Here in the Golden State, there is a push to build the California High Speed Rail. It is supposed to be able to whisk people from San Francisco to L.A. in under 3 hours (it takes a good 5-6 hours to drive). It is supposed to be a big job creator, and is supposed to help link far-flung rural communities to the big cities efficiently, thereby spurring local growth, as well as modernize rail corridors along the way. Supporters argue that the interstate highway system was one of vision with no end price tag but somehow was built anyway - and this is like that.
Opponents have pointed out the promised connection speed between the two cities is not realistic, is already estimated to be too expensive and will likely go over-budget, is being opposed by farmers and small communities it will plow thru, and no one will see any benefits for many years. They say ridership numbers are wishful, and tickets will be more expensive than promised. Opponents also point out that the state would do better to invigorate existing rail, air and road infrastructure, as benefits would impact more people and arrive sooner. Not to mention, BTW, that we are broke at the moment.
The Governor is backing this project, along with party-line support (and opposition), and so far thay are clearing all hurdles in getting this going. Voters approved the project back in 2008, but are starting to get cold feet when faced with the staggering costs ($65B to >$100B).
My question - can this project really meet the benefits it is promising, without turning into a massive and expensive boondoggle? Is HSR the future of transportation, or is the future already here via air travel? Are there any comparable projects being eyed elsewhere?
My humble opinion is that it is pretty much guaranteed to be a massive and expensive boondoggle.
If the true cost of traveling by these trains was included in the cost of the ticket, no-one would be able to afford to ride. This is even if they amortize the build cost over 30 years or more.
If it’s such a good idea, let private enterprise fund it and keep the (imaginary) profits. Ye gods, I can’t imagine what this is going to do to taxpayers.
Roddy
Hey both California and the Federal Gov. are both bankrupt! Its perfect-and it won’t be $65 billion-more like $300 billion (Boston’s “Big Dig” was originally $2 billion-now over $24 billion.) For Obama, its a wonderful way of getting union votes.
For the taxpayers, a disaster.
I’d like to know just how thgis thing can be justified-we are moving away from commuting…so building a train is exactly the wrong thing to do.
I’ve always thought it was a very incomplete analysis to only cite the end-to-end time when trying to justify rail projects. The Acela runs from Boston to Washington, but I doubt very many people use it for that trip. It does get riders on parts of the route; Boston-New York, New York-Philadelphia, Philadelphia-Washington, etc. I gather that it’s considered a success.
I don’t remember what the proposed route in California is, but I doubt that there are many large population centers. I think the success of the project would depend on how the towns along the new corridor grow in response to it, Would there eventually be enough population all along the route for the ridership numbers to justify it? I don’t know.
Has anyone suggested that the state start buying up the land it needs now, while it’s cheap, and delay construction? You could see if people will move to a place where that service is expected, and give time for the technology to improve.
Why is rail always expected to operate on a different economic model than other forms of transportation in the U.S.? With everything else, governments own and maintain the infrastructure (airports, roads, waterways) and private carriers take passengers. (There are exceptions to both.) Why is rail a failure if it can’t pay for its own tracks?
The move marked a major political victory for Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown and the Obama administration. Both have promoted bullet trains as job generators and clean transportation alternatives.
and:
The bill authorizes the state to begin selling $4.5 billion in voter-approved bonds that includes $2.6 billion to build an initial 130-mile stretch of the high-speed rail line in the Central Valley. That will allow the state to collect another $3.2 billion in federal funding that could have been rescinded if lawmakers failed to act Friday.
I love the idea, but, in practice, I don’t think enough people will take it.
If I were the guy in charge, I’d work to expand low speed rail, cargo rail, car carriers, etc. Compete with the airlines on the basis of price.
Who the hell needs to be in San Francisco in three hours? Tomorrow is fine. If the matter is urgent, just use telepresence (telephone, video conference, computer sharing, etc.) If the matter is deadly urgent, fly.
It’s creating a “middle ground” where one just isn’t needed.
(Besides, if you drive, you can stop at the Harris Ranch restaurant in Coalinga. Spend the money you save on a big honkin’ steak dinner. Try the “rocky mountain oysters!”)
Far more important is that the cities improve bus service. We’ve got to use our cars a lot less, and that means decent urban transit.
I don’t know about California, but in Ohio it was turned down because it would cost the state more money than what would be taken in. It wasn’t financially viable.
