52% want (CA) bullet train stopped, poll finds (LA Times)

[pinto]

Yet, 65% feel the project would create jobs and help the economy. ~ pinto

52% want bullet train stopped, poll finds

California voters are showing signs of buyer's remorse over the $68-billion bullet train project, poll finds.

By Ralph Vartabedian
September 28, 2013, 5:00 a.m.

A majority of voters want the California bullet train project stopped and consider it a waste of money, even as state political leaders have struggled to bolster public support and make key compromises to satisfy critics, a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll found.

Statewide, 52% of the respondents said the $68-billion project to link Los Angeles and San Francisco by trains traveling up to 220 mph should be halted. Just 43% said it should go forward.

The poll also shows that cracks in voter support are extending to some traditional allies, such as Los Angeles-area Democrats, who have embraced the concept of high-speed rail as a solution to the state's transportation problems. The survey results suggest that the current plan and its implementation are of specific concern to those voters, according to officials with the Republican and Democratic firms that jointly conducted the poll.

"I don't think they are against the concept, but they are against the way it is being executed," said Drew Lieberman of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, a Democratic polling firm in Washington.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-poll-high-speed-rail-20130928,0,5468230.story

[gopiscrap]

1. Good the more mass transit we have the better

[grantcart]

2. I love high speed rail but there is little justification for a $ 100 billion investment

for high speed rail between LA and SFO.

That money would be better spent providing improved mass transit in LA and SFO.

High speed rail requires an urban corridor of tens of millions, like the East Coast, to justify the mammoth investment.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. LA to SF/Oakland is the second busiest air route in the US with over 6 millon passengers

a year. NY/Newark has the busiest route, but it is not within that 'urban corridor' but to Miami. None of the East Coast top air routes service nearby cities, they fly to Chicago or Atlanta and such.

[grantcart]

29. but it would take twice as long in travel time

The bigger problem is that there isn't the traffic between Merced/Fresno/Bakersfield/Palmsdale.

A point to point system that doesn't save time isn't likely to be viable and isn't worth $ 100 billion. Instead they should invest it in SFO and LA mass transit and build out from the urban areas not start in Fresno.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Not if you count the time required to travel to the airport, sit around, and go through security

High-speed rail is downtown to downtown.

Furthermore, while there may not be traffic between Fresno and Bakersfield, I'm sure that there's traffic between those two cities and both SF and LA. And aren't there state universities in some of those valley cities?

The objections raised sound EXACTLY like the objections to the first Shinkansen in Japan in the early 1960s.

When I was returning from Japan last year, I had a layover at LAX. In the same terminal, there were a bunch of people waiting for a flight to San Diego. Their flight was delayed two hours, which would have been plenty of time for a train between Los Angeles and San Diego.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

45. Who cares?

Everyone I know who commutes between Southern California and the Bay Area is going from one far flung office park to another.

[former9thward]

47. You added extra time to airline travel but not to rail.

There would be airline style security on the high speed rail. Most passengers would not be going from 'downtown to downtown'. So they would be traveling to the start point and from the finish point.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. The only security I've seen on high speed rail is on the Eurostar

which passes through an undersea tunnel.

Never on the Shinkansen or any of the European trains.

[former9thward]

65. This will be in the U.S. not Europe.

“[Terrorists] are going to continue to probe the system and try to find a way through,” Napolitano said in an interview that aired Monday night on "Charlie Rose."

“I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?”

Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/130549-next-step-for-body-scanners-could-be-trains-boats-and-the-metro-

This is post 9/11 and high speed rail will have all the security any airport has.

[MADem]

68. I've seen security at Amtrak in DC. nt

[RexDart]

99. I didn't need extra time for my HSR experience.

I was in Paris in March. My wife and I were going to take the TGV to Metz to visit a past exchange student. Due to poor Metro planning on our part we ended up taking a taxi and ended up at the staion entrance 2 minutes before train time. Dashed across the platform, had somebody point out our car, and left on time. Two minutes for the train, or at least 90 to fly... and add to that a seat that I could actually sit in? I'll take the train please.

[former9thward]

119. That will not be your experience in the U.S.

Anything built post 9/11 in the U.S. will have TSA security. Especially since the train bombings in London and Spain.

[RexDart]

127. Still not sure.

I don't see anything when riding Muni, Bart and Caltrain now.

[former9thward]

128. None of those were built post 9/11.

I put a quote up thread by Homeland Secretary Napolitano when she said they are going to go to trains. If they ever build the fast trains they will build infrastructure into it to do the security.

[reddread]

78. like heck

you arent familiar with 99? that rotted old four lane clotted with diesel trucks and small cars?
The geniuses that installed 5 for the convenience of socal and bayarreaha travelers left you with a nice
clean open freeway, because all the real traffic is ON the 99 corridor between all those cities.
Bakersfield to SF/Stockton/Sac would be a massive step forward.
I hope people here are paying attention to the right wing campaign against HSR, and realize it mirrors
exactly the same sentiments and players Who Killed the Electric Car.
I suppose maybe not?

[stevenleser]

9. As BNW indicated, its a busy route, but also, this is part of a well integrated mass transit system.

We need all of the above. We need major cities with good rail mass transit, and we need high speed trains connecting regional large cities. The availability of the Acela in the Northeast corridor has been a big plus here. Its less time to take the Acela than to get yourself to the airport, check in, go through security, fly, get out of the airport and get to your destination than it is to take the Acela from NY to Washington DC or NY to Boston.

[pinto]

12. Agree, we need both. Along with other infrastructure upkeep.

[grantcart]

27. "we need high speed trains connecting regional large cities" -- not necessarily

These systems (CA, TX, East Coast) are not integrated and there is no need to be.

While it does make sense in heavily dense corridors like the East Coast linking two distant independent cities like LA to SFO doesn't make sense. Rather than saving time the high speed rail trip from SFO to LA would take almost double the time. There are 10 high speed rail systems in the world and all of them involve running along an urban corridor, like the NE, where there are multiple stops and the travel time between them allows for multiple stops along multiple heavily populated areas.

There are no studies that show that there is a viable number of commuters between SF and LA that would substitute a long high speed train ride for a short hop on a jet.

This is what the peer review committee that was mandated by the legislation found:

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/04/local/la-me-bullet-train-report-20120104/2

In a scathing critique that could further jeopardize political support for California's proposed $98.5-billion bullet train, a key independent review panel is recommending that state officials postpone borrowing billions of dollars to start building the first section of track this year.

Gov. Jerry Brown has said he will ask the Legislature in the coming months to issue the first batch of $9 billion in voter-approved bonds for a high-speed rail network that backers say will create jobs, help the environment and transform the state's economy.

But in a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public's interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan "is not financially feasible." As a result, the panel said, it "cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project."

. . .

Nearly 28 million people use rail systems in Los Angeles and San Francisco and improvements at the end segments of the high-speed rail would provide early returns to investment, rather than leaving the state with a "stranded project," the report said.

The review committee is chaired by Will Kempton, chief executive of the Orange County Transportation Authority and a former Caltrans director. He declined to predict how the Legislature would react to the report.

