I feel like Bernie Sanders talking on here sometimes. A couple making 200k brings in 16,666 pre-tax every month.
I was never talking about those folks. I was talking about average folks and how they are not going to use this.

Most people in California don't make anywhere near 200k for their household. So again, *once again*...this project is being paid for by ALL taypayers for the rich.

No doubt, the percentage who can afford to.

You keep harping on this as if California doesn't have a Democratic supermajority that can pass train subsidies at the drop of a hat. Or an electorate that would be glad to approve them via ballot measure.

Everyone will be riding this train.

So the tax payers will subsidize what...was 70 billion dollar system and then subsidize the trains operation forever(when they were promised this wouldn't be so)? Sounds like a lousy deal.

And at the end of the day, the reason I harp on this is obvious....even if you make the ticket 10 dollars a day round trip the vast majority of Californians will still have a car and associated cost and will most definitely have to drive to the station or from the station to work.

Just to build this HSR each Californian is being taxed like 1700 a person. So everyone in the state has already put their fair share in and now you want them to pay more....every year for eternity?


This project is making me look anti transit, but it couldn't be further from the truth. This project will help others become anti transit after its all said and done.

You are really outta pocket rn bro. You do know California has the highest state income tax (by far) in the US right? like 12.2 percent. Gov Moonbeam didn't even want to renew it but voters did anyways. Point being that most state government functions are funded by the rich. And don't get it twisted, there are a ton of rich ppl in California. So, just like Amtrak California (the very successful California Amtrak routes with heavy frequencies and ridership), ticket sales will likely be subsidized on an ongoing basis. Which makes sense bc the roads and highways are also.

Not to the voters of California, who have the only voice that matters in this situation.

Metrolink runs once an hour. It takes over twice as long in travel time than the HSR.

Can you provide a source for the claim that cutting a commute down by more than half, and increasing frequencies, will not attract many new commuters? There seems to be a plethora of evidence to the contrary when other transit (train lines taking away bus riders) and new transportation methods (ExpressLanes filled up even though drivers could still use the free lanes) open up in Southern California.

As highways become more congested and air travel becomes more unpleasant, there is an opportunity for a rail alternative for the first time since World War II.

HSR is the equivalent of airline travel. In both cases, you need to get either to the station or the airport. Neither are designed for door to door service. Neither are generally designed for commuting.

Let's face it, HSR will mostly be for occasional travellers for business or pleasure. That is fine. Even if HSR has stations that could allow local commuting, that is not its main purpose and ticket prices will discourage this kind of use. Only so many seats are available and longer distance travellers will be the target. If seats are mostly occupied by short distance travellers, then most seats will be empty for the rest of the trip. This is not cost effective. Local service should be offered by local trains. HSR should get you from city to city, while local transit should get you to your final destination. So, if local transit does not get you to your destination, then improvements are needed there.

Regardless, there are no easy solutions. We can let roads get impossibly congested and let transit continue to languish. Investment will be needed no matter what. If rail is considered part of the solution, there needs to be an understanding that HSR is only one component. The local connections also must be improved and this will take time.

Well, according to the LA Times, and the measure voted on already(by voters in California, duh):

"And they are central to revenue calculations for a system that by state law must operate without a taxpayer subsidy."

Then it has to be very competitive with car and airline travel in order to grab sufficient market share. What are expected travel times between SF and LA? It is becoming apparent that there is a sweet spot for distances and times that will make train travel very attractive. The distance between SF and LA is too far for traditional rail service to be truly competitive.

The 2008 electorate is very different than the one that will be voting in the 2020s when the train is running.

So screw the people who voted originally? If that happens, anyone who opposes any major transit project in this country can say " the bill says ZERO public subsidies, but we all saw what happened in California" and then whatever bill they are voting on dies.

As i've mentioned before, this is going to hurt other transit initiatives in the country as they can always point at California and use it as their example.

Metrolink from Anaheim to Union Station runs more than once an hour.
https://www.metrolinktrains.com/sche...=131&weekend=0

A one way Metrolink ticket is $8.75, monthly pass is $245


The OC Register has had a few articles citing a $30 ticket price in 2015 dollars, for HSR Anaheim to L.A. trip. That seems really high (and not accurate), but I've seen that same figure in a few different articles. If the price to ride HSR over Metrolink is 3.5x higher, that would be enough to discourage commuters.

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/03/3...aheim-section/

I think Metrolnk provides pretty solid evidence. Metrolink introduced fast, frequent, convenient, cheap rail service downtown when there was none. Metrolink is quite extensive, covering over 500 miles of route. Yet Metrolink has always had pathetic ridership, and ridership has actually been dropping.

A more general point is that LA has invested megabillions in rail transit when there was previously none, yet ridership is significantly lower than when they only had slow, crappy buses. And this despite huge population increases, core revitalization, worse traffic and millions of transit-inclined immigrants. I think most outside observers would agree that further transit investments are far from a "sure thing" in terms of attracting new riders.

Also, re. OC, there's a mismatch between where people live and transit investments. Commuter rail lines, at least in the U.S., have always been oriented towards "executive suburbs", the kind of places that have lots of lawyers, bankers and the like, and who tend to work in city centers. So, for instance, places like Westchester County, NY and SW Connecticut.

But in OC, the "Connecticut" parts of the county (i.e. where the lawyers, bankers, executives live) are further south and along the coast, nowhere near Anaheim. They're in Laguna Beach, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach. Those areas will never have rail service and are an hour's drive from Anaheim. And they all work in business centers in Irvine/Newport anyways. Anaheim is working class and not a natural fit for traditional commuter rail demographic.

Just to use the NYC numbers again since people seem to be in some legit denial about costs. From Newark to New York is $2.75 by the PATH train and $64 on the Acela. That's 23x as much..

I mean that's generally how democracy works. Newer votes override older ones and not vice-versa.

It makes no sense to encourage short distance commuters to take up seats on intercity trains. This is why there is such a stiff penalty.

There needs to be an analysis of why transit ridership is falling while billions are being invested. It should not require a rocket scientist to figure out the reasons.

I just read comments by many people who were concerned about transit safety. That is one issue that needs to be addressed if it is true.

Increasing congestion and more rapid transit suggest that there should be a tipping point in favor of transit. But when?

Can we all be real?

Anaheim is getting HSR because of Disney. Nobody is going to use it to commute to and from downtown L.A.

HSR should've gone from LAX to DT. Fly in, take the train to the city center and connect from there to hit up Hollywood.

I agree with all this, and don't understand the recent U.S. transit decline.

I would imagine Uber plays some role, but there has to be more. People aren't using Uber to replace 50-mile commuter rail trips. Some say that LA specifically has had a transit decline because CA undocumented immigrants can now get drivers licenses. Doesn't sound totally implausible.

Exactly. But some people seem to be missing that fact. Using the HSR as a commuter rail SHOULD mean incurring a big financial burden. If someone gets that seat just for the last 20 miles it's basically wasted the whole rest of the trip unless someone else is getting off there which is unlikely since most people are likely going downtown.

I am sure one reason is an improving economy compared to 10 years ago.

Newark to New York is 10miles , DTLA to Anaheim is 30 miles not a fair comparison... Why would anyone use a High Speed Train or Higher priced Amtrak train for 10 miles... NJT is 8$ from Newark to NYC...and the PATH is 2.75... Amtrak Northeast is mean't for longer distances , while local systems pick up the rest... I'm sure it will be the same in Cali...

Anaheim is a dead end spur of HSR. So if people aren't using it to commute to Union Station in Los Angeles due to cheaper alternatives that commuters would prefer, why the spur? Is it just a tourist spur for Disney?

I mean I assume people would want to travel from Orange County to the Bay Area?

So you think it will be 3x the distance and cost LESS? I don't see that logic.

Tunneling is always more expensive than building a railroad at grade.
The Gateway Project will be tunneling under a navigable river and several cities.
Per this NYT's article, the average price to pay to build a single track railroad in a tunnel is around $500 million per mile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/n...on-costs.html?
Per Business Insider article, the average price to pay to build a single track railroad at grade is around $2.4 million per mile, and $82 million per mile for double track High Speed Rail.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-t...billion-2009-5

Some math follows: 500 / 2.4 = 208 times more to build in a tunnel than at grade.

MTA will be spending over $12 Billion for a 6 mile double track East Side Access project. This also includes more than the costs of the tunnels, i.e. the costs to expand the tracks at Grand Central Station. Never-the-less, doing the simple math: 12 Billion / (6 miles x 2) = $1 Billion per mile of track, about twice the costs of the average single track railroad tunnel.

So yes, a relatively short tunnel can be easily more expensive to build than tracks at grade that's three times longer.... :tup:

What does any of this have to do with the current situation? The tunnels being used were built in 1904 for maybe 50 million dollars.

True, but Gateway is all about building two NEW tunnels - :koko:
they do NOT exist yet, except as drawings.:notacrook:
East Sider Access is also about brand new tunnels.

HSR is expensive enough at grade or above grade, but it's hundreds times more expensive (per distance) to build it underground in a tunnel.

According to this document, we are looking at 119 miles of construction so far!
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/...tes_021518.pdf
The project has gone from "never will get built" to "train to nowhere". When construction starts in "somewhere"....what will be the response?

I really don't give a shit what the naysayers say. I've gotten to a point in my life where it no longer makes me sad that they are so miserable, in fact I kind of enjoy the thought of it.

