Right Wing Blog Evicerates High Speed Rail.

[Dinwar]

The problem with CA is that it's all spread out. To get anywhere requires driving--because that's how the area was designed. So there may not be a good place to put a rail depot, particularly in the LA basin. That said, if we radically shifted our views on the issue and built around the idea of a core HSR with smaller rail lines radiating from the stations, that might be something that could change. Never happen--no one out there wants to give up their cars, as is obvious by the fact that they're willing to sit in 3 hours of traffic to go 30 miles (speaking from personal experience here, driving the 405 and the 5 every day for 4 years). If that doesn't make you want to re-think your transportation options, nothing will.

 

[dudalb]

The problem with CA is that it's all spread out. To get anywhere requires driving--because that's how the area was designed. So there may not be a good place to put a rail depot, particularly in the LA basin. That said, if we radically shifted our views on the issue and built around the idea of a core HSR with smaller rail lines radiating from the stations, that might be something that could change. Never happen--no one out there wants to give up their cars, as is obvious by the fact that they're willing to sit in 3 hours of traffic to go 30 miles (speaking from personal experience here, driving the 405 and the 5 every day for 4 years). If that doesn't make you want to re-think your transportation options, nothing will.

For the record, the Capital Corridor train between Sacramento and the Bay Area has been a big sucess.
I think there is a future for passenger trains in California;but the HSR seems a lot like the Concorde:Impressive Tech that proves not to be economically viable compared to the standard Tech transportation.

 

[eeyore1954]

The problem with CA is that it's all spread out. To get anywhere requires driving--because that's how the area was designed. So there may not be a good place to put a rail depot, particularly in the LA basin. That said, if we radically shifted our views on the issue and built around the idea of a core HSR with smaller rail lines radiating from the stations, that might be something that could change. Never happen--no one out there wants to give up their cars, as is obvious by the fact that they're willing to sit in 3 hours of traffic to go 30 miles (speaking from personal experience here, driving the 405 and the 5 every day for 4 years). If that doesn't make you want to re-think your transportation options, nothing will.

I don't know if this is really true but I think LA traffic is one of the worst in the US. I have taken longer from Whittier to LAX then from Whittier to a little north of Bakersfield. This was probably 25 years ago. I did get stuck on what I think is called the Riverside Freeway about 10 yeas ago for over an hour to advance a few miles ( no accidents just rush hour traffic I guess).

 

[Dinwar]

For the record, the Capital Corridor train between Sacramento and the Bay Area has been a big sucess.
I think there is a future for passenger trains in California;but the HSR seems a lot like the Concorde:Impressive Tech that proves not to be economically viable compared to the standard Tech transportation.

Given the red tape and sheer stupidity involved in the project, I wouldn't blame it on the tech not being economically viable. If you wrap ice in enough red tape it'll sink; doesn't mean ice doesn't float.

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/california-high-speed-rail-waste-time-and-money

Finally someone recognizes what a mistake this is going to be. Too little, too late maybe but Democrats have never been what I would call... timely... when it comes to budgets and paying for stuff.

Nonsense. History proves you are wrong.

 

[Dinwar]

Nonsense. History proves you are wrong.

Evidence? Because from the inside, I assure you this project looks like a complete failure.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Evidence? Because from the inside, I assure you this project looks like a complete failure.

I could care less about your "expertise." I was commenting on your generalization about Democrats and financial responsibility. http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/...icans-us-national-debt-graphs-year-president/

 

[Dinwar]

I could care less about your "expertise." I was commenting on your generalization about Democrats and financial responsibility. http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/...icans-us-national-debt-graphs-year-president/

I made no such generalization, so that part at least is inapplicable to me. I will say that your response did not make it clear which part you were responding to--a reasonable reading of it could lead to the conclusion that you were arguing that history suggested the HSR would succeed.

As for my sarcasm-quotes-expertise, I have not presented myself as an expert in this. I have presented myself as someone who's performed work on this project. I cannot present myself as an expert here, because it would be illegal (the NDA I signed mentioned Homeland Security; I don't care enough about what you folks think to land in jail). I have no reason to lie; I have worked on this project, and can give my general impressions of it. If you think the fact that I won't put myself at risk of jail time lessens my credibility, that's your problem.

 

[WildCat]

HSR proponent and expert Joe Vranich testifies in 2008 why California's version is built upon unicorn farts:

 

[Travis]

You all had to expect me to chime in?

