Slashdot Mirror
California Going Ahead With Bullet Train
An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from the NY Times:
"[California state leaders] have rallied around a plan to build a 520-mile high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, cutting the trip from a six-hour drive to a train ride of two hours and 38 minutes. And they are doing it in the face of what might seem like insurmountable political and fiscal obstacles. The pro-train constituency has not been derailed by a state report this month that found the cost of the bullet train tripling to $98 billion for a project that would not be finished until 2033, by news that Republicans in Congress are close to eliminating federal high-speed rail financing this year, by opposition from California farmers and landowners upset about tracks tearing through their communities or by questions about how much the state or private businesses will be able to contribute."
Having the costs "triple" to $98 billion when the bond measure was for $98 billion should be a surprise to anyone. Of course with boondoggles like this, it's no wonder that California is a fiscal crises.
The first transcontinental railroad took less than 10 years to build -- considerably less. Before doing something like this, figure out why the hell it's going to take 30 years, and fix that first.
Why not just subsidize aircraft flights? Really, 98 billion dollars could get you a lot of sorties and they could begin immediately.
Between the x-ray powered strip searches, the paranoid interrogations, and sexual molestations by abusive, angry pedophile wannabe mall cops, only masochists and boot lickers will want to ride in what could have been a beautiful piece of engineering. I'd rather drive in relative freedom than take a bullet train and be humiliated, brutalized, violated, and treated like an inmate. To quote the Elephant Man, "I am not an animal!".
If the TSA could be kept away, then it would be great. But that isn't going to happen.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Is there a chance the track could bend?
This again? This train will *never* be built. And it's a stupid thing to build. Passenger rail hasn't made money since the mid 1800's, going faster won't make it any more viable.
Can someone explain how it is crowded countries like Japan or Germany can manage to get land for high speed rail, but the US can't?
Especially since Japan seems to have such problems getting land for airports that they have to build artificial islands just to house them.
Yeah but no, but yeah. But no.
build a 520 mile-high speed rail
it gives great views from up that far - plus the pumping music and free drugs is certainly something I'd get behind.
The total cost is $11 per square foot. Or, to put it another way, since the proposed corridor is 100 feet wide, $138 per foot of rail (there will be 4 tracks for a total of 8 rails).
I'm no expert, but that seems a little high. On the other hand, maybe it's not, in which case we're fucked, since if this is the cost to build one railway imagine how much trouble we'll have replacing every single bridge, overpass, and tunnel in the country as they reach the ends of their lifetimes.
It's called the DesertXpress, going from Victorville (80 miles NE of Los Angeles) to Vegas. It originally was going to Anaheim (30 miles SE of LA), but the Cajon Pass is scary in a train.
I will certainly ride this train if it actually gets built. But it's a really, really dumb idea, and what we're likely to end up with is a train that goes from nowhere to nowhere because public support evaporated when the bill came due.
And remember, this is the state that cancelled dental insurance for poor people because it ran out of money.
In twenty years, California will have swollen to perhaps 50million people, many of them taking the I-5 or US101 route from LA to the Bay area. I-5 is pretty much clogged now: imagine what happens if you have to continue to resize Oakland, San Jose, SF, Burbank, LAX, John Wayne, Palm Springs, Sacramento, and all of the other regional airports to accommodate grown-- along with the freeways. Something's going to give. Invest now, and the infrastructure is there. Don't invest, and it's going to get uglier than it is now.... much uglier.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
That's what they're building. No, we actually don't have the money. But when has reality stopped backers of High Speed Rail?
LA to Vegas would make more economic sense. But this whole enterprise isn't about making sense, it's about funneling pork to state politicians and their buddies backing them -- unions and corporations.
Even the unapologetically liberal LA Times is critical of this turkey of a project.
I was just recently looking into buying tickets from Philadelphia to MA for travel. Guess what? It's cheaper to fly. By a factor of 3.
Huh? Rarely is that the case. You might have hit a peak travel time or something. I pulled a date out of my butt and asked for Philly to Boston on December 1st, and Amtrak's prices were between $88 and $126 (Northeast Regional). There were also Acela Express fares that ranged as high as $245, but that's not apples to apples (Acela Express is all business class.)
Southwest Airlines prices, in the meantime, were $161 flat (Anytime fare).
Regardless, expensive isn't as much my consideration. The train (at least, the Northeast Corridor, along which I am very fortunate to live) is an order of magnitude less hassle than the airplane. And I can get up, walk around, and hang out in the cafe car. And no one yells at you for congregating outside the toilet. And the seats are actually reasonably sized. And along the NEC, the train will drop you off downtown, instead of some airport 10 miles out from the city where you then need to rent a car or take a bus.
You can object to TSA practices - the violation of privacy, the ineffectiveness, and the rare but flagrant acts of sadism or molestation - without the pointless exaggeration. To hear you talk I'd be much safer and more comfortable wearing a "Democracy Now!" through Pyongyang Station than I would be boarding a California bullet train.
Blathering about pedophilia, fascism, and interrogations just makes your objections sound like paranoid ravings. Yes, you must be persistent, passionate, and creative in protecting your rights and protesting their violation, but above all you must be rational.
Your words are nothing but a disservice to anyone fighting for the Bill of Rights: it makes their job much harder when their rational objections become conflated with the rampant hyperbole and absurdly loaded language of people like you.
This doesn't make sense. A rider arriving in LA is going to need a car when they get off the train, unless they fancy spending a lot of time waiting for on Metro (formerly known as the RTD - Rough, Tough, and Dangerous.) Total boondoggle.
It would make a hell of a lot more sense to link the Portland-Seattle-Vancouver, BC corridor with high-speed rail, since these are all cities where one can actually get around reasonably well without a car. It'd be a game-changer to have TGV-speed rail on that corridor - one hour between the downtown cores of Portland and Seattle, or Seattle and Vancouver? I've had regular, daily intracity commutes longer than that.
Oh well.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
What they need is a monorail.
The Admin and the Engineer
California is a walking bankruptcy, and they are doing this? To what? Help people leave as fast as possible?
In twenty years, California will have swollen to perhaps 50million people
Only if the Chinese or Mexicans invade. Most of the people I know in California with actual productive jobs are trying to get out, and blowing another $98,000,000,000 on some stupid railway will only make them more determined to do so.
California is already over 2 billion short on the budget this year and is long overdue for a serious financial wake-up call.
Hope all the other states are taking notes on "what not to do"... Projects like the "high speed" rail just dump gas on the fire.
Way to go spendthrift voters of California!
The reason why we have so many airports, so many highways, and so few trains already is due to the current subsidy structure.
They are critical of the people behind it, but they still support it: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/04/opinion/la-ed-train-20111104
They're about to fire up a line from Fullerton to Vegas. The prices they listed were high, tho. Only a few bucks cheaper than flying and much more expensive than driving without saving any time.
Ah, there it is. "X Train" with an estimated start date of late 2012. $99 each way and 4.5 hours.
The reason people don't travel by train in the USA is because a train trip cost more than DOUBLE the cost of a flight and it takes one day per flight hour to get to your destination (with multiple transfers).
The reason a train trip costs a lot and takes a long time (for most trips outside of the Northeast Corridor) is because we haven't invested in the railways to make it otherwise. I reluctantly agree that long-haul high-speed rail in the United States is probably a pipe dream and will probably never be a sufficiently cost-effective compared to the other options. But regional rail (like the Northeast Corridor) generally is useful and cost-effective (relatively speaking - all transportation infrastructure loses money; that's why the government does it and not the private sector). California is one of the few places where regional rail makes sense in my opinion - there's a lot of churn between the major cities.
(Side note: Please don't start your post in the subject line, it's very confusing to follow)
I thought private space combined with 3D printing was going to revolutionize everything? I was thinking private 3D printed sub-orbital transports, flights leaving every half hour, FILLED with people!
That's an interesting point. Could SpaceX build a reusable suborbital launcher which could fly the same distance for less than the train?
My guess would be yes, given how ludicrously expensive this railroad is going to be.
