That’s a good question, and I don’t know. LA has a subway system, but I don’t know how extensive it is, or how extensive other transit options are.
Personally, I can’t think of anything more communist than a government-built road system that is free for everyone to use.
Starting with 2, you state this as if self evident. But I think it’s very far from it, particularly for a route like that. I think especially given this real world example, the reasonable burden of proof would be very much on you to show how it could be done at an attractive cost.
It kind of reminds me (though it might not be you in that case) of all the internet discussions just after some nuclear plant project implodes due to cost overruns (on top of regulatory/NIMBY cost hurdles) how it could “easily be done economically, if ‘we’ had the will”.
- ‘Politics’ is another term for ‘what most people want’, or ‘enough people want fervently’. Which applies especially to the NIMBY/environmental lawsuits that jack up the costs of such projects in the US, also public contracting practices with a social welfare aspect (minority set asides, Davis-Bacon type union+ wages etc) that jack up US public construction project costs in particular. And those are much more relevant to why rail projects cost so much in the US than cars somehow making rail projects more expensive in absolute $'s. But those requirements don’t come out of thin air: various constituencies want them.
OTOH how is it an outrageous subsidy to have intercity roads in reasonable (in some US states barely reasonable) condition? Other rich countries don’t tear up the roads or let them go to seed just to prevent people using cars. Otherwise I’m not sure what the outrageously pro car policy is. Except, perhaps, not adding $2-$4 /gallon in gas taxes to put them more in the range of most other rich countries. But good luck with that. That’s clearly ‘politics’ as in what the great majority of voters in the US want, low gas taxes, and not remotely possible they’d tolerate European level taxes, unless attitudes change dramatically.
I’m not remotely a green but personally would tolerate much higher gas (or specifically carbon) taxes, as a way to raise general revenue while internalizing the cost of fossil fuel use, not as a revenue fountain for new boondoggles like HSR that generally don’t make sense in the US at market prices and given the basic characteristics of the US legal system. But I still recognize much higher fuel taxes are not happening any time soon, whether I try to minimize that reality by calling it ‘politics’, or not.
No we couldn’t. In none of the proposals was there a practical, even remotely feasible way of getting a HSR link into Los Angeles. A quick glace at a map will show you why - the city is surrounded by some rather ugly mountains and there are limited (and already heavily used) passes. Unless you want to run a line east past Palm Springs, then around the mountains to Bakersfield the idea is a non-starter. Running along the coast is out for obvious reasons.
Southwest Airlines, $69 LAX - SFO. Every hour.
Do you have an idea how BIG the American midwest is? Say you are in Bumfuck, Iowa, population 200. How close do you expect the bus to come to your house? I hope you’re not thinking door-to-door, because that’s pretty unrealistic.
So you have to drive or get a lift to the bust stop (or walk.) How far a bus ride are you taking to get to your first train? 20 miles? 100? How often should these buses run? How many medium speed trains cross Iowa? How often do they run?
The continental US is 21 times the size of Japan, with one fourth the population density.
Happiness in Soviet HSR (20 km/hr) is when man in slouch hat asks you, “Is this car nine?” and you answer, “No, Comrade, this is car eight”.
Fair enough, I’m far from an expert on the geographic particulars of LA. I usually try to avoid pontificating on stuff I don’t know a lot about… sorry for failing here.
Actually they had such a route, thru Santa Clarita then Palmdale.
Following 14? Interesting. That might be do-able. Palmdale to Burbank sure isn’t going to be “high-speed” by any stretch of the imagination. Mojave-Bakersfield isn’t a walk in the park either. That’s some rugged country to put another rail line through. Hell, I want to see them do the Los Banos-Gilroy section. I just drove that route last week. Going to make the Mont Blanc tunnels look like child’s play.
But you need to get to the airport which is rarely close to the actual city you are leaving from (take 30 minutes), be there 90 minutes before your damn flight because of security, then when you arrive, kill another 30 minutes getting to the hotel. Your 1 hr flight (which doesn’t cover the bulk of flights in the US) just turned into 3.5 hours. And what if you hate/fear flying? Many do.
The last mile part is pretty unrealistic, but it would be realistic for every town of (say) 5000 to have a bus station that is the edge of a hub-and-spoke system of express bus and rail.
Ballpark IIRC Japan is a bit smaller then CA but with a bit more then three times the population.
It’d probably be a pretty big addition (and, thus, substantial additional expense) in many places.
For example, this page, from the Wisconsin DOT, illustrates all of the current intercity bus routes in that state. While the site notes that the map doesn’t include every single stop along those routes, I can tell you that there are a fair number of towns of 5000 or more residents that aren’t on, or near, those current routes.
Not my problem, nor do I see it as the governments problem either. Fuck 'em. Let them stay home or drive it themselves. Governmental policy should not be driven by a minority’s irrational phobias, like [redacted] or [redacted.]
None that I could find in my brief googling. There are long distance passenger trains in both countries, but they are more “scenic/railfan” experiences than transportation, as near as I can tell.
When I was but a wee lad in the 1970s, Wisconsin used to have feeder buses (the mentioned Badger Bus Line) that could take you to The City where you could catch a Greyhound bus or even a train. The nearest town to where I lived that you could catch a bus from was 15 miles away, and there was one bus a day. Later there was one bus every couple days. Later, there was no bus. Finally, there was no station.
The nearest greyhound stop was at least 20 miles, and when they closed that one it was 30.
The economics just aren’t viable any longer. I wish I knew why - with efficiencies, they should be cheaper now than back then. Is it just “instant gratification”? No one wants to take the bus or train when you can fly? Even with all the hassles of modern air travel?
Indeed, we don’t have HSR in Australia, and it’s a crying shame, because the Melbourne-Sydney corridor is perfect for it. But then, we can’t even get a bloody train line extension in Melbourne all the way out to the airport :mad:
It is hellaciously expensive - I’ve seen estimates of $200 billion for a Melbourne-Sydney HST. This is in context of the total yearly budget being about $500 billion. So it would need to have bipartisan support to have any hope of action, because no government wants to start up a huge multi-year (maybe multi-decade) building project only to have it mucked up or shut down by the next regime
The bus could make a stop a bumfuck. Give the driver $20 for a ride to the train.
This is true in a lot of cities but I think it may actually work against the California proposal. There are more airports in the whole LA conurbation than there were going to be train stations (at least initially), and the airports are in relatively urbanized settings. One of the stations would actually have been next to the Burbank Airport.
That’s the part of my statement you cherry picked to counter it?
BTW, am I correct in assuming you are a libertarian?