Well said sir.
Really? In fiscal 2007, 3.19 million people rode the Acela in the northeast corridor (Cite.) That’s up 20% over the previous year.
There are a lot of things about the Acela that could be better, but people are using it.
The Acela is a horrible example because the only thing it has in common with the California HSR is that it’s a train system.
This thing is a joke and a bad one at that. they sell it by making it sound like people are commuting between SF and LA daily, llike between SF and SJ. The other thing that they used to sell it was that it would not raise taxes, it will be built by bonds paid from the general fund. The problem is a large part of the states budget is obligated to repay old bonds and now we are going to take a larger part of the general fund. Now the gov is talking about raising taxes to cover the short fall in the general fund.
I travel often between San Jose and Onterio to see my grandchildren. Usually there are 10 or more planes going each way daily. That means I can pick a time that fits in with my work hours. I doubt that there will be three trains probably one or two each day, hope I can get off work to catch the train.
Also at 200 mph how long will it take to go from SF to LA? Remember in Norther Calif so far they are talking about stops in San Jose, Stocton, Salinas before leaving N. Cal. Now how long will the trip take. For the plane I usually figure around 3 hours including the wait at the airport.
The pl;ane takes me to Onterio my son picks me up at the airport and we go to Murrieta. The train will pick me up in San Jose and what take me to LA, now how do I get to Murreta, longer drive. With the train I will still be flying, and so will many others.
I haven’t seen that claim. Surely, though, you can provide a cite for it?
The train will go directly from San Francisco to Los Angeles and vice versa.
What makes you say this? To take the Madrid-Barcelona AVE example already given, the trains are every 30 minutes at rush hour and hourly through the rest of the day. London-Paris, for another example with a similar journey time, has 16 trains each way.
I’ve done a lot of calculations in this thread to support my skepticism. So I don’t know what you are talking about.
I’m skeptical that it’s really comparable. Are Madrid and Barcelona spread out like Los Angeles, and to a lesser extent, San Francisco? Or are they more like Boston or New York? As I mentioned earlier in the thread, rail is a lot more credible for travel between cities like Boston and New York.
Anyway, I did some internet searches to find out just how many passengers have switched from plane (or car) to the Spanish train between Barcelona and Madrid, and it would seem that the jury is still out.
On the contrary, the Northeast corridor is probably the best place for rail advocates to make their case. Because there is lots of demand for travel from city center to city center.
The question is not whether it can be built. The question is whether it’s cost effective. Will enough people switch from car (or plane) to justify it?
I’m more of a skeptic than a naysayer, but in any event, I am certainly not making the argument you describe. I have no problem with the basic concept of governments spending money to build airports, roads, and train stations.
They have a right to spend their money, and I have a right to criticize and question those expenditures.
It’s not a matter of who’s most important, it’s a matter of who is actually going to use the service. Will families with children take the train? I would guess that most won’t, since driving is likely to be faster, cheaper, and more convenient for them. Will a lot of businessmen and women take the train? I doubt it. If they are going to schlepp down to the train station, they may as well go to the airport instead and save themselves time (even with security delays). And they can afford the extra $40 or so for a ticket. What about poor people – will they take the train? Again, I doubt it. It’s almost certainly cheaper to just take a Greyhound bus.
One man’s FUD is another man’s healthy skepticism.
Also normal-speed rail works in many first-world nations. I would argue that high speed rail is actually quite similar to normal speed rail. Except that it’s faster.
Which is so obvious that it almost seems tautological, but I think it’s an important point. In places where normal speed rail is succesful, one can expect that high speed rail will add to that success. In places where normal speed rail is a failure, one can compare rail with other forms of transport (car, plane, bus, etc.); see how it compares; and then make the same comparison with the assumption that the train is faster.
Having made that comparison, there is good reason to be skeptical about high speed rail in California.
I’ve made the drive and it was never that bad. Maybe I wasn’t going at peak hours.
I don’t think its really fair to make this argument. The United States has for the past 60+ years pursued a policy of wilful neglect toward its railroads, while treating road building and widening as one of its top priorities. So I don’t really think we can say rail is not successful in certain areas vs. other transports because we never gave it a chance. Yet even with this neglect rail ridership is still up, including in California.
Let me just say that I bet tons of families will take their children on the train. Kids love trains. It’s science.
I agree with you to the extent that the United States (particularly much of the West) has been developed and laid out with the automobile in mind. If rail had been a top priority for planners over the last 60+ years, then high speed rail might very well be a lot more viable now.
Did we give it a chance in the Northeast corridor? Well, enough of a chance that train travel is reasonably popular between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, etc. Probably enough to put a dent into the use of cars and planes.
To me, the lesson is pretty clear: If there is demand for travel from city center to city center over moderate distances, then a good case can be made for inter-city passenger rail.
I don’t understand why you are so certain that this will not work. It is really baffling. We’ve never had anything similar to high-speed rail here in the US so it’s difficult to know what the outcome will be. How can you say that it won’t be at least moderately successful? It would probably be quicker than taking a plane, and would certainly require far less hassle with regards to security, etc. Air travel is awful and a little degrading, while train-travel is fun and comfortable. If I lived in CA I know I would use it. Your argument that it won’t be successful because normal rail isn’t popular is flawed.
Why would anyone take a train if it’s slower than taking a car? This is the situation in California now. It makes no sense then to take the train when you can drive there in the same time. But if the train is faster then why not take the train?
I don’t see how your focus on city centers matters at all. Yes compact cities are well served by rail-travel and their density relies on them, but it doesn’t mean that the converse – that cities with lower densities have no use for rail – is true. I live in LA and I need to get to SF. Why would it matter how I get to the airport / trainstation? Airports are immensely popular and yet very inconvenient. People choose travel options based on many factors, but speed is a very important one. People drive to the airport in LA to fly to SF. The trips to and from the airport are long, yet the high speed of air travel makes up for it. There’s no reason to think that people won’t drive to a train station.
The trip from LA to SF by car is annoying and traffic filled. I seriously have to ask where you live, because you seem to be making the arguments of someone who doesn’t understand what it’s like to live in a place where high traffic volume puts a damper on car travel. Driving around on the east and west coasts is not a convenient way to get around. I have friends who visited me from DC the other day who took a bus because of the hassle of driving. It was probably cheaper too.
And yes, Acela is a good example of how rail-travel can work in the US but it is also an example of being done very poorly in techincal terms. The Acela is not too fast. I brought up the Barcelona to Madrid AVE as an example of how it technically possible to connect two cities of a similar distance and make it reasonable with regards to time. Yet you offer up “signaling problems” and add that adding more stops would make it unbearably slow and other vague negativity that doesn’t really have much grounding in fact. They do it over a similar distance in Spain at a reasonable speed with a similar number of stops.
Again vague negativity on the “market not being there” (why did half of California think it was a good idea then?) and various technical problems isn’t going to cut it. I don’t see how the layout of the cities of LA and SF make any difference to the popularity of rail travel. People use airplanes regardless of city layout. How is driving to a train station to get to SF any different from driving to an airport? I can’t see the difference at all. I see two methods of getting from LA to SF that are likely far faster than driving. If they are competitively priced then who cares about whether or not the cities are built around cars or not?
Please either (1) quote me where I said I was certain it would not work; or (2) admit that I made no such claim. Your choice.
Like I said before, high speed rail is like normal rail except that it’s faster. Normal intercity rail is quite unpopular outside of the Northeast. So unpopular that I’m skeptical that making it a faster will make much of a difference.
Even if rail were twice as fast in California, it would still be quicker to fly or drive for most people. That’s what you’re up against.
No it would not. Do the math.
Because it’s more convenient – and often cheaper – to drive. And once you add in the extra time it takes on each end, it doesn’t save much time to take the train. Do the math.
For a potential customer who values convenience – such as a family with children – it’s unlikely (in my opinion) that a small savings in time will outweigh the huge increase in convenience which comes from driving. Not to mention the cost savings in driving.
For a potential customer who values speed – such as a businessman or businesswoman – it’s unlikely (in my opinion) that the slight increase in convenience or cost savings will outweigh the savings in time which comes from flying.
For a potential customer who wants to travel as cheaply as possible, why would they take the train when it’s cheaper to hitchhike or take a Greyhound bus?
Look, it’s possible that high speed rail will succeed, but if somebody came to me with this as a business idea, I would be pretty reluctant to invest. You’re competing with two very popular modes of transport and your service is not clearly better than either. Not only that, but painful experiences shows that nothing ever works out as well as one hopes. Once all the NIMBYs, BANANAs, and other special interests get done with it, you can bet that high speed rail in California will not be as fast or direct or inexpensive as its proponents advocate.
Again, do the math. Your reward for making it to the airport and getting through security is an express trip at 500 miles per hour. As opposed to a trip at 150 miles per hour which will probably also have a few stops.
For people who put a value on time, it will be difficult for the rail contemplated here to compete with flying.
If those people value time above all else, why would they drive to the train station when they could drive to the airport?
Again, I have lived in California and travelled by car all over California many times. I never found the drive between LA and San Francisco to be “trafic filled” Indeed, most of the trip was on remote stretches of interstate in the Central Valley.
Have you really lived in California and made this trip? Was there really traffic the whole way? What time of day was it and what day of the week was it?
I live in the Northeast and am very familiar with the hassles of driving. I live in the suburbs and regularly travel in New Jersey, New York, and New England. Occasionally there is traffic when passing through a city, especially New York. It’s never been “traffic filled” the whole way. Not even close.
Let me ask you this: Where do you live; where do your friends live; and do you own a car?
That’s nonsense. I’ve done specific calculations in this thread using timetables from Amtrak and Yahoo Maps. You are the one who is making vague claims.
Do the math.
Same reason my children ask for toys they will use only once or twice. Because it’s shiny and cool and they are not directly paying for it.
How is traveling at 500 mph (without stops) from traveling at 150 mph (with stops.) Hmmmmm.
Yes, thank you for pointing out the obvious. It was very kind.
The argument that I seemed to be making before isn’t the argument I was making. Maybe your Jump to Conclusions mat is malfunctioning.
It is my understanding that it is still quite accessible to use trains in Spain.
Have you ever used high speed rail? (Not Acela.)
Yes, but it won’t have a synergistic benefit after the job is completed like a train would.
Government does create jobs all the time. Repeat after me: Governments create jobs all the time. Period.
Yes, I know it comes from tax payers, but big projects like that never happen without the government. You are entering into the ideological fantasy territory where a market free from government intervention has existed anywhere ever, it hasn’t.
They don’t create wealth, but they help subsidize massive projects that have a beneficial impact but cannot be profitable in the quarterly cycle of a corporation. That Panama Canal after all, what a waste of government funds.
Maybe, maybe not. That’s speculation. And yes it will cost jobs in the air travel industry but the air travel industry is in really bad shape right now. The economy will shift to adapt to new scenarios. If the local government’s hadn’t ripped out existing transit infrastructures to make GM and Ford happy then a lot of this wouldn’t matter now.
That’s a nonsensical statement. It’s not like they pick and choose which tax money pays for what thing. They collect taxes from all industries and then pay out for projects. Besides isn’t this a bond issue? Doesn’t the money come from bonds?
I didn’t justify it as a jobs program. I’m not toing to get into one of these ludicrously simplistic arguments where we try to reduce benefit to a single thing so you can ideologically debunk it. Simply put, it will create jobs, and it will create sustainable jobs. Californians voted for this. So clearly they want it. Maybe the money could be spent better elsewhere, but the fact remains, no matter where they spend that money it will have an impact on the market, likely employ foreign conglomerates, and will create jobs at the cost of jobs somewhere else.
Ok, then why don’t you just spell out your argument explicitly?
So? Are you saying that a terrorist incident (or threat) on a high speed train in the US would not result in additional security measures which would consume time?
Yes I have. In Europe and Asia.
Now, if only we had an example of high speed rail involving a city which has recently experienced a major terrorist attack based around the rail infrastructure. cough Madrid cough
For the record, San Francisco passed Prop 1A by a landslide (79% to 21%), indicating that there is massive support for the project in its first major hub. Nearby San Mateo County passed it by a vote of 61%, Santa Cruz with 60%, Santa Clara with 60%, Alameda with 63%, Marin County across the bay with 65%, and Sonoma with 64%. That indicates that people from the 'burbs don’t mind the idea of getting to the train station to meet the HSR.
Support in Southern California was less enthusiastic, perhaps indicating skepticism and an unwillingness to drive into the heart of LA to meet the train–or, perhaps, reinforcing the car culture of the region.
Oh, come on. You know what he meant. He never quoted you; he didn’t say that you said you were certain, he just said you are certain, as is clearly evident from the doggedness with which you’re attacking this.
I need you to stop comparing the California electorate, of which I am part, to whiny children. Believe it or not, not everything is about your spawn.
I’ve made it very clear that I am SKEPTICAL. That does NOT mean I am certain.
It’s not a personal attack, it’s simply human nature. A large portion of people are in favor of acquiring things that are shiny and cool if they won’t be paying for them directly.
People in this thread have been defending this high speed rail project on the ground that the California electorate voted in favor of it. Thus, the door has been opened to criticism of the judgment and wisdom of California voters.
I have no idea what your point is here, since I could have made the same point by referring to anyone’s children. However, you will kindly be respectful when referring to me or anyone in my family. Thank you.