California High Speed Rail Thread

[numble]

Originally Posted by electricron

Excellent points you made.
The top line was 109 billion euros, which is $134 billion.

Sorry I mislead the web page that badly. I thought the top line was the total last night, but it's not. But at least I did provide a link so you can check it out....and point out my error.

Adding up all the lines listed on my link does not come close to your number, only to ~ 290 billion Euros, which converts to $357 billion. Where did you find the 424 billion Euro number?

But the point that France collects and distributes tax revenues differently than the USA is true. But California does not have to finance national defense nor national society security retirement benefits - which consumes a major part of the USA's budget. So not only do the two countries collect revenues differently, they also allocate the revenues differently.

Which, to keep this reply on topic, should bring us back to the question on how France finances HSR projects? Does it have a budget and is it expected to keep to it? Has it ever faced 200% cost overruns? How close operationally is it at making a profit?

Add up all the lines and you get 424365 (424 billion):
108834
70012
42098
40591
26949
19515
18345
17845
15458
10861
9620
8543
6308
3436
3346
3106
2912
2605
2537
2067
1880
1465
1266
1098
991
729
706
649
569
24

As to your other questions. I'm no expert on French government operations. I just don't enjoy seeing people throwing out fake numbers all the time.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by numble

Add up all the lines and you get 424365 (424 billion):
108834
70012
42098
40591
26949
19515
18345
17845
15458
10861
9620
8543
6308
3436
3346
3106
2912
2605
2537
2067
1880
1465
1266
1098
991
729
706
649
569
24

As to your other questions. I'm no expert on French government operations. I just don't enjoy seeing people throwing out fake numbers all the time.

But the numbers I was adding are different from yours. (in million Euros)
Tax repayment and abatement 108834
Education 70012
State Financial commitments 42098
Defense 40091
Research and higher education 26949
Security 19515
Territory housing and urban equality 18345
Solidarity, readaptation, and equal opportunities 17845
Work and employment 15458
Public finances and human research management 10861
Environment and sustainable development 9620
Justice 8543
Pension and social plans 6308
Relations with local and regional authorities 3436
Agriculture, fish, food, forests and rural affairs 3346
General and territorial administration 3106
State's foreign action 3006
Culture 2912
Public development aid 2605
Veterans, memory and links with the nation 2537
Overseas 2607
Economy 1880
Government action supervision 1465
Health 1266
Immigration, asylum and integration 1098
Public authorities 991
Sports, youth and volunteer sector 729
Territory policy 706
State's council and control 649
Media, book, and culture industry 569
Provisions 24
Obviously we are counting from two different lists from the same link???

[electricron]

Originally Posted by numble

Add up all the lines and you get 424365 (424 billion):
108834
70012
42098
40591
26949
19515
18345
17845
15458
10861
9620
8543
6308
3436
3346
3106
2912
2605
2537
2067
1880
1465
1266
1098
991
729
706
649
569
24

As to your other questions. I'm no expert on French government operations. I just don't enjoy seeing people throwing out fake numbers all the time.

The number look the same, so lets recheck the math.....
Okay, your sums are correct.

[10023]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Paris' Metro and Los Angeles' Metro Rail compared at the same scale:

Los Angeles

humantransit.org

Paris

humantransit.org

To be fair, the Paris map doesn't include the RER; LA's map is way outdated, it doesn't include the Gold Line extension to Azusa or East LA, nor does it include the Expo Line or the Orange Line Busway, which can be converted to light rail at a later date (and actually goes out of frame in this example), nor does LA's map include the commuter rail Metrolink, which has a system length of 534 miles (!).

But you can see that Paris' Metro is basically at the core of the city and covers a small area, albeit with many lines and stops; LA's Metro Rail, though very sparse in comparison with how many lines it has, travels through much longer geographical distances than Paris' Metro.

And of course, several American cities can fit within Los Angeles' city limits. LA is huge in area.

metro.net

My argument, however, is that things like Uber help mitigate the lack of regional transit infrastructure.

If my cousin in Hancock Park wanted to get to San Francisco, it would be much faster and easier to take a bus or Uber to a rail terminal in DTLA and take a train north, than to either drive it OR get to LAX for a flight.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

But you can see that Paris' Metro is basically at the core of the city and covers a small area, albeit with many lines and stops; LA's Metro Rail, though very sparse in comparison with how many lines it has, travels through much longer geographical distances than Paris' Metro.

Right, this is the argument we are trying to make; that the lack of density in the California cities means rail is much less practical.

[nito]

The issue probably isn’t just the lack of density, it is the overall connectivity. Yakumoto’s earlier point that California is more centralised than most of Europe is mute when the infrastructure and connectivity in those urban areas is worse than most rural areas in Europe.

[Eightball]

Originally Posted by 10023

My argument, however, is that things like Uber help mitigate the lack of regional transit infrastructure.

If my cousin in Hancock Park wanted to get to San Francisco, it would be much faster and easier to take a bus or Uber to a rail terminal in DTLA and take a train north, than to either drive it OR get to LAX for a flight.

exactly!

[Busy Bee]

All of this pseudoscience being thrown around using LA's lack of robust transit connectivity or relative low density as evidence of why HSR won't succeed here/HSR won't be built/HSR won't have riders/HSR will be a failure, take your pick, misses one glaringly obvious fact: None of those perceived incompatibilities prevent people from flying in very large quantities between LAX-SFO. Why would a trip to [more than one] CHSR stations be any different than making it to LAX to fly in and out of LAX?

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

All of this pseudoscience being thrown around using LA's lack of robust transit connectivity or relative low density as evidence of why HSR won't succeed here/HSR won't be built/HSR won't have riders/HSR will be a failure, take your pick, misses one glaringly obvious fact: None of those perceived incompatibilities prevent people from flying in very large quantities between LAX-SFO. Why would a trip to [more than one] CHSR stations be any different than making it to LAX to fly in and out of LAX?

How many people fly this route in a day? Is it really enough to justify spending $200,000,000,000 on a rail line to carry more people? That's the flip side of your statement; if the airports work so well why spend so much money on a rail route that will cost more and go slower?

[Busy Bee]

The riders of CHSR will not be just LA Point A - SF Point B. They will be going to Bakersfield and from Fresno to San Jose and from Bakersfield to SF and from Merced to LA and from San Jose to Palmdale and on and on. Multiple point-points start to add up. That is what makes the investment in HSR infrastructure pay off. The capacity is enormous.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would be surprised if this were true. 2nd class HSR in Europe is dirt cheap, and I've had the "pleasure" of sitting next to folks who seemed to be borderline destitute (migrants with dufflebags of smelly foodstuffs, people with obvious cleanliness issues, etc.). It's like the Greyhound crowd in the U.S. I only ride 1st class now just to avoid annoying fellow passengers.

That's not my experience, in general its people traveling for business or regular leisure travellers, you might get the occasional person who has spent all week camping at a music festival or some drunk guy but that's no different to the mix you get when walking the street or taking a plane, that's just a sample of society, not really the end of the world if they are on the train.

It's pretty unlikely that many are taking HSR because they can't afford a car, you can pick up used cars for next to nothing. The poorest people probably don't do much inter city travel at all compared with higher income people, I'd say situations like that are more common on local buses, subways and rail services than on long distance HSR. If they didn't have a car then slower but cheaper buses are the way to go if they want to minimise costs I think.

[Sun Belt]

E) it doesn't matter

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Why would a trip to [more than one] CHSR stations be any different than making it to LAX to fly in and out of LAX?

LAX makes a ton of sense for drivers; CHSR makes little sense for drivers.

The vast majority of non-poor Angelinos are drivers, and LAX is actually more convenient to the most desirable business, tourist and residential districts, all of which accommodate drivers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

That's not my experience, in general its people traveling for business or regular leisure travellers, you might get the occasional person who has spent all week camping at a music festival or some drunk guy but that's no different to the mix you get when walking the street or taking a plane, that's just a sample of society, not really the end of the world if they are on the train.

