California Needs High Speed Rail

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

ish6

Since 2001
quoted:wired
"Imagine if you could travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and a half without having to arrive at an airport an hour in advanced or having to wait at a baggage claim. High speed rail in Europe and in Asia has made traveling trouble-free with stations located in downtown, no required advanced check-ins, and no weather delays. America, however has been lagging behind other countries with railway investments, and relies on planes and cars. Highways are congested and the skies are getting crowded. Currently, there are 48 daily flights from San Francisco to Los Angeles; this does not include flights from Oakland or to other Los Angeles airports (Burbank, Orange County, Ontario, or Long Beach). The number of flights each day and the traffic on Interstate 5 (which connects the Bay Area to Los Angeles) justifies the need for high speed rail.

Read more about California High Speed Rail's routes, bullet train successes in other countries after the jump.

Photo: A TGV train waiting to depart at Paris Montparnasse station.

California High Speed Rail Authority has the whole route planned out except for the most important section: how to connect the Bay Area to the high speed rail main line. Two alternatives are suggested, the Altamont and the Pacheco alignments. The Altamont alignment will travel through Livermore in the East Bay and across a to-be-restored rail bridge near Dumbarton. Rails will link up to the existing Caltrain commuter rail tracks until the Transbay Terminal in downtown San Francisco. The Pacheco alignment will cut off the main line earlier and travel to Gilroy where trains will travel up the Caltrain until San Francisco. The Pacheco alternative is expected to be the fastest most direct route to Los Angeles from San Francisco, but environmentalists have commented that the high speed rail may cause urban sprawl in undeveloped areas. Livermore already has been developed, but is not served by any trains (although the city does pay taxes for BART, the Bay Area's regional subway). Debates of which route will better serve the Bay Area is still ongoing.

High speed rail is not a new idea. Japan's Shinkansen started in 1960 with trains traveling up to 210 km/h (130 mph), but today, the maximum service speed is even higher at 300 km/h (186 mph). France opened its first route in 1981 and is the record holder for the fastest train, which reached 574.8 km/h (357 mph). High speed rail systems, as a safety pre-caution, usually do not travel at those high speeds; 300 km/h (186 mph) is the usual maximum travel speed for most bullet trains.

Bullet train travel is much less stressful than air or car travel. In France, TGV trains depart frequently to various destinations around the country and the rest of Europe. There are no check-ins; passengers may arrive 5 seconds before the train departs if they wish. Weather delays are uncommon, except for snow, which reduced the travel speeds, but otherwise rain and fog will have no effect. Because of centrally located stations, rail travel is deemed faster than flying. Air France actually uses the TGV system for code-share.

California will be given a chance to have their own high speed rail system in 2008, when a $10 billion bond measure will appear on the ballot. The 700 mile system will cost $40 billion to build.

Later this week: What makes a successful and effective high speed rail system? What can California learn from Europe and Asia? "

source: wired
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/11/california-need.html
 
Last edited:
I'm happy for California! I'm going San Jose this christmas, so I can see the "before" structures, etc... I doubt I'd ever go back until after the system has been built. I may be wrong, but since I've got money to save up, thats my plans. I recently contacted the FDOT Secretary, and she said that they have a more detailed, long-term approach. She said high speed rail probably won't appear until after about 10 years of Amtrak Florida(Cali-style or something) service. I replied and said, "I'm glad to hear that. California started off with Amtrak anyways, so its fair game". She also mentioned some bills that would give out loans and such to states to start a statewide starter system and connect to other states. Its exciting to see that rail service is wanted in the United States now.

Isaac Grove
 
Hello Ish,

I share your sentiment. A high speed rail line between LA and the Bay Area would be great. There are a few howevers, however.

Name the similar government projects that have come in anywhere near budget in the last 30 years, then do a comparison list with the ones that have not.

The $40 billion guestimate is very hard to believe, considering that the recently finished Vasona light rail, about 5 miles over easy terrain already owned by the county of Santa Clara, cost about $1 billion.

To build is one thing. To equip and operate is another. How much to do that? Will farebox revenues cover the cost of the train or will it be a continuing drain on a state treasury the politicians already can't stop themselves from draining? How much would a ticket cost if the train were forced to pay for itself? Would this be competitive with the air carriers?