As someone who just moved to California for a tech job, I am getting a kick out of your reply. I don't know why I'd want to leave, unless I didn't want to be employed.
Yeah, I too would like to believe, but the track record is abysmal and getting worse.
There is a cigarette paper between rationality and rationalisation.
They even made a movie about the case Larry Flint won, but nobody else has his courage.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
I assume by MA you mean Massachusetts; there's a major Amtrak route from DC to Boston that passes through Philadelphia.
tickets for that route are more expensive than usual right now because of the holiday timeframe, I wonder how the airlines are.
Acela 'Express' is way more expensive, but regular trains also run along that route.
I live in Rochester NY, right on the route from Boston to Chicago (which includes Cleveland), as well as a route that that serves upstate NY and Toronto.
less-direct routing to where one needs to go would be a problem if Amtrak goes there at all, but that's often a moot point.
Amtrak could be a lot better, but it's generally not as bad as you're making it out to be here.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
why don't we look at existing infrastructure: it sucks.
It's not so much the infrastructure sucks as that it doesn't exist in most of the country. Amtrak has basically no passenger rail other than the Northeast Corridor. They borrow off the freight railways, thus they're limited to low speed trains and subject to delays when freight is being moved.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Amen.
before I was forced to retire due to ALS I had need to go down to a remote office in LA multiple times per month from the SF Bay area. Airplanes are quick once you leave the ground but the absolute living hell that is air travel made me dread the trip. Having a fast train is something I dreamed about since the month I spent in Europe on business. Totally stress-free "commute". Tie the fast line into municipal light rail like the widely used BART and San Jose light rail and you have a very successful merger of two huge metropolitan economies.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
If the Beltway collapsed, I bet we'd find money for that post haste...
Aren't there several hundred miles of canals and such that need to be rebuilt and replaced all over California?
Also outside of earthquakes can't they just build two tunnels using boring machines? The Swiss ran 2 35miles tunnels for around/under $10billion hell so did Japan with the Seikan and England and France with the Channel Tunnel so why can't they do the same in Cali? If they can have a subway they can build a damn underground high-speed rail way. Besides wouldn't a tunnel be more Eco Friendly then a bunch of above ground stuff then again we're probably to inept to bother.
As a proud native Californian, I say get the fuck out. You probably took that job from a Californian because you are cheap, and now you're just one of those inbred, cornfed assholes driving up the property costs.
U.S. out of California!
The issue in my understanding isn't so much the cost as the product. There are plenty of places in the US where high speed rail makes sense, even in CA there are places, but this particular line ultimately covers way too much ground and there's numerous ways in which it could go wrong.
They could just as easily do smaller sections with an eye to link them up in the future, we've been doing something similar around here with our light rail, but they're going to do the entire project linking up what looks to be about half of southern CA.
It probably wouldn't be much of an issue if they'd not have the regular income problems at the state level. But with all the debt the state tends to rack up, I have no idea how they intend to ultimately finish the project. If they can make it economically viable then it would ultimately pay itself off, I just don't see that happening.
Sure beats the money going to a small group of bankers! At least those union people are numerous and actually do some labor between their breaks. Not to say that this is ok simply because there are worse groups to funnel money to but merely to put it into perspective. A fair amount of our politics is STILL about communities of real people voting for politicians to funnel money to them; not all the graft goes to the 1% (just a lot of it which is how most get into the 1% BTW... )
Some things pass simply to help some state get an influx of money; most our states in the USA are always broke and the few good states pay to prop those up, CA is one of those states BTW! In the EU they don't prop up their members, not much and not today. I refuse to get upset over a paying state (CA) getting some of their federal dollars returned; even if it is for something like this --- which is largely their own fault for letting the public land get robbed for short term gain so it costs 1000x more to buy a part of that land back again. My idiotic state sold off a lot of rail lines generations ago; making it prohibitively expensive to buy them back. I only wonder how long before our public road system is sold off for a short term gain! Our state fair grounds were already!! (and they've doubled admission and other fees + it actually costs the state now while before it brought in some money.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Consider any project financially unsound enough that the locals would never pay for it. Then add matching federal funds so the cost is cut in half, and all of a sudden it gets the local vote to go ahead, now that it is half financed by distant federal taxpayers. Problem for the locals is, the distant taxpayers have some dumb project in their own backyard also. This is the way dumb things get justified all over the country.
If you do the math, you could GIVE everyone a plane ticket a year on Southwest and come out ahead. Someone needs to put up the reality check of what it actually costs per Resident per year to build and then operate.
Did you expand your analysis to the energy/pollution savings? And how does the cost/benefit stacks up against other ways to reduce energy consumption or pollution.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
Yes, high speed rail is going to be expensive. Yes, it's now projected to cost much more than the original estimate. (The cost has largely increased due to delays (the longer it takes to build a project, the more it costs), particularly fuelled by NIMBY appeasement ("We don't want the train passing near our house!" "But it is much quieter than standard trains and will increase your property values by being near an HSR station." "Build a tunnel!" "Okay, we'll build a tunnel." "The costs on this project are ballooning!").)
But you have to compare the cost to the alternatives. California's freeways and airports are jammed. With increasing population and mobility, something to move people around will have to be built. And the estimated costs to add volume to airports and highways is estimated to be $100-billion as well.
And, to top it off, high speed rail runs on an operational profit. (This means that yearly revenues are higher than yearly costs.) Everywhere. Yes, high speed rail lines run an operational profit in Japan and France, Spain, Russia, Taiwan and car-loving-and-train-hating America. In Britain all rail is private, and for-profit companies are in fierce competition to pay for the rights to run rail services, which are barely at HSR levels if at all. It's a strongly held misconception that rail travel is unprofitable: HSR makes a profit all over the world, and it usually subsidizes local and regional rail transport (which the US has much of).
And though only the Tokyo-Osaka and Paris-Lyon line have paid off all their construction costs, that's because they're the oldest HSR lines; others are on track to in the future. Which modes of transportation don't pay off their construction costs? Oh, that's right, nearly all roads. Remember Carmageddon/The Carpocalypse, when an overpass outside LA was torn down, shutting traffic for the weekend? That was all so they could widen the highway through a mountain pass. Were the anti-HSR people asking for ridership studies for the Sepulveda Pass? Were they asking for the expansion to run an operational profit, let alone an overall profit? Of course not; only rail is subjected to such standards.
Add to this that a train is much more efficient in transporting this number of people, from an energy, environmental and economic perspective, and this is using studies that are assuming that gas prices will be relatively stable over the next few decades.
Obviously there still has to be overview of the project, making sure money is being spent efficiently and for best value. But the entire transportation sector needs to be looked at from this viewpoint. Airlines can work with rail to transport their passengers on their "last mile", freeing up their planes for more profitable medium- and long-haul routes, like done in Germany (Frankfurt Airport has two train stations). Road funds can be diverted to repairing our existing infrastructure as opposed to building more asphalt that needs to be maintained. And everyone will get to where they are going sooner. If this is done, North America will look back 20 years from now, not wondering "How could they do this?", but instead "How did they wait so long?"
Bay Area and LA-area airports are at or near capacity, and will be bursting at the seams in the next 15-20 years. Expanding capacity by adding new runways or building new airports will cost tens of billions of dollars (DIA cost $3 billion, and that was for building an airport in the middle of nowhere almost 20 years ago that handles less traffic than LAX does). Furthermore, air travel can be affected by weather (fog, thunderstorms, in CA's case) that doesn't affect rail
Transportation options are important, there is no single perfect mode.
If you do the math, add the cost of the airports.... probably 20-25 $B each...
Of course if you compare existing infrastructure to new projects, the existing one will come out ahead.
But what happens when the existing one saturates?
Having lived in California, you must not know much about the fault lines.
See, the majority of the fault lines aren't capable of causing much damage. They're too fractured.
The only problems are directly around SF and LA.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
It would be hilarious if SpaceX could build anything that could carry *millions of people a year for 20 years* for the price of this train. If they can do that, then we'll all be living on Mars by the time the train is finished and it won't matter.
