California's "Bullet Train"--A big money pit & boondoogle?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Citing Breitbart? Seriously? How about sticking with a credible source and not alt-right fascist propaganda

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...#storylink=cpy

Projected revenues and projected surpluses for June 2016 made 11 months ago are NOT real revenues NOR real surpluses. I posted a link less than 3 months old that contained data from the actual 2016-2017 budget, not projected budgets. It doesn't matter what sources the real data comes from, but it does matter when projected data comes from, especially from the political editorial section of any newspaper rag. like the Bee!
I could go through the trouble linking other sources with the same data for the 2016-2017 California budget, but I won't except from the Bee you like so much.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-...e86302827.html
Note the lack of details. How disappointing!

[s.p.hansen]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

What momentum? You're talking about a possible future that may or may not ever exist. And even if all that did occur it wouldn't solve anything because the roads would still be clogged with cars whether they are electric and self-driving or not. Mass transit is a far more efficient way of transporting people (especially in a dense city) no matter how you slice it.

I agree from an urban planning stand point. I still stand by my assertion that High Speed Rail in California will displace more carbon than taking all that money and dividing it into transit projects in the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego. There's too much sprawl to fix that.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by s.p.hansen

I agree from an urban planning stand point. I still stand by my assertion that High Speed Rail in California will displace more carbon than taking all that money and dividing it into transit projects in the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego. There's too much sprawl to fix that.

If this was about reducing carbon emissions there's 100 better ways than building high speed rail. Not to mention this project would be the ultimate "induced demand" scenario that environmentalists seem to hate because providing a more efficient way to go from city to city would greatly increase the number of trips.

[caligrad]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Unlike California, Texas is planning on handing it over to private companies to build and operate. We could've done the same for about half the cost but we stupidly chose not to even entertain the proposals given to us.

http://marketurbanism.com/2012/07/10...alifornia-hsr/

Texas is doing it this way because Texas has been struggling the past few years since the oil crash and their economy is contracting at the moment with State and local governments slashing budgets. Yeah of course it would have been easier to hand it over to somebody else to build it and operate it. But in this election year....Try telling millions of people "we are going to use Eminent Domain to buy/take all of this land but we're going to hand over this land to China or Japan or some country in Europe and let them build the train and keep all of the profits, but we'll take a certain percentage in taxes (which probably wouldn't happen after the backdoor deals)". A certain politician would have had a FIELD DAY with this idea. If Texas would have had the extra cash laying around like they did with the $150 dollar a barrel oil days, they would have built their own rail...... But at the same time, like somebody else has said, Texas has been playing around with the high speed rail idea for decades, probably even longer than California, their terrain is way more cooperative than ours, why hasn't it happened yet? especially during the budget surplus years?

[caligrad]

My problem with California High Speed Rail (CAHSR) is the fact that it was politically driven and also politically ruined. It should have been simple. San Diego, Orange County (their fancy new train station in the perfect location), Los Angeles (Union Station is getting a makeover), Bakersfield, San Jose and then San Fran with the new Transbay terminal and DONE. After that is done, there could have been a fork in the road(tracks) at Bakersfield where a new central valley line would connect Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto (or Stockton) and then Sacramento and DONE. If the states above us wanted a piece of the action and would pay for their own sections, an extension from Sacramento to Portland and then Seattle would have been awesome too and DONE.

Instead we get a plan that is SOOO odd and TOOOO long and connects way too many cities. It feels more like a commuter rail rather than High Speed Rail. WAY too many stops/stations, zig zags wildly, and the price tag could have easily been slashed in half if it weren't so political. For instance, Why does it veer from LA and goes to San Bernardino and Riverside instead of going straight to San Diego? And before people say it,NO, Camp Pendleton has nothing to do with it, if the base doesn't have a problem with a 10 lane highway running straight through it that's choked with traffic 75% of the time, and metro link running 4 lanes of track through it, they shouldn't have a problem with HSR getting people through it quickly rather than cars sitting in traffic and metro link clunking along.

