Calif High Speed Rail project derailed

[Political Junky]

North by Northwest comes to mind. It was released in 1959, so up until that time train travel was very comfortable.

 

[WillReadmore]

Trains aren't competitive with air travel? Who'da thunk it?

That's right, all the people that have been telling you that trains aren't competitive with air travel since you stuck your ignorant nose into this thread.

Even today's trains are competitive with air travel in certain cases. For example, the Seattle to Portland train goes from downtown Seattle to downtown Portland, thus dodging the many miles to the airport on each end as well as the time requirement and flight restrictions of security. So, the fast flight time makes no difference overall and it's more expensive. Also, in a train one may walk around, etc.

More cases of this exist on the east coast.

Fast trains can be competitive in more cases.

You're looking for some trivial generality. It just doesn't work that way.

The flight time is 50 mins give or take. The train takes 4 hours. Give or take. The avg Amtrak fare is around $65 one way.
By car, from downtown to downtown. It's 177 miles. Drive time in normal traffic according to googlemaps, 2 hrs 45 mins.
In a car that gets 30 mpg, it's about 5.5 gals of gas or about $17.50.
Now with the train, one must use a taxi to get to their final destination.
The fixed initial charge is $2.50 then $2.70 for each mile. $0.50 per minute wait time. So if the trip from the train station is 5 miles, that's $13.50 plus $0.50 per minute time not in motion. So if in that 5 miles the taxi has to stop at half of the traffic lights let's say there are 20 traffic lights. With each cycle lasting 3 mins, that's $1.50 for each red light X 10. So that $13.50 cab ride is now $28.50 plus tip. A 15% gratuity is expected. So add another $4 and change, round up to $5 tip...So that cab ride is now $33.50. So the 4 hour train trip which on the low side cost $61 plus the cab ride one way is $94. $188 round trip.
Now, the auto takes 25% less time, no cab fare and parking is generally about $10 per day in most garages. On street parking controlled by the city is roughly $2 per hour. $4 in the commercial core.
Based on those costs, and the extra time Amtrak takes to make the distance, the car beats the train all day long and twice on Sunday.

Car travel should be rated at the mileage reimbursement rate - not just gas.

The destinations in Portland and Seattle have public transportation and are IN downtown, making walking an option for a lot of the businesses, entertainment and other reasons for travel.

The train offers wi-fi and working conditions, bathrooms, food, and greater comfort than a car (unless you really like seat belts). You can get tickets on that run for less than $35 at times and most of the time you can go business class (nice wide seat, 110v, quiet, etc.) for ~$60.

The airplane is actually slower if you are headed to the downtown area (there is no significant center of business near where either airport is situated - for obvious reasons) as you have to add in the security check-in time and greater ground transport time. Plus, that gun of yours means checked baggage on a plane.

If time is the only constraint and you don't mind driving, the car works for this trip.

Also, this train can be sold out

 

[WillReadmore]

It takes 3 hours to drive from Seattle to Portland, that makes a horse and buggy competitive with a plane when the government requires you to show up 2 hours early to get treated like a terrorist.

Good point.

I take this run frequently. Sometimes I drive (like this thanksgiving) - partly because my wife and I take in other destinations. When I go alone I usually take the train (Cascades rather than Coast Starlight, business class usually) as it is more relaxing and when I'm by myself my lead foot earns points with the authorities too often.


The proposed LA to SF run takes significantly longer to drive. And, the fast rail would make it time competitive with air travel, where 2.8 million trips per year are taken today (let alone projected growth to when the project would be completed). Those businesses that feel they need one day turn around can't do it by car and they certainly can't do it by train today.


Intel Corp. (west of Portland in OR) finds single day turnaround important enough that they have a corporate air shuttle that allows single day turnaround from a local smaller airport to locations in California as far south as San Diego and Phoenix.

That's great for Intel, but not all businesses can afford to have their own aviation branch - even when they consider this kind of travel to be significantly important.

 

[WillReadmore]

I don't know what that means, but you are certainly free to dispute what I've said.

It would be great if, when you do so, you would add a link.

Have you noticed you are the only one battling to spend $100 billion of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY for the shiny train?

And one with no purpose but to make politicians look good and a vortex that sucks money.

I like the antique in your avatar!

 

[LogikAndReazon]

In what alternate universe did neo-progressive imbeciles ever care about costs, ineffeciency and insolvent outcomes when its for the hallowed public good ? As long as it can employ a deluge of govt civil servants what could be the downside.....lol

 

[WillReadmore]

In what alternate universe did neo-progressive imbeciles ever care about costs, ineffeciency and insolvent outcomes when its for the hallowed public good ? As long as it can employ a deluge of govt civil servants what could be the downside.....lol

Projects such this one are designed and implemented through the private sector.

