High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
1–10 of 297 posts
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#2Not sure why they decided to build an elaborate viaduct [1] to allow for a high-speed curve radius in Southeast Fresno, if Fresno will be a likely stop anyway. Just make all trains stop in Fresno, a place conveniently midway between SF and LA and desperate for improved connections with California's more prosperous areas. After all, isn't the whole point of HSR to improve connectivity between more than just the two termini, since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option?
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NYS0Y3nyyYZowXFDtJ...
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#3$64B just in startup costs, for a slower trip than flying. Why this infatuation with a technology that hasn't been leading edge since the 1800s?
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#4$64B just in startup costs, for a slower trip than flying. Why this infatuation with a technology that hasn't been leading edge since the 1800s?
Have you ever ridden a train in Europe or Japan? They are far and away the most comfortable way to travel any distance under 500 miles.
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#5$64B just in startup costs, for a slower trip than flying. Why this infatuation with a technology that hasn't been leading edge since the 1800s?
Have you ever ridden a train in Europe or Japan? They are far and away the most comfortable way to travel any distance under 500 miles.
They are also much, much cheaper per mile. Something is wrong with construction in the US that makes rail lines dramatically more expensive here.
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#6Huge supporter of rail but sadly I believe there are a number of mistakes being made. This is a classic example of how projects like this in the US need to be monolithic, self contained, and gold plated to the hilt. The correct action would have been for CA to incrementally acquire and build railways along a number of corridors. Take the SF bay for example. There should be one agency running Caltrain, the Capitol Corridor, the ACE. It should electrify and improve all the routes. Extend reach to Monterey and other Central Valley locations. And do the same in Southern California.
The incompatibility of CAHSR with other rail strikes me as a repeat of the BART mistake.
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#7$64B just in startup costs, for a slower trip than flying. Why this infatuation with a technology that hasn't been leading edge since the 1800s?
Have you ever ridden a train in Europe or Japan? They are far and away the most comfortable way to travel any distance under 500 miles.
And the fastest if you take into consideration the fact that you can come to the train station less than 30 minutes in advance just hop in the train and travel downtown to downtown.
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#8Not sure why they decided to build an elaborate viaduct [1] to allow for a high-speed curve radius in Southeast Fresno, if Fresno will be a likely stop anyway. Just make all trains stop in Fresno, a place conveniently midway between SF and LA and desperate for improved connections with California's more prosperous areas. After all, isn't the whole point of HSR to improve connectivity between more than just the two te…
> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option
Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly difficult. To achieve parity the trains will need to average around 220 MPH, which is incredibly optimistic. Existing high speed rail lines rarely run at 200 MPH even momentarily due to high operating costs.
All this means that most trains will have to run nonstop between SF and LA to even have a hope of competing with flying. If the trains fail to draw passengers away from the airlines, ridership will be far too low to sustain the line without absurdly high subsidies.
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever ridden a train in Europe or Japan? They are far and away the most comfortable way to travel any distance under 500 miles.
And the fastest if you take into consideration the fact that you can come to the train station less than 30 minutes in advance just hop in the train and travel downtown to downtown.
30 minutes in advance for a train? Sometimes I arrive a minutes in advance and just enter the train before it is continuing its journey. Happens when my connecting train had a delay.
Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it
#10$64B just in startup costs, for a slower trip than flying. Why this infatuation with a technology that hasn't been leading edge since the 1800s?
Have you ever ridden a train in Europe or Japan? They are far and away the most comfortable way to travel any distance under 500 miles.
For short distances high-speed rail can be a good option, particularly in connecting neighboring cities (LA-SF, etc).
The problems with all these projects are cost: Simple back of envelope calculations show it to be (a) dubious, or (b) possibly criminal (ie. standard taxpayer ripoff to cronies).
$64B - do the quick math on that. Figure a 30 year return on investment earning 4% per year:
$2.2B payback per year + operating cost of what? So somewhere around $7M per day in revenues minimum?
How many riders per day and what is average ticket price to make $7M per day?
I think you will suddenly find there are cheaper, faster, better options.