high speed rail fail

[mlm]

High Speed rail has always been a fail, anyone could see that, just like the ill conceived SMART train up here in Sonoma/Marin.

Editorial on its collosal failure here but you just know it will keep running and draining money to service the 550 rush hours riders per day because it "feels" good. Never mind that the SMART trains are diesel!

"The Press Democrat reported that SMART took 723,000 riders in its first year of operation.

That sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? It isn’t.

By comparison, average annual ridership for the 25 other commuter rail transit systems was more than 19 million riders in 2017."

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/opinion/8956534-181/close-to-home-smart-still

Why not just compare it with the distance to the moon?

Calling fault with your comparison numbers does not mean I support rail transit, just that I would expect things like population served, miles of track, and how long established would need to be factored in.

Edit: wow, see they were from a Sonoma State faculty member. Some of the rest of. His statements are reasonable, but the opening hyperbole pretty clearly established bias.

 

[Climber]

Anytime come marketing person add's 'smart' to a product/service, it usually ends up being anything but.

 

[aminalmutha]

What I think is the stupidest? Building along the 99 corridor is going to make 300 miles of 99 even worse than it already is, probably for the rest of my life.

Many thousands of life years are going to be wasted in traffic, and billions of dollars spent on just keeping 99 open. This highway just cant handle that kind of traffic safely. My area alone had an overpass closed when a truck hauling heavy equipment damaged it. The poxed exit tips trucks regularly including the tanker that burned McDonald’s. We get crashes here all the time now.

Hard to imagine the benefits are going to offset the horror for decades. Did they even budget that?

They don’t care. No one shoving this turd down California’s throat will ever use it. This is about ego and money not helping the public.

 

[mlm]

The naysayers have been consistent with every large infrastructure project. Even the interstate highway system languished in bureaucratic limbo for a decade (having been approved in 1944) before any road was put down. Now everyone like to ignore that and think Eisenhower just waved a wand and it happened overnight. Even that is bullshit since a lot of the urban sections didn’t get built until the 70s

 

[MikeL]

COL in Sac is already on the rise, you think your idea wouldn't cause it to inflate close to Bay Area levels? I'm sure you'd be the ONLY ONE utilizing HSR to commute to and from Sac and SF.

Exactly what I was going to write. Plus, it will probably ALSO work to erode SF city pay as compared to other places.

The difference between Sac and SF is that Sac and the valley have plenty of room for housing and new multi-story apartments/condos etc.

Right now the bay has basically one option, build up. The land is so expensive they really only build "luxury" apartments that are out of the price range of all but the top earners. I haven't seen much being built outside of that category. Rarely is anything built to actually buy either.

As far as eroding pay, that would help with the housing problem in SF. Housing prices would drop as fewer people value living in the city.

 

[Reli]

The naysayers have been consistent with every large infrastructure project. Even the interstate highway system languished in bureaucratic limbo for a decade (having been approved in 1944) before any road was put down. Now everyone like to ignore that and think Eisenhower just waved a wand and it happened overnight. Even that is bullshit since a lot of the urban sections didn’t get built until the 70s

Difference is, back then there was no other legitimate affordable alternative to the automobile, for people who wanted to control their own transportation and stop and go when they please.

Today, HSR has to compete with jets, and I don't see what advantages it offers over them...…. unless perhaps it allows seating arrangements for groups of friends to sit facing each other and have a good time.....which I doubt.

 

[DataDan]

Today, HSR has to compete with jets, and I don't see what advantages it offers over them...…. unless perhaps it allows seating arrangements for groups of friends to sit facing each other and have a good time.....which I doubt.

The colossal disadvantage is that infrastructure is needed between nodes, including routes that must cross mountains. Airlines need endpoint infrastructure, but nothing in between. A corollary is that there's less money for politicians to dish out to favored constituents.

 

[Killroy1999]

Difference is, back then there was no other legitimate affordable alternative to the automobile, for people who wanted to control their own transportation and stop and go when they please.

Today, HSR has to compete with jets, and I don't see what advantages it offers over them...…. unless perhaps it allows seating arrangements for groups of friends to sit facing each other and have a good time.....which I doubt.

Based on your post, I don't think have tried HSR. You have to try it. I've tired it in 4 different countries and now I regularly use it in China. Studying HSR in Japan is a good place to start.

 

[Killroy1999]

Based on your post, I don't think have tried HSR. You have to try it. I've tired it in 4 different countries and now I regularly use it in China. Studying HSR in Japan is a good place to start.

[youtube]T3LLgzO_PrI[/youtube]

 

[Climber]

The problem with big projects like this is that there are a lot of hands in the cookie jar and then despite making big $$$$$ the subcontractors do a shitty job.

 

[Reli]

[youtube]T3LLgzO_PrI[/youtube]

Will our train be exactly like theirs? No.

Does it make financial sense to stretch it from NorCal to SoCal? No.

Do Americans willingly use public trans as often as Europeans and Asians do? No.

I don't object to HSR. I object to the shoving it down our throats for $100 billion, with silly routes few people are going to use.

 

[mlm]

Will our train be exactly like theirs? No.

Does it make financial sense to stretch it from NorCal to SoCal? No.

Do Americans willingly use public trans as often as Europeans and Asians do? No.

I don't object to HSR. I object to the shoving it down our throats for $100 billion, with silly routes few people are going to use.

Use of mass transit correlates with population density (and availability) and every prediction is for population to continue increasing. Airports have capacity limits and adding runways to any of the local airports seems unlikely if not prohibitive.

