case against Gilroy, but bypassing the engine of California's economy is ridiculous and will lose massive support for this project.
There are Express trains and trains with stops. That's how HSR works. Not every train needs to stop at every town every time. There would be multiple departures from each terminus every day, some of which wouldn't stop at all, some of which would make one or two stops.
Don't argue; this is how EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD works.
Quoting GEEZER (Reply 44): the native Californians LOVE to DRIVE their gas-guzzlers, and fly in their airplanes, and ride their mountain bikes...................
Believe it or not, Californians do not love to drive. We are forced to drive for lack of other modalities. We especially do not love to drive from SF to LA. We do it because flying is obnoxiously expensive and inconvenient and the only alternative is the bus, which while cheaper on the trip, means that you have to rent a car at your destination.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 48, posted (11 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3974 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47): Believe it or not, Californians do not love to drive
Well I do. Actually its one of the things I love most about America. Its the freedom to hop in your car and come and go as you wish. Plenty of roads, cheap gas, and plenty to do along the way.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47): We do it because flying is obnoxiously expensive and inconvenient
Common Doc.
Expensive? DOT says the average fare was $105. I keep getting emails from VX, SWA, UA offering $59 fares in the market every other week. Plan ahead a bit, and you can easily score those tickets.
Inconvenient? You have 3 airports in the Bay Area, and 5 in SoCal to choose from. SWA alone has almost 100 flights per day each-way in the corridor.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7738 posts, RR: 27 Reply 49, posted (11 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3927 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48): Well I do. Actually its one of the things I love most about America. Its the freedom to hop in your car and come and go as you wish. Plenty of roads, cheap gas, and plenty to do along the way.
The best thing about living on this side of the pond is the freedom to do both. If I don't feel like sitting in traffic, I can take a train just about anywhere that will get me there on time and without any hassle. Never have to fight for parking at the supermarket or anywhere else. If I want to drive, plenty of roads and things to do along the way for that, and the highways never have cracks or holes.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
AlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 618 posts, RR: 1 Reply 50, posted (11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3832 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48): Expensive? DOT says the average fare was $105. I keep getting emails from VX, SWA, UA offering $59 fares in the market every other week. Plan ahead a bit, and you can easily score those tickets.
Inconvenient? You have 3 airports in the Bay Area, and 5 in SoCal to choose from. SWA alone has almost 100 flights per day each-way in the corridor.
I don't think DocLightning understands the conveniences of air travel.
Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for your response:
GEEZER From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 1468 posts, RR: 2 Reply 51, posted (11 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3764 times:
While everyone is busy arguing about whether riding on trains is a more pleasant (or less pleasant) experience than taking a plane, you're still ignoring the main reason this "scheme" has absolutely no chance of working..............the "economics" of the thing; this is a typical "liberal" scheme is ever there was one, (and as we all know, there have been many).
California was already flat-ass broke a few years back, and now, since they have attempted to "borrow" their way out of the hole, they have only created a much bigger, much deeper hole; but as deep as the hole is at present, it's a trifle compared to what it would be (or will be), after they borrow another $ 98 billion to build this monstrosity; which leads directly to yet another fact;
How many gigantic "projects" can you name that were estimated to cost 98 billion way before they even started building, and ended up being completed for the 98 billion estimate ? Gov. Moon Beam Brown needs to check with the libs up in Boston and look into what their gigantic "big dig" boondoggle ended up costing.............(about 9 times as much as originally estimated, and taking 3 times as long ).
Extrapolating Boston's "experience" to California's "scheme", they'd probably come in closer to a Trillion than to the paltry 98 billion they're talking about. And if that isn't sufficient reason to nix the whole idea, there's always the fact that there would never be half enough people riding the damned thing to even begin to make it cost-effective.
I love California, but I'm sure glad I don't live out there !
Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 52, posted (11 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3686 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48): Well I do. Actually its one of the things I love most about America. Its the freedom to hop in your car and come and go as you wish. Plenty of roads, cheap gas, and plenty to do along the way.
What are you talking about? How is it more free to have FEWER options? Believe it or not, countries with high speed rail also have fine highway networks (often better maintained than in the US), and have the cars to drive 'as they wish'. They also have a huge choice of air routes and full service and LCCs. Finally, they also have HSR where it makes sense. Yes, fuel is more expensive in Europe, but I have more travel options than I have in the US and can usually find a good economical option (road, rail air) based on whether I am traveling alone or in a group of people.
Some Americans are so attached to the idea that whatever the US does today, must, by definition, be the ideal, that they just cannot imagine nor allow themselves to seriously consider the big picture of doing things differently on a large scale and the macro economic benefits over the long term. All energy is devoted to refuting the value proposition, usually with flaky, half thought through reactions. Their early 20th century forebears did not suffer from the same constraints and did big things with big benefits.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 53, posted (11 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3664 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34): While it says 2:38 travel time, that is with the previous plan of using dedicated HSR track. With legislature approval 2-weeks ago, the train will now use regular regional tracks in the LA Basin (and likely Bay Area also), slowing things down. So travel time migent be north of 3 hours then.
Not even close. On regular tracks, I doubt the train can average much more than 60 mph.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 52): What are you talking about? How is it more free to have FEWER options? Believe it or not, countries with high speed rail also have fine highway networks (often better maintained than in the US), and have the cars to drive 'as they wish'. They also have a huge choice of air routes and full service and LCCs. Finally, they also have HSR where it makes sense. Yes, fuel is more expensive in Europe, but I have more travel options than I have in the US and can usually find a good economical option (road, rail air) based on whether I am traveling alone or in a group of people.
I think you are missing the point. The issue is not whether we should have HSR or not. The issue is how much should we be willing to pay for it.
This project is WAY too expensive. the bidders on the project are probably projecting 400% profits, and typically for government hacks, the politicians don't mind because A) it's not their money, and B) they are probably getting significant kickbacks.
And yes, driving and its freedoms has been one the greatest pleasures I've had since immigrating to America over 2-decades ago. Cant believe how much of a sheep fellow Europeans were living inside dense urban cities and hostage public transit.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 56, posted (11 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3489 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 55): Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 52):
What are you talking about?
I'm answering the below comment.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
Californians do not love to drive.
And yes, driving and its freedoms has been one the greatest pleasures I've had since immigrating to America over 2-decades ago. Cant believe how much of a sheep fellow Europeans were living inside dense urban cities and hostage public transit.
That's a very bizarre statement. Your fellow Europeans are 'sheep' because they use public transport, but as stats show, mostly also own cars and use them when they choose. American lack these options, but are more "free". Perhaps you're projecting your personal development in the US (glad you're happy) against a straw man image of others chosen lives in Europe. If this is the chosen vocabulary, then I've never seen more "sheep" than on US highways during the commuting hours. I would never feel 'free' spending 2,5-3hrs per day crawling in my car to work and back as many Americans do. In any case, there is no argument about the merits of HSR here.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 57, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3463 times:
Unfortunately imo, Europe after WW2 did not go down the road of literally building more roads, but instead opted to create a system where you are essentially punished to have a car, and are instead strong armed to queue up and ride public transit. Cars hence are a burden in Europe. Lack of roads, costly gas, high taxes, lack of parking, inner city no car zones etc.
A big mistake imo which has kept people glued to dense urban centers, while robbing them their mobility freedom.
Back to CA HSR, as mentioned over and over, there exist NO business case for it.
It was initially promised that we should not worry, and the train would to pay for itself. Then they said it would cover its operating cost, and the infrastructure investment would be a public benefit for all of CA that we would be proud to participate in.
Now finally as ridership figures turned out to be inflated and the total cost grossly under reported its indeed become the huge financial black hole many said it would prior to the public being duped to vote on it.
