California High Speed Rail Thread

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Obadno

To be fair I don't think Europeans consider nor appreciate both the cultural and physical differences between the USA and Europe.

One of the biggest challenges Europeans don't understand about America is distances.
Here's a few examples just to make that point.

London to Birmingham is 125 miles
London to Brussels is 225 miles
London to Paris is 282 miles
London to Amsterdam is 330 miles
London to Dublin is 371 miles
London to Edinburgh is 413 miles
London to Berlin is 678 miles
London to Milan is 803 miles
London to Rome is 1160 miles
London to Moscow is 1784 miles
London to Istanbul is 1861 miles

New York City to Philadelphia is 94 miles
New York City to Boston is 215 miles
New York City to D.C. is 226 miles
New York City to Montreal is 370 miles
New York City to Toronto is 491 miles
New York City to Chicago is 790 miles
New York City to Atlanta is 871 miles
New York City to Miami is 1283 miles
New York City to New Orleans is 1303 miles
Chicago to New Orleans is 926 miles
Chicago to Los Angeles is 2015 miles (+790 miles to NYC = 2805 miles)
Chicago to Seattle is 2063 miles (+790 miles to NYC = 2853 miles)
Chicago to San Francisco is 2132 miles (+790 miles to NYC = 2922 miles)

Close to 50% of Amtrak passengers board or alight in New York City. That's why I used mostly train distances from New York City. The lower 48 states of the USA is 1,000 miles wider than all of Europe. Planned HSR services distances from London reach around 330 miles. That doesn't even get a HSR train to Montreal from New York City. FYI: Amtrak's Northeast Corridor has fast trains already.
I haven't read any future expansion of HSR services single seat rides between London and Moscow. Likewise I don't ever expect HSR services between New York City and the USA West Coast. The distances are just too far for HSR trains to be competitive with jets...

Costs also come into play as well. England projects over 17 Billion pounds to build the 125 miles or so HSR2 between London and Birmingham. Chicago is more than 6 times further, and will probably cost more than 6 times more to build, at least $154 Billion, assuming similar construction costs. The Federal Highway program lhis year is funded at $47 Billion. If ALL the Federal Highways funds were given to make a HSR line from New York City to Chicago, it'll still take 3 to 4 years to fund - with nothing left for transit and highways.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Europe itself is still larger then the US...so that nukes the whole distance thing... Even if you take out Western Russia and Turkey , and you compare continental Europe with the lower 48 , Europe would still win.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Europe itself is still larger then the US...so that nukes the whole distance thing... Even if you take out Western Russia and Turkey , and you compare continental Europe with the lower 48 , Europe would still win.

Really? Per Wiki:
North America
9,540,000 square miles
populatiom 565,265,000
population density 59/sq mi
Europe
3,930,000 square miles
population 742,452,000
population density 188/sq mi

Let's stick to comparing the same things, continents to continents instead of a country to a continent.

North America is three times larger than Europe, although Europe has the larger population.
FYI: The area of the USA is 3,805,927 square miles, slightly less than all of Europe.

Neither the USA or Europe are discussing a HSR network linking all, so that point is mute. Every proposed line links large cities. You rarely see large American cities located with 125 miles of one another, outside Amtrak's NEC. But that is very common all over Europe.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by electricron

Really? Per Wiki:
North America
9,540,000 square miles
populatiom 565,265,000
population density 59/sq mi
Europe
3,930,000 square miles
population 742,452,000
population density 188/sq mi

Let's stick to comparing the same things, continents to continents instead of a country to a continent.

North America is three times larger than Europe, although Europe has the larger population.
FYI: The area of the USA is 3,805,927 square miles, slightly less than all of Europe.

Neither the USA or Europe are discussing a HSR network linking all, so that point is mute. Every proposed line links large cities. You rarely see large American cities located with 125 miles of one another, outside Amtrak's NEC. But that is very common all over Europe.

North America includes Canada , Mexico and many smaller nations that of course make larger then Europe.... I was just talking about the United States...

[fflint]

This thread has gone off-topic. This thread is about project updates & related discussion ONLY, to quote the thread title. It's not about Europe, it's not about airplanes, it's not about anything except California High Speed Rail.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by fflint

This thread has gone off-topic. This thread is about project updates & related discussion ONLY, to quote the thread title. It's not about Europe, it's not about airplanes, it's not about anything except California High Speed Rail.

