Split Thread High speed rail in California?

Travis said:
The high speed train is a huge component is saving society.

That much is riding on it. Without it spending money on schools and parks is pointless as there won't be a society worth saving.
Click to expand...

California will be utterly devastated without the HST? What proportion of Californian traffic will it carry that possibly be so vital? Is it CO2 emissions, transport costs/times from SF/LA ... what?
 
GlennB said:
California will be utterly devastated without the HST? What proportion of Californian traffic will it carry that possibly be so vital? Is it CO2 emissions, transport costs/times from SF/LA ... what?
Click to expand...

If it's emissions, China alone puts out more in a week than California curbs in a year. By that metric, California will be utterly devastated even with HSR.

Really, if we're already at the tipping point for AGW, California would be much better served by maximizing its industrial capacity. Its contribution to the problem will be a drop in the bucket compared to the developing world (who, let's face it, are going to keep contributing at increasing rates anyway). At least then it will have the capacity to swiftly and effectively adapt to the new climate conditions.

Unless California's plan is to continue to hobble its economy, and then petition the BRIC states for reparations when the seas do finally rise?
 
Last edited:
WildCat said:
Wow, just wow... :eye-poppi


Because the the money was raised under assumptions and pretenses that the state knew or should have known were false, thus the judge's ruling.


The state must match federal funds, and $4 billion doesn't even begin to put a system in place.


More fantasy. Railroads are not the future of transportation.
Click to expand...

On that we will have to disagree. I just know that in this state transportation is so messed up right now with gridlock preventing people from traveling where they want and electric trains present a great opportunity to move those people at lower cost.

And, no, the federal funds don't have to be matched as they were stimulus funds.

GlennB said:
California will be utterly devastated without the HST? What proportion of Californian traffic will it carry that possibly be so vital? Is it CO2 emissions, transport costs/times from SF/LA ... what?
Click to expand...

Think about this, how effectively can the economy survive if people can't travel? The roads are all a clogged mess even way out in the middle of nowhere between cities. The airports are even worse and they have nowhere to expand. What's more the prices of air travel continues to grow putting extended burdens on people that need to travel from city to city in an expeditious manner.

But the cities themselves have large and growing public transportation options. LA alone is currently building $40 billion in new light rail and subways right now. The Bay Area also has about $10 billion in new rail based public transit either under construction or about to commence.

If you could tap into those systems and use them to funnel people into a transport system that would more efficiently convey them on intercity journeys and do so at lower cost than trying to expand highways and airports wouldn't you do it? That is what the high speed rail line will do. It will build a passenger rail system where none currently exists to connect two huge metropolitan regions full of people desperately yearning for a better way to travel.

I can't tell you how many people I know that would love to travel to so cal more but don't because airports are a mess and they don't own cars. But they readily would if there was a regularly scheduled passenger train that was competitive time wise.
 
Travis said:
Think about this, how effectively can the economy survive if people can't travel?
Click to expand...

Last time I looked the CA transit system was not over capacity. People have options, they choose to sit in traffic. We have the same problem here.

Here's a good exercise. Count how many people are in each car in these traffic jambs. ;)
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
On that we will have to disagree. I just know that in this state transportation is so messed up right now with gridlock preventing people from traveling where they want and electric trains present a great opportunity to move those people at lower cost.
Click to expand...

Too bad electric commuter rail to relieve gridlock is totally unrelated to long-range HSR.

Here's how to put HSR in the mix: Build a vast factory zone somewhere on the Sacramento river--the further upstream the better, to reduce water costs. Build freight rail lines to bring in raw materials and send out finished goods. Build an HSR line with stops at the border, eastern greater San Diego, eastern greater LA. Have it pass through the mountains north of San Bernardino, coming out near Barstow. Have it run up the Central Valley with few or no stops until the Factory Zone.

Cheap labor could commute up from Mexico and the border region. This would improve the economy, address the immigration problem in a meaningful and productive way, and give California an opportunity to demonstrate the value of green manufacturing on a properly industrial scale.
 
