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

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well I can't speak for her experience but lots of people here ride Amtrak, metro north, etc, every day.

The major issue with Amtrak is its national mandate. Maybe that makes it more politically viable by spreading out spending between states, but in the end it just makes place where Amtrak makes sense (the northeast) subsidize places where it doesn't. (minnesota)

Local commutes on short routes usually work out, but that reduces the system to only have city/suburb utility. If we have a national rail system (which I endorse) it has to work much better to connect major cities at least. Right not that's not happening and that's a sad thing. It is far to get support for expansion when the existing system requires much improvement.

 

[Pneumothorax]

So excited to pay $150 for a train ride from LA to SF that will easily take >5 hours when it will be done in >20 years when I can plan ahead and get a plane ticket for $120 TODAY. This 'bullet' train is hardly similar to what the voters (stupidly) voted for. From what I'm understanding from the current proposals, you'll be taking the metrolink from LA to Palmdale (easily >2 hours alone), transferring your luggage to the bullet train, dealing with multiple stops in the Central Valley - each adding additional time, getting off in San Jose/Fremont, transferring my luggage (AGAIN) into a BART train, and after about a hour, I'm finally in downtown SF. STUPID STUPID STUPID.

And given the current terrorist climate, anyone who thinks there won't be a slow ass 'TSA' type of screening getting on the train is incredibly naive.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Long Distance trains needs to be a federally regulated program, much like our airfare. PERIOD. Individual states dealing with random companies all trying to connect together at some point is retarded. This is retarded. The fact that it's coming from California first... is no surprise... They always have to be first to learn the lesson, much like iPads in class.

 

[fskimospy]

Local commutes on short routes usually work out, but that reduces the system to only have city/suburb utility. If we have a national rail system (which I endorse) it has to work much better to connect major cities at least. Right not that's not happening and that's a sad thing. It is far to get support for expansion when the existing system requires much improvement.

Like I said, Amtrak has a major issue where it is not allowed to utilize its revenues and capital where it makes the most sense. They spend shitloads of money subsidizing money losing routes because they are mandated to do so by law.

One good thing about the CA proposal is that it exists independent of this mandate.

 

[K1052]

So excited to pay $150 for a train ride from LA to SF that will easily take >5 hours when it will be done in >20 years when I can plan ahead and get a plane ticket for $120 TODAY. This 'bullet' train is hardly similar to what the voters (stupidly) voted for. From what I'm understanding from the current proposals, you'll be taking the metrolink from LA to Palmdale (easily >2 hours alone), transferring your luggage to the bullet train, dealing with multiple stops in the Central Valley - each adding additional time, getting off in San Jose/Fremont, transferring my luggage (AGAIN) into a BART train, and after about a hour, I'm finally in downtown SF. STUPID STUPID STUPID.

And given the current terrorist climate, anyone who thinks there won't be a slow ass 'TSA' type of screening getting on the train is incredibly naive.

The build-out is phased largely due to funding. SF to LA will be a complete HSR segment by 2029 according to the current schedule. The Palmdale-LA leg is the hardest technically and thus the most cost per mile. If the feds shoved a pile of cash at it the whole thing could probably be done by 2022-3.

 

[K1052]

Long Distance trains needs to be a federally regulated program, much like our airfare. PERIOD. Individual states dealing with random companies all trying to connect together at some point is retarded. This is retarded. The fact that it's coming from California first... is no surprise... They always have to be first to learn the lesson, much like iPads in class.

Congress has routinely declined to fund any transformative plan for AMTRAK. They can't even get money to make major needed upgrades the the northeast corridor which has a vast ridership and wouldn't be financially risky at all.

 

[dainthomas]

Like I said, Amtrak has a major issue where it is not allowed to utilize its revenues and capital where it makes the most sense. They spend shitloads of money subsidizing money losing routes because they are mandated to do so by law.

One good thing about the CA proposal is that it exists independent of this mandate.

What I've never understood is why when freight is so much cheaper to move by rail than air, that people cost so much more. Why are the long distance routes easily double what a comparable plane ticket would be? And even these prices are subsidized? Crazy.

 

[K1052]

What I've never understood is why when freight is so much cheaper to move by rail than air, that people cost so much more. Why are the long distance routes easily double what a comparable plane ticket would be? And even these prices are subsidized? Crazy.

A train full of lumber is less time sensitive than live humans. If it takes a few days to cross the country no big deal.

Congress (both parties) won't let them shed the money loosing long distance trains. For many small rural communities they are the only means of transport.

 

[fskimospy]

What I've never understood is why when freight is so much cheaper to move by rail than air, that people cost so much more. Why are the long distance routes easily double what a comparable plane ticket would be? And even these prices are subsidized? Crazy.

Plane costs are strongly influenced by weight; rail costs less so.

Most long haul passenger train rides in the US are underutilized, which drives up ticket prices, and even in places where they are not, (northeast corridor), Amtrak has higher prices to subsidize all the money losing routes they have elsewhere.

Trains are good for short to mid range, heavily trafficked routes. Long range and low density routes are just not useful.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Like I said, Amtrak has a major issue where it is not allowed to utilize its revenues and capital where it makes the most sense. They spend shitloads of money subsidizing money losing routes because they are mandated to do so by law.

One good thing about the CA proposal is that it exists independent of this mandate.

It will be interesting to see how CA actually does. Bostonians remember well the Big Dig (shudder). I can't think of a more poorly handled project, entirely driven by politics and corruption for the benefit of those in government and business. I hope CA has a better luck.

 

[glenn1]

Plane costs are strongly influenced by weight; rail costs less so.

Most long haul passenger train rides in the US are underutilized, which drives up ticket prices, and even in places where they are not, (northeast corridor), Amtrak has higher prices to subsidize all the money losing routes they have elsewhere.

