Tea Party governors unwittingly help California, hurt themselves

[WildCat]

How much profit did the US Interstate system make last year?

We provide heavy subsidies to airlines and automobiles without blinking, but for some reason, subsidies to rail transit are considered a waste. Why is that?

Roads are necessary, there is no alternative to a road.

Railroads are a luxury, a great way to move freight but not so great a way to move people for long distances.

 

[WildCat]

I was just going by the distance divided by ~110mph. It wouldn't make much sense to have a high speed rail that never realized the advantages of high speed. while there may be some runs that stop at most or all stops, there are certain to be "express" type runs that run LA to SF with no (or few) intervening stops.

I don't think there will be. That requires another set of tracks and I have seen nothing to indicate this is the case.

Additionally, If I understand the trains being proposed, they shouldn't have a hard time hitting top speed between many of their stops. A problem however is that there is no Sac to SF run, as I had initially thought, in which case this will not at all address or ease the huge daily back and forth migration of people between Sac and SF.

Besides that, there's also the problem that many, if not most, of the stops between LA and SF are in towns which don't have any sort of public transportation.

Is the train going to be the transportation choice for the tourist couple who want to go on a tour of wine country? They would have to rent a car once they arrive, and knowing this many will opt to simply drive their own cars. Likewise business travellers, is the train really your best way to get to Fresno if you must rent a car once there? Does Fresno even have public bus routes? I found no references to any on their web site.

 

[WildCat]

You brought up that silly argument in another thread and I demonstrated how it's bull by pointing out that japan had a similar distance of track for its HSR with more stops.

Japan has more people to serve along the way. You ever been to central California? Going to be a lot of infrastructure costs to serve not that many people.

And as all sensible rail plans it should have express routes with fewer stops and "local" routes with more stops. You adapt the system to offer more of what the community requires.

Any evidence at all this is the plan for California? I have seen nothing to indicate there's an extra set of tracks, or even sidings, to allow for express trains.

 

[WildCat]

I agree, that isn't a good plan. But the solution is to change the plan, not ditch the idea all together. He threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Changing the plan would require an entirely new set of tracks, one which isn't shared with freight traffic. Needless to say, it gets far more expensive then and there's no way to get there from here with the amount of money that was offered.

 

[WildCat]

Our experiences obviously differ. In my experience, the only "facts" Wildcat knows about are the ones he makes up out of whole cloth, such as when he disregards the cost estimates for the proposed railroad and simply pulls a 30% cost overrun out of his ass (post #41), ignores the planned pricing structure entirely (#26, see also here) ignores the proven existence of express trains (#47), or the fact that both Japan and Europe have demonstrated that high speed trains are usually faster than regional planes because trains can and will take you to the center of town (#26 again).

I see someone doesn't know the difference in geography between Japan, western Europe, and the USA.

Either that or you don't have the slightest clue as to how population density is critical for passenger rail projects, high-speed or otherwise.

And it's so cute how you take government cost estimates of such massive projects at face value! Just because Boston's Big Dig didn't have any cost overruns, oh wait. Well there was Millenium Park here in Chicago, oh crap that doesn't work either.

I'm sure you have a long list of big government projects that came in on budget...

 

[WildCat]

Well the train will be quicker than flying with all the added time of security checks for flying.

What on earth makes you think there won't be airport-style security? The TSA is already working on plans for passenger rail.

2 hours 40 minutes for SF to LA isn't too shabby.

We'll see if those times hold in reality. That would require non-stop service, yes?

Plus there will be WiFi on all the trains so that 2 hour 40 minute trip can be productive.

For the small fraction who can be productive with just a computer.

As for jobs: There will be over 30,000 people employed at the heavy maintenance facility alone IIRC. There is debate over where it will be located and right now it appears it will be either in Merced or Fresno with both cities scrambling to be picked (Fresno has even bought a huge chunk of land at their expense to donate they are so eager for it). There will also be light maintenance facilities in South San Francisco, Sacramento, Orange County and San Diego with 3-5,000 jobs at each. Then you have to figure in administration, upkeep of tracks/centenaries, crews on the trains, security and staffing at over 24 separate stations. Add in knock on effects to contractors during construction and expansion and you get a lot of jobs rather quickly with most of them in a part of California that currently has an unemployment rate around 20%.

