California High Speed Rail Thread

[Barbarossa]

It would have been better to focus on inner city mass transit like subways, commuter rail, and light rail instead of an intercity train. I don't think high speed rail is going to do much to densify the inner cities. Most congestion in the cities are due to commuters and people who live in the city, not travellers from out of town.

[Busy Bee]

The mitigating goal of HSR in California is not to "densify" inner cities or alleviate intra-city congestion, it is to provide fast intercity travel that will alleviate highway and airport expansion requirements and create economic stimulation through sustainable connectivity to California's population centers and to bring us into the goddamn 21st CENTURY!

[northbay]

Seriously! Third world countries have HSR now!

Here locally, there were many naysayers with the SMART train. We built it, it’s a success, and now all the naysayers have completely disappeared! (And now we are expanding it!)

[mousquet]

I went to CA. I traveled all the Californian coast from SF to LA. Some of their highways are super wide. Especially when you drive by LA. The widest I've seen in my life. I even forget the number of lanes...

It clearly doesn't work as a standalone solution. You still get stuck in traffic over there, no matter how huge their highways are.

Over here, we've been advertising competition between any transit means. Cars, buses, trams, trains, planes...
We've been leaving ideology behind and just would pick the most efficient. I think that will work for us all.

I think what BrownTown has basically complaining about is the cost of the workforce in the US.
Well, I wish the French workers had the same purchasing power as the American ones. Our unions here have done a poor job in defending workers' interests.
They've been too busy at politics and ideology, serving their so-called leftist ideals and forgetting about purchasing power on the ground.
That's silly, ineffective. Now many workers are pissed and vote for the retarded far right in this country.

It seems to me we could find some very great system by mixing some Fr and US principles.
More competition, and higher purchasing power.

[phoenixboi08]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

The way this is being build is just so backwards. Normally you start on the most difficult sections first since they will take longer to build, but CAHSR is building the simplest sections first which means much longer delays getting the whole system up and running.

Look, here's the thing: They have to build operable segments. The IOS is the minimum-operating segment (that is, the thing which on it's own gives them the most runway to work with for beginning passenger services).

There are myriad interim solutions to complement IOS services (ie. Bakersfield-Madera using the San Joaquin at the N and S ends of the system to reach Stockton/Oakland and LA, for one example).

There is a State Rail plan in process, as well as significant improvements to the major regional railways (ie. Caltrain, Metrolink) that again allow some piggybacking.

Essentially, the Authority has enough cash on hand to build the IOS and to -- potentially, although most indications are that they should be able to -- get to San Jose.

In the meantime, they can actually begin generating revenue (and profit) and tapping into that to access financing to continue construction and expansion.

This is virtually the method by which all of these types of networks are rolled out -- whether by private financing or public funding.

Somehow, when All Aboard does it, it's some miraculous thing. When CAHSRA does it, it's foolish

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by mousquet

I went to CA. I traveled all the Californian coast from SF to LA. Some of their highways are super wide. Especially when you drive by LA. The widest I've seen in my life. I even forget the number of lanes...

It clearly doesn't work as a standalone solution. You still get stuck in traffic over there, no matter how huge their highways are.

It sounds like you were on the 405. L.A. is actually underserved by freeways and ranks below many of it's peers in freeway lanes per capita. Much of the mid-century freeway plan was never completed. L.A. traffic and congestion is awful because the extensive rail system that once existed was scrapped and was to be replaced by a huge freeway network [see map below], which was never finished, scaled back and entire freeways eliminated. Double whammy.

The 5 freeway just south of downtown is only 3 lanes in each direction, that it until a massive project finished up. It is a huge bottleneck and soon that'll finally be upgraded to today's standards. The cost to build a freeway in L.A. increased 6 times from 1960 to 1980.


L.A. Times graphic

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by phoenixboi08

In the meantime, they can actually begin generating revenue (and profit) and tapping into that to access financing to continue construction and expansion.

This is virtually the method by which all of these types of networks are rolled out -- whether by private financing or public funding.

Somehow, when All Aboard does it, it's some miraculous thing. When CAHSRA does it, it's foolish

1. It won't generate profit because it won't go anywhere so there will be no demand for it.

2. Even if it did generate a profit that meager earnings would take decades or more to raise enough money to even think about building the most expensive parts of the system.

3. No, other countries don't ave 50+ year plans for building a single rail line; they just build it. If CAHSR were in China it would have been operating end to end for years at this point.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

It sounds like you were on the 405. L.A. is actually underserved by freeways and ranks below many of it's peers in freeway lanes per capita. Much of the mid-century freeway plan was never completed. L.A. traffic and congestion is awful because the extensive rail system that once existed was scrapped and was to be replaced by a huge freeway network [see map below], which was never finished, scaled back and entire freeways eliminated. Double whammy.

