This is California. You're aren't succeeding unless everyone sues you.

CAHSR must be doing something right. :tup:

Simple. They're N-I-M-B-Y-s...

They're NIMBY scum.

U.S. Transportation Secretary LaHood Awards Nearly $1 Billion for California High-Speed Rail Construction


November 22, 2011

Read More: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/fra3711.html

California Bullet Train Project Advances Amid Cries of Boondoggle (NY Times)
 

California Bullet Train Project Advances Amid Cries of Boondoggle

By ADAM NAGOURNEY
NY Times
11/26/2011

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...icleInline.jpg
(Jim Wilson/The New York Times) Gov. Jerry Brown says the high-speed rail line will avoid “the huge problems of massive airport and highway expansion.”

"SACRAMENTO — Across the country, the era of ambitious public works projects seems to be over. Governments are shelving or rejecting plans for highways, railroads and big buildings under the weight of collapsing revenues and voters’ resistance.

But not California.

With a brashness and ambition that evoke a California of a generation ago, state leaders — starting with Gov. Jerry Brown — have rallied around a plan to build a 520-mile high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, cutting the trip from a six-hour drive to a train ride of two hours and 38 minutes. And they are doing it in the face of what might seem like insurmountable political and fiscal obstacles..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/us...pagewanted=all

I'm sick of politicians that steal our taxpayers money.

Skyscraperfan23:

I'm sick of politicians that steal our taxpayers money."

Yes, RepuB(P)lican politicians who will close schools and lay off police and firefighters or who will let our roads and transit crumble so that the wealthiest 2% who have 25 percent of our nation's wealth have even more massive tax cuts disgust me.

There's no reason, NONE, why the United States can put a man on the moon, or develop the most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, yet can't build the greatest high-speed train network in the world...


I'm sick of this bullshit...

At first I was terrified at the prospect of the initial stretch being built in the central valley. People in LA don't use trains, let alone people in Bakersfield or Modesto, ridership would literally be in the double digits per day and that's a high speed train. I mean that's analogous to building a subway under a corn field.

But now I actually think it's brilliant. You build this initial stretch and then you just gotta build the rest no matter what. And it's even better it's not connecting LA or SF to the central valley, by making it going from nowhere to nowhere you are forcing the project to expand quickly and in both directions. By 2030 a lot of things will change in Southern California I think, the region will continue to get denser and more public transit will continue to be built.

people in LA dont use trains? 350,000 boardings a day and growing isnt insignificant.

Double digits per day in the valley?

Then explain how the much slower San Joaquin rail service carries 3,000+ a day in the valley?

It seems like you know very little about the market you are talking about, especially the absurd claim that people in LA dont use trains. Almost half a million do, every day.

god hsr is never going to take off is it? i'm losing my patience with this increasingly backwards country.

People who cry boondoggle or "misspent money" have 2 things in common: no sense of history and no vision for the future. I hope California wins this and gets this thing going.

NYonward:
Exactly right. The revised business plan predicts the LA - SF route will be completed in 2033. The interstate highways built in the 1950s - 1960s are still in service today, more than 50 years later. California already has 38M people, and is as dense statewide as Spain (which has a successful high speed rail network). CA in 2080 will have more than 60M people. First, it is debatable whether there is room in the state to build all the new highway lanes and new runways to accomodate another 20M - 25M people. Second, even if you could, there would likely be crippling congestion.

Many of these people who also think efficient, modern, passenger rail is a boondoggle, have no problem at all spending $100B or more on new hihgway capacity.

On that note... Boston spent $15 billion on undergrounding about 1 mile of freeway. Imagine how much it would cost to add another 10 lanes to I-5 from SF to LA.

Anyone care to calc the costs? I bet the land acquisitions alone would top the 10s of billions of $$$.