The whole issue that started this tread has to do with making a wise business decision concerning this proposed solution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It takes 3 hours to drive from Seattle to Portland, that makes a horse and buggy competitive with a plane when the government requires you to show up 2 hours early to get treated like a terrorist.

Good point.

I take this run frequently. Sometimes I drive (like this thanksgiving) - partly because my wife and I take in other destinations. When I go alone I usually take the train (Cascades rather than Coast Starlight, business class usually) as it is more relaxing and when I'm by myself my lead foot earns points with the authorities too often.


The proposed LA to SF run takes significantly longer to drive. And, the fast rail would make it time competitive with air travel, where 2.8 million trips per year are taken today (let alone projected growth to when the project would be completed). Those businesses that feel they need one day turn around can't do it by car and they certainly can't do it by train today.


Intel Corp. (west of Portland in OR) finds single day turnaround important enough that they have a corporate air shuttle that allows single day turnaround from a local smaller airport to locations in California as far south as San Diego and Phoenix.

That's great for Intel, but not all businesses can afford to have their own aviation branch - even when they consider this kind of travel to be significantly important.

What. in your delusional head, makes it competitive? Trains are slower, even if you have an ideal route, and more expensive, even if you believe the ridiculous numbers that the business plans that defend them use.

 

[WillReadmore]

What. in your delusional head, makes it competitive? Trains are slower, even if you have an ideal route, and more expensive, even if you believe the ridiculous numbers that the business plans that defend them use.

You keep using slow trains as an argument against fast trains.

This makes it hard for me to see your argument.

My position is that it would be better to consider the business case for fast trains when one is planning to build a fast train.

I agree with you that building a slow train for the price of a fast train makes little business sense. But, that's not what's being discussed on this thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What. in your delusional head, makes it competitive? Trains are slower, even if you have an ideal route, and more expensive, even if you believe the ridiculous numbers that the business plans that defend them use.

You keep using slow trains as an argument against fast trains.

This makes it hard for me to see your argument.

My position is that it would be better to consider the business case for fast trains when one is planning to build a fast train.

I agree with you that building a slow train for the price of a fast train makes little business sense. But, that's not what's being discussed on this thread.

What is the average speed of this "fast train" over this route?

 

[WillReadmore]

What is the average speed of this "fast train" over this route?

Great question.

Wiki says the top possible speed of the train is claimed to be 220mph.

Speed from SF to LA (once all complete) is projected to average 164 mph. (How they're so accurate that they didn't round that to 160 or 165 I'll never know.)

Travel time of SF to LA is projected to be 2hr 38min (again, not 2hr 40min!).
The distance by car is 380 miles which google puts at 5hr 30 min.

Even if that time slides some (for the hundreds of reasons that could happen), it still sounds to me like it would be competitive with air travel, allowing a one day turnaround. (Maybe I'm emphasizing the importance of that too much?) And, one must assume air traffic will be substantially denser in 2029 when the project is projected to complete.

There is a table of this info at:
California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's wiki, of course. It's possible to find the state site for this project, but I don't remember it having the route times, etc., laid out quite as well as wiki. Plus, it probably doesn't have some of the criticism, etc.


The wiki contains two other sections that I think are well worth reading.

One is criticism of the plan. Tough stuff in that. One claim is that not all of the rail bed will be upgraded for full fast-train quality, so they doubt speed objectives can be met. It doesn't say if that is a permanent feature. It also goes through some of the history and the legal situation.

The other is the cost comparison with alternatives (projected to be a combination of new freeways and new airports or airport expansion). These alternatives seem to come in at about 2X the cost of the fast rail solution. My editorial comment might be that perhaps some of the difference could go into ensuring the full speed objectives of the train, if that speed is important.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What. in your delusional head, makes it competitive? Trains are slower, even if you have an ideal route, and more expensive, even if you believe the ridiculous numbers that the business plans that defend them use.

You keep using slow trains as an argument against fast trains.

This makes it hard for me to see your argument.

My position is that it would be better to consider the business case for fast trains when one is planning to build a fast train.

I agree with you that building a slow train for the price of a fast train makes little business sense. But, that's not what's being discussed on this thread.

The California High Speed Rail business plan says that the train will go up to 150 mph. If we assumed it traveled that fast for the entire route, which it will not do, it could travel from LA so San Francisco in just over 2 hours, which is an hour slower than a plane.

