California High-Speed Rail

[william]

Originally Posted by Richard Mlynarik

I was too busy paying attention to the network of seaplanes and VTOL part.

Woo hoo!

I mean, with so many truly deep ideas, how to you expect us to keep up with all of them?

Hey Dick buddy, I'm surprised you can keep up with any ideas. But thanks for your valuable contribution...

[william]

greenmidtown wrote: HSR would dramatically benefit Sacramento since it will link us closely with the economic powerhouse that is L.A.

The main opposition I foresee will come from the Bay Area which most likely would be left out initially.

We'd all love to see HSR in California. But the cold reality is, under the present proposal, Sacramento won't be getting HSR for all of the reasons discussed ad nauseam (look it up Richard Mlynarik) in this thread.

Your second point? That's not how I read the proposal.

Right now, HSR is too expensive with no guarantee that Sacramento and San Diego will ever see service. Nothing is guaranteed until it's actually built, so promises don't cut it.

I also prefer it not be delayed for all of the reasons previously discussed. But we know that the bay area has enough political clout to probably get construction in a Phase 2, SD and Sac. do not.

If the backers put the proposal in its present form on the ballot, it will fail. The backers insistence that SF be served first spells its doom.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by greenmidtown

The main opposition I foresee will come from the Bay Area which most likely would be left out initially.

The Bay Area is only "left out" if one takes the same childish parochial view as has been taken by too many Sacramento residents here like william already. These people are letting their inferiorty complex vis a vis the Bay Area cloud their vision.

IF there were high speed rail on the Sacramento to LA route repeatedly posted here, Bay Area residents wishing to go to LA could access it either with the Capital Corridor service to Sacramento or with some modified version of the San Joaquin trains which presently go all the way to Bakersfield but, with HSR, would need to go only so far as Stockton or some other point connecting with the HSR. It is even possible the ACE (Altamonte Commuter Express) trains could be used as a feeder service (probably with some track improvements).

Bay Area residents wishing to go to LA by train now, especially if they want to connect with other AMTRAK service in LA, pretty much have to go via the San Joaquin train that includes a bus ride from Bakersfield to LA. It is a slow, unpleasant Toonerville Trolley, but it usually gets you there on time for a connection. The other route, the Coast Starlight, has recently been nicknamed the "Coast Star-late" because its on-time record is so abysmal. It works as a sight-seeing train for retirees (and I have taken as such several times--beautiful scenery), but not for serious intercity transit.

An improved connection from Emeryville (and other Bay Area points) to Stockton for transfer to the HSR would be infinitely better. Bay Area people may not vote for it but that ia because very few of them, like, I suspect, very few of the people expressing opinions here, actually know anything about the existing rail service or the possibilities of improving it nor do many of them really see themselves using trains anyway. They are mistaken, of course. Good HSR service would be a much better experience than flying both now and in the ever more crowded future. But, like william and the others, they lack vision.

PS: If HSR were built only to the Bay Area, not Sacramento, the various connection I discussed above would work in reverse for Sacramento residents. And on the other end, there is very good service already from San Diego to LA to connect with HSR although it would be pretty easy, I think, to upgrade it to the point of being nearly as good as HSR itself. There is no comparison between even what exists now and the 9 hours it once took me to drive from Long Beach to San Diego on I-5.

[william]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

The Bay Area is only "left out" if one takes the same childish parochial view as has been taken by too many Sacramento residents here like william already. These people are letting their inferiorty complex vis a vis the Bay Area cloud their vision.

IF there were high speed rail on the Sacramento to LA route repeatedly posted here, Bay Area residents wishing to go to LA could access it either with the Capital Corridor service to Sacramento or with some modified version of the San Joaquin trains which presently go all the way to Bakersfield but, with HSR, would need to go only so far as Stockton or some other point connecting with the HSR. It is even possible the ACE (Altamonte Commuter Express) trains could be used as a feeder service (probably with some track improvements).

Bay Area residents wishing to go to LA by train now, especially if they want to connect with other AMTRAK service in LA, pretty much have to go via the San Joaquin train that includes a bus ride from Bakersfield to LA. It is a slow, unpleasant Toonerville Trolley, but it usually gets you there on time for a connection. The other route, the Coast Starlight, has recently been nicknamed the "Coast Star-late" because its on-time record is so abysmal. It works as a sight-seeing train for retirees (and I have taken as such several times--beautiful scenery), but not for serious intercity transit.

An improved connection from Emeryville (and other Bay Area points) to Stockton for transfer to the HSR would be infinitely better. Bay Area people may not vote for it but that ia because very few of them, like, I suspect, very few of the people expressing opinions here, actually know anything about the existing rail service or the possibilities of improving it nor do many of them really see themselves using trains anyway. They are mistaken, of course. Good HSR service would be a much better experience than flying both now and in the ever more crowded future. But, like william and the others, they lack vision.

PS: If HSR were built only to the Bay Area, not Sacramento, the various connection I discussed above would work in reverse for Sacramento residents. And on the other end, there is very good service already from San Diego to LA to connect with HSR although it would be pretty easy, I think, to upgrade it to the point of being nearly as good as HSR itself. There is no comparison between even what exists now and the 9 hours it once took me to drive from Long Beach to San Diego on I-5.

Typical, If we disagree with you, we lack vision. If we dare to propose an alternative, we're parochial. Oh, and the old "inferiority complex," always a card many bay area residents love to play (Of course, in BT's case, I guessing it's not a complex, he actually is inferior...).

Hey, I loved living in San Francisco and I'd wouldn't mind living there again. But in the meantime, I guess I'm forced to pine away the lonely hours here in miserable Del Mar. I'll try to survive and get past my "complexes."

But here's something we won't get past. As proposed, this project doesn't fly (so to speak.). You can whine and you cry and can say people lack vision or whatever other little temper tantrum you want to pull, but you won't be doing it on a HSR train.

See ya on United Slock... and if I ever go Greyhound, I'll see you too BT...

[BTinSF]

^^^Does this actually add anything to the debate? It's so easy to summarize: "If I can't have mine, I'll make sure you don't get anything either and insult you in the process."

Glad you don't live in SF. Too many like you do.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

California's High Speed Rail Could Significantly Impact 140-180 Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Parcels of Protected Open Space.


Some of the protected resources that could be significantly impacted include:

Henry Coe State Park and its Orestimba Wilderness
Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge
Grasslands National Wildlife Refuge
Southern California State Beaches including: San Clemente, San Onofre, Carlsbad, Doheny and more
Cornfields and Taylor Yard Properties (yet to be developed State Parks in the City of Los Angeles)
Elysian Park (Los Angeles)

The High Speed Rail Draft Environmental Impact Report fails to adequately consider the impact on parks, wildlife refuges and protected open space
Federal and state laws require that the new transportation projects not harm parks unless there is no "prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use." Not only are there often feasible alternatives to using protected lands (such as the Altamont Pass route), but the DEIR does almost nothing to indicate that everything has been done to minimize harm to those protected resources.

Major failures of the DEIR with regards to protected lands include:

No discussion of the quality of the impacts to protected resources. The DEIR simply tallies the total number total number of parks that would be highly impacted by the high speed rail and compares it to the modal alternative. This analysis gives equal weight to the impacts to a small city park as it does to a massive wilderness park such as Henry Coe.
No complete list of the names of the parks that might be impacted by the high speed rail. Because of this omission, the DEIR fails the most basic requirement of NEPA and CEQA by not identifying the impacts of the project.
No mention of the fact that the routes through Henry Coe State Park would violate the California Wilderness Act.

Defense of Place

http://www.hsrlandimpacts.org/index.html

Additional environmental review will occur. The initial effort couldn't obviously cite each and every impact until the effort is further along in the design process.

[ltsmotorsport]

From reading this whole mess through, I think the best idea for a phase 1 would be to have 2 or 3 lines (however you want to count them). Build an SD to LA line, Sac to SF line, and Stockton to SF line. This way, there wouldn't be opposition from the airlines, you'd be serving areas that actually NEED faster means of service, it would cost less, probably be more profitable as a phase 1, and then be easier to put in a phase 2 line that would run down the central valley (Sac to LA).

[munkyman]

Does anyone know how much it would cost for the initial SF-LA segment? I'm guessing it's around $20 billion, but that's just me taking the $10 billion dollar bond and doubling it up.

[fflint]

We WILL have constructive and civilized discussions about things like High Speed Rail, and we will NOT be making gratuitous personal insults against others only because they hold differing opinions on such subjects.

[munkyman]

Originally Posted by fflint

We WILL have constructive and civilized discussions about things like High Speed Rail, and we will NOT be making gratuitous personal insults against others only because they hold differing opinions on such subjects.

Nice to see the mods flexing their muscle. This william kid was getting outta line, and taking things pretty personal.

[Reminiscence]

Originally Posted by fflint

We WILL have constructive and civilized discussions about things like High Speed Rail, and we will NOT be making gratuitous personal insults against others only because they hold differing opinions on such subjects.

I agree. Although many of us have different opinions on this subject, I think we should discuss it in a civilized manner.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by greenmidtown

HSR would dramatically benefit Sacramento since it will link us closely with the economic powerhouse that is L.A.. Not to mention the increased number of Bay Area commuters hoping to use the rail service. L.A. would benefit from the ability to travel to the state capitol in a flash to do some lobbying and take care of any other official state business.

greentown you do realize that the HSR system as proposed will link Los Angeles with Stockton and then Stockton to the Bay Area?? There is no connection to Sacramento and there wont be unless the initial segment is able to raise enough revenue through fares to pay for the Sacramento and San Diego spurs. In other words if this thing comes in over budget (which we all know that it will), then as I already pointed out fares collected from the initial system (assuming people use HSR) be diverted to pay off the $40 billion dollar initial segment and budget overruns.

There wont be any money to move forward with the spurs to Sacramento and San Diego and I guarantee voters in those areas fortunate enough to get HSR in the initial construction phase, will have no motivation to approve a second bond...

There will never be spurs to Sacramento and San Diego unless the proposal is modified to build the entire system at simultaneously.

Like I said though, if supporters want a vote, then let's vote. But sending an imperfect plan before the voters (as proposed) will effectively kill any chance of HSR in California. The airline industry is going to have a field day with this...

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

The Bay Area is only "left out" if one takes the same childish parochial view as has been taken by too many Sacramento residents here like william already. These people are letting their inferiorty complex vis a vis the Bay Area cloud their vision.

BTinSF

Childish, parochial view?? Inferiority complex?? Come on BT leave that nonsense out of the debate. Personally I've lived in both San Francisco and Sacramento and still consider Sacramento my second home and I love just about everything about San Francisco... Maybe it's not an inferiortiy complex on the part of "Sacramento residents", but lack of understanding for the other side of the coin on your part..??

It's hardly unreasonable for somebody living in Sacramento (or San Diego) to ask themselves why they should support building a system, that as proposed will not benefit those regions, except to offer empty promises...

I'm curious if you wouldn't be making the same argument as those questioning the value of HSR, if phase I connected Sacramento to Los Angeles (with the promise) that the Bay Area spur would materialize at some point in the future; but only when enough revenue had been raised from fares to pay for construction..?

I have a feeling you wouldn't be as exicited about HSR??

Truth be told, would ya??

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by william

With all due respect, people have come together for the benefit of the entire state and the bay area seems to get the lion's share of the spoils. Were you asleep during the Stem Cell initiative? Financed by every California citizen, most of the research money as well as the institutes' HQ are near San Francisco. To be sure, almost everyplace with a major medical research facility will get something including LA, SD and Sacramento, but the overwhelming bulk is going to the bay area. Medical benefits are worldwide, economic benefits are disproportionally located in your neighborhood. This is just the latest example. There is a reason people in this state don't trust the project to be built as promised. History teaches us to be skeptical.

You're being short-sighted saying that. The spoils aren't the office space or local concentration of scientiest and what not... the spoils of advancement in science are. Of which, the entire state will benefit.

Definately related.. building the thing all at once is all but impossible. As mentioned several times in the media the CHSR project would be among the largest public works project in the state. It's going to require a tremendous amount of labor and raw materials to construct. Not all of that will be available at the same time and the demnd for such would drive costs up. It only makes sense to phase the project over time. By the legislator approving the bond the state is committing itself to the whole thing, imo.

Oddly, the pay as you go scenario of the current track seems to offer the most vulnerability to the thing not being built past an initial phase. With a bond measure passng the whole state develops a vested interest. In pay as you go... fewer people are knowledgable and vested in it.

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

greentown you do realize that the HSR system as proposed will link Los Angeles with Stockton and then Stockton to the Bay Area?? There is no connection to Sacramento and there wont be unless the initial segment is able to raise enough revenue through fares to pay for the Sacramento and San Diego spurs. In other words if this thing comes in over budget (which we all know that it will), then as I already pointed out fares collected from the initial system (assuming people use HSR) be diverted to pay off the $40 billion dollar initial segment and budget overruns.

There wont be any money to move forward with the spurs to Sacramento and San Diego and I guarantee voters in those areas fortunate enough to get HSR in the initial construction phase, will have no motivation to approve a second bond...

There will never be spurs to Sacramento and San Diego unless the proposal is modified to build the entire system at simultaneously.

Like I said though, if supporters want a vote, then let's vote. But sending an imperfect plan before the voters (as proposed) will effectively kill any chance of HSR in California. The airline industry is going to have a field day with this...

sorry, I should've paid closer attention. You bring up a good point. I'd still support it while living in Sac, Stockton isn't a bad commute from here.

As for BT's attack, I don't know how you read any animosity towards the Bay based on my error, I wasn't loading the term "left out." I'm not trying to start anything with anyone or any city, how trivial is that? But I do think you're trying to belittle people from Sac. Doing it on a forum shows just how immature you are.

Let the conversation go on...

[Richard Mlynarik]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

It's hardly unreasonable for somebody living in Sacramento (or San Diego) to ask themselves why they should support building a system, that as proposed will not benefit those regions, except to offer empty promises...

Which atmosphere do you breathe on your planet?

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I'm curious if you wouldn't be making the same argument as those questioning the value of HSR, if phase I connected Sacramento to Los Angeles (with the promise) that the Bay Area spur would materialize at some point in the future; but only when enough revenue had been raised from fares to pay for construction..?

I have a feeling you wouldn't be as exicited about HSR??

Of course not -- that would be economic nonsense.
I mean, just who would be in favour of stupidly throwing money away and guaranteeing bankruptcy of the builders and operators and financers of the system?

It's not "parochialism" to actually do arithmetic and find that the largest travel market in the state isn't from Sacramento to Lee Vining, you know.

(I do have my own marginally economically nonsensical view, by the way.

It's that the very first segment of the system constructed should be from San Jose -- a somewhat worthless "city" "destination", but one with bizarre political pull -- via Fremont and Livermore to Tracy. Throw in LA to somewhere (Bakersfield? Palmdale?) as a sop to NoCal-SoCal bickering at the same time. Only after that build SF-Redwood City-Fremont, even though that by any standards of economic rationality (standards that don't apply in San Jose) that would have been the first thing constructed anywhere in the state. Then connect the dots, whether Tracy-Sacramento or Tracy-Palmdale.)

[ltsmotorsport]

Maybe someone can enlighten me, but I don't see the immediate need for an SF/Bay area to LA line. Air travel (with its inconveniences) would still be faster through SWA, and there is more and more demand for rail service between the larger and smaller metros in their respective reasons. I'm sure the view won't change because of the political power SF and LA have garnered for the line between them but.....

[J Church]

Sacramento is the only airport in the state with any real room to expand (and that's an important point; in fact it's really the best argument for high-speed rail), total flight times, including those "inconviences", are only going to grow longer as airports get more crowded, and smaller metros will be connected to one another and to the larger metros just as much as the Bay is linked to LA. Even the intitial segment, if designed right (i.e. via Altamont, making extension to Sacramento much shorter and cheaper) will connect to Modesto, Merced, Fresno and Bakersfield.

[ltsmotorsport]

Right, I'd forgotten about the airport situation. So has the Altamont alignment been chosen officially, or is that still the most probable route?

[J Church]

Should be an official recommendation soon. And that should really help alleviate some of the Northern Valley concerns, as it will make that extension both easier and more useful--it could serve commuters, and not just long-distance travelers.

Sacramento to San Jose or San Francisco faster than in a car--folks forget that this isn't just for getting from north to south (and frankly, I would have no problem with the Bay-Sac and L.A.-S.D. legs going before the Central Valley segment, although I'm sure folks in Fresno and Bakersfield would not be pleased).