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

[K1052]

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

The rest of the civilized world isn't investing in HSR out of "euro-envy".

 

[glenn1]

The rest of the civilized world isn't investing in HSR out of "euro-envy".

The rest of the world also doesn't do things like delay HSR projects for a couple dozen years to hold rezoning hearings, complete environmental impact studies, deal with NIMBY lawsuits, get needed approvals from local,state,federal governments, etc etc etc etc etc for the next 30 years and tens of billions of dollars.

 

[BoberFett]

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

You have to admit, a popular argument from the left is "Europe does it and it's the greatest thing ever." Trains, healthcare, etc.

Of course when someone brings up that very European VAT, the American left starts screeching about "It's regressive!", "You hate the poor!", "You just want to cut taxes for the rich!", or "The VAT would have to be 87%!"

 

[K1052]

The rest of the world also doesn't do things like delay HSR projects for a couple dozen years to hold rezoning hearings, complete environmental impact studies, deal with NIMBY lawsuits, get needed approvals from local,state,federal governments, etc etc etc etc etc for the next 30 years and tens of billions of dollars.

It was approved by voters in 2008, the HSR authority voted for construction in 2010, received first federal funding in 2012, and started executing design/build contracts in 2013.

High Speed Two in the UK has roughly been on the same timetable.

 

[chowderhead]

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.

yeah, good luck with that. They have Caltrans who has YET to see a project come in on time or on budget and the same Parsons Brinckerhoff private contractors involved as with the Big Dig. The former head of the CHSRA was also from Parsons Brinckerhoff awarding large contracts to said private contractor.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23164895/california-high-speed-rail-contractor-gets-additional-96

Caltrans where over 1 year after the Bay Bridge was completed, there are still 170 people "working" on the project.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matie...Bridge-span-is-done-but-170-still-5954501.php

Fifteen months after the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge opened, 170 engineers, consultants and other support staffers are still on the clock for the project full-time — at a cost of $44 million a year.
The problem, says one transportation planner: “They got nowhere to go.”

What a waste of taxpayer dollars.

 

[K1052]

You have to admit, a popular argument from the left is "Europe does it and it's the greatest thing ever." Trains, healthcare, etc.

Of course when someone brings up that very European VAT, the American left starts screeching about "It's regressive!", "You hate the poor!", "You just want to cut taxes for the rich!", or "The VAT would have to be 87%!"

They also don't have our military expenditures.

 

[Ns1]

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.

seems about as feasible as building HSR in CA from SF to LA.

 

[K1052]

seems about as feasible as building HSR in CA from SF to LA.

Which is actually going to happen...

 

[Ns1]

Which is actually going to happen...

Unfortunately

 

[bradly1101]

This article states that the train will be an 800 Mile system (both ways?), but doesn't mention the time it would take. It's funny; the drive from L.A. to S.F. takes about six hours at 400 miles. By the time you get to the train station, the train makes all its stops and you get tranportation to your destination at the end of the line, how much time will be saved (if any)? Until a train system can logically replace a car or a plane it won't be successful.

 

[Drako]

This article states that the train will be an 800 Mile system (both ways?), but doesn't mention the time it would take. It's funny; the drive from L.A. to S.F. takes about six hours at 400 miles. By the time you get to the train station, the train makes all its stops and you get tranportation to your destination at the end of the line, how much time will be saved (if any)? Until a train system can logically replace a car or a plane it won't be successful.

That's crazy talk. Stop using logic.

 

[K1052]

This article states that the train will be an 800 Mile system (both ways?), but doesn't mention the time it would take. It's funny; the drive from L.A. to S.F. takes about six hours at 400 miles. By the time you get to the train station, the train makes all its stops and you get tranportation to your destination at the end of the line, how much time will be saved (if any)? Until a train system can logically replace a car or a plane it won't be successful.

Roughly three hours.

That's about how long it takes me to get from my house in SF to stepping on the curb at LAX if all goes perfectly (a great rarity). Renting a car on the LAX end adds 20-30 minutes to that due to the state of the rental car setup there.

Given the option I'd be on the train every time and so would everybody I know here in SF who has to make that trip.

 

[glenn1]

Roughly three hours.

That's about how long it takes me to get from my house in SF to stepping on the curb at LAX if all goes perfectly (a great rarity). Renting a car on the LAX end adds 20-30 minutes to that due to the state of the rental car setup there.

