Jump to content






Photo

High Speed Rail?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Chad Vander Veen

Chad Vander Veen

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,209 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 01 February 2007 - 10:22 AM

Great article in SNR regarding the High Speed Rail and its future. http://www.newsrevie...tent?oid=276348
Unfortunately, Arnold does not seem enthusiastic about the project.

What do you think?

#2 Al Waysrite

Al Waysrite

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,856 posts

Posted 01 February 2007 - 10:43 AM

QUOTE(c_vanderveen @ Feb 1 2007, 10:22 AM) View Post
Great article in SNR


Now there's something you don't hear often.

#3 john

john

    Founder

  • Admin
  • 9,841 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Prairie Oaks

Posted 01 February 2007 - 12:45 PM

California is such an unusual society... everybody drives around here. With the exception of BART, there really are no "great" public transit options. So it's not really appreciated like over in Washington DC or New York, where it's extremely well done.

I think it make sense, as CA is so large, and the span between the major metropolitan areas (San Diego, LA, San Jose, Fresno, Sac, SF) is quite large. However, airfare is so cheap, people just hop on a plane. It would cost a ton of money to make this work, with the miles of track, not to mention the strict engineering standards for a bullet train to be safe... and money's not something we have a lot of here.


#4 bobb

bobb

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 10:40 AM

I travel by Amtrak from Sacrametno to Seattle at least four times a year. It is an exceptional trip. But because Amtrak doesn't own the tracks, they lease rail service from other providers. They can be delayed by anything. Even though the service is excellent they are always two to then hours late.

One trip, which takes 24 hours took 48 hours. Why not high speed rail from LA to Bay Are. Then from Bay area to Portland and on to Seattle.

Not enough good transporation options.

#5 camay2327

camay2327

    GO NAVY

  • Moderator
  • 11,481 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 12 March 2007 - 11:05 AM

I think the biggest problem is that not enough people would use it.

We just flew down to Burbank this last weekend and it was under $100 round trip.


A VETERAN Whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount "up to and including their life". That is HONOR, and there are way too many people in this country who no longer understand it. -Author unknown-

#6 folsombound

folsombound

    Living Legend

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,040 posts

Posted 12 March 2007 - 12:10 PM

We would pay billions to build it and then have to pay billions more to subsidize it. Unless and until the private sector can build it, I will have major reservations about high speed rail. Our government can't repair and maintain our existing roads, there is no way they could build a high speed rail system efficiently. To see how our government builds things, look to the new Bay Bridge eastern span.

#7 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:00 PM

QUOTE(john @ Feb 1 2007, 01:45 PM) View Post
California is such an unusual society... everybody drives around here. With the exception of BART, there really are no "great" public transit options. So it's not really appreciated like over in Washington DC or New York, where it's extremely well done.

I think it make sense, as CA is so large, and the span between the major metropolitan areas (San Diego, LA, San Jose, Fresno, Sac, SF) is quite large. However, airfare is so cheap, people just hop on a plane. It would cost a ton of money to make this work, with the miles of track, not to mention the strict engineering standards for a bullet train to be safe... and money's not something we have a lot of here.

Actually, "everybody drives in CA" is a myth. CA is actually below the US average in solo commuters and above average in public transit use. http://www.bts.gov/p...able_04_01.html CA also has below average number of drivers compared to total population and compared to no. of people of driving age. http://www.bts.gov/p...able_04_02.html

More germaine to the high-speed rail question, Californians have shown that if they are provided with vaible rail service , they will use it. Two of the three busiest inter-city passenger rail routes are in CA. The busiest is the NE corridor. Second is the San Diego to Ventura route, and third is the Capitol Corridor between Auburn and San Jose. Eighteen of the top 50 busiest Amtrak stations are in CA: http://www.bts.gov/p...able_04_05.html. Sacramento is 9th.

As for not being able to afford high speed rail, if China, Taiwan, Japan, Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Switzerland, England can all afford it, why can't the sixth largest economy in the world? It's only 400 miles from Sacramento to LA. At 200 mph, that's a two hour trip. Compared to one hour on a plane and at least an hour on the ground before take off, that's competitive. And for shorter routes, like Sacramento to San Oakland, the slow Amtrak trains are already competitive with driving at all except low traffic times. Imagine how popular train travel to the bay area would be if it were faster than driving and if you didn't have to worry about having ot wait for a freight train.

Build it and they will come -- fast.

#8 Duke

Duke

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 14 March 2007 - 02:22 PM

Aren't Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) statistics considered a more accurate representation of overall travel? I was under the impression that commute trips generally comprise about 25% of VMT totals.