The clear way to proceed is to improve mass transit where people are using it, in the cities and build out from there. Putting a high speed train in Fresno is a sure way to put high speed back 30 years.

There are currently 10 high speed train operations in the world and they all move along corridors of highly dense urban areas. This will be the first that links two urban areas that are wide apart with a large rural area in the middle.

Our large regional cities are already linked by efficient low cost air system.

Travelling on a high speed rail system will take 2 Hrs and 38 minutes while air travel takes only 1 hr 20 minutes. The people who travel regularly between these cities are largely business travelers and they are not going to waste another hour and a half.

So here are the key points

1) Rail travel will take longer
2) There isn't a corridor that will justify mid stop travel
3) Objective peer review analysis shows that the plan is not viable.

But here is the kicker: It means that we are going to spend at least $ 100 billion on a transportation network that requires a substantial number of upper income business travelers to change their pattern of travel with little system wide advantage versus spending $ 100 billion in improving mass transit for low income people that are already using or are ready to use mass transit and whose use will help to lessen increasingly overused street and highway traffic.

[A HERETIC I AM]

100. "This will be the first that links two urban areas that are wide apart...."

"with a large rural area in the middle. "

Really?

Are you of the impression that the areas around the lines in the map below are all a megalopolis?



Or even just this map of the French TGV network;


So there is NO countryside along those lines? Really?

Interesting that much of the background in this video seems to be remarkably devoid of cityscape;

You have said that line so many times, I think you actually believe it.

[Cleita]

26. I live in San Luis Obispo county between LA and SanFran

and I tried to buy a plane ticket to San Fran recently and the air fare has become astronomical. A fast and cheaper train would be welcome for those of us who would rather not drive.

[grantcart]

28. You can take Amtrak for $ 39

http://tickets.amtrak.com/itd/amtrak

There isn't the volume to justify a high speed to San Luis Obispo.

Even if they built the High Speed rail you would have to drive 2 hours to Bakersfield, so Amtrak would still be faster and cheaper.

[Cleita]

31. You still have to go to Bakersfield and then it's still a six hour trip. n/t

I was really thinking of between LA and SanFran that it would be a better deal than flying the commuter planes that have become very expensive.

[grantcart]

33. It only costs about $ 120 to fly one way if you buy 10 days ahead.

[Cleita]

34. The cheapest I could find from here to SFO was $400

on A Wing and a Prayer airlines. You know the little commuter prop plane where they shift the passengers around by weight to make sure the plane stays in the air.

[Cleita]

35. Thanks for the suggestion though.

I will try harder to find cheaper fares.

[KamaAina]

116. SLO doesn't have Southwest

[Xithras]

108. For the cost of the HSR, which will serve tourists and business travellers....

...we could build comprehensive mass transit systems in every small and midsized city in California. HSR is a distracting toy that redirects potential funds from useful mass transit alternatives to a shiny bauble for the business classes and vacationers. With $160 per person tickets and routes that deliberately avoid traffic dense areas, this isn't something that many Californian's are going to find useful. It's own designers have already admitted that it wasn't designed to remove cars from the road. It is intended to be competition for the airlines. It will get San Francisco vacationers to Disneyland faster while the masses are still stuck driving to work on their gridlocked roadways sucking smog heavy air.

Build comprehensive urban-to-suburban transit solutions FIRST. Get the workers OUT of their cars, and onto trains. THEN build a high speed through-system to connect it all. This is how every successful major rail system on the planet has been built, and it's a model that California is completely ignoring.

When I'm stuck in traffic driving to work every morning because my city doesn't have a transport system capable of getting me across a 10 mile wide town in under 2 hours, the LAST thing I want my state doing is spending $100 billion tax dollars spent on a high speed train to Disneyland.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

115. not true. doing a major high speed link between major metro areas would be huge

in showing the value of high speed rail for sustainable mass transit. it will be faster than flying from one airport to the other.

THIS MUST GO THROUGH. And then do the Portland to Seattle. Maybe eventually do DC to NYC to Boston later.

[grantcart]

123. HS travel requires a corridor of several highly dense urban centeres close together.

The rail time from LAX to SFO would be an hour longer and requires a hundred million dollar capital investment that, if every single person would stop flying and go by rail would still require more than $ 500 fee (or subsidy) per ticket.

China has hundreds of millions of rail passengers a year this sector is optimistically thought to reach 2 million.

The same is true in Europe. The only area that we have is from Boston to Virginia, and that would still require subsidies.

As for Portland - it would take maybe 10 hours longer and hundreds of dollars more.

I love trains. I am one of the few business travelers that parks a car in LA and takes the train from SD.

But Portland? I just flew to Portland for $ 75. There is no demand for large numbers to move from air to rail in that sector.

[ripcord]

121. I don't see how it is going forward

The voters set an average speed and a travel time from SF to LA in the proposition to authorize the project, the High Speed Rail Authority admits they can't meet those numbers.

[MADem]

3. I dunno. A bullet train in an earthquake prone area?

I don't live there (I did, light years ago, for a bit, on two occasions) so I have no skin in the game.

That's my first thought--I'm picturing an epic disaster film called "Bullet Train" and featuring a shitload of just-past-their-sell-by-date actors in a cheesy ensemble piece; kind of like The Poseidon Adventure or The Towering Inferno.

Part of the dialogue for this film will include the phrases:

---Oh, it's PERFECTLY SAFE--there are redundant safety systems in place in event of an earthquake!

---No, you have NOTHING to worry about--the train will shut down if there's an earthquake over point three on the Richter scale!

---Jesus, I don't KNOW what has GONE WRONG!!!! The train isn't stopping!!!! It's only a matter of time before we hit that mangled track, and we're all gonna die!!!!

---I wish I'd never boarded this train!!! We're all GONNA DIE!!!!!! Aggggh!!!!!

Just seems like an accident waiting to happen....

[enlightenment]

4. Japan is a pretty earthquake prone area.

And their bullet train (the original) has operated without a single fatality (except suicides) for almost 50 years.

[MADem]

8. See post seven! nt

[enlightenment]

11. True -

but comparing the results of a nuclear meltdown and high speed rail is stretching just a tad, I think.

I understand your position, but I also believe in the future of HSR (hell - I live in the west and would settle for slow-poke rail) - accidents can always happen, regardless of how "safe" we try to be. If we live in fear of what might happen, we'll never do anything.

[MADem]

15. I don't really have a position--as I said, I have no dog in this fight.

My point about the Japanese was that they were considered to be technologically competent in the EXTREME, to the point of perfection...until that screw up. Now, it could be that they've just been LUCKY all these years....or they were once competent, but maybe not so much now.....?

And my point with the Chinese example wasn't just the accident, but the MONEY piece.

They are factors to consider, is all I'm suggesting.

[enlightenment]

16. I understand you're just speaking philosophically

and a bit tongue-in-cheek in the first post on this (that was clever - ).

I don't live in California, either, so it's not my fight any more than yours. But I'm a rail fan, so a bit more interested in the outcome, perhaps.

[MADem]

19. I'd like to see us, as a nation, fix up AMTRAK in a big way. I LOVE train travel.

I just don't know if a massive, multi-billion dollar investment on one coast is the best bang for the buck.

I think there are things we could do NOW, with no expenditure,that would be a good start. First thing we need to do is get people to USE the trains. Most people don't.

I think the bill to allow dogs on trains is the smartest frigging thing that has been proposed for Amtrak in years--and I say that even though it was a Republican who wrote the bill. Why that hasn't zipped through is beyond me.

I think Amtrak should take some of their old sleeper cars, put linoleum or rubberized flooring throughout, to make them easier to clean, get rid of "soft" furnishings in favor of hard plastic-type furnishings and Naugahyde covered foam (easier to clean those as well), and require anyone transporting a pet to bring their animal into one of the sleeper units, equipped with plenty of wee wee pads, and keep the pet there for the duration of the ride. They could charge the same as the nicer cars, and people wouldn't complain--they'd just want to be able to have their pet there. You might have a "barky" car, but I'd put up with it.

They are losing a fortune because they don't allow pets, like they do in Europe without batting an eye. People LIKE their animals--I'd bet their traffic to FL would triple on that auto train if pets were allowed. It would take a lot of older "snowbirds" off the road, too, who don't want to leave Fluffy or Spot behind.

With more revenues as a consequence of more riders, they could make a case for improving the system. Instead, they're stuck in their old, stupid paradigms....did you know those assholes won't even allow SEARCH AND RESCUE dogs in their cars? Or "emotional support" animals, even if prescribed? Or police dogs? It's DUMB.

Basically, you gotta be blind to get away with travelling with your pooch. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

http://www.amtrak.com/service-animals-and-pet-policy

[enlightenment]

38. Dang.

I didn't realize they didn't allow pets on Amtrak (living in the passenger train dead zone that I do - ). That's absurd. My kid lives in the UK and he travels all over with his dog - granted it's a chihuahua and doesn't take up much space, but still . . .

I agree - offer up a barky car for people and their pooches for shorter hauls.

I lived a lot of my formative years in Japan - and prior to that, Amtrak was still a viable service across the country, so trains make perfect sense to me. I remember taking the train to visit relatives when I was very small (my mom used to tell a train story about toddler me, a group of nuns, and the Georgia Tech fight song that she used to sing to me . . . I don't recall the incident. Thankfully.)

I think trains are an amazing way to travel and it's shameful that we have fallen so far behind the rest of the world on this.

[MADem]

42. I've availed myself of Japanese public transit, as well as the European system(s),

and I agree they're doing a better job than we are. They do have the advantage of a more dense population, which is a motivator when it comes to system improvement.

The trucking industry fears trains--they figure if the passenger model takes off, there will be more incentive to pull those trucks off the road and ship more stuff by rail.

Regardless, AMTRAK needs to stand up for themselves and get with the program--it's almost as if they are curmudgeonly set in their ways and will not think outside their established "Harrumph! Well, this is how it's ALWAYS been done! No changes, now, no changes!!!" mindset.

We don't necessarily need bullet trains all over the place, either--the trains we have go at a decent clip. New ones could go a bit faster, too. What we need are more efficiencies in the system and a broadening of the passenger base beyond old folks, those who fear flying, people on the no-fly list, and people who happen to live on a line that ends up at a desired destination. It needs to be a good enough system that people will bother to take a bus to get to the train!!

[enlightenment]

49. Absolutely agree.

I'm certainly not wedded to HSR - for the western half of the state it makes more sense simply because of distance - but that would only need to realistically link major business hubs. Improved rail infrastructure with "regular" trains would be plenty sufficient for most areas, even in the west. As much as a LV/LA high speed train sounds cool, I would be perfectly happy with a decent passenger train that stopped at a few locations along the way, making it useful for more than just the LV/LA junket crowd.

I haven't lived in the East in - well, a very long time - but it seems to me that population density has got to rival most of Europe by now, right? The need for rail there moves beyond convenience to absolute necessity, imo.

And the truckers can work it out. Seriously. I'm tired of being held hostage to the highways.

[MADem]

56. We have the ACELA to NYC and DC.

It's pricey, though. Close to the cost of a plane ride, and on odd occasions you can sometimes fly cheaper.

If I want a luxury ride to NYC, I'd as soon take the Limo Liner (it's a Mercedes bus with leather seats and they give you a meal; it has wifi and tv) that costs the same as a regular train ticket.

http://www.amtrak.com/acela-express-train

Superior Comfort, Upscale Amenities, Polished Professional Service, at Speeds up to 150 mph

Acela Express offers hourly service downtown to downtown during peak morning and afternoon rush hours between New York, Washington, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other intermediate cities, as well as many convenient round-trips between New York and Boston. See more reasons why you should choose Acela Express over air travel or buses to travel between DC and Boston.....

[enlightenment]

57. That's a shame.

I understand that the government treats Amtrak like a red-headed step-child, but they aren't doing themselves any favors. The bus sounds nice - wish I didn't get so car sick (that's one of the reasons I like trains - they don't make me nauseous)!

[MADem]

61. The government subsidizes AMTRAK to the tune of something like thirty some odd bucks a passenger.

In reality, that's an "averaged" cost. Some lines (like Acela) make money (at those prices they'd damned well better) and some require subsidy per passenger in the hundreds of dollars. That's done because they want to keep the line operating.

They need to rethink their business model--they could make money if they'd just get off their asses and use their heads. They don't, though. They aren't motivated, for some odd reason. It would be interesting to see who is lobbying against these modernizations and improvements....

[mwooldri]

74. The truckers, fearing trains? Ha!

The rail network in the USA has some capacity issues, and I'm not talking about in the dense urban areas... I'm talking about long distance freight trains. In any case, inter-modal transport... where the truck trailer gets put on the train, and put back on a truck at the other end... that's increasing. Freight trains can't do the last 100-mile stretch that they used to - those tracks have been torn up.

I agree that we need some reasonable type of passenger rail service in the USA. The problem is the track... it's not built for speed and there's not enough of it. Too much single track. The route between Washington DC and Atlanta GA could do with track doubling along the whole distance, smoothing out the curves so they are not so sharp, modifiied enough so that we could have 125 mph service for passenger trains and still have extra capacity left over for 100-car freight trains.

[MADem]

75. I was serious.

You don't see a day when the capability of a high speed train--on a new transport system, either tracks or maglev or what-have-you--- to transport cargo much, much quicker at the same price point might not arrive? Right now there's no capability save air to deliver items at that degree of speed. I've driven up and down CA on the highways, and seen a ton of trucks. Take those off the road and you're taking bread from drivers' mouths and profit from trucking companies.

I could see them having a dog in this fight, and perhaps pushing back against the plan for that reason, their own self-interest, that is all I am saying.

