California High Speed Rail Thread

[JDRCRASH]

^ It makes sense.

Think about it: If such a segment is very successfull in the eyes of people, they'll think highly even more of the SF-Merced and Bakersfield-LA segments.

[TWAK]

who's down with the I-80 corridor from sac to sf? I am
Do you guys think it would be a good idea? 80 is already pretty bad

[fflint]

Originally Posted by TWAK

who's down with the I-80 corridor from sac to sf? I am
Do you guys think it would be a good idea? 80 is already pretty bad

If I were made king, this is the very first stretch of HSR that I would implement. Just electrify the already-successful Capitol Corridor, double up the tracks (via very targeted and limited eminent domain), and run it as fast as possible.

[Yankee]

Oh man, as much as I wanna get excited about this, deep down I just know it's too good to be true. Now that we know the first segment will be built in the central valley, the only thing I'm counting on is that once it's built they'll just be forced to build out the rest, otherwise it's too ridiculous - a high speed rail connection that's meant to connect two big relatively distant metropolises that has 70% of the distance covered but stops 150 miles of either one. It'll be really good for the valley either way, but honestly, the full plan that you can see here - http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx

I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future. By the time it starts coming together China will have a maglev system that links all of its cities.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by Yankee

By the time it starts coming together China will have a maglev system that links all of its cities.

No, they'll have a Vactrain system.

[northbay]

^ i'm pretty sure once the backbone of the system is built, the rest will be also. china and japan have already pledged billions of dollars (if they're made partners). once the 'demonstration' section is complete, even if local and/or federal dollars aren't forthcoming, the rest can be finished by outside investors.

also, ohio and wisconsin are canceling their high speed rail plans (due to republican takeovers in the election) - i really hope the federal dollars they were to receive get redistributed to california.

i always thought the i-80 corridor was the most ideal for high speed rail. i never understood why it wasn't in included in cahsr's plans
fflint for king!

ps. john mica (the probable new chairman of the house committee on transportation and infrastructure) has been supportive of super fast high speed rail (which cali fits the definition of). so hopefully, even with republican takeovers, cali will still get support for its project. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...tation-agenda/

[Onn]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

No, they'll have a Vactrain system.

The entire high-speed rail system is going to bleed China to death in red ink. Don't fool yourself, it's a fairy tale at its best. You know when something is too good to be true...

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

can the republican take over of the house have an unforeseen positive effect for California High Speed? All these canceled HSR projects can be funneled to California< Chicago Hub and the northeast, exactly where they should have gone initially.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

can the republican take over of the house have an unforeseen positive effect for California High Speed? All these canceled HSR projects can be funneled to California< Chicago Hub and the northeast, exactly where they should have gone initially.

Probably not, it's hard to see how Republicans are going to support the system more if the Democrats could hardly support it.

[northbay]

^ pessimism gets you nowhere

democrats more the 'hardly' support it. as i said before, john mica has been cautiously supportive of TRUE super fast high speed projects. it's too soon to say that cahsr won't happen. (arnold is republican and he supports it, ray lahood is republican too for the record)

[Busy Bee]

Oh and for the record - Wisconsin and Ohio have NOT been officially cancelled. Wisconsin has at least been put on pause for review. I don't know if anyone at this point really knows whats going on - or if the new Gov really has the politically capital/power to stop it, or if he's just doing the charades to look tough for his feeble minded supporters.

[northbay]

^ you're right bb, thanks for the clarification - but the arc tunnel wasn't officially canceled for a month either

both governors-elect however are on record saying they will not support the projects

[Onn]

Originally Posted by northbay

^ pessimism gets you nowhere

democrats more the 'hardly' support it. as i said before, john mica has been cautiously supportive of TRUE super fast high speed projects. it's too soon to say that cahsr won't happen. (arnold is republican and he supports it, ray lahood is republican too for the record)

Washington supporting the system would mean them writing a check for 100 billion dollars to the state of California. That's the supporting the system. That's what every other government in the world does. Not these little bite size sums that have no real effect on the project at all. There's a long way to go if California expects to have the country's first real high-speed rail system. I'm not sure it matters Democrat or Republican, no one wants to take that leap of faith in giving them that kind of money. The bureaucracy won't allow it.