#9 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:12 PM

QUOTE(Duke @ Mar 14 2007, 03:22 PM) View Post
Aren't Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) statistics considered a more accurate representation of overall travel? I was under the impression that commute trips generally comprise about 25% of VMT totals.

Yes, but transit use is highest for commute trips and there isn't any easy way to compare transit passenger miles to VMT by state. So, let's look at VMT per capita. As you can see, CA ranks 39th in per capita VMT at 9,164, over 900 miles below the national average of 1088 miles. There are some plausible explanations for this: 1) the CA VMT is influenced heavily by San Francisco and LA, both of which are actually very dense, resulting in higher transit use and lower total VMT, 2) the high immigrant population, as immigrants are much less likely to own their own cars and more likely to carpool (think farm workers, as an extreme example).
http://www.bts.gov/p...able_05_03.html
Any way you slice it, Californians are not as in love with their cars as their reputation suggests. If you really want to see people who drive a lot, they are in the south and the wide open west (Wyoming tops the list).

#10 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:33 PM

Yeah, miles is kinda useless if you're talking about LA or 237. I used to live 10 miles from work and it was often a 45 minute commute.
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#11 oldschoolskater

oldschoolskater

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 14 April 2007 - 10:12 PM

What about economic impact if this dream were to become a reality? You will have folks from the Los Angeles buying homes here paying for it with their LA salaries. Same goes for the Bay Area. Imagine the impact on the actual Sacramentans with lower salaries. There are so many variable to this proposal, which merits sound analysis from all sides.

#12 (Gaelic925)

(Gaelic925)
  • Visitors

Posted 14 April 2007 - 10:19 PM

This state needs it and we would use it. It should be from the Bay Area to Sac to LA.

#13 Renroc

Renroc

    Netizen

  • Registered Members
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Location:El Dorado Hills, California (Serrano)

Posted 29 September 2008 - 08:11 AM

QUOTE(Gaelic925 @ Apr 14 2007, 11:19 PM) View Post
This state needs it and we would use it. It should be from the Bay Area to Sac to LA.


Yeah It would seem more practical than Alaska's (or Palin's) "Bridge to Nowhere". Although the cost (as Palin's "bridge to nowhere" cost) would be astronomical.

But yes I would use it probably as much as I would use an airplane (if going to los angeles).

#14 folsom500

folsom500

    Folsom Gardner

  • Moderator
  • 6,562 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 29 September 2008 - 09:15 AM

I tend to think it is a boondoggle and an expensive one at that -

The initial Bond being floated is 9,000,000,000 ( THAT is 9 BILLION DOLLARS) and THAT is only the PRINCIPLE AMOUNT ---

http://www.leginfo.c..._chaptered.html

Article 2. High-Speed Passenger Train Financing Program


2704.04. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting this
chapter and of the people of California by approving the bond
measure pursuant to this chapter to initiate the construction of a
high-speed train system that connects the San Francisco Transbay
Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim, and links the
state's major population centers, including Sacramento, the San
Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland
Empire, Orange County, and San Diego consistent with the authority's
certified environmental impact reports of November 2005 and July 9,
2008.
(b) (1) Net proceeds received from the sale of nine billion
dollars ($9,000,000,000) principal amount of bonds authorized
pursuant to this chapter, upon appropriation by the Legislature in
the annual Budget Act, shall be used for (A) planning and engineering
for the high-speed train system and (B) capital costs, as described
in subdivision ©.

---------


Like Light rail - it will never pay for itself by the users and they will come after us again and again for more TAXES to fund it.

Vote NO on Prop 1A !!!!

Cheers
F500

Another great  day in the adventure of exploration and sight.

 

 

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"
-Margaret Mead-


#15 harrmill

harrmill

    All Star

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts

Posted 29 September 2008 - 03:08 PM

I would love for this to happen, but I just cannot see it coming to fruition any time soon. For one, the expense is pretty high considering the current state of the CA budget. 2nd, buying up the rights of way for this dedicated rail line will take years, if not decades. Lastly, as long as planes are flying it will always be faster than taking the train to SoCal (keep in mind a high-speed rail cannot go 200 MPH over the Tehachapis or the Coast Ranges - it will only be able to reach and maintain those speeds in the Central valley).

I dont think the comparison between this proposal and BART, the NY subway, or the one in DC is a good comparison - as those all are held within a metro area. This is more like an inter-city express. Maybe a better, more cost-viable solution is to expand tracks and service where rail already works well. It would be nice if there were express trains on the Cap Corridor, for example (been a while, maybe they have).

Altho I do not expect any rail project to ever pay for itself as they should be treated as public works projects like the freeways, I tend to agree that this has boondoggle written all over it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users