Travis said:
On that we will have to disagree. I just know that in this state transportation is so messed up right now with gridlock preventing people from traveling where they want and electric trains present a great opportunity to move those people at lower cost.
Click to expand...
The gridlock in California isn't from people making 200+ mile trips, it's from people commuting. And no one will be commuting on HSR. If you want to reduce gridlock invest in commuter rail in urban areas, not HSR between cities and certainly not in the central valley.

Travis said:
And, no, the federal funds don't have to be matched as they were stimulus funds.
Click to expand...
Federal funds almost always come with a matching requirement.
 
WildCat said:
Federal funds almost always come with a matching requirement.
Click to expand...

As it would seem, these funds are no different:

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics...h-speed-rail-judges-decision-also-endangers-3

Mercury News said:
The federal funding hasn't been nixed yet, but it could be for a number of reasons outlined in the agreement. They include a failure of the state to produce matching funds -- something that would be impossible to do if Kenny's rulings prevent the state from issuing bonds.
Click to expand...
 
More bad news:
In another key setback to the California bullet train project, federal regulators have rejected the state's request to exempt a large Central Valley segment of proposed track from a lengthy planning review.

The action affects part of a 29-mile rail section to be built near Fresno, where state officials have already awarded a construction contract. The decision is likely to complicate, delay and substantially drive up the cost on that initial $1-billion package of work.

The ruling marks the second time in nine days that the rail agency's planning process has been rejected by authorities.
Click to expand...

But the Black Knight of HSR will not be defeated!
Under siege following court rulings, Dan Richard, the chairman of the state's High-Speed Rail Authority, said the state still plans to break ground as early as next month on the largest public works project in California history.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny decided last week that nearly $8.6 billion in bond money California needs to construct the first section of the rail line are off limits until the state proves it can pay for the $68.4 billion project. The only other cash the state has to finance the project is $3.3 billion in federal funds that are also at risk because of the rulings.

But Richards insisted to reporters Thursday that "nothing in those rulings changes our ability to move forward. We're ready to build this project."

Jack Pitney, a politics professor at Claremont McKenna College, compared Richard's response to a scene from the 1978 film "Animal House" when a young ROTC officer, played by Kevin Bacon, tried to calm rioting students by softly telling them: "All is well. All is well." Seconds later, he was knocked over and trampled by the students.

Acting as if the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles rail line's future is not threatened this time around is irrational and foolish, Pitney said.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
But the cities themselves have large and growing public transportation options. LA alone is currently building $40 billion in new light rail and subways right now. The Bay Area also has about $10 billion in new rail based public transit either under construction or about to commence.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a sensible way to improve local transport and get cars off the road. But in the absence of a total rebuild of society's infrastructure local commuting will always be a requirement.

Travis said:
If you could tap into those systems and use them to funnel people into a transport system that would more efficiently convey them on intercity journeys and do so at lower cost than trying to expand highways and airports wouldn't you do it? That is what the high speed rail line will do. It will build a passenger rail system where none currently exists to connect two huge metropolitan regions full of people desperately yearning for a better way to travel.

I can't tell you how many people I know that would love to travel to so cal more but don't because airports are a mess and they don't own cars. But they readily would if there was a regularly scheduled passenger train that was competitive time wise.
Click to expand...

'Love' vs. 'need'. California won't tumble into the ocean because people are denied their desire to travel long distances. An employer once flew me from Birmingham (UK) to Frankfurt for some days' work on-site. It was nice going there but I didn't achieve one damn thing I couldn't have achieved from the UK end of their computer network plus a conference call or two. Avoiding unneccesary travel is the wtg.
 
Travis said:
If you could tap into those systems and use them to funnel people into a transport system that would more efficiently convey them on intercity journeys and do so at lower cost than trying to expand highways and airports wouldn't you do it? That is what the high speed rail line will do. It will build a passenger rail system where none currently exists to connect two huge metropolitan regions full of people desperately yearning for a better way to travel.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the people in those two regions are not desperately yearning for a better way to travel to the other region.

And as someone who regularly drives routes like San Diego-Sacramento, San Diego-San Francisco, and Sacramento-Redding, I confess I don't see traffic patterns that make me think, "this needs high-speed rail!"

