25 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

We would love to take the train from Sac to San Diego some day. One thing they never tell us in all the news about rail service is how much it is going to cost per trip.

I will be a lot faster and more than likely cheaper to fly.

Comments???

[Bill Z]

nevermind, i realize i was misinterpreting your post

[harrmill]

We would love to take the train from Sac to San Diego some day. One thing they never tell us in all the news about rail service is how much it is going to cost per trip.

I will be a lot faster and more than likely cheaper to fly.

Comments???

I have doubts it would be ever be faster or cheaper than flying to SD. The flight is what, 1:20, and if you plan accordingly, you can avoid hassles at the airport and probably complete your trip from airport to airport in 3:30 to 4:00 for about $100 - $150 - not so bad. I think it not possible to travel on rail the necessary speeds to make it worthwhile with terrain and urbanized areas in the way. And, trains always tend to make loads of stops to pick up and drop off passengers, which also slows things down.

The French TGV is way cool, but they have compact cities, homogenous terrain, and massive public subsidy to make it all work and keep working. CA has huge, spread-out suburbs, lots of mountains and fault lines, and no stomach for giant, new, unproven public works projects.

[Folsom_Blues]

France is one of the most varied countries in the world! I have never heard it called homogenous before. Pyrennes? Alps?

France's train system runs at a profit. Last year was $1.75 billion and this year is projected higher.

And it's not a choice between spending money or not, we will spends billions on highway or airport infrastructure as well. The problem is that they are both highly inefficent from an energy standpoint and capacity. When the system is at full build out, the capacity will be well over 1,000 737s a day. There is no way we can get that kind of throughput in our airports.

CA needs high speed rail and has needed it for a while. Our current infrastructure is reaching its limit.

I have doubts it would be ever be faster or cheaper than flying to SD. The flight is what, 1:20, and if you plan accordingly, you can avoid hassles at the airport and probably complete your trip from airport to airport in 3:30 to 4:00 for about $100 - $150 - not so bad. I think it not possible to travel on rail the necessary speeds to make it worthwhile with terrain and urbanized areas in the way. And, trains always tend to make loads of stops to pick up and drop off passengers, which also slows things down.

The French TGV is way cool, but they have compact cities, homogenous terrain, and massive public subsidy to make it all work and keep working. CA has huge, spread-out suburbs, lots of mountains and fault lines, and no stomach for giant, new, unproven public works projects.

[harrmill]

France is one of the most varied countries in the world! I have never heard it called homogenous before. Pyrennes? Alps?

France's train system runs at a profit. Last year was $1.75 billion and this year is projected higher.

And it's not a choice between spending money or not, we will spends billions on highway or airport infrastructure as well. The problem is that they are both highly inefficent from an energy standpoint and capacity. When the system is at full build out, the capacity will be well over 1,000 737s a day. There is no way we can get that kind of throughput in our airports.

CA needs high speed rail and has needed it for a while. Our current infrastructure is reaching its limit.

Pyrennes to the south and west, Alps to the east, in the middle - flat, rolling homgenous terraine, like the central valley.

I agree with your points, but how to get things started? A $9B project in these times is tough to swallow. And, to my knowledge both the TGV and the Bullet train depended on govt funding at the beginning. We have a gov-funded rail system today called Amtrak, and outside a few corridors is not what I would call a success. Are there private parties that want in on that $1.75B payout that are willing to sign-on now? Maybe GM ought to give up the ghost on the car business and get in on this high-speed rail project - they have the resources to help this get off the ground, no pun intended.

[Folsom_Blues]

Considering we are paying $1.2 billion to improve one terminal of a small airport in Sac, $9 billion seems much smaller.

Amtrak is doing very well in our corridor. Capitol Corridor is having a banner year and ridership is through the roof. A high speed system would prove more valuable and entice even more riders. Amtrak's biggest problem is sharing capacity with UP and the lack of speed. Currently, it's competitive with a car, but high speed rail would offer superior speed as well as comfort.

A public-private partnership sounds interesting, but private business usually does best when it can compete. It's difficult to have such a model with rail.

I agree with your points, but how to get things started? A $9B project in these times is tough to swallow. And, to my knowledge both the TGV and the Bullet train depended on govt funding at the beginning. We have a gov-funded rail system today called Amtrak, and outside a few corridors is not what I would call a success. Are there private parties that want in on that $1.75B payout that are willing to sign-on now? Maybe GM ought to give up the ghost on the car business and get in on this high-speed rail project - they have the resources to help this get off the ground, no pun intended.

[Folsom Guy]

Considering we are paying $1.2 billion to improve one terminal of a small airport in Sac, $9 billion seems much smaller.

Amtrak is doing very well in our corridor. Capitol Corridor is having a banner year and ridership is through the roof. A high speed system would prove more valuable and entice even more riders. Amtrak's biggest problem is sharing capacity with UP and the lack of speed. Currently, it's competitive with a car, but high speed rail would offer superior speed as well as comfort.

A public-private partnership sounds interesting, but private business usually does best when it can compete. It's difficult to have such a model with rail.

If you compare the monies spent on airports and roads, rail has gotten lot less....it is now time to even out the playing field...build the rail network starting with congsted arteries...so that taxpayers have choice. At this time, it is either road or air (both govt funded and maintained)

[camay2327]

I am going to vote against high speed rail and all the other large spending projects. We are so in debt right now that we should not pass any large spending bills.

[Darth.Central]

I am going to vote against high speed rail and all the other large spending projects. We are so in debt right now that we should not pass any large spending bills.

Amen!

Why do we keep talking about it costing $9B? It's $9.95B and that's principal only.

Principal and interest is $19.2B and the initial $9.95B is not the total cost to begin with.

Operations and maintenance costs are estimated at $1B annually.

This is not counting any (guaranteed) overruns in the project. It is a government run project.

What part of California budget crisis and global economic and financial crisis don't we understand?

California can't even fund its current operations and is looking for a $7B government bailout just to be able to issue bonds to get into more debt.

We don't even have a workable budget.

Would it be nice? Absolutely. I'd love to use it too, but we can't afford it right now.

[DalOwnerX3]

I like the idea but I'm a bit skeptical that it will happen in my lifetime. There's a lot of real estate that the rail will need to go through. There's a lot of habitats that the environments can get up in arms about. One spotted owl nest and the project could be stalled for decades.

[Darth Lefty]

California is not built for trains.