First, you cite that air travel could take longer than high speed rail. But you neglected travel time to a high speed rail station (there are only a few stops, even in high density areas such as LA it could take an hour or more during rush time there to get to a high speed terminal) and possible security checkpoints (a high speed train is just as vulnerable to terrorism as an airplane).
Second, the original cost of the rail was supposed to be only $45 billion when the original ballot issue was passed in 2008. It's grown to $68 billion now -- about $16,000 a foot -- before a single rail has been put down. We have no idea what the final cost will be, but no doubt it will be much more. Think of Boston's Big Dig, or metro Denver's FasTracks. In any event, the project will depend on heavy federal subsidies; the recent California vote to press forward was to meet a federal deadline for $3.2 billion in federal funds. That's only the beginning.
Third, I don't know why California has to be energy neutral any more than any place else has to be. That's the whole point of trade. I doubt you would argue that California should be revenue neutral in building the thing and forgo federal funds. But let's play that game. California has huge oil reserves offshore that it has never tapped. With new horizontal drilling techniques which you decry some of them can even be tapped from onshore. Hermosa Beach is currently debating about whether to allow such a project. The liberal residents there are having a hard time deciding between their distaste for oil and the need for adding revenue to the city coffers.
Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
Please read the comments. HSR has its place.
Edited by Hates Idiots
Updated - 12th Jul
Just
In
In
High Speed Rail
Posted by ilajnaaneem
14th Aug
Show:
0
Votes
A leap of faith
Posted by zackers
Updated - 11th Jul
0
Votes
RE: A Leap of Faith
Denver FasTracks is such a boondoggle.. the portions that are in that have some ridership don't even come close to paying for itself - and it's been so expensive to build that the actual cost per passenger is approximately 3 x the top end of what they could charge for it's use. Right now it's cheaper (and faster) to drive my car.
If you look at the planned stops and the tracks the California line is supposed to use, it'll be just like the east coast...tracks that can't handle the speed, slow zones and too many stops.
They're also forgetting that if you don't drive, you have to rent/lease/purchase transportation once you get to either LA or SF. It will end up costing as much as flying and take longer and maybe more expensive
After watching the BS in Denver with RTD absolutely not being truthful about the true costs, I shudder thinking about the money which will be wasted on this one. AND the taxpayers will have to pay the salaries for all of those jobs mentioned in the article.
Fascinating what leaps of faith can be taken at other's expense.
If you look at the planned stops and the tracks the California line is supposed to use, it'll be just like the east coast...tracks that can't handle the speed, slow zones and too many stops.
They're also forgetting that if you don't drive, you have to rent/lease/purchase transportation once you get to either LA or SF. It will end up costing as much as flying and take longer and maybe more expensive
After watching the BS in Denver with RTD absolutely not being truthful about the true costs, I shudder thinking about the money which will be wasted on this one. AND the taxpayers will have to pay the salaries for all of those jobs mentioned in the article.
Fascinating what leaps of faith can be taken at other's expense.
Posted by GregGold
11th Jul
0
Votes
high speed waste of money
California is in a deficit crisis,medi-cal has been cut to the bone,infrastructure is failing and the state is in the red.This is wrong and the money could be use elsewhere for better benefit.
Posted by wildwolf93446
11th Jul
+3
Votes
damn straight
Under the current economic climate, the high speed rail is going to come off as an overpriced boondoogle that does grave harm to Obama's re-election chances.
The US already has a pretty decent substitute - good-n-cheap private buses. They have wifi, they run the bulk of the proposed high speed rail routes, they're comfortable, they're dirt cheap, they're privately funded, they run with mind boggling frequency.
If you're comfy and you have internet, do you really care that much if it's 4 hours or 2.5 hours? Not really, not for 95% of the population.
Is Nelder too clueless or too biased to fail to mention this American-style, transportation solution that's emerging all around him?
The US already has a pretty decent substitute - good-n-cheap private buses. They have wifi, they run the bulk of the proposed high speed rail routes, they're comfortable, they're dirt cheap, they're privately funded, they run with mind boggling frequency.
If you're comfy and you have internet, do you really care that much if it's 4 hours or 2.5 hours? Not really, not for 95% of the population.
Is Nelder too clueless or too biased to fail to mention this American-style, transportation solution that's emerging all around him?