You're going to need a lot of passengers to support so many jobs...

 

[elbe]

Japan has more people to serve along the way. You ever been to central California? Going to be a lot of infrastructure costs to serve not that many people.

And we're back to this density argument. First you claim it can't get to speed, then when that's shown to be bull you fallback to another argument.

Yes, Cali is less dense than Japan. I used Japan because the distance was comparable. Density is, I still believe, a red herring. HSR, like flight, is meant to ferry people between high density areas (with the added bonus of a few lower density areas to help service those in the boonies). If there isn't a high enough density to support rail then I guess there isn't a high enough density to support an airline system.

Any evidence at all this is the plan for California? I have seen nothing to indicate there's an extra set of tracks, or even sidings, to allow for express trains.

The long term plans I've seen for US HSR include

High-Speed Rail – Express: Frequent, express service between major population centers 200–600 miles (320–965 km) apart, with few intermediate stops. Top speeds of at least 150 mph (240 km/h) on completely grade-separated, dedicated rights-of-way (with the possible exception of some shared track in terminal areas). Intended to relieve air and highway capacity constraints.

Along with other, options to make the service more versatile. Which is the logical way to do it. And yeah, sometimes it takes time to fully implement a system, but complaining about BS isn't helping.

 

[Random]

Any evidence at all this is the plan for California? I have seen nothing to indicate there's an extra set of tracks, or even sidings, to allow for express trains.

You put in the sidings at the stations. You put two sets of tracks for north/south service down for the long distances between stations. At the stations, you have short sidings put up, so you have four sets of track, two next to station platforms, and two main line tracks not near the platforms (so we don’t have to worry about the waiting passengers hanging on for dear life when the main line roars by at 150mph). The trains that are stopping at the station slow down and pull off to the sidings to load and unload passengers off the platform, while the express trains can pass by on the main line at high speed. The rest is just scheduling.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I keep thinking about it, and I keep thinking that HSR is best when you have a very dense population at Point A, and they all need to get to Point B, and getting them there quickly will generate a lot of wealth for everybody involved: Point A, Point B, the HSR operator, and the investors (in this case, us taxpayers).

Of course issues like population density and development patterns are affected by transportation. It's very plain here in St. Louis where sprawl followed major interstates and bridges.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If there isn't a high enough density to support rail then I guess there isn't a high enough density to support an airline system.

Or interstate highways, or bridges, etc.

Funny those kinds of projects don't get shot down for those "reasons".

 

[elbe]

What on earth makes you think there won't be airport-style security? The TSA is already working on plans for passenger rail.

Security concerns for passenger rail are wildly different than those for air travel. Trains can't be "hijacked" in that they can't leave their track. The worst thing you can do on a train is derail it, possibly killing everyone aboard and any one around the crash site.

If I wanted to cause damage from trains I'd scope out freight trains carrying explosive materials and either try to plant one along it's route. A trains route is it's weakest point, not it's passengers.

And my personal biggest concern are those idiots who ignore warning lights and crossbars - they cause more deaths. But since when are we, as a nation, as concerned by the common accidents instead of the rare attacks?

 

[geni]

What on earth makes you think the TSA doesn't have similar plans for trains as they do for airplanes? In fact, such plans are already in the works.

The impact of increased time is far higher. Airport check in takes time even without security. By comparison if I have purchased a ticket in advance (or I'm using one of britian's more minor stations) I can step straight onto a train with zero delay. You also got to consider the cost. There are far more stations than airports.

Despite attacks on train networks neither spain nor britian have felt the need to introduce train passenger screening.

 

[WildCat]

And we're back to this density argument. First you claim it can't get to speed, then when that's shown to be bull you fallback to another argument.

Yes, Cali is less dense than Japan. I used Japan because the distance was comparable. Density is, I still believe, a red herring. HSR, like flight, is meant to ferry people between high density areas (with the added bonus of a few lower density areas to help service those in the boonies). If there isn't a high enough density to support rail then I guess there isn't a high enough density to support an airline system.

Airlines only need density at Point A and Point B. Railroads need it at those 2 places, and also everywhere in between. Japan has this, California not so much.

The long term plans I've seen for US HSR include

How long term?

Along with other, options to make the service more versatile. Which is the logical way to do it. And yeah, sometimes it takes time to fully implement a system, but complaining about BS isn't helping.

