Now apparently the majority of the Democratic controlled state house does not want give Newsom more money for the project.

The US needs true highspeed rail in other places than the NEC. I was hoping this project would come to completion. But man this thing has come off the rails.

"Newsom’s high-speed rail dispute
Assembly Democrats refuse to hand over $4.2 billion appropriation for beleaguered system"

https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/loc ... 44644.html

They are not going to complete the valley section on time. Someone call Brightline.

Shocker.

Not the first difficulty and won't be the last. Makes me wonder if Texas Central finally breaks ground if that will beat California HSR as the first true HSR operation in the US.

This is a good read on the subject - https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/hi ... s-obsolete

af773atmsp wrote:

Not the first difficulty and won't be the last. Makes me wonder if Texas Central finally breaks ground if that will beat California HSR as the first true HSR operation in the US.

Texas sort of seems like it might be an easier place to do this. If nothing else, it's a bit flatter.

IMO, the current plan to wander through the Central valley while connecting the Bay area with LA is quite similar to the reason Micky Mouse left Minnie Mouse. They lost a lot of support with that.

pune wrote:

This is a good read on the subject - https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/hi ... s-obsolete

The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, and the author of that article Randal O'Toole is heavily biased against passenger rail in the US. I'd take anything they say with a giant grain of salt.

Vintage wrote:

IMO, the current plan to wander through the Central valley while connecting the Bay area with LA is quite similar to the reason Micky Mouse left Minnie Mouse. They lost a lot of support with that.

It makes more sense than following 101 because more people live in the Central Valley and would make it easier to connect more of the population. The infrastructure is there on either route but the population is not. I think there are better HSR corridors that could be built. Dallas-Houston, St. Louis-Kansas City, Cheyenne-Denver-Colorado Springs, Eugene-Portland-Seattle....

Vintage wrote:

IMO, the current plan to wander through the Central valley while connecting the Bay area with LA is quite similar to the reason Micky Mouse left Minnie Mouse. They lost a lot of support with that.

The practicality of the plan was never relevant - pacifying large numbers of voters in the Sacto and San Joaquin valleys was the only priority. HSR was supposed to compete with/replace necessity of air service between SAN/LA/Bay Area, and everyone in CA knows there's not a lot of intrastate air service in BFL, FAT, MOD etc. Because population.

seb146 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

IMO, the current plan to wander through the Central valley while connecting the Bay area with LA is quite similar to the reason Micky Mouse left Minnie Mouse. They lost a lot of support with that.

It makes more sense than following 101 because more people live in the Central Valley and would make it easier to connect more of the population. The infrastructure is there on either route but the population is not. I think there are better HSR corridors that could be built. Dallas-Houston, St. Louis-Kansas City, Cheyenne-Denver-Colorado Springs, Eugene-Portland-Seattle....

Doesn't Southwest airlines serve all these areas? Seems like a lot of good money being wasted.

seb146 wrote:

It makes more sense than following 101 because more people live in the Central Valley and would make it easier to connect more of the population.

That's the stock answer and it's also the reason why it will never be funded to completion.
The people who are paying for it have no reason to travel to places like Bakersfield or Fresno.

Vintage wrote:

seb146 wrote:

It makes more sense than following 101 because more people live in the Central Valley and would make it easier to connect more of the population.

That's the stock answer and it's also the reason why it will never be funded to completion.
The people who are paying for it have no reason to travel to places like Bakersfield or Fresno.

Precisely...if it went down 101 and hit SLO, SBA etc everyone in the coastal cities would love it. But it would also be 10x more difficult to complete.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

IMO, the current plan to wander through the Central valley while connecting the Bay area with LA is quite similar to the reason Micky Mouse left Minnie Mouse. They lost a lot of support with that.

It makes more sense than following 101 because more people live in the Central Valley and would make it easier to connect more of the population. The infrastructure is there on either route but the population is not. I think there are better HSR corridors that could be built. Dallas-Houston, St. Louis-Kansas City, Cheyenne-Denver-Colorado Springs, Eugene-Portland-Seattle....

Doesn't Southwest airlines serve all these areas? Seems like a lot of good money being wasted.

Not all of them. To go from EUG-SEA or EUG-PDX on WN, you have to change in OAK. Not to mention the crowds and lines at security and all the wasted time waiting and not being online for all that time. For business people, the train just makes sense. Give people the option. Let the free market decide, amiright?

Aaron747 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

seb146 wrote:

It makes more sense than following 101 because more people live in the Central Valley and would make it easier to connect more of the population.

That's the stock answer and it's also the reason why it will never be funded to completion.
The people who are paying for it have no reason to travel to places like Bakersfield or Fresno.

Precisely...if it went down 101 and hit SLO, SBA etc everyone in the coastal cities would love it. But it would also be 10x more difficult to complete.