I'm talking the Continent, where train travel is dirt cheap. The UK has comparatively expensive train travel so the rider demographic might vary. Leisure travelers paying 30 EUR for an intercity train will not exactly be a posh demographic.

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

It's pretty unlikely that many are taking HSR because they can't afford a car, you can pick up used cars for next to nothing.

Again, Europe, not the UK. It costs thousands to just get a license in Germany. I don't know any legal cars you can pick up for "next to nothing", given that the govt. forces worn-out cars to be discarded.

[Jun]

We should be investing in the hyperloop not this obselete rail technology

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by Jun

We should be investing in the hyperloop not this obselete rail technology

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm talking the Continent, where train travel is dirt cheap. The UK has comparatively expensive train travel so the rider demographic might vary. Leisure travelers paying 30 EUR for an intercity train will not exactly be a posh demographic.

Not saying they are posh, just normal people rather than carriages full of homeless. Some might be posh of course, it's a cross section of society that uses trains. In terms of prices there's a huge range of tickets, you'll get people travelling on the same train that have paid 10x more than the person sitting next to them depending on when they bought the ticket etc. There are plenty of cheap tickets on UK intercity rail but that doesn't mean they are all bought by homeless people, everybody loves a cheap ticket if they can get one.

Originally Posted by Crawford

Again, Europe, not the UK. It costs thousands to just get a license in Germany. I don't know any legal cars you can pick up for "next to nothing", given that the govt. forces worn-out cars to be discarded.

Plenty of cheap used cars available in any European country I know of.

Eg

https://www.autoscout24.fr/resultats...tandard&desc=0

https://www.coches.net/segunda-mano/?or=1&fi=Price

https://www.gebrauchtwagen.de/suche/...preis-bis=2000

Most adults in Europe drive, those that don't are often in urban areas where they don't need to. I very much doubt its an income thing very often that they can't afford to as you find rural areas with lower incomes where 95% of households have a vehicle.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Plenty of cheap used cars available in any European country I know of.

Yes, anyone can buy a cheap car, but they can't use it. Poor people know this.

In Germany, you cannot drive a car into cities without an Abgasuntersuchung (AU). Junker cars will never get the AU certification. Therefore, there are basically no road-legal junk cars in Germany, because they can't go anywhere.

And, you can't drive your junker anywhere without a Hauptuntersuchung (HU). The HU is only given for cars in reasonably good mechanical condition. You could buy a junker and fix it, but until then, it can't be legally driven, even in the countryside.

Other countries have similar regulations. That's why you rarely see junkers on the Continent like you see in U.S., Canada and Australia, even though incomes are lower.

[Jonesy55]

Hmm, I don't know, I seem to recall seeing a good number of older, low value cars on the roads in various European countries on my travels, especially in more rural areas. Of course they do need to be roadworthy, that's no different in the UK either, but people seem to manage to keep them in a reasonable mechanical state even if they are older and cheap to buy.

The average age of cars on the road in the EU is 10.7 years, and as that is the average there are a lot significantly older than that.

http://www.acea.be/statistics/tag/ca...ge-vehicle-age

But going back to the original point, I don't think Inter City high speed rail is particularly used by poor people, its used by all sectors of society (including some poor people of course). Being predominantly used by people with low incomes is maybe more characteristic of local bus services but even there it is a mixture of people using them.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Right, this is the argument we are trying to make; that the lack of density in the California cities means rail is much less practical.

Are you saying that mass transit rail, in general, within cities in California, is less practical, or that California high speed rail is less practical?

Again, I'm an advocate for high speed rail in California. It makes sense to connect Los Angeles' Union Station (probably the busiest train station on the west coast) to the future Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco with high speed rail.

My point of comparing Paris' Metro to LA's Metro Rail scale-wise was simply size. I've used Paris' Metro to go everywhere, and everyone, including myself, always says that Paris' Metro takes you everywhere you want to go in Paris---but apparently, when you compare LA and Paris on the same scale, "everywhere" in Paris is a small area.