Contrast with most downtown metro areas, where I find myself constantly yearning for more mass transit coverage.
 
Thread resurrection for an update:

A confidential Federal Railroad Administration risk analysis, obtained by The Times, projects that building bridges, viaducts, trenches and track from Merced to Shafter, just north of Bakersfield, could cost $9.5 billion to $10 billion, compared with the original budget of $6.4 billion.
Click to expand...

And:

The California High-Speed Rail Authority originally anticipated completing the Central Valley track by this year, but the federal risk analysis estimates that that won’t happen until 2024, placing the project seven years behind schedule.
Click to expand...

So, 50% over budget and 7 years behind schedule? That's government in action inaction for you!
 
Brainster said:
.....So, 50% over budget and 7 years behind schedule? That's government in action inaction for you!
Click to expand...

Wow! There'll be a comparable project in the private sector, no doubt, that's been delivered early and under budget.
 
Brainster said:
Thread resurrection for an update:



And:



So, 50% over budget and 7 years behind schedule? That's government in action inaction for you!
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone posted this here. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.

I'd advise anyone interested to read the entire article before making any other pointless comments. This project is massively behind schedule and grossly over budget. Land has not been acquired, environmental studies haven't been done (paid for) - it's a joke.

And this is just one section of the project we are talking about.

Proponents told us "oh no we won't go over budget, this will be different!". Surprise, it is different - I mean has any project in Cali turned out this over budget and delayed? Even if so, it doesn't exactly make this a good idea.

The defenders of the projects say "well what did you expect?"

We expected exactly this, and for what - a train that will shuffle some people back and forth slower than a plane?

I predict this project is never completed. Where is the money going to come from? The feds? Haha guess again, especially now.
 
Last edited:
Ha. Ha. Good thing California doesn't have any serious budget issues to worry about.

Edit: I just read the First Transcontinental Railroad was finished in six years.

Funny, I always thought our forefathers were much better grafters.
 
Last edited:
shuize said:
Ha. Ha. Good thing California doesn't have any serious budget issues to worry about.

Edit: I just read the First Transcontinental Railroad was finished in six years.

Funny, I always thought our forefathers were much better grafters.
Click to expand...

Helps when you have slave labour, don't have to buy land off anyone, and you don't give a hoot about the environment you're blasting your way through.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Helps when you have slave labour, don't have to buy land off anyone, and you don't give a hoot about the environment you're blasting your way through.
Click to expand...


The "slave labor" claim is obviously false, but even if it was not, I'd think modern machinery would more than compensate.

I don't know about the environmental issues then vs. now, but I'd be curious how they plan to build a high speed rail line without actually laying some track in the "environment." At the very least, it seems like something they might have thought about before going 50% over budget and falling 7 years behind schedule, don't you think?

But hey, as I noted above, maybe we're just way better grafters these days. And "protecting the environment" does sound like a great way for politicians to dodge questions from pesky taxpayers who actually expect to get something for their money.
 
Last edited:
Trebuchet said:
CA obviously just needs to hire the Chinese, who built a 470 mi high speed rail line from Addis Ababba to Djibouti in five years for about $4B.
Click to expand...


Don't forget their work on the aforementioned Transcontinental Railroad.

But would there still be the same opportunity for graft? I think that's what the politicians would really need to know.
 
shuize said:
Ha. Ha. Good thing California doesn't have any serious budget issues to worry about.

Edit: I just read the First Transcontinental Railroad was finished in six years.

Funny, I always thought our forefathers were much better grafters.
Click to expand...

Building a transcontinental railroad was considered pure folly at the time. So insane that the builders could not sell it on Wall Street. They got around that hurdle by creating a bank to fund the railroad and selling stock and bonds from the bank on Wall Street.
 
Kestrel said:
A worthy project but with a maximum operating speed of 160 kph it isn't really high speed rail.
Click to expand...

Compared to most American rail it is. I've driven from the Seattle area to Southern California in considerably less time than it took to do it on Amtrak. But Amtrak goes right through Vandenberg Air Force Base, which is pretty cool!
 
