California High Speed Rail Thread

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

While I can see your logic relating to cost of living, I think you fail to appreciate just how stupidly expensive the SF housing market is. My sister lives in downtown SF and pays $1900 a month to rent a room the size of a largeish closet in an apartment with 4 other gals. A good friend of mine spends $2400 a month to rent a studio in San Mateo and spends 30+ minutes commuting everyday to work. Both consider themselves to be getting a deal as well.

Each could easily move to Merced or Fresno, buy a $150K house, and spend $1000 a month for the HSR to their jobs in SF, and still come out financially ahead of their current situations. Especially my poor buddy in San Mateo, he could afford the mortgage payments on a $250K house in Merced ($1,182 a month @ 3.92%) plus the $1000 for the HSR and still be saving $200 a month. After the tunnel to the transbay finishes he'd even have a similar commute time to boot!

This is why no one is pushing harder for HSR than SF, they have the most to gain.

No one is going to be doing this. If it were feasible it would be happening somewhere on the planet with HSR, and it isn't.

This is intercity rail, not commuter rail. The scheduling and pricing (assuming this is completed) will be for intercity passengers, not some poor schlub wasting all his money and time ultracommuting. It also makes no sense because HSR trains are almost always at capacity, so why would commuters stuff into them at the tail end (also annoying the base ridership)?

Also, and no offense to Central Valley residents, but much of inland CA is not gonna be appealing to someone who would otherwise live in SF or Silicon Valley, even if you gave everyone a personal helicopter. You think if they built, say, maglev, to Scranton, PA, that NYC professionals would move there? These areas are cheap for a reason.

[jmecklenborg]

^This thing is going to give Californians the option to take a state-of-the-art, amazingly comfortable train to out-of-town meetings and to work on multi-week projects in other cities while coming home to their own bed instead of having to rent a hotel. There will be no airport hassle and the stations will be a lot closer to some people than their area's airport.

It's going to be fantastic. And all certain people can do is complain that somehow a rail line connecting 15~ million people to 6~ million people with 6~ million in the middle is going to struggle to attract riders.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^This thing is going to give Californians the option to take a state-of-the-art, amazingly comfortable train to out-of-town meetings and to work on multi-week projects in other cities while coming home to their own bed instead of having to rent a hotel. There will be no airport hassle and the stations will be a lot closer to some people than their area's airport.

It's going to be fantastic. And all certain people can do is complain that somehow a rail line connecting 15~ million people to 6~ million people with 6~ million in the middle is going to struggle to attract riders.

Nothing you wrote has any relevance to my post. I was talking HSR as a commuter option, which is nonsense.

I also think your post is pretty silly, but for different reasons. You're basically saying "this is gonna work because I said so and there are tons of people in CA" without offering any underlying reasoning.

LA has 19 million people, megabillions in new rail, and basically irrelevant heavy rail ridership. And overall transit ridership is declining, even as the population and transit infrastructure grows. There's no reason to think that HSR will work simply because you have a large population or huge investments.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Nothing you wrote has any relevance to my post. I was talking HSR as a commuter option, which is nonsense.

I also think your post is pretty silly, but for different reasons. You're basically saying "this is gonna work because I said so and there are tons of people in CA" without offering any underlying reasoning.

LA has 19 million people, megabillions in new rail, and basically irrelevant heavy rail ridership. And overall transit ridership is declining, even as the population and transit infrastructure grows. There's no reason to think that HSR will work simply because you have a large population or huge investments.

How many billions of the megabillions in new rail has gone online? Of the megabillions from Measures R and M, only the 11.5 mile Foothill Gold Line ($735 million) and 6.6 mile Expo Line extension ($1.5 billion) have opened (in 2016). Expo Line is at 62,935 daily riders in November 2018 versus 30,830 daily riders in November 2015; Gold Line is at 51,673 daily riders in November 2018 versus 46,520 daily riders in November 2015.

[BrownTown]

I'll just put it this way:

Whether people will be doing supercommutes on HSR will be entirely based on pricing and IMO if the pricing incentives it then I think that's a mistake. Especially because there aren't going to be any express tracks between SJ and SF so there's going to be a significant bottleneck.

Unrelated: I really have no sympathy for anyone paying sky high rents. They choose to live there so either they're stupid or they've decided they're getting enough in return for living there to justify it.