Right, that's exactly why no one would ever build a high speed rail system somewhere like Japan where they are also prone to earthquakes. Obviously a train getting derailed is the biggest concern in quake prone areas.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
As a proud native Californian, I say get the fuck out. You probably took that job from a Californian because you are cheap, and now you're just one of those inbred, cornfed assholes driving up the property costs. ... or, as the rest of the country says, "Welcome!"
As a Californian transplant, I say you should get the fuck out. You haven't done a fucking thing with this place in decades. Make way for those of us that will, you lazy asshole.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
And it costs a lot less to build and maintain that infrastructure than the boondoggle that HSR is gonna be.
Yes, because of course the government hasn't subsidized the airline industry and airport infrastructure for 75 years...
Here's a fun fact: Amtrak's funding is less than 1% of federal spending on transportation, and many rail lines in the US are privately owned.
High speed trains are electric, and electricity can come from renewable resources or nuclear. They don't require much energy to keep rolling, and they can use regenerative braking (like many public transit lines already do.) You know all those commercials on NPR about how cheap it is to move freight by rail? They're RIGHT.
Airplanes generate enormous amounts of pollution, and they put it in the worst place possible. Remember how nice the weather was for several days after September 11th? Turns out we affected the weather pattern when all air traffic was halted:
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-08-07/tech/contrails.climate_1_contrails-cirrus-clouds-david-travis?_s=PM:TECH
Did I mention that airports require huge amounts of space, have to be located outside of cities instead of passing through them, and generate massive amounts of noise and pollution?
Meanwhile, if you stand 2-3 blocks away from a high speed line, all you hear is a whooshing noise.
Please help metamoderate.
Since when were transportation systems supposed to break even? Did you include all the money saved by:
Only then can you measure its true value to taxpayers.
With all due respect I disagree. I would be willing to spend a little extra money and some extra time (within reason, of course) to take the train over a flight any time!
Let me count the ways...
Some of the things are more important than others, but each one of these is the reason I'd gladly chose the train when I can.
might have hit a peak travel time or something
yeah, right now Amtrak lists higher prices/lower availability due to Thanksgiving, apparently.
I agree that with Amtrak it's key to have a direct route to where you need to go.
Northeast Corridor is Boston/DC. big intermediate stops - New York City, Philadelphia, and Baltimore
I live in Rochester NY, right on a route from Boston to Chicago (major stop: Cleveland), as well as a route that that serves upstate NY and Toronto.
the minor stops create a big problem with acceleration/deceleration.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Actually, I could live with even a slow train. The reality is, if you take Amtrak out of LA to SF, you end up taking a bus up to Bakersfield.
The only problems are directly around SF and LA.
...which happen to be at either end of this little rail line.
Speakin' of which, given the ungodly size of both metro areas, how the hell are they going to avoid having to tack on at least another hour or two at each end just to negotiate the traffic, comply with speed and noise regulations, impositions tacked on by every burg that surrounds SanFran and LA, etc etc etc etc etc. ?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
If we actually had $100B to spend on California transportation infrastructure we should
1) Improve the 7(!) airports between the Bay Area and LA.
2) Improve commuter rail as the previous poster suggested. Grade separated BART down the Caltrain tracks, BART to San Jose, Geary Ave Subway (and those are just the Bay Area projects).
The flights are quite fast at roughly an hour in the air, and there are few weather delays. The local rail projects would vastly improve the commutes of many and make it enjoyable to be car-free in may parts of the Bay Area.
I like airplanes. I really do. Someday I'll fly one myself. But beyond that, air travel has it's own set of problems. Each airplane "ride" has this annoying process called "boarding and deplaning". It's the whole reason why you have to show up 1 hour early to the airport, and while your flight arrives at maybe 2pm, it still takes you 30 minutes to be on your way out of the airport. And that's all IF things go smoothly. Chances are a bag gets lost, somebody holds up the security line, etc.
No matter how hard you try, you can't argue against that. A transfer in a large sized airport will need at least 1 hour to make it assuming things go well. But usually you plan on a 2 hours between transfer just incase you're delayed for whatever reason. It doesn't matter where you are, this seems to be the norm all over the world for air passenger travel.
A train transfer on the other hand can be as short as however fast you can run to the next train. There's also none of that take-off and landing stuff. You can even line up outside the door as the train comes to a stop. A ticket purchase can also be made minutes before the actual departure. It is quite a trip to see a good working train system in action. I recommend it. We don't have much of it here in the states.
Now on the to the cost. There are certainly a lot of dumb reasons why the California HSR project is getting inflated. It basically boils down to two groups that I'll call "Not in my backyards (NIMBY)" and "Please in my backyard". The first is easy to explain, but it is mainly rich people and people like yourself that think the project is useless. So these people band together to prevent any meaningful progress happen. I'd say their strategy is akin to that of the GOP's strategy in congress (whine as much as possible so that nothing gets done). Rich people obviously don't want the project because it will change their communities along the proposed track lines. People like yourself don't want it because you don't think it is economical.
The strange thing is the farmers and small towns along the valley DO want the train. In many studies when HSR is built, small towns that get a trains stop actually see population and economic growth due to more people having access to the town. So this becomes a lot of bickering and whining for stations, some which may not even be worth the hassle in the initial segment.
Finally there's a lot of freight companies and FRA standards that make absolutely no sense. Not only does this affect HSR, but it also affects local passenger rail services. Our passenger rail trains are generally overweight due to "safety" rules enforced by the FRA on minimum weight.
So if you combine all of those factors, what we have is a lot of unnecessary needs to address factors just so that everyone in their municipality or interest can benefit. That means unnecessary tunneling where it is perfectly viable to be at grade. Unnecessary extra tracks. Unnecessary stations. Unnecessary train specifications.
But of course people like you have to make this political, make it black-and-white. "There is no viable HSR system" is obviously not the case when the rest of the world continues to expand passenger rail services. This project is obviously overweight, I agree with that, but let's at least understand what's wrong rather than fill it up with logical fallacies. It's quite obvious that's how many things are working out in this country. Everyone seems more interested in throwing up own straw-men rather than working together to do what's reasonable.
Fun observation, the interstate highway system is probably the most expensive public works project in history. Should that have been considered a boondoggle? From wikipedia: "The initial cost estimate for the system was $25 billion over 12 years; it ended up costing $114 billion (adjusted for inflation, $425 billion in 2006 dollars) and took 35 years."
If I had to run the project I'd certainly look at implementing a shorter initial segment with less oppositio
You have your cause and effect reversed.
Project Code Name: Pliskin?
The measure was sold to voters as requiring profitability of every segment before another was built. Basically, the whole endeavor is fraud.
I don't have to go trough security checks that involve taking off my shoes, my belt and stand in line like cattle
I don't have to opt out of an x-ray machine to be groped by a security guard (they are reasonably professional, but given a choice I'd rather not be patted down)
I can bring some frigging liquids with me if I feel the need to. A whole industry seems to have formed around manufacturing small plastic bottles (only the ones that cost $7 a pop are actually usable, too)
Keep in mind that they'll probably have some pretty impressive security on a bullet train. So you may not get these benefits.
That said, you make a good point. While "economy" train travel is far from luxurious (I took Amtrak "coach" from Vermont to South Carolina back when I was 18, spending about 2 days in an airline-seat), it wasn't horrible. I used to take the train from New York City to Baltimore back when I was young and in love and I remember it being much more spacious than an equivalent airline seat.
I'd imagine one issue with airlines is that an airplane can only take n people. If more than n people want to ride that airplane, the price for a seat has to go up. Conversely, I'd imagine it costs less to attach another passenger car to the train and take another 50 people than it would to have a second flight.
How about a plane ticket a year? Multiple times a day? For anyone who asks, even if they're not American?
Yeah, thought not.
Something tells me that the state government of California isn't particularly interested in building a railroad for Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
LA to Vegas would make more economic sense.
Would it? L.A. to Vegas means crossing state lines, making it a multi-state venture and probably getting the Federal government involved, too.
Breakfast served all day!