Trebuchet said:
Compared to most American rail it is. I've driven from the Seattle area to Southern California in considerably less time than it took to do it on Amtrak. But Amtrak goes right through Vandenberg Air Force Base, which is pretty cool!
Click to expand...

Amtrak is limited to 125 kph by FRA rules when it operates on normal freight lines. Higher speeds are only allowed on lines that do not have grade crossing or have special equipment at grade crossings. The standard Amtrak equipment using on these lines is designed to operate at higher speeds. (Around 185 kph if I recall correctly).

Equipment that runs on the dedicated Amtrak lines in the NE corridor can cruise at 250 kph. Slow by European standards but the only current example of high speed rail in this country.
 
Last edited:
I saw it coming. I will point out that people will always moan about the expense and "why do we need it" until they use it. They said it about the Bay Bridge Project, The Chunnel, the Gotthard Tunnel* et al.. And now, it's "what would we have done without it"?


*oh..and the Carquinez Bridge which has been built three times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carquinez_Bridge
 
Elagabalus said:
I saw it coming. I will point out that people will always moan about the expense and "why do we need it" until they use it. They said it about the Bay Bridge Project, The Chunnel, the Gotthard Tunnel* et al.. And now, it's "what would we have done without it"?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure most people have a solid appreciation for connecting two metropoles by putting a bridge across the river between them. But not all infrastructure projects are created equal. It's easy to see, from looking at a map and considering the economic activity of the region, that bridging the Carquinez straits would be a huge benefit. CA-HSR is a problem pretending to be a solution to a problem that doesn't actually need solving.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Helps when you have slave labour, don't have to buy land off anyone, and you don't give a hoot about the environment you're blasting your way through.
Click to expand...

There was no slave labor used on the transcontinetal Railroad.
You are showing an real ignorance of American History.
 
Metullus said:
California high speed rail project cost forecasts up by $13 billion from two years ago. Golly, nobody saw that coming...
Click to expand...

Ya, shocker. Here are just a few paragraphs from that article. It is long and full of depressing information.

I was going to highlight the important stuff but it's all bad.

The projection for completing the full Los Angeles-San Francisco system by 2033 assumes that somehow the project gets fully funded. Even then it is extremely ambitious given the engineering challenge of building across the San Gabriel and Tehachapi mountains and the developed stretch from Santa Clarita to downtown Los Angeles, as well as more than one mile under urban San Francisco — all in just four years after the initial system starts operating.

.....

The disclosure about the higher costs comes nearly a decade after voters approved a $9-billion bond to build a bullet train system. The original idea was that the federal government would pay about a third of what was then an estimated $33-billion project, with private investors covering another third.
Click to expand...

But...

But those assumptions proved faulty on numerous counts. In later business plans the projected cost went to $43 billion, somewhere between $98 billion and $117 billion, down to $66 billion, and then to $64 billion in 2016. And the funding sources dried up. The federal government put in only $3.5 billion and Republicans have vowed not to add another penny. Private investors have said they would not commit any investment to the project without a guarantee that they can't lose money.
Click to expand...

It's probably going to hit $100 billion. Taxpayers on election day saw a $9B bullet train bond and must have thought that was the final cost! Californians, dontcha know. (the other ones, not me)
 
mgidm86 said:
Ya, shocker. Here are just a few paragraphs from that article. It is long and full of depressing information.

I was going to highlight the important stuff but it's all bad.



But...



It's probably going to hit $100 billion. Taxpayers on election day saw a $9B bullet train bond and must have thought that was the final cost! Californians, dontcha know. (the other ones, not me)
Click to expand...
Probably? It will almost certainly hit more than $100 billion. The project has always been on track for that number. The only folks that should be surprised at this are those who have absolutely no experience with large infrastructure projects.
 
Elagabalus said:
I saw it coming. I will point out that people will always moan about the expense and "why do we need it" until they use it. They said it about the Bay Bridge Project, The Chunnel, the Gotthard Tunnel* et al.. And now, it's "what would we have done without it"?


