• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

More high speed fail in Ca.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
You think it would, but it wouldn't help as much as you think. The westside is a pretty large place still and your now expecting people to take additional mass transit after their train ride. For LA, thats not gonna happen.

(also, what your proposing is something more regional along the lines of the SF Bart system rather then HSR).
Valid points. The idea that HSR is a magic bullet for traffic congestion delusional thinking.
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
6,794
1,535
136
Valid points. The idea that HSR is a magic bullet for traffic congestion delusional thinking.
Especially in CA and even more so on the route planned.

How many people want to go from Stockton to Modesto on a regular basis? How about from Gilroy to Bakersfield? Escondido to Anaheim?

The stupidity of the project is that it doesn't connect two high-density population zones that are relatively close together and have a transient workforce. The only two high-density population zones it connects are SF and LA; they're not close together and they don't share a daily traffic flow. The rest of the connectors are small areas that for the most part also do not share a daily traffic flow. A gigantic, overpriced rail system that relies on sporadic travel patterns is doomed to failure.

If there was a consistent population that needed to get from SF to LA or LA to Sac on a daily basis as a commute that would make sense. As it is the proposal makes as much sense as creating a high-speed rail line from Orlando to Atlanta.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
sactoking, i think we need it so we can spread out our population more and lower the cost of living.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,445
0
0
You think it would, but it wouldn't help as much as you think. The westside is a pretty large place still and your now expecting people to take additional mass transit after their train ride. For LA, thats not gonna happen.

(also, what your proposing is something more regional along the lines of the SF Bart system rather then HSR).
I thought the westside of LA had the subway now. Didn't they do a subway in LA ?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I honestly don't know if you're serious...
Why wouldn't he be serious? Right now if you live 150 miles outside of LA housing is probably 1/5 or less the cost, but you're looking at a daily six hour round trip, assuming rush hour travel. If you could board a train and be in LA in half an hour, then take a bus to your work, that same commute becomes practical. That almost requires a planned region though; you'd need several evenly spaced hubs with straight shots into town as well as very streamlined or no security. A high speed train that requires a thirty minute screening and stops at every little town might as well be a slow train.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,607
211
106
The California High Speed Rail Authority has lost any credibility with repeatedly lying about the cost, ridership, time frame, source of funds, and number of jobs. They have also been busted for taking secret junkets paid by foreign countries and interests looking to win contracts. This is the lowest of low priorities with very little utility to the millions of commuters who need better roads and better local transit options. California is already broke and cutting education and other services while these charlatans want to borrow billions and billions of dollars to subsidize a few business travelers who now fly in the SF/LA corridor. BOONDOGGLE. They need to allow the voters to vote again on this as the proponents lied and lied to fleece the voters.

150 miles? Who lives 150 miles from LA and commutes there to work daily. No one except people in SimCity games.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,951
9,614
136
Just cancel it already and let Chicago / NEC have the federal funds, they can actually do something with them.
 

Joepublic2

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2005
1,114
6
76
So the only alternative to senseless spending is different senseless spending?
Seems to be the case if you're a US policy maker these days...

Ridiculous,
recently i priced chicago to nyc amtrak trip and it came in at 40% more than a spirit air flight. That and amtrak takes 20 hrs versus 2.5 on the plane.

How does it cost so much? I prefer rail travel to flying, but not at 4/10 premium.
Well the difference would be even greater for me because I have no preference for either and would factor in the value of my time.
 
Last edited:

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,928
2,330
126
hey you stupid fuck - i live in west La and we are planning monorail. In fact one of the planned stops is half a block from my studio and the business already moved out of the space.

How about you talk about what you know about and I will do the same.
I'm sure enlightened cometary like this will change minds.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
I think its a good idea to have it stop in smaller markets. I would love a train that went from riverside to the westside with stops in between. That would be amazing and totally get rid of a lot of congestion.
If it did that, then it no longer should be called High Speed Rail.
What's the point of calling something "High Speed Rail" if it takes you 4-5 hours to get to your destination which is 100 miles away because the train has to stop at every little town for 15-20 minutes?
Might as well take a flight and you'll get to wherever you want in California in 1-2 hours tops. For cheaper also even if you take the airline subsidy into account.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
The California High Speed Rail Authority has lost any credibility with repeatedly lying about the cost, ridership, time frame, source of funds, and number of jobs. They have also been busted for taking secret junkets paid by foreign countries and interests looking to win contracts. This is the lowest of low priorities with very little utility to the millions of commuters who need better roads and better local transit options. California is already broke and cutting education and other services while these charlatans want to borrow billions and billions of dollars to subsidize a few business travelers who now fly in the SF/LA corridor. BOONDOGGLE. They need to allow the voters to vote again on this as the proponents lied and lied to fleece the voters.