Posted by James.McMurtry
Updated - 11th Jul
0
Votes
You can argue and statistics this all ways
You can put half-baked statistics or calculations for this all ways.
California HS ignores the fact that Los Angeles is a massive sprawl area, and once you get into the Terminus station in 'down town' LA, you still have an on-journet to make and mass-transit in LA is patchy at best.
HS Rail works London - Paris - Disnetland Paris as it is generally point to point, with little onward travel - |The Eurostar station for Disneyland Paris is outside the park entrance. Can you say the same about Disney in LA , or Hollywood, or anywhere else tourists of business people want to go.
Perhaps the money would be better spent on providing Super-fast broadband to all or funding an expansion in Free health-care - both have positive economic and social effects.
UK Proposed High Speed 2 (London/Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds) rail is projecting a similar scheme of around 400 miles, but at $100m/mile, whereas California HS Rail is $170m/mile. Who is right, both are probably way out of the ballpark, and are money pits - Lots of High Speed rail has done nothing for Spain, other than add to government debt.
California HS ignores the fact that Los Angeles is a massive sprawl area, and once you get into the Terminus station in 'down town' LA, you still have an on-journet to make and mass-transit in LA is patchy at best.
HS Rail works London - Paris - Disnetland Paris as it is generally point to point, with little onward travel - |The Eurostar station for Disneyland Paris is outside the park entrance. Can you say the same about Disney in LA , or Hollywood, or anywhere else tourists of business people want to go.
Perhaps the money would be better spent on providing Super-fast broadband to all or funding an expansion in Free health-care - both have positive economic and social effects.
UK Proposed High Speed 2 (London/Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds) rail is projecting a similar scheme of around 400 miles, but at $100m/mile, whereas California HS Rail is $170m/mile. Who is right, both are probably way out of the ballpark, and are money pits - Lots of High Speed rail has done nothing for Spain, other than add to government debt.
Posted by neil.postlethwaite@...
11th Jul
0
Votes
Absurd Claims of Benefits
And yes, my beleaguered state, with its $15.7 billion budget deficit and declining tax revenues, could certainly use the 450,000 permanent jobs that the HSR system will bring.
The number of permanent jobs claimed to be created is absurdly high. Could you provide some backup?
California is indeed beleaguered. It's because of high taxes, out of control spending by the Democrat legislature, and years of money laundering through big unions who funnel money back to the politicians who support them.
HSR is yet another way to send money to the unions who keep the free spenders in power.
The number of permanent jobs claimed to be created is absurdly high. Could you provide some backup?
California is indeed beleaguered. It's because of high taxes, out of control spending by the Democrat legislature, and years of money laundering through big unions who funnel money back to the politicians who support them.
HSR is yet another way to send money to the unions who keep the free spenders in power.
Posted by mcmanuslive@...
11th Jul
+1
Vote
450 THOUSAND JOBS ?
This sounds like the same kind of hype we heard about the pipeline from Canada.
450,000? - Once it's built, I don't see how it would take more than a few hundred people to run it and do maintenance. If it was such a big energy savings, that would have come up before now, also.
High speed rail is a great idea. I don't see that we should fall for the huge price, though. A lot of price gouging has been going on - obviously - God knows how many people have been effectively 'bribed' or assured they will become rich by not opposing - how else can the costs have gotten completely out of control ?
Nobody wants to improve the state. Everybody participating just wants a piece of the pie, and all have agreed to make the pie larger.
If we can't do it for around the original cost - it should be scrapped for now and restarted by people who honor commitments and care about costs.
450,000? - Once it's built, I don't see how it would take more than a few hundred people to run it and do maintenance. If it was such a big energy savings, that would have come up before now, also.
High speed rail is a great idea. I don't see that we should fall for the huge price, though. A lot of price gouging has been going on - obviously - God knows how many people have been effectively 'bribed' or assured they will become rich by not opposing - how else can the costs have gotten completely out of control ?
Nobody wants to improve the state. Everybody participating just wants a piece of the pie, and all have agreed to make the pie larger.
If we can't do it for around the original cost - it should be scrapped for now and restarted by people who honor commitments and care about costs.
Posted by james_lucier
11th Jul
+2
Votes
450 thousand permanent jobs = $22 billion per year
How much do 450 thousand permanent jobs cost?
