@@rnelson299 I don't know what you mean by "America's geography prohibits High Speed Rail". Take Japan for example. Almost the entire Japanese island is covered by mountains and earthquake faults and yet they have a fully functioning High Speed Rail line, mind you that it was built back in the 50s. So if Japan could do it, California is more than capable.
I remember how easy and convenient it was to take the train from Milwaukee to downtown Chicago. No stress, no hassles, no worry about parking; simply sit down and relax and watch the green Wisconsin countryside from the comfort of my seet. I was able to spend the day in Chicago, even go on a river and lake cruise and take the train back to Milwaukee all in one day. Public transportation is a necessity and obligation for any civilized country.
I am a musician in a touring band. If there was a nation wide HSR system, tons of bands could leave the tour bus/motor home/van way of traveling behind. It's how many bands tour in Japan. I don't know how many countless occupations could benefit from a coast to coast HSR grid, but I'm sure music isn't the only one.
Actually, many airlines (excluding Southwest) use government subsidies. High Speed Rail is self sustainable. Many private high-speed rail companies are springing up all over the world. HSR is very profitable. This year, Amtrak's Acela Express earned a $41 per passenger profit this past year, allowing the service to be very profitable and allows expanded services.
The usa went to the moon 50 yrs ago and their trains are still in the 30´s. About time they catch up, go look in europe, china and japan : it works like a charm for decades in a row now.
palmdale to la union takes over 2 hours. stockton to bay area takes a little under 2 hours. and thats not counting the majority of the line through the central valley. so when they say local transit will be upgraded, they really better mean it.
this high speed rail is ripping right through my hometown and my families' farmland, people don't realize the negative impact of this project it has on the central valley.
i find it somewhat smart for them to plan the train to go through the inland empire. Those who live in small communities like temecula, san marcos, escondido, murrieta, lake elsinore, etc. will have easy access to it when it fully opens. apparently, the inland communities in the riverside county never really had trains pass by them, i think.
I've used Japan's bullet trains, Eurostar and the French, German and Spanish High Speed train networks. They are so far advanced, air travel is not a rival until it gets over 600miles. City Centre to City Centre, More space for passengers, WiFi. and its so green. Centre of London to Centre of Paris - 2Hr 15min. Centre of Madrid to Centre of Barcelona (386ml) 2hrs 38mins
They first began talk of the HSR even as we were going bankrupt due to the Enron energy crisis and Gray Davis was governor. All of these projections about energy mitigation are more optimistic than even best case scenario.
Yes, this will definitely have an effect on the Central Valley, which is currently cut off from the outside world. It's 50 miles by road from Fresno to the I-5, and more than 100 miles from there to the nearest city. travel in and out of the area is slow and inconvenient, as a result of which the area is mired in a 19th century agricultural economy and high unemployment. By increasing the accessibility the area can use its low cost of living and quality transportation to lure tech and information industries to expand there, increasing and diversifying the local economy. LA to San Francisco is one of America's busiest transportation corridors, and the additional choice and capacity will provide a great boost to economic activity, as well as opening new markets in the LA to Bakersfield and Fresno routes.
Not sure how you're defining "city", but I'm about 40 miles from Fresno in a city with over 130,000 people in. Also, while I-5 is quite a ways away (for those who don't know, I-5 runs down the west side of the valley, while the overwhelming majority of people live on the east side), it's not like we're having to slog our horse and cart teams through the mud to get somewhere. SR-99 is a full freeway from the southern end at the foot of the Grapevine all the way to Stockton, and most of that is at Interstate standard. It connects with I-5 at the south end, and a couple of miles on SR-4 connects you to I-5 on the north end.
Claude LOL WOW, somebody drank That Koolaid Deeply ( Jonestown gone Bad) FYI who has rated that Bond Issue? ( the same that cooked up that Mortgage Derivative that worked so well in 2007-2008?) OKAY, our Banksters are now so "trustworthy" right?
Grandpa, tell us about California High Speed rail. Well, honey, when I was a young man, only a little bit older than you are now, I voted for a thing called 'HSR'. It was going to be wonderful! We will travel at '200 miles per hour', they said. The years went by, quicker than I expected. By the time I was married, and had a child of my own, who was to become your mother, by the way, the HSR authority had completed...the first round of studies! We were SO hopeful! Well, the years passed. My baby girl grew up to become your mother. By then, the HSR authority had actually BUILT something, tracks, I think, in the middle of nowhere. Around Fresno maybe. We never actually saw it, and there were no trains yet, of course. But I hear it is beautiful. So, darling, they tell us that if we just keep hoping and praying, and spending LOTS of money, SOMEDAY, maybe, we will see a high speed train go by! It won't be soon. Perhaps YOUR grandkids will get a chance to see it. They won't be able to afford to ride on it, of course. It will be WAY to expensive to purchase a ticket. Gosh grandpa! I really hope I get to see that!
