Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It should have never been built in the first place, but voters are stupid. The money should have been given to counties proportional to their population, to best address local transit needs. Sac, Bay Area, LA, and SD could have made some gpos impact on transit infrastructure with that money.
It's obvious this thing is a boondoggle. Here is what a reasonable and basic map (it obviously won't be perfectly straight) of what rail should look like in the southwest.
I'm fine with going up the central valley. However there would be stops in Bakersfield, Fresno & Stockton as the junction between the bay & Sacramento. Once again, I think they should have started in the large metro areas first and connected them to nearby places. That means LA-SD, LA-Vegas & maybe SF-Sacramento. Then they could have spanned the large central valley after the main parts had been built.
If this thing doesn't pay for itself in literally one of the best places to build it in the US, it's definitely a boondoggle. I would bet at this time it won't even be able to pay for its operating expenses because of all the weird design choices.
We're agreed that having some Central Valley stations are reasonable enough and there are pros and cons to having that single more direct line that doesn't serve such cities but it shorter and more direct.
If you do have a Central Valley line like such though, I think it doesn't quite make sense to *not* have more stations as long as you have some way of bypassing express trains to overtake local trains and having just Bakersfield, Fresno, and Stockton might be a bit too little. Having somewhat more closely spaced local stations that are only served by local trains is exactly what happens in high speed rail lines in other parts of the world. Those local stations also aren't the primary hold-up for the project in terms of costly delays.
Pacheco vs Altamont Pass has pretty arguable pros and cons for why one is better than the other. The only one I think should be reconsidered is Palmdale and the jog out to there. I hope CAHSR's focus on finish the IOS and the Bay Area parts (Caltrain electrification is ongoing as we speak, but the tunneling for the Pacheco Pass is not) first means enough time to shift support for the Tejon pass route before substantial work on the southern segment to LA is done. I do think another misstep is to not have had the segment to Gilroy included as part of the initial Caltrain electrification scope--this would have made sense not juust for the benefits of electrification and regardless of when the link from Gilroy to the Central Valley finish since it also means not having to maintain a dual-mode fleet.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-18-2022 at 09:48 AM..
The USA, and especially the West--including SF-LA-SD--just isn't dense enough to support this kind of transportation. We should improve highways and focus on electric self-driving vehicles.
I don't get this comment. We're talking about long distance travel connecting cities not urban densely populated metro stops within large cities.
China went big for high speed rail. The video below goes over the reasons it was supposed to work for them, and conversely wouldn't work well in the US
Of course, how well it's actually working well in China. I hear they're starting to coke on the costs
I don't get this comment. We're talking about long distance travel connecting cities not urban densely populated metro stops within large cities.
Yea, I don't get it either. That set of cities is just about perfect for HSR. It's not like this is HSR going coast to coast through the Great Plains where there really is very little density and no major population centers. However, that is usually the mindless strawman a lot of people who argue against HSR put up as if the push for high speed rail in the US is to have one to serve from Bismark to Bozeman. It's also not like every stop needs to be a megalopolis (though LA is that) for HSR to work given that there are HSR networks outside of China that function very well.
Both choices seem a little bit too dramatic. It's obviously not worthwhile at any price, and if you're going to cancel it, it should have been canceled before spending 11 digits. Anyway, in the US, there are three major problems for any kind of passenger rail network.
One of them is geographical distribution of big cities. Generally speaking, HSR has an edge over airplane on shorter route (<600 miles), as they have natural 1-3 hours of time advantage over airplane in terms of door-to-door travel time, due to the proximity to the station and shorter time consumption on the station (cf. airport). HSR lose most of its edge on longer route (especially >1,000 miles) because it's becoming far too slower than air travel. Then look at this;
Top 10 US metro areas (in terms of GDP), 2.2 cities within <600 miles on average
1. NY - 3 of 10 (#5 DC, #8 Boston, #9 Philadelphia)
2. LA - 1 of 10 (#4 SF)
3. Chicago - 2 of 10 (#5 DC, #10 Atlanta)
4. SF - 1 of 10 (#2 LA)
5. DC - 5 of 10 (#1 NY, #3 Chicago, #8 Boston, #9 Philadelphia, #10 Atlanta)
6. DFW - 1 of 10 (#7 Houston)
7. Houston - 1 of 10 (#6 DFW)
8. Boston - 3 of 10 (#1 NY, #5 DC, #9 Philadelphia)
9. Philadelphia - 3 of 10 (#1 NY, #5 DC, #8 Boston)
10. Atlanta - 2 of 10 (#3 Chicago, #5 DC)
Compare that to this;
Chinese top 20 cities (instead of top 10, because even #20 Dongguan has 8m population, which is more more than #4 San Francisco). They got 9.45 cities within <600 miles on average.
1. Shanghai - 11 of 20 (Tianjin, Suzhou, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Qingdao, Wuxi, Changsha, Ningbo, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
2. Beijing - 5 of 20 (Tianjin, Nanjing, Qingdao, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
3. Shenzhen - 6 of 20 (Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Changsha, Foshan, Dongguan)
4. Hong Kong - 6 of 20 (Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Changsha, Foshan, Dongguan)
5. Guangzhou - 7 of 20 (Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Chongqing, Wuhan, Changsha, Foshan, Dongguan)
6. Chongqing - 6 of 20 (Guangzhou, Chengdu, Wuhan, Changsha, Foshan, Zhengzhou)
7. Tianjin - 8 of 20 (Shanghai, Beijing, Suzhou, Nanjing, Qingdao, Wuxi, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
8. Suzhou - 15 of 20 (Shanghai, Tianjin, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Qingdao, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Qingdao, Wuxi, Changsha, Ningbo, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
9. Chengdu - 3 of 20 (Chongqing, Wuhan, Changsha)
10.Wuhan - 16 of 20 (Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Chengdu, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Qingdao, Wuxi, Changsha, Ningbo, Foshan, Zhengzhou, Nantong, Dongguan)
11.Hangzhou - 10 of 20 (Shanghai, Suzhou, Wuhan, Nanjing, Qingdao, Wuxi, Changsha, Ningbo, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
12.Nanjing - 12 of 20 (Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Suzhou, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Qingdao, Wuxi, Changsha, Ningbo, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
13.Qingdao - 10 of 20 (Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Suzhou, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuxi, Ningbo, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
14.Wuxi - 11 of 20 (Shanghai, Tianjin, Suzhou, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Qingdao, Changsha, Ningbo, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
15.Changsha - 15 of 20 (Shanghai, Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Chongqing, Chengdu, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Wuxi, Ningbo, Foshan, Zhengzhou, Nantong, Dongguan)
16.Ningbo - 12 of 20 (Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Suzhou, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Qingdao, Wuxi, Changsha, Zhengzhou, Nantong)
17.Foshan - 7 of 20 (Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Chongqing, Wuhan, Changsha, Dongguan)
18.Zhengzhou - 13 of 20 (Shanghai, Beijing, Chongqing, Tianjin, Suzhou, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Nanjing, Qingdao, Wuxi, Changsha, Ningbo, Nantong)
19.Nantong - 11 of 20 (Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, Suzhou, Wuhan, Hangzhou, Qingdao, Wuxi, Changsha, Ningbo, Zhengzhou)
20.Dongguan - 5 of 20 (Hong Kong, Guangzhou, Wuhan, Changsha, Foshan)
If there is a breakthrough that allows 2-3 times faster average speed than regular HSR without huge construction/operating cost (unlike Maglev, Hyperloop, etc), than a web of intercity HSR lines may be realized in the US. Until then, airplanes would deny the HSR. I don't think SF-LA line would make the cut in the first place.
The other problem is population density. As an example, this is Tokyo Station and the circle has roughly a mile radius, which represents barely walkable distance (but you actually don't need to walk that much in Tokyo as there are more than 10 other stations inside the circle).
You see that one circle is enough to cover the core parts of Chuo-ku, Minato-ku and Chiyoda-ku. Combined daytime population of those 3 districts is close to 2.5 million. Even if you only count the daytime population inside of that circle, it's still hovers around 1 million. Also, the majority of top 50 Japanese companies have their headquarters either inside of that circle or located very close to it.