I love SBA but building anything there is an absolute nightmare. 101 needs to be widened but that can not happen. If they can't even add a lane each way to 101, imagine what it would be like to add tracks!

seb146 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

That's the stock answer and it's also the reason why it will never be funded to completion.
The people who are paying for it have no reason to travel to places like Bakersfield or Fresno.

Precisely...if it went down 101 and hit SLO, SBA etc everyone in the coastal cities would love it. But it would also be 10x more difficult to complete.

I love SBA but building anything there is an absolute nightmare. 101 needs to be widened but that can not happen. If they can't even add a lane each way to 101, imagine what it would be like to add tracks!

Yeah there’s just no way. Would have to be all tunnel through both SBA and the mountains. Nothing surface till the Santa Ynez/Maria valleys

af773atmsp wrote:

pune wrote:

This is a good read on the subject - https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/hi ... s-obsolete

The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, and the author of that article Randal O'Toole is heavily biased against passenger rail in the US. I'd take anything they say with a giant grain of salt.

Some of the article's attack against HSR, like the inefficiency of a trans-America national network proposal, or the inefficiency of the current Amtrak network, are facts. HSR advocates need to focus on high demand corridors instead of some sort of nationwide HSR proposal, to truly utilize HSR's efficiency and advantages. Doing so can also rebuke other points in the article, like that dedicated infrastructure = wasted, as such corridors would have high enough passenger density to fully utilize the infrastructure, and then the cost of Californian HSR beibg considerably higher than worldwide average should also be questioned and be presented with solution in future US projects, instead of accepting the Californian cost as a fact on the ground.

seb146 wrote:

Vintage wrote:

IMO, the current plan to wander through the Central valley while connecting the Bay area with LA is quite similar to the reason Micky Mouse left Minnie Mouse. They lost a lot of support with that.

It makes more sense than following 101 because more people live in the Central Valley and would make it easier to connect more of the population. The infrastructure is there on either route but the population is not. I think there are better HSR corridors that could be built. Dallas-Houston, St. Louis-Kansas City, Cheyenne-Denver-Colorado Springs, Eugene-Portland-Seattle....

Main purpose and reason and passenger volume of HSR are passengers from big cities to big cities.
Smaller cities in the middle of the way can also provide some traffics, but they aren't enough to fill a traib and are usually not a good enough argument for the track to make a detour for such smaller cities, which come with extra construction ost as well as extra travel time for passengers.

And, city pairs like Cheyenne-Denver-Colorado Springs, doesn't seems to have required population to support a high speed rail system, and perhaps a regional rail system like S-bahn in Germany would be better.

NIKV69 wrote:

Doesn't Southwest airlines serve all these areas? Seems like a lot of good money being wasted.

High speed rail are generally preferrable to air travel whenever they are available, especially when the train trip is about ~1-4 hours long.

The HS rail path through the Central valley is an exact parallel to gerrymandering maps.
The people who drew it had no interest in what's needed, the path was meant to reward politicos for their past and future support.

c933103 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Doesn't Southwest airlines serve all these areas? Seems like a lot of good money being wasted.

High speed rail are generally preferrable to air travel whenever they are available, especially when the train trip is about ~1-4 hours long.

Usually will get you much closer to your destination too.

Where I've used them, had I taken a plane I would have needed a long journey by taxi to get to my final destination because the airport was not close to the city. The train cut out a time consuming 3rd plane flight because I could transfer straight from the international flight to the train without leaving the airport then arrive very close to my final destination.

Maybe things will change when those amazing VTOL airliners finally become a reality.

High Speed Rail works, just look at the NEC where amtrak has 50 percent of the market ( may be more). That is what so frustrating about these projects that go obscenely over budget and behind schedule. It gives opponents HSR projects easy ammo and they would be right.

Regarding Texas Central, that is another disappointing project I had high hopes for, especially since SWA did not fight it as they did with the previous DAL-HOU HSR attempt in the 90s (or was it the 80s?). SWA even endorsed it...........a little. Yet this project is showing they never had enough funding and it too will go by the wayside after bundling their working with rural residents and turning them against the project.

IMHO the USA is far to late to the game for high speed rail, this is something that should have been drafted and set in motion in the 70s. I think it would not have been as extensive in other parts of the world. Americans have always had a love affair with their cars. Even with todays prices most Americans would rather pay $6.00 gallon and full up their Chevy Suburban at 15 mph and go barreling down I5 at 80MPH.

FLYFIRSTCLASS wrote:

IMHO the USA is far to late to the game for high speed rail, this is something that should have been drafted and set in motion in the 70s. I think it would not have been as extensive in other parts of the world. Americans have always had a love affair with their cars. Even with todays prices most Americans would rather pay $6.00 gallon and full up their Chevy Suburban at 15 mph and go barreling down I5 at 80MPH.