[jmecklenborg]

[QUOTE=Crawford;8420192] You're basically saying "this is gonna work because I said so and there are tons of people in CA" without offering any underlying reasoning. QUOTE]


You're basically saying "this isn't gonna work because I said so...".

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're basically saying "this is gonna work because I said so and there are tons of people in CA" without offering any underlying reasoning.

You're basically saying "this isn't gonna work because I said so...".

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

You're basically saying "this isn't gonna work because I said so...".

Well that and the fact it's like $40 Billion over budget despite being like 2% complete.

[Busy Bee]

^ You could not have better distilled a bad faith argument down to a shorter sentence.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Nothing you wrote has any relevance to my post. I was talking HSR as a commuter option, which is nonsense.

I also think your post is pretty silly, but for different reasons. You're basically saying "this is gonna work because I said so and there are tons of people in CA" without offering any underlying reasoning.

LA has 19 million people, megabillions in new rail, and basically irrelevant heavy rail ridership. And overall transit ridership is declining, even as the population and transit infrastructure grows. There's no reason to think that HSR will work simply because you have a large population or huge investments.

When intercity rail travel times become competitive with the airlines and without the security hassles and are faster than travelling by car, do you really think people will not switch to rail? There is an enormous market and when you add in comfort and being able to accomplish things while on the train (whether pleasure or business), then how could that enormous market not shift at least somewhat towards rail?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Well that and the fact it's like $40 Billion over budget despite being like 2% complete.

Have they spent $40B yet?

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Well that and the fact it's like $40 Billion over budget despite being like 2% complete.

Cant really compare an actual amount of work with an estimate cost overrun. That is definitely a prescription for dramatic hyperbole.

[jmecklenborg]

Military projects go massively over-budget all the time. The Tea Party and internet concern trolls don't ever march on the Pentagon.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Cant really compare an actual amount of work with an estimate cost overrun. That is definitely a prescription for dramatic hyperbole.

Well, you definitely CAN do it. Sure, if someone makes a linear extrapolation off that data then they are an idiot, but it does very effectively show just how massive of a boondoggle this is. No sane person would ever expect that amount over budget to go down given how spectacularly bad the project has done so far. Indeed anyone who follows these sort of projects will surely know that number will continue to march upwards until this project is either complete (unlikely) or canceled.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Military projects go massively over-budget all the time. The Tea Party and internet concern trolls don't ever march on the Pentagon.

Don't be ridiculous, the military budget and cost overruns are CONSTANTLY attacked. They're probably the single most attacked source of government spending there is.

[dubu]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Well, you definitely CAN do it. Sure, if someone makes a linear extrapolation off that data then they are an idiot, but it does very effectively show just how massive of a boondoggle this is. No sane person would ever expect that amount over budget to go down given how spectacularly bad the project has done so far. Indeed anyone who follows these sort of projects will surely know that number will continue to march upwards until this project is either complete (unlikely) or canceled.


Don't be ridiculous, the military budget and cost overruns are CONSTANTLY attacked. They're probably the single most attacked source of government spending there is.

so we should all start pretending they arnt using all this money?

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

You're basically saying "this isn't gonna work because I said so...".

I'm sure HSR will be successful in CA, IF it is run competently in line with systems in other developed nations - (a big if, considering Amtrak).

But yeah, I just don't see this being a commuter system. For most people, the advantages of living (not just working) in a major metropolis are significant.

Also, because of the blended system on the Peninsula, HSR trips from Gilroy to Transbay probably won't be significantly faster than express Caltrain trips from Gilroy to Transbay. The next closest stop on HSR, Merced, will definitely be a longer trip than Caltrain to Gilroy. So the travel times favor continual suburban expansion in the Santa Clara Valley, rather than supercommuting from the Central Valley.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I'm sure HSR will be successful in CA, IF it is run competently in line with systems in other developed nations - (a big if, considering Amtrak).

But yeah, I just don't see this being a commuter system. For most people, the advantages of living (not just working) in a major metropolis are significant.

Also, because of the blended system on the Peninsula, HSR trips from Gilroy to Transbay probably won't be significantly faster than express Caltrain trips from Gilroy to Transbay. The next closest stop on HSR, Merced, will definitely be a longer trip than Caltrain to Gilroy. So the travel times favor continual suburban expansion in the Santa Clara Valley, rather than supercommuting from the Central Valley.