Both Parties disgusts me and quit blaming republicans(they are corrupt as well), they are both the same to me.
that is why I Left the democratic party in 2007, cause they are just as corrupt as the rest
(throwing impeachment off the table and continuing to fund disgusting immoral wars)

and this HSR is a taxpayer spending bill crap that I Will not paying for.
good thing rick scott killed it in our state for good reason, i'm sick of the leftist agenda, they are just as bad as the neocons.

Shatter the left/right paradigm.

i'm a libertarian and government should stay out of people's lives

Why spent money on a HSR that we don't have, Big Government stinks and It doesn't work.

And guess what high speed rail is come from?

You guess it, China., good grief

Now I Enjoy high speed rail as much as everybody else, I Think it's a great alternative to the other stuff, but, it's a wasteful taxpayer spending project that we can afford

Stop wasteful government spending.

I hate to say it, because the truth is, most regions in the US absolutely deserve HSR...

However... if things don't improve until 2013 (assuming BO gets reelected), and the GOP congress moves to try and take back the $12 Billion allocation to HSR (they're already pushing to take back CHSR's portion), should the idea of diverting all of it to California be considered?

I mean, I know it sounds unfair (and it is), but would getting a fully functioning system up and running from say, San Jose to Palmdale/Sylmar (think Caltrain and Metrolink), as soon as possible be a good choice, and would send good signals to Washington that HSR is a worthy investment... and as a result, spark "real" investments (not $50 Billion, but more like $250 Billion) in HSR projects all around the country?

You know what's worse than either Republicans or Democrats? Libertarians. Libertarians with their vague rants about "stop wasteful spending"...."government stay out of our lives"...."I'm a Libertarian and thus, rise above the muck of both political parties"....ad nauseum. Amidst your typical vague Libertarian ranting exists gross inaccuracies. High speed rail has been successfully implemented in Europe and Japan for decades, long before China got on the bandwagon; at least strive for some semblance of historical accuracy when spewing your Libertarian dogma. Also, you don't make sense at all when you profess (falsely, I presume) to being a fan of HSR as an alternative, while at the same time bashing it as a "a complete waste of taxpayer's money".

You realize you are doing the same as what you are criticizing? Do you understand the difference between Europe and California? Start with differences in urban centralization, density, car ownership, gas prices, disposable income level, distance between cities, parking availability, air alternatives, etc.

All things consdered, HSR makes a lot of sense in the 3rd world, much of Europe and in the Northeast US but much less in California.

What makes you an expert on urban and/or regional land economics? Unless you have some qualifications and experience to lend credence to those terms that you occasionally throw around to make it seem like you value facts (when in reality you are just another Libertarian-esque noisemaker), put a sock in it.

I would argue that California is not so different than France or Germany or Spain in terms of geographical size, population and density to warrant the dismissal of transportation modes that work well in those countries. Many of those other "differences" you cited are a consequence of our government (in its current heavily corporate influenced state) subsidizing some forms of transportation and land development over others.

Part of the idea of laying the infrastructure for HSR now, is to accommodate future growth and increases in population density, congestion, etc.

I'm not sure what kind of philosophy you are trying to promote by insinuating that HSR and other public rail infrastructure projects are meant to work in 3rd world countries, but not here.

But at least we libertarians are truly sick and tired of big government, because big government on both sides of the ile ever since FDR has destroyed everything and that has to stop.

I Enjoy HSR, But please get the federal government out of the way and let the market decide.

and in florida as well.
that is why as corrupt as rick scott is, He did the right thing to kill it, to save taxpayers a lot of money.
no wonder we are in big defict right now in florida.

And We can build high speed rail by ending all of the unnecessary and immoral wars all over the world and use that money here at home.

Obviously libertarians don't believe in staying on topic. Go troll another forum if this is the only conversation you are capable of having. :rolleyes:

Hogwash.

One can be a fan of high speed rail as a mode of transportation where it would work, and at the same time not believe its the best fit for the region in which one lives.

That is perfectly plausible and your melodramatic responses exposes the fact that you are probably too biased on one side of the argument to even process the thought that there are legitimate concerns that must be addressed by those who have a different view from your own.