I don't give a shit about cars but the scenery is really the draw. Have you driven CA-1 or US 101 from LA to Astoria, Oregon? Oh my god what a heavenly journey.

william wrote:

Regarding Texas Central, that is another disappointing project I had high hopes for, especially since SWA did not fight it as they did with the previous DAL-HOU HSR attempt in the 90s (or was it the 80s?). SWA even endorsed it...........a little. Yet this project is showing they never had enough funding and it too will go by the wayside after bundling their working with rural residents and turning them against the project.

Last I heard, Texas Central is now facing legal challenge in Texas which try to claim they are not a railroad company and hence cannot acquire lands through eminent domain, because the company do not currently operate any rail service.
And while the company is backed by Japan's JR Central, JR Central is a company that dependent on its Shinkansen rail route for revenue. And the pandemic have heavily damaged the ridership and hence the revenue of their Shinkansen route. At least until the last fiscal year. Which also impact their financial health. In addition to their new maglev route back home also facing NIMBY seeing delay and increase in cost.

Vintage wrote:

IMO, the current plan to wander through the Central valley while connecting the Bay area with LA is quite similar to the reason Micky Mouse left Minnie Mouse. They lost a lot of support with that.

WAIT, Micky has left Minnie?

af773atmsp wrote:

pune wrote:

This is a good read on the subject - https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/hi ... s-obsolete

The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, and the author of that article Randal O'Toole is heavily biased against passenger rail in the US. I'd take anything they say with a giant grain of salt.

Anyone who can read a map should be heavily biased against passenger rail in North America.

Its big. Its got lots of population centers that shrink and grow in the course of a century. A high speed rail line connecting two major US cities in 1920 would have connected Detroit to Kansas City. LOL.

The billions spent on VIA or AMTRAK could have been used on intercity flights and commuter rail. Instead, the US invested in rail connectivity to Havre, MT and Jasper AB.

Like rail made sense in the 19th century. Now, its like Archer said "Airplanes, this is blimps. You win."

The only real difficulty is the refusal to follow the will of the electorate and just push through and get it done. Corporate interests are being put over the will of the people, despite having a theoretically friendly legislature. CAHSR would be a massive boon to the state.

N1120A wrote:

The only real difficulty is the refusal to follow the will of the electorate and just push through and get it done. Corporate interests are being put over the will of the people, despite having a theoretically friendly legislature. CAHSR would be a massive boon to the state.

CAHSR planning and execution has been horrible. It just validates opponents criticisms. I believe the citizens of California voted for and deserve a rail system that was planned to start this year.

Sadly, CAHSR has stained any future major HSR project in the US.

seb146 wrote:

Let the free market decide, amiright?

You sure are and we will see it when this boondoggle is over.

c933103 wrote:

High speed rail are generally preferrable to air travel whenever they are available, especially when the train trip is about ~1-4 hours long.

I seriously doubt this, HSR works in countries like China because of the vastness and distance between cities and lack of airlines willing to do short hops like WN. It's never really going to work here and the prices will just drive people to low cost airlines.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Let the free market decide, amiright?

You sure are and we will see it when this boondoggle is over.

c933103 wrote:

High speed rail are generally preferrable to air travel whenever they are available, especially when the train trip is about ~1-4 hours long.

I seriously doubt this, HSR works in countries like China because of the vastness and distance between cities and lack of airlines willing to do short hops like WN. It's never really going to work here and the prices will just drive people to low cost airlines.

"Trips about ~1-4 hours long" already implied the distance the train is useful. At 200mph that would be ~800 miles maximum, then you have to minus some for stops at station, detour through terrains, acceleration and deceleration.
Short hop LCC also exists in other countries that have high speed rail. But passengers are still willing to pay more for a direct train, as long as the train journey travel time is within attractive range.
Also, this number is from countries like Japan and Europe. The attractive range threshold is a little bit longer in countries like China due to their Air Traffic Control but still it come down to the decision of individual travellers.

FlapOperator wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

pune wrote:

This is a good read on the subject - https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/hi ... s-obsolete

The Cato Institute is a Libertarian think tank, and the author of that article Randal O'Toole is heavily biased against passenger rail in the US. I'd take anything they say with a giant grain of salt.

Anyone who can read a map should be heavily biased against passenger rail in North America.

Its big. Its got lots of population centers that shrink and grow in the course of a century. A high speed rail line connecting two major US cities in 1920 would have connected Detroit to Kansas City. LOL.

The billions spent on VIA or AMTRAK could have been used on intercity flights and commuter rail. Instead, the US invested in rail connectivity to Havre, MT and Jasper AB.

Like rail made sense in the 19th century. Now, its like Archer said "Airplanes, this is blimps. You win."

Even now Detroit to Kansas City makes sense for high speed rail, just not with one direct route; Detroit to Chicago with one route and connect it with another route operating Chicago-Kansas City.

I don't see what Havre, MT and Jasper, AB have to do with HSR. No one is suggesting HSR to those places or places of that size, but if you cut their existing Amtrak/VIA service then good luck getting enough pilots to serve all of those towns. We already have enough difficulty serving existing EAS routes.

