The liberals $43 billion train to no where...

[davmat787]

Not sure how the money for this HSR project is accumulated and alloted, but since almost everyone agrees travel with the LA area is horrible, wouldn't it makes sense to fix that before connecting it to SFO? Admittedly, I have not read up very much on this project, but how does this help those sitting on the freeways all day or those who travel between the different cities like JStorm mentioned? Am I missing something?

<--- not against rail at all in principle, just question if this money could be better used to fixed the transportation problem.

 

[ElFenix]

Not sure how the money for this HSR project is accumulated and alloted, but since almost everyone agrees travel with the LA area is horrible, wouldn't it makes sense to fix that before connecting it to SFO? Admittedly, I have not read up very much on this project, but how does this help those sitting on the freeways all day or those who travel between the different cities like JStorm mentioned? Am I missing something?

<--- not against rail at all in principle, just question if this money could be better used to fixed the transportation problem.

i think you need to get people out of cars before rail makes sense, but you have to have rails there before people get out of cars. so the rail is a losing proposition for decades until fully built out. and it's much more expensive to put in a commuter system now than it was back when chicago and new york were putting in their systems a century ago.

how many people even know that LA has a subway?

 

[JSt0rm]

how is the burbank to SM thing relevant at all?

There's a metro/redline project underway to connect SM to the purple line. If that goes through, IMHO the next logical step is to connect Santa Monica purple line to NoHo redline.

HSR won't help this at all!

Santa Monica is a traffic shithole no matter where you are coming or going.

its relevant because they are talking about driving to burbank airport instead of lax (just south of sm)

All of the monorail stuff is great and it will be even more great when I can go from monorail in beverly hills to SF.

 

[JSt0rm]

and I don't even understand why all the rednecks hate this?

We all voted to have this happen and we are getting some federal money for it but guess what? WE PAY MORE IN FEDERAL TAXES THEN WE GET BACK. You fucking red state bitches get more from the fed then you pay so don't fucking come here and say that money spent in cali is pork.

 

[davmat787]

its relevant because they are talking about driving to burbank airport instead of lax (just south of sm)

All of the monorail stuff is great and it will be even more great when I can go from monorail in beverly hills to SF.

Do you think this HSR project will help ease congestion and travel times within the LA area itself? If so, have heard any estimates of just how much? I ask because it seems like the congestion is within the LA area itself, and with (admittedly little) understanding of the HSR project it won't help with that, other than those relatively few trying to get out of LA to drive up to SF. What am I missing?

 

[JSt0rm]

Do you think this HSR project will help ease congestion and travel times within the LA area itself? If so, have heard any estimates of just how much? I ask because it seems like the congestion is within the LA area itself, and with (admittedly little) understanding of the HSR project it won't help with that, other than those relatively few trying to get out of LA to drive up to SF. What am I missing?

yes it will. Because people will be able to commute into the city from farther out. A train doesn't only stop in sf and la. It makes stops in many locations on the way.

 

[Ns1]

yes it will. Because people will be able to commute into the city from farther out. A train doesn't only stop in sf and la. It makes stops in many locations on the way.

this only works if the train runs at times that people want it to run

I know a lot of people in Burbank area who can't take the train (myself included) because the last train leaving this area is @630p

 

[Patranus]

yes it will. Because people will be able to commute into the city from farther out. A train doesn't only stop in sf and la. It makes stops in many locations on the way.

Let me ask you this.
What would get more use (in terms of volume of people) $100 billion worth of freeway construction vs. $100 billion worth of HSR?

 

[davmat787]

The future viability of air travel in the LA area, and in general, was discussed by many in this thread yesterday. I just came across this latimes.com article which relates to this issue. Skimming it, I found the below, reading in full now.

Unless there is a quick turnaround, Ontario officials say, Los Angeles will squander an aviation asset with the potential to serve 30 million passengers annually. That's partly because it is unencumbered by the court-ordered passenger caps, noise restrictions, outdated facilities and community opposition that have slowed growth at LAX and other local airports.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-adv-ontario-airport-20111031,0,2228265.story

 

[davmat787]

yes it will. Because people will be able to commute into the city from farther out. A train doesn't only stop in sf and la. It makes stops in many locations on the way.

