California Bullet Train Breaks Ground

[Nice Squirrel]

http://www.thrillist.com/entertainment/san-francisco/sf-to-la-high-speed-bullet-train-breaks-ground

Will be interesting to follow this development. It could have impact on other bullet train projects in the US.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A gun that shoots trains as bullets? You could bring down a space ship with that.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is a jolly good joke by Gov. Brown at the expense of all of California.

If you're going to boondoggle public transit, you don't do it with inter-city transit. You do it with intra-city transit. You try to be New York City, which has the best public transit system in the world.

 

[KeepTalking]

This is a jolly good joke by Gov. Brown at the expense of all of California.

If you're going to boondoggle public transit, you don't do it with inter-city transit. You do it with intra-city transit. You try to be New York City, which has the best public transit system in the world.

Tell that to Japan.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The BART system isn't too shabby. Ideological detractors will find fault with anything that doesn't satisfy their ideology. I've always thought it was faster to hike the Pacific Crest Trail to get north/south along that coast than to drive a car. I'd love to see this work.

A geographically smaller country with a much higher population density? Sure.

Hang on to that horse. You'll need it when there's no more oil and no more aircraft.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is a jolly good joke by Gov. Brown at the expense of all of California.

If you're going to boondoggle public transit, you don't do it with inter-city transit. You do it with intra-city transit. You try to be New York City, which has the best public transit system in the world.

Tell that to Japan.

A geographically smaller country with a much higher population density? Sure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tell that to Japan.

A geographically smaller country with a much higher population density? Sure.

Compared to NYC?

- - - Updated - - -

This is a jolly good joke by Gov. Brown at the expense of all of California.

If you're going to boondoggle public transit, you don't do it with inter-city transit. You do it with intra-city transit. You try to be New York City, which has the best public transit system in the world.

You do realize that NYC's transit system crosses into two other states, right? Metro into CT and the NJ Transit all throughout northern NJ, and of course includes in NY, way up to Peekskill and Long Island.

It'd be almost impossible to recreate what exists now. Look at Acela in the NE Corridor. Hamstrung by absurdly curved tracks in New England and then garbage lines south of NYC.

What California is trying is an expensive boondoggle, but it can only possibly be done as such. It is very expensive to build a rail line.

 

[KeepTalking]

Tell that to Japan.

A geographically smaller country with a much higher population density? Sure.

The apt comparison would be California to Japan:

Geographical area
Japan - 146,000 square miles
California - 164,000 square miles
Conclusion: they are geographically similar in area.

Population Density
Tokyo - 16,000/square mile
San Francisco - 17,867/square mile
Conclusion: the major metropolitan areas that are, or would be, served by the bullet trains are similar in population density.

 

[funinspace]

You do realize that NYC's transit system crosses into two other states, right? Metro into CT and the NJ Transit all throughout northern NJ, and of course includes in NY, way up to Peekskill and Long Island.

It'd be almost impossible to recreate what exists now. Look at Acela in the NE Corridor. Hamstrung by absurdly curved tracks in New England and then garbage lines south of NYC.

Yep. Though I couldn't find the percentages, NY (among other eastern big cities) got huge Federal subsidies from the 1960's thru the early 1980's help pay for these big mass transit projects.

What California is trying is an expensive boondoggle, but it can only possibly be done as such. It is very expensive to build a rail line.

With them starting in the more open (cheaper) central valley area, with matching federal funds, it will be interesting to see what happens in a few years if the federal aid drys up. It could turn into one heck of a boondoggle...yeah neat, HS rail from Madera to Bakersfield; aka high speed to nowhere from nowhere.

 

[Derec]

A geographically smaller country with a much higher population density? Sure.

The apt comparison would be California to Japan:

Geographical area
Japan - 146,000 square miles
California - 164,000 square miles
Conclusion: they are geographically similar in area.

Population Density
Tokyo - 16,000/square mile
San Francisco - 17,867/square mile
Conclusion: the major metropolitan areas that are, or would be, served by the bullet trains are similar in population density.

Except that population of Japan is 127 million and that of California is 38 million despite a larger area. That said, the train could work as there are are several major metro areas separated by a distance where a high speed train would provide advantages over both cars and planes. I can also imagine the train continuing north to Portland and Seattle.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

With them starting in the more open (cheaper) central valley area, with matching federal funds, it will be interesting to see what happens in a few years if the federal aid drys up. It could turn into one heck of a boondoggle...yeah neat, HS rail from Madera to Bakersfield; aka high speed to nowhere from nowhere.

And that's the thing with rail projects, you have to run them where people want to go.

 

[KeepTalking]

The apt comparison would be California to Japan:

Geographical area
Japan - 146,000 square miles
California - 164,000 square miles
Conclusion: they are geographically similar in area.

Population Density
Tokyo - 16,000/square mile
San Francisco - 17,867/square mile
Conclusion: the major metropolitan areas that are, or would be, served by the bullet trains are similar in population density.

Except that population of Japan is 127 million and that of California is 38 million despite a larger area. That said, the train could work as there are are several major metro areas separated by a distance where a high speed train would provide advantages over both cars and planes. I can also imagine the train continuing north to Portland and Seattle.

Population density was the metric to which Jason referred, and this particular train is set to run from San Fran to LA, which is why I provided the contrast between San Fran and Tokyo. For the record, LA has about half the pop. density as San Fran, but it has notoriously congested freeways.