That's if you take the San Joaquin. It's "quicker." But if you take the Coast Starlight from LA (or Jack London Square or Emeryville at the north end), you'll be able to take the train all the way (minus the quick bus into SF from Oakland/Emeryville.) It does take longer, but you get to see some amazing bits of the California coast. It does take a half a day, though. High speed, it is not. But it's your slow train. No need to take a bus to/from BFD.
[UID-HeinzIntel]
Except for extremely busy corridors, trains make little environmental or economic sense. I frankly doubt that this is a sensible way of spending the money for California. And while one might say that it will stimulate the economy, building something more useful will stimuate the economy even more. And this system will probably be in need of tax payer support indefinitely.
On the other hand, trains are actually a really nice way to travel, so in that sense I hope they will be building it.
Don't travel at all. It's the cheapest and pollutes the least.
And since you mention European passenger rail systems, they are increasingly in trouble as well.
In 20 years, we'll probably have self-driving cars, and we'll be wondering why we wasted that much money on rail.
This is for the future. It won't even be done for over twenty years. When this railway is at its peak, California will haves tens of millions more people (more demand) and jet fuel will be much more expensive (less supply). Still think you could just give away a bunch of tickets?
But hey, it's way easier to scream and holler about how evil UNIONS are, then it is to actually plan for the future.
The Feds are already involved since much of the right-of-way exists on Federal land (the Federal Government is the largest property-holder of all States West of the Mississippi river - including California). And the politicians here in CA are counting on Federal dollars as well...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We already have Federal subsidies orders of magnitude larger for trains as compared to air. If trains can't compete with literally 40 times the subsidies to air travel, then the solution isn't to tax air travel more - it's to made train travel much more efficient.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Here's a fun fact: Amtrak's funding is less than 1% of federal spending on transportation, and many rail lines in the US are privately owned.
Here's an even more fun fact: passenger rail subsidies are 40 TIMES that of commercial aviation subsidies, on a per-passenger-mile basis. We pay a LOT of money to move people by train, compared to moving people via airplanes...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No kiddin. They *still* haven't finished that bridge over Eastwood Ravine. Maybe by 2015.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
The state of California is populated with a bunch of morons who keep trying to vote themselves unicorns and rainbows and the idiots in Sacramento don't have the balls to actually do their jobs so the budget never gets balanced and the taxes keep going up. California has the highest overall taxes in the entire country. One of the highest state income taxes (about 9%), one of the highest sales taxes (about 8%), one of the highest corporate taxes (about 9%), and excessive fees for just about everything. Because so much money is predestined for someone's pet project (because of stupid ballot initiatives), there will NEVER be enough money to pay for the necessities. The train is just par for the course. The initial track will connect two places that no one in their right mind ever wants to go to, and the remainder will probably not be built in our lifetime.
I was born and raised in California. I'm still here because I'm a tech worker and this is where most of the tech jobs are concentrated. I've watched my state get shoved into the waste bucket by the people who live here and am sick of this shit. For years I've lived by a simple rule when it comes to the ballot. I vote no for anything that forcibly allocates money. No exceptions. I also vote no on all bond measures as I do not believe it is moral to pass the big fucking bill to our children. I also vote no on all tax increases because we're already paying too much (see above).
-- Will program for bandwidth
As it happens, my cousin Vinny is looking to branch out into the rail industry.
Much of the proposed funding is federal stimulus money.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
Our local government built an "intermodal" center recently. It cost $16.1 million. $11 million came from federal stimulus package money, about $4.5 million came from state government, and remainder was paid for by local government. The federal money came from the Inter-Modal Surface Transportation Enhancement Act.
The project damaged 5 adjacent properties, including the city's oldest business, which was forced to close from the damages.
The project was intended to provide both train and bus transportation. The local railroad was supposed to roll in during the ribbon cutting ceremony. $16.1 million later, there are no train tracks even running to the station, and there never will be. The tiny local bus transportation company moved it's operations to the center. So now we have a grandiose 16 million dollar empty bus station for an existing bus company. There is no train. There are no new consumers flocking here to spend money at local businesses. It was a complete failure, and a complete waste.
Why did they do it? It was stimulus money = find somewhere to spend it or lose it. So, a few lucky contractors made a fortune. A few folks were temporarily employed.
... 25 years in fighting off all the complaints from various parties.
5 years in actual construction work.
...and adding passengers increases the denominator...
go to Japan, test it on the line Tokyo-Osaka-Kyushu. The lines have to be chosen carefully, but if you connect megacities with it, then it can be a major economic factor. 100 billion dollar may sound a lot, but it actually isnt. it its operated over 30 years, then this is $8 million per day which you have to get in or subsidise. If you hav 500000 people per day using it, then thats $20 per ticket. 500000 Is the number of people riding per day on the Tokaido Shinkansen. $20 means (at my current rate) that the train has to save me 15 Minutes of my time. And hell, yeah, it did that when i liven in Japan. Going to the next airport (always outside the city), onto a previously booked ticket, waiting for a delayed flight with unreasonable security waiting lines, to the destination city and then have restriction when to travel back was a lot more troublesome than just stumbling into the train station whenever i want, catch a train withing the next 20 minutes without booking before, going many times close to the city center, and returning whenever i wanted.
The economic meaning of the shinkansen for the cities between is incredible. Cities which would otherwise suffer a never-ending drain of companies and young people into the two megacity area are sustainable *only* because of a shinkansen stop nearby.
Yes, but if Washington and Oregon were to submit a proposal such as you describe, wouldn't it have gotten those same stimulus money?
This doesn't make sense. A rider arriving in LA is going to need a car when they get off the train, unless they fancy spending a lot of time waiting for on Metro (formerly known as the RTD - Rough, Tough, and Dangerous.) Total boondoggle.
That also means that all flights between SF and LA don't make any sense because any airplane traveler arriving in LA is going to need a car when they get off the train, unless they fancy spending a lot of time waiting for on Metro (formerly known as the RTD - Rough, Tough, and Dangerous.) Total boondoggle.
Sacramento is populated by absolute psychopaths. The various power lobbies have hooked up IV tubes full of money to the politician's arms. They don't *care* if this shittrain to fuckheadville is practical or not. Practicality and reason are so far off the radar for these criminal scum they might as well be on the moon. We need to just wall off Sacramento. Isolate it and excise it like a cancer tumor.
Populations of Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver are less than Los Angeles alone-- almost less than San Francisco metro area.
For California, the rail project could make living in godforsaken places like Fresno or Bakersfield viable for more people, reducing stress on other major metropolitan areas and encouraging economic growth.
Specific to Los Angeles, they need to expand Metro and create more local transportation hubs. This is independent of any inter-urban transportation projects. Maybe things like zip cars can form a bridge if nothing else is done in 30 years, but one doesn't stop the other.
There are 12 major California airports effectively along the I-5 corridor. To handle 30-year population growth, they would need significant upgrades to runways, terminals, roadways, etc. This is estimated to cost on the order of $150B. The I-5 corridor would also need significant upgrades, likely in the $50B range.
Going HSR creates a more efficient pathway, creates more jobs today, and creates an opportunity to help other areas expand and become more economically viable than just addressing the 12 largest airports would.
More economic sense for who-- Las Vegas? When the system is built, I imagine Vegas would be willing to fund a link on its own. That is the network effect-- as it grows incremental expansion is easier to justify.
Barrier at some point where people travelling by foot will be searched or asked "Pappier bitte".
Maybe in the time it takes them to build the railroad L.A. can build a functional public transit system.
Or, you know, they could just have rental car agencies at the train station. I realize that this is a novel idea that no other form of intercity transit has tried, but I bet it would work.
The first continental railway wasn't going 300 miles per hour. Basically, anywhere they could put tracks at an inclination that was feasible for the locomotives to haul carriages over, was good enough. Now try making tracks that won't bump a train off at 300 mp/h. You need a lot more precision for that. That's why it will take longer to build. Sure, you can accelerate that by adding more monkeys to the equation, but the amount of extra money that would take, would make the project even more expensive. You can't just hire anyone to lay tracks for this kind of thing, so "cheap foreign labor" used for the first continental isn't going to solve this. In fact, you'll be needing expensive foreign labor for it as it is now, because if you were to use only US nationals, you wouldn't have enough qualified people to do it in the 20 years that are planned for it as it is.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Probably, but it would never go down that way.
This is the Pacific Northwest you're talking about - the plan they submitted and got federal money for (to the tune of about $780 million) is to marginally increase the speeds on the existing line, shaving 45 minutes to an hour off a 3.5 hour trip by 2023. (Not kidding, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Northwest_Corridor)
Way to shoot for the moon, guys.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
That's what the studies show. Reality, as usual, is somewhat different. In reality, towns only get stations if and only if they're already significant destinations. Why? Because if you have too many stations to stop at, your HSR isn't very HS any more.
Of course, anyone who doesn't believe (as you seem to do) in any limits or requirements would think like that - it makes it easy to dismiss them as 'political', rather than reality.
Of course, you fail to mention that the increase in time and cost was the result of the system ending up many times larger than intended. It's inconvenient to your argument to introduce reality in place of Big Scary Numbers. (It's also amusing as hell when you've accused others of being political.)
You know, cabs exist as well. You don't absolutely need your own car. Also, a rental will work just fine for people spending more than a business day visiting just one or a few customers. You'd still save time, money and environment by using this train, as opposed to driving up there yourself. By your logic, the airport would be just as useless as a train station.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Ok, so lets build it. But wtf is up withe Bakersfield->Chowchilla route? At $98Bil and 520 miles, that comes out to $188,461,538 per mile. So why the hell are they traveling the at least 20 extra miles to go the Bakersfield/Chowchilla route?
You are forgetting cab fair from and to the airports. That's four cab rides, more than double the amount you're spending on the plane ticket. Also, what makes you think that air fare will will still be that cheap in the years to come?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
It's been shown otherwise for over half a century in Japan and France.
Unions?
Ah, I get it - satire! You are obviously pretending to be a clueless reactionary now that I take a closer look. You really had me going there for a while and I thought you really were that stupid. Well done.
Otherwise the money to build it has been misallocated and would have been better used elsewhere. For the children etc.
Deleted
You realize this isn't going directly to the heart of the city right..This will connect most likely at the end of the BART line in San Fran and North LA above the city. No where near the fault lines. And why haven't we had these problems with Amtrack or freight trains..
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
HSR is an investment to the post peak oil future. When Jet A1 fuel costs $5 per liter only the extremely wealthy can afford to travel by air. I hope you Americans are not counting on that, everybody is rich in future? :) Meanwhile the others (and you!) are landlocked either to low speed electric-hybrid cars or low speed trains, that is if you don't start building HSR now . The question here is that do you Americans want to continue your lifestyle of affordable travel after the fossil fuels are out of question, or do you want to isolate yourselves and remove the last of your competitive features: affordable movement of people and goods?
But then again - "Americans, yes they are that stupid".
What would happen if USA neglects building heterogeneous transport networks and stays on the current trend of fossil fuel automobiles and planes? It is not the end of the world after the oil gets too expensive for transportation. If only you can keep the agriculture running you will not starve and private enterprises will built HSR and electric induction roads very fast. The bad thing is that at that time the rest of the world have those and you are late, so very late that I am afraid someone else has the technological and political leadership in this world. As a North European I wouldn't like to see that happen. America(USA) means a lot to me and I want see you leading the world in the future too.
How about we just fix the bullshit flight screening process?
San Jose Light Rail is "widely used"? Bahahaha... A whole heck of a lot of good that 2 hour train ride to LA is when you have to spend 60 minutes to go just 4 miles on the Light Rail.
you obviously have seen the SJ light rail but just as obviously never use it. I was a regular user from inception until about two years ago. It's cheap and quite popular.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
this is a money sink program that will make some connected people richer and it will create worthless jobs, like any make shift jobs program, it will not benefit the economy in any way.
Creating work for the sake of work does not benefit the economy, these jobs don't produce anything of value to trade with for with those, who trade with you. Any project like this only makes sense when the economy needs it and then the private forces must step in and do it and if they don't, it means the economy does not need this.
Of-course this breaks down when the wrong alternatives are subsidized by the government intervention (roads, cars, bank loans, various insurance frauds perpetrated by the government, all of the moral hazards).
The government destroys the incentives for the market to search for profitable ways to go forward by providing large amounts of "free" money to various preferred monopolies, and this does end up destroying the economy.
What I am saying is that this is a WRONG WAY TO GO - have government do any project like this. What I am saying is that the New Deal stuff was the WRONG WAY TO GO.
It only worsens the depression, doesn't solve anything, creates work but no real economic value and misplaces the capital, land and labor into unproductive part of the economy.
You can't handle the truth.
Why do you need 'impressive security'? The high-speed (up to 300 km/h ~180Mph) trains here in Germany have zero security, you literally just walk in from the street into the train station and get on. The only thing close to 'security' is conductors who come round and check your ticket, and if you don't have one and refuse to pay for one they might call the police and have them meet you at the next stop.
Really, think of high-speed trains more like extensions of the subway or mass-transit systems that operate within cities. They don't have airport-style security checks there because it's simply impractical.
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.
I haven't seen the plans, but: Tunnel?
Around here the trains go underground when they reach the city.
No sig today...
They should just use prison labor for fuck's sake. Chain gangs have worked for centuries, too many sissies in this country get upset when prisoners aren't treated like kings with their air conditioned rooms and cable TV. Put the damn prisoners to work, it will be done in one tenth of the time at one tenth of the cost. Prison system in this country costs too much to run, this would finally make the damn thing pay for itself. This country finally might be able to catch up with the progress seen in China and India.
If you do the math, you could GIVE everyone a plane ticket a year on Southwest and come out ahead. Someone needs to put up the reality check of what it actually costs per Resident per year to build and then operate.
Why do you want to give $100 billion to foreign governments? Or do you think oil comes from America?
Maybe you just hate America.
If in 30 years a gallon of gasoline costs $450, then I think in 15 years when a gallon gas costs $225, you'll probably see everyone driving electric cars, powered by something other than gasoline.
Economic sense as in, can the railway exist as a viable economic entity, with enough passengers to pay for its costs. If you ever look at LA-area ethnic newspapers (notably Chinese, but also Spanish, Korean and Fillipino,) you cannot help but notice the numerous ads for Vegas tour buses. LA to SF, not so much.
Halliburtin doesn't use union labor and will be "the only company able to handle such a lofty job". Oh wait. Cheney isn't in office any longer. Nevermind.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
And use it to subsidize flights throughout California for the next 20 years
(I recognize that it's a number pulled out of your ass) 20 years isn't that long. So great, we get 20 years of cheap flights. Or you can invest in the infrastructure now and get 80 years (number equally puled out of my ass) of train travel.
Texas (Downtown Dallas) wouldn't let me do this but LA might. Start a business renting small electric vehicles (golf cart style) to people getting off the train.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Time savings? Probably not.
First, you have to drive to the terminal and park. Figure its probably 30 minute drive. Next, you probably ought to be there 15 minutes in advance of the scheduled departure time to get your bags checked, and then it takes you 2 hrs 38 minutes to get there. Fine. Then, you have to wait for your bags to be retrieved, which at airports is usually 30 - 45 minutes. Then, you have to go rent a car, which is about another 30 minutes, including walking or busing to the car. Then you have to drive to your actual destination, probably on average another 30 minutes from the terminal. Almost 5 hours to make the train trip with all the delays involved with scheduled service, as opposed to being on course for your final destination as soon as you leave your driveway. And of course the price of driving is the gasoline, as opposed to downtown parking rates associated with rail terminals downtown in order to leave your car, and then rental car rates on the other end in order to get where you're ultimately going. Plus, of course, there's the train fare itself.
So, how many people are going to pay all that money to save maybe 1 - 2 hours? Probably not many.
I'm surprised no one brought it up but the comfort level of a west european train ride is amazing. You get leg room, you get a tabletop in front of you that is nothing like the plastic pos on a plane. You can walk about, visit the toilet and go get a meal whenever you feel like it. You get plugs and often internet for your laptops. If it's an overnight ride you can get a sleeper. A well organized train ride basically means the travel time is not wasted at all, in some sense rendering the journey free as in time. You actually can continue living on the train, with rest, food and work available. How does that compare to being stuffed in economy class or wasting away behind a wheel?
https://dalgamotor.wordpress.com/ - Elektronik beyinlere ozgurluk asisi (Turkish)
Did I do something wrong, or is not 98 billion dollars divided by 520 miles 188.461528 million dollars per mile? I mean, really? REALLY? Holy cow...
Disneyland isn't far from a train station; it's on the other side of the freeway across the parking lot from Anaheim Stadium (also mentioned). That's about 2 miles and there's a nice straight, very wide street the whole way there. It would probably not be too difficult for them to run a monorail line over there, taking advantage of Disneyland's existing (pocket) transit system. People going to the game can probably manage the walk across the lot. If necessary add a tree-lined pedestrian mall for comfort. Easy.
I agree that we need intracity mass transit along with high speed and moderate speed (i.e. as fast as you can safely go on existing tracks and with surrounding traffic, with the addition of better signaling) rail. But why put one ahead of the other? Let's do both, right now.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I think the idea that LA is going to maintain its current sprawling vehicle-centric layout past, say, 2040 is a pipe dream.
Who's going to pay for the fuel?
This fucking place has really gone downhill. It's like the Huffington Post, except more arrogant.
You realize this isn't going directly to the heart of the city right..This will connect most likely at the end of the BART line in San Fran and North LA above the city. No where near the fault lines. And why haven't we had these problems with Amtrack or freight trains..
That sort of destroys the point of even building a high speed rail link. At least LAX and SFO are pretty close to the urban centers of the respective cities.
As for Amtrack and the freight trains, those go right into the urban centers even closer than the airports. CalTran has a stop that is right next to the stadium that the Giants play at and is in walking distance to Fisherman's Wharf (sort of... a bit of a walk but not too bad). Amtrack goes into the heart of Oakland just on the other side of the bay. Then again that Amtrack line was put in over a century ago when the population of the Bay Area was significantly less and mostly farmland.
>>Yes, because of course the government hasn't subsidized the airline industry and airport infrastructure for 75 years...
And we pay 50c/gallon for gas and $20 per airline ticket, too, in usage fees, which cover a great deal of the costs of these types of infrastructure. Don't try to pretend otherwise.
>>High speed trains are electric, and electricity can come from renewable resources or nuclear.
Here in California? We already have an overburdened electrical grid, and a moratorium on new nuclear plants. (With plans to shut down our existing plants, because our legislature is fucking nuts.)
About half our production is from Natural Gas (53% http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html) a couple points are from coal, the rest from green sources (16% nuclear, 16% hydro being the main two).
>>Turns out we affected the weather pattern when all air traffic was halted:
Sure, but it's possible linear contrails actually add a net cooling effect (it's disputed).
Didn't we do this whole thing over 100 years ago?
And for 98 billion as a 'stimulus' - why not just drop bags of $20 bills from a helicopter? It has the same effect and less bureaucracy.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Sorry, but high speed rail won't reduce congestion. Two University of Toronto professors have added to the body of evidence showing that highway and road expansion increases traffic by increasing demand. On the flip side, they show that transit expansion doesn't help cure congestion either.
When you understand that traffic congestion is a type of shortage (too many cars, too little road space), and that a shortage is defined as the situation when supply is greater than demand, two solutions immediately become obvious: increase supply, or reduce demand. The least expensive of these two is to reduce demand, and here's proof: the SR-91 express lanes in Orange County, California generate net social benefits of at least $12 million per year, compared with a scenario in which the lanes had been built but drivers did not pay to use them.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Are you opposed to the Federal subsidy that Virginia gets? Californians lose $0.22 for every dollar they send to Washington while Virginia gains $0.51 per fed tax $. Not a bad deal for you and your neighbors.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I would get too excited by this news; I have to assume that it is just a scam to score some Federal bucks and will never see the light of day. There is nothing that local governments like better than pointless construction contracts for well-connected contractors.
Holy logical fallacy Batman! A round trip ticket price isn't indicative of the total cost of operating airports and aircraft.
Yes, I'm opposed to the subsidy that Virginia gets, or anyone else, including alcohol fuel, wind energy, HS trains anwhere, etc. etc. We HAVE to stop this nonsense and balance the budget or we are going to be a 3rd world nation with only the very very rich, the very very poor, and nobody in between. Its been heading that way for 50 years, ever since we lost textiles to europe and consumer electronics to Japan, and has continued with more and more of our industries the latest being intellectual, as in software. Its gov't tax policy at the bottom of it, and the deficit and National debt are exacerbating it. We have to stop the spending, there's just no other choice.
San Fran doesn't have a problem, they're going to follow the existing rail lines and upgrade them. In some places they'll be tunneling to avoid existing traffic crossings. Not sure what they're planning for LA, but probably similar. There's a significant amount of low-speed rail in LA for shipping.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Man, I remember the last time I was on a train and got stopped by a red light. That was a real bitch.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
I was actually looking a bit further into the future for holiday travel. It's $82 round trip to take a direct flight between Philadelphia and Boston.
I'm not arguing with you, but I'm really quite curious where you found $41 tickets (avg) on a flight. That seems insanely cheap, especially for holiday travel. And does that include the various taxes and fees?
Stupid... cost is high, value is minimal, chances of it being maintainable are negative.... How about spending a few billion giving Los Angeles a decent subway system to cut down on smog and traffic? Or spending the money on better water treatment facilities to keep our oceans clean? Or just saving the money since both state and federal debt is out of control? *sigh* Thank goodness we have "stimulus" programs like this.... NOT.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If modern construction machinery is less efficient and effective than forced labour, then whoever designed such shoddy machinery should be the first in line to receive a shovel.
Never mind the construction time what I would like to know is how a 520 mph train manages to have a travel time only half that of a car which implies an average speed no more than 25% of its maximum. Either there are a ridiculous number of stops, the train's acceleration is incredibly low or someone got their numbers wrong.
By far, the cheapest solution to traffic congestion is not to expand the I-5, but to convert all existing lanes to express lanes. Here's proof: the SR-91 express lanes in Orange County, California "generate net social benefits of at least $12 million per year, compared with a scenario in which the lanes had been built but drivers did not pay to use them."
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Same Reason people ship jobs over seas to dictatorships and petty despots instead of fixing the laws to keep them here. We have oil and gas here in the US, we just can't get to it because of environmental laws and restrictions on where we can drill. And I do think Oil does come from America, Mexico, Canada, Venezuela .... Oil come from around the world. Or did you think that Oil only came from the Middle East?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
By 2033 when this thing is SUPPOSED to be done, which will likely turn out to really be 2040, the self-driving car will have become a reality, the freeways will be exclusively for self-driving cars, and their speed limits will have been removed. A self-driving car will carry you at maybe 120 - 150 mph with an electric motor and a battery, and will leave your house with your bags packed in the trunk, where they will be when you get where you're going. You won't have to go to downtown LA or SF if you don't want to, and if you do, you won't have to worry about the traffic. The highways will be 2X - 3X as efficient as they are now because computer-controlled cars will be able to tailgate a few feet apart with perfect safety, and run at the aforementioned high speeds. By 2033 - 2040 all our new electric will likely be solar or geothermal, so transport by battery-car will be 0% pollution. We'll get door-to-door by car as fast as this bullet train, and OBTW the self-driving car will be available 24/7/365, while I'm betting the bullet trains will be all closed if you want to get to LA for sunrise services on Christmas day with your Mom at whatever time sunrise occurs on Dec. 25 in LA.
Cars are always going to win the desirability award in the USofA when it comes to transportation, so the sooner that realization hits home, the sooner people can start planning the ROAD SYSTEM to take care of future generations.