Compare that to San Francisco or DTLA. San Francisco land area is about 12 circles big, but only has 1 million daytime population, and the same one mile radius circle can't even cover the DTLA, even though daytime population of DTLA is only 200k. And mind that that's the two most populous and dense area for the CA HSR, while Tokyo Station is not the most populous area in Tokyo, neither the busiest train station in Tokyo (it's only the busiest shinkansen station).
The local transit (or lack thereof) is the nail in the coffin. When you travel by train, you usually don't have a car at least on one side. The rest of the travel should be covered by local transit. However, LA has close to nothing, and even SF isn't much better when you compare it to Tokyo.
Last edited by kantobento; 08-21-2022 at 11:41 PM..
I love taking the HSR, train, bus, and subway...
...in other countries.
The USA, and especially the West--including SF-LA-SD--just isn't dense enough to support this kind of transportation. We should improve highways and focus on electric self-driving vehicles.
It may be an acceptable argument, but fails to account for the fact that rail was quite sufficient when the country's population was 1/4 of today's population.
According to the 1900 census, the population of the United States was then 76.3 million.
Today, the population is 329.5 million (2020)
Density is not the issue.
A little background may be helpful.
Before 1920s, and the conspiracy to destroy rail transportation, over 90% of all travel was by rail : urban, interurban (electric traction) and long distance (heavy rail - steam).
From 1880 to 1967, mail travelled by rail, in railway postal cars (RPO). Obviously, the rail network was robust and capable of swiftly moving mail across the nation. (On major routes, like NYC to Chicago, mail was picked up, sorted enroute, and delivered the next day - for $0.02. Today's Zone Improvement Program, uses trucks, air cargo, and far more personnel and fuel to do the job at far slower speeds and higher costs - hence the nickname "Snail mail.")
Just look at one railroad, the Pennsylvania Railroad (aka “Pennsy”). By 1882, the Pennsylvania Railroad had become the largest railroad (by traffic and revenue), the largest transportation enterprise, and the largest corporation in the world. Its budget was second only to the U.S. government.
And yet it went bankrupt in 1970, thanks to the government’s meddling, taxes, and ridiculous regulations, and was split off into Conrail and Amtrak. Do you think there was some envy and animosity aimed at the railroads?
(Note: In most other countries, the rail system is either owned by the government, or held by a non-government organization or authority under its administration. IN America, the rails were privately owned, over taxed, and abused by governments at all levels.)
IN addition to the government, the competition colluded with government, and while the railroads were penalized, the competition enjoyed public subsidies (and tax breaks). Frankly, the "opposition" has successfully prevented the renaissance of rail by any means fair and foul. Where possible, it stops it cold. Where it can't, it muddles up the project so it becomes a boondoggle, that they can point an accusing finger and say, "SEE!"
Ex: The monorail in Las Vegas. . . which could have been extended to the airport but wasn't allowed to.
In 1963, Alweg proposed to the city of Los Angeles a monorail system that would be designed, built, operated and maintained by Alweg. Alweg promised to take all financial risk from the construction, and the system would be repaid through fares collected. The City Council rejected the proposal in favor of no transit at all. (thanks to Standard Oil)
“A former Alweg engineer once told me that there was much excitement for the proposal at the time, that is until Standard Oil got involved. Practically overnight support for the project disappeared amongst LA politicians.”
....
Taken for a Ride (documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-I8GDklsN4
....
The sad truth is that America once had the world's BIGGEST network of rail, running fast trains, and saving on fuel because the rolling resistance of steel wheel on steel rail is 1/20th of pneumatic tire on pavement. In other words, for every $1 spent to move cargo or people by cars, buses, or trucks, trains could do it for $0.05.
Isn't it bizarre that government would penalize the most frugal form of land transport (barring an engineering breakthrough) while using taxpayer funds to subsidize the most wasteful forms of land transport?
The railroad from LA to SD is closed now due to hill erosion in the San Clemente area.
The authorities don't know if they will fix it in 2 months, 3 months, etc.
Everything is so slow in California.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