150 miles? Who lives 150 miles from LA and commutes there to work daily. No one except people in SimCity games.
Yeah, that "150 miles" comment made me chuckle.
It's a comment I expected from Dave, not werepossum though. :(
 

DCal430

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2011
6,021
9
81
The cost is irrelevant, if it cost 100 billion, 200 billion, or even 1 trillion it is needed. We can raise taxes to pay for this.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,714
0
76
Whatever they build will end up going to Chinese companies, much like how they picked the fabricators for the new Bay Bridge.
 

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
Yeah, that "150 miles" comment made me chuckle.
It's a comment I expected from Dave, not werepossum though. :(

One of, from what I recall, the big selling points for this HSR was claimed 185mph speeds. At that rate of speed, with proper foresight for stops, locations, destination hubs and transit to other hubs/work ect. the entire thing looks really good. Perhaps if we directed taxpayer funds to actually paying for the project instead of lining the pockets of *oppurtunists* we could do the thing, but perhaps not. Certainly with all the money being stolen by politicans and their friends, this thing is never going to be what anyone had high hopes for, there will be too many folks interested in getting rich first and helping California locals second,.. or not at all.

From what ive read, getting the 185mph goal (which was a critical number for claims of the HSR functionality/selling point) becomes a vertical asymptote when you plot the cash outlays on the y and speed on the x. 150mph is much more affordable, but it misses a critical mark for the time of transit to make the entire project worthwhile vs air travel and other options. 185 doesn't look feasable, nor the route needed to travel 185mph to get to places that are worthwhile in desired time frames.

Hey, at least we don't have to pay for the mess......
 
Last edited:

Attic

Diamond Member
Jan 9, 2010
4,284
2
76
The cost is irrelevant, if it cost 100 billion, 200 billion, or even 1 trillion it is needed. We can raise taxes to pay for this.
The cost is critical. It determines whether taxes can pay for it.

Do you have any idea of value?
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,951
9,614
136
Whatever they build will end up going to Chinese companies, much like how they picked the fabricators for the new Bay Bridge.
The Bay Bridge received no federal dollars so it was exempt from the usual "Buy American" requirements.

Since the HSR project is to get something like $5B in federal grants there is no such leeway on that project. Construction of the right of way itself doesn't require any skills that we already don't have. The signal systems and rolling stock are another matter.
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,714
0
76
The Bay Bridge received no federal dollars so it was exempt from the usual "Buy American" requirements.

Since the HSR project is to get something like $5B in federal grants there is no such leeway on that project. Construction of the right of way itself doesn't require any skills that we already don't have. The signal systems and rolling stock are another matter.
The Bay Bridge fiasco did not even cause a regime change at Caltrans. It's pathetic that the public has to shoulder the cost of such an expensive bridge. If they designed it different, it could have been built cheaper and we could've used American fabricators. The bolded part is what I'm worried about.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,951
9,614
136
The Bay Bridge fiasco did not even cause a regime change at Caltrans. It's pathetic that the public has to shoulder the cost of such an expensive bridge. If they designed it different, it could have been built cheaper and we could've used American fabricators. The bolded part is what I'm worried about.
I don't think the Chinese would be a serious contender for this. We'll probably use them to get the prices from European or Japanese companies down. After the mishaps in China's own HSR programs (which are just bad copies of Euro or Japanese equipment) we'll be looking for a more reputable vendor.

As to the Bay Bridge...yea....nice job Caltrans. Unfortunately building anything at all in CA is a titanic headache. We're looking at doing projects in SF and it just makes me want to reach for my vodka to numb the pain.
 
Last edited:

mchammer187

Diamond Member
Nov 26, 2000
9,116
0
76
Ridiculous,
recently i priced chicago to nyc amtrak trip and it came in at 40% more than a spirit air flight. That and amtrak takes 20 hrs versus 2.5 on the plane.

How does it cost so much? I prefer rail travel to flying, but not at 4/10 premium.
Did you include all taxes. Spirit also charges you money for carry-on luggage which is why I hate flying with them because it adds $100+ to round trip ticket assuming you check a bag and bring a carryon
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
35,951
9,614
136
Did you include all taxes. Spirit also charges you money for carry-on luggage which is why I hate flying with them because it adds $100+ to round trip ticket assuming you check a bag and bring a carryon
And LaGuardia. I would pay handsomely avoid LaGuardia.

A 4ish hour HSR run from Chicago Union Station to Penn Station would be a dream.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY