Cost of High Speed Train Significantly Increasing (public schools, maintenance)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Shallow alcove hidden from the telescreen
2,563 posts, read 5,883,145 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkbatca
Guess you've missed the points I was trying to make...
1. Four years just for environmental review (read the linked brochure)? Seriously? Did France or Japan take four years to study the environmental impact on their high speed system?
2. Where did I say in the previous post that the US had to emulate a dictatorship to complete a system in four years? WTF kind of straw man argument is this? My point was the CA HSR is going to be dragged out for a long long time (much more than other equivalent systems) due to the CA bureaucracy. We should AT LEAST be starting to lay down track in 2012, especially since voters approved the bond to make it happen.
3. The CA system doesn't have enough money to make the rail happen yet? Then why did they go to the voters asking for money without backing and a hard core plan?
Well, let's mark the calendar for 2012 and see where the CA high speed rail is then with it's environmentally sensitive and holistic CA style high speed rail management. I'll bet we'll have lots and lots of environmental studies with no rail being built.
Sorry if I overstepped, but in Japan and France -- modern democracies -- I would venture a guess that it took longer than in China. CA does have a bureaucracy to deal with, true, but I don't bemoan the process. Environmental review and public comment and so on, is a good thing.
But I say it again: I support rail for CA, just not HSR.
you can't just throw environmental, labor and social issues under a steamroller -- or HSR right-of-ways -- without review or comment first.
If the State (by which I mean the voters who approved this thing) wish to see it happen, they better be prepared to do just that.
Otherwise yeah, as stated. It will he mired in bureaucracy FOREVER costing untold sums. And then we rightly should be even more peeved than we are now.
We can't have it both ways. Either we say we want it and throw the professional obstructionists under the steamroller (literally if needed, if that's what it takes to get them out of the way), or be prepared to throw money out the window for decades to come.
Or better yet NOT approve such projects that we really can't afford in the first place.
If the State (by which I mean the voters who approved this thing) wish to see it happen, they better be prepared to do just that.
Otherwise yeah, as stated. It will he mired in bureaucracy FOREVER costing untold sums. And then we rightly should be even more peeved than we are now.
We can't have it both ways. Either we say we want it and throw the professional obstructionists under the steamroller (literally if needed, if that's what it takes to get them out of the way), or be prepared to throw money out the window for decades to come.
Or better yet NOT approve such projects that we really can't afford in the first place.
Oddly enough, apparently the governor can use his power to bypass all that crap. He did it for the stadium project in Industry/Walnut
Someone told me something today that reminded me of this thread. He told me how expensive driving is in Japan. He said he and his friend drove from Osaka to Tokyo and it cost Y8000 in tolls (US$87 at today's exchange rate) but I don't know how long ago his trip was. Using Google maps, I see that's a driving distance of 316 miles and an estimated time of 6:45 (about 49mph). The train gets you there in 3:44 (84mph). Maybe it's not that Japan's rail system is so marvelous that it gets people out of their cars, its the high cost car travel that makes trains more attractive. We also have relatively cheap air fare between SF and LA.
Someone told me something today that reminded me of this thread. He told me how expensive driving is in Japan. He said he and his friend drove from Osaka to Tokyo and it cost Y8000 in tolls (US$87 at today's exchange rate) but I don't know how long ago his trip was. Using Google maps, I see that's a driving distance of 316 miles and an estimated time of 6:45 (about 49mph). The train gets you there in 3:44 (84mph). Maybe it's not that Japan's rail system is so marvelous that it gets people out of their cars, its the high cost car travel that makes trains more attractive. We also have relatively cheap air fare between SF and LA.
Location: Shallow alcove hidden from the telescreen
2,563 posts, read 5,883,145 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia
Someone told me something today that reminded me of this thread. He told me how expensive driving is in Japan. He said he and his friend drove from Osaka to Tokyo and it cost Y8000 in tolls (US$87 at today's exchange rate) but I don't know how long ago his trip was. Using Google maps, I see that's a driving distance of 316 miles and an estimated time of 6:45 (about 49mph). The train gets you there in 3:44 (84mph). Maybe it's not that Japan's rail system is so marvelous that it gets people out of their cars, its the high cost car travel that makes trains more attractive. We also have relatively cheap air fare between SF and LA.