Sorry, didn't mean to kick off a troll-fest. My initial rebuttal was to skyscraperfan addressing his idea that intercity HSR (as a concept) originating in China was patently false.

If, on the other hand, what you meant by the China comment is that the technology to build California HSR is likely going to come from China, then I apologize. Given your (skyscraperfan23) predilection for relying on stock libertarian soundbytes like, "big government", "let the market decide", and "taxpayers have had enough!" as your arguments, I assumed it was the former.

Anyway, sorry again, back to the topic!

couldnt have said it better myself. perfect.

Hogwash back to you.
It would be plausible if Pesto or skyscraperfan23 were talking about a HSR line say, between Cody and Laramie, Wyoming, as being an example of a waste of money. The various nodes in the proposed California high speed rail line are huge metro areas, with more than enough density and demand for fast, regional rail transportation to not be a waste of money.

I would have respect for a view that differs from mine on the specifics of carrying out the HSR plan. For example, I think that the debate on whether it is better to go about constructing the central valley route, or start from the opposite poles and build outward, regionally, is a valid debate.

dimondpark:
Please explain why high speed rail won't work in CA. California has three of Amtrak's five highest ridership routes (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-0...heast-corridor). CA is as dense as Spain, where high speed rail is of course very successful. Both San Francisco and Los Angeles (http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_sprawl.shtml) are very dense cities.

California has some of the nation's worst highway congestion and SFO is one of the most delayed airports. California cities will have pretty decent feeder networks of subways and local commuter rail by the time high speed rail is completed (LA County is spending $20B or more on transit, including the westside subway, thanks to Measure R).

These all sound like reasons why high speed rail can be expected to be pretty successful in California.

Well, maybe you can utilize your special anti-bias powers to "process the thought" of how California and the U.S. as a whole, is supposed to deal with an ever growing population that will need to get from point A to point B to conduct business, educate, entertain, and keep our society functioning in general, without the addition of millions of more automobiles spewing pollutants in the atmosphere. Electric trains still pollute, yes, pollution from centralized sources like a coal plant can be easier to deal with that millions upon millions of discrete sources....and that's even leaving out the possibilities if we got serious about developing alternative sources for electrical generation.

drifting_sun:
CA actually generates very little of its electricity from coal. Most comes from natural gas, and some from renewable. Natural gas has about half (or less) the emissions of coal and there are vast supplies of it. Partly for this reason, however, I'm very optimistic about electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids.

I am looking forward to the time (hopefully soon) when electric/hybrid vehicles perform on a level that is suitable for mass consumption. That would help the air pollution problem in a big way, but the congestion problem would probably remain. However, as long as all the different modes (auto, bus, rail, bicycle, pedestrian) are supported, I cannot begrudge those individuals that still prefer to get around in an (electric) automobile. Or, think of it this way - if convenient, fast rail is provided (and truly supported), die-hard auto enthusiasts will have slightly more space on the road.

The thing that is so great about fast rail travel is the level of comfort and convenience over car and plane travel for medium to sort-of-long distances.

Sorry, it fits you better.:tup:

*yawns*

I am very surprised by the misplaced and uncalled for zeal by overly excited out-of-staters, however my opinion of this project remains undeterred and actually reniforced due these developments recently made known through admissions made by the CASHR Authority.

1. The California High Speed Rail Authority underreported the total cost of just the first phase of the project by $60 Billion? So it turns out the true cost(Not even including Sacramento or San Diego) is $98 Billion--not $30 Billion. Extensions to either San Diego or Sacramento wont begin until 2032 at the earliest.

2. Their ridership projections and ticket price projections were unrealistically optimistic.

3. The actual impact this thing would have on traffic within the major population centers of California is almost nothing. However, anyone with even a minor knowledge of California knows that the traffic flow of vehicles specifically between the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin is very small as it is.

Of course, all of this was totally glossed over by the California High Speed Rail.