At $50,000 per job, that is more than $22 billion a year.
At $50,000 per job, that is more than $22 billion a year.
Posted by Day Dreamer
12th Jul
+3
Votes
450 thousand NEW jobs?
Are the 450,000 permanent jobs "new" jobs or are they just the people that otherwise would have been working in other transportation sectors but are now working in HSR?
Posted by Day Dreamer
12th Jul
+2
Votes
450,000 jobs! What happened to COMMON SENSE?
450,000 permanent California jobs? 450,000 * $60,000 (assume as an average annual salary w/benefits) = $27 Billion dollars per year! Where is that kind of money for operation and maintenance going to come from? Is that really the planned budget?
Posted by j.canoy@...
13th Jul
0
Votes
Money Well Spent
This will probably be money well spent for both the short term and the long term. In the short term it will provide a lot of construction jobs and will improve the infrastructure by focusing away from the private one person transportation system, IE car, and focusing more on multiple person hi volume transportation. In the long term it will avoid a lot of the costs involved in maintaining a dead transportation model, IE the single passenger auto, and will bring some badly needed hi tech jobs to maintain the new rail systems. A hi speed link between the metro areas of SF, LA, and SD sounds like a solid plan to me, certainly more cost effective than flying or driving.
Posted by dcr100@...
11th Jul
-1
Votes
What About Regular Rail? Regular Rail Would...
...provide more benefits in: more coverage, less costs in maintenance (due to easier infrastructure to maintain) and cheaper parts replacement (due to less complicated, off-the-shelf parts availability) --savings that can be invested into even more coverage.
Seen we're headed to an even more energy-constrained future that will affect every other industry dependent on high energy throughput (ie high tech manufacturing as required by HSR), isn't obvious HSR is the same pipe dream as more airports?
Spain's HSR is not as rosy as it seems and as that part of Europe descends further into economic decline it will be obvious the caveat of HSR when funding doesn't buy the needed upkeep, replacement as cheaply as funding regular rail does.
First Monbiot, then Tom Whipple and now you Mr Nelder? What am I missing? What's causing this sudden Pollyannish bloom completely disregarding systems thinking and the reality of the long term energy constraints in the system?
Seen we're headed to an even more energy-constrained future that will affect every other industry dependent on high energy throughput (ie high tech manufacturing as required by HSR), isn't obvious HSR is the same pipe dream as more airports?
Spain's HSR is not as rosy as it seems and as that part of Europe descends further into economic decline it will be obvious the caveat of HSR when funding doesn't buy the needed upkeep, replacement as cheaply as funding regular rail does.
First Monbiot, then Tom Whipple and now you Mr Nelder? What am I missing? What's causing this sudden Pollyannish bloom completely disregarding systems thinking and the reality of the long term energy constraints in the system?
Posted by simon.dc3
Updated - 11th Jul
+5
Votes
Regular rail vs. HSR
Regular rail will ultimately have to replace a great deal of road traffic, and having the HSR backbone for longer-distance regional travel will make it far more useful, and enable its construction. Light rail should be built, and I think it will be. But it is a much longer-term (and far more expensive) proposition.
For example, consider the planned expansion links of the Metrolink system in Southern California: http://bit.ly/NLze6I
To lay just 9 miles of light rail track from downtown San Bernadino to the University of Redlands (the "Redlands Corridor"), the estimated cost is around $700 million http://sanbag.ca.gov/projects/redlands-transit.html
And it would take around 10 years to build
http://sanbag.ca.gov/projects/redlands-sb-rail/Scoping_Presentation_04-24-2012.pdf
According to the latter link, that effort began in 1989 with a voter-approved measure, after which they started buying right-of-way. Now, 23 years later, they still haven't laid a single mile of track.
All that, for 9 lousy miles in San Bernadino, which isn't as built-up as central LA.
Now imagine building all the proposed expansion links in that wiki article. Then imagine building far more than that, to really get the cars off the road. How much would it all cost? In the trillions, to be sure. You think it's hard to raise $68 billion? Try that. And it would many decades, if not a century, to build it.
To be clear, I DO think we need to do all of the above, and more! But as a practical matter, I don't see how a comprehensive light rail system could get built in Southern California any time soon. With such long timelines and huge costs, there has to be a large degree of federal support, and federal support is more oriented (sensibly, I think) toward projects that connect major cities than building within individual cities.
