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

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

No I have not.

Then your comment isn't really relevant to a discussion of HSR, because I can assure you there's a significant difference between regular rail and HSR.

[202_Cyclist]

And in other news, CA high speed rail is creating good jobs in the Central Valley.

"Power connections

In other action, the rail board approved a $36 million contract with Pacific Gas & Electric Co. for the utility to do the engineering, design and permitting work for 10 sites that will provide electricity to the authority’s bullet-train line through the San Joaquin Valley from Bakersfield to San Jose. The contract is in addition to two earlier, smaller deals – one for $500,000 in 2012 for a study to identify possible connection sites, and one for about $5 million in 2014 to identify more locations and fine-tune information for environmental studies.

“The substations are located at approximately 30-mile intervals,” Frank Vacca, the rail authority’s chief program manager. A separate contract will be required at a later time for the actual construction of the substations. In a memo to the board, Vacca estimated the cost of building the substations and interconnections at about $280 million. And once a location is selected for a systemwide heavy maintenance facility in the San Joaquin Valley – a facility coveted by Fresno, Kern and Madera counties because of the potential to provide as many as 1,500 jobs – Vacca said a power supply contract with PG&E for the facility could cost about $1.7 million...."

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/...107495187.html

[yakumoto]

Its silly to waste time with the concern trolling here, but my 2 cents is that this discussion sounds exactly like the debate around building the red line in the early 90's (Billions on a Subway? LA is a car city!) and we all know how that turned out.

[SpawnOfVulcan]

Another method of transportation to travel between a few of North America's most populous regions...? OH NO!!!!

NIMBY's need to get over it. I live in suburban Birmingham and even my neighbors want access to HSR...

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by yakumoto

Its silly to waste time with the concern trolling here, but my 2 cents is that this discussion sounds exactly like the debate around building the red line in the early 90's (Billions on a Subway? LA is a car city!) and we all know how that turned out.

Except thats not our complaint. LA's rail construction costs are high, but still reasonable.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by tascalisa

Another method of transportation to travel between a few of North America's most populous regions...? OH NO!!!!

NIMBY's need to get over it. I live in suburban Birmingham and even my neighbors want access to HSR...

Everyone here wants to see this built, it's the state of California that doesn't. There's a difference between being against high speed rail and being against a project that has become such a massive boondoggle it will probably kill HSR in the US for decades. This project won't be built no matter what anyone here thinks because California is too liberal of a state to get anything accomplished in. If we gave Texas the same amount of money they would already have trains running by now.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yakumoto

Its silly to waste time with the concern trolling here, but my 2 cents is that this discussion sounds exactly like the debate around building the red line in the early 90's (Billions on a Subway? LA is a car city!) and we all know how that turned out.

How did that turn out? The Red Line has very low ridership for an urban subway line through the densest part of a megacity, and was never properly completed.

And, yeah, LA is still a car city. Transit share in LA has actually dropped slightly since the subway was built. LA is somewhat more car-centric now than 20-30 years ago.

And you're not making a very logical point. Just because someone questions the financials between one infrastructure investment doesn't mean they're automatically opposed to all infrastructure expenditures. CA HSR makes future Red Lines less likely, not more likely.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How did that turn out? The Red Line has very low ridership for an urban subway line through the densest part of a megacity, and was never properly completed.

And, yeah, LA is still a car city. Transit share in LA has actually dropped slightly since the subway was built. LA is somewhat more car-centric now than 20-30 years ago.

And you're not making a very logical point. Just because someone questions the financials between one infrastructure investment doesn't mean they're automatically opposed to all infrastructure expenditures. CA HSR makes future Red Lines less likely, not more likely.

It doesn't matter if LA or California is a car city or state.

HSR is not meant to replace the car. It's primarily meant to replace the airplane on short hops like these. And the LA-SF corridor is some pretty busy airspace.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Everyone here wants to see this built, it's the state of California that doesn't. There's a difference between being against high speed rail and being against a project that has become such a massive boondoggle it will probably kill HSR in the US for decades. This project won't be built no matter what anyone here thinks because California is too liberal of a state to get anything accomplished in. If we gave Texas the same amount of money they would already have trains running by now.

where do you live? There are areas DESPERATE for jobs, and want it to be built. Fresno took thousands of jobs from NIMBY's already. People said this about the highway system
look where that got us!

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by TWAK

where do you live? There are areas DESPERATE for jobs, and want it to be built. Fresno took thousands of jobs from NIMBY's already. People said this about the highway system
look where that got us!

The point of mass transit is to get people where they need to go efficiently, not provide jobs to people in Fresno...

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

The point of mass transit is to get people where they need to go efficiently, not provide jobs to people in Fresno...

I quoted him because he said it would not get built, and I said yes it will because these areas will be having it built. And um jobs are the selling points in ALL infrastructure projects. Have you heard of the New Deal? It's this thing that......

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by TWAK

I quoted him because he said it would not get built, and I said yes it will because these areas will be having it built. And um jobs are the selling points in ALL infrastructure projects. Have you heard of the New Deal? It's this thing that......

No it's not. The selling point of infrastructure is it gets people where they need to go more efficiently.

That so many people, mainly on the left, view transit as a big jobs program is one of the reasons why we suck so fucking hard at building it.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

No it's not. The selling point of infrastructure is it gets people where they need to go more efficiently.

