Not to burst your bubble but that’s currently pie-in-the-sky theoretical spit-balling.
CNG produces much less CO2 per BTU than other fossil fuels. You also need to keep in mind that the fuel consumption for passenger aircraft is tiny compared to ground transportation.
The cost would also be trivial compared to HSR and it isn’t like HSR doesn’t need fossil fuels also.
Ammonia is a carbon free fuel, but I don’t see how California could produce it in enough quantity unless they built nuclear power plants to produce ammonia.
The Boeing yes, but I think the Tupolev could be in production before the HSR rail.
When we were discussing the HSR system for Florida. I thought a HSR from Orlando to Tampa was ludicrous. We could have a huge fleet of CNG buses for the price of a HSR line from Orlando to Tampa.
California is broke. The state has a long history of budgetary problems and abuses. This rail project is a huge mistake. We do not have the money to pay for it.
It is absurd to even start a project like this before dealing with existing financial and economic issues we have already saddled ourselves with.
Seems like opponents here are only attacking one of the many benefits of high speed rail (i.e. low carbon emissions). What about:
Advantages compared to air travel:
[ul]
[li]Rail stations can be built downtown because rail stations are much smaller and have much less noise pollution compared to airports[/li][li]Rail has multiple stops along the line. The cost of building an airport at each of these locations would be prohibitive.[/li][li]Properly maintained high-speed rail is far more resistant to delays from mechanical issues and weather. The average delay on the Japanese bullet trains are about 20 seconds; an hour-long delay gets mentioned in the newspaper. [/li][li]No need for baggage screening and body scans, mainly because a train is a much less attractive target for highjacking. (You can’t highjack a train and run it into a skyscraper or divert it to Cuba.)[/li][li]Rail travel is far more comfortable than air travel. Much quieter, very little air pressure change, no turbulence, no need to even have seat belts. Passengers can walk around at any time. [/li][li]More flexible schedule for travelers. You can show up at the Tokyo station without a reservation and be on the next Osaka-bound train. (Except maybe the two or three busiest holidays of the year.) Buying a ticket, getting to the correct platform and boarding the train should take no more than 10 minutes. [/li][/ul]
Compared to car travel:
[ul]
[li]Safer. The Japanese high-speed train system has never killed a single passenger, not even during earthquakes. [/li][li]Faster. Tokyo to Osaka is an 8-hour drive, but only 2 hours 35 minutes on the fastest train. [/li][li]More consistent travel time, not susceptible to traffic delays.[/li][li]Less pollution, less environmental impact.[/li][li]Available to everyone: the elderly, the disabled, teenagers, etc. (Japanese teenagers don’t really care about getting a driver’s license because they are already capable of travelling anywhere in the country on their own.)[/li][/ul]
And many more that I currently don’t have time to list…
It is a good list and I cannot refute the advantages you point out here. However, I do not think opponents are attacking the many advantages of rail travel, just that this particular project is beyond expensive at a time when cities and counties in CA are having a hard time just meeting basic services, and the existing state infrastructure has not supported a very high demand for rail travel in the first place. To me, a better investment would be reinforcement and upgrading the existing rail network to encourage and accomodate higher demand for passenger travel, where more people can experience the advantages you point out.
Until our rail system is on par with Japan’s 40 years ago, there is no comparison there. We are woefully behind in that regard and I think we need to take steps to get to HSR. Building this massive project where there is little to no demand would be foolish. And arguments that the project will stoke the economy are bogus, because upgrading the current rail network would also create a ton of jobs.
I like the idea posted above regarding car-trains, like they have on the east coast. You drive your car onto the train, and when you get to your destination your car comes off with you - problem solved. THAT is something we should be looking at, and getting rail routes for that type of service where people would utilize it. If you could get from SF to LA on the rails with your car even in the same amount of time as driving, for less than the cost of flying and renting a car, but NOT having to drive your car - you would have a winner! IMHO
Anybody want to place bets on how many miles of track are laid before the State of California goes broke, and the appropriated money is diverted to other uses (if it isn’t siezed by a federal bankrupcy judge)?
Diceman and toofs: Should California stop all its road & highway (and airport, and port) projects too because it’s broke, or is only rail too expensive? :rolleyes:
Wow, a well-written and thought-out OP from a member of the class of 2012. How refreshing!
I applaud you, sir/ma’am.
(and the other 2012ers are comporting themselves well in this thread too…is it just a July 2012 thing?)