So, I think when you put it in context, the SF-LA HSR and its price tag looks pretty good. It can actually get done, with a substantial amount of federal support. By the time it's operational in 2028, I expect that flying from SF to LA will be very expensive with very limited service. It won't be anything like today. If we don't have a rail substitute by then, the economic damage to the state could be devastating.
As for your claim that light rail makes more sense than HSR in energetic terms, I am unconvinced. Let's see your data.
For example, consider the planned expansion links of the Metrolink system in Southern California: http://bit.ly/NLze6I
To lay just 9 miles of light rail track from downtown San Bernadino to the University of Redlands (the "Redlands Corridor"), the estimated cost is around $700 million http://sanbag.ca.gov/projects/redlands-transit.html
And it would take around 10 years to build
http://sanbag.ca.gov/projects/redlands-sb-rail/Scoping_Presentation_04-24-2012.pdf
According to the latter link, that effort began in 1989 with a voter-approved measure, after which they started buying right-of-way. Now, 23 years later, they still haven't laid a single mile of track.
All that, for 9 lousy miles in San Bernadino, which isn't as built-up as central LA.
Now imagine building all the proposed expansion links in that wiki article. Then imagine building far more than that, to really get the cars off the road. How much would it all cost? In the trillions, to be sure. You think it's hard to raise $68 billion? Try that. And it would many decades, if not a century, to build it.
To be clear, I DO think we need to do all of the above, and more! But as a practical matter, I don't see how a comprehensive light rail system could get built in Southern California any time soon. With such long timelines and huge costs, there has to be a large degree of federal support, and federal support is more oriented (sensibly, I think) toward projects that connect major cities than building within individual cities.
So, I think when you put it in context, the SF-LA HSR and its price tag looks pretty good. It can actually get done, with a substantial amount of federal support. By the time it's operational in 2028, I expect that flying from SF to LA will be very expensive with very limited service. It won't be anything like today. If we don't have a rail substitute by then, the economic damage to the state could be devastating.
As for your claim that light rail makes more sense than HSR in energetic terms, I am unconvinced. Let's see your data.
Posted by Chris Nelder
Updated - 11th Jul
0
Votes
Construction expenses
Agreed, and construction only gets more expensive in the future. Build and operate what we can (HSR, commuter rail and LRT and other intermodal connections) and enjoy the benifits in the future.
Posted by Dave 67
11th Jul
+3
Votes
Public works project pay scales are sometimes unrealistic.
In most states they are required to pay the highest union rate going in the state. So if the underwater welders union that fixes ships gets $90 an hour the welders working on repairs for the Tobin bridge get $90 an hour.
For contrast the expansion of state Route 3 from the NH line to Route 128/I95 was put out to a private bid. The general contractor put each piece of the project out to bid to multiple unions. So the Teamsters halls in western Massachusetts competed against Teamsters halls in eastern Massachusetts for all the trucking jobs. Same for the electricians and any other trade you could think of. They got good wages, but fair wages. Not insane wages. The project came in on budget.
I have heard stories of other states paying whatever the highest union wage in the country is. So if pipefitters working in Alaska get $150 an hour that same price is paid on public works projects in states like California and Hawaii.
I would not doubt it if some of that is going on here when you look at the numbers being thrown around.
The Big Dig had some chump broom pushing jobs making $80 an hour.
For contrast the expansion of state Route 3 from the NH line to Route 128/I95 was put out to a private bid. The general contractor put each piece of the project out to bid to multiple unions. So the Teamsters halls in western Massachusetts competed against Teamsters halls in eastern Massachusetts for all the trucking jobs. Same for the electricians and any other trade you could think of. They got good wages, but fair wages. Not insane wages. The project came in on budget.
I have heard stories of other states paying whatever the highest union wage in the country is. So if pipefitters working in Alaska get $150 an hour that same price is paid on public works projects in states like California and Hawaii.
I would not doubt it if some of that is going on here when you look at the numbers being thrown around.
The Big Dig had some chump broom pushing jobs making $80 an hour.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 13th Jul
+2
Votes
You ignore the section of HSR in the LA metro area
You are quite right about the costs of doing any kind of road or rail expansion in Southern California. Unfortunately, this includes the HSR section that will go between UC Riverside and LA, with a spur down to Anaheim (see http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/uploadedImages/Routes/Project_Sections/Preferred_state_map_FINAL.jpg ).