Ultimately, what will be this project's undoing is the arrogance and disrepect demonstrated by the CAHSR Authority, which thinks it can force its will on an unwilling and fast growing list of communities who feel totally shut out and spat on by their planning.

And trust me, voters have taken notice:
A stark contrast from 2008 when we passed what seemed like a good plan, but now appears to be a reckless boondoggle. Jerry Brown and Barack Obama should know by now that they cannot coerce Californians to do anything simply because most of us are Democrats.

Like Ive stated, I would love nothing more than to spend $98 Billion to expand existing transit systems up and down the state of California...how glorious that would be.

I have yet to witness any real proof of this "utter disregard and manhandling of poor, poor NIMBY's and such by the rail authority, beyond the usual sensationalist tripe. In fact, the reason that costs often overrun in a project such as this is that the appointed authority spends all too much time and money trying to please every last damn individual, because, doggone it, didn't you know that this is America? As to your other points, I am sure you feel like you stated them oh so eloquently, and with a reasoned voice, but, aside from the one link, they lack citations to any evidence.

Actually, that link doesn't count, because the article, which admits to being an "unscientific poll" is a joke, and surveyed a whole....573 people! My goodness, if 573 people can't speak for the majority of the +37,000,000 Californians, what is this world coming to?

How incredibly ironic.:haha:

A sample of the population is how polls are done:haha:

So now you are adding "rude" to your resume to go with "brain dead"?

First of all, I am far from libertarian; I can think of 10 major issues I disagree with them on off the top of my head. Transit, eminent domain, SEC policy, public lands, employment law, etc.

Second, you didn't address any of the issues I tossed out. For example, it is 400 miles from SF to Union Station and in SF and LA only tiny percentages of the metro populations are within, say, 5 miles of the main stations; this is very different from the typical European city and 400 miles is typically outside the range where HSR can compete with air. At 200 miles, non-stop HSR is a clear winner.

There are 5 local airports in LA and 3 in the Bay Area each with excellent connections to the other region. There are 3 major highways connecting the areas. Car ownership is high, gas prices are low, parking is available, compared to Europe. Electric will have replaced gas for small and mid-sized commuting vehicles by 2030, when HSR is ready. As a result, cars just blow away HSR on cost and air blows them away on time.

pesto:
I don't disagree with this but CA's highways are already some of the most congested in the US. If plug-in hybrid/electric vehicles become widespread, which the likely will and the cost of driving falls, you can expect that congestion will increase as the marginal cost of driving decreases. Total travel costs (direct costs and not social costs like sprawl, accidents, pollution, etc...) include passenger time and vehicle operating expenses. If energy required for passenger vehicles becomes cheaper, it is not at all clear that total travel costs will be reduced, as people might start driving more.

No, a sample is how surveys are done. A simple poll such as the one you are referencing is entirely unscientific (as the website notes) and is open to anybody to respond, which means anyone can rally some group of HSR haters on a forum and then they flood the poll.

Actuallly in light of recent revelations about the feasbility, practicality and real cost of this project, Im very confident a scientific poll would show opposition to this project is now much higher than 60%.

I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for a response.:haha:

Similarly, dimondpark, I saw that you haven't responded to my post yesterday about why high speed rail won't work in CA:

"Please explain why high speed rail won't work in CA. California has three of Amtrak's five highest ridership routes (http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-0...heast-corridor). CA is as dense as Spain, where high speed rail is of course very successful. Both San Francisco and Los Angeles (http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_sprawl.shtml) are very dense cities.

California has some of the nation's worst highway congestion and SFO is one of the most delayed airports. California cities will have pretty decent feeder networks of subways and local commuter rail by the time high speed rail is completed (LA County is spending $20B or more on transit, including the westside subway, thanks to Measure R).

These all sound like reasons why high speed rail can be expected to be pretty successful in California."

Who's "Brain Dead"? From Paris to Marseilles takes ~3-3.5 hours on the TGV; the distance is listed as 489 miles. France is only about the same size as Texas, but perhaps you were confusing it with a smaller country, like the Netherlands?