I also am not sold on this expenditure--I would like to see high speed trains, but coast-to-coast...I just don't see a CA system up and down the west coast as benefiting working people....and I thought that was the idea behind the expenditure. I won't tear my hair out if they go ahead with it, mind you, I just think it's a bit of a high price tag, and these things always go OVER budget, it seems.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, one way to boost train ridership IMMEDIATELY--and it would be immediate AND sustainable--would be to permit pets on AMTRAK. Make people reserve in advance, use older cars (wee wee and pet smell, after all) require people to either hire a bedroom or keep the animal in a cage, and charge for the service robustly. PEOPLE WOULD PAY. I know I would! It's the inability to take my dogs and bird along with me that have kept me off Amtrak and in my doggone car half a dozen times in the last year.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. And yet Japan has pioneered high speed rail....

But why look to factual examples?

[MADem]

7. Yeah, they also have a reactor melting down and are in a huge mess.

No one ever thought the "efficient, technologically capable" Japanese would ever be in THAT fix, either!

Just because it hasn't happened, yet, doesn't mean it won't. And if we're talking "factual examples," let's have a look at the most recent entrant into the "Bullet Train" games--using the very latest technology, too.

http://www.npr.org/2011/09/26/140703132/from-progress-to-problem-chinas-high-speed-trains

So far, investigators have blamed lightning strikes, a software signaling glitch and human error. But more evidence is emerging that basic safety was ignored in the headlong rush to build this politically symbolic high-speed network

And more recently: http://www.asianewsnet.net/news-41019.html

China's bullet-train system remains a controversial issue, even as it zoomed past a new frontier with the world's longest high-speed rail route between Beijing and southern Guangzhou city.

Transport experts and economists are divided over the financial viability of the bullet-train system, due to escalating construction costs and unimpressive ridership numbers on operational routes.

Debate also ensues over the breathtaking pace at which China has been expanding its high- speed rail system since 2008, even down to questions over the speed at which the trains should operate and the pricing....There is contention too over the real objective of China's high-speed rail (gao tie in Mandarin), with some asking if it is aimed at improving the image of the ruling Communist Party.

The key concern now is the rising debt levels of the Railways Ministry. Its debt-to-asset ratio hit 61.8 per cent, with 2.67 trillion yuan (US$423 billion) worth of liabilities last September.

I really think you need to take my post in the spirit I offered it, and not look at it as a major "policy" throwdown. As I said, I don't live there, I don't pay taxes there, I have no investment in the outcome.

But whatever....

[Iggo]

13. Shit, in that case, why build anything here?

[MADem]

17. Not my point(s), but nice dismissal.

Liquefaction is a problem in earthquake prone California; that's something that needs to be taken into consideration when planning a route, or even installing a system. That begs the question, is there a cheaper way to accomplish the goal of moving large numbers of people that might be a bit cheaper and perhaps be more survivable if "the big one" hits?

I was in the Loma Prieta earthquake and was flung across the room; I can't imagine what that would feel like from inside a Bullet Train.

I also think the money piece is a viable consideration. The Chinese are having a bit of buyer's remorse, what's wrong with noting their concerns and discussing them?

If I were a CA taxpayer, I'd be doing the huge "gulp" when looking at the bill for that thing. Particularly when a cheaper system IS an alternative. Why go into debt when one doesn't have to?

Nothing wrong with airing these issues, instead of saying "Oooooooh, it's modern and shiny--let's buy it even if we perhaps don't need it or it might not suit our needs!"

[Cleita]

36. We have freeways all over the state that are engineered to

withstand high seismic events. I'm sure the engineers in charge can do the same for railways.

[MADem]

46. As I said, I was in the Loma Prieta quake. Not the worst quake in terms of the numbers, either...

It was "only" a six point nine, but I had no power for three days and I was the only one on my block--indeed, in a fairly wide radius-- with a working telephone (cellphones were not "the thing" back then). I was very popular as a consequence. I had a portable pocket tv and could watch a grainy CBS news for as long as my batteries held out.

Remember the pancaked overpass? The engineers could have done a better job on that, I'm guessing the families of the dead might say. Did you live there then? So many dead, the rescue dogs, the trapped people--and it would have been more, had not so many people called in sick or sneaked outta work early to get home to watch the World Series. The streets were deserted--because people were in front of their TVs, watching the First World Series to Be Cancelled at Candlestick Park.

That was a pretty terrifying event. As I said, I was flung across the room with great force--and I'm not a lightweight.

I wouldn't want to endure that from inside a train, is all I'm saying. Where this thing gets built, if that happens, and what route it takes, is important.

Fifty-seven of the deaths were directly caused by the earthquake; six further fatalities were ruled to have been caused indirectly.[2] In addition, there were 3,757[3] injuries as a result of the earthquake—400 severely hurt.[1] The highest number of fatalities, 42,[12] occurred in Oakland because of the Cypress Street Viaduct collapse on the Nimitz Freeway (Interstate 880), where the upper level of a double-deck portion of the freeway collapsed, crushing the cars on the lower deck. One 50-foot (15 m) section of the San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge also collapsed, leading to a single fatality, a 23-year-old woman named Anamafi Maala. Three people were killed in the collapse of the Pacific Garden Mall in Santa Cruz, and five people were killed in the collapse of a brick wall on Bluxome Street in San Francisco.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake

[Cleita]

48. We learned structural lessons from that quake and

Northridge. The pancaked freeway was an older freeway that was due for retrofitting but the quake came before Cal Trans could do it.

You should save your earthquake concerns for our existing nuke plants especially El Diablo that could become a Fukushima disaster if we have a big earthquake. A high speed rail through the Central Valley could be done with no consequences from earthquakes if engineered right.

[MADem]

52. Well, I don't need to "save" my concerns for one thing over the other.

I can walk and chew gum, after all.

I think they're both "issues" and I'm not going to go "AAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!!!!" over one and pooh-pooh the other.

And as for "engineered right"--they've got a lot of considerations as they work to "engineer" that sort of system. California isn't a big hard chunk of bedrock. Liquefaction isn't something that can be easily mitigated by engineers--it is a condition of the environment, of the soil. And Northridge revealed a "previously unknown fault"--wouldn't it be a helluva thing if tens of billions were spent and another one of those "previously unknown faults" reared their ugly head?

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/index/news/2004%20news%20releases/Pages/nr2004-01_northridge_quake_anniversary.aspx

[Cleita]

53. If anyone in California felt as you do, they would

be wise to leave the State. We all know there is a risk living here but that doesn't mean we have to be fearful of every advancement to modernize the State. You build as safe as you can and hope for the best.

[MADem]

59. Well, from the OP article posted, it looks like more than "anyone" feels like you say I do.

I'm just discussing this issue from all sides--I'm not a cheerleader or a vociferous detractor. I'm weighing the pros and cons, and I am not yet sold on the prospect.

Saying "Don't like it? Leave!" isn't a very good argument in opposition to the points I've raised. The earthquake issue is a real one, and the possibility of undiscovered faults--particularly when all the seismic mapping is not yet done--per the state of CA themselves as was noted in the link I offered--does play into the feasibility of the project.