I lived in Southern California from the '50s until the early '90s, so I remember the "golden age" of freeway construction there. Most of it was done by the '70s, and each project became more and more difficult as land became more expensive and people objected to the disruption. The biggest example of this was the Foothill Freeway. The western half was completed in 1976, and the land was purchased for the eastern leg to be built next. But people along that route objected, lawsuits were filed, and the freeway was not built. Caltrans struggled for years to keep the right-of-way on the eastern half. Finally, the need for the freeway outweighed all the objections and the eastern half was built starting in 1990. It wasn't completed until 2007, the eastern half being about 40 miles long in total.
My point here is that it's going to be EXTREMELY difficult to get the right-of-way in the LA basin for the HSR. The route largely parallels the Foothill Freeway, so we already know it's going to face fierce opposition. Sure, some people will be swayed by the idea of HSR, but for many communities it will be just another wall dividing their city in two. Given that there will be only about 8 stations in the LA basin, most communities will see the HSR cut through their boundaries without any way to get on it except by driving miles to the nearest station. It's clear that the strategy to build the sections in the middle of nowhere first is to cynically justify the building of the HSR line later in the LA and San Francisco regions (who says bureaucrats are mindless sheep?)
Note that including Palm Springs there are six regional airports in the LA area to fly to anywhere in California, and they are more widely dispersed.
I lived in Southern California from the '50s until the early '90s, so I remember the "golden age" of freeway construction there. Most of it was done by the '70s, and each project became more and more difficult as land became more expensive and people objected to the disruption. The biggest example of this was the Foothill Freeway. The western half was completed in 1976, and the land was purchased for the eastern leg to be built next. But people along that route objected, lawsuits were filed, and the freeway was not built. Caltrans struggled for years to keep the right-of-way on the eastern half. Finally, the need for the freeway outweighed all the objections and the eastern half was built starting in 1990. It wasn't completed until 2007, the eastern half being about 40 miles long in total.
My point here is that it's going to be EXTREMELY difficult to get the right-of-way in the LA basin for the HSR. The route largely parallels the Foothill Freeway, so we already know it's going to face fierce opposition. Sure, some people will be swayed by the idea of HSR, but for many communities it will be just another wall dividing their city in two. Given that there will be only about 8 stations in the LA basin, most communities will see the HSR cut through their boundaries without any way to get on it except by driving miles to the nearest station. It's clear that the strategy to build the sections in the middle of nowhere first is to cynically justify the building of the HSR line later in the LA and San Francisco regions (who says bureaucrats are mindless sheep?)
Note that including Palm Springs there are six regional airports in the LA area to fly to anywhere in California, and they are more widely dispersed.
Posted by zackers
Updated - 19th Jul
0
Votes
Great points.
You observation about communities opposing giving up land without getting a HSR station is spot on for one of the biggest flaws in the California HSR plan.
HSR is not a metro rail. A well designed HSR system has a minimum 200 miles between stops. You want fast trains to go fast. 30 miles or less between stations is a gross waste of HSR best asset. Speed.
Regional rail, light rail, monorail, buses and anything else you can think of is what should handle the need for frequent stops and should feed into and out of centralized HSR stations.
Regional rail running at 80 to 120 mph and light rail running up to 80 mph are more cost effective solutions for multiple stops. Regional rail should stop no more often then every 20 miles. It is for your larger regional markets. Light rail can stop as often as needed to fill the gaps. HSRs on dedicated tracks fits in to handle the 200 miles or more running between major metropolitan areas. The desert southwest is the prefect place to start the US HSR system.
Local system design is important to make it all work. Local train schedules need to keep the number of stops reasonable. A train stopping 12 times in 40 miles, like the MBTA does going north out of Boston, is almost useless to a commuter. And contrary to popular myths, trains do run into traffic. Little details like locating stations on side tracks to allow other trains to pass on the main line while a train is stopped loading can make a huge difference in day to day operations. Another problem is most commuter rail runs on the same tracks as freight trains. Commuter trains are often held up while freight trains stop to drop cars at train yards.
All of these problems and the solutions are almost as old as trains themselves, but have been forgotten by the alleged experts behind the California HSR plan.
