California High Speed Rail Thread - project updates & related discussion ONLY

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by northbay

Everyone needs to cool their jets. Seriously, how many times do we need to hear the arguments on why it should, or shouldn't be built? A lot of us I think are tired of it.

It IS being built, so let's talk about what's going on. Like how a high-rise construction thread would focus on the building's development, and not whether it should be under-construction in the first place.

Granted, that isn't exactly analogous since we are talking private versus public sector. But remember too folks that Japan is willing to pay for half of the costs and China is willing to contribute a significant amount (was it $10 billion?) if we contract with them.

So how about more discussion and idea-sharing and less arguing.

Where's the 'Like' button...

[phoenixboi08]

Would the principle station for this in LA be Union, or is there a plan to build a new station?

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by northbay

^Dude, dimondpark, did you not see my post right above yours? Take a breather.

Of course you have a right to your opinion. No one can take that from you. However, you are factually incorrect in saying no private investors have been identified.

Not according to the Governor.

The first segment of the line will be financed by taxpayers, and Brown said there was strong interest from private companies in financing the rest of the project. He didn’t provide any specifics on possible investment or name any of those firms.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...id-challenges/


Im not saying the train shouldnt be built, but if most of us dont want it, if most of us feel deceived by the numbers(projected cost, projected ridership, projected travel time, projected ticket cost have ALL been proven to be exaggerations or highly understated), then it is strange that extreme supporters appear to be surprised that most of us dont want this.

It IS being built.

Billions have been allocated and something is being built in the central valley(even that is going to face a mountain of lawsuits), that's all we know at this point.

[wakamesalad]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

The train only has funding in place for the first leg within the central valley--even money for the extenstions to LA and SF at this point is not secure. And NO private investors have been identified even tho that was a major selling point back in 2008---a rush of private monies was supposed to come into play, and until now that has NOT materialized in the least.

This is California. We have the most innovative and richest investors in the world. Tesla Motors is not a money maker yet, but Mr. Elon Musk, the world's biggest gift since Ben Franklin and Steve Jobs, has put his heart, soul, and wallet into it, as well as Solar City, because he, unlike a lot of people, is thinking long term. Just this one man is helping to finance an electric car company, a solar company, and a commercial space flight company. I have faith that another investor from Silicon valley will put their heart, soul, and wallet into high speed rail, if not Mr. Musk himself.

Unlike other parts of the country, California is unique in that it is always thinking outside the box. It is what brought up the personal computer and the internet. We are a trend setter state. Just you wait, when this is built, the rest of the country will be clamoring to get their own trains.

[jg6544]

From the New York Times:

Ridership on Amtrak has grown to record levels in the past five years, and the railroad is responsible for 75 percent of the air-rail passenger traffic along the Northeast Corridor, up from about 37 percent in 2001.

This is for the benefit of those of you who claim people won't use even rapid rail when they have the option.

[Kngkyle]

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23

That's true, thank god our state of florida and despite rick scott being another puppet, did the right thing to kill the HSR aka High Speed Rail.

I'm glad he did too, now more worthy states get to benefit. HSR between two metros that have little to no mass transit systems makes no sense to begin with. If Obama wanted a relatively cheap HSR line showing that it could work, he should have went with Chicago to St. Louis.

CAHSR is a great idea, but it's not a good project to quickly prove the value of HSR due to it's very high cost and construction time.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by jg6544

From the New York Times:

Ridership on Amtrak has grown to record levels in the past five years, and the railroad is responsible for 75 percent of the air-rail passenger traffic along the Northeast Corridor, up from about 37 percent in 2001.

This is for the benefit of those of you who claim people won't use even rapid rail when they have the option.

Yes, let's spend money where it has been proven to be effective.

I totally agree.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I'm glad he did too, now more worthy states get to benefit. HSR between two metros that have little to no mass transit systems makes no sense to begin with. If Obama wanted a relatively cheap HSR line showing that it could work, he should have went with Chicago to St. Louis.

CAHSR is a great idea, but it's not a good project to quickly prove the value of HSR due to it's very high cost and construction time.

I posted an article from the WSJ about this yesterday in the Midwest rail thread but this is exactly what Obama and the US DOT done and it has proven to be some of the most effective use of stimulus funds.

Speeding Up in the Midwest
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

"NORMAL, Ill.—Passenger trains in the Midwest are becoming the first outside of the Northeast to move at triple-digit speeds, as Illinois and Michigan bet faster Amtrak service will fuel economic growth.

Trains reaching speeds of 110 miles per hour—along with new stations and plans for more daily trips—are cementing a divide in the region over passenger rail. While Illinois and Michigan beef up passenger service, Wisconsin and Ohio say it isn't a good investment. States such as Iowa sit in the middle, looking to expand but at a slower pace.

An estimated $2.1 billion being spent by Illinois and Michigan on track upgrades, new railcars and locomotives is funded mostly by the 2009 federal economic stimulus law..."

[202_Cyclist]

Rail opponents shelve revote plan

Fresno Bee
July 25, 2012

"Californians having second thoughts about a proposed $68 billion high-speed train system linking Northern and Southern California are going to have to wait if they want to vote again on the project.

