at any published or estimated rate for the cost of car ownership, it's actually not cheaper to drive. those estimates range from 50 to 70 cents per mile. or 400-500 dollars round trip. only cheaper with three people in the car.

if you assume you already own the car, and only factor depreciation, wear and tear, and gas, it still requires two people in the car to make it cheaper.

it's a tragedy the way HSR has gone down here; two regions with 26 million people total and another couple million between them in one of the richest places in the world ought to be able to build a 400 mile rail line. :(

I am not here to say things are right or wrong, but they are what they are. Most people have cars. It gets you anywhere in the country.

Yeah but poor people don't care about depreciation and long-term cost. They can't afford to worry about those things.

And yes, most people travel with more than themselves. In the real world many people have families.

If I fly from Norfolk to Memphis, it will cost me between 300-500 for a RT ticket. If I drive it will cost me about 120 in gas. Even if you add in an oil change(60 bucks) I am up to 180 dollars. Most people will take this if the timing makes sense.

[delete]

Except there WAS a political will to build HSR in California and that will was broken because of money. If CAHSR has done what it said it was going to do the IOS would already be complete and support for the project would be sky high. Indeed delegations from other states would probably be touring California to see it and to try and set up HSR in their own states. Only the most tight-pursed fiscal conservatives would still be opposed. But instead of that possible future we got a decade of delays and cost overruns and so it's no wonder this is the eventual outcome. CAHSR shot itself in the foot, you can't blame the federal government or the opposing political party for this one.

Good. Now I am hoping that the money from this project can go to something more useful, like better transit within each metropolitan area or, idk, electric self-driving aircraft high speed rail in 10 years when I can afford to move to the PNW / Midwest / Texas.

Except there is no money for this project. The funding is already all used up (or being used currently in the Central Valley). That was the most fundamental issue with this whole project; they started building without enough money to complete it and no plans on where to get it.

25% of the cap-and-trade auction proceeds (each quarter there is $800 to $1 billion in revenue), which means about $800 million per year, had been dedicated to CAHSR. The issue wasn’t that the money was used up. It was that it was not enough even if financing against future cap-and-trade revenue to raise the full $77 billion.

https://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/...ost.png?x43122

Most recent auction:
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local...222204730.html

Not only are airports are expensive to maintain, but even in an era when major infrastructure projects are a tough sell in the US (blame it partly on lack of political will), airport expansion/construction is especially problematic. Case in point: DIA, the last major airport to be constructed in this country, is almost 25 miles from downtown Denver. Another case in point: One proposal for a brand-new San Diego airport would put it about 50 miles from SD.

Owing to both increasingly constricted airport facilities and the desire to reduce CO2 emissions, I could see HSR (if implemented correctly) taking over many short/medium-haul trips while airlines focus more on longer-haul and transcontinental trips.

And yet Europe when they do all the things you want the US Federal Government to, cars still dominate modal share. The car did not win because of Government Intervention, it won because it's the best form of ground transportation. It brought fast transport over wide areas to the masses.

Even in the US, government revenue from the use of cars come far closer to paying for the operating and capital cost of infrastracture (especially if you stop the funds from being used for other purposes) than mass transit, which struggles to pay for a fraction of just the operating costs. It doesn't take much higher gas taxes to pay for all roads, but there's absolutely no fare that will have transit users pay for the full costs of their system.

To say nothing of Europe where fuel taxes account for upwards of 60% of the total cost of gas and registration and use fees approach the value of the car.

That's actually underselling how difficult it is to build a new international airport in America, if you can imagine that. In the past 50 years there have only been two major airports built in the US, DFW in 1969 and Denver International in 1995. When nearly every moderately sized and above city already has jet capable airport within spitting distance of its downtown, it's always a better option to squeeze every last bit of capacity out of them rather than building a vast new mega-hub out in the hinderlands.

The difficult part is that although the overall cost per rider might be higher, for a local government an airport is far cheaper than an HSR system. The federal government grants airports over $3 billion dollars a year for capacity improvements and major renovations, in addition to the $2.5 billion dollars a year it spends maintaining navigation aids (which include systems serving singular airports like glide slopes and approach lighting) and control towers. Not to mention the $7.5 billion dollars a year for ATC services, and the untold billions the US military gives aircraft manufactures to develop new aviation technology (for example the development of the jet engine was a military project, the 707 and 747 both started life as military projects, and the military funded development of carbon fiber components used on the 787). And the feds have been funding aviation at this level or even higher for over 70 years, which means all this infrastructure is already in place and earning cash. Unlike mass transit or roads most commercial airports in the US are major profit centers, and that sets a high bar for a new HSR system which isn't going to receive any of these benefits.

Yeah because a ton of Europe is rural, just like how a ton of the United States is rural. Way to lift a Cato Institute "argument".

Europe must be incredibly rural in order for the car to have 4.8X the passenger-km of buses and trains. How rural must the UK be to actually use less mass transit now than it did 60 years ago.

The reality is Europeans don't actually use the train all that much, it's basically the same magnitude as Canadians traveling by car in passenger-km.

California did not raise taxes on its companies or populace to build high speed rail. This contrasts directly with Ohio's HSR plan from 1983, which would have financed construction and operation with a 1% statewide sales tax and built the first 200mph high speed rail line in the United States between Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland. That plan involved tunnels and 10+ mile viaducts over freight railroad tracks to get the line through the suburbs with zero trade crossings, a corollary to the dilemmas faced in California. The Republican takeover of Ohio politics toward the end of Dick Celeste's reign drove a stake through future HSR plans with construction of the new Federal Courthouse in the direct path of Cleveland's HSR approach.

People on these sorts of forums haven't worked in politics and don't understand what hardball these transit and rail projects are. Logic doesn't work when the Koch's and other players are out there relentlessly harassing logic. Take a look at where the Republicans succeeded in getting a federally-owned skyscraper built in Cleveland, OH -- in the former space occupied by the Terminal Tower passenger concourse, precluding that space's use by passenger rail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_B...tes_Courthouse

In Cincinnati, in the late 1980s the wealthiest family in town (which, incidentally briefly owned Grand Central in New York after the gigantic Penn Central/NY Central bankruptcy) built an Omnimax theater in the space where HSR was to have served the historic Cincinnati Union Terminal (https://www.cincymuseum.org/omnimax). So now big-time passenger rail can't return to the facility without the region's wealthiest family giving the thumb's up, which means they get something and get something big in exchange. Because being born into a $1+ billion fortune is never enough.

I don't think people here understand how much people are working behind the scenes to undermine this project in California because they know it ushers in a sea change and will work to delay or scuttle the whole thing if they themselves are not set up to profit from it. They don't care about the money needed to build it because Californians are not being taxed directly. It's about CAHSR determining real estate winners and losers. With Pacheco Pass, San Jose is the winner to SF's detriment. With Altamont, the East Bay for certain gets service but SF does not get high quality service unless the second Transbay Tube is built. That's what this is all about, people. San Francisco blue bloods -- just like those in Ohio back in the 1980s -- are working to protect their interests.

A few disparate thoughts:

I'm assuming all Prop 1A, ARRA funds, and Cap & Trade allocations will be fully used. Will those funds be enough to get to Bakersfield proper and Merced proper, not Poplar Ave to Madera (and is that indeed the new plan's phase 1)?

Will ACE get state funds beyond the current funding to extend track to Merced? It would make sense to electrify and do a couple short tunnels in the Altamont and Sunol. Dumbarton if we're feeling spendy.

How would the trainsets work, especially if ACE/NorCal Unified Service remains un-electrified? If I'm going Bakersfield to Fremont or Sacramento am I travelling at 220mph then switching trains at Merced or just dropping speed? Same question in reverse. Is the current San Joaquins track and service remaining or are the sections made redundant by the new track shut down?