I read this insipid and uninformed article the other day and was just shaking my head at the ignorance and stupidity throughout. I mean check out his incredibly ludicrous conclusion:

Besides, it would probably be better to wait for maglev costs to come down or for something like Elon Musk's hyperloop technology, anyway.

Yes, let us throw much more money at untested vaporware technology rather than build a known system that has been successful all over the world. That makes so much sense. ¹⁰
And I love how he talks about long distance electric buses (currently not in service anywhere in the world) and self driving cars (which will be this centuries version of flying cars—a pie in the sky technological fantasy) which, even if they did work, would require expanding our intercity freeway connections which would be many times more expensive.

I don't have this waste of space author here to pummel or apply electrodes to his testes, which is surely what I want to do, but I do have you all here. I'll try to play nice here and simply educate you all on why you are wrong. I will leave my truly horrible revenge fantasies for the degenerate that actually penned the article.

If you're talking about the high speed rail in California, I agree that it's an expensive boondoggle. Too much money to go not enough places. The amount they're sinking into the first train-to-nowhere segment near Fresno is just stupid expensive.

I wonder if we'd be better off figuring out how to extend the current conventional coastal rail line all the way to the bay area. What's the price differential to put a few bridges and tunnels to the central valley from the SLO area, versus an entire new right of way?

The price tag for improving the coastal rail line would be many orders of magnitude more expensive. First off it is nothing but hills requiring extensive tunneling and you couldn't use the existing rail line because it is owned by Union Pacific (and it would take an act of congress to force them to sell it). The property acquisition costs would be staggering since you're talking about prime real estate. Tunneling is inherently expensive in California (roughly $300-500 million per mile) which is why the current HSR route is designed to try and have as few of them as possible.

And it wouldn't do a thing to serve the millions of people that live in the Central Valley.

And, I can't repeat this enough, the current high speed rail system, as designed, is the cheapest of all available options.

I'll settle for the transportation system the way it is now, thanks.

The money would be a waaay better investment if spent on Desalinization plants. I'd sure rather that than Toilet-to-Tap and a Bullet Train to no where- on both ends.

Since you clearly don't know enough about the current project (I've read every EIR to date) allow me to disabuse you of one misconception: it doesn't go nowhere. At least unless you consider San Francisco and LA nowhere.

And the current transportation system is unsustainable. Everything is beyond its designed capacity. The airports and the highways. How much it cost to expand them to meet the demands that high speed rail would allow? Oh, just $150 billion. Caltrans says it would cost $60 billion to widen route 99 through the central valley alone. Widening I-5 would cost slightly less but would still be expensive. And then there would be the Grapevine. How many tens of billions would that cost to rebuild?

And I haven't even touched on the costs of whole new airports assuming you can even find large enough flat spaces to build them.

It's amazing how much money you can save when you simply don't pay for things you owe.

As for HSR in California, yeah, its boondoggle nature has been obvious for a long time now.

Only obvious to the ignorant of malicious. The project is exemplary. People throw around the term "boondoggle" so much anymore that I discount any opinion that employs it. If something is wrong then show it. Don't just throw out that word—currently a shibboleth for those with uncompromising ideologies—and expect that to fly.

The problem with CA is that it's all spread out.

No. Just no. LA and SF are both among the densest metropolitan regions in the United States. And California, on the whole, has a population density equal to or greater than other nations with operating high speed rail lines.

California|246 people per square mile
Austria|262 people per square mile
Turkey|259 people per square mile
Spain|241 people per square mile
Mexico|158 people per square mile
Iran|122 people per square mile
Brazil|62 people per square mile
Sweden|56 people per square mile
Norway|40 people per square mile
Russia|28 people per square mile

All of those nations either operate high speed rail or have their systems already under construction.

To get anywhere requires driving--because that's how the area was designed.

Yes. This is how it is all over the world too. People drive to the train station instead of the airport. That's how it works. High speed rail isn't supposed to give us a car free society. It is supposed to give us a better option for intercity travel.

So there may not be a good place to put a rail depot, particularly in the LA basin.

Sure there is: Union Station. Right where the LA high speed rail station is supposed to go. Once there people would find themselves with two subway lines, two bus rapid transit lines, three light rail lines and numerous metro bus connections all in one building.

Keep in mind LA is currently building $40 billion worth of new transit lines with rapid transit connections to the airport, Santa Monica, Westwood, San Dimas and Poloma all under construction. Several other lines are in advanced planning. All of that would be accessible from Union Station.

That said, if we radically shifted our views on the issue and built around the idea of a core HSR with smaller rail lines radiating from the stations, that might be something that could change.