I can see why people like the idea of it, and I can also see why people think it is a huge stinking greedy rich-get-richer waste of damn money. Frankly, I think high speed trains from coast to coast make more sense than a train that won't be used by the working poor, EVER, but that's just me.

If the goal is to improve transportation in CA, make it easier/affordable for poor and middle class people to use a train, a trolley or bus system, or light rail, instead of them driving some piece of crap car that clogs the freeways and fouls the air.

High speed trains, as someone else in this thread pointed out, ARE conceits for the rich. You don't see poor folk on the ACELA. Why? It costs too damn much. It's cheaper to take the subway to Logan Airport, then take a PLANE from Logan to Baltimore, then take a bus to the Metro, and then take the metro to DC, than take the ACELA from BOS-DC. I've gone to DC dozens of times via this cheap route, and back home again.

Of course, rich people do have a need to get to DC--it's the seat of political power. They also need to go to NYC--it's the seat of economic power. The cost of the tickets, though, is beyond the reach of the working poor or even a middle class person on a regular basis.

[Cleita]

62. Frankly, I'm more concerned about the off shore fracking

going on which will trigger earthquakes and the actions to address it moving slow as molasses.

[MADem]

67. Anything that causes an earthquake, fracking included, would impact this project and would

need to be factored into the cost-benefit analysis.

[Cleita]

69. If the engineers do their job, it would be. n/t

[MADem]

70. That's a big "if"--and even if they do due diligence, we don't have a lot of data on exactly how

fracking in spot A will produce an earthquake on fault B.

I think CA could come up with a LOT of people moving transportation for a hundred billion, something that regular people could afford and wold use. It's up to the citizens of that state, to some extent anyway, though.

The ACELA on the east coast is like a "ground based plane" for rich people. It'll get you to DC in a hurry, or to NYC, and you will pay out a king's ransom for the privilege of riding that thing. It doesn't get grounded by weather (too often), and it goes like a bat out of hell.

But it's out of the price range of a schoolteacher or a janitor, and it doesn't suit their needs, either.

[Cleita]

71. This isn't Texas. We actually expect more from our

infrastructure professionals plus the fact that we also have a lot of tough regulations in place from past lessons learned.

[MADem]

72. Well, Loma Prieta wasn't back in the dark ages. And that was some major infrastructure failure.

And so was Northridge:

4:31 am January 17, 1994 the community of Northridge was hit with a devastating earthquake. The earthquake was recorded to have a magnitude of 6.7 and a ground acceleration that was said to be one of the highest in North America. In simple words this was a very powerful earthquake. It caused over 9000 injuries with 72 deaths (Northridge 2010). On the financial side, the earthquake generated over $20 billion in damage, one of the most expensive natural disasters in U.S history. On top of the cost of this disaster, buildings had to be rebuilt. Many campus buildings belonging to the California State University were heavily damaged and one parking structure collapsed. Hospitals were among the most affected buildings. Eleven hospitals were left unusable. As a result the neighboring hospitals had to take care of extra patients. As a result on January 1, 2005 all California hospitals were required to have emergency rooms that were earthquake proof structures. ...

http://failures.wikispaces.com/1994+Northridge

And more recently the Oakland Bay Bridge failed, that took four years to build a new one...

I'm not saying that California engineers are incompetent or incapable, but it's a big state and it has a lot of infrastructure and a lot of issues, unstable ground being the most talked about, followed by mudslides and fires.

It's not the lessons that have already been learned, it's the new lessons that have yet to be learned. When something goes wrong with CA infrastructure, it's rarely a cheap fix....

[Cleita]

73. Those were decades ago.n/t

[MADem]

96. There are plenty of more recent examples.

I was going for "undiscovered" issues, but what good is it to discover issues if one doesn't do anything about them?

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23320025/washington-bridge-collapse-spotlights-californias-aging-bridges



http://www.insidebayarea.com/opinion/ci_14049328

Just over 16 percent of California's rural interstate highways are in poor condition, making us the worst state in the nation.

Even worse, 24.7 percent of the state's urban interstate highways are in poor condition. That's more than four times the national average, making California the second worst state in that category. California also ranked dead last when it comes to urban interstate congestion.

The state fared better in the Reason report on bridge deficiencies, but was still way below the national average in percentage of bridges that need repair or replacement.

Also, CA isn't an efficient spender of infrastructure money--when you're talking about a project this large, that's a concern:

We also spend an inordinate sum on administrative costs, ranking second. The national average is $9,705 per highway mile. California spends $62,640 per mile on administration.

Overall, this state spends $455,529 per state-controlled highway mile, more than three times the national average of $134,535, and more than all but three other states.

Clearly, for too many years, California has not invested nearly enough in its highway system. Federal stimulus money can help in some areas, but it is not a long-term solution, nor is it nearly enough money.

There are other states that are big sloppy spenders when it comes to infrastructure money (MA is no prize, look at the Big Dig--a cost overrun NIGHTMARE), but don't have the added burden of a massive geographical footprint, nor suffer teeth rattling earthquakes that will knock buildings to the ground and cause landslides.

These are fair points to raise--what good is a fancy high speed rail system, if administration and overrun costs might swamp the project, if maintenance might be hit-or-miss down the line, or if state investment is insufficient?

[Cleita]

97. Okay, now I find you are making me repeat myself which

means you aren't reading what I'm saying or you don't understand me. For the last time. We can do high speed rail without any real danger from earthquakes if we use lessons from earthquakes past. If you are bothering to do all that research, make a comparison of same magnitude earthquakes in the last sixty years in California, Japan and the rest of the world. I think you will see that California and Japan have little loss of lives compared to the rest of the world because we have building codes that work.

If you are worried about bridges building rails over them will improve them. California bridges are no worse than the rest of the country which is why the President wanted a works bill to fix that and Congress denied him.
I can't really have a discussion with someone who won't look at facts so I'm not participating in this discussion any further.

[MADem]

98. Well, let me repeat myself as well, then.

How can CA know what the effects are from fracking when the studies haven't been completed?

How can they plan for "undiscovered" faults as they've learned exist from major earthquakes like Loma Prieta?

How can they take care of this hundred BILLION (assuming no cost overruns) investment when they can't even take care of the stuff they already have?

How can they make this project economically competitive when their administrative costs for infrastructure maintenance are so bloated and obscene?

California bridges ARE worse than the rest of the country and the added danger of earthquake places them at even greater risk---did you even glance at the graphic I provided, and the article with it? If they weren't "worse" then why would the President want a bill to fix them?

You're free to run away from this conversation if you'd like, but you're being disingenuous in the extreme if you claim that I haven't read your posts or that I've refused to look at facts. I have read your remarks, and in response I am providing you with facts-a-plenty. You keep insisting that "the engineers" will take care of everything, and CA is ahead of the curve on these matters, when the references I have provided in this conversation show us that they are barely holding their own.

Spending on 'administration' is wasteful and they're way behind on their maintenance--they also don't know where all the faults are when it comes to earthquakes. That's the bottom line.