The problem with high speed rail is that it’s a commuter train and not a full transportation node. So going forward with that model it is best used in dense population corridors like we see on the East Coast of the United States or in countries like Japan. Connecting cities that are 3 to 5 hours away by car isn’t really a commuter train function.
What it has the potential for is a gradual redistribution of communities that will take advantage of proximity to the line.
ACTUAL funding was just approved as cited. Since the article ties it to the President as well as the Governor it’s probably from the same stimulus money pile my state turned down.
I concur. This is my worry as well. I think there is ample demand for efficient and clean transportation within the Bay Area, and within the L.A./San Diego area. I take the train occasionally for work from Sacramento to San Francisco - a corridor where intra-city train service make some sense. I cannot see how SF/L.A. makes sense unless it is a non-stop, but every county along the way will demand a stop - stopping adds time to the trip. Even between Sac and SF there are several stops that are barely worth it.
In Europe, somehow they have worked out trains that hit every local stop, and then there are different trains hitting only the major cities. These are not high-speed, and share the same track system. Something like that seems like a better idea.
As for the topography along the proposed route - a good number of miles will not be able to accomodate HSR top speed. From SF south it’s all urban/suburban for at least the first 50 miles, then there is a mountain range to get over before it can take advantage of a couple hundred miles of flat, open farmland. Then, at the southern end of the Central Valley, there are more mountains all the way to L.A. suburbs.
I cannot help but speculate that the Governor and some in the legislature are either pandering to the unions, and/or are seeking legacy projects. I am looking for the potentially positive aspects to this project, but I keep coming up with only the negative ones.
As for comparable projects - Morocco’s building a high speed link between Casablanca and Tangier. Here’s a list of other proposed projectsfrom wikipedia ranging from the possible to the absurd.
For some reason, Ohio (before the whole thing was canceled) got the idea that it could do a half-assed “starter” service. I have no idea why anybody ever thought a train averaging 35 MPH along the same route as a freeway with faster bus service would be competitive.
It actually competes with airlines where it exists.
I don’t think it is a good idea. Not enough people will use it and it will be expensive and not networked to many other cities.
My vision for the future is that cars become fully autonomous along pre-programmed routes and that they can follow other cars within inches, and some will even be able to automatically hitch to the cars in front of and behind them and use existing roads. It won’t be as efficient as a train by a long shot, but it will be far more flexible in terms of times and destinations than a train network.
We aren’t there yet, but Google has us very close.
And yet the rest of world (from France, to China, to Scandinavia, to Germany, the UK, Japan et al) has embraced high-speed rail for the all the benefits and quality of life it brings to its communities and businesses - to say nothing or reducing the travelling time between destinations.
None of these places ever considered it a “boondoggle” - a boon, certainly, but never a boondoggle. I think it’s emblematic of the US that it won’t go near these projects - by and large - unless the private sector pays for it; and they invariably won’t do because there’s not short-term profit gain for investors. That’s a difference to the other places named above, who think long term and what the gains are for the people they serve and not the investors (as most if not all the projects I named are, in some way, subsidised by the local or national governments).
Yes, America and in particular California pioneered railroads in the 19th Century, and I think it can happen again. Arguably its more legitimate than say welfare and about on the same level with roads in that it benefits all people.
The first leg will serve Madera, Fresno, Visalia and Bakersfield. Current public transportation options into the San Joaquin Valley are pretty useless. I need to go that way occasionally for work, and would absolutely take the train instead of a 5-hour drive from Sacramento to Bakersfield if I could. Sacto to LA wold probably be a toss-up, but I’d certainly consider the train if the convenience factor was high enough.
I agree with most of what you say, but keep in mind that those places have a more steady history of rail travel that is ingrained into and supported by their economies. We have a boom/bust situation where rail travel was big until something better came along. In those countries, they took steps to get to HSR. First, the basic rail network connecting the cities with stops everywhere, then “express” service that bypassed smaller locations, then “inter-city” was developed connecting major city centers. I propose that evolution is what we should be doing in CA, and not just shoot for the moon.
People on this board are always talking about demand being a better driver for economic decisions than the simple availability of money. I agree 100%. Just because money is becoming available to invest in this scheme does not make it a good idea. I concur with an above post that rail travel should be considered infrastructure and need not be compared to profit-making enterprises. Which is why I think we should be steadily building up capacity and demand for rail travel before investing in such a massive project.
If they used maglev, which has been shown to operate at 361mph in an experimental mode, then they’d have something. LA to SF in under an hour and a half. Now THAT would compete with both airlines and private cars.