# More election fallout: High-speed rail is coming to California **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2008, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571 "2008-11-07T01:28:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/81 "2008-11-08T14:32:10Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Whereas airports, airlines and highways always run like clockwork? Of course not. In comparing rail to other forms of transport, one should not assume the best case scenario will take place. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/82 "2008-11-08T14:41:54Z")
Subtract the partisan furor, and I pretty much agree with **Sam Stone**. I’m trying to imagine the mindset of a CA voter in the voting booth … today’s economy … after we have been confronted both nationally and CA itself with the inevitable results of a historic pinnacle of borrowing-and-spending and budget deficits … this voter is going “Yeah, What we need to do is borrow some more to spend on X!” Although I think it was probably more like " Oooo! Trains! Really fast trains are neato!" I’m all for saving the earth and such, (and secretly, I look forward to riding the thing one day!), but I don’t think now was the time to take out another loan. And not just this one, but I think CA passed everything that involved spending more money. We just need to find a way to work a bond measure into the gay marriage deal… ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/83 "2008-11-08T15:00:22Z")
> [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > Fuck if I know. I live in San Diego and haven’t been north of Bakersfield (on this coast, anyway). I also spend very little time in LA and have only been there a handful of times. Nor do I have any idea where Woodland Hills or Hayward are (more specifically than “kinda near LA” and “Bay Area”, respectively). Lol. That’s rather amusing, coming from the poster who assumed that I have no personal knowledge about inter-city driving in California. Anyway, let’s be generous and assume that congestion adds half an hour on both sides of the trip. That’s 6 hours and 20 minutes, door to door, from Woodland Hills to Hayward. And what about train service? About 8 hours and 20 minutes, according to Amtrak. Plus time spent getting to and from the train station. Also, since part of the route is on a bus, you will hit many of those same delays. Figure it’s at least about 9 1/2 hours. So much for your claim that “any train would be much faster than driving” > [@](#): > > Considering that Prop 1A passed by a huge margin, I’m guessing a lot of people hope to use it. When my children ask for some toy that they saw advertised on TV, I would guess that they hope to use it too. Unfortunately, my basement is full of barely used toys. There’s a big gap between guessing and hoping on the one hand; and actual experience on the other. Actual experience shows that Americans (especially Californians) love their cars (with good reason) and are willing to tolerate air travel too. Actual experience with rail travel does not show the same interest – outside of a few narrow areas, mainly the Northeast Corridor. If the proposal were to build a high speed train from Boston to Washington, I would be a lot less skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/84 "2008-11-08T15:27:07Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > HSR is also bad in today’s world because it is fixed in geography, and the country and world are becoming inscreasingly fluid. Have a look at how often airline routes are changed - added and dropped. That’s how much the demand for air travel between two points fluctuates from year to year. But you can’t move an HSR line. Build it for the level of demand measured today, and you’re bound to have built something undersized or oversized by the time it’s ready, and therefore less than optimal in operation. And it will get further from today’s demand as the years go on. It’s a very inflexible piece of infrastructure. A fair point, one I disagree with, but a fair point. Yet you go on to qualify it in this paragraph. > [@](#): > > High Speed Rail might make sense in a few very dense corridors, between two large cities that are bound to be around and large for a long, long time. I would argue that California fits this exact scenario(and will fit the density part even more as the population grows). I asked you a similar question in another rail thread. Do you really think the Bay Area and LA are going to stop being huge cities any time in the near future? First of all they are big because of geography, which isn’t likely to change. And second of all, if they do stop being large cities we likely have problems that are a lot bigger than some underused rail line. (Not to mention you could use your argument about shifting transport patterns to justify not expanding airports and highways. Surprisingly, you seem unopposed to projects like that even though they also have price tags in the billions) > [@](#): > > It’s also extremely capital intensive, and has a very long payback time, if it ever does. And you’re giving up the money today for benefits that won’t even begin for years. That adds to the real cost. So do highways. But we build them (and subsidize them :eek:) because we feel they are a necessary part of moving people around. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/85 "2008-11-08T15:31:00Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Warren has an open suggestion to any HSR (or LR) project…buy every supposed rider on the new system a Prius instead. It will be cheaper. Except that it wont. Where do those cars go? On the road. That means widening highways, cost of time lost due to traffic, more pollution, lost open space, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/86 "2008-11-08T15:46:00Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > [sheesh](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004_Madrid_train_bombings) I’d be interested to know how/if security changed as a result of this incident. Does Madrid now have [QUOTE= Musicat] …the same security checks that you do now at airports… [/QUOTE] ? ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/87 "2008-11-08T15:51:08Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > Except that it wont. Where do those cars go? On the road. That means widening highways, cost of time lost due to traffic, more pollution, lost open space, etc. Which means you have assigned a cost to those externalities. That’s kind of his point. What numbers would you like to propose? If you take the cost of the system minus [riders \* Prius\_cost] you have an approximation for the breakeven cost of those externalities. Plus, in his examples he usually talks about actual costs and actual ridership once the thing is built, not hand-waving estimates before the fact. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/88 "2008-11-08T16:22:04Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Which means you have assigned a cost to those externalities. That’s kind of his point. > > What numbers would you like to propose? If you take the cost of the system minus [riders \* Prius\_cost] you have an approximation for the breakeven cost of those externalities. > > Plus, in his examples he usually talks about actual costs and actual ridership once the thing is built, not hand-waving estimates before the fact. I don’t know, it has been a while since I’ve immersed myself in the numbers to talk about it as in depth as I would like to. But to me that kind of misses the point anyway. ALL transportation systems are money losers when you factor in capital costs. I don’t see why we hold rail to a different standard than we hold roads or airports. George Will had a column once where he pointed out that minus government bailouts, every airline except Southwest has been a net money loser over its history. That’s before we even account for the fact that the government has built and maintained the airports and pays the air traffic controllers. High speed rail has the ability to fill an important travel niche in this country and has a lot benefits. I will become overly concerned with the cost of subsidizing rail as soon as someone can explain to me how subsidizing rail would be any different than all the transportation subsidization we do already. ---
**Author:** ![NAF1138](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naf1138/32/3245_2.png) [@NAF1138](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NAF1138)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/89 "2008-11-08T17:33:57Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > And what about train service? About 8 hours and 20 minutes, according to Amtrak. Plus time spent getting to and from the train station. Also, since part of the route is on a bus, you will hit many of those same delays. Figure it’s at least about 9 1/2 hours. Is this how the train would be running? From Woodland Hills to Hayward? I had assumed Union Station in LA and a stop somewhere in the City or very close to it for the bay area. If that is the case, at a point of high congestion on either end you can add 2-2.5 hours to either end of the trip. Hell it can take you an hour and a half just to get from Union station to Woodland Hills in moderate traffic. Unless you take the Orange line to the Red line. The it will take less time. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/90 "2008-11-08T17:45:10Z")
> [@NAF1138](#): > > Is this how the train would be running? From Woodland Hills to Hayward? No, the Amtrak route I picked ran from Simi Valley to San Jose, I think. Or maybe it was from Burbank. The basic point is that travel by automobile usually gives you the tremendous advantage in speed and convenience of going directly from Point A to Point B, as opposed to Point A, to Train Station A, to Train Station B, to Point B. ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/91 "2008-11-08T18:02:39Z")