I keep hearing that "we just don't have the money to fund education, the students have to bear some burden"; here my legislature is ready to fund a rail project mainly for the sake of creating (shovel) jobs, instead of increasing access to and the quality of education so that more people in the state have the resources to create jobs themselves through their business and innovation.
Then I read that these "leaders" have no idea where the money's going to come from, but they're hoping we'll be generally more prosperous later, in a state that spends more on prisons than it does on higher education.
"At least LAX and SFO are pretty close to the urban centers of the respective cities."
SFO is the second-to-last stop on that side of the BART. If by "end of the BART line" the poster means Millbrae, that's a very short ride from SFO. Millbrae is also a Caltrain station.
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Except that railways carry goods also, not just people, and far more cheaply for mass distribution of goods than air can ever match. Oh, and btw, as a passenger on a train, you can carry on fluids, food, electronics etc, and you can comfortably tap away, you can walk around to stretch your legs etc.
And often, the longer travel time of a train doesn't matter that much, it can actually be beneficial health wise and performance wise. For example, when I've had meetings with clients up in Luleå here in Sweden(about 725km between them straight line, more like 900km if you travel by rail) at 09:00, I've always preferred to travel by train. That means I take the subway to the train station, board the night train, spend a couple of hours reading the material for the meeting, then sleep. Arrive in the middle of Luleå in time to get a decent breakfast at a café, and then the meeting. In contrast, if I were to travel by air: Wake up at 04:00 AT BEST, travel to airport(and at this time of the morning, it's cab, nearest airport is 6.5km away), go through all the airport stuff, wait a while at the airport... And sure, the travel is shorter, but then I have to take a cab from the airport I arrived at in worst case, I won't really have time to get a decent breakfast(and airport cafés and restaurants are pretty damn shite), and will arrive at the meeting already slightly frazzled. Adding in the cab fares, even with a budget ticket for air travel, it will be more expensive than the train+local mass transit, the train will be more comfortable, and less stressful. If I fly up the evening before, I also need to factor in the cost of a night at a hotel, making air travel even more expensive.
Allowing private cars to be driven onto a rail system such as this would be much more useful, as long as the individual railcars were handled individually like a personal rapid transit, so people could get on and off at numerous rail stations and the train would not have to slow down at all when they did it. That would mean if such a train ran at 100 mph, it would make a 520 mile run in 5 hours and 12 minutes, but messing around parking, walking to the train, checking baggage, waiting for baggage claim, and renting a car at the destination would be eliminated. You could sit in your car for the trip, elect to stop anywhere along the line at a whim, pack all your bags in the car trunk and they will be there when you arrive. The expense of parking at the departure station and car rental or taxi fare at the end point will be eliminated. If you are a workman driving a van full of tools and, say, replacement auto windshields, you can still use the rail transport. What's needed is a switch to remove a single railcar individually without slowing down the train, and I know how to build that. The whole thing would be electric, and even if you drove a '60's muscle car with triple carburetors, or 454 cubic inches, or a model T, etc. it would be a zero emissions vehicle for the duration of the trip. At 100 mph average, you could go coast to coast in about a day and a half, again emitting zero pollutants if the system is solar powered.
1. Reintroduce carrying out acts of violence against land owners who won't sell their land to you at a price you the train company finds acceptable 2. Reintroduce brutal working conditions and very low wages for workers 3. Repeal all health and safety legislation introduced since the last hundred years (so no safety glasses, ear protectors, safety lamps for workers, handle dynamite for blasting without safety gear, don't provide any medical help for injured workers past 19th century style medicine and first aid
I think that will help you get closer. Now, would you like to sign up as one of the labourers for building this line?
Yes, it is - what is it you think pays for the operation of the aircraft and the fees they pay the airport such that the airport can operate? The cost of airline tickets (and incidentals like luggage fees) pays for the operation of the airline.
If you had real 3d printing that was accurate to the molecular level, you could print out nuclear fission reactors to provide enough energy to run all this. Or enough solar panels to cover entire deserts. However, private industry will not be able to develop this technology : it would take an enormous investment in time and resources with no guarantee of success to develop molecular manufacturing.
People can pontificate about the efficiency of trains, but the reality is people love their cars. Particularly Americans, especially in California. We love them because we wanna go where we want to go, when we want to go there. And we don't want to wait on other people. Moreover, carpooling and their allocated carpool lanes are a waste because most people are going to different locations.
So how do we square this reality with some kind of innovation that solves the problem of congestion and improve efficiency?
If I were president or governor, I would re-purpose the carpool lanes for autonomous vehicles to something seen in the highway exchange system in the film Minority Report. Essentially, when you arrive at a highway onramp your car switches into autonomous mode and you are whisked into the designated lane with perfect precision. The lane would be packed tightly and at a constant rate of speed. Some further problem solving would be required to make it all work, but overall this would balance the reality of people who will always love their cars, and provide a more efficient transportation network. Over time I would designate more highway lanes for autonomous traffic.
Thanks.
Yeah, autonomous cars will cure a host of problems from drunk driving to getting kids to school (no more buses - every kid has his own car) etc. Any age can go anywhere. Old people that don't see well enough to drive, can still be mobile. Etc.
Milbrae BART only runs to SFO after 7pm. Before that, you transfer Caltrain -> BART north to San Bruno, then transfer again BART south to SFO. If they can't even get that right, how the heck will they manage high speed rail?
I hate to say this. I really do. But it needs to be said:
"Woosh"
Round trip New York / Boston on the Acela Express (Amtrak's high-speed rail) is $198. Round trip from San Jose to San Francisco on Caltrain is $17.50. At that rate per mile, SFO to LAX would cost about $190. SFO to LAX by air on Southwest is $59.
The reason why it costs so much must be because they plan on inventing and creating the technology as well.
Why not re-use a proven design? Oh noes, they're either French or Japanese!
Even with HSR the only city commutable from Fresno or Bakersfield is LA, which is also a god forsaken shit hole.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Here is a clue for you. When you are already at capacity you upgrade scheduled flights to larger airplanes. Kind of like adding cars to trains.
Airport capacity is measured in landings/takeoffs per hour. Not passengers.
You will have to upgrade terminals. Fortunately that is much, much cheaper then adding runways.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You obviously don't spend much time driving on I5. In ten years it will be bumper to bumper and travel times are already beginning to reflect this, but no matter, the wealthy will still be able to afford their own private jets.
Exactly, that is why all New Yorkers are so eager to scrap the subway so that they can drive to work.
No need. The people who would be using SpaceX to commute to and from Mars are, for all practical purposes, already living on Mars.
Airport capacity is measured in landings/takeoffs per hour.
Exactly. Which means to increase capacity, you have to increase the number of landings and takeoffs per hour. That means a) new runways, or b) new airports. That's really difficult to do these days, hence my point.
You fail to mention that the cost of building, expanding, and maintaining airports and now the TSA are not put into you cost equation.
Moron. You increase the number of people on each airplane. Bigger airplanes.
Can you even read? Do you bother?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As a non Californian in a neighboring state I say you can all stay right were you are. We don't need anymore herpaderp cali's in our state babbling on about how happy they are to be out of there and then trying to turn my state into the exact same idiot mess. You all made the mess, you clean it up, don't come here and fuck it up.
Moron. You increase the number of people on each airplane. Bigger airplanes.
Ain't that simple. "Bigger airplanes" assumes that the longer runways that can accommodate those larger planes aren't already maxed out. In the event that there is room to accommodate those planes, the airport has to account for new wake separation procedures. There's also the issue of whether the markets served by the airline are appropriate for larger planes. Finally, larger planes are in many (but not all) cases louder than smaller planes, and that results in environmental issues that are similar to those building new runways.
At best, "Bigger airplanes" is a stop-gap solution.
You're the one posting population growth numbers. Bigger populations, bigger markets, bigger airplanes.