The fastest baby bullet express currently makes 5 stops between Gilroy and SF (and doesn't stop in Gilroy). CAHSR will make 2 stops. So unless Caltrain decides to introduce an ultra-super limited service CAHSR will be faster than Caltrain in the corridor.

People I know living in the bay area have said to me that it feels completely impossible to raise a child without leaving, even dual incomes of $100K+ don't buy you an enough space to comfortably fit a family. Being able to afford that while still being able to maintain your career in SF would certainly interest some people. But the price and the commute times would have to be right, and it's hard to know exactly how many would actually use it.

One thing's for certain though, SF is heavily invested in this project. When it's
all said and done they'll have spent over 6 billion dollars building a new station in downtown SF and a tunnel to connect it to the shared corridor. Even now CAHSR is polling around 75% support in the bay area, which is higher than any other region. So clearly San Franciscan's believe they'll get some use out of it.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Don't be ridiculous, the military budget and cost overruns are CONSTANTLY attacked.

We're really trolling now, aren't we?

Since Reagan, the "common sense" conservatives have obsessed over food stamps, welfare, the post office, the National Endowment for the Arts, Amtrak, and other non-issues.

Not once has a troop of boomer Tea Partiers driven to a military base and demanded its closure to save money. Not once have they marched on a factory building tanks or missiles or the Navy yards in Virginia when the keel is laid for yet another aircraft carrier. Never once did they drive their SUV's to the state DOT and demand a halt to road projects.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

We're really trolling now, aren't we?

Since Reagan, the "common sense" conservatives have obsessed over food stamps, welfare, the post office, the National Endowment for the Arts, Amtrak, and other non-issues.

Not once has a troop of boomer Tea Partiers driven to a military base and demanded its closure to save money. Not once have they marched on a factory building tanks or missiles or the Navy yards in Virginia when the keel is laid for yet another aircraft carrier. Never once did they drive their SUV's to the state DOT and demand a halt to road projects.

True, but when was the last time you saw a Democrat not cut Defense funding and bases, not steal from the Highway Trust Fund to fund transit, not advocate for large increases in food stamps and other welfare programs, and not try to kill entire industries and the jobs they create over a pesky environmental issue, like an unheard of snail, pesky insect, or false pollutant (CO2).

I don't mind increasing funding for transit, but make the transit users pay that tax to fund it. When governments decided to build highways they created a tax to fund it - the fuel taxes we pay at the pump. When governments decided to support flying in every form, the invented a tax to fund it that airlines and its passengers ultimately pay, be it a head tax, parking fees, or other user fees. The Social Security retiree pension system is funded by taxes from active workers - in a ponzi like scheme.
But eventually, everything the government does is funded fully or in part from the general fund, the majority of the funds collected from income taxes.

The main differences between conservatives and liberals is where they wish to see their tax money spent upon. Neither likes to see money spent on things they do not approve, and both like to see the money spent on things the do approve. Neither the rich nor the poor like to see their taxes increased. So get off your high horse, and take a long reflected look from the other sides point of view of the issues at hand. Their views are just as valid as yours - because when it comes to increasing taxes it is the same!

And for one more correction about highways - you will not see many conservatives wishing for higher gas taxes. Just look at how the French in yellow vest are reacting to higher fuel taxes - those were not just liberals manning the barricades. Both liberals and conservatives dislike being uprooted from their homes and businesses to make way for a new highway, seaway, airway, or transit-way.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

We're really trolling now, aren't we?

Since Reagan, the "common sense" conservatives have obsessed over food stamps, welfare, the post office, the National Endowment for the Arts, Amtrak, and other non-issues.

Not once has a troop of boomer Tea Partiers driven to a military base and demanded its closure to save money. Not once have they marched on a factory building tanks or missiles or the Navy yards in Virginia when the keel is laid for yet another aircraft carrier. Never once did they drive their SUV's to the state DOT and demand a halt to road projects.

You do know the whole US isn't made up of only Conservatives right? There's a whole other party of people and the vast majority of them want to cut spending on the military and are quite vocal about it. Stop making it out like nobody ever questions military spending. Not that this fact has anything to do with the topic at hand. Whether or not CAHSR is a good investment is completely independent of whether or not the F-35 is. Personally I think they are both shitty investments but you're more than welcome to disagree. What you can't do is get upset any time someone mentions all the delays and cost overruns because these are simple facts and if you're not willing to accept them and accept that it's a reasonable position to be upset about them then you're not really worth talking to.