@CATPWRD: Right now a private company called DesertXpress is going to construct the high-speed line into Las Vegas from Victorville, where it will have connections to downtown LA via Metrolink. The company will not be recieving any tax dollars and announced last week that their project is running on schedule. Construction starts in March 2011 and service will begin in 2014.
Actually, HSR is quite profitable. Just this past year, Amtrak's Acela Express (America's only current high-speed service) earned a $41 per passenger profit. This is not the only profitable case, many new private high speed rail companies are springing up and companies that were once government companies are privatizing (i.e. British Rail, Japan Rail, etc.) because of HSR's profitability.
Had an experience once regarding trains. I took a cab to a train station to go from one place to another. For some reason, the train schedule change- WITHOUT notice. I had just enough to pay the cab fare and the train fare- no more. I was stuck in the MIDDLE of no where!! I was scared! Had to hitch a ride from a stranger. That was scary too! What a great opportunity for someone to get robbed or murdered! I was fortunate- but many won't be.
@Civsuccess2 to answer your question, no, LGV Nord is not used for freight during the day. There's a second, older, duplicate lines more or less following the route that was there prior to construction, that is used. Makes the freight a little slower, but keeps the HSTs going full pelt. The LGVs are used during the night only by heavier slower freight, as the line is safer with full automatical train protection.
@taatpringist The full, finalized business plan is up to the private company who will operate and eventually own the system. The company, Alstom Technological Industries (they built the TGV and the new AGV) was selected today.
Caltrain is a slow train. Slow train has its own signal system. HSR is a fast train. It has its own signal system. You have to get rid of Caltrain if you want HSR. Then you have to make sure the track is compatible and the signal system is scraped. It's essentially apple vs orange.
Electric cars wouldn't have any return and much space would be wasted for parking and highways, while trains can be more dense. Trains are the way forward
@Civsuccess2 The feature isn't really from intention but a byproduct of the system's efficiency itself. Stripping away at the money behind the project won't do much to decrease this capacity further, it's a simple fact of train capacity times the potential operating numbers to the max on the infrastructure. It is a good thing to have a system that happens to come with a lot of capacity without having to spend to get it.
As I, a european, that frequently uses his Highspeedrail. Second this idea, it's wonderful. We use our with pleasure, reaching daily speeds of up to 350km/h with ease. Elimating the fuss of driving 8 hours from amsterdam - paris to a 2h 44min ride on the TGV, or using the airport. I live close to amsterdam central station I'd use the local train to get to get from Amsterdam Muiderpoort to Central station a 10minute ride before arriving 3 hours later in Paris.
America's success is innovation. Airplanes and automobile are best technologies ever invented in the past 100 years. They have their advantages in comparison to train. US can improve upon the current transportation system, which is already very efficient by new engine technology. HSR is back tracking in technology. It's a point to point transport and has all the disadvantage associate with it.
@Civsuccess2 It's the same in Britain, Frace and Germany. We could theoretically whack more trains onto the lines, but it doesn't fit the demand, so we don't, and slowly dial it up as demand grows. Far better than the four hour a day gridlocking on the freeways, wish they'd built them with proper capacity aside...
It depends on what type of train too. A highly specialized train that require a highly specialized track will take really long to "patch up". That's why I think it's better to build a cheaper train. It still waste money, but it waste less. BTW, planes usually don't empty their tanks before their designation. There's no track record of that being a problem.
So....for the first 9 years after the voters of California passed the bond to start the project, we have a lot of reports and studies to show for it. Great!
@Civsuccess2 I add short haul international travel, because the grand majority of it falls within High Speed Rail's reach. We're a smaller nation than California, simply put, and our biggest corridors have always been leading across the national boundries, on the same route our tracks do now. If it can be and IS served by HSR, it should be counted as covered and competitive.
If the rail connected to yosemite or kings canyon or sequoia national park you can imagine a lot of people using rail. A rail- bus system would alleviate the overcrowding of cars in these parks
It actually is a lot cheaper than maintaining airports and planes. I've been doing research for many years on HSR and this past year I went to Europe and used their HSR system. The cost of expanding California's airport system would be double that of high speed rail ($84 billion). THAT would take a long time to pay off since airlines rely almost soley on government subsidaries.
High Speed Train can go downtown to downtown, earn a profit, and attract more passengers than airplanes, and are safer than driving or even flying. That has been proven time and time again in every other developed nation. Planes can't just go anywhere either. Every flight has to have a specific flight pattern approved by the government.
