| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| California's High Speed Train to Nowhere |
| 2011-11-14 |
| Time to pull the plug, right? Not according to Gov. Jerry Brown (D). The new "business plan is solid and lays the foundation for a 21st-century transportation system," he said. Equally upbeat, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood offered Mr. Brown his congratulations on "a sound, step-by-step strategy for building a world-class high-speed rail network." Alas, there is only one place where the state could finish the necessary environmental impact statements and other bureaucratic requirements before the use-it-or-lose-it date: a thinly populated 130-mile stretch of flatland that starts just north of Fresno and ends just north of Bakersfield. At least |
| Posted by:GolfBravoUSMC |
| #17 Also Ontario has a decent airport for connections along the west coast. Ontario's issue is that it's 'managed' by the same people that run LAX. It's underutilized, under-maintained, under-staffed, and overcharged. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2011-11-14 22:08 |
| #16 Where they screwed this up was the direction. Should have run a Highspeed Rail from Ontario to Vegas. Get just outside of LA and land costs drop. You can get to Ontario, park your car ride the train to Vegas - take a cab to the hotel. The route is good and cheap land. Another run that would make sense is Ontario to San Diego. Same issues the State already owns the I-15 corridor. Both those routes are way over crowded on the freeways. I-5 to the Bay Area not so much. Also Ontario has a decent airport for connections along the west coast. Thsy should have started by making it just So Cal and Vegas. Taking on half the State to big a bite. Hell I would consider a high speed rail from San Diego to Las Vegas that is a brutal drive. The time to get thru TSA, Airport delays and cost might make it worth it. The problem I see is that a rail line has no competion, airlines offer specials to get passengers. |
| Posted by: retired LEO 2011-11-14 21:37 |
| #15 Harry Harrison: A Transatlantic Tunnel, Hurrah! |
| Posted by: Water Modem 2011-11-14 21:15 |
| #14 Both LA and SF have airport capacity problems and airport access problems (and of course there is the TSA issue). So is the choice between adding a few extra runways or hundreds of miles of track? Seems to me they could find a place to put a few extra runways between SF and LA. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-11-14 19:56 |
| #13 If the problem is airport capacity, raise the ticket tax and add to the capacity. Ever see the crap that airport's have to go if they even drop a hint about expanding? The "community", the "activists", the "environmentalists", the "noise abattors", the local government...everybody comes out of the woodwork either with their hand out or the big hammer for an even bigger shakedown. Good luck with that. Might as well try to build a nuclear plant. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2011-11-14 19:22 |
| #12 Good question. I was thinking of rail and bus, mainly, since I'm a little familiar with them. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-11-14 19:16 |
| #11 There is no mass transit anywhere in the world that pays for itself if one includes the building costs. Do you consider airlines as 'mass transit'? I read somewhere that, over time, airlines are not profitable for their stockholders. Industries that service airlines may make money, airlines not nearly as much, if any, overall. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-11-14 18:15 |
| #10 I don't see the economics of 'high speed rail' working without massive government subsidies. There is no mass transit anywhere in the world that pays for itself if one includes the building costs. And with very few if any exceptions they don't ever cover their operating costs, either. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-11-14 17:57 |
| #9 This is what happens when stupid people are allowed to vote and hucksters are allowed to put propositions on the ballot without disclosure. A high speed rail between SF and LA sounds great, really it does. But it will never make money, will cost probably 10 times the original estimate, and so far has employed more lawyers than builders. Jerry Brown could stop this with a stoke of a pen but he wont. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2011-11-14 16:52 |
| #8 Both LA and SF have airport capacity problems... ..and for that matter the NY-DC corridor. Anyone think that maybe that when you have such a situation, the solution may not be building more transportation pipelines. Choosing to be in those locations should have consequences whose solutions are not everyone else subsidizing them. If you let the hassles get big enough, people will finally move to places reducing the problem in and of itself. Relocate. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-11-14 16:02 |
| #7 Rode the Amtrak regional from DC to Richmond VA recently. Did an upgraded business class ticket at about $45. Nice enough but I'm sure Amtrak still lost money on me. I don't see the economics of 'high speed rail' working without massive government subsidies. If the problem is airport capacity, raise the ticket tax and add to the capacity. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2011-11-14 15:50 |
| #6 Gorb, Actually it might well do so. Both LA and SF have airport capacity problems and airport access problems (and of course there is the TSA issue). The Acela (which averages only 75 mph or so) carries a lot of passengers (about half the total bus+car+train+air market between DC and NY). There are many ways to define 'economic viability'. By any reasonable GAAP method the Acela loses money (about $100M/month not counting depreciation of the track) but that is, depending on your assumptions, offset by the decrease in congestion on the highways and airports. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2011-11-14 15:02 |
| #5 Does anybody honestly think a 90+billion dollar rail system that reduced the travel time between SF and LA from 8 hours to 4, and costs as much as airfare (or more depending on the estimates you read) at current rates without subsidy, is economically viable? Ask the voters at the next election. |
| Posted by: gorb 2011-11-14 12:42 |
| #4 Visalia would have been a nice stop (very nice area plus over 100,000 residents), but it won't be goin |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2011-11-14 12:09 |
| #3 This is in the washington post! The meta narrative may have turned. |
| Posted by: Lord Garth 2011-11-14 11:55 |
| #2 Every time I think we can't get any dumber or more corrupt here, I'm confounded to learn we can. Does anybody honestly think a 90+billion dollar rail system that reduced the travel time between SF and LA from 8 hours to 4, and costs as much as airfare (or more depending on the estimates you read) at current rates without subsidy, is economically viable? Even the truly naive laugh at this boondoggle. |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2011-11-14 10:52 |
| #1 California: A State at High Speed to Nowhere Fixed. |
| Posted by: Spot 2011-11-14 10:01 |