As another example, imagine you are going from Waltham Mass ( a suburb of Boston), to Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey (a suburb of New York). To take the train, you would need to drive from Waltham to Canton/128 station. Figure that takes about half an hour to drive, park, and get there a bit early. Then the train to Newark, NJ is another 4 hours and 30 minutes. Then the train to Woodcliff Lake is another hour. Figure on waiting an average of 30 minutes in Newark while you transfer trains. Then a taxi to wherever you are going in Woodcliff Lake. Total travel time is about 6 hours and 45 minutes. By contrast, the drive from Waltham to Woodcliff Lake is about 4 hours. And you load your luggage once, as opposed to schlepping it around Penn Station trying to figure out which platform to go to. Even if the Northeast had high speed rail, it’s hard to imagine that it would be quicker to use it if you were going from suburb to suburb. Of course, things are very different if you are going from city center to city center. In the northeast, particularly in New York City, there are a lot of business people (and residents) who fit into this category. But California? I’m very skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![Sublight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Sublight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sublight)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/92 "2008-11-08T18:26:57Z")
> [@runcible\_spoon](#): > > And can we talk about the 5-minute headway they’re claiming ([2704.09 .c](http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/suppl-text-proposed-law.pdf))? I lurves me some trains, but lets get realistic here. That’s doable, although I don’t know if the proposed system would ever be capable of it, in terms of demand, safety or organizational capability. As you can see on [this timetable](http://www.shinkansen.co.jp/jikoku_hyo/en/sanyou/sdh_tokyo.html), the Tokaido Shinkansen Line (from Tokyo toward Nagoya, Osaka and Hakata) runs between 11 and 13 trains every hour on the weekdays (and up to 14 an hour on holidays). And they are extremely successful at keeping exactly to that schedule. Some of the advantages HSR enjoys here may not apply to the states. For one, highway tolls are very high. To travel between Tokyo and Nagoya on the expressway (just over 200 miles), the road toll is 8,000 yen (US$80) and will take you at least 5 hours (the expressways aren’t as wide as US interstates, and congestion is common). A Shinkansen ride between the same points is 10,580yen (US$105) and takes 2 hours, plus there’s no parking hassle (and expense). Compared to flying, HSR here is faster between most cities since the stations are right downtown, and there’s no lengthy check-in or inspection process (the pre-boarding time limit is simply how fast you can sprint from the ticket machine to the train door). ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/93 "2008-11-08T18:45:51Z")
> [@MichaelQReilly](#): > > I don’t know, it has been a while since I’ve immersed myself in the numbers to talk about it as in depth as I would like to. But to me that kind of misses the point anyway. ALL transportation systems are money losers when you factor in capital costs. I don’t see why we hold rail to a different standard than we hold roads or airports. George Will had a column once where he pointed out that minus government bailouts, every airline except Southwest has been a net money loser over its history. That’s before we even account for the fact that the government has built and maintained the airports and pays the air traffic controllers. High speed rail has the ability to fill an important travel niche in this country and has a lot benefits. I will become overly concerned with the cost of subsidizing rail as soon as someone can explain to me how subsidizing rail would be any different than all the transportation subsidization we do already. We keep saying the other person is missing the point. Maybe we should make some closing arguments, and leave it at that. As long as the costs of beneficial externalities are reasonable (as measured with existing standards set by the market) I would be in favor of projects like these. I think if you look at the numbers, though, inevitably they contain astronomical costs - orders of magnitude beyond anything reasonable - per ton of carbon reduced, or per car removed from the road, or whatever external measure you’re trying to reduce. The fellow who writes the blog that I referenced goes through a few of those calculations after HSR and LR systems are up and running, and the real operational costs become known. One way to get a feel for whether these projects are reasonable is to open them up to private bidding. If you want the government to subsidize an externality, fine. Put a number on it up front, make it clear to all, and bake it into the subsidy you will provide to a private operator. Use the powers of government via eminent domain to overcome the enormous transaction costs associated with property rights and legal issues inherent in such a project. That’s one role government can play that a private operator cannot. Then put it out to bid and see what happens. If private operators can take the government subsidy, which has been made explicit and based on estimates of the costs of externalities, and