CA has even asked European, Japanese and Chinese firms to commit private money to the venture, but the numbers simply don't pencil out to earning a ROI back for them.
Sadly now as the public has woken up to this bad dream, in a 11th hour last ditch effort to ram this through the legislature and garner $3bil in grant match monies from Obama, they had to further weaken the project by conceding to use local regional rail tracks for 100 miles of the route in Southern California. Soon we will have the H missing entirely in HSR and merely have a fancy local train that runs empty up and down the state for $98bil.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 59, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3455 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 56): I would never feel 'free' spending 2,5-3hrs per day crawling in my car to work and back as many Americans do.
Holy crap, I don't even know anyone with more than a 40 minute commute!! That's greatly exaggerated...
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 57): Unfortunately imo, Europe after WW2 did not go down the road of literally building more roads, but instead opted to create a system where you are essentially punished to have a car, and are instead strong armed to queue up and ride public transit. Cars hence are a burden in Europe. Lack of roads, costly gas, high taxes, lack of parking, inner city no car zones etc.
I think a lot of it has to do with sprawl... Europe NEEDS public transportation. They aren't as spread out and have many large cities very close to each other. If they used cars like we do, traffic would be substantially worse.
I like my car, but make no mistake, I kinda wish I had an extensive, cheap, and efficient (both business-wise and environmentally) transportation system. But unless I live in a city (yuck)* I probably won't see that.
*I find European cities much nicer on average than American cities, but even then, I enjoy the space I have in the US
Longhornmaniac From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 3102 posts, RR: 47 Reply 60, posted (11 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3455 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41): Tell me... have you ever once taken HSR? If you haven't, then I suggest you do before you comment.
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 43): I was curious as to why your beliefs on travel are so ill-intentioned.
Huh? We're all here because we love aviation. Acknowledging its shortcomings doesn't make beliefs on travel "ill-intentioned." Are you saying you actively seek out travel situations that aren't smooth and as painless as possible? Hell, I've been known to fly all over the country to get to my destination, but I only truly enjoy them when everything is painless and going according to plan.
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 46): It is irrelevant to talk about city centers with built environments such as those in California,
And herein lies the major problem with HSR in the United States. Simply put, our infrastructure isn't designed to be centralized. Whereas in just about any other major urban center, intercity rail connects seamlessly to intra-city mass transit, the structure of American cities is such that getting into LA's Union Station doesn't do most people any good. If I'm going from Santa Monica to Anaheim, IAnd all too often, intra-city rail is positively dreadful here, which means it's very difficult to get close to your destination.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47): Don't argue; this is how EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD works.
This is true, but at the same time, if I'm not mistaken every Shinkansen going from Tokyo to Osaka will also stop in Kyoto, even if briefly. There's no way you'd truly have a nonstop between LA and SF, bypassing a massive urban center for the sake of saving 5-10 minutes.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48): Plan ahead a bit, and you can easily score those tickets.
And the same could be said for rail. Plan ahead, there will be cheap tickets to be had.
Once again, this is the real argument against HSR in the US. If California did it right, they could make it work, but it would start with a much improved intra-city rail in and around SoCal. Being central doesn't do most people any good, though to be fair, they're going to have to commute some whether they're going to an airport or to a train station.
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 50): I don't think DocLightning understands the conveniences of air travel.
I think you're projecting.
Quoting GEEZER (Reply 51): this is a typical "liberal" scheme is ever there was one
There's the nutjob Charley we've all come to expect!
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 52): often better maintained than in the US
How true. Californians in particular don't really have very firm ground to stand on when it comes to road infrastructure. I think I'd rather be stuck in an A/C-less car in Cairo in the middle of the day than stuck on the 405 during rush hour.
Excuse me? This is mind-bogglingly stupid. Never once have I wished I had fewer options, and when I've had a good public transit system, never once have I wished I had a car (except to sing in).
vinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 741 posts, RR: 0 Reply 61, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3446 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 57):
Unfortunately imo, Europe after WW2 did not go down the road of literally building more roads, but instead opted to create a system where you are essentially punished to have a car, and are instead strong armed to queue up and ride public transit. Cars hence are a burden in Europe. Lack of roads, costly gas, high taxes, lack of parking, inner city no car zones etc.
A big mistake imo which has kept people glued to dense urban centers, while robbing them their mobility freedom.
Not being funny but many cities in the US are just like that: Washington, New-York, Chicago, San Francisco...
If you think car is the solution, good for you but any planner will tell you that this is unsustainable long term. And all and I say all medium size cities provide public transportation with a subsidy whether the mayor is R or D. Must be a reason no?
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 57): CA has even asked European, Japanese and Chinese firms to commit private money to the venture, but the numbers simply don't pencil out to earning a ROI back for them.
What you don't understand is that the condition attached were probably unacceptable for CA. And unless you have special knowledge I don't think you can emit any judgement about what happened.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 48): Well I do. Actually its one of the things I love most about America. Its the freedom to hop in your car and come and go as you wish. Plenty of roads, cheap gas, and plenty to do along the way.
Oh great... cause congestion is not an issue in this country. How about the long term? You think gas will be as cheap? You think the plentiful of reserves in North America can sustain $3 oil prices. Well reality check most of the oil discoveries need $3.50 - $4.00 oil prices. Oh the joys of driving with these oil prices!!! And btw most highways are boring as hell!
And flying? it's never been so expensive to fly. And no-one
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47): There are Express trains and trains with stops. That's how HSR works. Not every train needs to stop at every town every time. There would be multiple departures from each terminus every day, some of which wouldn't stop at all, some of which would make one or two stops.
Don't argue; this is how EVERY SINGLE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD works.
Exactly.
My thinking is that it is not the best project on earth but that it will bring long term direct direct and indirect benefits that will outweigh the cost. THis is a long term project and shouldn't be judged as a commercial project. A lot of what the government does is not judged as such! Does medicaid make commercial sense? no. Does the military? No. do highways? Half of them don't! So let's be real here and let's stop thinking about this as a commercial venture!
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 62, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3450 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59): Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 56):
I would never feel 'free' spending 2,5-3hrs per day crawling in my car to work and back as many Americans do.
Holy crap, I don't even know anyone with more than a 40 minute commute!! That's greatly exaggerated...
I know multiple colleges working in Jersey City and others in the NYC area who have 75-90 minute commutes (each way). x2 = 2,5-3hrs by my reckoning. I've also seen a recent documentary on the gridlock on LA area roads and the lack of any alternative for many people traveling various point to point routes (due to the destruction of public transport in the 20's and 30's) in order to get from where they can afford to live to where they can find work. These commuters are also in the 2-3hr category roundtrip daily. Many Americans, even if you don't know any, are faced with such commutes by car.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 64, posted (11 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3444 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 57): Unfortunately imo, Europe after WW2 did not go down the road of literally building more roads, but instead opted to create a system where you are essentially punished to have a car, and are instead strong armed to queue up and ride public transit. Cars hence are a burden in Europe. Lack of roads, costly gas, high taxes, lack of parking, inner city no car zones etc.
A big mistake imo which has kept people glued to dense urban centers, while robbing them their mobility freedom.
I don't know where your getting your information or what European countries you have in mind. Europeans enjoy their cars too, and make very good ones that you Americans love to buy (when they can be afforded: BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Alfa Romeo, Mazeratti, etc, etc). Europeans very much enjoy driving on Autobahns at unlimited speed, Auto Stradas in Italy, Autoroutes in France, etc, etc. As already said, most of these roads are now newer and better maintained than their American equivalents (how extensive is your driving experience on French Autoroutes in the last 20 years?).
As for 'punished for having a car': no, its simply that an absence of subsidies and the presence of user-pays taxes make it more expensive than in the US, but still an attractive option among several others depending on the trip. Cars, inner city, are "a burden" anywhere, including all major US city centers.