Well precisely, but that's because in the U.S. the government subsidizes car-and-driver more than any other form of transportation, thus encouraging it over trains or transit. (How much of this kind of public policy was inspired at the hands of GM, Ford, Chrysler, big oil and concrete/mining conglomerates? One can wonder, but that's another discussion.) In Japan and Europe, car drivers pay a higher share of the cost of that choice by way of more appropriate taxes at the pump and otherwise.
Well precisely, but that's because in the U.S. the government subsidizes car-and-driver more than any other form of transportation, thus encouraging it over trains or transit. (How much of this kind of public policy was inspired at the hands of GM, Ford, Chrysler, big oil and concrete/mining conglomerates? One can wonder, but that's another discussion.) In Japan and Europe, car drivers pay a higher share of the cost of that choice by way of more appropriate taxes at the pump and otherwise.
population density is the contributing factor more than anything else. major cities in japan, europe, korea, china, etc have higher population numbers per square mile/km/whatever. yea, politics are part of the issue, but less than you're making it out to be. in the end, new york is built upwards and has a very strong public transport infrastructure because the population density can support it, while LA, like much of everywhere outside of the northeast and chicago, is built outwards and there just isnt enough people to support a comprehensive rail system(buses are another story because they can be adjusted to fit the needs of the populace).
The fact of the matter is that Metrolink is considering cutting trains or service altogether on certain days or times of around 50 existing trains, and around 20 of those trains are doing less than 100 passengers on the route at the particular time the train is running. Those kind of ridership numbers show that it's more than just the government not supporting rail or special interests killing projects.
Location: Shallow alcove hidden from the telescreen
2,563 posts, read 5,883,145 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhcompy
population density is the contributing factor more than anything else. major cities in japan, europe, korea, china, etc have higher population numbers per square mile/km/whatever. yea, politics are part of the issue, but less than you're making it out to be. in the end, new york is built upwards and has a very strong public transport infrastructure because the population density can support it, while LA, like much of everywhere outside of the northeast and chicago, is built outwards and there just isnt enough people to support a comprehensive rail system(buses are another story because they can be adjusted to fit the needs of the populace).
The fact of the matter is that Metrolink is considering cutting trains or service altogether on certain days or times of around 50 existing trains, and around 20 of those trains are doing less than 100 passengers on the route at the particular time the train is running. Those kind of ridership numbers show that it's more than just the government not supporting rail or special interests killing projects.
Ok, some merit here, but then how do you explain low population, large area countries like Norway and Sweden? California is about the same size area wise as each of them with more than double the population of the two combined. California, for that matter, is the most populous state in the U.S., with L.A. County the most populous county the country over. Rail can work if it's made a public-policy priority, which it isn't. *Conventional rail* that is. Not HSR.
Don't know about Metrolink ridership being down. If that's so, I suspect the depressed economy and the L.A. area's 14-15% unemployment are playing a role. The Ventura County line had record boardings early last year.
Ok, some merit here, but then how do you explain low population, large area countries like Norway and Sweden? California is about the same size area wise as each of them with more than double the population of the two combined. California, for that matter, is the most populous state in the U.S., with L.A. County the most populous county the country over. Rail can work if it's made a public-policy priority, which it isn't. *Conventional rail* that is. Not HSR.
Don't know about Metrolink ridership being down. If that's so, I suspect the depressed economy and the L.A. area's 14-15% unemployment are playing a role. The Ventura County line had record boardings early last year.
I think we went over this before but it "works" in Sweden and Norway because of a greater willingness of the govt. to subsidize social goods, bad weather, higher gas prices, and the higher cost of buying a car due to taxes. In California, public transportation is for other people (mainly those with lower incomes). It's just a different mindset. Like enjoying lutefisk.
Location: Shallow alcove hidden from the telescreen
2,563 posts, read 5,883,145 times
Reputation: 1094
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAVA1990
I think we went over this before but it "works" in Sweden and Norway because of a greater willingness of the govt. to subsidize social goods, bad weather, higher gas prices, and the higher cost of buying a car due to taxes. In California, public transportation is for other people (mainly those with lower incomes). It's just a different mindset. Like enjoying lutefisk.
Yes, we're going round in circles. Transit I would agree you could make a case that it's used by lower income people more than not, but trains in CA are not mainly for the poor. Look at Metrolink, CalTrain and the CalTrans-governed Amtrak routes (Surfliner, San Joaquin and Capitols). These are viable alternatives to driving that millions of Californian's use every year. We just need more trains like them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