Rail is a 19th century technology, but it's been updated for the 21st century and is proven to be advantageous over driving and flying in certain conditions. Rail and blimps are completely different modes of transportation, so I don't see the point in bringing up that Archer quote.

NIKV69 wrote:

HSR works in countries like China because of the vastness and distance between cities and lack of airlines willing to do short hops like WN. It's never really going to work here and the prices will just drive people to low cost airlines.

You obviously aren't familiar with the successful HSR services between DC, New York, and Boston.

af773atmsp wrote:

Rail is a 19th century technology, but it's been updated for the 21st century and is proven to be advantageous over driving and flying in certain conditions. Rail and blimps are completely different modes of transportation, so I don't see the point in bringing up that Archer quote.

c933103 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Let the free market decide, amiright?

You sure are and we will see it when this boondoggle is over.

c933103 wrote:

High speed rail are generally preferrable to air travel whenever they are available, especially when the train trip is about ~1-4 hours long.

I seriously doubt this, HSR works in countries like China because of the vastness and distance between cities and lack of airlines willing to do short hops like WN. It's never really going to work here and the prices will just drive people to low cost airlines.

"Trips about ~1-4 hours long" already implied the distance the train is useful. At 200mph that would be ~800 miles maximum, then you have to minus some for stops at station, detour through terrains, acceleration and deceleration.
Short hop LCC also exists in other countries that have high speed rail. But passengers are still willing to pay more for a direct train, as long as the train journey travel time is within attractive range.
Also, this number is from countries like Japan and Europe. The attractive range threshold is a little bit longer in countries like China due to their Air Traffic Control but still it come down to the decision of individual travellers.

There are other factors with HSR compared to LCC airlines, luggage won’t get left behind on HSR, unless you forget it yourself. I’ve seen people have bug troubles with Euro LCC airlines.

Terrain isn’t always such a big problem for HSR, it’s unbelievable watching two double deck TGV connected. together blasting up a pretty decent gradient at 290km/h. The thing has so much momentum and that helps it. Acceleration, they do that quite fast - they are very powerful and then you have some trains and that tilt, very quick through curves.

Another phenomenon is low cost HSR, where the ticket prices are very low. You don’t get full service or as nice a seating arrangement but still fast. If you want food on board you might use a vending machine.

TGV Ouigo is one of those.

https://www.ouigo.com/
Example: https://youtu.be/oQy1uC8dmY0

9€ Barcelona-Madrid.

alfa164 wrote:

You obviously aren't familiar with the successful HSR services between DC, New York, and Boston.

That is because the Acela isn't real HSR what is their average speed? 80? China much faster.

cpd wrote:

c933103 wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

You sure are and we will see it when this boondoggle is over.



I seriously doubt this, HSR works in countries like China because of the vastness and distance between cities and lack of airlines willing to do short hops like WN. It's never really going to work here and the prices will just drive people to low cost airlines.

"Trips about ~1-4 hours long" already implied the distance the train is useful. At 200mph that would be ~800 miles maximum, then you have to minus some for stops at station, detour through terrains, acceleration and deceleration.
Short hop LCC also exists in other countries that have high speed rail. But passengers are still willing to pay more for a direct train, as long as the train journey travel time is within attractive range.
Also, this number is from countries like Japan and Europe. The attractive range threshold is a little bit longer in countries like China due to their Air Traffic Control but still it come down to the decision of individual travellers.

There are other factors with HSR compared to LCC airlines, luggage won’t get left behind on HSR, unless you forget it yourself. I’ve seen people have bug troubles with Euro LCC airlines.

Terrain isn’t always such a big problem for HSR, it’s unbelievable watching two double deck TGV connected. together blasting up a pretty decent gradient at 290km/h. The thing has so much momentum and that helps it. Acceleration, they do that quite fast - they are very powerful and then you have some trains and that tilt, very quick through curves.

Another phenomenon is low cost HSR, where the ticket prices are very low. You don’t get full service or as nice a seating arrangement but still fast. If you want food on board you might use a vending machine.

TGV Ouigo is one of those.

https://www.ouigo.com/
Example: https://youtu.be/oQy1uC8dmY0

9€ Barcelona-Madrid.

By terrain, I mean the track sometimes need to avoid sensitive or protected area or other area that would be hard to put tracks onto, making turns and curves, hence the track distances between two places are essentially always longer than the physical distance between two cities.

NIKV69 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

You obviously aren't familiar with the successful HSR services between DC, New York, and Boston.

That is because the Acela isn't real HSR what is their average speed? 80? China much faster.

I wouldn't call anything on the east coast HSR. I guess the Acela is close, but personally I don't view it as such. True HSR connecting the major cites on the east coast (express without stops in secondary markets) would be awesome, but it would have to be cheaper or more convenient than the airlines that already connect these cities.