Thanks. Do you know of a good map that details the routing and stops this HSR project will have?

I thought HSR's usually don't make many stops relative to other rail systems as it is traditionally employed on longer routes, hence the flying comparisons between LAX-SFO.

 

[fskimospy]

Let me ask you this.
What would get more use (in terms of volume of people) $100 billion worth of freeway construction vs. $100 billion worth of HSR?

For the major transit corridors of California? Undoubtedly the HSR.

Adding more capacity faces diminishing returns, which is already a huge problem in CA. You gain a lot more capacity in sheer numbers of riders a freeway can service in going from 1 lane to 2 lanes than you do from going from 6 lanes to 7. Not just in percentages, but in actual numbers.

Roads have a low threshold for diminishing returns, $100 billion spent on making freeways wider would not be nearly as useful as building alternative modes of transit.

 

[Patranus]

For the major transit corridors of California? Undoubtedly the HSR.

Adding more capacity faces diminishing returns, which is already a huge problem in CA. You gain a lot more capacity in sheer numbers of riders a freeway can service in going from 1 lane to 2 lanes than you do from going from 6 lanes to 7. Not just in percentages, but in actual numbers.

Roads have a low threshold for diminishing returns, $100 billion spent on making freeways wider would not be nearly as useful as building alternative modes of transit.

Think of it this way.

The bay bridge boondoggle is going to cost ~$7 billion. That ~$7 billion (while over budget) is going to serve ~100,000,000 cars per year.

How long it is going to take this HSR to reach 100,000,000 riders (total?).
(Hint: The entire Amtrak system services ~25 million people per year)

To also put number into perspective, 1,569,000 people flew from LAX from SFO in 2010 to 2011. Double that (round trip) and you get ~3 million people.

The cost per volume isn't even close to being economical.

 

[K1052]

Think of it this way.

The bay bridge boondoggle is going to cost ~$7 billion. That ~$7 billion (while over budget) is going to serve ~100,000,000 cars per year.

How long it is going to take this HSR to reach 100,000,000 riders (total?).
(Hint: The entire Amtrak system services ~25 million people per year)

Blame Caltrans for the Bay Bridge debacle. They messed up the whole thing pretty badly. That $7B also gets you no new capacity, just an assurance that the eastern span won't randomly fall into the bay.

If you're going to compare rail systems you might want to look at something like the TGV (90-100M riders per year) or the Shinkansen (300M+ riders per year) or Taiwan (40M passengers per year). Those are true HSR systems.

 

[monovillage]

My bet is that when people get another chance to vote on it, they'll vote it down. If not the next vote, then the ones that will follow it. It wouldn't have passed the first time except the Attorney General of Calif. at the time allowed so many lies to be put on the ballot (Prop. 1A)

 

[chowderhead]

My bet is that when people get another chance to vote on it, they'll vote it down. If not the next vote, then the ones that will follow it. It wouldn't have passed the first time except the Attorney General of Calif. at the time allowed so many lies to be put on the ballot (Prop. 1A)

When the first business plan surfaced, it projected a $34-billion cost. By 2009, the estimate had jumped to $43 billion, in part because the authority included future inflation in the estimated cost of building the system over the next decade.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20111101,0,1124440.story

These charlatans are simply selling snake oil by purposely low balling the numbers. There is no way this thing will come in on budget, on time or even remotely having a business plan to breaking even. The entire board should be thrown in jail for corruption as they received secret, paid junkets by foreign governments and contractors hoping to win contracts.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/24/local/la-me-high-speed-disclosure-20101025

 

[ElFenix]

Thanks. Do you know of a good map that details the routing and stops this HSR project will have?