Trains are good for short to mid range, heavily trafficked routes. Long range and low density routes are just not useful.

You're neglecting a few other negatives about passenger rail, namely lack of routing flexibility, cost of right of ways, and limited ability to react quickly to changes in demand. We'd probably be better off alloting the same money for LA-SF transport into developing an autonomous high-speed bus service fueled by natural gas or even alternative energy, but will likely spend the huge sunk costs on rail infrastructure instead. Hooray for 19th century technology where 21st century varieties are imminent and hugely more practical.

 

[theeedude]

Autonomous high speed natural gas bus is the answer? Germany has autobahns, but they still use high speed rail, but we here need to have high speed buses on I-5. Yeah, whatever. Any other pie in the sky "alternatives?"

 

[K1052]

You're neglecting a few other negatives about passenger rail, namely lack of routing flexibility, cost of right of ways, and limited ability to react quickly to changes in demand. We'd probably be better off alloting the same money for LA-SF transport into developing an autonomous high-speed bus service fueled by natural gas or even alternative energy, but will likely spend the huge sunk costs on rail infrastructure instead. Hooray for 19th century technology where 21st century varieties are imminent and hugely more practical.

Unless you're going to build dedicated ROWs for these fast buses they're going to have the same problem all the other wheeled vehicles do....traffic.

 

[Ns1]

Unless you're going to build dedicated ROWs for these fast buses they're going to have the same problem all the other wheeled vehicles do....traffic.

That's exactly what they did in the SFV.

See: Metro Orange Line

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/27/local/la-me-orange-line-20120628

 

[Genx87]

The advent of self driving vehicles brings up a whole other debate about mass transit, public and private, and its role in the future. If I can get into a vehicle that has comforts for sleep, connectivity, ect. And it drives me to any part in the country within hours. What benefit does a high speed rail or airplane bring to me besides speed? International travel will still require an airplane for now.

 

[K1052]

That's exactly what they did in the SFV.

See: Metro Orange Line

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/27/local/la-me-orange-line-20120628

BRT is a lot different. Plus the entire peninsula would have kittens at the prospect of cleaving lanes off 101 or 280 for only buses. Such a plan would also likely require hundreds of buses of a type that doesn't exist and I am somewhat skeptical that state and federal agencies would consider 150mph buses sharing highway infrastructure acceptable from a safety standpoint.

 

[hal2kilo]

Having stupidly driven I-5 from LA to the SF turnoff and back again (once should be enough to teach anybody but the dumbest rocks) I think high speed rail is a most excellent idea. In fact, maybe tear up I-5 and use the corridor for rail since so few people drive on it anyway. The I-5 morons would have to find new occupations like blocking grocery store aisles and picking their noses in public. The restrooms at the Grapevine pump and piss could be turned into public art.

Next to the McDonalds?

 

[dank69]

...

USA

That looks like a pretty good network of trains...oh wait...never mind those are just state borders.

 

[realibrad]

Like I said, Amtrak has a major issue where it is not allowed to utilize its revenues and capital where it makes the most sense. They spend shitloads of money subsidizing money losing routes because they are mandated to do so by law.

One good thing about the CA proposal is that it exists independent of this mandate.

Here we go, another free market person. The government needs to force Amtrak to cater to the poor, but who else will?

You just dont care about poor people.

 

[K1052]

The advent of self driving vehicles brings up a whole other debate about mass transit, public and private, and its role in the future. If I can get into a vehicle that has comforts for sleep, connectivity, ect. And it drives me to any part in the country within hours. What benefit does a high speed rail or airplane bring to me besides speed? International travel will still require an airplane for now.

What distance are you talking about?

Presumably you consider your time valuable.

Self-driving cars will have applications but they won't be a replacement for medium-long haul transportation or patterns that have huge peaks (requiring an car enormous fleet that spends lots of time unused) on a regular basis like twice daily city-suburb commutes.

 

[Genx87]

What distance are you talking about?

Presumably you consider your time valuable.

Self-driving cars will have applications but they won't be a replacement for medium-long haul transportation or patterns that have huge peaks (requiring an car enormous fleet that spends lots of time unused) on a regular basis like twice daily city-suburb commutes.

Medium haul? If I could get into a car at 10PM, sleep, and wake up in Chicago in the morning in my car. I would do it. Time will be a major factor of course. A family of 4 traveling 1500 miles over the course of two days may never be feasible for these self driving vehicles.

 

[glenn1]

Europe HSR system

So the Europe envy rears its head again. Sorry California, but you could build 100 trains and it still won't make you any cooler, sophisticated, or seem "European."

 

[glenn1]

What distance are you talking about?

Presumably you consider your time valuable.

Self-driving cars will have applications but they won't be a replacement for medium-long haul transportation or patterns that have huge peaks (requiring an car enormous fleet that spends lots of time unused) on a regular basis like twice daily city-suburb commutes.

Unless people in SF plan to commute to LA or vice-versa, "twice daily city-suburb commutes" are an inappropriate comparison for this HSF project anyway. This is strictly for the folks with Euro-envy who want to imagine themselves riding some sort of Orient Express train from SF to LA but never will. Instead it will probably cost $500 each way and the ride be more like this if it ever got built.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME8p_l4j4ZM

 

[K1052]

Medium haul? If I could get into a car at 10PM, sleep, and wake up in Chicago in the morning in my car. I would do it. Time will be a major factor of course. A family of 4 traveling 1500 miles over the course of two days may never be feasible for these self driving vehicles.

Time is generally THE major factor.

 

[zinfamous]

Oh, now it's another made-up term to explain this: "Euro-envy"