Terrible.
Infrastructure is more than just transportation. There are several categories, I can link them from Wikipedia if you like. For this specific example we can use transit. Transit infrastructure for rail consists of standard gauge tracks most of the time, for example, so multiple entities can use it.

That so many people, mainly on the left, view transit as a big jobs program is one of the reasons why we suck so fucking hard at building it.

Having a side in the first place for transportation is silly! you dont have to HATE transit because it's "big guberment". And job creation is a cross party platform, so whoever your favorite candidate is i'll pull up legislation or a statement they signed with the first paragraph being job creation and infrastructure projects.
I'm on no political side for transit. trains are cool

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by TWAK

where do you live? There are areas DESPERATE for jobs, and want it to be built. Fresno took thousands of jobs from NIMBY's already. People said this about the highway system
look where that got us!

Reminds me of the old quote, "Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels". The purpose of this project is to build a train. ANYTHING you spend $70 Billion dollars on is going to create a lot of jobs, that's entirely beside the point. The point is whether or not that money is being used intelligently and here it absolutely is not. By any intelligent metric the LESS jobs a project creates the better because all these extra jobs are just a sign of the inefficiency. In Economics there is something called, "opportunity cost" and that's exactly what you are missing here. The opportunity cost of tens of billions of dollars wasted is incredibly large. Someone here was talking about a subway line in LA, but you could build a dozens subway lines for the cost of this project. Those LA and San Francisco transit dream maps could all be reality and then some if we canceled this project and used the money on subway and light rail development.

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

That so many people, mainly on the left, view transit as a big jobs program is one of the reasons why we suck so fucking hard at building it.

Exactly this. Liberal politicians see infrastructure projects as handouts to their union supporters instead of as a way to build the economy. They don't care about budgets and schedules because the longer and more expensive it is the more their voters are happy. It's not their money being wasted after all, it's ours.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Reminds me of the old quote, "Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels". The purpose of this project is to build a train. ANYTHING you spend $70 Billion dollars on is going to create a lot of jobs, that's entirely beside the point.

No sir you said

This project won't be built no matter what anyone here thinks because California is too liberal of a state to get anything accomplished

Me telling you how it is ALREADY being built is a direct counter to your idea that it wont be built at all.

The point is whether or not that money is being used intelligently and here it absolutely is not. By any intelligent metric the LESS jobs a project creates the better because all these extra jobs are just a sign of the inefficiency. In Economics there is something called, "opportunity cost" and that's exactly what you are missing here. The opportunity cost of tens of billions of dollars wasted is incredibly large.

What do you have to weigh it against to see "how good it is", and "how much" should HSR cost?? Especially in the state with some of the HIGHEST property values and ENVIRONMENTAL regulations.

Someone here was talking about a subway line in LA, but you could build a dozens subway lines for the cost of this project. Those LA and San Francisco transit dream maps could all be reality and then some if we canceled this project and used the money on subway and light rail development.

here we go again..... The HSR bill includes funding to localities to upgrade their transit facilities and other transit infrastructure, including HIGHWAY 99.
All of this has already happened. TERRIBLE. You don't know enough about the project!

Exactly this.

no! you don't know what you're talking about. What state do you live in? Have you driven by the construction signs showing what company is building said project?

Liberal politicians see infrastructure projects as handouts to their union supporters instead of as a way to build the economy. They don't care about budgets and schedules because the longer and more expensive it is the more their voters are happy. It's not their money being wasted after all, it's ours.

It is Californian's money, that they voted for. It takes a whole lot of extra money to build in varied terrain for 500 miles, than it is a flat 500 miles. That's just liberal BS too?

[lrt's friend]

If you can spend billions on infrastructure, you better make sure that a proper cost-benefit analysis has occurred. The worst thing that can occur is to build an ill conceived project that people turn their backs on once completed.

Yes, you will create lots of very good jobs during the construction period and you cannot ignore that, but the final outcome has to be useful infrastructure.

And since we are talking about transport infrastructure, you better build upon it, by integrating it with other transit options. This has to be all part of a long-term plan that creates an alternative transportation network, just as occurred in the 1950s and 1960s when the interstate highway network was built.

[Eightball]

excellent comments TWAK!

[mousquet]

Even some Bernie fans faithfully advocating public infrastructures oppose the route...
Anyway, it will (or should) bring business and development opportunities to any served community.

Originally Posted by BrownTown

If we gave Texas the same amount of money they would already have trains running by now.

Really? When the state of Texas itself shows more interest and enthusiasm for this kind of projects, they'll be served right away! lol.
There's a whole nice and clean industry waiting for their conversion (and for their dollars).

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mousquet

Really? When the state of Texas itself shows more interest and enthusiasm for this kind of projects, they'll be served right away! lol.
There's a whole nice and clean industry waiting for their conversion (and for their dollars).

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/

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

How did that turn out? The Red Line has very low ridership for an urban subway line through the densest part of a megacity, and was never properly completed.

First you denounce the Red Line's relatively unimpressive ridership, then go on to state that it wasn't fully built out as originally conceived. Huh.

LA's HRT lines combined have high ridership density by American standards -- certainly higher than the more mature systems found in transit-oriented Chicago and DC. And if we factor out the 2.5-mile stretch underneath the Cahuenga Pass, that ridership density figure is comparable to Philly's SEPTA (around 9,300 riders per mile).