Bernie
 
Last edited:
bl4882 said:
Hello Ish,

I share your sentiment. A high speed rail line between LA and the Bay Area would be great. There are a few howevers, however.

Name the similar government projects that have come in anywhere near budget in the last 30 years, then do a comparison list with the ones that have not.

The $40 billion guestimate very hard to believe, considering that the recently finished Vasona light rail, about 5 miles over easy terrain alreaady owned by the county of Santa Clara, cost over $1 billion.

To build is one thing. To equip and operate is another. How much to do that? Will farebox revenues cover the cost of the train or will it be a continuing drain on a state treasury the politicians already can't stop themselves from draining? How much would a ticket cost if the train were forced to pay for itself? Would this be competitive with the air carriers?

Bernie
Click to expand...

Hello Bernie,

I just quoted the paragraph from wired and posted it here, for our rail fans ... I am from Florida. However, on the subject I think it's a good idea ... why not? Although gas prices are down to 2 dollars, that all can change in a heartbeat!!

Ish
 
Hi Ish,

Sorry to sound like a curmudgeon, but we California residents who have to live with the California Legislature become really skeptical really fast. :hehe:

Bernie
 
bl4882 said:
Hi Ish,

Sorry to sound like a curmudgeon, but we California residents who have to live with the California Legislature become really skeptical really fast. :hehe:

Bernie
Click to expand...

Hello Bernie,

Sorry to hear that ....

Here in Florida, the skeptical fever can also be found ... There suppose to be building a rail line from Orlando's to Deltona, if my facts are correct, but all of the legislators are arguing about who's going to get credit for it, etc ... :(

so what's new!!:wave:

Ishie
 
If they're smart, the farebox revenues won't cover the cost of operation. The stations will be developed as a revenue stream which will cover all costs above the revenues generated by the fares.
Not that I expect the government to be smart.
This is an excellent investment. The cost of building and maintaining the CalBullet is less then the several additional airports and highways that would otherwise be needed. The initial $40 billion is only matching funds for the first phase, with the rest of the system to be built as the initial section proves itself.
I wish they didn't over-hype it so much. Sacramento to LA would be more than 2 hours; probably closer to 4. The trains can only run full speed in the open areas and have to slow down in the cities and stop in the stations. This adds time.
The important thing is to use the stations to capture some of the revenue from the economic growth that occurs around them and add it to their books. By most analysis, the average American light rail system makes a profit if you include the economic growth that occurs around the stations, but those tax revenues go to the general funds and aren't count in the train's revenues.

:cool:Claude
 
I had an idea after my last post.

Why don't a few fans of contemporary and futuristic railroading team up and build a TGV-style Bay Area to LA route? I believe all of the terrain has already been generated by Fishlipsatwork or the gaps could easily be filled in, and the cost would be far less than $40 billion, a few pots of coffee and six-packs at most.

Bernie
 
Being a Californian I can tell you that it did pass on the election day, but as much as I like trains I do not like this idea at all. Although it will cut traveling costs, traveling time, and pollution, you have to ask: where does the money come from? The answer is the taxpayers and in the state with the worst economy people are already paying high taxes, losing there homes, and not being able to buy the neccesites. I have never taken intrest into the elections until this year.

Matt
 
Thats what derailed our FHSR plan back in '04. Floridians can thank Gov. Jeb Bush(Mr. President's Brother). He forced Floridians into thinking that a HSR system would bankrupt Florida forever. We had more chances back then in a system than we do now, and they are only now just getting back on the page, but instead of Virgin Trains, they decided that they are obligated to work with Amtrak because thats all we have. Amtrak, with all due respect, is not as good as congress thought it would be, now with our crumbling economy and no where to go. I can live without Amtrak, just as long as some privatised company or something more affordable and cost-effective comes up. And now Pres. George Bush waits up until the last minute to sign a rail investment bill that could have been created 7 or 8 years ago. Although, I never found the government that smart and easy to work with. No wonder why freight companies are easy to kill Amtrak, they don't like passenger trains, they know that the feds are in "hypnosis", and that fuel prices are sky-high and people are glued to autos and aircraft. If Clinton would have done more for Amtrak back in the 90's, I think the NPRC would have more to feed on.
 