Want to try again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is the average speed of this "fast train" over this route?

Great question.

Wiki says the top possible speed of the train is claimed to be 220mph.

Speed from SF to LA (once all complete) is projected to average 164 mph. (How they're so accurate that they didn't round that to 160 or 165 I'll never know.)

Travel time of SF to LA is projected to be 2hr 38min (again, not 2hr 40min!).
The distance by car is 380 miles which google puts at 5hr 30 min.

Even if that time slides some (for the hundreds of reasons that could happen), it still sounds to me like it would be competitive with air travel, allowing a one day turnaround. (Maybe I'm emphasizing the importance of that too much?) And, one must assume air traffic will be substantially denser in 2029 when the project is projected to complete.

There is a table of this info at:
California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's wiki, of course. It's possible to find the state site for this project, but I don't remember it having the route times, etc., laid out quite as well as wiki. Plus, it probably doesn't have some of the criticism, etc.


The wiki contains two other sections that I think are well worth reading.

One is criticism of the plan. Tough stuff in that. One claim is that not all of the rail bed will be upgraded for full fast-train quality, so they doubt speed objectives can be met. It doesn't say if that is a permanent feature. It also goes through some of the history and the legal situation.

The other is the cost comparison with alternatives (projected to be a combination of new freeways and new airports or airport expansion). These alternatives seem to come in at about 2X the cost of the fast rail solution. My editorial comment might be that perhaps some of the difference could go into ensuring the full speed objectives of the train, if that speed is important.

Wiki is lying, the top speed of any train in the US is 150 mph.

 

[Political Junky]

What is the average speed of this "fast train" over this route?

Great question.

Wiki says the top possible speed of the train is claimed to be 220mph.

Speed from SF to LA (once all complete) is projected to average 164 mph. (How they're so accurate that they didn't round that to 160 or 165 I'll never know.)

Travel time of SF to LA is projected to be 2hr 38min (again, not 2hr 40min!).
The distance by car is 380 miles which google puts at 5hr 30 min.

Even if that time slides some (for the hundreds of reasons that could happen), it still sounds to me like it would be competitive with air travel, allowing a one day turnaround. (Maybe I'm emphasizing the importance of that too much?) And, one must assume air traffic will be substantially denser in 2029 when the project is projected to complete.

There is a table of this info at:
California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's wiki, of course. It's possible to find the state site for this project, but I don't remember it having the route times, etc., laid out quite as well as wiki. Plus, it probably doesn't have some of the criticism, etc.


The wiki contains two other sections that I think are well worth reading.

One is criticism of the plan. Tough stuff in that. One claim is that not all of the rail bed will be upgraded for full fast-train quality, so they doubt speed objectives can be met. It doesn't say if that is a permanent feature. It also goes through some of the history and the legal situation.

The other is the cost comparison with alternatives (projected to be a combination of new freeways and new airports or airport expansion). These alternatives seem to come in at about 2X the cost of the fast rail solution. My editorial comment might be that perhaps some of the difference could go into ensuring the full speed objectives of the train, if that speed is important.

Wiki is lying, the top speed of any train in the US is 150 mph.

Up until now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Great question.

Wiki says the top possible speed of the train is claimed to be 220mph.

Speed from SF to LA (once all complete) is projected to average 164 mph. (How they're so accurate that they didn't round that to 160 or 165 I'll never know.)

Travel time of SF to LA is projected to be 2hr 38min (again, not 2hr 40min!).
The distance by car is 380 miles which google puts at 5hr 30 min.

Even if that time slides some (for the hundreds of reasons that could happen), it still sounds to me like it would be competitive with air travel, allowing a one day turnaround. (Maybe I'm emphasizing the importance of that too much?) And, one must assume air traffic will be substantially denser in 2029 when the project is projected to complete.

There is a table of this info at:
California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's wiki, of course. It's possible to find the state site for this project, but I don't remember it having the route times, etc., laid out quite as well as wiki. Plus, it probably doesn't have some of the criticism, etc.


The wiki contains two other sections that I think are well worth reading.

One is criticism of the plan. Tough stuff in that. One claim is that not all of the rail bed will be upgraded for full fast-train quality, so they doubt speed objectives can be met. It doesn't say if that is a permanent feature. It also goes through some of the history and the legal situation.

The other is the cost comparison with alternatives (projected to be a combination of new freeways and new airports or airport expansion). These alternatives seem to come in at about 2X the cost of the fast rail solution. My editorial comment might be that perhaps some of the difference could go into ensuring the full speed objectives of the train, if that speed is important.

