California High Speed Rail Thread

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by ocman

If you want the state to give billions for LA rail, that’s a completely different issue. Brown wanted to use carbon emission credits to pay for the rest of the system. That can be used for LA rail, but it could also be used for almost anything else. Newsom isn’t going to do that. He’s gearing up for a single payer health care plan that’ll could cost 200B a year.

Cap and trade revenue is restricted to things that reduce carbon emissions. Legally, he cannot redirect it to health care.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA

toll I-5 from Tracy-Bakersfield for funding?

It's illegal to toll existing interstates.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

It's illegal to toll existing interstates.

Build 20 ft of new interstate along the route, destroy the old bit, and charge $20.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by ocman

He’s gearing up for a single payer health care plan that’ll could cost 200B a year.

Which is stupid.

[SoCalKid]

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2019/02/...in-to-nowhere/

Streetsblog is interpreting Newsom's comments differently. Newsom's speech definitely wasn't clear on what he's planning here, it sounds to me like a "wait-and-see" approach for the SF and LA segments. I imagine if democrats won big in 2020 he would lobby for federal funding for at least one of those two legs.

[mt_climber13]

It's not dead kids.

I agree with Newsom that costs need to be brought under control, because right now it's the most expensive bullet train in the world and also the slowest. No point in throwing good money after bad.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

It's not dead kids.

I agree with Newsom that costs need to be brought under control, because right now it's the most expensive bullet train in the world and also the slowest. No point in throwing good money after bad.

This claim drives me absolutely insane everytime I hear it. PLEASE explain to me how it is the slowest?? That's just a completely fact-free lie invented by Elon Musk. The top speed would be high compared to standard international HSR, and the average speed would be very normal.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

This claim drives me absolutely insane everytime I hear it. PLEASE explain to me how it is the slowest?? That's just a completely fact-free lie invented by Elon Musk. The top speed would be high compared to standard international HSR, and the average speed would be very normal.

It would be extremely slowed down from San Jose up through the peninsula to SF because of opposition. Like I said, no point throwing good money after bad. Retool and make it better and more cost efficient. The BUILD JUST CUZ!!! crowd will not win you over with everyday California voters.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

I agree with Newsom that costs need to be brought under control, because right now it's the most expensive bullet train in the world and also the slowest. No point in throwing good money after bad.

Yes, but this can't be accomplished by simple hand waving. California would need to pass laws strengthening eminent domain and limiting frivolous NIMBY lawsuits. I just don't see that happening.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by k1052

Newsom is terminating the project.

https://www.apnews.com/801b4fb4ff954d1b91bce4aad77f7caa

Bravo Governor! It is a boondoggle in it's current form.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Yes, but this can't be accomplished by simple hand waving. California would need to pass laws strengthening eminent domain and limiting frivolous NIMBY lawsuits. I just don't see that happening.

Then we should get our house in order and start building and reinventing California's political foundations so that extremely important construction projects like transportation can be built efficiently.

Rather have all the wasted money of HSR go instead into building out local rail grids in urban areas.

[k1052]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Yeah, I understand the reasons, but they're still kind of dumb. I do think this isn't the death of this project by a long shot though. My suspicion is California is tired of going it alone and is hoping a Democrat gets elected President in 2020 and they can use their huge Congressional contingent to try and get federal taxpayers to fund this project instead of paying for it themselves. I'm sure in their heads they'll be finishing up the existing work right as the new infrastructure bill goes though and they can roll right into the extensions to LA and SF.

Alternatively if Trump wants an infra bill before the election the powerful CA delegation is going to have a lot to say about that.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

It would be extremely slowed down from San Jose up through the peninsula to SF because of opposition. Like I said, no point throwing good money after bad. Retool and make it better and more cost efficient. The BUILD JUST CUZ!!! crowd will not win you over with everyday California voters.

That is one 50 mile stretch out of the ~275 mile SF-LA route. The speed over that entire SF-LA section would be quite fast for a high speed system. Looking exclusively at a portion that represents around ONE SIXTH of the project is such an insane way to judge the project.

If I sprint 5/6th of a race extremely quickly, then jogged the last 1/6th and completed the race fast enough to medal, would you say I was "the slowest in the race" because my last 1/6 mile was slow??