Given the option I'd be on the train every time and so would everybody I know here in SF who has to make that trip.

I don't think anyone is saying in a vacuum that it's a bad idea. The questions come in how many people like you would ride the train (capacity risk), how much tickets would cost vs. alternatives (economic viability risk), whether other technology like autonomous vehicles would make the train moot (obsolesence risk) and whether all-in construction costs make sense against alternatives (opportunity cost risk).

Right now the expectations around this seem to reflect this more than an accurate tally of the risk/reward:

 

[K1052]

I don't think anyone is saying in a vacuum that it's a bad idea. The questions come in how many people like you would ride the train (capacity risk), how much tickets would cost vs. alternatives (economic viability risk), whether other technology like autonomous vehicles would make the train moot (obsolesence risk) and whether all-in construction costs make sense against alternatives (opportunity cost risk).

Right now the expectations around this seem to reflect this more than an accurate tally of the risk/reward:

Since the regions it would connect are growing and given the experience on the NEC about what amount of the market is captured I think there is a lot less risk in the investment than you are implying.

Autonomous vehicles would not make other forms of transportation moot, it would enhance them. The most likely implementations are for local transport that replaces/supplant a certain amount of private vehicle ownership and cab service. Odds are somebody isn't going to get in one in SF and say "Take me to LA" for a 6 hour ride when they can take a train or flight and make it in 3ish.

 

[maddogchen]

Roughly three hours.

That's about how long it takes me to get from my house in SF to stepping on the curb at LAX if all goes perfectly (a great rarity). Renting a car on the LAX end adds 20-30 minutes to that due to the state of the rental car setup there.

Given the option I'd be on the train every time and so would everybody I know here in SF who has to make that trip.

It took me 5+ hours when I took SuperShuttle.
3 hour before flight pick up from my home(1 hr picking up others and then drop me off 2 hrs in advance).
1.5hr flight.
0.5-1.5 hrs to get to my parents home via SuperShuttle.

I'm hoping the bullet train beats that.

 

[cabri]

This article states that the train will be an 800 Mile system (both ways?), but doesn't mention the time it would take. It's funny; the drive from L.A. to S.F. takes about six hours at 400 miles. By the time you get to the train station, the train makes all its stops and you get tranportation to your destination at the end of the line, how much time will be saved (if any)? Until a train system can logically replace a car or a plane it won't be successful.

That's crazy talk. Stop using logic.

I can get from Miami to Orlando by car in 3-4 hours.
Amtrak takes close to that amount of time due to stops. (~10-15 min per stop)

I can drive from Miami to Boston in less than a day.
Again it takes well over a day by train due to stops.

Granted that it is not HSR, but still - the car is faster than the train

For CA HSR, with 24 stations at 10 minutes per station (optimistic); that is 220 minutes of delays (3.5 hrs).

An 800 mile run at 200 mph is 4 hours of train and 3.5 hours of on/off loading. ~ 7-8 hrs

Is HSR really going to save people time from SF to LA

Only way to get address the on/off loading time will be to adjust the station stopping schedule, determine in advance if there needs to be a stop or plan to skip stations during certain hours.

 

[Brainonska511]

I can get from Miami to Orlando by car in 3-4 hours.
Amtrak takes close to that amount of time due to stops. (~10-15 min per stop)

I can drive from Miami to Boston in less than a day.
Again it takes well over a day by train due to stops.

Granted that it is not HSR, but still - the car is faster than the train

For CA HSR, with 24 stations at 10 minutes per station (optimistic); that is 220 minutes of delays (3.5 hrs).

An 800 mile run at 200 mph is 4 hours of train and 3.5 hours of on/off loading. ~ 7-8 hrs

Is HSR really going to save people time from SF to LA

Only way to get address the on/off loading time will be to adjust the station stopping schedule, determine in advance if there needs to be a stop or plan to skip stations during certain hours.

You're way overestimating the number of stops that will exist on this line between SF and LA and the planned route is 520 miles.
---

As for station time: I've taken the NE Regional to Boston - some stops are only 2-3 minutes. Only major stops are longer.

I'd bet that some of the downtime on non-NE routes are due to the lack of rail ownership. They don't really control the rail traffic, so sometimes you get stuck moving slower just due to freight traffic ahead or crossing at an interlock.

