California High Speed Rail - Boondoggle or Boon? (Los Angeles, San Diego: apartment, insurance)

[BBMW]

California is spending nine digits (current budget $113 billion, likely to keep growing) on building a high speed rail line between LA and SF. Does this project make sense, or should some fraction of this be spent on improving other existing links (airport capacity, highway expansion, transit connections to airports, etc.), that would move the same number of people but at vastly less cost?

[GuyInSD]

That the first thing they did was decide to connect two boondock locations to eachother (Bakersfield - Madera) instead of some population centers like, say, San Diego to Los Angeles, tells me all I need to know about this boondoggle.
I'm sure if you followed the $$$, you'd find out why they're doing what they're doing.

Can't wait to see the tens of thousands of people in Bakersfield lining up to be quickly whisked to Madera - that'll bring in the cashflow to pay for the rest of it!

[sav858]

High speed rail is a great idea but CA just completely screwed up implementing it. It's a shame too, could have been a really good project. I don't know if they can save this project or not, they really should have done some massive reorganization or direction change but they seem to just be limping along.

Why they didn't focus on the LA-SD corridor first, the second busiest rail corridor in the nation, is beyond me.

[Ruth4Truth]

As commented on in the other threads on this topic, it's hardly going to be HSR with all those stops. In SoCal, it's more like a milk run. And clearly, Fresno, etc. have clout to be able to demand to be included.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: steel buckles in high ambient temperatures. This was proven just a couple of years ago during a "heat wave" in Germany (temps: 90's F, mostly, with a few spikes into low 100's) in 2019, when train tracks around the country became unusable, and buses had to be rented on an emergency basis to move stranded train passengers along their scheduled routes. With a warming climate in CA, and running tracks through locations already prone to high temps, which will get even higher as this century wears on, the system is due to fail.

AND, we still don't know whose steel the US will be using for the tracks. If they use the same Chinese steel as was used for the Bay Bridge and its faulty rivets, there's no point in doing the project at all. And the supposedly high-quality German steel obviously isn't going to work in California temps. Is anyone paying attention to that?


HSR would have been a good project for an earlier era. At this point, it looks like just another project for California to brag about (until it fails), like the free CalMed insurance for all proposal. California trying to behave like an independent nation, with univseral health care, HSR, world-class universities, etc.

[wac_432]

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.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by wac_432

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.

Good point. In the countries where HSR has been done, and in the US NE corridor, the population centers served are very high-density. Millions of people living in apartment blocks.

Besides, how many Californians would be able to afford the fares, at this point?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by wac_432

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.

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Good point. In the countries where HSR has been done, and in the US NE corridor, the population centers served are very high-density. Millions of people living in apartment blocks.

Besides, how many Californians would be able to afford the fares, at this point?

I'm not sure why this really matters as HSR is suppose to get people between cities, not within them. If you want to make an argument the cities lack good public transit to get around after you get off the train I can see that but that's no different than when people fly. There is definitely enough population to justify it though. And besides SF and LA are two of the densest metros in the nation, SD is up there as well.

[MechAndy]

Merced to Bakersfield?
Ha Ha.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by sav858

I'm not sure why this really matters as HSR is suppose to get people between cities, not within them. If you want to make an argument the cities lack good public transit to get around after you get off the train I can see that but that's no different than when people fly. There is definitely enough population to justify it though. And besides SF and LA are two of the densest metros in the nation, SD is up there as well.

It has to do with ridership. Spending an astronomical sum for a people-moving project is more easily justified, if the project will serve millions, vs. maybe 10,000 or less. And the question remains, to what extent will fares be subsidized? That could hold back a percentage of ridership.

There are many unanswered questions with this project.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

It has to do with ridership. Spending an astronomical sum for a people-moving project is more easily justified, if the project will serve millions, vs. maybe 10,000 or less. And the question remains, to what extent will fares be subsidized? That could hold back a percentage of ridership.

There are many unanswered questions with this project.

It will, or at least is supposed to, serve millions. There are 30+ million people in those three metro areas alone.