I thought HSR's usually don't make many stops relative to other rail systems as it is traditionally employed on longer routes, hence the flying comparisons between LAX-SFO.

there would likely be nonstop and multistop trains.

additionally if enough right of way is purchased some of the really local lines could be served by commuter type trains that hit higher speeds than current (because the track would be straighter and grade separated).

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx

The entire board should be thrown in jail for corruption as they received secret, paid junkets by foreign governments and contractors hoping to win contracts.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/24/local/la-me-high-speed-disclosure-20101025

that sounds a lot like houston's light rail BS that's been going on.

 

[Patranus]

Blame Caltrans for the Bay Bridge debacle. They messed up the whole thing pretty badly. That $7B also gets you no new capacity, just an assurance that the eastern span won't randomly fall into the bay.

If you're going to compare rail systems you might want to look at something like the TGV (90-100M riders per year) or the Shinkansen (300M+ riders per year) or Taiwan (40M passengers per year). Those are true HSR systems.

I am simply pointing out that there isn't enough volume in California to make it practical.

 

[K1052]

I am simply pointing out that there isn't enough volume in California to make it practical.

Someone would need to come up with the total travel figures between SF and LA metro areas to get a better idea of what we're talking about. LAX-SFO is just one part of the picture.

 

[Patranus]

Someone would need to come up with the total travel figures between SF and LA metro areas to get a better idea of what we're talking about. LAX-SFO is just one part of the picture.

http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_19241126?source=most_viewed

Apparently the state believes that 35 million people would ride it per year by 2040 which is hard to believe as Amtrak only gets 25 million people riding they system per year nation wide.

 

[chucky2]

and I don't even understand why all the rednecks hate this?

We all voted to have this happen and we are getting some federal money for it but guess what? WE PAY MORE IN FEDERAL TAXES THEN WE GET BACK. You fucking red state bitches get more from the fed then you pay so don't fucking come here and say that money spent in cali is pork.

My you Lefties are falling apart this year. Don't you know your state makes too much? It's a 1%'r dude, it owes more. In fact, because it's a 1%'r, it should have to give even more.

Ante up, the 99% of other states deserve more money (they can lower their Fed taxes when your's are raised). :thumbsup:

 

[K1052]

http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_19241126?source=most_viewed

Apparently the state believes that 35 million people would ride it per year by 2040 which is hard to believe as Amtrak only gets 25 million people riding they system per year nation wide.

Amtrak service outside maybe Acela Express bears no resemblance to an HSR system. Also Amtrak carried 30M people in the last fiscal year.

 

[Patranus]

Amtrak service outside maybe Acela Express bears no resemblance to an HSR system. Also Amtrak carried 30M people in the last fiscal year.

Not the number I saw but always.....Even it it was 30M people, you are telling me that a system in CA (which represents 12% of the United States) is going to get used more than the entire system we have in place now national wide?

That is laughable.

 

[monovillage]

When the first business plan surfaced, it projected a $34-billion cost. By 2009, the estimate had jumped to $43 billion, in part because the authority included future inflation in the estimated cost of building the system over the next decade.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20111101,0,1124440.story

These charlatans are simply selling snake oil by purposely low balling the numbers. There is no way this thing will come in on budget, on time or even remotely having a business plan to breaking even. The entire board should be thrown in jail for corruption as they received secret, paid junkets by foreign governments and contractors hoping to win contracts.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/24/local/la-me-high-speed-disclosure-20101025

All true, I am a tiny bit, but not much surprised that the same people that scream about Government corruption that pays off corporations and Wall Street seem just fine with Government corruption that pays off corporations and Wall Street, as long as it's for something they approve of.

 

[K1052]

Not the number I saw but always.....Even it it was 30M people, you are telling me that a system in CA (which represents 12% of the United States) is going to get used more than the entire system we have in place now national wide?

That is laughable.

No more laughable than saying this:

is the same as this:

 

[chowderhead]

No more laughable than saying this:

is the same as this:

guess what they do have in common ... SHARED tracks according to the revised business plans.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/02/BAMK1LP9SQ.DTL&tsp=1
This thing will have more stops and more delays and low ridership. BOONDOGGLE.