The Acela round trip from DC to NYC is about $160 and takes 3.5 hours each way. I can get a round trip flight on the same days for the same price but it only takes about1 hour. Granted there is getting through security to add to the trip time, but it still usually quicker to fly for the same price.

af773atmsp wrote:

Even now Detroit to Kansas City makes sense for high speed rail, just not with one direct route; Detroit to Chicago with one route and connect it with another route operating Chicago-Kansas City.

I don't see what Havre, MT and Jasper, AB have to do with HSR. No one is suggesting HSR to those places or places of that size, but if you cut their existing Amtrak/VIA service then good luck getting enough pilots to serve all of those towns. We already have enough difficulty serving existing EAS routes.

Rail is a 19th century technology, but it's been updated for the 21st century and is proven to be advantageous over driving and flying in certain conditions. Rail and blimps are completely different modes of transportation, so I don't see the point in bringing up that Archer quote.

Again, why? You say it "makes sense." How? If there was a strong business case for it, wouldn't billions of market capital be clamoring for the solution? Its not. Why? Because we would be talking trillions of dollars and ROIs measured in centuries. How many times daily does a HST need to run between the city pairs posited to make sense for the majority of users? Meanwhile, aircraft are privately owned, scalable, flexible, available and relatively cheap. The costs of the ATC system and airports now are pretty broadly distributed among the actual users in the form taxes, fees and other funding (bonds, for example.) Funding HST privately isn't going to happen in North America.

We could easily provide air services all sorts of towns in the US just as we did before Deregulation. Everyone knows we have EAS. What seems lost is WHY.

The point is we could have a national blimp network, but we chose not to. Certainly rail has its advantages; commuter rail is a fantastic application, as are boutique applications for tourism (like Banff, for example.) But the idea that North America lends itself to HSTs is fantasy.

FlapOperator wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

Even now Detroit to Kansas City makes sense for high speed rail, just not with one direct route; Detroit to Chicago with one route and connect it with another route operating Chicago-Kansas City.

I don't see what Havre, MT and Jasper, AB have to do with HSR. No one is suggesting HSR to those places or places of that size, but if you cut their existing Amtrak/VIA service then good luck getting enough pilots to serve all of those towns. We already have enough difficulty serving existing EAS routes.

Rail is a 19th century technology, but it's been updated for the 21st century and is proven to be advantageous over driving and flying in certain conditions. Rail and blimps are completely different modes of transportation, so I don't see the point in bringing up that Archer quote.

Again, why? You say it "makes sense." How? If there was a strong business case for it, wouldn't billions of market capital be clamoring for the solution? Its not. Why? Because we would be talking trillions of dollars and ROIs measured in centuries. How many times daily does a HST need to run between the city pairs posited to make sense for the majority of users? Meanwhile, aircraft are privately owned, scalable, flexible, available and relatively cheap. The costs of the ATC system and airports now are pretty broadly distributed among the actual users in the form taxes, fees and other funding (bonds, for example.) Funding HST privately isn't going to happen in North America.

We could easily provide air services all sorts of towns in the US just as we did before Deregulation. Everyone knows we have EAS. What seems lost is WHY.

The point is we could have a national blimp network, but we chose not to. Certainly rail has its advantages; commuter rail is a fantastic application, as are boutique applications for tourism (like Banff, for example.) But the idea that North America lends itself to HSTs is fantasy.

Americans, and to some extent Canadians, have been so indoctrinated with this fantasy that cares and airplanes are the only travel options. We have been told for decades that trains are slow and unreliable all while watching EU, Japan, and China build high speed networks in addition to air and roads. We are told we don't want trains, this is a reason why there is little to no interest in HSR.

seb146 wrote:

Americans, and to some extent Canadians, have been so indoctrinated with this fantasy that cares and airplanes are the only travel options. We have been told for decades that trains are slow and unreliable all while watching EU, Japan, and China build high speed networks in addition to air and roads. We are told we don't want trains, this is a reason why there is little to no interest in HSR.

Because, surprisingly enough, the geography of North America is different than the EU, Japan and China. The regulatory, environmental impact and labor circumstances aren't the same.

What's the point of a once or twice a day HST between select city pairs in the absence of public transportation or small cities when you get there? What could 100 billion dollars bought in that regard?

Even where great train infrastructure exists, we've seen the rise of LCCs in the EU, Japan and China. Why? Because people there value their time as well.

In the meantime, the money spent so far on the California HST could have bought Spirit Airlines outright and operated it for free for decade. Right now, we are talking 100 billion USD. For a "HST" going 110mph/180kph over a major part of it that connects two major cities in California.

FlapOperator wrote:

Again, why? You say it "makes sense." How? If there was a strong business case for it, wouldn't billions of market capital be clamoring for the solution? Its not. Why? Because we would be talking trillions of dollars and ROIs measured in centuries.