Source - http://theirearth.com/index.php/news...lle-in-3-hours

I could go through and find other examples of European HSR operating between cities at around the same distances as your "golden mean distance".

As to your other "points" about difference in fuel prices, etc. I guess you were too busy trying to come up with some sort of witty insult, like - "brain dead", to notice my counterpoint, but I will say it again for your benefit. A lot of those differences are due to the ways our government has subsidized petrol, and facilitated automobile-oriented development over the alternatives. It's not some insurmountable difference, like you claim it is.

Top analyst warns state could waste $6 billion over high-speed rail


11/29/2011

By Mike Rosenberg and Steve Harmon

Read More: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...il/ci_19436537

Analysis: http://www.mercurynews.com/californi...841?source=pkg




http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...m1130hsr90.jpg

That's more of a commentary on the systemwide lack of riders that CA should have that many of Amtrak's busiest routes-because having ridden 2 of them, I can tell you that they are not busy at all. They are nowhere near at some sort of brimming capacity-in fact, its still rather light.

And most of the Capitol Corridor is just commuters and that route doesnt even carry 10,000 people a day between Sacramento and The Bay Area. ACE Train from Stockton to Silicon Valley carries what? 5,000?

Its a colossal fail to try and create some sort of buzz around a ridership ranking when the total numbers are very low, the activity at these stations is totally nonexistent most of the time and we know that outside of commuting, nobody takes them.

Furthermore, this thing will compete with Amtrak. Why do we need that?

They are two independent megapolitan regions hundreds of miles apart, already served by hundreds of flights a day, and our airports are nowhere near their historic capacaties as far as passenger volume.

And how exactly is a bullet train from LA to SF supposed to alleviate traffic in either of these cities? ONLY IF IT PLANS TO COMPETE FOR RIDERS WITH ALREADY EXISTING SYSTEMS WITHIN THOSE METRO REGIONS-that's how.:rolleyes:

So perhaps the solution is to expand the airport-more efficient and cost effective than building a bullet train.

Contrary to the BS they've been feeding us, the CASHR hasntt even lined up one private investor. Not 1.

That signifies a total lack of confidence as far as Im concerned.

I have yet to read a single talking point by the CAHSR that can really stand even the most casual scrutiny.

New high-speed rail route suggested for Fresno-Merced (Fresno Bee)
 

New high-speed rail route suggested for Fresno-Merced


By Tim Sheehan
The Fresno Bee
Dec. 01, 2011

"State high-speed rail planners on Thursday recommended a hybrid route that follows portions of two major railroad corridors for the line between Fresno and Merced.

http://media.fresnobee.com/smedia/20...emmTT.St.8.gif
Image courtesy of the Fresno Bee.

Officials for the California High-Speed Rail Authority said the route will be cheaper to build, and disrupt fewer businesses, than a line along Highway 99 and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad freight tracks for the entire 65-mile stretch, or along the Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks a few miles to the east.

The recommendation, which will be considered by the authority's board at a Dec. 13 meeting in Merced, also pins down the site of a proposed station in downtown Fresno. Engineers suggest a site along the Union Pacific tracks at Mariposa Street – a site already endorsed by Fresno city leaders over a second site a few blocks south at Kern Street..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/12/01/...rid-route.html

Is the farmer's primary concern convenient access points to their land where the rail line happens to bisect it? I don't suppose there is a way to have easy crossing points for the land owners. Do you think heavy agricultural machinery would incur too much wear and tear on an at-grade crossing over time? Also, some farm vehicles are pretty tall, probably too high to cross under the lines; but that shouldn't be a problem as electric trains can certainly glide from one connection to another if there is a break.

It's perfectly clear that some here only oppose CHSR now because their major city isn't in Phase I..

I'm starting to think this isn't going to happen. It seems like it has too many opponents both in the state and in the federal government. Is there any real hope for HSR in CA?