As for being 'strong armed', by some imaginary 'socialist' totalitarian state into using public transport, I think you may have watched too much Bill O'Rielly on Fox. Again, options, realistic, high quality, economically sustainable options, increase 'freedom', they don't diminish it.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2526 posts, RR: 35 Reply 66, posted (11 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3413 times:
Quoting GEEZER (Reply 51): Extrapolating Boston's "experience" to California's "scheme"
If you're trying to make the numbers "realistic", why do you model it on an extreme case?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 54): I'd say go for it, CA, after you balance your budget and are able to fit this project in without a deficit. That is the real issue, IMO
Why should balancing the budget be a condition? Should it be measured on if it is a smart project? Then it may help balancing the budget.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 67, posted (11 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3397 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 66): Why should balancing the budget be a condition? Should it be measured on if it is a smart project? Then it may help balancing the budget.
Well it should be both. You shouldn't spend money on stupid projects just because you have money. At the same time, assuming this HSR idea for CA was the best idea, they REALLY need to be cutting the budget before piling on another project, that goes without saying
vinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 741 posts, RR: 0 Reply 68, posted (11 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3364 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 66): Should it be measured on if it is a smart project?
It's a pretty smart project, not excellent but very good! Problem is you judge and probably haven't read any reports... So you don't know what it entails, and therefore call it stupid! That is the truth!
This is not politics anymore! You can criticize people's vision as much as you want. But when it is project based, you ought to have read at least once what it is all about before emitting a judgment on the merits of it!
AlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 618 posts, RR: 1 Reply 69, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3351 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 52): How is it more free to have FEWER options?
I think he's talking about driving, not travel in general.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 53): Not even close. On regular tracks, I doubt the train can average much more than 60 mph.
In the Pacific Northwest we have an Amtrak line that uses cars manufactured by Talgo Tech. They are designed for high-speed (120 mph) useage in Europe, but can only go 79 mph in the US due to track limitations.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 60): Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41):
Tell me... have you ever once taken HSR? If you haven't, then I suggest you do before you comment.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 60): Are you saying you actively seek out travel situations that aren't smooth and as painless as possible?
Where did you get that idea?
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 60): I only truly enjoy them when everything is painless and going according to plan.
You've hit the nail on the head. I always plan things very carefully, and, like you mention, am only truly happy when everything goes flawlessly. This is the exact reason I don't want to be bumped from a flight, be re-routed, have a flight canceled, or have my checked bag(s) travel on different flights than me, for any reason.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 60): and when I've had a good public transit system, never once have I wished I had a car
You must've never had to rely solely on it then. I got tired of relying on public transit pretty quickly.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2526 posts, RR: 35 Reply 70, posted (11 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3349 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 67): You shouldn't spend money on stupid projects just because you have money.
You should never spend money on stupid projects. That much is clear.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 67): At the same time, assuming this HSR idea for CA was the best idea, they REALLY need to be cutting the budget before piling on another project, that goes without saying
I don't think that goes without saying. If it is a good project, then it will reduce total costs, and thus help balance the budget. So why would you delay something that helps balance the budget?
Usually it takes an investment to make things better, more efficient. Just cutting rarely fixes things. It just pushes them forward and makes them more expensive at that time.
In other words. Judge each project on what it will accomplish.
I have not judged the HSR project. Since I have not judged the project I have not called it stupid. Not have I called it anything else.
What I judged was the statement that you need to balance the budget before you take on any projects. I fully support balanced budgets. The way to get there is to take on smart projects. Not dismissing all projects just because the budget isn't balanced at this time.
You need to cool down with your accusations.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 71, posted (11 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3329 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 70): I don't think that goes without saying. If it is a good project, then it will reduce total costs, and thus help balance the budget. So why would you delay something that helps balance the budget?
Usually it takes an investment to make things better, more efficient. Just cutting rarely fixes things. It just pushes them forward and makes them more expensive at that time.
In other words. Judge each project on what it will accomplish.
In that case it is pretty damned clear that that this project needs to either be completely redone or abandoned. It is far too expensive for the potential return. It appears the whole thing is geared to simply ensure that the contractors and their political supporters become extremely rich on the backs of the taxpayers.
flipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1529 posts, RR: 1 Reply 72, posted (11 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3294 times:
Very interesting debate.
I like HSR and believe that it is a much better way to travel than an aircraft (more relaxing allows me to do my work, i get internets etc.) 5hrs of driving/being on a plane /in a taxi/ in an airport is actually less productive than 7 hrs on a train even if it is longer.
I believe in california it would not work due to the public transport infrastructure at either end the nature of the urban sprawl meaning that journey times would not be as short as some are predicting (real door to door not city centre to city centre). Public transport should be built up in the cities before HSR comes a long.
As for the costs and the economic argument then you have to look at a lot more than what it costs to build and operate offset against the ridership and fares, economic growth brought about by the railway also has to be considered (new communities able to commute due to reduced travel times etc.) It has to be looked at as a facilitator of economic growth as well as just way of beating the speed of planes.
In some ways it is very similar to the military, doesn't directly help the economy (huge drain) but allows the rest of the country econmic liberties/freedoms that would not be available without it.
ozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 73, posted (11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3284 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 64): Quoting LAXintl (Reply 57):
Unfortunately imo, Europe after WW2 did not go down the road of literally building more roads, but instead opted to create a system where you are essentially punished to have a car, and are instead strong armed to queue up and ride public transit. Cars hence are a burden in Europe. Lack of roads, costly gas, high taxes, lack of parking, inner city no car zones etc.
A big mistake imo which has kept people glued to dense urban centers, while robbing them their mobility freedom.
I don't know where your getting your information or what European countries you have in mind. Europeans enjoy their cars too, and make very good ones that you Americans love to buy (when they can be afforded: BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Alfa Romeo, Mazeratti, etc, etc). Europeans very much enjoy driving on Autobahns at unlimited speed, Auto Stradas in Italy, Autoroutes in France, etc, etc. As already said, most of these roads are now newer and better maintained than their American equivalents (how extensive is your driving experience on French Autoroutes in the last 20 years?).
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
ozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 74, posted (11 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3279 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7): 1) Its questionable how "high speed" this really will be. Now to reduce cost they are actually talking about using regular regional rail lines in both SoCal and Bay Area
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7738 posts, RR: 27 Reply 75, posted (11 months 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3270 times:
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 60): This is true, but at the same time, if I'm not mistaken every Shinkansen going from Tokyo to Osaka will also stop in Kyoto, even if briefly. There's no way you'd truly have a nonstop between LA and SF, bypassing a massive urban center for the sake of saving 5-10 minutes.
I'm well aware of Nagoya, and it does, of course, stop there! But Kyoto seemed like a better option to prove my point, for the very reason you described!
It's a reality. Flying is a pain in the ass now. Having TSA poking and prodding at you (all while knowing they're not actually making anything safer), the fact that flying seems to bring out the stupid in people etc...we love aviation in spite of all of that. I guarantee you that's what he's saying. It used to be a much more pleasant, glamorous experience.
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 69): You must've never had to rely solely on it then. I got tired of relying on public transit pretty quickly.
AlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 618 posts, RR: 1 Reply 77, posted (11 months 21 hours ago) and read 3201 times:
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 72): I like HSR and believe that it is a much better way to travel than an aircraft (more relaxing allows me to do my work, i get internets etc.)
I know many who agree with you. Does HSR in Europe have WiFi?
Well you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I for one do still enjoy getting on a plane and flying somewhere. Sure, the sometimes-long TSA lines, dumb passengers, low-cost carriers, and way too much cabin baggage can be annoying, but it's all part of the experience.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 76): (all while knowing they're not actually making anything safer)
The unfortunate part is that I do agree with you there.
Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 76): I guarantee you that's what he's saying. It used to be a much more pleasant, glamorous experience.
ozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 78, posted (11 months 20 hours ago) and read 3186 times:
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 77): Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 72):
I like HSR and believe that it is a much better way to travel than an aircraft (more relaxing allows me to do my work, i get internets etc.)
I know many who agree with you. Does HSR in Europe have WiFi?
Thalys: Paris-Brussels / Koln / Amsterdam - Yes, broadband on all services, for some years now
TGV: Some services
Eurostar: planned
Others: not sure
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 77): Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 76):
Flying is a pain in the ass now.
Well you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but I for one do still enjoy getting on a plane and flying somewhere. Sure, the sometimes-long TSA lines, dumb passengers, low-cost carriers, and way too much cabin baggage can be annoying, but it's all part of the experience.
Planes for long haul. HSR for short haul.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 79, posted (11 months 18 hours ago) and read 3136 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 70): I don't think that goes without saying. If it is a good project, then it will reduce total costs, and thus help balance the budget. So why would you delay something that helps balance the budget?
Well CA is in really bad shape, even with long term payoffs, I'm not sure if they can afford it in the short term. Plus, the payoff of this particular project isn't set in stone... I'm kind of wary whether it is 1: overpriced and 2: if it will really pay off considering the sub par public transportation within the cities themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I hope to see a good viable system in the future sometime. But CA is drowning in debt and IMO lacks the feed within the cities to make this really effective
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2526 posts, RR: 35 Reply 80, posted (11 months 17 hours ago) and read 3103 times:
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79): 1: overpriced and 2: if it will really pay off considering the sub par public transportation within the cities themselves.
Don't get me wrong, I hope to see a good viable system in the future sometime. But CA is drowning in debt and IMO lacks the feed within the cities to make this really effective
I think those are valid concerns and I think they need to be answered satisfactory,
I objected to your statement because you did not look at return. You said, hold until the budget is balanced. Only do it if there is no deficit.
It is very rare that you can save yourself out of a deficit. Almost always you need to make investments to gain the benefits allowing you to balance your budget. There must be smarts about addressing deficit. Blanket hold on spend is not better than uncontrolled spending. Both push problems forward and when they can't be pushed anymore they are much bigger than if you had dealt with them earlier.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
kngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 81, posted (11 months 16 hours ago) and read 3070 times:
I think it's worth mentioning just how backwards our priorities in this country have become. We willingly spend over $1 trillion on a war in Iraq with little debate, (not to mention no meaningful ROI) yet we fight tooth and nail against 1/10th that much for a public works project here at home. The 2010 military budget was $680 billion, yet NASA gets less than $20 billion.
There are definitely some concerns about the cost of this project. $68 billion or whatever it's up to now does seem way more than what it should cost, but when compared to the amount we spend on other programs..... it seems trivial.
Now as far as the comments about HSR not being a good idea because San Francisco and Los Angeles don't have a large enough centralized mass transit system to make it work, you have a point. However, both cities are investing in mass transit and building more rail lines so this should be less and less of an issue. I also don't think Californians should have to choose between mass transit and HSR. Why not build both? It's not like all of this money is being spent in 1 year, it will surely take more than a decade to complete all the needed components.
I'm so tired of the notion that we can't afford to do anything big in this country. People need to stop comparing our debt situation to that of Greece, Spain, Ireland, and Portugal. It's not the same. A better comparison would be to compare us to Japan and the United Kingdom, as they both have their own currencies. Japan has double our debt to GDP ratio, yet their borrowing costs are just as low as ours are today. The UK has spent most of the 20th century with a debt to GDP ratio over 150%, yet they are still considered one of the safe havens.
vinniewinnie From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 741 posts, RR: 0 Reply 82, posted (11 months 15 hours ago) and read 3048 times:
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 77): I know many who agree with you. Does HSR in Europe have WiFi?
Lol as if that mattered.... I mean it's probably more important in Europe because Roaming charges bite but seriously travel time, price, frequency and access/egress time are way more important than Wifi when people choose to travel.
And btw Amtrak has Wifi as well in some corridors athough by all accounts its poor (Amtrak's fault)
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 79): Don't get me wrong, I hope to see a good viable system in the future sometime. But CA is drowning in debt and IMO lacks the feed within the cities to make this really effective
It has been shown in the US that people are pretty eager to park & ride of the travel time is worth it. Same as you would park/ be dropped off at the Airport it doesn't make any difference. At the other end people going to the city centers of both cities or even the intermediary cities will arrive at their destinations way quicker than they otherwise would by either air or car.
The point is that not everyone will be served by HSR. Maybe there will be a modal shift of 3% only within the entire corridor(Read the report ages ago cannot remember). But HSR will make a hell of an impact both on the Highways (reducing traffic) and at airports (freeing up slots)+ will create new business opportunities as well as spurring joint development.
it may not appear real but in the long term High Speed Rail will have direct and indirect impacts above what the system would have cost. . if California has a capital budget over the next 30 years that allows for it it should invest in the project.
Yeah I generalized a bit, deficits aren't always bad as long as they are out of control (which I believe it is now.)
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 81): There are definitely some concerns about the cost of this project. $68 billion or whatever it's up to now does seem way more than what it should cost, but when compared to the amount we spend on other programs..... it seems trivial.
It may be trivial but stacking more and more projects, no matter how "good" they are, is not good in the long run. I agree with you... we need to trim a lot of spending elsewhere. But I think that needs to be done now before spending more bucks on other projects
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 81): I'm so tired of the notion that we can't afford to do anything big in this country. People need to stop comparing our debt situation to that of Greece, Spain, Ireland, and Portugal. It's not the same. A better comparison would be to compare us to Japan and the United Kingdom, as they both have their own currencies. Japan has double our debt to GDP ratio, yet their borrowing costs are just as low as ours are today. The UK has spent most of the 20th century with a debt to GDP ratio over 150%, yet they are still considered one of the safe havens.
You don't think we have a deficit problem? Not talking Greek bad, but surely you see the harm of spending $1T more a year than we take in...
AlnessW From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 618 posts, RR: 1 Reply 84, posted (11 months 10 hours ago) and read 2984 times:
Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 82): Lol as if that mattered.... I mean it's probably more important in Europe because Roaming charges bite but seriously travel time, price, frequency and access/egress time are way more important than Wifi when people choose to travel.
Not my point. I was simply wondering if they had it at all.
Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 82): And btw Amtrak has Wifi as well in some corridors
Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 82): athough by all accounts its poor (Amtrak's fault)
Really? Not in my experience. What corridors have you used it on?
ozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 85, posted (11 months 8 hours ago) and read 2970 times:
Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 82):
Quoting AlnessW (Reply 77):
I know many who agree with you. Does HSR in Europe have WiFi?
Lol as if that mattered.... I mean it's probably more important in Europe because Roaming charges bite but seriously travel time, price, frequency and access/egress time are way more important than Wifi when people choose to travel.
It does matter to the thousands of business travelers and it yet another advantage of HSR over the air option: being seated comfortably, in total quiet for the whole journey, being able not only to work, but remain connected.
As for roaming charges, they're high for you when you visit Europe, as you're roaming from the US. These are not the intra-european roaming rates.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
aa757first From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3338 posts, RR: 8 Reply 86, posted (11 months 7 hours ago) and read 2958 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 41): Tell me... have you ever once taken HSR? If you haven't, then I suggest you do before you comment.
I took HSR in China. I thought it was a good idea for traveling relatively short distances in a country with high population densities.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 62): Many Americans, even if you don't know any, are faced with such commutes by car.
Many? I don't think so.
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 81): I think it's worth mentioning just how backwards our priorities in this country have become. We willingly spend over $1 trillion on a war in Iraq with little debate, (not to mention no meaningful ROI) yet we fight tooth and nail against 1/10th that much for a public works project here at home. The 2010 military budget was $680 billion, yet NASA gets less than $20 billion.
It isn't a good idea to benchmark new ideas against the Iraq War. It was a terrible idea and an egregious waste of money. One mistake does not justify another.
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 81): Now as far as the comments about HSR not being a good idea because San Francisco and Los Angeles don't have a large enough centralized mass transit system to make it work, you have a point. However, both cities are investing in mass transit and building more rail lines so this should be less and less of an issue. I also don't think Californians should have to choose between mass transit and HSR. Why not build both? It's not like all of this money is being spent in 1 year, it will surely take more than a decade to complete all the needed components.
Where are these investments? As far as I can tell, public transit in SoCal is non-existent. For example, the 25 mile trip from LA to Long Beach takes almost two hours on public transit. In NorCal, the South Bay's CalTrain faced a huge funding crisis last year that would have resulted in a huge decrease in services. Cuts were barely avoided.
Quoting ozglobal (Reply 85): It does matter to the thousands of business travelers and it yet another advantage of HSR over the air option: being seated comfortably, in total quiet for the whole journey, being able not only to work, but remain connected.
WiFi is available on most airlines and, from what I can tell, in all airports.
ozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 88, posted (11 months 4 hours ago) and read 2921 times:
Quoting aa757first (Reply 86): Quoting ozglobal (Reply 85):
It does matter to the thousands of business travelers and it yet another advantage of HSR over the air option: being seated comfortably, in total quiet for the whole journey, being able not only to work, but remain connected.
WiFi is available on most airlines and, from what I can tell, in all airports.
Maybe, but try to understand the point. On a 3-4 hr city to city hop: by air you at best will bet 90mns to work connected, on the train you can have the 4hrs, as you avoid enless standing, queuing, security scans, 'no electronic devcies' periods during taxi, takeoff, climb, descent, landing and taxi. On HSR you get your full 3-4hrs connected and productive if you want, in near silence, with much more space. It's not at all comparable.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
ozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 89, posted (11 months 3 hours ago) and read 2912 times:
This just in, AF will from Dec axe its CDG - Strasbourg route (500km)due to impact of the TGV which opened in Dec 2007, reducing the rail journey from 4:50 to 2:20. It will evntually go down to 1:50 when the final stretch of LGV is built. For info SF-LA is 600KM, so similar distance.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7506 posts, RR: 2 Reply 90, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2853 times:
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 81): but when compared to the amount we spend on other programs..... it seems trivial.
This is an argument to approve any program that people dream up, because government cronies want vast wealth for their families - vast, dynastic wealth, to avoid working.
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 81): I'm so tired of the notion that we can't afford to do anything big in this country.
Again, this is a call to spending. You're about 9,000th in line trumpeting such sentiments. The party is in full swing. The spending torches are already burning like supernovas.
Quoting cmf (Reply 80):
It is very rare that you can save yourself out of a deficit.
Fatalism.
I think that logic is wedded to 20th century economic growth stories. Our economy is not growing like that. And it won't. For about 1500 years between the Roman times and Middle Ages, no economic growth occurred. For most of history, when fiscal discipline was lost, empires fell. They could not tell a story that somehow our children will be twice as rich, and bail us out. That was the 20th century, and it was unusual.
We can, however just inflate our way out of this. It will be unpleasant, but I am not seeing an alternative. Structural problems with govt largesse will debase our economy, and we could be paralyzed for many decades or even lifetimes. My problem is, we are rich and to be indigent is a sign of personal weakness when you are rich.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 91, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2849 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 80): It is very rare that you can save yourself out of a deficit.
Tell that to a bankruptcy court judge, tell him that there is no need for you to stop going out to nightclubs every night, and that the car payments on your Escalade support the economy - see what happens.
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 81):
There are definitely some concerns about the cost of this project. $68 billion or whatever it's up to now does seem way more than what it should cost, but when compared to the amount we spend on other programs..... it seems trivial.
Just because more money has been spent elsewhere is no excuse. Why should we fund such a huge project when all you will get in the end are empty trains - because that IS what will happen.
Now, if you can make a rational case that 10-20,000 people per day will use the system, then fine, the project can make some sense. But frankly I cannot see more than a small fraction of that number using this conveyance.
kngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 92, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2819 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 91): Just because more money has been spent elsewhere is no excuse. Why should we fund such a huge project when all you will get in the end are empty trains - because that IS what will happen.
Now, if you can make a rational case that 10-20,000 people per day will use the system, then fine, the project can make some sense. But frankly I cannot see more than a small fraction of that number using this conveyance.
Year after year Amtrak ridership is setting new records, with double digit growth on most corridors, and that is without any proper high speed service that can effectively compete with driving or flying. You can't honestly believe that the trains will be empty. The revenue might not be enough to cover costs, but no transportation mode operates without subsidies.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 90): Again, this is a call to spending. You're about 9,000th in line trumpeting such sentiments. The party is in full swing. The spending torches are already burning like supernovas.
No, it's a call to invest in America. Something that we have neglected for decades now and it's starting to show as the rest of the world passes us by in just about every meaningful measurement. I don't know what spending torches you are talking about, the annual deficit has shot up mostly due to tax cuts, lower tax receipts due to the recession, and the safety net costs that come from having high unemployment. This wouldn't have been different with a Republican president, except perhaps even lower taxes and larger deficits, or deep austerity that would put us in a double dip recession like much of Europe is now experiencing.
Quoting Flighty (Reply 90): This is an argument to approve any program that people dream up, because government cronies want vast wealth for their families - vast, dynastic wealth, to avoid working.
This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Because some in government might profit off a project, we shouldn't invest in any projects? OK, you can stand on your moral high ground as the country further degrades.
Quoting aa757first (Reply 86): Where are these investments? As far as I can tell, public transit in SoCal is non-existent. For example, the 25 mile trip from LA to Long Beach takes almost two hours on public transit. In NorCal, the South Bay's CalTrain faced a huge funding crisis last year that would have resulted in a huge decrease in services. Cuts were barely avoided.
Currently San Francisco is adding 16 miles of heavy rail and 80 miles of commuter rail, Los Angeles is adding 20 miles of light rail. Both have further projects in the works. A few years ago Los Angeles voters approved, with 67% of the vote, a hike in sales tax to fund transportation projects. It's progress.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83): You don't think we have a deficit problem? Not talking Greek bad, but surely you see the harm of spending $1T more a year than we take in...
It's a problem, but it's not our most immediate problem. Reducing spending or increasing taxes to solve the deficit problem will only prolong our most immediate problem - the economy. The deficit is not where our focus should be right now.
mham001 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3016 posts, RR: 2 Reply 93, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2815 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 62): I know multiple colleges working in Jersey City and others in the NYC area who have 75-90 minute commutes (each way).
This is the choice they made. Why would we dictate public policy for poor decisions of the very few. The average US commute is 12 miles. Not only that, Jersey City had a great transportation system when I lived there 30 years ago. PATH train to Penn Station was $.30. Newark Airport - same thing.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 62): Many Americans, even if you don't know any, are faced with such commutes by car.
According to this, over 34% have a one-way commute 30 minutes and over.
About 8% have a one-way commute 60 minutes and over.
Obviously those are national averages, the situation in main metro areas (NY-NJ-PA, DC, etc.) is worse than that.
Where do you get that it is worse in metro areas?
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 81): Now as far as the comments about HSR not being a good idea because San Francisco and Los Angeles don't have a large enough centralized mass transit system to make it work, you have a point.