- You do realize that there are mow private imitative for HSR construction in Texas, Florida, Northeast US, and also proposals for so in Pacific Northwest and around Chicago? There were also proposals for private funding involvement in California HSR but those got turned down due to route selection
- In Japan, ROI of HSR are measured in merely 50 years.

How many times daily does a HST need to run between the city pairs posited to make sense for the majority of users?

Depends on demand, and supply of other modes. If it is competing with 1× daily flight then obviously even 1× daily train is going to compete reasonably well agaibst the flight. High Speed Rail have the added benefits of able to aggregate demand from/to multiple cities onto same train.

Meanwhile, aircraft are privately owned, scalable, flexible, available and relatively cheap. The costs of the ATC system and airports now are pretty broadly distributed among the actual users in the form taxes, fees and other funding (bonds, for example.)

I am pretty sure a train is cheaper than a plane while able to carry much more people.

Funding HST privately isn't going to happen in North America.

It is already happening, when it "isn't going to"?

We could easily provide air services all sorts of towns in the US just as we did before Deregulation. Everyone knows we have EAS. What seems lost is WHY.

Rail is a transit for mass. Small towns need not apply. They can continue using flights or cars to either reach destination directly or their nearest train stations. It is not like air flights and roads will suddenly go away after rails are built.

The point is we could have a national blimp network, but we chose not to. Certainly rail has its advantages; commuter rail is a fantastic application, as are boutique applications for tourism (like Banff, for example.) But the idea that North America lends itself to HSTs is fantasy.

No one sane is going to advocate a national HSR network in the US. HSR in the US is useful ob corridors, and in densely populated parts of the US different corridors can.join together, but with the current population density of the US, a nationwide network is not going to happen.
Like even in Europe with all the track laid down, still essentially no one would travel by high speed rail from Madrid to Berlin. But that didn't obscure the success of all the European high speed rail services in between.

Vintage wrote:

IMO, the current plan to wander through the Central valley while connecting the Bay area with LA is quite similar to the reason Micky Mouse left Minnie Mouse. They lost a lot of support with that.

Totally outside the topic but when did that happen, I thought Micky and Minnie were soul mates ??? (heartbroken)

Before I start, I wanna make a point clear, I'm a proponent of rail and more rail but HSR has issues.

Just went through some of the arguments above. FWIW, the problem with HSR is that it's costly and has to be subsidized one way or the other. The Japanese for e.g. have been living with stagflation for almost 4 decades now, and that's the reason they have had a backseat in HSR. In fact, more patents for HSR have been now done by the Chinese. The Chinese did put some overtures to the Japanese when they bought the technology from Mitsubishi a few decades back. There were JV research projects that China wanted Japan to work with but they were rebuffed. And now China is 'apparently' the leader of the same technology.

Even Europe and companies like TGV have also subsidized their operations one way or the other. In short, this only works if there is more than a significant subsidy to fare to make it work.

Another issue is that the whole idea of HSR only works if there are minimal stops between the host and target destination. I am not familiar with the U.S. geographical landscape (hence will use an e.g. from India) but let's say that there was an HSR proposal between Kanyakumari (the most southernmost part of India) to Kashmir (the most northernmost part of India, the tip) The distance between the two points would be roughly around 3k km or around 1800 miles or thereabouts. The only problem I see with such a project would be (mind-boggling budget) execution, even laying down a normal line is often months to years behind schedule. Just to take an aside, the current metro in my city which was supposed to be ready in 2020 is not even 20% completed in my city where there are no property issues that they have got to resolve.

As far as heights or turns or whatnot are concerned, even conventional Railway engineering has gone through many revolutions. I have seen and experienced some in India and have seen videos of some amazing Railway stuff done in South America (courtesy of YouTube) so that should be the least of the concerns. As quite a few people pointed out, it only works if you have dense populations who are going from one place to other.

Now if HSR can be built cheaply and then is available to people at cheaper rates I'm all for it but even the Chinese have been questioning the number of the lines they have built. I could go on and on but will stop here for now.

pune wrote:

Before I start, I wanna make a point clear, I'm a proponent of rail and more rail but HSR has issues.

This is a big problem in the US nowadays. Many "train lovers" are simply nostalgic of the trains from before WWI era over a century ago. They wanted to recreate the past. Instead of trying to create a new, competitive form of transportation. These people are actively hindering the development of HSR system.

Just went through some of the arguments above. FWIW, the problem with HSR is that it's costly and has to be subsidized one way or the other. The Japanese for e.g. have been living with stagflation for almost 4 decades now, and that's the reason they have had a backseat in HSR.

What do you mean? Japan is still actively developing and attempting to export their high speed rail technologies.And financially, Japan's HSR fare revenue is subsidizing other rail transportation in the country.

In fact, more patents for HSR have been now done by the Chinese. The Chinese did put some overtures to the Japanese when they bought the technology from Mitsubishi a few decades back. There were JV research projects that China wanted Japan to work with but they were rebuffed. And now China is 'apparently' the leader of the same technology.