I'll be the first to agree that the ridership projections put forward by HSR were overly optimistic for the near term. However in the long term I still think this is a step forward. As much as this costs, it will cost more in the future, not only in construction, but in opportunity costs.

And as for a link between major cities, I'm not sure why you think that is unnecessary. Not only is there a ton of traffic between them already, but as airports become saturated having traffic offloaded to rail will make even more sense. Taking care of the shorter destinations with rail and leaving the longer trips to air.

 

[Climber]

Use of mass transit correlates with population density (and availability) and every prediction is for population to continue increasing. Airports have capacity limits and adding runways to any of the local airports seems unlikely if not prohibitive.

I'll be the first to agree that the ridership projections put forward by HSR were overly optimistic for the near term. However in the long term I still think this is a step forward. As much as this costs, it will cost more in the future, not only in construction, but in opportunity costs.

And as for a link between major cities, I'm not sure why you think that is unnecessary. Not only is there a ton of traffic between them already, but as airports become saturated having traffic offloaded to rail will make even more sense. Taking care of the shorter destinations with rail and leaving the longer trips to air.

I don't think anybody is against High Speed Rail as a concept.

It's just that this is a giant boondoggle and growing bigger with each year.

You could buy the best car in the world, but if you paid 4 or more times what it should cost, would you be happy with it?

 

[Reli]

And as for a link between major cities, I'm not sure why you think that is unnecessary. Not only is there a ton of traffic between them already, but as airports become saturated having traffic offloaded to rail will make even more sense. Taking care of the shorter destinations with rail and leaving the longer trips to air.

Isn't that what I said? Take care of SF to SJ or SAC with rail, but leave SF to LA to the airlines.

The percentage of SF residents who would take a train to LA is much less than the percentage who would take one to SJ or even SAC. Many people in the Bay Area have family in Sac, and many people need to visit the state gov't for work reasons.

If you want to go to LA, get there faster in a plane for only $100-150. You'll still need to rent a car once you get there, so what advantage does HSR offer?

Let SoCal make their own HSR if they want, like from LA to LV.

 

[Climber]

Isn't that what I said? Take care of SF to SJ or SAC with rail, but leave SF to LA to the airlines.

Agreed. The current line being put down makes absolutely zero sense, far too few riders for $Billions spent.

SF to LA would only make sense if the price was better than flights you could get and the time would be less than driving.

Then there is a inadequate local transportation systems in places like Sacramento, LA metro area, etc and other outlying areas that means that you'll have to rent a car anyways once you get to many destinations.

 

[mlm]

You talk as if SoCal is a different state, but the reality is that over half the population (and money) is coming from them. You'd have just as good of luck asking Texas to fund a SF -> SAC rail line

 

[mlm]

Some of the same complaints I'd raised in the past. Not so much that I disagree, just calling out counter-points

Agreed. The current line being put down makes absolutely zero sense, far too few riders for $Billions spent.

SF to LA would only make sense if the price was better than flights you could get and the time would be less than driving.

Experience in other countries (and even US East Coast) is that ticket prices for shorter regional routes are at or lower than airfare. Total trip times are similar too because security and boarding are faster for trains and train stations are generally closer for most people (since you can locate train stations in the city center)

Then there is a inadequate local transportation systems in places like Sacramento, LA metro area, etc and other outlying areas that means that you'll have to rent a car anyways once you get to many destinations.

Absolutely...for now. The question you have to consider is whether we'll continue living in an automobile driven sprawl landscape. I'll agree the "build it and they'll come" paradigm is a risk, but I also believe the suburban sprawl landscape is unsustainable as population continues to increase.

 

[afm199]

Use of mass transit correlates with population density (and availability) and every prediction is for population to continue increasing. Airports have capacity limits and adding runways to any of the local airports seems unlikely if not prohibitive.

I'll be the first to agree that the ridership projections put forward by HSR were overly optimistic for the near term. However in the long term I still think this is a step forward. As much as this costs, it will cost more in the future, not only in construction, but in opportunity costs.

And as for a link between major cities, I'm not sure why you think that is unnecessary. Not only is there a ton of traffic between them already, but as airports become saturated having traffic offloaded to rail will make even more sense. Taking care of the shorter destinations with rail and leaving the longer trips to air.

I like the idea more than the reality. If we get a bullet rain from LA to SF, it still leaves most of the urban and suburban population in both places stuck at home, with an antiquated and unworking transportation system. I'm in Oakland. If the thing goes to SF, I have to get there. That's a bus or Uber to BART, BART to SF, and then Uber or a bus to the train station. When I get to LA, it's the same thing. End result? 2-3 hours of secondary transport, and 2 hours of primary transport. 4-5 hours total. lol

 

[aminalmutha]

I like the idea more than the reality. If we get a bullet rain from LA to SF, it still leaves most of the urban and suburban population in both places stuck at home, with an antiquated and unworking transportation system. I'm in Oakland. If the thing goes to SF, I have to get there. That's a bus or Uber to BART, BART to SF, and then Uber or a bus to the train station. When I get to LA, it's the same thing. End result? 2-3 hours of secondary transport, and 2 hours of primary transport. 4-5 hours total. lol

Shelbyville has one...

 

[tzrider]

If you want to go to LA, get there faster in a plane for only $100-150. You'll still need to rent a car once you get there, so what advantage does HSR offer?

From the customer perspective, HSR will be less impacted by weather, so potentially more reliable. It will also use less fuel and produce fewer emissions per passenger mile, though I don't know that passengers would be motivated by that unless there is a related price decrease.