California High Speed Rail Thread

[Beta_Magellan]

@Pesto—by “Santa Clarita” I meant dedicated track ending at Santa Clarita, with the trains running along electrified Metrolink (with time-separation for freight and PTC) to LAUS.

Originally Posted by jg6544

The High-speed Rail project is kind of caught between a rock and a hard place. probably the cheapest way to build it would be to build it along the I-5 corridor, but that would bypass every single population center between Los Angeles and the Bay Area.

The Central Valley portion is actually not the main source of overruns—it’s almost all from the approaches to San Francisco and Los Angeles. They’re re-studying at a less expensive alignment for LA (via the Grapevine pass rather than Palmdale, as is currently planned), but the official plans for Fresno-SJ-SF remains a complete mess.

[mfastx]

I have found many people that are against high speed rail to just be plain uninformed. Yes it will be expensive to build the line. But it was expensive to build any infrustructure from scratch. If there is a good high speed rail line between two close cities it will be more utilized than air or road travel between those cities, and it shows all around the world. It is the fastest (when you take into account how you have to arrive at the airport an hour and thirty minutes early), most convenient, safest way to travel. HSR is a more superior form of transportation than a highway or air travel. People in Europe and Asia know this, there is a reason why most other countries are investing in HSR. Or are they all just stupid?

It bothers me to think that most Americans do not know the benifits of good infrastructure, our infrastructure spending nation wide is pathetic.

Oh well.

[Reminiscence]

I think this plan is just waiting to fall apart. I would have loved the idea of HSR, but there's just too many things going against it. This "sticker shock" is just another obstacle which I fear it cannot overcome. Some people mentioned Maglev in previous posts. It's already ridiculously expensive anyways, so it would be interesting to study and see how that would fare off. It's not really proven technology yet, but I would imagine by the time it is finished it would be.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Passenger rail in America is managed by a gaggle of more-or-less incompetent agencies...The problem is that most agencies are locked in corporate cultures of managed decline, and when it seems like growth is possible, they try to put so much stuff into growth that it just becomes overwrought and fails on its own. This is exactly what happened with SEPTA and the Schuylkill Valley Metro.

Denver and Salt Lake are doing something right. How are they managing expansion? Keeping costs down? Their planners need to be exported, stat, to help other agencies begin to think in terms of managing growth...

You just answered your own question. Passenger agencies in the East, for the most part, have had a continuous legacy of railroading from the prewar days, and became very very set in their ways as railroads came under siege in the postwar period - so much so that they refuse to change their operating practices by one iota unless they are forced at gunpoint.

Western agencies are entirely new blood - lots of younger people, and very little connection to the legacy practices of the East. That makes them a lot more flexible, modern, and efficient.

At first I assumed, like HSR detractors, that land-use patterns and some mystical aspect of American culture were to blame for the general failure of rail in the US. Now that I've spent extensive time in Europe, I see that land-use patterns and culture are not so dramatically different. So what does that leave us? Closed-mindedness of management in the US, which makes Amtrak inefficient and only contributes to the right-wing calls for its death. If you look at the history of Amtrak, it's littered with examples of new ideas and technology that were brought from overseas and pretty much hit a brick wall.

Hammer, I know you're well-acquainted, but for others I think Alon Levy's blog is invaluable for pointing out examples of the counter-productive operating practices at US passenger railroads.

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by Reminiscence

I think this plan is just waiting to fall apart. I would have loved the idea of HSR, but there's just too many things going against it. This "sticker shock" is just another obstacle which I fear it cannot overcome. Some people mentioned Maglev in previous posts. It's already ridiculously expensive anyways, so it would be interesting to study and see how that would fare off. It's not really proven technology yet, but I would imagine by the time it is finished it would be.