 

[IronWing]

Express trains are a known technology. Simply because stops exist doesn't require every train to stop at every stop.

 

[K1052]

Is HSR really going to save people time from SF to LA

Yes. Your figures are way off. Dwell times at intermediate stations will be 2ish minutes. Main segment between SF and LA will have 8 intermediate stations.

 

[marincounty]

I like all of the righties concern for California's economics, where were you when bush was spending trillions on wars of convenience?
Here we are trying to spend some money to benefit actual Americans and you are whining. Remember how proud you were that we were building schools and hospitals in Iraq?
The plans to go east to the central valley are absolutely idiotic however. Much like Obama's efforts to work with Republicans, bringing high speed rail out to the valley is not going to do anything but slow down the train. Compromising on everything leads to bad outcomes for everyone.
Make the train a straight shot from SF to LA.

 

[chowderhead]

I like all of the righties concern for California's economics, where were you when bush was spending trillions on wars of convenience?
Here we are trying to spend some money to benefit actual Americans and you are whining. Remember how proud you were that we were building schools and hospitals in Iraq?
The plans to go east to the central valley are absolutely idiotic however. Much like Obama's efforts to work with Republicans, bringing high speed rail out to the valley is not going to do anything but slow down the train. Compromising on everything leads to bad outcomes for everyone.
Make the train a straight shot from SF to LA.

That was the work of Jim Costa, who wanted this pork barrel project in the valley.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304373804577521432823203066

 

[cabri]

You're way overestimating the number of stops that will exist on this line between SF and LA and the planned route is 520 miles.
---

As for station time: I've taken the NE Regional to Boston - some stops are only 2-3 minutes. Only major stops are longer.

I'd bet that some of the downtime on non-NE routes are due to the lack of rail ownership. They don't really control the rail traffic, so sometimes you get stuck moving slower just due to freight traffic ahead or crossing at an interlock.

From the HSR web site

The system will eventually extend to Sacramento and San Diego, totaling 800 miles with up to 24 stations.

I will agree that one can lop off 100 miles at each end (SD->LA) and (SF->SAC)

For an average of a station every 40 miles and 5 minutes per station on/off loading that still is over an additional hour of time to go the 500+ miles.

And I very surprised at less than 5 minutes per stop will happen.

 

[theeedude]

Rigthwingers just jelly of Cali. Despite their never ending dire warnings of California's impending doom, top talent from around the world wants to live in California, and money follows it here. California is investing in modern infrastructure to make itself a more attractive place to live for the productive people who can afford it, and to continue to benefit from the global brain drain flowing this way.
Meanwhile red states are trying to turn themselves into low tax, cheap labor, third world banana republics. Fine. You do it your way, we'll do it our way, and we'll see who does better. States are laboratories of Democracy and all that jazz.

 

[chowderhead]

Maximum amount of time from San Francisco to Los Angeles allowed is 2 hours and 40 minutes according to the ballot measure the voters voted on. There is no way they will be achieving that with the stops they are proposing and trying to use existing tracks.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/pdf-guide/suppl-complete-guide.pdf#prop1a

It is the wrong priority for California and its transit needs. Governor Brown is completely wrong on this and hopefully the next governor i.e. Newsom can stop this madness and redirect the money to something more useful.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/06/high_speed_rail_is_a_waste_of_time_and_money.html

 

[cabri]

Maximum amount of time from San Francisco to Los Angeles allowed is 2 hours and 40 minutes according to the ballot measure the voters voted on. There is no way they will be achieving that with the stops they are proposing and trying to use existing tracks.
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2008/general/pdf-guide/suppl-complete-guide.pdf#prop1a

It is the wrong priority for California and its transit needs. Governor Brown is completely wrong on this and hopefully the next governor i.e. Newsom can stop this madness and redirect the money to something more useful.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/06/high_speed_rail_is_a_waste_of_time_and_money.html

I will expect that they will acquire right of way along side existing tracks and build dedicated tracks.

You will not be able to run HSR on freight rail; AMTRACK has already experience this with non-HSR on freight tracks in the NE. 70-80 mph is the highest that those tracks can be navigated safely. They have said that the rail bed has to be rebuilt in areas.

Then the safety issue of putting HSR on a freight line. Even if there are dual lines, you do not want a passenger train to run down a freight.