still make a profit that’s a good signal that this might be a worthwhile thing to do. Another thing I would comment upon, is to loosely tie the referendum point into Sam Stone’s comments about spending as well as some other threads about progressive taxation. We’re not yet at the point where 51% of the people pay nothing, but the needle is moving that way. But when we get there, why would anybody in that 51% ever vote against such a project? They’re not paying for it anyway. Or at least, they don’t think they are. Sure, $9 billion. Whatever. It sounds cool. And I’m not paying for it. Let’s light that candle. The airline example actually works against your point, I’m afraid to say. Bankrupt airlines should have been forced to consolidate long ago, in order to take out excess capacity and allow for more realistic pricing. It’s the government that refuses to let them consolidate (although that’s changing a little), go out of business with any sensible regularity, or allow for foreign investment. Branson has been dying to do this for years. The reason the government is subsidizing the airlines is because of special interest political pressure…it doesn’t have anything to do with beneficial externalities. ---
**Author:** ![MichaelQReilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@MichaelQReilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelQReilly)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/94 "2008-11-08T19:30:30Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > We keep saying the other person is missing the point. Maybe we should make some closing arguments, and leave it at that. > > As long as the costs of beneficial externalities are reasonable (as measured with existing standards set by the market) I would be in favor of projects like these. > > I think if you look at the numbers, though, inevitably they contain astronomical costs - orders of magnitude beyond anything reasonable - per ton of carbon reduced, or per car removed from the road, or whatever external measure you’re trying to reduce. The fellow who writes the blog that I referenced goes through a few of those calculations after HSR and LR systems are up and running, and the real operational costs become known. > > One way to get a feel for whether these projects are reasonable is to open them up to private bidding. If you want the government to subsidize an externality, fine. Put a number on it up front, make it clear to all, and bake it into the subsidy you will provide to a private operator. Use the powers of government via eminent domain to overcome the enormous transaction costs associated with property rights and legal issues inherent in such a project. That’s one role government can play that a private operator cannot. > > Then put it out to bid and see what happens. If private operators can take the government subsidy, which has been made explicit and based on estimates of the costs of externalities, and still make a profit that’s a good signal that this might be a worthwhile thing to do. > > Another thing I would comment upon, is to loosely tie the referendum point into Sam Stone’s comments about spending as well as some other threads about progressive taxation. We’re not yet at the point where 51% of the people pay nothing, but the needle is moving that way. But when we get there, why would anybody in that 51% ever vote against such a project? They’re not paying for it anyway. Or at least, they don’t think they are. Sure, $9 billion. Whatever. It sounds cool. And I’m not paying for it. Let’s light that candle. > > The airline example actually works against your point, I’m afraid to say. Bankrupt airlines should have been forced to consolidate long ago, in order to take out excess capacity and allow for more realistic pricing. It’s the government that refuses to let them consolidate (although that’s changing a little), go out of business with any sensible regularity, or allow for foreign investment. Branson has been dying to do this for years. The reason the government is subsidizing the airlines is because of special interest political pressure…it doesn’t have anything to do with beneficial externalities. I think everything you say is reasonable. As to rail, I’ve long advocated a system where the government covers the capital costs and private companies bid to be the operator, which is I think what you are advocating and more in line with how other forms of transportation are done. Part of the reason that Amtrak is such a disaster is that the exact opposite happens. Private companies own and maintain the tracks while the government operates the trains. ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2008, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/95 "2008-11-08T19:32:47Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > As another example, imagine you are going from Waltham Mass ( a suburb of Boston), to Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey (a suburb of New York). > > To take the train, you would need to drive from Waltham to Canton/128 station. Figure that takes about half an hour to drive, park, and get there a bit early. Then the train to Newark, NJ is another 4 hours and 30 minutes. Then the train to Woodcliff Lake is another hour. Figure on waiting an average of 30 minutes in Newark while you transfer trains. Then a taxi to wherever you are going in Woodcliff Lake. Total travel time is about 6 hours and 45 minutes. > > By contrast, the drive from Waltham to Woodcliff Lake is about 4 hours. And you load your luggage once, as opposed to schlepping it around Penn Station trying to figure out which platform to go to. > > Even if the Northeast had high speed rail, it’s hard to imagine that it would be quicker to use it if you were going from suburb to suburb. > > Of course, things are very different if you are going from city center to city center. In the northeast, particularly in New York City, there are a lot of business people (and residents) who fit into this category. But California? I’m very skeptical. Why do people consider the main competition with HSR to be cars? IMHO, the main competition is airplanes. Door-to-door, HSR is likely to be very competitive with air travel, and will allow airports to save their runway space for truly long distance flights. I fly between NorCal and SoCal several times a year. I could easily see taking a fast train instead in the right circumstances. Ed ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/96 "2008-11-09T00:07:22Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > Why do people consider the main competition with HSR to be cars? IMHO, the main competition is airplanes. Personally, I’m not sure what the “main competition” is, or even how one should define “main competition.” I guess the real questions are (1) how many people will take HSR when they otherwise would have gone by car; and (2) how many people will take HSR when they otherwise would have gone by plane. > [@](#): > > Door-to-door, HSR is likely to be very competitive with air travel, I’m not sure what “very competitive” means, but I’m skeptical that HSR in California will take many people away from flying. Even with security delays, flying from LAX to SFO would seem to be faster and more direct than HSR. Basically it seems that HSR would offer something lamer than flying – for a bit less money – and lamer than driving – for a bit less money. I have a hard time seeing droves of people jumping on the train. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/97 "2008-11-09T00:40:57Z")
> [@Peanut Gallery](#): > > I think CA passed everything that involved spending more money Actually, as I’ve already said once, we voted down several propositions involving large expenditures, and only approved those which used bonds and/or private funding. > [@brazil84](#): > > So much for your claim that “any train would be much faster than driving” Did I say that? Looks like I did. Well, I say silly things when I’m up at 5 in the morning sometimes. Sorry. Anyway, the point here is the HSR system, although I’m willing to take the blame for deflecting it in the wrong direction. > [@brazil84](#): > > When my children ask for some toy that they saw advertised on TV, I would guess that they hope to use it too. Unfortunately, my basement is full of barely used toys. I guess California voters are equivalent to whiny children now. > [@brazil84](#): > > There’s a big gap between guessing and hoping on the one hand; and actual experience on the other. I guess this is where you pull out a cite for that _other_ high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the one that failed miserably. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/98 "2008-11-09T00:54:27Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Basically it seems that HSR would offer something lamer than flying – for a bit less money – and lamer than driving – for a bit less money. I don’t see it that way. ## HSR vs. flying: Substantially less hassle Substantially less delay No ear pain/pressure changes No chance of my bags ending up in Chicago ## HSR vs. driving: More physically comfortable Safety risk is not affected by my physical, mental or emotional condition I can relax and even sleep, even when traveling by myself ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/99 "2008-11-09T01:14:16Z")
> [@Hostile\_Dialect](#): > > I guess California voters are equivalent to whiny children now. Bingo. A shiny new train which will be paid for, for the most part, by other people in the future. Except that whiny children usually aren’t so Europhillic. > [@](#): > > I guess this is where you pull out a cite for that _other_ high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the one that failed miserably. Sure, because even if Americans have demonstrated their preferences for cars in a hundred different ways, This Time It’s Different. > [@](#): > > I don’t see it that way. Maybe you don’t but most people value speed, convenience, and price in some combination. Unfortunately rail travel – even high speed rail – does not offer a big improvement in these areas and is quite frequently worse. ---