Wiki is lying, the top speed of any train in the US is 150 mph.

Up until now.

Actually, if we use now as the standard, trains used to be faster. Or did you miss the train that derailed after going 82 mph today?

 

[Two Thumbs]

This has always been the White Elephant project of all White Elephant projects. A hundred billion dollars, spent to benefit a very few people, at a time when California already has adequate road and air transportation, and is under staggering debts with its liberal politicians pouring on more and more.

Not sure what Obama has to do with all this, aside from the fact that massive Federal funds were coming in to help pay for it, even though most of the country would never had ridden on the train.

Then, to everyone's surprise, a judge actually announced that California had to obey the law.

That brought everything to a screeching halt.

Hopefully the second sentence of the article is correct.

-------------------------------------

Obama's High-Speed Rail Plan Loses Big in California Court

Conn Carroll | Nov 26, 2013

California Gov. Jerry Brown can not spend state bond revenues on President Obama's signature transportation project until the state can identify how they will pay for the entire $68 billion project, a California court ruled Monday. The decision almost certainly spells death for the project.

This August, Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny ruled that the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) “abused its discretion by approving a funding plan that did not comply with the requirements of the law."

That law would be Proposition 1A (the “Safe, Reliable, High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century”), which required the CHSRA to identify “sources of all funds to be invested in the corridor” and complete “all necessary project level environmental clearances” before construction can begin.

At the time, Democrats sold Obama's high-speed rail plan as a $40 billion project. But that number quickly skyrocketed to more than $100 billion, after California voters approved it, of course.

How much did they waste for nothing?

damn

That's liberals for ya, they just assumed the judge would give it a pass or just didn't think it through.

probably didn't think it through, like everything else.

 

[WillReadmore]

The California High Speed Rail business plan says that the train will go up to 150 mph. If we assumed it traveled that fast for the entire route, which it will not do, it could travel from LA so San Francisco in just over 2 hours, which is an hour slower than a plane.

Want to try again?

Well, to start with Expedia tells me the flight time is more like an hour and a quarter.

And, 1 hour isn't enough time to spend trying to get through security at the airport.

Finally, I don't believe that the speed component of a traveler's decision actually depends on times being comparable down to the minute. There are other factors in travel decisions, such as the exact location of the terminals, ability to get work done on the trip, ability to walk around, get food, etc.

 

[WillReadmore]

Wiki is lying, the top speed of any train in the US is 150 mph.

Is there some speed limit on what people are allowed to build?

 

[WillReadmore]

Wiki is lying, the top speed of any train in the US is 150 mph.

If you can remember where you got that number I'd appreciate you posting it.

This isn't a matter of doubting you. I want to know who's saying what and when numbers are different I like to know why - what assumptions they are making, etc.

 

[westwall]

The California High Speed Rail business plan says that the train will go up to 150 mph. If we assumed it traveled that fast for the entire route, which it will not do, it could travel from LA so San Francisco in just over 2 hours, which is an hour slower than a plane.

Want to try again?

Well, to start with Expedia tells me the flight time is more like an hour and a quarter.

And, 1 hour isn't enough time to spend trying to get through security at the airport.

Finally, I don't believe that the speed component of a traveler's decision actually depends on times being comparable down to the minute. There are other factors in travel decisions, such as the exact location of the terminals, ability to get work done on the trip, ability to walk around, get food, etc.

If it were truly going to be a high speed rail it would follow the I-5 corridor. Instead they want to follow the State Hwy 99 route. Lots of towns and cities and not a prayer it will be high speed.

Clearly you are as conversant with geography as you are with economic theory...which is not at all. Yet another ignorant twerp.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The California High Speed Rail business plan says that the train will go up to 150 mph. If we assumed it traveled that fast for the entire route, which it will not do, it could travel from LA so San Francisco in just over 2 hours, which is an hour slower than a plane.

Want to try again?

Well, to start with Expedia tells me the flight time is more like an hour and a quarter.

And, 1 hour isn't enough time to spend trying to get through security at the airport.

Finally, I don't believe that the speed component of a traveler's decision actually depends on times being comparable down to the minute. There are other factors in travel decisions, such as the exact location of the terminals, ability to get work done on the trip, ability to walk around, get food, etc.

are you so stupid that you think they won't put the same stupid security theater on high speed rail if it gets built? Have you been to a major event recently? TSA is showing up at football games and concerts, the best way to deal with the security problem is tell the government to follow the Constitution, and to stop letting them get away with abusing us, not give them more chances to fuck us over.