What Mitsubishi have to do with building high speed rail?
And how is patents a proofs of viability of High Speed Rail as a transportation system? You don't need to have your own Boeing or Airbus to run a successful airlines.

Also, China being industrial leader in HSR? Sure they have competitively priced product, yet their flagship train model CR400AF are still developed from CRH380A derived from CRH2, which is the version of Japanese E2 series trains. And they also have CR400BF based on CRH380B, which is derived from CRH3, the version of ICE 3 in China.

Even Europe and companies like TGV have also subsidized their operations one way or the other. In short, this only works if there is more than a significant subsidy to fare to make it work.

Don't you see Eiropean HSR rail are now having open acess, and let LCC rail operator from private industey sell cheap tickets on privately operated trains?

Another issue is that the whole idea of HSR only works if there are minimal stops between the host and target destination. I am not familiar with the U.S. geographical landscape (hence will use an e.g. from India) but let's say that there was an HSR proposal between Kanyakumari (the most southernmost part of India) to Kashmir (the most northernmost part of India, the tip) The distance between the two points would be roughly around 3k km or around 1800 miles or thereabouts. The only problem I see with such a project would be (mind-boggling budget) execution, even laying down a normal line is often months to years behind schedule. Just to take an aside, the current metro in my city which was supposed to be ready in 2020 is not even 20% completed in my city where there are no property issues that they have got to resolve.

As I mentioned. You build a HSR route along a corridor and let passengers along the corridor use the train. Point to ooint travrl at ~2000km distance is nonsense, no one do this even in Japan or Europe or Chiba where such distance of track have been laid, and no people should expect a network be build around such an idea in countries like India, Russia, or United States.

As far as heights or turns or whatnot are concerned, even conventional Railway engineering has gone through many revolutions. I have seen and experienced some in India and have seen videos of some amazing Railway stuff done in South America (courtesy of YouTube) so that should be the least of the concerns. As quite a few people pointed out, it only works if you have dense populations who are going from one place to other.

Gradients and turning radius are two of the biggest reasons why regular trains cannot travel at HSR speed. You need to have curves that are at least 3000 or 4000 meters in radius and gradient of the train should be keep below 4%, for the train to travel smoothly and safely at high speed condition.

Now if HSR can be built cheaply and then is available to people at cheaper rates I'm all for it but even the Chinese have been questioning the number of the lines they have built. I could go on and on but will stop here for now.

China is questioning their number of lines now as their future plan is looking at like serving every individual counties directly, which obviously isn't sustainable investment. That is not something should be worried by countries with zero HSR constructed.

seb146 wrote:

Americans, and to some extent Canadians, have been so indoctrinated with this fantasy that cares and airplanes are the only travel options. We have been told for decades that trains are slow and unreliable all while watching EU, Japan, and China build high speed networks in addition to air and roads. We are told we don't want trains, this is a reason why there is little to no interest in HSR.

There is little interest because we don't benefit from it. We have low cost airlines that serve the routes better and cheaper or the same price.

NIKV69 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Americans, and to some extent Canadians, have been so indoctrinated with this fantasy that cares and airplanes are the only travel options. We have been told for decades that trains are slow and unreliable all while watching EU, Japan, and China build high speed networks in addition to air and roads. We are told we don't want trains, this is a reason why there is little to no interest in HSR.

There is little interest because we don't benefit from it. We have low cost airlines that serve the routes better and cheaper or the same price.

Other countries have low cost airlines too. But passengers still voted with their own wallets to buy high speed rail tickets.

What you have missed in the enthusiasm are the loans taken by the Japanese and the Chinese for the development of their HSR networks and both are in debt traps. Obviously, one day or the other the respective Governments will bail them out. The Japanese put sweeteners and actually gave a proposal to India but even at the 1% interest rate, it was never gonna be repaid back by India if India had gone ahead with the project. It just wasn't feasible financially speaking. Light Rail and sub-high speed Railway infrastructure (up to 160 km.) would be good enough for India where it is financially viable and can be taken reasonably through cess and whatnot to the Indian taxpayer.

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/ ... debt-trap/

Of course, what Canada or America does is its business. And the U.S. can sure afford to waste money. As I shared before and even others have, it seems that the development of such projects by default is over budget and over time and doesn't really serve the communities as say light rail or others would have done.

I haven't studied the finances of TGV but English Rail, even most of their franchisees were subsidized and if memory serves me right, many parts of UK rail have been nationalized as apparently, UK passengers pay some of the highest fares in Europe while having the least amount and number of services.

The U.S. has its own issues but that probably is another discussion altogether. -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

pune wrote:

What you have missed in the enthusiasm are the loans taken by the Japanese and the Chinese for the development of their HSR networks and both are in debt traps. Obviously, one day or the other the respective Governments will bail them out.