California should move ahead with HSR as quickly as possible, no matter what the cost. Happy now?

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by jg6544

California should move ahead with HSR as quickly as possible, no matter what the cost. Happy now?

Whether or not they have the political will to make HSR happen fast is secondary to the fact they don't have the money to make it happen fast. The budget relies on a lot of federal money that they just plain aren't going to get anytime soon.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Europe itself is still larger then the US...so that nukes the whole distance thing... Even if you take out Western Russia and Turkey , and you compare continental Europe with the lower 48 , Europe would still win.

YEs but europe has nearly twice the population. If the US had 600 million people and another 70 or 80 million there would be enough population density to make HSR a reasonable venture, but for about 70% of the country HSR is not worthwile at all.

Across most of the continent you have a major city of 1-5 million sperated by hundreds of miles of virtual nothingness.

Also as somone said there isnt hug edmand for high speed train travel from London to Moscow or Lisbon to St. Petersburg.

I live in Arizona, We have about 6.6 million people. Phoenix and Tucson account for about 6 million of that and they are seperated by about 100 miles of farms and small towns. The rest of the state is little more than isolated villages and wilderness. Did I mention it is 295,254 km² Which is the same area as itally, which has a population of 59 million people.

And we are still number 15 in population there are 35 states smaller in population (and probably size) than Arizona.

I could see a somewhat Comprehsive High speed system ont he east side of the mississisppi and maybe 2 or 3 independent networks, (California, Texas triange, and Peuget sound)

but that would still be decades from viability or funding.

[202_Cyclist]

Obadno:

Across most of the continent you have a major city of 1-5 million sperated by hundreds of miles of virtual nothingness.

True-- but nobody is proposing building high-speed rail in these vast, low-density areas. What is being proposed is high-speed rail in dense corridors (Northeast, upper Midwest, LA - Bay Area, etc...). I wish people would stick with the facts and not conjure up strawman arguments. We already have enough of this with Fox 'News.'

[Busy Bee]

Quote:
Across most of the continent you have a major city of 1-5 million sperated by hundreds of miles of virtual nothingness.


Set aside that this is inflammatory and dismissive, this statement, unless referring to the western plains or mountain west states isn't even accurate. Coasters may call it flyover country but there are plenty of ~75,000-150,000 smallish cities that would have intermediate stops on such a system and would feed into the patronage riding between very large metros. People have to get past thinking about HSR like they think about air travel. A plane leaves one city and lands in another, and for the most part all passengers are traveling this singular leg to leave their origins and arrive at their destinations. HSR, like rail travel before it, has multiple intermediate stops, collecting and discharging passengers along the way. For this reason HSR has the potential to be much more useful and efficient than point to point flights less than ~400-500 miles in distance.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Obadno:

True-- but nobody is proposing building high-speed rail in these vast, low-density areas. What is being proposed is high-speed rail in dense corridors (Northeast, upper Midwest, LA - Bay Area, etc...). I wish people would stick with the facts and not conjure up strawman arguments. We already have enough of this with Fox 'News.'

Set aside that this is inflammatory and dismissive, this statement, unless referring to the western plains or mountain west states isn't even accurate.

If you two had read my entire post.

I could see a somewhat Comprehsive High speed system ont he east side of the mississisppi and maybe 2 or 3 independent networks, (California, Texas triange, and Peuget sound)

but that would still be decades from viability or funding.

I am a fan of High speed rail, dont get me wrong here. But expecting a network that is as comprehensive and popular as the European or Jappaneses systems is a fantasy.

It wont happen for not only financial reasons but cultural reasons. One of the main ones being "profitability" which, of course, it wont be otherwise Union pacific would have built bullet trains 30 years ago. And beleive it or not car culture is a real thing in America, cars represent freedom.

What you have in california is ambitious but unpopular and vastly underfunded. Best case scenario is over 10 years and 60 billion dollars. Chances are it will take longer and be more expensive than that.

If the full line is ever completed it will be used as an example of a boondogle in other states when the riderships and yearly costs roll in.

I like the idea of high spped rail but like many ideas of Urbanism etc I reject forcing the issue at high cost that will ultimately make HSR look like a waste. When the United States has the density and cultural will to build high speed rail we will.

[architect1]

I think it could work in the states if its major destinations only. Like everyone says cost is the biggest problem.

But I hope some one can figure it out because we need a transit upgrade. I know here in Toronto where getting crush by a bad transit system.

ex my house to work in a straight line by the highway 401. is 22 km and 25 min to 35 min in rush hour. I'm lucky I'm not going with the traffic.

So I could see a nyc to boston, nyc to washington, and other close major cities.
what they need to do is stop talking and start doing.

The other problem is america loves to build highways, the car is freedom, a source of big profits, and a huge job creator.

I hope they do start with the hsr in cali.

you build it and they will come.

[Hatman]

California is right to build this now, even if they have to 'force it' on some people at some expense. Waiting for greater demand and density would be a mistake. Obtaining a right-of-way now before land use gets any denser and more expensive is the only way this project is ever going to happen. Let it be called a boondoggle and whatever else makes critics feel superior. As long as a decent right-of-way is obtained where trains can travel at full speed, without delays, and to the centers of cities, then it is only a matter of time before this thing becomes a success.

[Leo the Dog]

What CA was promised and what we'll actually get are two totally different systems.

[Busy Bee]

^omg, can you give me the powerball numbers???

[fieldsofdreams]

First time here, and I must say this:

Now that the HSR project in California has started in Fresno, I am looking forward to the day that I will be able to ride it from San Francisco all the way down to Los Angeles and intermediate points, like Fresno or Bakersfield... Perhaps the next step forward: I would like to pay my fare wirelessly or using a commuter card like Clipper or TAP card (LA) so that I won't need to hassle handling several tickets.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by fieldsofdreams

First time here, and I must say this:

Now that the HSR project in California has started in Fresno, I am looking forward to the day that I will be able to ride it from San Francisco all the way down to Los Angeles and intermediate points, like Fresno or Bakersfield... Perhaps the next step forward: I would like to pay my fare wirelessly or using a commuter card like Clipper or TAP card (LA) so that I won't need to hassle handling several tickets.

I think it's a fairly safe bet that's going to happen. I wonder why mass transit in LA and the Bay Area don't offer fare cards that are good in both areas. Shouldn't be too difficult to key the location into the information on the data strip.

[fieldsofdreams]

Originally Posted by jg6544

I think it's a fairly safe bet that's going to happen. I wonder why mass transit in LA and the Bay Area don't offer fare cards that are good in both areas. Shouldn't be too difficult to key the location into the information on the data strip.

It reminds me of what Japan has at the moment, in which passengers can use both Suica and Pasmo for transit networks beyond the confines of Tokyo... and I think that Suica (and their counterparts) can be used for long-distance trains in Japan to help make journeys easier.

More information

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Im sure once HSR becomes close to a reality in both cities, then it will make sense for both respective metros to look at joining forces

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by electricron

One of the biggest challenges Europeans don't understand about America is distances.

The lower 48 states of the USA is 1,000 miles wider than all of Europe. Planned HSR services distances from London reach around 330 miles. That doesn't even get a HSR train to Montreal from New York City. FYI: Amtrak's Northeast Corridor has fast trains already.
I haven't read any future expansion of HSR services single seat rides between London and Moscow. Likewise I don't ever expect HSR services between New York City and the USA West Coast. The distances are just too far for HSR trains to be competitive with jets...

Costs also come into play as well. England projects over 17 Billion pounds to build the 125 miles or so HSR2 between London and Birmingham. Chicago is more than 6 times further, and will probably cost more than 6 times more to build, at least $154 Billion, assuming similar construction costs. The Federal Highway program lhis year is funded at $47 Billion. If ALL the Federal Highways funds were given to make a HSR line from New York City to Chicago, it'll still take 3 to 4 years to fund - with nothing left for transit and highways.

I once stayed at a B&B in Bath, England and the proprietor had a daughter who lived in Seattle. When I apologized for our late arrival the owner's comment was: " Europeans think 100 miles is far and North Americans think 100 years is old".
In spite of things being old in Europe they are more willing , probably as a result of wars to refurbish and modernize existing infrastructure and adopt newer technology. They also have a much more balanced approach to investing in competing modes.