High Speed Rail?
#1
Posted 01 February 2007 - 10:22 AM
Unfortunately, Arnold does not seem enthusiastic about the project.
What do you think?
#3
Posted 01 February 2007 - 12:45 PM
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
Posted 12 March 2007 - 10:40 AM
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
Posted 12 March 2007 - 11:05 AM
We just flew down to Burbank this last weekend and it was under $100 round trip.
#6
Posted 12 March 2007 - 12:10 PM
#7
Posted 14 March 2007 - 01:00 PM
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
Posted 14 March 2007 - 02:22 PM
#9
Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:12 PM
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
Posted 14 March 2007 - 04:33 PM
#11
Posted 14 April 2007 - 10:12 PM
#12 (Gaelic925)
Posted 14 April 2007 - 10:19 PM
#13
Posted 29 September 2008 - 08:11 AM
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
Posted 29 September 2008 - 09:15 AM
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
Posted 29 September 2008 - 03:08 PM
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