What about the alternative though? 170 billion in expanding existing infrastructure. THAT is sticker shock.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by mfastx

I have found many people that are against high speed rail to just be plain uninformed. Yes it will be expensive to build the line. But it was expensive to build any infrustructure from scratch. If there is a good high speed rail line between two close cities it will be more utilized than air or road travel between those cities, and it shows all around the world. It is the fastest (when you take into account how you have to arrive at the airport an hour and thirty minutes early), most convenient, safest way to travel. HSR is a more superior form of transportation than a highway or air travel. People in Europe and Asia know this, there is a reason why most other countries are investing in HSR. Or are they all just stupid?

It bothers me to think that most Americans do not know the benifits of good infrastructure, our infrastructure spending nation wide is pathetic.

Oh well.

"Pathetic" is using strawmen arguments to support a (very expensive) solution in search of a problem.

Southern California and the Bay Area benefit from having numerous airports which to choose from, most not needing "an hour and a half" buffer between arriving at the airport and the departure time.

And for those on the Westside of Los Angeles, where LAX would be the most convenient? Are you telling them they now have to endure the traffic all the way to downtown to "hop on" the train?

I've been on the RENFE between Barcelona and Madrid, and it is VERY nice. And, given where Madrid's airport is, the total travel time city center to city center certainly is competitive, if not surpasses, the plane.

I am not "anti-rail". But $100 billion can much better be used to support mass transit and other FAR more beneficial projects.

And it's sad that those who want to play with a shiny new (expensive) toy don't understand that.

Oh well.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by DJM19

What about the alternative though? 170 billion in expanding existing infrastructure. THAT is sticker shock.

Oh I agree with you, which is why I've supported HSR for years and still do. I just don't buy the fact that this could cost 100 billion, it's another Eastern Span of the Bay Bridge in the making. They essentially doubled the past figure. People don't think about the 170 billion because they don't see it, it's a sort of "hidden" figure we'll pay over time. I still have hope though, that they'll salvage this opportunity. I'll be turning 25 next year, and as weird as it is to say it, I really hope I see either HSR or Maglev in my lifetime

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by mfastx

Or are they all just stupid?

While i'd love to say yes, we have to remember that the problem isn't the people, it's the politicians. I mean a majority of people support investing in infrastructure. I don't know the numbers on High-Speed Rail, but I have to imagine it's about even. Maybe a little less.

Originally Posted by jg6544

But I have to admit, in these economic times, I don't see HSR happening and if they're not going to complete even a significant portion of it for decades, I don't see much point.

That's my point on why we might want to think about taking the next step and go for maglev, which by 2033 will probably be A LOT more popular and "proven" than today.

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

The Central Valley portion is actually not the main source of overruns—it’s almost all from the approaches to San Francisco and Los Angeles. They’re re-studying at a less expensive alignment for LA (via the Grapevine pass rather than Palmdale, as is currently planned), but the official plans for Fresno-SJ-SF remains a complete mess.

Precisely. That's the downside of going through the more urban areas first. A higher concentration of people brings a higher concentration of NIMBYs (some very powerful and influential).

And we have to remember, Fresno and Bakersfield, while much smaller than Los Angeles, both have populations not to sneeze at. Actually they're larger than some east coast cities. And who knows, they might both have Commuter Rail systems up and running by the time After all, they have plenty of ROWs. And when that happens, ridership on a HSR will be even higher.

[North_Regina_Boy]

You know a lot of the people who reject this kind of transportation forget one BIG thing. In the 1940s the US Interstate system (and before that, the US Highway system) was created. MOST of the people currently using this system didn't drive or maybe even exist in that era. So as to say the people of the 1940s and 1950s might of been protesting because they wouldn't be able to benefit as we are now.

Infrastructure spending must be spent with the idea that 50 years is a relatively short time period (I know its hard to comprehend) but that is the reality.

Another quick point... Part of getting out of a recession is to spend capital dollars to get people working; And another thing WE as a people are lazy... Back in the 1940s and 50s people jumped over each other to get a job on the interstate system. Nowadays we seem to just complain about everything and blame others instead of trying to make our situation better.