I think transcontinential HSR is feasable with express trains. I've done the math and an express HSR from NYC to Miami is 30-45 minutes faster than flying if you consider the 2+ hours of security lines. NYC to Chicago, to Denver, to LA is possible if you really don't want those body scanners to see your junk.
Yeah, they build a "passing loops" which is probably not utilized (as HSR). They build 2 tracks per direction and they only use 1 to carry passenger, so you get 1 reserve track. Very efficient. Still cannot beat airplane in term of volume.
@Civsuccess2 And the Japanese Train Stations are private. The Stations, tracks, and trains are owned owned entirely by four companies split by region, and they run it at a profit for their investors and for further improvements. Who knows, maybe I'll get you to accept that maybe it has a place in society after all.
@robwedekind The area is very mountainous terrain with peaks at 12,000+ feet. Trying to build a straight-shot rail line would require more tunnels and grades, greatly increasing the cost of the project. Since the rail line is given to a private company once completed, costs need to stay as low as possible.
Oh, and the $84 billion would just be the initial construction cost of expanding pollutive highways and airports. It would cost another $10 billion per year to maintain them. HSR makes a profit, so it doesn't require an operating or maintanence subsidy. Example, this past year the Acela Express made $41 per passenger in profits. JR, BR, and Southeastern Railways are companies that are private or have privatized because of profitability.
wow here in Germany we have highspeed trains already for quite a long time (by the time we even have highspeed freight trains...), I somehow thought that there would already be something similar in California. Would be cool if they build it :)
Japan Rail privatized itself because of its extreme profitability and they now provide expansive services at speeds of 215 mph. The new private Italo will run at 225 mph. There are many companies that run high speed rail at extreme profitability.
Funny, because everywhere HSR has been built, lots of people ride in. In some places it has put air routes out of business. On the Northeast Corridor, the only place in America with HSR (even though it's a poor excuse) it carries more passengers between D.C.-Boston than all the airlines combined. 64% of travelers take the train.
This is an excellent and vital idea. The cost doesn't matter. It should be done no matter what the cost is because high speed rail is the future of transportation. Instead of bailing out corrupt and dishonest banks, invest in modern infrastructure! The benefit to the economy in the long run far outweighs the initial cost.Obama should have immediately helped finance this project after getting into office.He would have had something tangible to show for.They should use existing routes and upgrade.
Well I've mentioned three times "Passing loops", do keep up. The Cal Train route already has several in existence! So those won't even have to be built. That's how you get slower traffic alongside faster, though you usually try to speed up both as you can. Hence why some freight trains in Britain move at about 125 MPH, it can be done. The Cal Train route will be reused, just not the Cal Trains themselves.
Sir, have you been to San Diego county? They have a wonderful public transport system whith regional and local rail connecting with Amtrack statewide system. Look up the Sprinter, Coaster and the downtown San Diego colored lines. One can go from Escondido to Oceanside to San Diego and back all with rail. They can afford it by not spending on other less important things.
lol, I've lived in San Diego my entire life. My parents were born here, and my grandparents immigrated to this city after WWII. Public transportation is a joke that nobody here wants or needs. Every once in a while it might be convenient to hop on the Trolley from Old Town to catch a Padres game only because the city council has decided to purposely make driving and parking downtown as inconvenient as possible so as to socially engineer people into using the transit system, but beyond that, it's a joke. Hell, the Trolley doesn't even go to the fucking airport of all places! How's that for you? And unless you live across the street from a stop, forget about it.
I'm originally from Oakland, living in San Diego, and I must say that their public transportation system, while it may look good, is one of the WORST I've ever used.
Once it is built, this will make WAY more sense to travel on financially than by car or plane. I live in California and am absolutely thrilled about this plan, although yes, it does cost an immense sum of money to build. No longer will I have to spend loads of money on gas and time driving to LA, or paying through the roof to fly there.
Can't wait for the LA/Ontario airport / Office District station that will change our entire region. This is why they call us the Inland EMPIRE of Southern California...the Gateway to California. Looks like President Obama and Vice President Biden have a plan and as a future beneficiary of this plan I say hoorah! Thanks for a futuristic Californian transportation system that rivals entire national economies all over the world. As a young American I am excited. The right direction for CA.
The Interstates can be replaced with cheaper, slower dirt tracks, it doesn't mean it'll be as socially benfitial to society to do so. HSR has a hell of a lot more potential to pay for itself than the interstates, believe me. I agree, the interstates can't be compared with HSR, the interstates were far worse in the business case and still got federal funding, which is more than can be said for High Speed Rail in America.