I wonder if this means whenever we throw the next big batch of funds (whether state or federal) at the project, if it goes to the San Gabriel tunnels before Pacheco? I don't doubt that Pacheco will get it's HSR, the political power structures in Silicon Valley/NorCal are too strong for it not to, but with upgraded Altamont service maybe the Bakersfield to LA connection becomes the next priority.

Yeah this is definitely a battle royale between San Jose being on the mainline -- and getting 12 trains per hour per direction - vs. the Altamont route, which at-best puts San Jose on a spur.

If HSR is rerouted via Altamont to a new Transbay tube from Oakland, the possibility exists for HSR spurs to both San Jose and to Palo Alto via a rebuilt Dumbarton Bridge. They could do a train split where two half-length trains, one originating in Palo Alto and another from San Jose join to form a full-length train in Fremont and then head downstate as a full double-length train.

Or just run it Modesto-Tracy-Pleasanton-Fremont-Redwood City-SFO-Transbay, take the $3 billion in savings, and give ~$1 billion to VTA for LRT along Stevens Creek or something as compensation.

The Altamont option makes the most sense, starting with the Dumbarton and maybe eventually a new transbay tunnel (how stupid the new Bay Bridge can't support rail) from Oakland. San Jose is a glorified suburb, Oakland/Berkeley will be a greater trip generator imo as those are actually cities. SJ will have two good options in BART to Fremont or upgraded Caltrain to RWC. Oakland/Berkeley will have BART to Fremont until the new Transbay is ready.

How many hundreds of billions does transit cost? Should we bring we bring up the second ave. subway line? Busybee wants to complain about the Big Dig while it created a more walkable city and solved the issue of dividing communities that freeways tend to create and he's against that? Par for the course.

Let's be real, 25 billion compared to a project that would likely cost well over 100 billion can't be compared. This project takes the crown of the biggest boondoggle in American history and is an utter failure in every which way. That does not mean I don't want to see HSR in California, but we need to go back to the drawing board from scratch and reform our infrastructure building process to reduce costs. US transit advocates just seem so hell bent on getting HSR here they are loosing grips on realities and willing to pay 10 fold over what other countries would pay for the same thing.

There is a way (a very, very expensive way, no doubt) to build a new transbay tube that serves Capitol Corridor, ACE, and HSR and brings them all into the new Transbay Terminal.

But then another huge tunnel or tunnels would be necessary to get to I-5 and the central valley, plus dozens and dozens of grade separations. So we're talking a solid 45 miles of extremely complicated construction to make this possible *after* building the new tube.

For those advocating for big improvements to the east bay commuter rail situation in lieu of building HSR through the Central Valley, be aware that just getting the 45 miles of construction done between Oakland and the east side of the Alameda Pass (none of which would travel much faster than 100mph) is going to cost many times what the current 150~ miles of HSR is costing in the Central Valley.

Bigger than the Iraq War? Which by all estimates cost at least $1 trillion, and some peg much higher? And for which no tax was raised (instead, Bush actually cut taxes)?

There's a huge difference in modal share between Europe and the U.S. That difference is a major reason HSR works in Europe and probably won't work in U.S. (excepting NE corridor).

Actually just for the record that wasn't me that brought up the Big Dig.

Yeah, why would anyone ever fly between LA and San Francisco when they can just drive?

Not necessarily. If you buy tickets early enough, You can get a round trip ticket with southwest for around 55 with taxes and fees. getting a full tank in a comfortable sized car going one way is about 60. Then tolls, parking, depending on how long you're staying, gas again. Taking a car can quickly end up being 180 for gas (60 going, 60 while you're there, 60 on the way back), most hotels in SF have a 20 dollar average daily parking fee that that's another 60, then paying for parking if you decide to drive to places, then the tolls that you will most likely hit if you decide to travel over the bay. Even if you go with another person, splitting that in half, Flying is still cheaper. LA isn't as bad but it'll still be cheaper to fly, granted a bigger hassle since LAs is more spread out.