That's already happened. The plan is to have the stations at the center of rail transit nodes. San Jose's station will have have access to the BART network and the sprawling VTA light rail system. San Francisco's station will also be at the center of its transit system, being underneath a huge bus station with a BART station and an underground Muni Light Rail station right there too.

Never happen--no one out there wants to give up their cars, as is obvious by the fact that they're willing to sit in 3 hours of traffic to go 30 miles (speaking from personal experience here, driving the 405 and the 5 every day for 4 years). If that doesn't make you want to re-think your transportation options, nothing will.

People won't have to give up their cars. Though some might. That isn't the point. The point is to save money by not building more of the same infrastructure (roads simply cost more to construct) and creating a new, cheaper, transportation option.

Oh and the 405 is going to have a subway line built down it from the San Fernando Valley to LAX soon. There is debate as to whether it would be a surface line in the median of the freeway or a tunnel under it.

 

[Travis]

Not making money just implies that the population at large is taxed to pay part of the rail fares of the people that use high speed trains.

That's a tenuous case for HSR in my view.

No, not really. We already do this with roads. The idea is that the subsidies to maintain the system are outweighed by the larger economic benefits of having increased mobility. As we see throughout the world nations with hampered mobility have hampered economies. People need the ability to easily and quickly convey themselves from one place to the next. Doing so stimulates the economies at large.

And this is the issue in California. Our mobility is slowly going away. The roads are congested, the airports are gridlocked and trying to expand either of them will cost mind numbing figures. That's why high speed rail is so attractive. It can quickly convey large numbers of people all over the state for a cheaper cost.

There's a question I always want to ask Californians..... Just where in L.A. would the terminus need to be to satisfy the "city center to city center" ideal? The whole area is huge and it's completely at mercy of the automobile. I suspect the Los Angelinos would all answer "Duh. Near my house!"

I already mentioned it but I'll repeat: Union Station. It is already the planned station for LA. It is right downtown at the center of the expanding LA transit network.

In about a month I will be using the high-speed Shinkansen from Tokyo to Kyoto.

Lucky!

I don't know if this is really true but I think LA traffic is one of the worst in the US. I have taken longer from Whittier to LAX then from Whittier to a little north of Bakersfield. This was probably 25 years ago. I did get stuck on what I think is called the Riverside Freeway about 10 yeas ago for over an hour to advance a few miles ( no accidents just rush hour traffic I guess).

LA has been hampered by an underbuilt transportation network for some time. But this is rapidly changing since LA is now spending more money on transit construction than any other city in the world.

Given the red tape and sheer stupidity involved in the project, I wouldn't blame it on the tech not being economically viable. If you wrap ice in enough red tape it'll sink; doesn't mean ice doesn't float.

What stupidity would that be? Please be specific. Because I'm not seeing any in the current project.

 

[Francesca R]

No, not really. We already do this with roads. The idea is that the subsidies to maintain the system are outweighed by the larger economic benefits of having increased mobility.

I am aware of the logic and it is valid in circumstances where the public benefit is higher than the public cost.

But just because that is true for roads, it is not necessarily true for one high speed rail route. Indeed for some roads (toll roads, various bridges) it isn't really valid. I suppose I am likening a high speed route to a tolled motorway. Typically the private benefits (benefits to those who use them) of the latter are so high that the cost can be fully recovered in the market, and the benefits to everyone else are marginal.

If HSR really does fail a "market test" (does not pay for itself) I think there really needs to be a robust case that the public benefit is high (er than any state financing). I believe this works for mass transit and commuter rail (but not so well if you try to do this after a city has sprawled already). The presence or otherwise of mass transit rail affects the public and private utility of an HSR as well.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I already mentioned it but I'll repeat: Union Station. It is already the planned station for LA. It is right downtown at the center of the expanding LA transit network.

Thanks for that. I was under the impression that Union Station was ruled out due to the expense of refitting the approaches and making two-way (through) tracks. I admit, though, that that impression was from the decision of the Vegas Fast Train to terminate far to the west. Apparently, Union Station is on board with the California HSR program.

Meh? I'm all for it. The USA needs intercity HSR. Someone's got to do it, and the sooner the better because the longer you wait the more expensive it's going to get. Here in Thailand our rail system is such a disaster that the long lines have to be gutted and replaced anyway, but the Thai government is partnering with the Chinese to do the job. (We currently have a rail service from my town of Pattaya to Bangkok.... once a day.... and it takes 3 h 15 m... to go 120 km (70 mi). )

 

[tsig]

HSR from San Diego to LA would be pretty awesome--if it was truly high speed, and had integrated shuttle service at either end.