Well I'm pleased that the ballot proposition passed. Will this be the first genuinely high speed railway in the US?

In these times of recession, new high speed rail infrastructure is just the sort of public investment the economy needs. Now if we can persuade the UK government to invest in High Speed 2 from London to the North.....;)

Paul
 
I think planning on the Dangan Resha (bullet train) began in the thirties, but the war intervened, and something better than high performance steam engines came along, so the whole thing had to be reconsidered.

As for California's economic situation, we built some major dam systems in the Depression, and the stimulus from the construction helped the economy to recover. A good investment should be done when the oportunity knocks, and this opportunity would smash the door down with a battering ram if we let it. With Federal aide, private bonds and a certain amount of borrowing, we can have this easily completed, and the economic stimulus will almost certainly recoup the costs in the short term. If we wait until we have a $40-100 billion surplus, we won't even get any crosswalks painted, let alone build a real Bullet Train.
I agree, now is not the time to act. The time to act was 30 years ago when it became apparent that we would need a good high speed rail system. Now is the time to catch up to where we should already be.

:cool: Claude
 
Paulsw2 said:
Well I'm pleased that the ballot proposition passed. Will this be the first genuinely high speed railway in the US?

In these times of recession, new high speed rail infrastructure is just the sort of public investment the economy needs. Now if we can persuade the UK government to invest in High Speed 2 from London to the North.....;)

Paul
Click to expand...

Well I don't know how the economy is affecting England, but when people can barely pay to keep their homes, California doesn't need this high speed train. California is already in debt and our Governer is now putting budget cuts on our schools and state employees and putting a tax when adults register their vehicles:n: .

Matt
 
rjhowie2 said:
For such a modern country America lags behind the rest of the world in proper rail travel. The love affair with the car and plane has caught up it seems.
Click to expand...

Not quite the rest of the world as the UK also lags behind with just one short section of High speed line linking the Channel Tunnel to London. The tunnel has been in operation for years yet it is still not possible to get on a train beyond London and get off again on the Continent.

You are way ahead of us in building modern light rail systems in urban areas. Our present government favours guided busways which do not attract people off the roads like light rail does.

Les
 
Paulsw2 said:
Well I'm pleased that the ballot proposition passed. Will this be the first genuinely high speed railway in the US?

In these times of recession, new high speed rail infrastructure is just the sort of public investment the economy needs. Now if we can persuade the UK government to invest in High Speed 2 from London to the North.....;)

Paul
Click to expand...

Fat chance. We could not even persuade them to partially fund light rail for Leeds a traffic choked city. Leeds is a major powerhouse of our economy and the second largest financial centre outside of London. That needs to be encouraged not hobbled.

The cost to and drag on our economy through poor transport infrasctructures can only serve to make us less competitive. How much longer can we afford not to make these essential investments in our future?

Les
 
Hello all,

It is quite right that the US "lags behind" in building bullet trains. The US also "lags behind" in building a lot of other outmoded passenger transportation systems. Someone has to make the case that it is worthwhile to extort money from taxpayers to build a transportation system to carry a few travelers between SF and LA per day at the cost of G-d knows how many thousand dollars a head when we already have a perfectly good transportation system (planes) that do it already. And eventually the money will come out of every wage earner's paycheck, just as now wage-earners are expected, apparently, to subsidize lumbering old Detroit horseless carriage makers.

Recognizing as I do that we are all train fans, I say there is still no justification for building a 1:1 scale model train for little better reason than for rail fans to admire. I know of no person here on the West coast who has a serious problem getting to LA or SF or points in between in a reasonably quick fashion.

Bernie

Just one more thought. Every country is unique. This is not Belgium or Germany or Japan or France. Just because Europe finds this kind of thing practical does not mean it is practical here or anywhere else. But that doesn't mean we won't build it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Southern Pacific’s electric lines
Replies
0
Views
474
Blutorse4792
B
S
Unable to change track max speed.
Replies
1
Views
351
pware
P
J
Autonomous Rail Transportation
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
JonMyrlennBailey
J
R
EURSIG - Set Up, Switch On, Depart - a new backend for European signals - German and general broken scripts European signal replacement project
Replies
3
Views
508
ricomon35
R
L
Max Speed Command
Replies
7
Views
622
weevil
W
Back
Top