That's about the same attitude King George III took when he decided to tax tea shipped to America. :koko:

Soooo....you will blindly support this?

Give me a break, what a lame comparison. The doubters and sabotagers of this project are on the wrong side of history.

You'd have to be blind to not see the benefits of this project. Because of politics and lack of coherent consensus, is it being developed the most ideal way ever? No, of course not. But the project is still in it's infancy and some toxic skeptics out there want to smother this thing in the crib, and that could quite possibly be the most foolish transportation decision ever made in the state's history. Thirty years from now there are not going to be naysayers of this project. People will think it absurd that anyone ever thought it was a bad idea and thankful for the hopeful vision that was required to plan for the future at the time.

Exactly, the doubters have realised with the orange puff in power they have the chance to stop it. But once the line is built to at least one major market then the numbers will push it too completion even if it takes a decade longer.

Get it to San Jose and a half hourly all station service will stimulate a lot of travel. The key being Fresno to San Jose and onwards to San Fransciso. In the short term a few Bi Mode trains could be bought for an hourly Sacremento - Bakersfield service. A working serivce with a few million users, regular commuters between all those forgottin inland cities will build a big state wide coalition. Inevatably this "Get it to LA" group would at least finish off the core route. After the next cheapest extension would be to get it Sacremento properly.

The only danger is if San Diego gets forgeotten or it could just an Orange county link and San Bernadino and Riverside get forgotten.

Once the LA link is in then, a line to LAs Vagas is almost inevatible.

^^^yep

And if he was successful we'd be a commonwealth like Canada or Australia instead of the shithole that we are.

#fuckgeorgewashington

^^^ Well, if we're considering California, you would probably be a part of Mexico.:rolleyes:

If a state spent 1 million per resident in welfare a month, I could see the huge benefits of that, you would be blind not to. However, that would come at a huge cost and eventually hurt the state(and its people) in the end. Just because something has a potential for a large benefit doesn't mean its worth it.

And in retrospect, you may be correct. Most transportation projects are like that. If we spent 50 billion in subway construction in NYC today, in 100 years that will look like a bargain. But, if we could have spent 25 billion rather than 100 billion, we will be better off today and tomorrow.

So simply put you think it should cost less and you think the sixth largest economy in the world cannot afford it. OK, you are entitled to that opinion, but I and many believe it is an investment not at all wildly outside the range of what a system like this SHOULD cost and in a state that has plenty ability to pay for it. California is rich, stop acting like this is Uzbekistan, which by the way has built high speed rail.

And how much did Uzbekistans line cost?

And 'affording' something is just a juvenile thing to say. Of course you can 'afford' it, but is it the best place to put your money?

Yes, absolutely.

But I'm sure in your fantasy world the French, Germans, and Japanese are just kicking themselves for wasting so much money on trains. They could've used that money to give tax breaks to billionaires instead!

I think rehashing the debate about whether it is wise to build the HSR is a waste of time. That decision was already made.
Those who are opposed to spending that much money should focus on where the money is wasted and point out how things could be done better - and don't for a second think that a hyper-loop would be cheaper - it would cost multiple times more by the mile.
I lean towards supporting the HSR - we can't keep on building more freeways and larger airports for California's growing population -just imagine how much the I-5 would cost if we had to build it today. But I am critical of the way the HSR is progressing and don't believe in their timeline when they are going to build a 13 mile tunnel to San Jose and are not even close to digging yet.

And it makes perfect sense when you think the culture of LA will ever come close to that of the Japanese or French regarding public transport and dense developments not catering to the car.

I do think like 70 billion would be nice to spend on public transport in SF/SAC/LA/SD and some help with the Central Valley cities.

Its not a debate on:

SUPER SWEET HSR or BILLIONAIRE TAX BREAKS(and really, how simple is that retort?)

It could be this debate:

Spend 70 billion on a line that is already serviced by air.
Or...
Spend 70 billion dollars locally which will help jump-start a lot of projects or buy more buses and help literally 100s of thousands more people than this rail line. And chances are you will help more low and middle-income people. This HSR line will be mostly upper middle class to wealthy.

So no, your argument is weak. Ive been saying this whole time this is a project paid by everyone and wont be used by everyone, mainly including poorer Californians. Which obviously you think tax breaks for the rich is a terrible thing, so surely you must want any project THIS large to help the poor the most, right?

All fair points, honestly...

Let's do both :)

Your entire argument is based on the ridiculous premise that you know what the train's ridership demographics will be a decade from it's opening.

Calif. is one recession away from a budget disaster. Governor Brown has been warning about this. What will get cut first, a 100 billion dollar train or public pensions? I'm guessing the train will get scaled back.

Or, its based on projected ticket prices and reality of poorer people; they don't travel much.