You might have a point if the current flight schedules weren't dominated by small to medium sized jets. All the major airport runways in CA can already accommodate anything short of 747s and a380s. Many can land 747s. There are many idle runways at former air force bases if it came to that. Wake separation is about size ratios, not absolute size. The puddle jumper needs more room behind a 727 then two 747s need between each other.
Finally people who moved near airports and then complain about noise can fuck themselves with a stick blender. Goes double for racetracks.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
cutting the trip from a six-hour drive to a train ride of two hours and 38 minutes.
...and it's still longer than the one hour flight. And at a cost of $98 Billion, you would be better off just using that money to pay for the airfares of everyone flying from SF to LA. And that assumes that it will actually still cost 98b by the time this thing is done.
Here's an even more fun fact: passenger rail subsidies are 40 TIMES that of commercial aviation subsidies, on a per-passenger-mile basis. We pay a LOT of money to move people by train, compared to moving people via airplanes...
Which is easy to understand as you don't really have train passengers. Quick googling gives me 30 million train passengers a year, against 750 million airline passengers. After a bit more googling, I got the train passengers for Finland: Around 60 million train passengers a year. When you don't have an infrastructure you won't have users either and it will be more expensive. Considering the energy cost of moving stuff through air, I'm pretty sure that you are paying a LOT of money by moving people via airplanes.. (And yes, I realize that United States is huge. But apparently you somehow manage to create roads between the cities, the rails aren't all that much more difficult)
It is what it is.
The key point of your statistic is "per-passenger-mile". It's high for Amtrak because there are fewer passengers for Amtrak. Why? Because Amtrak generally sucks! If rail travel in the US wasn't so utterly miserable to start with, I think more passengers would opt for it and the cost would come down accordingly. To get a sense of how much of an effect that has, look at the difference in number between Commercial Aviation (3.03 in 2001), which is the category for a typical commercial airline, and General Aviation (89.72 in 2001) which is everything else (personal aircraft, charter, skydiving, etc). Also, Amtrak could probably offset it's costs a bit if it carried mail and freight, much like most of the commercial airlines. Passengers are expensive, and it's hard to make money if that is all you are doing.
The correct answer is to build more roads - not widen existing roads, but make alternative routes so that when someone screws up the driving task and the helicopter has to come get 'em, and the cops close down all 28 lanes of travel, you can get off, travel a mile over to another freeway, and continue. And make the new road _straight_ so as to be good for 150 mph speeds 'cuz the robot drivers of 20 years from now will be able to do that.
Oh god, that reminded me of the recent update to the Portland area transit, the Westside Express Service.
The use of Federal funds meant that they had to buy trains from a American manufacturer, unlike the Candian and European trains used on the other local systems. The American trains suck, and the company went out of business after delivering the units to WES. Should have gone with Bombardier instead...
Also, they mandated use of an annoyingly loud horn throughout its travel, like a fucking freight train. This made those living near the tracks complain and limited the times the train can be used.
I suppose the Feds are part of why American rail fails.
Say... didn't we just see what happens when you build expensive devices upon which human lives depend in an earthquake zone?
And kiddies... know what happens to really heavy trains full of people when they're going 520mph and the earth shakes like a pissed off hound dog? DEATH.
That's why they don't have trains in Japan. Oh, wait... they do. I guess they must have figured out a way to deal with it, eh?
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
It's easier to make LA or SF airports a step in going to distant cities. Trains are more suitable to short and mid-length trips. Fast trains are lily-gilding.
Faster trains from LA to San Diego make some sense. On the way, you can stop in Orange County for business or pleasure (Disneyland). The cities between LA and SF (Bakersfield, Fresno) are just not comparable.
Parking is typically abundant at airports (although in major cities, it's not cheap.) There's not much parking near the train stations in LA and San Diego.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Will they allow bicycles on this train? Here in Portland, the MAX train has hooks on which bicycles can be hung. Will this train have the same hooks? There was no mention of this in the article.
Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
Build that too. I'd love to go from Vancouver to TJ by train.
The rest is untrue. I take the Metro Red Line (Subway) to work every day, and its expansion to the Westside will be finished before this will. Add the flyaway bus to LAX, Rapid Busses, and taxis and there's no reason you couldn't arrive in LA without a car with less hassle than from the airport.
It's defeatist attitudes like this one that will help Europe and China to leapfrog America in standard of living and infrastructure.
#6495ED - cornflower blue
LOL, I also just moved to California for a high paying tech job.
The down side is that I didn't realize my signing bonus was actually only going to be 55% of what I was paid after taxes (45% taxed). :( But I'm not leaving, for sure.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
what about costs of driving?
With one person, train/bus tickets are cheaper. with two, maybe.
driving would make more sense costwise if you can carpool, perhaps switch between drivers to alleviate fatigue
I can't drive anyway (don't have enough practice/experience)
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
It's easier to make LA or SF airports a step in going to distant cities. Trains are more suitable to short and mid-length trips.
Given that going from Los Angeles or San Diego to San Francisco (or even Sacramento) is a mid-length trip, and that these are big population and economic centers, I'm glad you agree that this route is perfect for trains.
Fast trains are lily-gilding.
No. Fast trains make all the difference. Currently going from San Francisco to Los Angeles using regular trains takes a minimum of 9.5 hours which means an average speed of 40mph. Even taking into account just the portion actually traveled by train, from Emeryville to Bakersfield, the average speed is 44mph. Going by car is faster so it's no wonder nobody takes the train! What they propose is to reduce that to just 2.6 hours which becomes much faster than by car and that makes all the difference in the world.
Parking is typically abundant at airports (although in major cities, it's not cheap.) There's not much parking near the train stations in LA and San Diego.
Moving around in San Francisco, or even the Bay Area, is not that much of a problem thanks to the buses, CalTrain and light rail. In Los Angeles you could still take the bus, or a cab if you hate public transportation. Remember that unlike tourists who move around a lot, most business travelers just go to a single destination for their meetings and back, for which a cab is just fine (and if you have shuttles from the train station to Universal Studios or Disneyland, that will be quite enough for a lot of tourists too).
I cant see the states agreeing to the necessary standards if they all had their own mass transit toys. It would require federal regulation of a state matter (a state railway system) in order to crack it, and somehow I cant see that not being unconstitutional.
The new Gotthard was built for USD 10 bln, took 20 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
I live in Europe now, and I can say that personally speaking high speed trains are great.
Living in Paris, I can go to London or Brussels (and even Amsterdam if I get up early enough) for business meetings and be back for dinner without the hassles of air travel.
There are high speed trains all over Western Europe now, with more lines coming on line regularly. Any time that I can take a train I will, even if the train is an hour or two slower than a flight.
I can work on the train with decent cell and Internet coverage (except the 20 minutes under the English tunnel) and, on top of the relative convenience and work productivity, Eurostar and Thalys both claim some degree of carbon neutral travel.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
I should say the same thing to you, UTAH. But you'd deserve the shit we'd bring after your meddling in Prop 8.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I strongly suggest anyone in the area take the Coast Starlight from the bay area to LA. If you're impatient they have wifi. The views are so incredible, especially if you go when there is a fairly full moon.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Because in the end, cars are still the best answer for getting from point A to point B. That is, a car is the only thing that is not going to go anything but the shortest road distance from where I am to where I want to go. Everything else is going to need to go miles out of the way to get to a departure point and stop its service at a termination point, from which I have to arrange further transportation, also probably a car.
The day is coming when a car is going to be the most efficient way to travel. This rail line is 520 miles long. The roadway from SF to LA is 359 miles long according to Street Altas USA. If I am starting from the south side of SF or the north side of LA, I'm actually having to drive the opposite direction, in all probability, to get to the train station. If not, then there are likely many train stations, with this multi-1000-ton train alternately accelerating and decelerating from and into them, another waste.
20 years from now, robot drivers will be able to take cars up to 100 - 150 mph, tailgate to get fuel-saving NASCAR drafting effect, do it safely, and do it on electricity probably generated by solar electricity. Problems solved. Therefore, our best course of action is to continue to improve the roads, NOW, and be ready for the future that still belongs to the private automobile.
Look out China the US railways are coming after you TheUSADebate.com