Yeah, virtually all the examples of the worst traffic in cities is where there was a plan to build one or more additional freeways which eventually got scrapped due to NIMBYism. Oftentimes you can literally see the exact route that was going to be taken but now it's been filled in with parks and/or houses. It's silly how people get highway projects canceled and then point at the traffic on the existing highways as proof highways don't work. No, they didn't work because you canceled the highway that was supposed to relieve this issue.. Not saying highways are the be all end all, but they serve a vital purpose. Most anti-highway people don't seem to understand that transit mode you use has to be tailored to the density of the area. You can't just shoehorn rail into sparse suburbs.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

1. It won't generate profit because it won't go anywhere so there will be no demand for it.

If Clinton had been elected instead of Trump, we likely would have already seen additional federal funding allocated to California. We're likely going to see Trump booted an a Democrat in the White House in 2020 along with at least one house of Congress going D. So it's possible that a contentious second public vote in California will be avoided and the Bakersfield-LA-Anaheim connection will be built with a new infusion of federal funds.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

1. it won't go anywhere

The Central Valley cities and counties, cumulatively, have just about as many residents as the Bay Area. 6~ million versus 7~ million, depending on what, specifically, is counted.

The Central Valley has roughly the same population as the 15th biggest of our 50 United States.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Yeah, virtually all the examples of the worst traffic in cities is where there was a plan to build one or more additional freeways which eventually got scrapped due to NIMBYism. Oftentimes you can literally see the exact route that was going to be taken but now it's been filled in with parks and/or houses. It's silly how people get highway projects canceled and then point at the traffic on the existing highways as proof highways don't work. No, they didn't work because you canceled the highway that was supposed to relieve this issue..

Plenty of US cities built virtually the entire freeway systems with no cancellations. Dallas, Houston, or Kansas City come to mind.

Not saying highways are the be all end all, but they serve a vital purpose. Most anti-highway people don't seem to understand that transit mode you use has to be tailored to the density of the area. You can't just shoehorn rail into sparse suburbs.

You could say something similar about building freeways through dense cities, which are the canceled projects you're shedding tears for.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

If Clinton had been elected instead of Trump, we likely would have already seen additional federal funding allocated to California. We're likely going to see Trump booted an a Democrat in the White House in 2020 along with at least one house of Congress going D. So it's possible that a contentious second public vote in California will be avoided and the Bakersfield-LA-Anaheim connection will be built with a new infusion of federal funds.

Yay I can't wait for my Federal money to go to a single rail line in California for the upper-middle class and rich people. What an awesome cause...

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yay I can't wait for my Federal money to go to a single rail line in California for the upper-middle class and rich people. What an awesome cause...

Free federal money goes to airports all the time. In my city we had a $200 million runway built by the feds in 2005...just in time for Delta to move its hub to Detroit. Total flights at the airport dropped by 50%.

Rail and transit projects always get 100x more scrutiny than highway and airport projects.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by ardecila

You could say something similar about building freeways through dense cities, which are the canceled projects you're shedding tears for.

Actually it was often the other way around. The interstate through the city got built, but then the one through the rich suburbs didn't due to NIMBYs having much more power in rich suburbs. Atlanta is a good example of a city with all it's traffic shoved straight through downtown because a bypass in the more suburban areas was never built.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yay I can't wait for my Federal money to go to a single rail line in California for the upper-middle class and rich people. What an awesome cause...

IKR. Just what we need, more federal dollars going to a white elephant that serves no purpose whatsoever.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Free federal money goes to airports all the time. In my city we had a $200 million runway built by the feds in 2005...just in time for Delta to move its hub to Detroit. Total flights at the airport dropped by 50%.

Rail and transit projects always get 100x more scrutiny than highway and airport projects.

I'm all for increasing the fees airports can charge airlines. Gotta take that up with the Feds though. Also there is a little bit of a caveat with the highway funding. The money for highway projects is supposed to be paid out of the gas tax which is a user fee on those who drive. So, in theory, people who take transit wouldn't be paying for those highway projects at all which isn't true the other way around. I do realize that the gas tax hasn't been raised in a long time and is now not raising sufficient money, but most people likely aren't aware that we need to triple the gas tax (and would shoot any politician who suggested such a thing).

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

The money for highway projects is supposed to be paid out of the gas tax which is a user fee on those who drive. So, in theory, people who take transit wouldn't be paying for those highway projects at all which isn't true the other way around. I do realize that the gas tax hasn't been raised in a long time and is now not raising sufficient money, but most people likely aren't aware that we need to triple the gas tax (and would shoot any politician who suggested such a thing).

The federal gasoline tax isn't being raised because the Republicans are trying to force the interstate highway system into private ownership. They are creating an artificial crisis so that Wall St. can buy the highways for much less than what they are actually worth. So the interstates will be like the railroads have always been. They're already tricking the states into leasing turnpikes and doing P3's on bridge projects and needless rural bypasses.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Free federal money goes to airports all the time. In my city we had a $200 million runway built by the feds in 2005...just in time for Delta to move its hub to Detroit. Total flights at the airport dropped by 50%.

Rail and transit projects always get 100x more scrutiny than highway and airport projects.