What I'm not understanding is how the public transportation system is any better if one were to fly. How is it worse when the train is dumping you city center and will the a train passenger be prohibited from renting a car just like any oplane passenger?
lewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, RR: 5 Reply 94, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2773 times:
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 92): Los Angeles is adding 20 miles of light rail
Which is nothing compared to what is actually needed before the network coverage can even be considered as adequate.
Quoting mham001 (Reply 93): What I'm not understanding is how the public transportation system is any better if one were to fly. How is it worse when the train is dumping you city center and will the a train passenger be prohibited from renting a car just like any plane passenger?
It just shows that the HSR option dumping you in the city center offers nothing better than the option of flying - it would make more sense if it offered seamless or near seamless connections to other mass transit options. Such systems work because they offer that. Otherwise, the only selling point for the train over flying would be
'No TSA and more time to stick your eyes in front of a laptop'. Also, the airport infrastructure is already there - Imagine how much work Union Station and the surrounding area would need in order to have an adequate taxi ramp, parking lots and car rental companies. All that before ensuring that the demand is already there!
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 95, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2771 times:
The only question I have is... with $68 Billion, with what money?! The State is broke. Where are they gonna get this money from?
Bad idea on all points, as LAXIntl has pointed out. Ditch the plan, get the revenue income fixed and start paying off debts before any projects like this. This is a lose-lose idea.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5376 posts, RR: 47 Reply 97, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2744 times:
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 92): Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 83):
You don't think we have a deficit problem? Not talking Greek bad, but surely you see the harm of spending $1T more a year than we take in...
It's a problem, but it's not our most immediate problem. Reducing spending or increasing taxes to solve the deficit problem will only prolong our most immediate problem - the economy. The deficit is not where our focus should be right now.
I guess we'll have to disagree... our deficit is completely and utterly out of control
AirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 26 Reply 98, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2739 times:
This is a joke. The commute between Bremerton-Silverdale is not even bad at all. The commute between Bremerton-Port Orchard is worse than that! The commute between Westminster-Denver, CO is much, much worse!
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2526 posts, RR: 35 Reply 99, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2673 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 90): For most of history, when fiscal discipline was lost, empires fell.
Fiscal discipline is important. It includes spending wisely. Don't spend and see things fall apart quickly.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 91): Tell that to a bankruptcy court judge, tell him that there is no need for you to stop going out to nightclubs every night, and that the car payments on your Escalade support the economy - see what happens.
Talk about not understanding basics. Run a business and "save" by deferring maintenance, not investing in new machinery,
buying cheap raw material, save salaries buy using inexperienced employees. It ain't gonna be pretty.
Quoting lewis (Reply 94): It just shows that the HSR option dumping you in the city center offers nothing better than the option of flying
It can't be worse than being dumped at an airport that typically is far from the city. There are situations where trains are better and the are situations where planes are better. Pick the right tool.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 100, posted (10 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2621 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 99): Talk about not understanding basics. Run a business and "save" by deferring maintenance, not investing in new machinery,
buying cheap raw material, save salaries buy using inexperienced employees. It ain't gonna be pretty.
For Ch...'s sake stop with the Koolaid. Building a $98 billion utility only used by a handful of people is excessive. To use your analogy of a small business, it's like your local A/C/Heating Installation and repair shop buying all of General Electric in order to ensure his supply of A/C units.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 102, posted (10 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2496 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 101): Stop the stupid soundbites. We can't stop spending. Stop insisting on it. Learn to spend wisely.
And wasting $98 billion is wise?
Let's put it this way. Nuclear aircraft carriers are ridiculously expensive. Liberals love to complain about all the spending on defense.
The current budget for the California HSR project is enough to buy more than TWENTY Nimitz-class carriers. And just like anyone would agree that we don't need 20 more carriers, we don't need to spend all that money on a rail-line which will carry maybe 1-2000 people per day.
You need to keep an open mind when you evaluate costs. How much will the alternatives cost?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 102): The current budget for the California HSR project is enough to buy more than TWENTY Nimitz-class carriers. And just like anyone would agree that we don't need 20 more carriers, we don't need to spend all that money on a rail-line which will carry maybe 1-2000 people per day.
Unlike 20 carriers HSR actually have value. Your suggestion of 1-2000 people per day is laughable when even critical revues predict over 60,000 per day.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 104, posted (10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2423 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 103): Unlike 20 carriers HSR actually have value. Your suggestion of 1-2000 people per day is laughable when even critical revues predict over 60,000 per day.
Please, please, drop the crack-pipe. The London-Paris Eurostar train, connecting two of the world's greatest metropolises, both with populations much more attuned to public transport, where you can get pretty much anywhere in town to/from the train station in 30 minutes via public transport, and where the only other alternative is flying - driving is not possible, Eurostar transports about only 25,000 per day, between two cities of around 9 million people each. You can call this the absolute ideal case.
LA is of similar size but San Francisco is not. You'l be able to travel by road at similar prices. If you travel more than 2 people in a car, it's a no-brainer, the car will be cheaper, so the HSR can forget about families - their market will be business travelers.
Put it all together, I'd guess HSR will get 5K per day. That's my guess. But it has a hell of a lot more logic to it than your drug induced fantasy of 60K per day.
First it was 1-2k. Now it is 5k. What made you increase the number 2.5 to 5 times in just 9 hours?
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 104): But it has a hell of a lot more logic to it than your drug induced fantasy of 60K per day.
As I said, 60k isn't my number. It is from the critical review Citizens Against Government Waste did, http://reason.org/files/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf "Using generous assumptions this Due Diligence Report projects a 2030 base of 23.4 million intercity riders"
23.4M per year is 64,110 per day.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 104): If you travel more than 2 people in a car, it's a no-brainer, the car will be cheaper
Since you are so good with numbers. How much will alternative infrastructure cost? How much and what is the difference in operating costs? Especially fuel and maintenance are important. How much doses it cost to do nothing?
Once you have those numbers you can start to judge if the project makes sense or not.
[Edited 2012-07-26 02:58:44]
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 106, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 105): First it was 1-2k. Now it is 5k. What made you increase the number 2.5 to 5 times in just 9 hours?
Quoting cmf (Reply 105): As I said, 60k isn't my number. It is from the critical review Citizens Against Government Waste did, http://reason.org/files/1b544eba6f1d5f9e8012a8c36676ea7e.pdf "Using generous assumptions this Due Diligence Report projects a 2030 base of 23.4 million intercity riders"
The 1-2K was a POMA number. The 5K is one arrived at using a reasonable amount of logic, based on results from a well established HSR connection between two large cities, with everything set up as favorable as possible (high gasoline prices, road tolls, convenient mass transit from railways stations, etc).
Your (or rather CAGW's numbers) are pure fantasy fed by nothing more than wishful thinking.
Quoting cmf (Reply 105): Since you are so good with numbers. How much will alternative infrastructure cost? How much and what is the difference in operating costs? Especially fuel and maintenance are important. How much doses it cost to do nothing?
You are confusing the Macro with the Micro. Such considerations do not enter the picture when a family decides how to take their kids to Gramma's house, and they choose between flying, bus, train, or car.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2526 posts, RR: 35 Reply 107, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2275 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): The 1-2K was a POMA number. The 5K is one arrived at using a reasonable amount of logic, based on results from a well established HSR connection between two large cities, with everything set up as favorable as possible (high gasoline prices, road tolls, convenient mass transit from railways stations, etc).
Your (or rather CAGW's numbers) are pure fantasy fed by nothing more than wishful thinking.
5k per day is 1.85 M per year. Looks like another POMA number.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 106): You are confusing the Macro with the Micro. Such considerations do not enter the picture when a family decides how to take their kids to Gramma's house, and they choose between flying, bus, train, or car.
