High Speed Rail in CA

[Moses]

Our state budget has expanded radically in the last decade. Our legislators have committed to spending as if the dot-com windfall never stopped. We are now in an intractable deficit and we do not have the political will to stop spending recklessly. A $100 billion boondoggle seems fitting.

[vash]

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

Why not just build a high speed rail from LA to Vegas. There's probably a whole lot more demand for that...

i think this part is just the beginning. then you hook a left and head to sin city later.

i was on the fence with this thing. once the project actually begins, the cost will be doubled. they estimate with "future" money, but you never ever get that math right.

[Moses]

Oh yeah, lets also legislate that we will get 20% of our energy from "green" sources. Never mind that it may more than double your utility bill. That couldn't hurt business in California, could it? If we double every businesses electric rates a few of them may go broke, but the remaining businesses will be GREEN! (or at least a little greener...)

[Burnin' oil]

I'm looking into teleporting.

[vash]

yea, that electricity thing confuses me. we get brown outs now! what happens when someone flips the "on" switch to this train, and everyone plugs in an electric car?

[gtc]

I think Amtrak would be great if you didn't have to pull over every little while to let a freight train pass. The last train I took, from Oakland to Seattle, was running something like 5 hours behind schedule. I also don't understand why Amtrak is so outrageously expensive.

[dd74]

Why not use current diesel-powered trains? How fast can they travel? I would think using current technology - just make the engines more powerful/faster/more economical - could suffice. Also, just put down some dedicated passenger-line-only railways, and the problem is solved...right?

[Paco Anton]

We just built a high speed train in Spain between Madrid and Barcelona which are about 400 miles apart. This is (or was) the largest air route in the world with 981 flights per week:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%27s_busiest_passenger_air_routes

The train takes 2,5-3 hours versus 1 hour for the plane. If you take into account the fact that both train stations are located in the center of the cities and the airports are in the outskirts, it makes sense. Even more considering that the train doors close just 2 minutes before departure. The fact is that the train is taking away passengers from the plane.

I'm not a big fan of trains (even though I'm a civil engineer) but must admit that it is more confortable than the plane as you can walk, go to the bar, talk in the phone (between coaches), etc.

[widgeon13]

I've traveled a fair amount on trains in Europe and the UK and have to say it's an enjoyable experience. Actually did London to Paris on the train as well, 2H 15m. Nice thing, no seat belts and usually to the center of the cities so no need for taxi from the airport.

[The Gaijin]

Originally Posted by Scuba Steve

Why not just build a high speed rail from LA to Vegas. There's probably a whole lot more demand for that...

Or an Autobahn for Porsche owners and like minded individuals!

[varmint]

took amtrak from L.A. to san francisco, and L.A. to seattle a few times. trains should be a beautiful way to travel. but they were never less than four hours behind schedule. $7 for a bag of peanuts. and every car had either a shrieking baby, or a hippie with a guitar.

on one trip a passenger had a heart attack. the crew stood around with thumbs up their asses while a doctor on board saw to him. they stopped the train in the middle of vandenberg air force base, and waited for almost an hour for a military ambulance to arrive.

[varmint]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

Or an Autobahn for Porsche owners and like minded individuals!

a vegas to L.A. autobahn is an excellent idea. speeds are already 90+ along that road. why not go all the way.

[kach22i]

I can get you guys into a hovercraft for 1/1000 of that.

http://www.3tex.com/zplex_atlas.html

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by daepp

So we have a ballot measure we'll be voting on to authorize a bond issuance costing the CA taxpayers $20 Billion to "prime the pump" and get a high speed rail project going between LA and San Fran.

I have never ridden on one of these. But apparently it's expected to cost about what a plane ticket costs, and take more than 2.5 times as long as a plane trip. What's the advantage?

Not to mention the fact that the state cannot afford it and fares are not expected to cover costs. Do any rail (other than freight I guess) make a profit in the US?