[reddread]

80. it is a circus of compromise

the correct approach would be an elevated track.
Not doing that is the biggest of mistakes.
Next to not doing anything.
California gets about 50 cents a gallon in taxes on gasoline, that the rest of the
country isnt paying.
Our roads through the central valley are almost as bad as Oklahomas.
somebody is doing something they should not, with that tax money.

[Cleita]

95. I have driven the 5 and 99 many times over the years and they are

kept up because of the commerce that flows over them. Sure the locally maintained roads in the Central Valley are neglected but then their city and county governments are Republican controlled for the most part and in many rural areas like mine, we are required to maintain our own. But when it comes to the freeways they are retrofitted to earthquake standards and new ones built to them. If anyone doubts it, Cal Trans maintains a series of video cameras on the California freeways you can access and view on line. People can judge for themselves if the freeways are poorly maintained. They are not and you are being disingenuous saying they are like Oklahoma.

[reddread]

124. oh really?

You want to compare 5 and 99? 99 is trashed starting at Bakersfield, where it looks a whole lot like Oklahomas nasty roads until you fairly quickly come onto sections being redone, a stretch here, a stretch there all the way up to who knows where, almost all of it TWO LANE joke of a freeway with the MAJORITY of truck transportation taking place right there because that is where people live, not on 5.
Nobody has the time for me to get started on all the horribly dangerous stupidly designed jokes they foist on drivers around Fresno.
As they spend ever greater sums redoing spots that arent even 15 years old because of constant wrecks, and when you see what they do to begin with, you realize its all about the come backs to widen, open entrances, so many corrections that never should have been necessary.
We dont have seismic concerns in the central valley, and not a great deal of cloverleafs and overpasses.
Really, I cant begin to describe all of the problems and failures that have nothing to do with seismic issues or camera coverage.
Disingenuous?
guess again.
Its a mess, a massive waste of funds every time they prove how bad they are at doing something right the second or third time,
and a very serious consideration in light of HSR tussles.
99 is abominable.
Dont even argue otherwise.
They may be trying to fix/improve it, but thats slooooooooow going, and not going to happen in places that is should, in the near future.
PPP.

[reddread]

81. rode that one out at ground zero, where were you?

Pacific Garden Mall, at the opening of The Arcade tunnel where Clint Eastwood runs through in Sudden Impact.
underneath the St George Hotel, a very dangerous place to seek shelter...

[MADem]

93. WOW--you must have been terrified!

I was much further out from the epicenter, but we did without power for three or four days. A lot of the older homes in my neighborhood had cracks running up the walls. I was in a newer home that was built with "earthquake" technology, it was on stilts that had shock absorbers in them, basically, with parking underneath, so when that thing started, the house starting pogo-sticking to beat the band. My furniture started walking, so did my computer (and this was back in the day when a computer was a HUGE investment) and I got flung across the room.

Fortunately, I had all the kitchen cabinets shut--and they had those little things on 'em that kept the doors closed, so nothing came outta those. One of the b/r closets was left wide open, though, and everything in that closet also ended up on the other side of the room.

I felt terrible for those people on the overpass--and the families who were frantic. That was the worst earthquake I've ever been in, in terms of time without power and impact, and I've been in a few--Japan, Middle East, even a doozie in Italy!

[reddread]

94. wasnt smart enough to be really scared, but two weeks later-

when we could get close enough to see where we were standing, UNDER the St George-
I could have fainted.
Of course, for days after every aftershock sent us running to the door, and we spent the first few nights sleeping
in the bed of my truck.
During the extended power outage my aquariums were just about to fold, when at the very last minute a wonderful friend
brought the only power generator around all the way from Palo Alto and plugged us in a few hours before power was restored.
Its good to remember heroic acts like that.
And all the good fortune that represented in the midst of chaos.
Kitchen filled with broken dishes.
Housemate with (surprised to discover) meth related psychosis really added some frosting a week or two later.
We left almost immediately.
interesting times.

[XemaSab]

10. It's a toy for the rich

Better mass transit in urban areas would serve the poor, reduce traffic, and reduce pollution, all for a lower cost.

[grantcart]

30. Exactly, but it is highly questionable whether the rich would spend the EXTRA time needed

to make the journey.

Build out from the cities, reduce traffic and in the future it might be more viable.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. You guys make me laugh. The rich fly private jets from airports you don't use.

The far more than 6 million people who fly between LAX and SFO/OAK each year are not 'the rich'. The rich own their own and fly on demand. But I'm sure you guys know all about everything better than everyone, in spite of thinking the rich fly Southwest next to you.
Pardon me while I wail with derisive laughter.

[reddread]

85. divine comedy

watching people jump off the gallows because they thought it was a rope swing.

[grantcart]

90. The bulk of the SFO/LAX traffic is not "the rich" its business traffic

But I'm sure you guys know all about everything better than everyone

Quite frankly you are the one that is the "know it all".

Here is the problem with your "derisive laughter"

1) As a part of the legislation the State of California appointed a PEER level committee of non interested economic and transportation experts to give an opinion. They have. NO other independent expert disputes what they are saying.

2) They are not building a "LAX/SFO" high speed train option. They are building a high speed link between Madera to Fresno. Then will build out from there. When the cost over runs start to ramp up (and they will) and operating revenue from these links show that there is no substantial need for high speed rail in the interior of California (and no study suggests that they will) the legislature will balk at spending tens of billions more in capital costs.

3) The traffic between SFO/LAX now operates with zero additional capital investment. A high speed rail requires at least $ 100 billion in capital costs which will put a cost of at least $ 7 billion (probably more) simply to finance the capital costs. Dividing your 6 million air passengers into it leaves a capital cost of $ 1,160 per passenger to pay for the capital cost versus zero.

So how does China do it?

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/high-speed-train-system-is-a-huge-success-for-china-425655

Just five years after China's high-speed rail system opened, it is carrying nearly twice as many passengers each month as the country's domestic airline industry. With traffic growing 28 percent a year for the last several years, China's high-speed rail network will handle more passengers by early next year than the 54 million people a month who board domestic flights in the United States.

China make it happen with more than 600 million people getting on in a year not 6 million.

Japan's ridership has declined slightly but "Annual ridership has fallen since 2007, to 307 million as of 2011".

Californians voted for it but when polled say they won't use it according to this USC/LA Times poll

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/06/californians-high-speed-rail-project-poll.html

The poll found that most voters don't expect to use it. Sixty-nine percent said they would never or hardly ever ride it. Zero percent said they would use it more than once a week. Public opinion surveys cannot predict the revenues and ridership a rail service might generate. The poll results raise questions about whether the system would serve as a robust commuter network, allowing people to live in small towns and work in big cities or vice versa. On the other hand, 33% of respondents said they would prefer a bullet train over an airplane or car on trips between L.A. and the Bay Area.

If only 1/3 of the people are willing to use a rail system that will add one hour to the travel time over air travel then the capital costs will jump to $ 3,000 per LAX/SFO passenger.

So after it is built it will require billions in subsidies that will be diverted from urban mass transit

http://reason.org/news/show/high-speed-rail-in-europe-and-asia

This report studies the prospects for high-speed rail in the U.S., examining how well high-speed rail works in countries like France, Germany and Japan, and how this country differs from Europe and Asia in travel patterns, spatial structure, car ownership and other factors. From a financial standpoint, things don’t look good. The majority of high-speed rail lines require large government subsidies from both general taxpayers and drivers. Even with generous subsidies, traveling by high-speed rail is still more expensive than flying for 12 of the 23 most popular high-speed rail routes in the world. The evidence suggests that high-speed rail can only be competitive on routes that are between 200 and 500 miles in length. High-speed rail is also very expensive to build. Most new routes cost at least $10 million per mile to construct. And while operating costs vary, the cheapest European rail line costs more than $50,000 per seat to operate annually. This means that a U.S. high-speed rail line would need ridership of between 6 million and 9 million people per year to break even. Compare that to the high-speed Acela service, which despite operating in the busy Northeast Corridor averages only 3.4 million passengers per year.

. . .

U.S. core cities, where people are most likely to board high-speed trains, are considerably less dense than European or Asian cities—this limits high-speed rail’s potential market. U.S. cities also tend to have substantially less developed transit systems—and riders who begin their journey by car are more likely to drive or fly to their final destination than riders who begin their journey by transit - See more at: http://reason.org/news/show/high-speed-rail-in-europe-and-asia#sthash.4JkV8FEK.dpuf

Your 'derisive laughter' only shows that you are profoundly ignorant of the economics involved.

Let me boil it down to you in little sentences

High Speed rail requires large capital investment
Large capital investment has to be paid by passengers.
For HS rail to work it requires tens of millions of passengers
HS rail requires a densely populated urban corridor to generate millions of passengers
Fresno and Bakersfield are not densely populated urban corridors.
CA voters approved a bond but also approved a peer review process to make sure it is viable
Peer review experts have come back and said that it is not financially viable.
CA high speed rail has no prospects of being self sustaining
CA high speed rail will end up diverting valuable transit dollars from the poor and working folks to subsidize business travel between SFO/LAX.

The numbers simply don't justify it.

You can now return to your uninformed, fact devoid, patronizing tripe.

[reddread]

79. its not either/or

you are correct otherwise, but this is the only way to move forward.
Joining the opposition to HSR is not wise or well considered.

[Xithras]

106. Not the rich, but the business class and tourists.

Ticket prices will be about $160 round trip per person, which puts it out of reach of many people for routine travel. The HSR authority has already admitted that it will do virtually nothing to reduce traffic on the roads because road traffic reduction wasn't even a design consideration (it's competition for the airlines, not cars).

[Throd]

14. It is a bad idea that will be poorly executed

[dogknob]

18. My Assemblywoman, Diane Harkey, had only one thing to say in her ballot statement

She would do whatever it takes to derail the Bullet Train.

When people are openly discussing sabotage, it ain't gonna happen.

This country doesn't need a revolution. It needs an intervention.

[Bluenorthwest]

86. Diane Harkey who you are promoting here as reasonable is a right wing Republican

from down in Issa Country. Just so folks know who you are touting. A Republican.

[Tikki]

20. I guess I am one of the 48% in favor of this project...This connection is going to happen..

It will happen Now or Later. Sooner works for me for all the truly practical reasons.


Tikki

[pinto]

21. Good point.

[Live and Learn]

50. +1 nt

[noiretextatique]

105. i agree

Americans need to get used the FACT that we must give up our car culture.

[stevenleser]

22. The person at the LA Times who came up with the title should be fired.

The truth is much more nuanced than that.

[pinto]

23. Agree. They cherry picked the survey for the headline. There's more to the picture, as you note.

[reddread]

82. thats why people pay money

to buy newspapers.

[stevenleser]

88. No, it's not. They don't buy newspapers to be misled.

There is a sharp line between hyping a story and changing the meaning of it with a headline.

[reddread]

89. they BUY newspapers

so they can print the headlines they want.

[Wounded Bear]

24. Has anyone traced the money behind this opposition...?

I'd bet dollars to donuts there's airline and oil money behind it. Airlines because (as was stated above) this is the busiest air corridor in the country. Oil money because so many people choose to drive this instead of going through the hassle of flying.

Follow the money.

Oh, and build the damn train. It is long past time we stopped being so far behind the rest of the world in high speed rail transit. Frankly, given our geography, we're perfect for high speed rail.

[pinto]

25. The Central Valley is prime for HSR. I agree with other comments about local mass transit, as well.

Overlooked in some of the discussion is that federal dollars supporting the project are HSR specific, iirc.

[grantcart]

32. The money behind the report saying that it is unfeasible? The legislation that passed it:

The legislation that approved the bonds also insisted that a non biased peer review body be established to give objective opinions on it on an ongoing basis. They found that

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jan/04/local/la-me-bullet-train-report-20120104

But in a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public's interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan "is not financially feasible." As a result, the panel said, it "cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project."

The money going to the legislators to push this through anyway are the companies and unions that will directly benefit from its construction.

[MADem]

43. Check trucking money, too, if you're going to look at 'cui bono.'

It's only a matter of time before it becomes worthwhile to take the trucks off the road and load everything on a high speed train.

I think the citizens of CA are concerned about the expense--I know it's a large economy, but that IS one helluva price tag. I think if we had a few more successes in smaller scale there would be less opposition. Or concern.

And they would have to decisively address the earthquake thing.

[reddread]

87. try selling that to Wal-Mart

they know how to squeeze every last penny from our country.
they truck, and that wont stop.

[MADem]

91. So perhaps they're part of the anti-train lobby, then... ? nt

[reddread]

92. no idea

but theyre anti-everything working Americans should be concerned about.
They have a stranglehold on produce growers that didnt previously exist.
if it wasnt for bad news...

[reddread]

84. Who Killed the Electric Car

would love to kill this as well. No need to trace anything except bodychalk around the braindead.

[Yavin4]

37. Bottom line: Future Soaring Fuel Costs Will Make The Public Demand Better Mass Transportation System

Cars and flying on planes will soon become luxury items for the super rich.

[Douglas Carpenter]

39. I don't know enough about all the specifics but certainly our country desperately needs to develop

Last edited Sat Sep 28, 2013, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

mass transit like this.

[otohara]

40. Calling Bill Maher

GMO's and now no bullet train.

Duh.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

44. Stopped, as thought it were in motion in the first place?

Spend the money on local public transit.

[Live and Learn]

51. The project is bringing much needed federal funding and will create jobs.

I don't see any real downside to it. It is ridiculous to think that we don't have the ingenuity to see the bullet train through. This nay saying was a right-wing talking point from the beginning.

[Cleita]

55. Yep, I agree.

God forbid we should make strides in modernizing our transportation and creating jobs in the process.

[Warren DeMontague]

54. I suggest building a gimungous kevlar vest, somewhere around King City.

...what?

[JEFF9K]

58. You'd think with a name like BULLET train, it would get widespread conservative support.

[MADem]

60. They should call it the Stand Your Ground Train, then! nt

[Calista241]

63. Anything to avoid LAX.

LAX is the worst airport design I think you could conceive on. Not sure a $100B train track is the answer though.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

66. I despise LAX, but unfortunately,

it has the cheapest flights to Asia, even figuring in the airfare from Minneapolis to LAX.

[LeftyMom]

76. Improving commuter rail would take more cars off the road for less money.

Even upgrading the existing rail system so that one could get into San Francisco without transferring to a bus and dealing with bridge traffic would be nice. Fix the freight train right of way problem that makes train commutes so... variably punctual.

What the hell, maybe run more than one train a day to the north state.

Maybe replace the I st rail bridge in Sacto (century old deathtrap and eyesore) before it rusts away entirely.

Personally I don't think we need to spend a skillion dollars launching douches to Vegas and LA for weekend boozefests or business meetings, or squalling packs of minidouches to fucking Disney, because Southwest does that for $99.

Fixing commutes makes more sense than building state of the art technology for occasional routes.

[MADem]

101. "Variably punctual!" LOL!!!

I am not a CA resident so I have no dog in the fight, but I think finding ways to transport working and middle class people efficiently and AFFORDABLY should be a priority. Bullet trains are cute and shiny, but they are expensive.

We have an ACELA train on the east coast, and "ordinary" people don't use that thing--you aren't going to see schoolteachers and accounting clerks on it. It's for Big Wigs--lawyers, politicians, "money" folk--who need to travel between NYC-BOS-PHILLY-DC. It doesn't help some poor slob who works in NYC and lives in New Jersey, or someone who lives in Worcester and works in Boston.

I think the focus should be on moving commuters from the highways to the trains. Having nice, comfy trains--with WIFI for the people who love to stay connected--and a place to get a snack and a cup of coffee for the commute--would probably do more to move cars off the highway than some too-expensive bullet train ever would.

[Niceguy1]

109. ordinary

People won't be able to us use this train. And the board knows it. This project is a typical California joke.

[LeftyMom]

110. Running BART into the Sacramento and San Juaquin valleys

would significantly reduce congestion and pollution in Northern California. Connecting the Livermore line to bedroom communities in Stockton and the Concord line in at least Vacaville but ideally Davis or Sacramento would do a great deal to clear one of the nastiest commute corridors on the west coast.

And unlike the HSR proposal it would connect up a string of interconnected population centers and not relatively unconnected cities with vast stretches of farmland in between.

[MADem]

117. I should think it would be cheaper, too....way more bang for buck. nt

[davidpdx]

77. What is needed is a line from San Diego to Vancouver BC

Generally speaking transportation on the west coast sucks and there are very few options.

[pinto]

103. AMTRAK's Coast Starlight -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight

[davidpdx]

120. Been there, done that

It takes a bizillon hours to get from Oregon down to California. Plus the route goes further east in Southern Oregon and Northern California between Eugene and Redding. My wife and I still joke about the "station" at Chemult.

When we were there in 2009 it looked like this:





Apparently it has gone through some upgrades.





I'm not necessarily against Amtrack, just pointing out that it far from efficient much like Greyhound.

[Egalitarian Thug]

102. How about a referendum diverting the funds from the current, designed to fail project,

into the LA to Las Vegas route that is guaranteed to be up and running in half the time and will run at a profit?

Put the people first for once and you will see what real political power can do.

[pinto]

104. That was an interesting and doable proposal. But who would it serve?

[Egalitarian Thug]

107. The benefits are significant and numerous;

It would cost far less than the current project. It is shorter and goes across easier geography with fewer obstacles.

It would save lives. The 15 has traffic fatalities almost every day as too many people are on the road between LA and Vegas, and more than a few of them are driving drunk, high, with no sleep, or some combination thereof.

It would help ease the volume of air traffic out of LAX and Orange county into and out of McCarran. That's better for everyone, although I doubt it will be that noticeable to the average traveler.

Unlike the current debacle, this route would go from where people are to where they want to be from day one.

And perhaps most importantly, it would show that high speed rail works much sooner than this one as they've planned it out. As I said in my first reply, this project is designed to fail at every step. It will never be finished, but quite a few people are going to walk away from it with huge bags of taxpayer money.

[pinto]

118. Ah, good points.

Here's another point that just occurred to me. Highway 1 up the coast was a job works project to a large extent. On paper and topographical maps a hugely complicated plan. Yet it got done and remains a signature piece of California (road closures / slides up by Gorda included).

[Egalitarian Thug]

125. And it's a good one. If we had anyone left in government working for the people,

that is exactly the kind of project we should be working all over the nation. Unfortunately, the America we get is run by and for the rich, so getting around their obstruction is always the first task.

[LeftyMom]

111. Pay to shuttle Californians to Nevada to waste money?

That's just shortsighted.

[Egalitarian Thug]

113. That's just silly. In the first place, Californians already come to Vegas and nothings going

to stop that.

The train would make money, lots of it. Southern California alone accounts for about 1/3 of all the money that comes into Las Vegas, and 100% of those people would rather not make the drive, especially in the summer, but air travel is a monumental pain in the ass and costs too much these days.

SF to LA would eventually make money as well, but the way they're doing it makes it unlikely it will be completed as the first decade will be spent building a system that will go from BFE to the middle of nowhere. Only then will they start the most expensive and disruptive parts of the project, driving the lines into and connecting with the cities. Of course we must not forget that by that time the cost over-runs and revisions will have put the price tag well over the $60B - $80B currently projected.

Did you follow or are you familiar with LA's light-rail saga?

[maxsolomon]

112. How about doing both?

Although with a >3.6 degree increase in avg. global temp on its' way, Las Vegas is not likely to be a viable proposition as a city much longer...

[Egalitarian Thug]

114. I think doing the Vegas > LA leg would make the other(s) more likely to happen.

I love the idea of high speed rail and I believe that the U.S. is where it is most needed, but it must generate more favorable public opinion to happen. There are a lot more organizations with a lot more money against it than there are currently in favor of it.

LA -> Las Vegas would be a perpetual cash machine for who or whatever owns it because the money and the traffic is already there and in greater concentration.

To me the difference comes in 10 years:
The current plan has just finished the longest leg of the system and is still under-utilized. The 'conservatives' are saying, "Look at this sinkhole of government money. It's costing us blah, blah, more than the few passengers that are paying. 10 years and $50B in and now they're going to disrupt the whole city blah, blah, blah..."

LA -> Vegas has been running near capacity for two years and is almost in the black. For $50 15 million Southern Californians can be in Sin City in an hour or two. Now tell us again how high-speed rail doesn't work and people won't use it.

We need an alternative to air travel and I think this is a good start, but not enough people care about it yet.

[Nevernose]

122. Because of right-of-way issues, it's Victorville to Vegas

And that becomes a lot less ludicrous. My guess is that most people who drive to Victorville will just end up driving the rest of the way, and most Las Vegans will not want a train to Victorville. Hell, "Train to Victorville" sounds like some kind of depressing existential play.

[Egalitarian Thug]

126. You're right and that was the poison pill they used to kill it. Victorville? Really? n/t