Investing in large infrastructure projects is micro economy? So back to the question you try to avoid. How much will the alternative infrastructure cost?
Just for the record. I don't know if this HSR project makes sense at this cost. I do know that the objections you have provided belong where the POMA numbers came from.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 108, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2175 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 107): 5k per day is 1.85 M per year. Looks like another POMA number.
25K per day is the record for London-Paris, two larger cities with far more attractive public transport, and where travelling between the two by car simply isn't an option (except by putting the car on the train). I am saying that California's HSR will only attract a tiny fraction of London-Paris. 60K is utterly ludicrous.
But let's for an instant assume that the 60K number is correct. That's 60K per day, at shall we say $100 per pax, that's $2.2 billion in revenue per year.
That's probably not even going to cover the cost of the interest on the bonds that will finance the project, never mind the operating costs of the railroad.
Quoting cmf (Reply 107): Investing in large infrastructure projects is micro economy?
No, that's macro. Micro deals with decision-making at the family/business level.
ozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 109, posted (10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2168 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108): But let's for an instant assume that the 60K number is correct. That's 60K per day, at shall we say $100 per pax, that's $2.2 billion in revenue per year.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108): That's probably not even going to cover the cost of the interest on the bonds that will finance the project, never mind the operating costs of the railroad.
Governments and voters in most countries, including the US to my knowledge, did not apply this direct break even economic model to the main infrasturucture projects of the 20th century: construction of national highway networks, airports, dams, etc. regardless of how they might have later been run or financed maintenance. No, they took in the full macro economic impacts of doing and NOT doing the infrastructure projects and sided with the benefits of going ahead. They were right. Those calling for a direct BUSINESS case, rather than an INFRASTRUCTURE case, have lost the wisdom and foresight of their forebears.
[Edited 2012-07-27 07:23:22]
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Hows the US military doing at making monetary profits on investments?
I'm not saying that the HSR will turn a profit in the long term or it is definately a wise investment but to look at in terms of simple ridership x ticket cost is overly simplistic.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 111, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2149 times:
The revised April 2012 state budget analyst office ridership estimate are as follows:
Low – 5.8mil annually
Medium – 8.1mil annually
High – 10.5mil annually.
Keep in mind – the projected boardings do not mean people are going to take the route from one end to the other – some might simply take it between LA and San Diego, others between LA and Fresno, others Stockton to SF. You get the idea.
Also due to various political and financial issues, the line is now projected to be built in segments opening between 2022 and 2029, so it will take some time to reach the full boarding estimate potential.
Lastly – when the plan first came out, it was estimated that HSR could charge 50% of average market airfares. That estmate is now up to 83%.
[Edited 2012-07-27 08:42:21]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2526 posts, RR: 35 Reply 112, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2144 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108): That's probably not even going to cover the cost of the interest on the bonds that will finance the project, never mind the operating costs of the railroad.
Finally we have some good reasons why we may be better off not doing it using straight forward number crunching and no ideology.
However, we still need to figure out how much alternative projects would cost (and return) and how much it will cost to do nothing. Still waiting for you to come up with these numbers. I know you will not like the ones suggested by people who have looked at it.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 108): No, that's macro. Micro deals with decision-making at the family/business level
Glad you agree. Begs the question why you dragged it down to the micro level when we were discussing the macro level?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 113, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2132 times:
Quoting ozglobal (Reply 109): Governments and voters in most countries, including the US to my knowledge, did not apply this direct break even economic model to the main infrasturucture projects of the 20th century: construction of national highway networks, airports, dams, etc. regardless of how they might have later been run or financed maintenance. No, they took in the full macro economic impacts of doing and NOT doing the infrastructure projects and sided with the benefits of going ahead. They were right. Those calling for a direct BUSINESS case, rather than an INFRASTRUCTURE case, have lost the wisdom and foresight of their forebears.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 110): I'm not saying that the HSR will turn a profit in the long term or it is definately a wise investment but to look at in terms of simple ridership x ticket cost is overly simplistic.
Quoting cmf (Reply 112): However, we still need to figure out how much alternative projects would cost (and return) and how much it will cost to do nothing. Still waiting for you to come up with these numbers. I know you will not like the ones suggested by people who have looked at it.
LOL, OK, smart guys, you tell me. Why should we build this boondoggle. Give me the Infrastructure case. How does it benefit society to invest a huge amount of money into a system that will likely be perpetually underutilized.
As for the cost of the alternatives, I don't know, but the benefit will be $98 billion.
You guys really seem to lack the understanding of how much money that is. It's easy to claim foresight and progress, but you guys seem intent on causing economic ruin.
ozglobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, RR: 4 Reply 114, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2121 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 113): Quoting ozglobal (Reply 109):
Governments and voters in most countries, including the US to my knowledge, did not apply this direct break even economic model to the main infrasturucture projects of the 20th century: construction of national highway networks, airports, dams, etc. regardless of how they might have later been run or financed maintenance. No, they took in the full macro economic impacts of doing and NOT doing the infrastructure projects and sided with the benefits of going ahead. They were right. Those calling for a direct BUSINESS case, rather than an INFRASTRUCTURE case, have lost the wisdom and foresight of their forebears.
Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 110):
I'm not saying that the HSR will turn a profit in the long term or it is definately a wise investment but to look at in terms of simple ridership x ticket cost is overly simplistic.
Quoting cmf (Reply 112):
However, we still need to figure out how much alternative projects would cost (and return) and how much it will cost to do nothing. Still waiting for you to come up with these numbers. I know you will not like the ones suggested by people who have looked at it.
LOL, OK, smart guys, you tell me. Why should we build this boondoggle. Give me the Infrastructure case. How does it benefit society to invest a huge amount of money into a system that will likely be perpetually underutilized.
Here is a commentary of the infrastruture case for a real, similar (in fact 100km longer (780kms)) length HSR line (Paris - Marsailles): massively disputed with people like you, approved, built, massively successful and boosting the regional and national economies and significant and permanent ways, whilst also having provided huge stimulous in an earlier financial crisis:
High-Speed Train Planning in France, Lessons
from Mediterranean TGV-Line
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 54 2009
There. My homework for you. Your homework, put in all the similar elements for SF-LA, including macro economic stimulus and permanent regional economic stimulus and we can talk. Is 98B the right number. No idea. Could such a project work? Read the report.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 115, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2109 times:
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2526 posts, RR: 35 Reply 116, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2052 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 113): How does it benefit society to invest a huge amount of money into a system that will likely be perpetually underutilized.
I think the likelihood of perpetually underutilized is very small. Making transportation available tend to generate traffic. As road and airports become more congested the train will look increasingly good. Continuing building infrastructure around HSR will also help.
I agree it must be question if it is worth 98 BUSD. Not the least it must be explained why it is so much higher than other similar projects.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 113): As for the cost of the alternatives, I don't know, but the benefit will be $98 billion.
How do you know the benefit will be 98 BUSD if you don't know the cost? POMA.
There are reports suggesting extending roads and aviation infrastructure it will cost 120 - 170 BUSD. They do make 98 BUSD look good.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 113): You guys really seem to lack the understanding of how much money that is. It's easy to claim foresight and progress, but you guys seem intent on causing economic ruin.
Don't let the zeros scare you. You seem set on stopping progress. Where would we be if earlier generations had been afraid to do large projects. We would have very few of the things we take for granted today.
I agree 98 BUSD is a lot of money but that isn't the reason to shut down this project. The reason to go ahead or shut it down is how the return of the alternatives turn out. If they are better do them. If they are worse do this.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7884 posts, RR: 22 Reply 117, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2011 times:
Quoting cmf (Reply 116): How do you know the benefit will be 98 BUSD if you don't know the cost? POMA.