*oh..and the Carquinez Bridge which has been built three times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carquinez_Bridge
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I have no objection to building large infrastructure projects. Planning and executing such endeavors has been my living for 40 years. What I do object to is proponents understating the costs and time required to build a project under the theory that once we have started the state will have no option but to throw in more and more resources to complete the work.
 
IT is still worth it. I don't care if it does cost $100 billion. We need a way to get people to move all over the state that doesn't rely entirely on long distance driving or flying.

For those that are really interested in the nitty gritty and not just anti public transport hype these problems with the budget come to several factors:

1) The complex geology. The more they learn about their tunnels the more complex it gets. No one has ever bored tunnels through huge chunks of the route so now the geo-technical explorations are in virgin territory. The underlying geology is turning out to be way more complex than anyone anticipated. I expect that a lot of new published articles will turn up in journals as a result of this wealth of new information. Unfortunate for the construction budget but a bonus for science.

2) The real biggy - property. Acquiring property has been a huge problem. Anti HSR forces are traveling up and down the central valley urging everyone to not sell and force the Authority to use eminent domain in court which takes way, way longer (especially since in one county, Kings, all the local judges are buddies of the farmers and recused themselves) and is throwing all the construction schedules out the window.

3) Obstructionist lawsuits keep forcing more and more Environmental review. The Authority has already authored up huge documents that probably total 200,000+ pages and it is never enough for the anti-HSR forces that continue to ask for new resets and new reviews into ever more hypotheticals. The city of Palo Alto, which is full of rich buttholes that have been trying to end all public transportation through their city since it is just a "scourge of common people", keep using their deep pockets to force ever more studies into ever more ridiculous "alternatives" including entirely aerial routes over existing freeways.

Anyways, construction continues, it will happen and if it doesn't look for some guy that looks like me to go whacky on the news one day.
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
IT is still worth it. I don't care if it does cost $100 billion. We need a way to get people to move all over the state that doesn't rely entirely on long distance driving or flying.
Click to expand...
That is a difference between us. I care that it was sold to the public based upon lies and misrepresentation. I get that you don't care.

The fact that the project is going to come in at $110+ billion is great for my business; the fact that it will take years longer to build than the proponents of the project claimed is also great for my business.

Travis said:
For those that are really interested in the nitty gritty and not just anti public transport hype these problems with the budget come to several factors:

1) The complex geology. The more they learn about their tunnels the more complex it gets. No one has ever bored tunnels through huge chunks of the route so now the geo-technical explorations are in virgin territory. The underlying geology is turning out to be way more complex than anyone anticipated. I expect that a lot of new published articles will turn up in journals as a result of this wealth of new information. Unfortunate for the construction budget but a bonus for science.

2) The real biggy - property. Acquiring property has been a huge problem. Anti HSR forces are traveling up and down the central valley urging everyone to not sell and force the Authority to use eminent domain in court which takes way, way longer (especially since in one county, Kings, all the local judges are buddies of the farmers and recused themselves) and is throwing all the construction schedules out the window.

3) Obstructionist lawsuits keep forcing more and more Environmental review. The Authority has already authored up huge documents that probably total 200,000+ pages and it is never enough for the anti-HSR forces that continue to ask for new resets and new reviews into ever more hypotheticals. The city of Palo Alto, which is full of rich buttholes that have been trying to end all public transportation through their city since it is just a "scourge of common people", keep using their deep pockets to force ever more studies into ever more ridiculous "alternatives" including entirely aerial routes over existing freeways.
Click to expand...
The nitty-gritty, Travis, is what I do for a living.
None of which was unexpected. Nor, it should be noted, are these issues unique to this project. In the US in general, and California in particular, these are always contentious issues...
 
Last edited:
Making cargo transport by rail competitive with trucks is much more important in order to reduce the wear and tear on infrastructure than passenger transport.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Making cargo transport by rail competitive with trucks is much more important in order to reduce the wear and tear on infrastructure than passenger transport.
Click to expand...
^^^ This.
HSR is not as environmentally friendly in its inception as Travis wants to believe, either.
Lots of energy must be expended, in converting raw materials to a finished product, and a lot of countryside must be disturbed and/or destroyed in the process.
We won't even get in to the disruption of critter migrations and habitat...
 