True. But airports are universally more usable to the average public. They are a necessity when traveling overseas. I can get a ticket under 200 dollars to vegas. A train ticket would be like 1500 dollars or something crazy.

I have zero issue with the Feds giving money out fairly for cities to expand their transit systems. I've made this point endlessly but the HSR in California will not be a commuter train to relieve housing pressure in SF. It wont be used by anyone but the better-off. And they will use it just as a substitute to flying.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The federal gasoline tax isn't being raised because the Republicans are trying to force the interstate highway system into private ownership. They are creating an artificial crisis so that Wall St. can buy the highways for much less than what they are actually worth. So the interstates will be like the railroads have always been. They're already tricking the states into leasing turnpikes and doing P3's on bridge projects and needless rural bypasses.

You realize the Democrats have had power on and off for the last 30 years, right? Its so tiring hearing political posturing on issues like this. Democrats in Washington share a lot less enthusiasm than say Democrats in San Francisco for raising gas taxes.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

You realize the Democrats have had power on and off for the last 30 years, right? Its so tiring hearing political posturing on issues like this. Democrats in Washington share a lot less enthusiasm than say Democrats in San Francisco for raising gas taxes.

That's simply not correct. Since the Newt Gingrich takeover circa 1995, Democrats have only controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for two years, the first two years of Obama's presidency. So only 2 years out of the past 23~. Those were the two years immediately following the economic collapse and Republicans endlessly derided the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act that funneled a lot of money directly to cities, bypassing the hostile Republican-controlled state governments.

California got a ton of money for HSR out of that so-called "stimulus package", including rail money that was allocated to Wisconsin and my home state of Ohio. When Kasich (and fellow tea partier Scott Walker) was elected in 2010 he rejected that Obama stumulus money for a new rail service in Ohio and the FRA re-allocated most of the returned $400 million to California.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

True. But airports are universally more usable to the average public. They are a necessity when traveling overseas. I can get a ticket under 200 dollars to vegas. A train ticket would be like 1500 dollars or something crazy.

Airline travel in the United States is heavily subsidized. The airplanes themselves, manufactured either by Boeing [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...28-story.html] or Airbus, are heavily subsidized. The airports are subsidized. The fuel is subsidized. The roads leading to the airports are subsidized. Airlines often pay their pilots crap wages [http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...ine_jobs.html]. It's not a level playing field, because that's what capitalism so often is in America -- an artificially uneven playing field that presents itself as being good and honest. But moreover, trains vs. jets is a false dichotomy.

And since you love airplanes so much, you will be happy to hear that CAHSR will serve SFO. So people in Fresno, Bakersfield, etc., will be able to take a 60-minute train ride to SFO and they fly away to Japan or Australia or wherever instead of having to drive there. It'll take an hour to get to LAX from LA Union Station on light rail, but at least that will become an option for the first time.

[phoenixboi08]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

1. It won't generate profit because it won't go anywhere so there will be no demand for it.

2. Even if it did generate a profit that meager earnings would take decades or more to raise enough money to even think about building the most expensive parts of the system.

3. No, other countries don't ave 50+ year plans for building a single rail line; they just build it. If CAHSR were in China it would have been operating end to end for years at this point.

1. Just because you think it won't, doesn't mean it won't -- As I pointed out, there are plans to get interim service to the Peninsula from Madera, which is the only part that's up-in-the-air at this point. They have several options...

2. No...even by their most conservative ridership estimates, they can fully finance the rest of the system, because any credit they attempt to access will be based on the potential future ridership, not current. Or are you really saying that the Authority wouldn't be able to demonstrate the gains from completing the system to LA?

3. It isn't 50 years. It's been under construction for 3-4 years at this point... Timelines are fungible; they depend on financing schedules and public funding. China took more than 30-40 years to complete the Beijing-Shanghai line: They just planned and phased the entire national network in bits and pieces to complete these national lines. None of the major N-S, E-W corridors were completed in anything like 5 years.

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yay I can't wait for my Federal money to go to a single rail line in California for the upper-middle class and rich people. What an awesome cause...

What....? How does that even make sense?

You're saying that a statewide, inter-city system will only be used by...rich people?

As opposed to, what, the bulk of business travelers currently shuttling between LAX/SFO? Caltrain? Private/corporate bus shuttles?

Originally Posted by jtown,man

True. But airports are universally more usable to the average public. They are a necessity when traveling overseas. I can get a ticket under 200 dollars to vegas. A train ticket would be like 1500 dollars or something crazy.

Again...huh?
Nothing indicates fares being anywhere near $1500.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by phoenixboi08

Again...huh?
Nothing indicates fares being anywhere near $1500.

Pretty sure he's talking about Amtrak, not CAHSR ( obviously since it doesn't go to Vegas). At any rate if you look at the cost from LA to San fran I'd guess it will be somewhere between $500 - $1000. Then the question becomes how much will California subsidize it? I'm sure a lot, but still can't see a ticket costing less than $250. That's why it will only be for the rich. Those of more modest means will fly or drive.