Thank you for that, I appreciate it! I am a long-time lurker and recent joiner so I kinda know the written and unwritten rules of the place.
Many of the benefits I outlined are specifically benefits of high speed rail, which is generally taken to mean rail lines dedicated to passenger rail, segregated from other traffic (e.g. no level crossings). Upgrading the existing rail network will only get us a decent conventional rail - where Japan was 55 years ago, not 40. (Actually the US was there 55 years ago too.)
No.
California would do well to properly manage its finances. An exorbitantly expensive project of this type is not logical or needed at our current level of budget problems. This single high speed rail project will go over budget. It will, and we are already broke even before we break ground.
The state of California has in the past taken money that is intended for a singular usage and added it to the general fund. Diceman and I cynically see the same future of this project.
This isn’t a project that needs to be done. There are other pressing needs in our state that might call for a project of this caliber and expense. The HSR between LA and SF is not one of them.
Again, from the interview I cited from upthread:
Maybe this is a comparison of apples and oranges. Our freight railway system is second to none, which keeps THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of trucks off our highways daily, so, indirectly we are saving fuel, emissions and lives with our freight railway system even without a decent passenger railway system. Freight is not impatient like people; the overwhelming majority of it doesn’t need to arrive at it’s destination in 5 hours or less in this country whereas people prefer swifter transportation.
I guess what I am trying to say that maybe we did the right thing by choosing over 40 years ago to upgrade our freight delivery system by rail because of the large size of our country and it’s geography (which is very different than the size and geography of France and Japan), which led to the type of consumerism this country has enjoyed (or in others opinions, regretted) over that time period. But just imagine if we did the same thing that France and Japan did…we would be talking about replacing roadways because of excessive amounts of freight trucks on the road and the danger of driving with all of these trucks and their emissions, and their fuel, and accidents blocking traffic, etc.
They have freight trains in Europe and Japan too. They run on the conventional/traditional rail network which is completely separate from the high-speed passenger rail. (In Japan they’re not even the same gauge; the high-speed trains are mostly standard gauge, and everything else is narrow gauge.)
Unbelieveably stupid idea. You can’t get high speed if you are going to stop every 25 miles to service a town that doesn’t need it. Nobody needs to be in SF that badly anyway.
The correct answer is LA - Las Vegas, but there is no practical way to do it. The only route that even remotely works is a straight shot from Union Station to Needles, then up the river. That’s the long way.
I love, love, love using the trains when I visit Europe. That said, it works there because there is a widespread network of local public transportation. That is where we need to start in the country. High speed rail needs to be the capstone on the pyramid, placed well after a foundation of taxis, buses, light-rail, subways, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian bridges, etc., etc.
Air Transportation only works in the US because there is a huge network of rental car companies to support it, and those are only viable because there are a limited number of airports that concentrate the air travelers into major cities. Rail drops passengers all along the route, and they need a way to get to their ultimate destination from the train stations.
When I have rented cars at European train stations, there will be at most a few tens of cars available among several rental companies…usually a very small office staffed by one or at most two clerks. This would never work if the majority of travelers were looking to rent cars.
Interesting question, indeed. From what I’ve read the railroads’ passenger operations were struggling as early as the 1950s, well before discount air travel was available. Of course the highways were getting better and better, and more and more people had their own cars. But think about where people actually go in their cars, when on vacation: it’s much more likely to some destination that is fairly close, less than a day’s driving distance, or a few hundred miles. It’s not that often that the average person is going to drive from coast to coast. I’m not an expert in this field by any means, but the near-disappearance of passenger rail service in the postwar era suggests that passenger operations had been most dependent on the short-to-medium haul journeys which people were now doing by car instead. Perhaps the most depressing aspect of all this is that for the few who weren’t able or didn’t wish to drive, the intercity bus became the non-automobile default. I don’t even want to imagine what that used to be like, in the days when buses weren’t airconditioned and everyone felt obliged to dress up for travel. (A necktie must have been anything but comfortable.)
It’s interesting that he cites the NWC in this regard, since today that’s become the sole profitable route in the Amtrak system. Two popular routes here in California are close behind it in that regard, although not quite profitable.
Yeah, thank goodness that’s not a problem with buses!
Having snarked that, I agree that it sounds too expensive. I’d be interested in seeing the breakdown of the costs. Since this is a proposed state-funded project, shouldn’t that be made available?
Unless there are high speed buses I’m not aware of they are not competitors. Even low speed trains have trouble competing with buses which can change routes quite easily. It’s tough to lay down new track.