That is today's reality and that is my two cents. I for one would LOVE to see CHSR and the Las Vegas link... Stupid Florida killed theirs, but at least the North-East corridor is getting 2.4B in capital funds to make that neck of the woods better.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

It's so freaking easy.

Not if you live in Brentwood it isn't. Burbank is an hour away in good traffic. Ontario is two hours away and there's never good traffic.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Not if you live in Brentwood it isn't. Burbank is an hour away in good traffic. Ontario is two hours away and there's never good traffic.

Burbank is 25-30 minutes away from Brentwood in "good traffic".

And if you're in Brentwood, you're probably going to LAX.

And if you're in Brentwood, downtown (where the train would be) is even more terrible to get to.

But that's besides the point. Far more people live near closer to one of the five LA-area major airports than downtown Union Station.

[202_Cyclist]

Yonah Freemark has a good post about this today on his blog: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...be-understood/ . Admittedly, there is sticker-shock with the $98B price and there are big questions about the viability with this, given California's budget situation and the Ayn Rand-disciples controlling Congress now.

With that said, however, there needs to be some perspective. As Yonah Freemark notes today, California's cumulative GDP by 2033 is expected to be at least $42 trillion (this is at constant annual GDP and assumes no economic growth). The $74B cost (without inflation) to bulid the high speed rail is a proverbial 'fart in a gale' out of a $42 trillion economy.

Second, Freemark compares the $74B cost with the $13B per year for Caltrans, which over 22 years is $286B. We all know the cost of not building high speed rail is not zero. The CA High Speed Rail Authority estimates the cost for alternative infrastructure to accomodate the state's growth is $170B. I have no idea if this is accurate but widening I-5 alone in San Diego County is estimated to cost between $3.3B and $4.5B (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...ase-daily-i-5/. The LAX modernization will also cost between $5B - $7B.

I-5 in California was built in 1950s-60s, is still used today, of course, more than fifty years later. Assuming high speed rail is completed in 2033 and has a fifty year lifespan, that is 2080. In 1960, the US had a population of 180M and CA had a population of just under 16M. Today CA has close to 39M people. I don't pretend to be a demographer but California will likely have tens of millions more residents seven decades from now. Similarly, building patterns will be different seven decades from now.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Not if you live in Brentwood it isn't. Burbank is an hour away in good traffic. Ontario is two hours away and there's never good traffic.

You may have to get a faster bicycle. Brentwood ot HBO in half an hour is a breeze at non-rush hours. Even at rush hours it's much faster than getting to downtown to catch HSR, although neither one is a pretty sight.

And if you print your own boarding pass and don't have luggage, it is pretty much 5 minutes from cab to seated on board.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by mfastx

I have found many people that are against high speed rail to just be plain uninformed. Yes it will be expensive to build the line. But it was expensive to build any infrustructure from scratch. If there is a good high speed rail line between two close cities it will be more utilized than air or road travel between those cities, and it shows all around the world. It is the fastest (when you take into account how you have to arrive at the airport an hour and thirty minutes early), most convenient, safest way to travel. HSR is a more superior form of transportation than a highway or air travel. People in Europe and Asia know this, there is a reason why most other countries are investing in HSR. Or are they all just stupid?

It bothers me to think that most Americans do not know the benifits of good infrastructure, our infrastructure spending nation wide is pathetic.

Oh well.

For sure, you can't use a single answer to explain every situation. But if you want to narrow it to a few factors, here are some suggestions:

In Asia, the issue is poverty. Where huge numbers can't afford cars, trains can be built and run very cheaply without increasing the likelihood of disastrous crashes. Fares are kept low. And "time" is literaly worth less in countries where the average user makes $5 a day than in a developed economy (this is not a moral agument about the "worth of people", it's just an economic fact that a person earning $100/hr. and up is going to value saving time over saving costs). As Asian countries develop, I would expect their usage of air to increase as well as time becomes of greater value.