I'm not complaining about BS, I'm questioning the financial viability of the system and I'd like to enter this in steps rather than investing trillions nationwide.

What's wrong with seeing if it works in California first?

It seems to me the most viable California route would have been LA to Las Vegas. Lots of people use that route, and LV has an excellent mass transit system once you get there. At least for the tourist areas. But I think the HSR for that route was shelved.

 

[WildCat]

You put in the sidings at the stations. You put two sets of tracks for north/south service down for the long distances between stations. At the stations, you have short sidings put up, so you have four sets of track, two next to station platforms, and two main line tracks not near the platforms (so we don’t have to worry about the waiting passengers hanging on for dear life when the main line roars by at 150mph). The trains that are stopping at the station slow down and pull off to the sidings to load and unload passengers off the platform, while the express trains can pass by on the main line at high speed. The rest is just scheduling.

I understand how that works, I also understand this isn't how it will be built, at least initially.

 

[WildCat]

Security concerns for passenger rail are wildly different than those for air travel. Trains can't be "hijacked" in that they can't leave their track. The worst thing you can do on a train is derail it, possibly killing everyone aboard and any one around the crash site.

You're operating under the belief that the only reason for such security is to prevent terrorism. Another major reason is to find drug smugglers, and this is what they will be looking for on trains.

 

[WildCat]

Or interstate highways, or bridges, etc.

Funny those kinds of projects don't get shot down for those "reasons".

Because those things are necessary, passenger rail is a luxury. At the end of the day, everyone needs a road going right by their house. Unless they plan on living off the land like a mountain man or something.

 

[WildCat]

The impact of increased time is far higher. Airport check in takes time even without security. By comparison if I have purchased a ticket in advance (or I'm using one of britian's more minor stations) I can step straight onto a train with zero delay. You also got to consider the cost. There are far more stations than airports.

Despite attacks on train networks neither spain nor britian have felt the need to introduce train passenger screening.

See Post 75.

 

[elbe]

Airlines only need density at Point A and Point B. Railroads need it at those 2 places, and also everywhere in between. Japan has this, California not so much.

No they don't. They only need to put stops where their is enough demand to put them, aka it's dense enough. Just because tracks go through some podunk town doesn't mean it that town has to be dense enough to support a stop.

How long term?

Like when they actually start building it instead of just having people complain against it with bare assertions like "no one wants to ride trains".

I'm not complaining about BS, I'm questioning the financial viability of the system and I'd like to enter this in steps rather than investing trillions nationwide.

Rail will always require a hefty down payment just to lay the infrastructure. Sure, a lot of it is already in place with the existing Amtrak facilities, but more will have to be added. Luckily, upkeep is cheaper than than laying the original tracks, and because the tracks are likely going to be using/following existing freight lines we could, potentially, pay that railroad for the basic maintenance (debris clearing, checking for rail warps, policing for example).

What's wrong with seeing if it works in California first?

Nothing, but the people making bare assertions about all HSR in the US just sound like they want to kill the idea because they don't like it, not because it couldn't work.

It seems to me the most viable California route would have been LA to Las Vegas. Lots of people use that route, and LV has an excellent mass transit system once you get there. At least for the tourist areas. But I think the HSR for that route was shelved.

I think they're looking to grab the business traveler market before moving onto vacation travelers, it would be more regular.
And travel options once you get to your destination would be the same as flight, or bus, or hitching, or ridesharing - it's the downfall of not driving yourself and have the freedom of your own vehicle, but people somehow manage to travel using the above methods.

Personally, I find train travel to much more enjoyable than flying. But that's just my opinion.

 

[elbe]

You're operating under the belief that the only reason for such security is to prevent terrorism. Another major reason is to find drug smugglers, and this is what they will be looking for on trains.

They can also stop the train whenever they want, have dogs go through the cargo areas on load, unload, or even midtrip. And security hasn't been beefed up, over the last few years, to the point of revulsion by the public because of drug smugglers.

 

[Kestrel]

They can also stop the train whenever they want, have dogs go through the cargo areas on load, unload, or even midtrip. And security hasn't been beefed up, over the last few years, to the point of revulsion by the public because of drug smugglers.

Or we could simply remember the fourth amendment and not waste money on routinely searching passenger trains for drugs.