Flying can be affordable if you know you when you're traveling and you purchase your ticket sufficiently far ahead of time. I looked at sample fares for Burbank - SFO for next Monday, February 25. Flights are between $138 - $178, with most flights priced at $146 (taxes and fees included) for the cheapest fares on Southwest. If you are a business traveler and want a flexible ticket that you can change, the fares are between $256 - $265.

Even with significantly higher mass transit share, over 80% of ground passenger-km in the EU-28 is provided by cars. Even if not to the same level as North America, I would still consider that domination.

Relatively few people live in the large cities served by high speed rail. The majority of people in the United States and Europe live in small cities and towns or out in the country on farms.

HSR is exclusively transport between major cities. If Western Europe has (say) 80% car share (which I doubt), that means a gigantic share of urban residents (probably like half) rely on modes other than cars.

In the U.S., cars have like 95% share, and in every metro but NYC are like 90%+ auto share, so HSR is a longshot.

And then you have to consider that intercity driving in Western Europe generally doesn't make much sense. It's often tolled, it's generally much slower, with much more congestion, gas costs more, and there's nowhere to put your car. North America has none of these issues.

Sure, but my original comment was not in reference to HSR but to Busy Bee's assertion that cars only uniquely dominate in the US because the US Federal Government wanted it to and subsidized it.

And yes Western Europe is over 80% share for cars.

https://i.imgur.com/CPRxDOT.png

But this is true. Outside of a few small petro-states, cars are uniquely dominant in the U.S. If you put aside NYC, basically no major U.S. metro has significant transit share in global terms. This is a huge reason that HSR is a longshot in the U.S. context.

https://i.imgur.com/CPRxDOT.png

No, it isn't. It's 80% if comparing PT vs private autos. But that isn't modal share, because you aren't including walking and biking (both of which are generally very high in Western European cities).

I'm using modal share in terms of passenger-km. Walking and biking (in some countries) may have relatively high trip share but they aren't significant in terms of distance (other than perhaps the Netherlands). UK as an example:

https://i.imgur.com/aoMa3uY.png

Here's a link to modal share in Western European cities:

http://www.epomm.eu/tems/

Looking just at Germany (because that's what I'm most familiar with), car modal share in the bigger cities averages around 30-45%. And Germany is unusually prosperous and car-crazy, with less developed bike infrastructure than the Nordics.

In contrast, excepting NY, I don't believe any U.S. metro is below 80% car share (remember this isn't commuting share, it's all trips). So it's a huge difference.

Basically, the typical U.S. metro is 90% car-oriented, while the typical European metro is maybe 40% car-oriented.

All this auto data seems to leave out one glaring variable. No doubt the vast majority of trips are made via auto. But that doesn't really tell the whole story. Where is the percentage of trips tied to distance? I don't know about you, but personally I don't make a habit of boarding a intercity coach or high speed bullet train to go to Target to buy laundry detergent. It's for that reason that these findings seems quite skewed.

I don't see why distance matters. The point is whether or not someone is living a transit-oriented lifestyle.

If they're wedded to the auto, they aren't likely to start using HSR, which pretty much only works in concert with robust PT and walkability.

See this is one of the criticisms that I just do not understand. Why is there such a strong belief that the variables of ground transportation and walkability, while obviously also strong goals, are the highest caliber requirements in order for HSR to gather sufficient and impressive ridership? If optimal HSR planning is designed to be an equal competitor and/or surpass air trips on the same corridor, that seems to suggest that it would only be a success if PT and walkability were realities on the ground for each endpoint. Where is the requirement for that with air? Why would in theory it be any different? I refuse to believe that somehow people wouldn't use a bullet train to take a trip they otherwise would fly or begrudgingly drive. I also refuse to believe the very premise that people's current patterns wouldn't change if given the option to take a fast train. I have no doubt HSR can and will be a success in the United States if developed. An entire industry has been created to prevent competition to the car and the plane. We know this by now, or at least we should.