In Europe the issue is shorter distances (and in some countries, the lack of car ownership and disposble income). HSR makes a great deal of sense when large urban areas are relatively dense and near each other (say 100-200 miles). In California, SF and LA are about 400 rail miles away and SD almost 600 (looping through the IE). If Fresno and/or Stockton and/or Bakersfield were large cities with signiciant commercial connections to LA or the Bay Area, HSR would be a no-brainer. But this just isn't the case yet.

Wait 20 years to see how the CV is developing and in the meantime build in the LA and Bay areas.

[pesto]

As long as I'm boring everyone, one more comment.

The economic argument for HSR is very weak. To me there is very little economic benefit from connecting LA and the Bay Area. Business can already use air at a very reasonable price and, of course, freight movement is not directly affected.

Conversely, transit improvements within the LA and Bay Areas would be a very significant boon to business: gettting people to work rapidly and cheaply is a plus for any business, from retail to government to tech. Less crowding on freeways helps trucking and local drayage.

[202_Cyclist]

pesto:

In Europe the issue is shorter distances (and in some countries, the lack of car ownership and disposble income). HSR makes a great deal of sense when large urban areas are relatively dense and near each other (say 100-200 miles). In California, SF and LA are about 400 rail miles away and SD almost 600 (looping through the IE). If Fresno and/or Stockton and/or Bakersfield were large cities with signiciant commercial connections to LA or the Bay Area, HSR would be a no-brainer. But this just isn't the case yet.

Sacramento, with 2M people, is about 80-100 miles from the Bay Area. San Diego County, with 3.5M people is 100-120 miles from Los Angeles. These are medium distance trips with sufficient population (and indeed a record of proven ridership on passenger rail for high speed rail to be successful. It won't happen, but as you've advocated perhaps these two segments should have been upgraded first. I think roughly there is another 3-4M people living in the Central Valley, including 1M people in the Fresno region.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by pesto

As long as I'm boring everyone, one more comment.

The economic argument for HSR is very weak. To me there is very little economic benefit from connecting LA and the Bay Area. Business can already use air at a very reasonable price and, of course, freight movement is not directly affected.

Conversely, transit improvements within the LA and Bay Areas would be a very significant boon to business: gettting people to work rapidly and cheaply is a plus for any business, from retail to government to tech. Less crowding on freeways helps trucking and local drayage.

I know my comment will add nothing, but I agree with you 100%.

[Beta_Magellan]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

Precisely. That's the downside of going through the more urban areas first. A higher concentration of people brings a higher concentration of NIMBYs (some very powerful and influential).

But that’s no excuse for the overruns in the approach to the LA Basin and especially not in the Bay Area—particularly in the latter, most of the overbuilding comes from agency turf wars, Parsons writing itself checks, and general incompetence. There’s no need for HSR in San José to look like this:

• Video Link

In the past week, my opinion of CAHSR has essentially gone from “worthwhile (even if flawed)” to “long con.”

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Burbank is 25-30 minutes away from Brentwood in "good traffic".

And if you're in Brentwood, you're probably going to LAX.

And if you're in Brentwood, downtown (where the train would be) is even more terrible to get to.

But that's besides the point. Far more people live near closer to one of the five LA-area major airports than downtown Union Station.

Like hell it is. I've driven it - once; never again.

Yeah, I'm stuck with the leprosarium that is LAX.

Getting downtown takes about the same amount of time as getting to Burbank, but if you go downtown, you don't have to put up with security Nazis, airline personnel intent on making your trip just as miserable and expensive as they possibly can, and damned airplanes.

And far more people are more than welcome to the airports and flying. If there were a train, I'd take it, but there isn't, so I drive.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by pesto

You may have to get a faster bicycle.

I prefer my Lexus and if the freeways weren't parking lots at all hours of the day and night, maybe it wouldn't take as long as it does to drive to Burbank.