HSR is not a metro rail. A well designed HSR system has a minimum 200 miles between stops. You want fast trains to go fast. 30 miles or less between stations is a gross waste of HSR best asset. Speed.
Regional rail, light rail, monorail, buses and anything else you can think of is what should handle the need for frequent stops and should feed into and out of centralized HSR stations.
Regional rail running at 80 to 120 mph and light rail running up to 80 mph are more cost effective solutions for multiple stops. Regional rail should stop no more often then every 20 miles. It is for your larger regional markets. Light rail can stop as often as needed to fill the gaps. HSRs on dedicated tracks fits in to handle the 200 miles or more running between major metropolitan areas. The desert southwest is the prefect place to start the US HSR system.
Local system design is important to make it all work. Local train schedules need to keep the number of stops reasonable. A train stopping 12 times in 40 miles, like the MBTA does going north out of Boston, is almost useless to a commuter. And contrary to popular myths, trains do run into traffic. Little details like locating stations on side tracks to allow other trains to pass on the main line while a train is stopped loading can make a huge difference in day to day operations. Another problem is most commuter rail runs on the same tracks as freight trains. Commuter trains are often held up while freight trains stop to drop cars at train yards.
All of these problems and the solutions are almost as old as trains themselves, but have been forgotten by the alleged experts behind the California HSR plan.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 19th Jul
0
Votes
Solutions DO exist to getting into city centres
HSR does indeed need a route past slow trains to reach city centres - but this has now been solved in loads of ways in the 12,000 miles of new lines built in the last 2 decades all over the world.
In most places there is an existing rail route that can be expanded with extra tracks, or a freeway that could have 2 tracks laid over it on a viaduct (as with New York's skytrain). More typically the route is put into a tunnel for the final section to the city centre (as our HS1 line runs into London via the Stratford London Olympic site that you are about to see on TV). The tunnelled route is the most expensive - but have no planning problems!
As for stations, a HSR will have very few. Your mass transit systems are supposed to get people to those HSR stations - which may be SOLELY in the city centre itself and just outside at a single park & ride or airport hub interchange location (eg Frankfurt city centre and Frankfurt airport or the central Paris stations paired with Paris CDG).
In Europe, trains have taken the place of many short haul air journeys and airlines now own some train companies. Air France recently announced that it wanted to run trains instead of planes
In most places there is an existing rail route that can be expanded with extra tracks, or a freeway that could have 2 tracks laid over it on a viaduct (as with New York's skytrain). More typically the route is put into a tunnel for the final section to the city centre (as our HS1 line runs into London via the Stratford London Olympic site that you are about to see on TV). The tunnelled route is the most expensive - but have no planning problems!
As for stations, a HSR will have very few. Your mass transit systems are supposed to get people to those HSR stations - which may be SOLELY in the city centre itself and just outside at a single park & ride or airport hub interchange location (eg Frankfurt city centre and Frankfurt airport or the central Paris stations paired with Paris CDG).
In Europe, trains have taken the place of many short haul air journeys and airlines now own some train companies. Air France recently announced that it wanted to run trains instead of planes
Posted by JohnJefkins
20th Jul
+2
Votes
Solutions exist. Few will implement them.
For California's proposed HSR line, there will be many stops; a political requirement for the line. Either the proposed train will never reach advertised speeds, or there will be a lot of bypassed stations that we'll be wasting billions on building.
As for Europe, expansion of the low-fare carriers is expanding far faster then HSR ridership; so much so that the Europeans are trying to slow that growth by implementing carbon taxes to make trains more attractive.
As for Europe, expansion of the low-fare carriers is expanding far faster then HSR ridership; so much so that the Europeans are trying to slow that growth by implementing carbon taxes to make trains more attractive.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
20th Jul
-3
Votes
Bring on the HSR...
California desperately needs HSR as does the rest of the US... Those opposed are clueless morons who have never experienced HSR first hand... In Europe HSR is the best thing since sliced bread.... Europe has urban sprawl just like the US, so flush that argument down the toilet. We have to think about the congested future of the country and HSR is the best answer to resolve that issue. Yes, HSR can be targeted by terrorists, but unlike a plane, it can't be flown out of the US nor into a building. If the train is electric, it can be stopped at any time. And hopefully it can be integrated into the rest of the country and take the place of most plane... I would love to be able to take HSR from SF to NY... It may take a little longer than plane, but it should be well worth it and unlike a plane, I wouldn't be forced to sit that entire time and I could just relax and enjoy the trip.