I don't know where the money is going to come from for this thing, it's not being pessimistic but realistic. It's a high mountain to climb. Truthfully I'm not sure California needs it or that it will make much of a dent in transportation congestion...of course it would be nice to have.

[northbay]

^ your right that california has 'a high mountain to climb', but if you give up before climbing it, you'll never reach the top.

we all know things are going to be harder now that the house is controlled by republicans but i don't think that necessary means all high speed rail is now dead. california's investment of 10 billion - combined with what the federal government has already pledged, plus the election of a very pro high speed rail governor (which shows public support of the project) hopefully means eventually it will be built (though granted it may take a very long time).

i don't know if you live in california but we DO need this project, at least if california wants to compete with the rest of world. we don't need 100 billion, that's 10s of billions more than we need. we need about half that and we're making slow but steady progress towards getting there. (think tortoise and hare story)

the northeast corridor (117 billion) however is another matter.

[hammersklavier]

Infrastructure is infrastructure. If Wis. and Ohio want to de-fund their systems and return the money to the Gov't, I'm sure Obama would find a way to funnel it into the Cali plan and other parts of the Midwest network.

Onn--The evangelism of the truly deluded can be prodigious. Stating as facts things which are empirically unsupported is the purview of a certain class of society few want to belong to--and few even know they belong to. Think over this.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Onn

The entire high-speed rail system is going to bleed China to death in red ink. Don't fool yourself, it's a fairy tale at its best. You know when something is too good to be true...

Uh-huh... just like the interstate system was a horrible idea for the USA?

[Onn]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Uh-huh... just like the interstate system was a horrible idea for the USA?

Japan high-speed rail 1980s = 200 billion dollar bailout. Do your homework before thinking you know everything, China's system is way beyond any country's capacity. China is not even the largest economy in the world.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

Onn--The evangelism of the truly deluded can be prodigious. Stating as facts things which are empirically unsupported is the purview of a certain class of society few want to belong to--and few even know they belong to. Think over this.

You’re in for a rude awaking.

[Onn]

Originally Posted by northbay

i don't know if you live in california but we DO need this project, at least if california wants to compete with the rest of world. we don't need 100 billion, that's 10s of billions more than we need. we need about half that and we're making slow but steady progress towards getting there. (think tortoise and hare story)

I don't know, but this is the sense I've had all along about this...

High-Speed Pork

Why fast trains are a waste of money.

Robert J. Samuelson

October 29, 2010

Somehow, it has become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help “save the planet.” They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already-overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs—schools, defense, research.

Let’s suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has already committed $10.5 billion, and that’s just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government. What would we get for this huge investment?

Not much. Here’s what we wouldn’t get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse-gas emissions, air travel, or oil consumption and imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why.

High-speed intercity trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles per hour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of less than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or less with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched to trains, the number of airline passengers, about 2 million a day, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel savings would be less than that; even trains need fuel.

...

Consider California. Its budget is a shambles; it furloughed state workers to save money. Still, it clings to its high-speed rail project. No one knows the cost. In 2009, the California High-Speed Rail Authority estimated $42.6 billion, up from $33.6 billion in 2008—a huge one-year increase. The CHSRA wants the federal government to pay about half the cost. Even if it does and the state issues $9.95 billion in approved bonds, a financing gap of almost $15 billion would remain.

Somehow that is to be extracted from cities, towns, and investors. The CHSRA says the completed system will generate operating profits, $3 billion by 2030. If private investors concurred, they’d be clamoring to commit funds; they aren’t.

All this would further mortgage California’s future with more debt and, conceivably, subsidies to keep the trains running. And for what? In 2030, high-speed rail trains would provide only about 4 percent of California’s inter-regional trips, the CHSRA projects.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/w...ake-sense.html

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Onn

China is not even the largest economy in the world.

Yet.......................