- no driving to airport; no waiting in line

- lower security [maybe] w/ fewer hassles

- a lot cheaper to run as energy costs increase

- less pollution per pass. mile

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by MichiganMat

A full coastal high-speed rail system would be awesome IMO. I would love to catch a train up to Portland or Seattle or down to LA, planes just suck.

That said, CA can barely afford to keep the lights on right now so maybe its not the best idea in the world.

- big projects need long lead times

so, you start it now and most work will be 5 to 10 years out

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by legion

Will it be a monorail?

it put North Haverbrook on the map

It is an awful idea, simple as that

[artplumber]

Since the state is in a recession, any construction would be helpful to lower unemployment etc., even if some of the money will go to feed the bureaucracy. Any funds for anything, including say widening of I5 will likely suffer the same fate.

In the majority of locales with high passenger volumes, the most efficient way to move those folks is a network of trains/buses/etc. Both time and fuel expenses. That's why these systems have been so popular in more population dense areas (including in the US). While "individuality" and choice of time to depart etc are lost, the inefficiencies of auto and airport travel should be obvious. You go to LAX or SFO you're going to lose at least an hour each end checking in, getting lugage etc.

At a minimum if one wants a lowest denominator reason to be for the train how about reasonable gas prices? Think about putting several thousand people a day on a train and out of their cars and airplanes. The demand for distillates will be lower, and therefore the price of gas will be lower. Plus you'll get to have clearer roads, and not waste gas sitting in traffic, less lines in the airport, lower airfares, no $25 a bag check in fee........

[Jim Bremner]

Originally Posted by artplumber

Since the state is in a recession, any construction would be helpful to lower unemployment etc., even if some of the money will go to feed the bureaucracy. Any funds for anything, including say widening of I5 will likely suffer the same fate.

In the majority of locales with high passenger volumes, the most efficient way to move those folks is a network of trains/buses/etc. Both time and fuel expenses. That's why these systems have been so popular in more population dense areas (including in the US). While "individuality" and choice of time to depart etc are lost, the inefficiencies of auto and airport travel should be obvious. You go to LAX or SFO you're going to lose at least an hour each end checking in, getting lugage etc.

At a minimum if one wants a lowest denominator reason to be for the train how about reasonable gas prices? Think about putting several thousand people a day on a train and out of their cars and airplanes. The demand for distillates will be lower, and therefore the price of gas will be lower. Plus you'll get to have clearer roads, and not waste gas sitting in traffic, less lines in the airport, lower airfares, no $25 a bag check in fee........

are you on crack, sorry but google "the big dig" and come back with the results.

no good things will come of it. it might work in Europe {since they didn't need to spend the cash that WE did to protect them from the Commie horde}

The ONLY way that I'll vote for it is if the Guber'ment
A. stream lines all permits.

B. Any contractor may not be a "pal" of anyone in the government.

C. raise all freeway speedlimits to 80 mph for cars safe for that speed.

D. that 100% of the labor is UNION FREE! ( hmm, let's get some guys out of the big house to earn their keep)

[fxeditor]

Originally Posted by MichiganMat

A full coastal high-speed rail system would be awesome IMO. I would love to catch a train up to Portland or Seattle or down to LA, planes just suck.

That said, CA can barely afford to keep the lights on right now so maybe its not the best idea in the world.

I fully agree with you Matt. I have traveled extensively throughout Europe and Japan via hi-speed rail and can attest to just how great an experience it is. I go to San Francisco every few months for work and if I had the option of traveling via something as comfortable, fast and efficient as a Shinkansen train, I'd do it in a heartbeat for no other reason other then to avoid a dreadful airport!

That being said I am going to vote no on this proposition. I know that this bond measure will be just the tip of the iceberg in getting this project completed, The trains will never be as efficient as those in Japan (is anything?), and will ultimately operate at a huge loss being propped up by more taxpayer money. It saddens me to vote no on something I REALLY want but this election is about voting with your head, not your heart.

Michael

[Gogar]

Is there a chance the track could bend?