High speed rail for california? One group thinks so! (Los Angeles: buying, luxury)

[jkbatca]

Another flaw in this proposition is the number of people served vs. the amount spent. Our current infrastructure is too spread out to enable a high speed rail between LA and SanFran to serve enough people. Where are the surveys which show how many people would _use_ this vs. other means? Unless it was convenient to get ON the train, and my destination was close to where I was getting OFF the train, I'm going to use other means. I'm sure most others will do so also. I think it would have made way more sense for a high speed rail from LA to Las Vegas...

As for the bill, do you honestly, seriously think what is asked for in the bill will cover all expenses? Yeah right. I will bet if this passes, this will just be the beginning of a series of "well, we're part way there, we just need a few billion more to complete it" Rinse / repeat.

[Winston Smith]

Originally Posted by jkbatca

Uh, LOSSAN is nothing more than a conglomerate of various rail districts ... Also, not all is as rosy as it seems in LOSSAN land Rail Passenger Association of California & Nevada :: THE BALKANIZATION OF LOSSAN: A Commentary

Ok, you're not a fan of public subsidies for rail projects. Personally, I don't see how a private rail venture is supposed to compete with tax-funded public highways. But that's it. I've said all I'm going to on that subject.

Regarding LOSSAN, I won't deny that there are issues and challenges relating local jurisdictions all vying for their pet projects from a regional body. As you probably know, there is even a LOSSAN North and South additionally complicating things. But LOSSAN's job isn't easy. It attempts to serve a 300-mile corridor with micro-commuting patterns all along the corridor and it simply cannot please every community's needs along that stretch. Case and point, Amtrak serves Goleta to L.A. early in the morning at the same time that a local commute pattern in the opposite direction takes place from Ventura County. People sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic northbound 101 see a train zooming past southbound and wonder, "why?" But the fact is, once that train gets to Ventura County it serves far more commuters traveling south to the L.A. area than north to Santa Barbara, and the resources to serve both do not exist. Everybody is pulling on the regional authority for local customization because LOSSAN is the only option at this point. Why is it the only option? Lack of adequate, reliable funding and public-policy ambition to do more. So, I agree with the commentary on LOSSAN where it states:

"We are now paying the price for our failure to put in place a permanent funding mechanism to provide dollars for a continuous program of incremental improvements. [...] The LOSSAN Board has little power and often has difficulty in finding a quorum for meetings. I believe that it is impossible to run a successful passenger railroad business through a dozen public agencies, committees and boards without a full time, empowered, Executive Director."

This must change. The County of L.A. recognized this back in the 80s and 90s and subsequently rolled all of its disparate transit and rail agencies into one, the LAMTA. Transit and train services in L.A. County improved tremendously as a result. So just because bodies like LOSSAN must change doesn't make passenger rail fundamentally flawed and not worthy of effort. It's exactly the LACK of effort and funding that's put passenger rail in CA in the spot that it finds itself, as the commentary points out. So, blame the lack of effort, not passenger rail itself. MHO.

[jkbatca]

Originally Posted by cre8

Ok, you're not a fan of public subsidies for rail projects. Personally, I don't see how a private rail venture is supposed to compete with tax-funded public highways. But that's it. I've said all I'm going to on that subject.

Actually, I have no problems using the Washington DC Metro Metro - Homepage when I'm there. When done right and a need is there, trains are good. I just simply want a proposal that makes sense and we can afford. This proposition is neither.

BTW check out http://www.hjta.org/files/pdf/highspeedrail_prop.pdf for the specifics on why Prop 1A is a bad idea on all levels...

[humboldtrat]

There is a proposition on the Santa Clara county ballot for November to extend BART from Fremont to San Jose. The measure says it will cost $5 Billion (and probably more) to extend BART just 16.3 miles.

So do the math and tell me how much it will cost to put in rails between San Diego and Sacramento with a spur line going into the bay area. That's about 550 miles .

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by killer2021

You should see the safety records of high speed trains that are in operating in places like japan and Europe. They have super high safety ratings. You are more likely to die in a car than a high speed train.

Agreed.

[CubsGiantsIndiansfan2008]

Originally Posted by rickca

Another thing.. are these going to carry cars (like a ferry boat does).. what exactly are people supposed to do when they arrive in LA or Orange Country coming from the Bay Area? I guess they would have to rent a car but then its just like flying, as everyone knows you can't get around southern California without a car and its the same for much of northern California.

Not the Bay

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by humboldtrat

There is a proposition on the Santa Clara county ballot for November to extend BART from Fremont to San Jose. The measure says it will cost $5 Billion (and probably more) to extend BART just 16.3 miles.

So do the math and tell me how much it will cost to put in rails between San Diego and Sacramento with a spur line going into the bay area. That's about 550 miles .

Well I'm sure it won't cost that much per mile because a lot of the miles will be in the middle of nowhere and easy to build compared to carving their way through a densely populated area. But it'll still take decades, and cost several times whatever they tell us it will.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Well I'm sure it won't cost that much per mile because a lot of the miles will be in the middle of nowhere and easy to build compared to carving their way through a densely populated area. But it'll still take decades, and cost several times whatever they tell us it will.

The High Speed Train will go from San Diego north, going through populated areas in San Diego, Orange, and LA counties. Then they plan to tunnel under Tehachapi pass (which may be in the middle of nowhere but the tunnel won't be cheap).

Granted, placing tracks in the flat and not too populated San Joaquin valley might be the cheapest part of this plan.

In northern California, they plan to tunnel under Pacheco pass (between Los Banos and Gilroy) so the train can get to San Jose. After that, they want to run tracks 50 miles north through populated areas so the train can stop in San Francisco. And all of the track in populated areas will have to be elevated or put underground to avoid grade crossings (areas where cars cross train tracks)

So have no doubt, this boondoggle will cost plenty.

[kettlepot]

Originally Posted by humboldtrat

There is a proposition on the Santa Clara county ballot for November to extend BART from Fremont to San Jose. The measure says it will cost $5 Billion (and probably more) to extend BART just 16.3 miles.

So do the math and tell me how much it will cost to put in rails between San Diego and Sacramento with a spur line going into the bay area. That's about 550 miles .

This makes my point exactly. Better to do the rail link NOW, before more of that 550 miles gets built up. Of course ALL of it won't get built up, but every year we wait more of it will, and then we'll end up with the BART situation which because they've waited 40 extra years compared to the rest of BART, it will cost $5 billion to go 16 miles.

Best to build it now. The location of the rail link will then cause development to gravitate alongside it. Over the decades, many of California's additional millions of people will end up living near it.

[jawny08]

America has always had this idea that building more highways will reduce traffic and trains are a "wastfull subsidy". More highways means more cars on the road.

Europe and Japan understand that rail is the efficient way to transport large numbers of people in a world with a booming population. Roads are not sustainable. Could you imagine NYC w/o subways or commuter rail? 6+ million people a day take the subway and another million ride the 4 commuter rail networks in the area. Add these 7 million people on the roads and it would be a disaster. THe Acela has been very successful on the East Coast and helps to reduce congestion in the NE coridor airspace.

It was during the great depression that a lot of America's infrastructure was built. Now is a great time to invest in the future and help to reduce oil consumption.

If anyone supports rail join NARP.org. You even get 10% off Amtrak.