Elon Musk thinks he or someone else could build his hyperloop between LA & SF for a tiny fraction of the cost, and sooner.
Ive made several reasoned arguments. Another reasoned argument would be that the majority of passengers would be businesspeople. Why should we subsidize them?
Yet another is that our cities are geographically far larger than Japanese or Euro cities. What good would a highspeed train be in Los Angeles when the vast majority of passengers would be miles from it? There are regional airports that are much more convenient.
Also, the promises made in the 2008 bond initiative have been broken consistently…as the linked non-partisan report acknowledges…
http://www.lao.ca.gov/analysis/2012/transportation/high-speed-rail-041712.aspx
and another report…
We as a state have so many more pressing needs for the money.
You know what would be cheaper than a high-speed rail line between LA and Vegas? Permitting gambling in California. Vegas & Reno would become ghost towns overnight.
Large Californian cities generally have no city centers. These are cities built to accommodate the automobile.
Trains are also a sinkhole of financial waste and mismanagement…
There is already tons of legalized Vegas style gambling in California…see Morongo for example.
A horrible idea after all and gonna cost billions more than estimated. No way this will be competitive with airtravel
I wish you were the Governor. 
It’s interesting the project’s reliance on federal money - I wonder if it will dry-up with the transition to the new administration, and kill the project.
It’s interesting that in a few years China has built a 12,500 mile high speed rail network and will add another 10,000 miles by 2025.
So why can China do this but the United States can’t?
Los Angeles and surrounding areas are filling up. Land close to the city has reached prices that companies are not willing to spend. A rail system could open up out lying areas and spur some growth throughout the valley. People will not have to be quite as concerned about living close to their job.
But that has nothing to do with high-speed rail. That has to do with mass transit. Completely different subject. A good rail system connecting Lancaster/Palmdale and the San Fernando Valley would be a godsend for people in SoCal. Hell, just run a couple of lines up to Oxnard and out to Yucca Valley. Triple the trains Metrolink is now running and then we’ll talk.
If you insist on high-speed, then a line linking San Diego, LA, Bakersfield, Fresno and Sacramento would be the ideal. Just tie it into BART somewhere for people who live in the Bay Area.
Cheap labor, meaningless environmental laws, and the ability to appropriate land at will.
Basically if the Chinese government wants it there are no restrictions to it’s construction.
The guy they mention is one of my customers. :eek:
Plus a huge population to support it by actually using it. For all its population, California is big and empty compared to most parts of China.
I definitely agree with Trinopus, there are many much more important places to spend this kind of money.
If you found a way to drop a station at Disneyland you could probably convince Disney to finance it. Fresno and north would probably happily hop a train to Disneyland instead of driving, I sure would. Faster, not have to drive, probably a push on fuel costs. Between the major communities of the central valley, this could easily be hundreds if not thousands of riders a day. The existing line terminates next to Angels Stadium…meh.
A Bakersfield to Las Vegas line would probably turn into a solid option as well. Would be interesting to see how much of a boost the Casinos at Primm if a line went there.
From what I see trains never make money unless they can haul both people and freight. Across western Kansas trains can hit over 50 mph or more when they are hauling freight (coal is big) and that is very profitable.
But then they are also hooked to existing railyards. So a train can go directly into a terminal and then those containers are put right onto trucks and hauled off.
So I would only see it if the system could also handle frieght.
What you’re suggesting was the business model for interurban lines. They built amusement parks along their lines to build ridership. That had a good run before Henry Ford came out with an affordable car.
To do this today there needs to be a solid benefit involved. Cost, time , less hassle, a place to go to … it has to be something that really stands out.
I believe there are technical reasons not to put freight on the same lines used for high-speed passenger rail.
As for making money, do you judge other infrastructure projects on the same basis; are highways and airports a failure if they don’t operate at a profit?
It is funny that people expect government trains to make a profit, but they never expect government roads to make a profit. Americans deserve roads paid for by the taxpayers so they can drive their cars on public infrastructure like God intended.
Well I think highways are different because anyone can jump on it, whether your in a car, motorcycle, or even horse and buggy, and go anywhere you want. Its a doorstep to doorstep pathway.
Another, that highway directly hooks onto local roads. I can go from a 4 lane interstate to a small dirt road in minutes if I want to. Those roads are paid for by local communities.
Now contrast that with a train. Only trains can use them. I dont know maybe there are some local, privately owned spurs here and there but its mostly the major rail lines. And if you as a passenger, you have no choice where your picked up or dropped off which can be miles from your starting or ending point.
So profit or not, a highway does what its supposed to do, get you from one place to another and most important it’s where YOU want to go. Not just where a rail line leads.