Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

marketurbanism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#11

Post by nolok »

rayiner wrote: post #3

This is a classical example of American "worst of both worlds" governance. People in Bakersfield aren't going to take the HSR to LA, at least not in enough numbers to justify connecting Bakersfield to the HSR. It'd be better to just build a straight-shot HSR and take all the money you save and give a tax break to folks in Bakersfield, or something . But our political system isn't able to achieve that result. How do E…

In France, we don't have direct TGV lines to every places, only major lines, see http://about-france.com/photos/tgv-route-map2.jpg (note that this is a couple years old now).

The rest of the network is covered by lower speed and maintenance TER lines (here for full network: https://www.bonjourlafrance.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/F...)

Those connect local/regional points and make sense on a regional level, then get connected to the TGV network for the national level.

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#12

Post by tehabe »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #8
tehabe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany the ICE train mostly runs on existing routes, for newly build routes you have to make the trade off between connecting cities and travel time. But not connecting a city of almost 400,000 people is odd, it should get a stop. I don't think the Deutsche Bahn oder SCNF would be allowed not connecting those cities in their home markets.

I know quite a few folks living out there in the central valley, they are very conservative. They hate the idea of costly train being built with their tax money. That doesn't mean they wouldn't grow to like it eventually, but it wont help ridership in its early and fragile years.

It all depends on the service the train offers. If it helps people to get to LAX faster or any other destination to a reasonable price it will win.

Also if you build the route and avoid cities of almost half a million people you can't really fix this later without building a new route.

It is not just about infrastructure about also about access to the infrastructure.

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#13

Post by calichoochoo »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #8
tehabe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany the ICE train mostly runs on existing routes, for newly build routes you have to make the trade off between connecting cities and travel time. But not connecting a city of almost 400,000 people is odd, it should get a stop. I don't think the Deutsche Bahn oder SCNF would be allowed not connecting those cities in their home markets.

I know quite a few folks living out there in the central valley, they are very conservative. They hate the idea of costly train being built with their tax money. That doesn't mean they wouldn't grow to like it eventually, but it wont help ridership in its early and fragile years.

I guess that would be a sensible argument except those people aren't exactly carrying the state on their backs. Santa Clara County has only twice the population of Fresno County, but it pays 15x more in state income taxes. State revenue in general depends almost wholly on the Bay Area, LA Basin and San Diego counties.

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#14

Post by calichoochoo »

masterleep wrote: post #10
rayiner wrote: post #3

This is a classical example of American "worst of both worlds" governance. People in Bakersfield aren't going to take the HSR to LA, at least not in enough numbers to justify connecting Bakersfield to the HSR. It'd be better to just build a straight-shot HSR and take all the money you save and give a tax break to folks in Bakersfield, or something . But our political system isn't able to achieve that result. How do E…

California voters are easy to fool once a dead chicken is waved in their direction regarding "saving the environment." Once the initial funding passes, the real constituencies are politicians' friends in the public union, consulting, and construction industry. So the route basically doesn't matter as long as the money flows.

The route is literally written down in a constitutional amendment that passed a plebiscite with a supermajority. It is entirely fatuous to claim that the route "doesn't matter".

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#15

Post by throwaway999d »

HSR is a great example of what happens when a bunch of coastal elites look at the countryside ("flyover country") and assume it's empty and worthless so nobody will object if they run a bulldozer through it for a big government project.

On the contrary, California's Central Valley is one of the most vibrant and important areas of the state with property claims going back to the homesteading period. So shocking that these people aren't happy with a bunch of LA and SF people wanting to tear up their back yards for a boondoggle they will never use or care about.

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#16

Post by Gibbon1 »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #8
tehabe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany the ICE train mostly runs on existing routes, for newly build routes you have to make the trade off between connecting cities and travel time. But not connecting a city of almost 400,000 people is odd, it should get a stop. I don't think the Deutsche Bahn oder SCNF would be allowed not connecting those cities in their home markets.

I know quite a few folks living out there in the central valley, they are very conservative. They hate the idea of costly train being built with their tax money. That doesn't mean they wouldn't grow to like it eventually, but it wont help ridership in its early and fragile years.

I'm betting in the summer they'll be happy to occasionally take the high speed rail into LA to go to the beach. Hour and a half each way.

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#17

Post by calichoochoo »

throwaway999d wrote: post #15

HSR is a great example of what happens when a bunch of coastal elites look at the countryside ("flyover country") and assume it's empty and worthless so nobody will object if they run a bulldozer through it for a big government project. On the contrary, California's Central Valley is one of the most vibrant and important areas of the state with property claims going back to the homesteading period. So shocking that t…

The amount of land needed for HSR is much less than that needed to transport current and future population by either air or road. Just look a how much prime land SR-99 and of course many HSR opponents want to widen it.

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#18

Post by mschuster91 »

> Namely, they wanted to make a straight shot from LA to San Francisco by running along the flat, government-owned I-5 corridor with spurs out to the eastern Central Valley, whereas the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and state politicians wanted the main line to go through every little town in the Central Valley, directly.

For Germans, this is nothing new. Local/regional politicians always want to have the ICE (Intercity Express, our version of high-speed rail) stop in their more or less tiny village.

The problem is almost always that the villages lack adequate rail connections to the next hub, and I imagine that this problem is even more expressed in the US, given the near total lack of passenger rail...

Re: What I learned today about SNCF and California HSR (2012)

#19

Post by throwaway999d »

calichoochoo wrote: post #17
throwaway999d wrote: post #15

HSR is a great example of what happens when a bunch of coastal elites look at the countryside ("flyover country") and assume it's empty and worthless so nobody will object if they run a bulldozer through it for a big government project. On the contrary, California's Central Valley is one of the most vibrant and important areas of the state with property claims going back to the homesteading period. So shocking that t…

The amount of land needed for HSR is much less than that needed to transport current and future population by either air or road. Just look a how much prime land SR-99 and of course many HSR opponents want to widen it.

Nice talking point. Locals actually use roads. They will never use this "bullet" train to go to cities hundreds of miles away from where they live and work.
Post reply on HN