I can do the bulk of the drive in about 3 hours. I'd trade that any day for a 1-hour train ride and a 30-minute shuttle at each end.

What if you could take your car with you?

Your car is transported on a car transporter while you ride in a club car.

 

[WildCat]

What if you could take your car with you?

Your car is transported on a car transporter while you ride in a club car.

Cost?

 

[Mitchell314]

What if you could take your car with you?

Your car is transported on a car transporter while you ride in a club car.

That sounds horribly inefficient in every possible way.

 

[WildCat]

Self-driving electric cars, that's the future. Not HSR.

 

[Checkmite]

The issue with the HSR in Ohio was that they planned to buy land for the stations where land is cheap. Sounds good to accountants, but the problem comes from actual implementation--the land is cheap because no one wants to be there. It was far from anything anyone had any business going to. Which means that in addition to the cost of a train ticket, you would have to shell out funds for a taxi ticket (not something there are a lot of in Columbus, Ohio, at least not in the parts they were going to put stations in). If you had to transport....well, anything, this becomes a HUGE pain in the neck. It also becomes a scheduling nightmare, because you have to factor drive time into it. You also have to factor parking into the cost--you've got to get to the HSR station somehow, meaning either someone drops you off, you take a cab, or you drive and park your vehicle (more expense).

Yeah...the rest of your arguments were okay, but this one is just fluff. What you're describing is the exact same set of arrangements that every airline, long-distance train, and commercial bus passenger already contends with, successfully.

 

[Dinwar]

Yeah...the rest of your arguments were okay, but this one is just fluff. What you're describing is the exact same set of arrangements that every airline, long-distance train, and commercial bus passenger already contends with, successfully.

Which means we already have airlines (long distance trains and commercial busses don't get much use in Ohio). We'd be putting a bunch of money into something that's slower than driving, less convenient than driving, and which does the same job (assuming a national system could be put into place) as another system already established.

Why, again, is this NOT an argument against this system?

No. Just no. LA and SF are both among the densest metropolitan regions in the United States.

All this tells me is that you haven't actually seen a map of the CA HSR. LS and SF are involved. However, there's a LOT more to the system as it is currently designed.

Sure there is: Union Station. Right where the LA high speed rail station is supposed to go.

You've also never tried to establish an ROW through LA, I see.

Here's a hint: Visual and noise resources. Read through any EIR/EIS to see just how big a roll those play in cities. I've seen these issues kill projects, and seen them add tens of millions of dollars to others (halfway through, AFTER the cities signed off on the plans).

That's already happened. The plan is to have the stations at the center of rail transit nodes.

Not to the extent that I'm discussing. I'm talking about the main line going JUST to population centers, sort of like how air travel goes from local airports to regional hubs, and smaller train lines branching out to the bigger cities in the region. I'm not talking a BART system here, but a fundamental shift in how we view rail travel. Of course, since we already have air travel doing exactly that, there's really little incentive to do so, outside the folks selling the HSR lines.

People won't have to give up their cars. Though some might. That isn't the point. The point is to save money by not building more of the same infrastructure (roads simply cost more to construct) and creating a new, cheaper, transportation option.

If people don't use the rails instead of their cars all you'll have is a very expensive door stop and some very, VERY expensive metal lines on the ground.

What stupidity would that be? Please be specific.

As I said before, I refuse to be fired to satisfy your curiosity. That's literally all I can say without violating the NDA I signed: Given what I've seen about how this project is run, I have zero confidence that it will be constructed. If you have been involved in this project in a significant way, I'll gladly listen to your opinion--but if you haven't, I probably know more about the internal workings. No, I don't expect you to take my word for it--you can dismiss me if you wish. But I have no reason to lie, I haven't lied in my time on this or any other forum, and there's no evidence of me doing so now.

 

[Brainster]

And I love how he talks about long distance electric buses (currently not in service anywhere in the world) and self driving cars (which will be this centuries version of flying cars—a pie in the sky technological fantasy) which, even if they did work, would require expanding our intercity freeway connections which would be many times more expensive.

Self-driving cars are already on the road:



Four states have already legalized them. Once they become widely adopted, they will ease congestion. When every car on the road knows what every other car on the road is going to do, there will be far fewer accidents, no situations where some idiot crosses five lanes of traffic to get off at the next exit, etc. It is quite likely that ride-sharing will become more popular, since the computers will know where everybody is going.

This is a 21st century solution; railroads are a 19th century relic.