Because airplanes are much faster than HSR so if it requires the same level of inconvenience then it won't have any advantages over airplanes and will therefore have no market.

HSR is downtown-focused and presupposes strong pedestrian and transit linkages within a centralized environment. In contrast, flying favors autocentricity.

For instance, the NYC-DC market share isn't dominated by Acela because Acela is "better" than the competing air shuttles, it's because the market meets the requirements for HSR (for pathetic American standards). If you ran the exact same Acela trains between, say, Dallas and Houston, the market share would be pitiful.

From Downtown LA to SFO, the CaHSR door-to-door speed will be much higher as compared to flying from LAX to SFO.

The CaHSR travel time is even faster for DTLA to San Jose - just 2 hours. And again, therein lies the "problem" with CaHSR -- the huge advantage enjoyed by San Jose and Silicon Valley as compared to DT San Francisco if the Pacheco Pass tunnel is built.

You are leaving out all the time consuming steps to air travel. Parking, terminal shuttles, check in if checking baggage, security, waiting waiting and more waiting. And then do much of the reverse once you land. That's a far cry from being dropped off and getting to board a hsr train that departs every 15 minutes or so. Your time savings over air with the lower average speed figured in is at the endpoints.

It should seem obvious, but you don't actually know this because no hs train exists between Dallas and Houston.

Again, if the region isn't transit-oriented and centralized, it's HSR that has "all the time consuming steps". You lose all the advantages if potential riders aren't already based around the stations.

There is no point to, say, a downtown San Jose hub, when it isn't the focus of the Bay Area.

Well, yeah, but we know existing Amtrak (and bus) ridership in non-transit oriented corridors, and it's horrible. There's no reason to think it would become massively popular just because you sped it up.

The NE Corridor didn't have some ridership boom as the train speeds increased. They already had the captive market.

No I'm not, those things are literally the entire point of my post. But without transit those same sort of issues apply to high speed rail too because you have to drive into traffic-congested downtown, find a parking spot (which don't exist near either station in question) and then walk to the train station.

I'll try to spell it out more simply:
Airplane: High fixed time delay but fastest travel speed.
HSR: Moderate fixed time delay and moderate speed.
Car: No fixed time delay but slow speed.

In order for HSR to be effective it has to fit somewhere in the middle there between Airplanes and cars. If your city has no transit then that fixed time delay is increased because of all the time associated driving and parking at the station and then getting an uber at the other end. Plus these things all increase your costs.

Everyone is severely underestimating how many people would prefer to stay on the ground especially if offered a valid option that allowed travel at a comparable amount of time and comparable cost to air travel between two points like SF-LA. There are many many closeted and uncloseted people who simply do not like to fly. So when a very fast alternative is developed within an endpoint-endpoint (and intermediate stops ) range like the California program, I believe you will see a very healthy ridership baseline that would make the line a success. Also with all this talk of how people choose to drive the journey or to destinations in between, no one ever, ever, says anything about what other motives may be at play besides economic. This is a large oversight in the data that's always being thrown around. Everyone seems to assert that the only reason for making the decision to drive vs fly or vs taking a train or bus is for simplistic economics. Set aside the fact that all the hidden cost of auto travel never seem to make it into the equation - that's been reminded time and time again. People, most people I would say, make decisions for more reasons than just economic. While many will in fact choose to drive because the costs after considering multiple passengers in the vehicle, are in fact the lowest. But that does not account for all those that wind up flying when they would actually likely choose the high speed train if it existed and was very compaetitive in cost and time. And this is true of everywhere, not just the California program.

The Department of Transportation has canceled all funding for CAHSR and is looking into suing to get the money already spent back:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-rail-project

Looking into suing is the least impressive kind of suing.

While I won't agree or disagree with that statement; I should have been more clear. I was specifically referring to infrastructure initiatives.

I understand that. I originally brought it up, but my point remains valid.

Sweet, maybe he can give some of that money to Illinois to not upgrade the CHI-STL line.