Or why does it veer from LA and goes to Palmdale to get to Bakersfield ? they blame the Tejon Pass being "horrible" but going through Palmdale will require them to traverse not one but TWO mountain passes, both equaling the distance it would be if they were to just deal with the Tejon Pass head on, and that's not including the track needed to get through Palmdale.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.7950.../data=!3m1!1e3
(map of the area, the line is supposed to turn right/east in Santa Clarita )

Politics Killed CAHSR and that's just being honest. People getting defensive as if that weren't the case just need to accept it like I have.

[plutonicpanda]

I like it, I just wish it was MagLev. I suppose the first step is even getting the lines and maybe one day it can be further upgraded.

[caligrad]

^^^ I would have liked a meglev idea but since this is the USA and CA, the costs would have probably tripled or quadrupled. Meglev would have been awesome but im sure to operate a "safe" system at those speeds, they would have wanted a completely elevated/viaduct system and that would cost more than anybody is willing to pay for.

[donoteat]

Don't worry guys, they're already starting to alter the project scope to cheap out.

http://abc7news.com/traffic/ca-high-...form=hootsuite

This definitely won't cause capacity bottlenecks down the line, no sir-ee bob

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by caligrad

My problem with California High Speed Rail (CAHSR) is the fact that it was politically driven and also politically ruined. It should have been simple. San Diego, Orange County (their fancy new train station in the perfect location), Los Angeles (Union Station is getting a makeover), Bakersfield, San Jose and then San Fran with the new Transbay terminal and DONE. After that is done, there could have been a fork in the road(tracks) at Bakersfield where a new central valley line would connect Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto (or Stockton) and then Sacramento and DONE. If the states above us wanted a piece of the action and would pay for their own sections, an extension from Sacramento to Portland and then Seattle would have been awesome too and DONE.

Instead, San Diego probably won't ever see HSR in our lifetimes. "Phase II" will most likely require more funding meaning another vote will be required in the future to secure funds.

Most importantly...Why would anyone pay extra to take a train to San Bernardino to get to LA, when the Surfliner offers a more direct route (with destinations in OC like Disney and Anaheim sports facilities) for cheaper.

Terrible alignment.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by donoteat

Don't worry guys, they're already starting to alter the project scope to cheap out.

They started doing that quite awhile ago. They've already reduced speeds in tunnels, reduced speeds around stations and now they are shortening stations. Needless to say the specifications outlined in the vote were long ago done away with. Personally I don't see how this is even legal, the vote clearly said certain requirements must be met with the money being spent and those specifications (most notably speed) have been reduced several times since then. A new vote should be required by law. The California Supreme Court of US Supreme Court need to axe this project ASAP.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

Instead, San Diego probably won't ever see HSR in our lifetimes. "Phase II" will most likely require more funding meaning another vote will be required in the future to secure funds.

Most importantly...Why would anyone pay extra to take a train to San Bernardino to get to LA, when the Surfliner offers a more direct route (with destinations in OC like Disney and Anaheim sports facilities) for cheaper.

Terrible alignment.

You hit the nail on the head. Phase II which would (in theory) extend HSR to San Diego and Sacramento was nothing more than a political ruse to help pass HSR. By the time the electorate understands just how far over budget the initial phase will end up costing there will likely be no appetite statewide for funding the SD/Sac extensions and make no mistake, it would have to go back to the voters. Fares aren't going to cover expansion. That's the primary reason I voted against it when I was living in Sacramento, along with the fact I knew they were grossly underestimating the cost estimates in the run up to the vote for (Prop 1A).

They should have started with the spurs linking SF and Sac in the north and LA and SD in the south since both the north and south of the state are turning into megaregions. Both already have growing rail connections and both spurs could have gauged success of HSR (or not so high speed).

[Eightball]

CAHSR is u/c, here's the November update (more at link)

http://m1.mail-work.com/a39a21dSyjqF...0aead46486e767

[Ragnar]

It has turned into a commuter line for the Bay Area from the Central Valley. Not only will it never get to San Diego in our lifetime, it will probably not even get to LA.

Bakersfield to San Francisco for $100 billion.

I guess the rest of us will stick with Southwest Airlines.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

It has turned into a commuter line for the Bay Area from the Central Valley. Not only will it never get to San Diego in our lifetime, it will probably not even get to LA.

Bakersfield to San Francisco for $100 billion.

I guess the rest of us will stick with Southwest Airlines.

Central Valley sprawl here we come. Bay Area wages while living in a SFH in the CV for 200k!