Travis said:
I find it odd that some people want so much for California to turn into a devastated, unlivable wasteland but that is not going to be the case (I can not see any other reason to oppose high speed trains). This ruling does not stop construction and will not impede the plan. So, in spite of desires for California to collapse and fall into anarchy, the high speed train will happen and the state will be saved.
Click to expand...

Travis said:
That little utility is actually a huge utility. Once it is built airlines will hardly bother to fly routes SF to LA.
Fingers are in ear.
California's does.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's some serious wishful thinking.

Travis said:
The high speed train is a huge component is saving society.

That much is riding on it. Without it spending money on schools and parks is pointless as there won't be a society worth saving.

And where do you get off saying money was acquired by fraud?

Oh and construction can proceed because this lawsuit only pertained to the bond money. There is still $4 billion in federal funds to be used first. By the time that is spent a new business plan where identified funds are presented will be available and the bond funds will be released.
Click to expand...
Wow, a train will save society? That's a joke right?

Travis said:
IT is still worth it. I don't care if it does cost $100 billion. We need a way to get people to move all over the state that doesn't rely entirely on long distance driving or flying.

For those that are really interested in the nitty gritty and not just anti public transport hype these problems with the budget come to several factors:
Click to expand...
Sure, its always worth it if its someone else's money.
1) The complex geology. The more they learn about their tunnels the more complex it gets. No one has ever bored tunnels through huge chunks of the route so now the geo-technical explorations are in virgin territory. The underlying geology is turning out to be way more complex than anyone anticipated. I expect that a lot of new published articles will turn up in journals as a result of this wealth of new information. Unfortunate for the construction budget but a bonus for science.

2) The real biggy - property. Acquiring property has been a huge problem. Anti HSR forces are traveling up and down the central valley urging everyone to not sell and force the Authority to use eminent domain in court which takes way, way longer (especially since in one county, Kings, all the local judges are buddies of the farmers and recused themselves) and is throwing all the construction schedules out the window.

3) Obstructionist lawsuits keep forcing more and more Environmental review. The Authority has already authored up huge documents that probably total 200,000+ pages and it is never enough for the anti-HSR forces that continue to ask for new resets and new reviews into ever more hypotheticals. The city of Palo Alto, which is full of rich buttholes that have been trying to end all public transportation through their city since it is just a "scourge of common people", keep using their deep pockets to force ever more studies into ever more ridiculous "alternatives" including entirely aerial routes over existing freeways.

Anyways, construction continues, it will happen and if it doesn't look for some guy that looks like me to go whacky on the news one day.
Click to expand...

Has construction even started?

Number one, BS, There's construction through out CA all the time. Either, they new the complexity of the geology or they should have and just made up rosy numbers to sell the thing. Either way, BS.

2 and 3 are just standard in CA, they should have expected that too.

atecom said:
Well kind of.. But at current estimates, we will probably have teleportation devices before ours is rolled out in Australia.
Click to expand...
The same is true of CA "high" speed Rail.

Some of the defenses of it sound like a joke frankly.

A. It won't reduce congestion, as others have said, congestion is mostly people commuting to and from work, not weekend trips down the length of CA.

B. It was sold to CA on a lie, originally the cost was projected at 30 billion with independent estimates at 100 million. Around a year after the initiative passed, the official estimate was up to 90 billion. Ridership projections are similarly optimistic.

C. Its not that fast, mostly 90mph with a few spots up to 125.

D. Its construction now counts on the sunk cost fallacy. Their building the first leg of the track between two cities nobody wants to travel to because its cheaper and those folks don't have much political power. That way, when its built they'll pull the, we cant' waste the money we've already spent.
 
California to pull plug on billion-dollar bullet train, cites ballooning costs

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced on Tuesday he is pulling the plug on the state's massive high-speed rail project from Los Angeles to San Francisco that was more than a decade behind schedule and billions in the red.
Click to expand...

Now how will I ever get to Tulare from Los Angeles?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom