High Speed Rail in CA
 

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?

advantage?

let's see we'll pay $20 bill for 1/2 of it.

It won't help American industry due to the fact that it will be imported.

And it will be a negative cash flow like the Amtrack system & Greyhound.

Oh and some RARE sandflea will cause a major delay while they try ti figure out how it's breeding habits will be influenced by the vibrations of said f'ing train. ( But Pelosi's bank account will get larger)


Other than that I'll vote for it!

Sounds nice until you ask how will we pay for it. the $20 Billion is a down payment on what is expected to be over $100 Billion. They "think" the cost of the tickets will pay operating costs, so who pays for the infrastructure? CA is already carrying billions in debt and will be in debt for it's operating budget again this year. Tell me why this makes any sense? Other than to feed money to construction companies.

Let the private sector develop it if there's really such a need/market for this project. They can run it as a for-profit business.

I could not agree with all of you more. But fundamentally, why take a train when you can fly there in less time?

I like the Amtrak over flying in the northeast US. The time in/out of airports added to the actual flying time makes the two modes of transportation pretty similar in time. I like being on a train a lot more than I like being in an airplane.

Some bunch of green wacko's think it's the right thing to do!

Somebody ask Bill Gates to start a high-speed rail service from Seattle (or Vancouver) to San Diego. Just ask him not to use Vista for the rail system's OS.

Will it be a monorail?

I agree with all of the comments above about the financing, building, cost over runs, etc., etc. But another big objection I have is the the CA legislature will find a way to siphon off half of the bond money and revenue (even though it won't be paying for itself) into the general fund to use for their pet projects and personal agendas. I'm voting no on everything that will cost money to the taxpayers.

No actually it's the legislature as was said, to siphon money off, and the rail manufacturing and Operating Enginners Union.

Hugh - you are right. It starts as a way to move people more efficiently and winds up as way to build a power base and make money.

The Long Island Railroad and NYC subway are just poorly run feather bedded mess. The Long Island Railroad could pave over the rail sidings and run commuter buses for 1/2 the cost and run twice as often..

Friend bought a house in NJ suburbs. Had a 1928 train schedule with the deed and original paper work.. The commuter rail timetable from 80 odd years ago showed the commute time had not changed!

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.

aren't the legislature and green wacko's one in the same out there??

I bet the same could be said of trains in Europe, and I would personally love to have that kind of transport here. Germany comes to mind.

Another pet project for the legislature. No thanks! I'll take a flight.

Heck, if there's a green or fuel issue here, have the state give tax breaks for diesel and hybrid purchases. A diesel can get a person from L.A. to S.F. and back on one tank of fuel.

High speed train.....had everyone in CA collectively lost their freaking minds? Seriously. Is there something in the drinking water that fosters a belief in a magic money tree, high on mount Sacramento?

California disgusts me. Knowing how insane state government there actually makes me avoid travel to the state. That and LAX...oh yeah, WHAT ABOUT LAX? Hey, now THERES a novel farking idea. How about sinking $100 billion into fixing that battered piece of garbage? Does it not bother folks in LA that DETROIT has an airport that makes yours look like Somalia? When we go overseas, my wife and I will literally pay hundreds more to avoid having to change planes in LAX.

http://www.theschifferreport.com/images/head_up_ass.jpg

I already voted no on it - in fact - I voted 'NO' on every measure that had the word 'Bond' in it that wasn't referring to James.

excellent!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/9f10.png

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

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.

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.

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...)

I'm looking into teleporting.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Or an Autobahn for Porsche owners and like minded individuals!:)

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.

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

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

http://www.3tex.com/zplex_atlas.html
http://www.3tex.com/images/photos/AT...t%20200717.JPG
http://www.3tex.com/images/photos/AH100-Pcgifrt.jpg

- 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

- big projects need long lead times

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

it put North Haverbrook on the map

It is an awful idea, simple as that

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)

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

Is there a chance the track could bend?