**Author:** ![Merkwurdigliebe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/74df32/32.png) [@Merkwurdigliebe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merkwurdigliebe)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2008, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571/100 "2008-11-09T02:22:13Z")
> [@brazil84](#): > > Maybe you don’t but most people value speed, convenience, and price in some combination. Unfortunately rail travel – even high speed rail – does not offer a big improvement in these areas and is quite frequently worse. You’re going to need to start offering up some cites for all this FUD. Look at this little high-speed rail project > **[Madrid–Barcelona high-speed rail line](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid-Barcelona_high-speed_rail_line)** > > .mw-parser-output .RMbox{box-shadow:0 2px 2px 0 rgba(0,0,0,.14),0 1px 5px 0 rgba(0,0,0,.12),0 3px 1px -2px rgba(0,0,0,.2)}.mw-parser-output .RMinline{float:none;width:100%;margin:0;border:none}.mw-parser-output .RMmaptitle{background:#EEEEEE;color:#252525}.mw-parser-output .RMtitle a,.mw-parser-output .RMtitle a:visited,.mw-parser-output .RMmaptitle a,.mw-parser-output .RMmaptitle a:visited{color:inherit!important}.mw-parser-output .RMbox small,.mw-parser-output .RMinline small{color:inherit}.m... It’s the AVE that connects Barcelona to Madrid. It takes two hours and 26 minutes or three hours if stopping at all stations along the way. This is quite a convenient comparison as the distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco is nearly the same. A lot of your anecdotes, I believe, seem to stem from the performance of the Acela in the Northeast corridor which is clearly a horrible example. There’s no reason to think that we can’t build just as good of a high-speed rail line like the Spaniards can. Secondly, you naysayers seem to act like it’s a preposterous idea for the government to be involved in transportation. It’s not. Who do you think pays for the FAA? Who pays for the roads? How Californians decide to spend their money on infrastructure is up to them. As to the argument above about it not being ideal for job creation, I have to disagree. Public works are to be done by the private sector, only the government is the buyer. Who builds the roads these days? A lot of times it is a private firm contracted by the government. Where is the steel going to come from? All of these things are useful for stimulating the economy. Even if the benefit is negligible, you still have something to show for it. Now I realize that Eisenhower didn’t build the US Interstate System to get us out of a recession, but just look at the benefits of having it. Without it we’d be in much worse shape. Building infrastructure in areas where it is not needed opens up opportunities. I see this thing being a decent success. If they can avoid the problems of right-of-way, then it should be very fast. As far as the small children argument? Look, I hate to break it, but parents with small children aren’t the center of the universe, although I know they always think they are. And even then, why not just take the car yourself and enjoy the traffic improvements that you’re sure to benefit from. You may look around your neighborhood and see lots of people in a similar situation to yourself and think that it’s the norm, while I look around and don’t see a whole lot of kids. The point I’m making is that a lot of people in California want another way to get from point A to point B and they want to pay for it. Who is to stop them? I wish them luck, and hope that somehow in the near future we can afford improvements to the Northeast Corridor to allow such trains to operate here. I don’t go to DC or Boston hardly ever, but it’d be nice. But really you guys, all you have to offer up is FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt). The concept is well known in geek culture as having no real substance but negativity. The fact of the matter is that high-speed rail has been introduced and works in many first-world nations. You have no evidence that if approached in a reasonable manner that it would somehow not work. All you have is bullshit about signal failures and potential terrorist targets. That may be true, but that’s the risk you have to take. I think it’ll be a success and it’d be far better than being caught flat-footed in ten years when the price of oil might just make that kind of travel impossible. You can deride public transportation all you want, but I think we have learned all of the lessons that we need to here in the US. There are some routes where it would be reasonable, and there are some where it wouldn’t. California is a very populous state. I am actually very curious as to who of you have actually driven the journey from SF to LA before, because it is not a cakewalk, and not at all what I’d call convenient. I’ve done it a couple of times and have been beset with traffic problems most of the time. If it weren’t for this congestion problem, I doubt that there would be much interest in the project. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-election-fallout-high-speed-rail-is-coming-to-california/471571.md?page=6)