Because they are completely separate items. Gross benefit (via cost savings) will be $98 billion. Net savings, TBD.
Quoting cmf (Reply 116): There are reports suggesting extending roads and aviation infrastructure it will cost 120 - 170 BUSD.
If that comes from the same people who came up with 60K riders per day, I would not put much stock in that.
Quoting cmf (Reply 116): I think the likelihood of perpetually underutilized is very small. Making transportation available tend to generate traffic. As road and airports become more congested the train will look increasingly good. Continuing building infrastructure around HSR will also help.
Like I said, it's been done. London-Paris. In place for a decade now, in countries very much attached to train service. Ridership is less than half of the 60K per day predicted for this project, in spite of much greater obstacles to alternatives (high auto fuel costs, the Channel, toll roads).
The only thing this project will benefit are the contractors and the construction unions. The ultimate pork barrel project.
BTW, I know from personal contacts that California's largest construction contractor, which is privately owned by a family which has always attempted to adhere to the highest moral standards, has made it clear that they want nothing to do with this project.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 118, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1986 times:
I think you should separate two problems:
a) is the new line a good idea and will it bring something to the state of CA in the long run?
I think that various examples from all over the world have shown that medium range HSR, coupled with a local public transport infrastructure to get the passengers to the main stations without too much hassle, generally works and brings, again in the medium to long run, advantages to the state. Don´t expect short term profits though and it is possible that the line, as seen by itself, will never show a profit, but the region as a whole will profit from it (e.g. the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate subsidises HHN. The airport itself doesn´t make a profit. But for the state the existence of the airport and it´s related infrastructure has been beneficial through job creation e.g. by freight shipping companies, which use the airport, in a region where unemployment used to be very high. In the end the savings on dole moneys and the income tax revenue are much higher than the subsidies paid to the airport company. So the state as a whole profits from it).
b) is the price demanded by the construction companies to build the line justified?
As Charles (Dreadnought) has stated that a comparable line built in France, which has at least the same labour costs and expenses as CA, was much cheaper. It looks as if some interested parties formed a cartell to rip off CA, possibly with the help of corrupt politicians.
kngkyle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 354 posts, RR: 1 Reply 119, posted (10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1972 times:
The 60K riders/day does seem extremely out of the realm of possibilities considering Acela has about 8,000 riders/day. However, Acela is operationally profitable at that figure, and is constantly setting new ridership records.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 120, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1954 times:
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 118): b) is the price demanded by the construction companies to build the line justified?
Its not just construction of a line, stations, and rail equipment, its also the very expensive (and cotencious) purchase of private land.
For example the full project calls for 800-miles of new rail, and the initial proposed 130 mile segment has over 2,000 parcel of land that need to be acquired. It was in the paper that the proposed route cuts through everything from public school, to recently completed $8mil regional distribution warehouse for super market chain, farm land, 250 various small business, a natural gas and electric utility facility, a vacation resort, and on....
Obviously these business and land owners need to be compensated for their land, loss of business activity, and I suppose having a replacement facility and its relocation cost.
Quoting kngkyle (Reply 119): The 60K riders/day does seem extremely out of the realm of possibilities considering Acela has about 8,000 riders/day.
If you take the states revised "medium" ridership estimate of 8.1mil annually, that turns out to be about 22,000/day.
Keep in mind however majority of boarding's wont be end to end, but partial segments such as between Anaheim and LA, LA to Central Valley, or inside the Bay area.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, RR: 64 Reply 121, posted (10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1941 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 120): Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 118):
b) is the price demanded by the construction companies to build the line justified?
Its not just construction of a line, stations, and rail equipment, its also the very expensive (and cotencious) purchase of private land.
For example the full project calls for 800-miles of new rail, and the initial proposed 130 mile segment has over 2,000 parcel of land that need to be acquired. It was in the paper that the proposed route cuts through everything from public school, to recently completed $8mil regional distribution warehouse for super market chain, farm land, 250 various small business, a natural gas and electric utility facility, a vacation resort, and on....
Obviously these business and land owners need to be compensated for their land, loss of business activity, and I suppose having a replacement facility and its relocation cost.
Then how do other countries do it?
I know that when there was first talk abot a Berlin-Brandenburg airport the landowners around SXF started to demand fanatasy prices, and the stupid (or corrupt) people responsible for making the purchases actually paid for it. There was a big scandal back in the 1990s over worthless land which was bought at exorbitant prices and not even needed for the project.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22241 posts, RR: 51 Reply 122, posted (10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1869 times:
Well here in the US there is a pretty well established process.
Either the government and owners can voluntarily enter into an agreement for the land, or it can go down an eminent domain path and force the acquisition of the land.
However even under eminent domain there would need to be proper independent valuation of the property - and incase if business analysis of how to compensate for the loss of economic activity to the owners to come up with a fair price.
Matter of fact even the US Constitution provides that private property may not be taken for a public use without payment of "just compensation." Additionally under California Constitution there are additional rights - such as business owners are entitled to also a value based on the sustainable income flow generated by the business.
So this could be a very costly, complicated and long process to acquire the needed land for the project.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21043 posts, RR: 60 Reply 123, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1764 times:
Making 6 connections is not high speed.
Let's assume you don't have a car at either end.
Bus to Metro stop in LA (unless you happen to live close to one, not many do). Metro to union station. Train HSR depot in Palmdale. HSR through the central valley to BART. BART to station in SF. SF station to final destination via bus or street car.
Total travel time? 1 hour or more to get to union station. Over an hour to get to Palmdale. 4 hours to get to SF depot. 1 hour to get into "the City" and then the final connection to where you are going.
8 hours. This is assuming short wait times for transfers.
And when you arrive, you have no car.
And the fare is not better than a plane ticket, but even with driving to the airport, parking, check-in, flying, baggage claim, bus to rental car, and drive to city, it's up to twice as long to take HSR. Where one can fly into SFO early in the morning to take meetings during the day and get back home that night in LA, one can't do that on this HSR.
Only a government would come up with this solution. Only a government would decide the actual HSR would connect the central valley only, and only a government would build it between stockton and modesto first.
If this plan were meant to make a profit, and serve as many people as possible, it would connect Los Angeles to Palmdale and San Diego, San Fran to Sacramento, and then build out from there.
They didn't drive the golden spike FIRST and then branch out to create the transcontinental railroad. They started from each end, opened up both ends for revenue, and finished it as time went on.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
cmf From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 2526 posts, RR: 35 Reply 124, posted (10 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1743 times:
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 123): Bus to Metro stop in LA (unless you happen to live close to one, not many do). Metro to union station. Train HSR depot in Palmdale. HSR through the central valley to BART. BART to station in SF. SF station to final destination via bus or street car.
Total travel time? 1 hour or more to get to union station. Over an hour to get to Palmdale. 4 hours to get to SF depot. 1 hour to get into "the City" and then the final connection to where you are going.
8 hours. This is assuming short wait times for transfers.
...
but even with driving to the airport, parking, check-in, flying, baggage claim, bus to rental car, and drive to city
Why don't you turn it around? Use public transportation to and from the airports and use car and rental car with the train. Also adjust the Palmdale to San Francisco to the 2 hours 15 minutes or better use the Los Angeles station.
Much better, show some integrity and use similar parameters when you compare.
Quoting ikramerica (Reply 123): Only a government would decide the actual HSR would connect the central valley only, and only a government would build it between stockton and modesto first.
What is the reason for starting with Modesto - Stockton? What is wrong with doing the long distances HSR first?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2011, 76 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16316 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3892 posts, 
From Spain, joined May 1999, 1856 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2004, 2615 posts, 
From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3448 posts, 
From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8497 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2249 posts, 
You must live a long ways from your airport! 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7738 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1529 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13369 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
