High-Speed Trains In The US?

[JavaBrewer]

Whatever they *cost* a bullet train connecting SAN, LAX, and SFO, it will end up costing double or triple by the time the project is completed. I can't imagine the amount of security required to keep a 200+mph train safe from idots, evil doers, and wandering animals. Train tracks are fixed and have zero flexibility. A better option is to install bus/shuttle only lanes on major roadways. Use part of the leftover billions of $ to purchase nicely equipped shuttles for those not wanting to ride coach. For longer routes they get Porsche to design a high speed 40-50 passenger bus.

Trains in Cali suck. Years ago I rode Amtrack from San Diego to Santa Barbara. It's roughly a 200 mile trip. We hit/killed a pedestrian leaving LA station resulting in a 2 hr delay. 6.5 hours travel time. On the return leg we smashed a Jeep on a car crossing resulting in another 2 hr delay. 5 hours travel time. No train security and when we left LA and chugged 20 mph inland we had gang members jumping on for a ride.

[tobster1911]

Originally posted by svandamme
off course, you could hold on to the "we love oil even if it means we have to fight and die for it, screw nature gimme my V8 guzzler!" way of thinking, but in the long run it's not sustainable

You just love the hate the USA don't you. You constantly have this stupid TV stereotype for us.

As others have said, the US does not equal EU. Even though you are convinced that the EU way is so much superior, what works over there WILL NOT work over here. Population density is so vastly different that it is not feasible. For example, all of Germany could fit in 1-2 states in Western US. Out here you can drive for 30-90 miles sometimes without a single house. How would you pay for the rail with maybe 100 passengers a week?

I have taken the trains in Germany. They are not cheap, faster, or easier than cars or planes. Most of the Germans engineers that I work with NEVER take the train. If they need to get to the airport they even rent a car...

[scottmandue]

However, like Stijn said you are going to loose at least an hour on each end in the airport... take forty five minutes to fly to Las Vegas but take three hours door to door (still a lot more convenient that the long hot drive through the desert).

I have to agree with red beard, as much as I would like to see a bullet train from L.A. to S.F. (and on to Seattle) but don't think the money is there.

[jyl]

I spent some time browsing the links provided earlier.

A high-speed rail network actually seems to make some sense.

The proposed routes are basically from San Diego through Orange County to LA, with a side loop to the Inland Empire, then up the Central Valley through Bakersfield to Merced, there splitting west to SF and north to Sacramento.

The proposed system would be separate from existing rail lines, without grade crossings, although in many places would use existing rail right of ways. In most cases this would mean the high-speed tracks are at ground level but fenced off, with autos crossing on overpasses. In some places the high-speed tracks would be elevated, for example as some of the SF Bay's BART system is. I would think that in the densest metro areas, e.g. when approaching Union station in downtown LA, the train will operate at slower speeds.

The proposed transit times are as you'd expect - for example 2.5 hours from downtown LA to downtown SF.

I didn't read any analysis of the projected cost, other than a $25BN figure for the full network. I would guess this will depend a lot on how much existing rail right of way can be used, and how much new rail right of way will have to be obtained. In open areas, like the Central Valley, I don't see why purchasing or condemning a right of way 100' wide would be prohibitive - what is the market value of 400 miles x 100 feet of farmland? That's only about 8 square miles. Pay 10X the market price, so what?

As for operating cost, the key variable is obviously ridership. There are a huge number of trips taken each year between the different metro regions of Nothern and Southern California - over 150 million person/trips/year according to what I read (this excludes "commuting"). 42 million person/trips/yr are over 150 miles. Of the trips over 150 miles, 14MM trips are taken by air, the other 28MM are taken by car. Of the trips under 150 miles, almost none are taken by air. So I think the primary "target market" is basically the 14MM person/trips/yr that are over 150 miles and taken by air. Assume 2% growth/yr and in 2020 this is appx 18MM trips.

(A secondary market would be the 28MM trips over 150 miles and the 110MM trips under 150 miles. But I'd think most of these people need a car at the destination, or the trip is too short to bother using anything but a car, so I'd probably assume zero penetration.)

So, the basic question is, if you're taking a trip between cities in California, and currently you would fly, if there were a modern high-speed train that did the trip in basically the same time (door to door), would you take the train or the plane? For now, assume equal price.