Posted by i8thecat4
11th Jul
+1
Vote
Just say no to boondogles.
I can fly from Boston to DC for less than our somewhat high speed rail and get there much faster. I have read similar estimates for California's proposed system. As for cost, look at our Big Dig, it started out at $2 Billion, went to $15 Billion a couple of years ago, and now they are saying it will really be $24 Billion. These projects never come in under budget or on time. Good luck California.
Posted by philwhite42@...
11th Jul
+3
Votes
I love HSR is Europe...
...and take it every chance I get. But it's always with the knowledge that 50% of the price of my ticket is paid for by hapless European taxpayers who have half the standard of living I do. I appreciate their sacrifice for my comfort and convenience. And BTW, most of those countries are bankrupt.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
12th Jul
0
Votes
No, it's not
"desperately needed." What is available now is working. People (especially politicians and those who stand to get rich from this) get all starry-eyed over "high-speed rail" and don't seem to be too concerned about the cost. Make no mistake, this will cost far more than they are saying and promise far less. Most things government gets involved with end up like that.
Anytime something is "desperately needed," shortcuts are taken and we end up with something less than we wanted. Maybe it can work, but there has to be a better way to do it. Maybe if proponents of such things would stop trying to demonize private transportation (cars) and try to sell it on its merits? And why does government always have to be involved? Taxpayers just get milked that way and we are out of money.
You can bet if this gets built that TSA will eventually be involved. Now you can get molested before getting on the train as well.
Anytime something is "desperately needed," shortcuts are taken and we end up with something less than we wanted. Maybe it can work, but there has to be a better way to do it. Maybe if proponents of such things would stop trying to demonize private transportation (cars) and try to sell it on its merits? And why does government always have to be involved? Taxpayers just get milked that way and we are out of money.
You can bet if this gets built that TSA will eventually be involved. Now you can get molested before getting on the train as well.
Posted by mudpuppy1
13th Jul
0
Votes
You ignore the obveous.
The politics of doing what is needed to create inner city HSR for the California plan has already killed the LA to Las Vegas route because the land takings to run a track east were deemed too expensive and politically untouchable.
They are the same NIMBY problems that killed track improvement for the Acela routes in the northeast corridor decades ago. Amtrak gave up decades ago on improving the track in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
They are once again talking about improving the NYC to DC tracks, but that has been brought up and discarded at least 4 times over the life of Acela with no progress being made.
The fun fight will be seen after the first train runs. People who fought and lost the land takings will have a fit when the first train screams past their house at 200 mph.
This is another political reality Acela ran in to, especially in Connecticut. Neighbor imposed speed restrictions have kept it to 80 mph on all but the most remote tracks.
Yet another reason why HSR is perfect for the wide open nothing in the American southwest.
They are the same NIMBY problems that killed track improvement for the Acela routes in the northeast corridor decades ago. Amtrak gave up decades ago on improving the track in Connecticut and Massachusetts.
They are once again talking about improving the NYC to DC tracks, but that has been brought up and discarded at least 4 times over the life of Acela with no progress being made.
The fun fight will be seen after the first train runs. People who fought and lost the land takings will have a fit when the first train screams past their house at 200 mph.
This is another political reality Acela ran in to, especially in Connecticut. Neighbor imposed speed restrictions have kept it to 80 mph on all but the most remote tracks.
Yet another reason why HSR is perfect for the wide open nothing in the American southwest.
Posted by Hates Idiots
20th Jul
+1
Vote
wide open nothing?
A good hunk of the LA to LV route is wide open nothing.
You can extend out light rail/monorail lines to the edge, and then run HSR from there.
Or just declare the HSR end points to be "metro bus centers" to insure that there is good bus service from most everywhere to the HSR startpoint.
People will ride buses to specific destinations, provided they don't need to transfer.
You can extend out light rail/monorail lines to the edge, and then run HSR from there.
Or just declare the HSR end points to be "metro bus centers" to insure that there is good bus service from most everywhere to the HSR startpoint.
People will ride buses to specific destinations, provided they don't need to transfer.
Posted by James.McMurtry
22nd Jul