Former Republican Congressman George Radanovich of Mariposa and state Sen. Doug LaMalfa, a Republican from Willows, announced Wednesday that they are suspending their campaign to put the state's high-speed rail bond measure to a second vote.

Voters approved the issuance of $10 billion in bonds for the project in 2008, but public support for the plan has dwindled in recent years..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/07/25/...vote-plan.html

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

If it were a highway project, it likely would barely hit the news. Imagine the cost to build a brand new I-5 along a parallel route.

Exactly right. There is a proposal to widen I-5 in San Diego County. The cost for this project just in San Diego County is estimated to be between $3.3B - $4.5B but there are no cries of "BOONDOGGLE!!," the state is broke, why isn't the private sector paying for this, automobiles are early 20th Century technology, that we constantly hear with passenger rail.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/...ase-daily-i-5/

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Exactly right. There is a proposal to widen I-5 in San Diego County. The cost for this project just in San Diego County is estimated to be between $3.3B - $4.5B but there are no cries of "BOONDOGGLE!!," the state is broke, why isn't the private sector paying for this, automobiles are early 20th Century technology, that we constantly hear with passenger rail.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/...ase-daily-i-5/

200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants that kind of investment.

Inflated and exaggerated ridership estimates, ticket prices and unstable funding do not warrant 68 billion dollars in spending.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants that kind of investment.

Inflated and exaggerated ridership estimates, ticket prices and unstable funding do not warrant 68 billion dollars in spending.

Spending on highway expansion is just feeding a perpetual expansion of automobile usage. At some point, adding lanes does not work too well. We need to shift to more compact forms of rapid, medium to long distance transportation. Money, yes large amounts of money, needs to be spent NOW on setting up these other modes of transportation.

And before you respond with another jack-ass "yawn" and "oh, what trite diatribe", think hard about what it would look like for all of our major cities to have freeways 10, 12, 20, (where to stop?) lanes wide going out of them, and what having an ever-growing number of individual, internal combustion-engine vehicles spewing out pollutants would do to our environment. Even if electric autos somehow come onto the mass-market at affordable prices, you still have all that congestion and space taken up by those wide freeways.

If you still want to yawn and respond like a smart-ass, then I guess you don't give a damn about what our near-future environment will be like. You prefer, I guess to prioritize things that don't matter in the longer term, like money.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants that kind of investment.

Inflated and exaggerated ridership estimates, ticket prices and unstable funding do not warrant 68 billion dollars in spending.

How do you know that California HSR won't be successful? So 200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants $4 billion in investment, yet HSR and billions of dollars in saved cost doesn't?

Are you from the future?

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

Spending on highway expansion is just feeding a perpetual expansion of automobile usage. At some point, adding lanes does not work too well.

And if you ask me, that point was in 1965 or thereabouts.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yes, let's spend money where it has been proven to be effective.

I totally agree.

The fact that it has been so effective in the northeast corridor suggests that it will be equally effective between L.A. and the Bay Area when it's completed.

Remember, Amtrak isn't running at HSR speeds in the northeast corridor and still it's attracting more riders.

[skyscraperfan23]

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I'm glad he did too, now more worthy states get to benefit. HSR between two metros that have little to no mass transit systems makes no sense to begin with. If Obama wanted a relatively cheap HSR line showing that it could work, he should have went with Chicago to St. Louis.

CAHSR is a great idea, but it's not a good project to quickly prove the value of HSR due to it's very high cost and construction time.

The Government should not be involved in HSR at all, let the free market do that.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yes, let's spend money where it has been proven to be effective.

I totally agree.

Like Oakland?

200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants that kind of investment.

No, it warrants alternatives to cacaphony freeway investments, which only encourage car use. As a transit supporter, you should know this.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23

The Government should not be involved in HSR at all, let the free market do that.

Just like with highways, right?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23

The Government should not be involved in HSR at all, let the free market do that.

Look, since this is something that benefits the public it should be paid for with public money. In Texas we have SH-130 that was paid for, owned and managed by a company in Spain and now Texans have to pay to drive on it. It's a toll road. And the ironic thing is, now that it is controlled by the free market, it has seen little to no development by the free market along its route because hardly anyone drives on it. So as a free market endeavor it is a waste of money and land since it hasn't been very successful. In fact, they're even raising the speed limit on SH-130 to 85 mph just to encourage people to drive on it!

There are certain things the government should be in charge of, fundamental things that are necessary for the health and well being of people and in the case of transportation, the productiveness of them.

Stop trolling this thread and let the dead horse rot already.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by mfastx

How do you determine beforehand that the proposed California HSR line won't "work?"

I never said that a high speed rail wouldnt work or should not be built, but this body, the California High Speed Rail Authority has proven itself to be inept, indifferent, deceptive(virtually all of their projections have been debunked by various government agencies and transportation think tanks) and arrogant and woefully underprepared to work with the communities that will be directly affected by this project

Why not invest in something that might save money down the line?

I gladly support projects that I think make sense.