I'm not sure why Jason included the relative size in the first place. If anything, a longer route to traverse is an argument for a faster commuter train, rather than a slower commuter train (or no commuter train at all).

 

[KeepTalking]

With them starting in the more open (cheaper) central valley area, with matching federal funds, it will be interesting to see what happens in a few years if the federal aid drys up. It could turn into one heck of a boondoggle...yeah neat, HS rail from Madera to Bakersfield; aka high speed to nowhere from nowhere.

And that's the thing with rail projects, you have to run them where people want to go.

Yes, something like San Fran to LA would make a lot more sense. You would think that would be where they would plan to put the route.

Oh, wait, that is exactly where they are building the route.

 

[Davka]

If they're going to build the thing, it should go to San Diego. The worst congestion in CA is the LA-San Diego stretch, not LA-'Frisco.

I'd prefer to see this on the East Coast. Start in Philly or DC and run to NYC, with spurs to Boston, Baltimore, etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yep. Though I couldn't find the percentages, NY (among other eastern big cities) got huge Federal subsidies from the 1960's thru the early 1980's help pay for these big mass transit projects.

What California is trying is an expensive boondoggle, but it can only possibly be done as such. It is very expensive to build a rail line.

With them starting in the more open (cheaper) central valley area, with matching federal funds, it will be interesting to see what happens in a few years if the federal aid drys up. It could turn into one heck of a boondoggle...yeah neat, HS rail from Madera to Bakersfield; aka high speed to nowhere from nowhere.

Republicans could kill it in Congress.

 

[maxparrish]

Having engaged this particular enthusiasm on many prior occasions, I am do not under the silly delusion that reason and conversion through evidence is possible. Like any popular affection for a project, it is mostly prompted by feelings. Hence, perhaps Calif. HSR train enthusiasts would be kind enough to explain what, on an emotional level, drives their eagerness? What inspires? Aside from "the numbers", why are they so enamored with the idea?

And I wonder, what potential and defalting factual evidence or reasoning would reverse their support? Anything?

 

[funinspace]

And that's the thing with rail projects, you have to run them where people want to go.

Yes, something like San Fran to LA would make a lot more sense. You would think that would be where they would plan to put the route.

Oh, wait, that is exactly where they are building the route.

As California doesn’t own a printing press, they could be up the creak in a couple years if the federales don’t pony up more. Anyone think California can manage $50 some billion on their own (and that’s assuming there aren’t big cost over runs)? They have a running start with about $13 billion…and a “plan”.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/california-plans-bullet-train-without-more-u-s-aid-1407107839

California's Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, who has won billions in state funding to build a high-speed bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco, said he will move forward on the project without additional federal commitments.

State financing is important given Republican control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has vowed to block any additional federal money for the project.

"It's well within the capability of the state of California," Mr. Brown said in an interview last week with The Wall Street Journal. "We would like more federal help. We get federal help for our roads and our bridges…but right now the Republicans, under Mr. McCarthy, have decided that it's better to treat high-speed rail as a political football, than as a great civic opportunity."
<snip>
The train’s speed isn’t the only big number associated with the project. The entire project is slated to cost $68 billion, but could easily run right through that estimate.

 

[funinspace]

Yep. Though I couldn't find the percentages, NY (among other eastern big cities) got huge Federal subsidies from the 1960's thru the early 1980's help pay for these big mass transit projects.


With them starting in the more open (cheaper) central valley area, with matching federal funds, it will be interesting to see what happens in a few years if the federal aid drys up. It could turn into one heck of a boondoggle...yeah neat, HS rail from Madera to Bakersfield; aka high speed to nowhere from nowhere.

Republicans could kill it in Congress.

I'm sure Boner and his new 2015-2016 House will really want to help CA get their next leg of funding....

 

[KeepTalking]

Having engaged this particular enthusiasm on many prior occasions, I am do not under the silly delusion that reason and conversion through evidence is possible. Like any popular affection for a project, it is mostly prompted by feelings. Hence, perhaps Calif. HSR train enthusiasts would be kind enough to explain what, on an emotional level, drives their eagerness? What inspires? Aside from "the numbers", why are they so enamored with the idea?

For people who commute along the route on a regular basis, my assumption would be a desire to get to their destination about ten times faster than they can now.

And I wonder, what potential and defalting factual evidence or reasoning would reverse their support? Anything?

For some, I suppose an argument regarding either economic feasibility, or safety has that potential. For others, there may not be any argument, reasonable or not, that would sway them.

 

[maxparrish]

For people who commute along the route on a regular basis, my assumption would be a desire to get to their destination about ten times faster than they can now.

And I wonder, what potential and defalting factual evidence or reasoning would reverse their support? Anything?

For some, I suppose an argument regarding either economic feasibility, or safety has that potential. For others, there may not be any argument, reasonable or not, that would sway them.

Thanks for replying, but that is not exactly what I am seeking. I am asking how any poster who seriously supports HSR feels. Aside from the numbers, what inspires the enthusiasm? There are people who would support any technology project, simply because it sounds novel or challenging. There are others who just think it is just "retro neat". to have trains. Is this something like the space program, that it just sounds like a grand accomplishment?

I have never gotten the sense that anyone supports HSR solely because of some dry cost-benefit study.