In Japan's case, the cost of constructing Shinkansen are either wrapped in debts being paid by railway company profits from ticket sales of the line for the older lines, or for some of the newer lines they are directly funded by government as infrastructure, just as you won't ask when can an expressway or power grid recoup its construction cost. Meanwhile there are also new, privately funded rail projects, which they expect to earn commercial profits from the line.

In China's case, the debt of constructing new transportation infrastructure, are bear directly by the government, which local governments hopes to finance it through sell of lands which will be supported by economic boost from the construction of new infrastructure. On the other hand, China have also aoproved and see the construction of privately funded high speed rails.

There are some small Chinese towns that are dangerous in this aspect of debt, and the China Railways itself is also borrowing large sum of money to build the national network for political purposes which they are now scaling down, but other than that there are no reason to believe those debts are unrepayable.

The Japanese put sweeteners and actually gave a proposal to India but even at the 1% interest rate, it was never gonna be repaid back by India if India had gone ahead with the project. It just wasn't feasible financially speaking.

The topic of this thread is California, and to a wider extent, the United States. Which have much higher income level than India, and are much more willing to spend money on long distance travel, as can be seen by America's passenger air service network, and the amount of people driving their own car over long distance amid high fuel price. Hence financial analysis in India wouldn't apply to the US.

As for India, it depends on how fast the country will grow, or whether it will continue to grow. It take times ro construct high speed rail, hence construction must start before the society is rich enough to afford it, for the railways to enter operation when it's needed, like China started doing so in early 2000s.

Light Rail and sub-high speed Railway infrastructure (up to 160 km.) would be good enough for India where it is financially viable and can be taken reasonably through cess and whatnot to the Indian taxpayer.

Railways up to 160km/h isn't going to fit long distance travel. As economy develops amd people can pay for better service, the old slow trains will be replaced, as have been seen in many countries including the US and Canada, and Coastal China and Japan, except in very short distance range. Such slow trains can still be attractive for travel for commute to work or to a city nearby, but anything longer than ~300 or so km, they would be obligated by planes and cars.

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/ ... debt-trap/

This is why HSR should be built along high traffic corridor, instead of trying to form a national network.

Of course, what Canada or America does is its business. And the U.S. can sure afford to waste money. As I shared before and even others have, it seems that the development of such projects by default is over budget and over time and doesn't really serve the communities as say light rail or others would have done.

Because politicians are sharingvthe sort of poor thinkings that you have in term of HSR. They think of HSR as simply a high speed version of the good old trains, instead of a fast and massive intercity transportator.

I haven't studied the finances of TGV but English Rail, even most of their franchisees were subsidized and if memory serves me right, many parts of UK rail have been nationalized as apparently, UK passengers pay some of the highest fares in Europe while having the least amount and number of services.

The UK.... Have no high speed rail now, except the train connecting to France. So not sure what is the relevance here.

The U.S. has its own issues but that probably is another discussion altogether. -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

Suburbs have nothing to do with development of HSR either... Low density suburb developments impact viability of any intra-city rail development, but high speed rail isn't for this type of short rabge trips, rather they are for intercity travel.

FlapOperator wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Americans, and to some extent Canadians, have been so indoctrinated with this fantasy that cares and airplanes are the only travel options. We have been told for decades that trains are slow and unreliable all while watching EU, Japan, and China build high speed networks in addition to air and roads. We are told we don't want trains, this is a reason why there is little to no interest in HSR.

Because, surprisingly enough, the geography of North America is different than the EU, Japan and China. The regulatory, environmental impact and labor circumstances aren't the same.

What's the point of a once or twice a day HST between select city pairs in the absence of public transportation or small cities when you get there? What could 100 billion dollars bought in that regard?

Even where great train infrastructure exists, we've seen the rise of LCCs in the EU, Japan and China. Why? Because people there value their time as well.

In the meantime, the money spent so far on the California HST could have bought Spirit Airlines outright and operated it for free for decade. Right now, we are talking 100 billion USD. For a "HST" going 110mph/180kph over a major part of it that connects two major cities in California.

The geography is different, yes, but certain city pairs in the US mirror the extended MSA/megalopolis chains that exist in Germany, Italy, Japan etc. And particularly with regard to the US southeast and northeast, there are similarities to Japan regarding time savings to access a major rail terminus versus getting to airport/security/waiting etc. The latter time savings are precisely why Chinese and Japanese HSR users continue to pay ticket premiums for that service even where LCC may be available/cheaper.

In Japan’s case, LCC have become popular because disposable income is too low for many younger professionals to use HSR regularly and airports with stagnant traffic growth have thrown incentives at domestic LCCs.

NIKV69 wrote:

That is because the Acela isn't real HSR what is their average speed? 80? China much faster.

Even with that speed the Acela has reduced shuttle flying. Long gone are the days of PHL-LGA 20x. You might call it a failure yet airlines hasn't successfully killed Amtrak.