EDIT:

mt_climber, I'm not even saying you're wrong that the money should be re-directed to local rail. It's just that the "slowest train" argument makes my head spin.

[jmecklenborg]

Nancy Pelosi is once again speaker of the House. Trump's gone in 2020 if not sooner. With a Democrat back in the White House and a slim R majority in the Senate (or 50-50 or a minority) the money will appear as it did back in 2008.

Unfortunately some studies might need to be redone if they expire, meaning a further delay in commencing construction on sections that are not currently under construction.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

That is one 50 mile stretch out of the ~275 mile SF-LA route. The speed over that entire SF-LA section would be quite fast for a high speed system. Looking exclusively at a portion that represents around ONE SIXTH of the project is such an insane way to judge the project.

If I sprint 5/6th of a race extremely quickly, then jogged the last 1/6th and completed the race fast enough to medal, would you say I was "the slowest in the race" because my last 1/6 mile was slow??

Just want to point out that this is a basic math fail. To get the average speed you have to look at the relative times, not the relative distances. So if in your example the jog was half the speed of the sprint then it wouldn't be 1/6th of the race ran slowly, it would be 2/7th. Or to use more easily understandable numbers; if the 5/6th were at 100MPH and then the last 1/6th were at 50MPH the average speed would be 85MPH. That's a pretty significant reduction.

[kgbnsf]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

But why? There's plenty of plains that fly this route every day.

Use these funds to speed up the LA rail projects that are currently planned out to 2040 and to expand heavy rail in the Bay Area.

Trains are far more superior to air travel for a number of reasons:

1) Train fares are typically less expensive than flying
2) The carbon footprint of trains is 1/2 of that of a jet
3) Far easier and less expensive to expand capacity on rails than airports
4) Trains, for the most part, will get you to the urban cores more than most airports
5) Easier experience for passenger, no airport security, long wait times
6) More reliable schedules than flights
7) Not as prone to weather delays
8) Far more comfortable for the average passenger
9) Serve small communities as well as large metros

About the only thing they are not superior in is time savings. Hence the basis of my original post. Even improving the time travel to say a realistic 7 hours from the Bay Area to LA, you're not going to attract those that want to fly and want to arrive quickly. But, it would start to lure some air travelers, and I5 travelers, which will be a good thing all around. It can reduce the need for road and airport construction. Because currently, very few are going to take a train over driving or flying on this route.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

This fucking country is doomed.

Yes. California has hurt the chances of HSR anywhere else because how y’all handled this.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Just want to point out that this is a basic math fail. To get the average speed you have to look at the relative times, not the relative distances. So if in your example the jog was half the speed of the sprint then it wouldn't be 1/6th of the race ran slowly, it would be 2/7th. Or to use more easily understandable numbers; if the 5/6th were at 100MPH and then the last 1/6th were at 50MPH the average speed would be 85MPH. That's a pretty significant reduction.

I understand, my 5/6th meant distance. My overarching point was that the AVERAGE speed of the proposed system (your 85MPH in this example) is very much in line with international high speed rail (and far from the "slowest in the world"). This was not a "basic math fail".

[mt_climber13]

Converting the lower deck of the bay bridge to dedicated rail and bus lanes (as it was originally built) and also semis (to reduce the congestion of the upper vehicle deck)
Upper vehicle deck could have a zipper median like on the GG bridge to adjust with traffic flows.

run HSR from San Jose to Oakland and then from Oakland to SF via Bay Bridge at full speed. Oakland and east bay are much more populous. Peninsula residents and take a CalTrain from San Jose up to Palo Alto. No HSR for you!

It could then detour from Oakland east to Sacramento [and potentially further east to Tahoe/ Reno and north from Sacramento along the I-5 up to Portland and Seattle]

connect the LA/ OC southern terminus to San Diego and Las Vegas

[ITB495]

If this high speed rail project doesn't connect to either San Francisco or Los Angeles and becomes a train to nowhere, it will epitomize the remarkable decline of the United States. And, really, nothing short of that.

Many other countries around the globe, even some deemed "developing," are building or expanding high speed rail systems. And, we, the United States of America, supposedly the grandest, wealthiest and most powerful of all, can't manage to build a single, new high speed rail line. Frankly, I'm appalled and disgusted. The whole world is watching.