@s2k997 Ontario International is more of a domestic airport. International flight landing is also available but way less. The thing about airport is it can be used both domestic and international. HSR on the other hand relies on the route it takes. For California HSR, it's mainly domestic. It's another reason why flight is better than HSR.
@PlebeianLavigne One good reason is that air prices have being going up, and are going to go nowhere but up. And that's not just because of fuel costs. The Airports plan to charge far greater landing fees so that the airports aren't a continual drain of public money to keep them open, as the public can't afford to subsidize air year after year like it has before. The train has a far lower energy requirement, as a matter of physics it takes less energy to run, thus the running costs are lower.
@Civsuccess2 provide a single source that the land purchase costs are "100 billion". As I understood, the land purchase costs were already apart of the project.
Were is D Feinstein she’s from California isn’t she you congress woman why is she silent? Someone should talk to her nudge her on she should talk to the governor.
@gibb1991 Southwest is selling LA to SF ticket for 130 bucks (round trip). The time it takes for the flight is equal to the HSR riding time. If that's the case, HSR price will be 130. According to the amount of riders from LA to SF, it will take 50 years to recover the cost of the project. That's not including maintenance cost.
@Civsuccess2 I would expect, though you may disagree, it won't completely oblitorate existing airtravel. Even today, there is the occasion flight between London and Paris, Paris/London and Brussels, or London to Birmingham ect. But it stands to take up half or 60% of the existing market, the lower price point may bate some newcomers on as well as the intermedian 9 or so communities with their travelling.
A high-speed rail could be a substantial & valuable asset for California. The idea and function are sound. However, to assess the success of this project, citizens must use the mechanisms available to provide constructive input or raise valid opposing points. How can citizens participate? Contact the Public Board. Participate and monitor the feedback of the individual projects segments. Check out the State Audits over time. I'd also like to see the calculations for the job creation stats.
@sideslide23, I thought of that question when I thought what if California had it's own version of the TGV La Poste, a TGV train made for carrying mail throughout France. May I ask you another question, since high speed trains carry mail, can high speed trains transport produce, milk, & eggs from the state's farms to the stores?
@s2k997 I totally agree with you. California HSR should not dig into taxpayer's pockets and lands to build its rail road. In fact, I wish some private company pays for it. Purchasing the land in SF and LA down town with government subsidy is going to be more expensive. 40 billion dollars isn't going to cover it.
@Civsuccess2 Last I checked, 11+43 is equal to 54, but that's just me. We are linked to the continent by rail you know. High Speed Rail, of varying degrees, covers at least four entries in the top ten destinations directly, and two more are within the definition of reach by HSR but without the infrastructure to do it. Currently there is a program to replace the link to three of those with new generation HSR over the 1970s era.
I agree. It'd be daft to do so. Technically, I could keep switching trains all the way to Moscow from London, right the way across Europe, but it's just utterly pointless. It's bordering on pointless going from London to Berlin by train right now, if such notions don't work in the so-called 'home of High Speed Rail' I seriously doubt they'll be more effective in the aviation-saturated US market. Great distances will always be the plane's territory, HSR has a strong place in society as well.
You are assuming 1. there's no security check for train (NOT possible in US due to terrorist threat) 2. there's a train every hour (in case of it is not filled, train runs empty) 3. You can build many expansion of the airplane run way with that 40 billion dollars. It will decrease taxi time of airplane.
@gibb1991 Acela Express is essentially a slow and cheap tilt train that uses conventional rail. There is no need for building and maintaining a new rail track. I hope you understand the difference between exclusive track and conventional track.
@EpiDemic117 I'm in complete agreement with that point actually. The government is great for getting the system booted up, getting the planning together and legal hoops out of the way, and attracting/giving stable funding, but they know nothing about running transportation in many cases. Japan and Britain have proved that for railways to flourish, they need stale lifetime officials kicked off and dynamic businessmen put into place, to operate, maintain, and grow using the whole market.
@Civsuccess2 Finally, simply because California has bought into the exclusive track principle, in no way implies there is danger with the freight trains being in the mix. Simply that they don't want much slower American freight trains (far slower than British freight services) mixing in with the High Speed Trains for clear running and great service speed, no mention of danger there.
Might as well build a bridge that leads to no where. The cost to travel from Ozaka to Tokyo is 120 dollars, which you can buy an airline ticket from LA to SF. You don't need governments to spend 40 billion dollars to satisfy this dream.
@Civsuccess2 Two reasons come to mind here. To avoid further minute increases with regional airports with yet more overflow; and the decreased costs/subsidies of the HSR network. It has lower operating costs and will essentially need less if any support, while all the airports are on the taxpayer's bank account slurping away to account for airlines using them and not covering the real costs of an airport operating.
Better for them to take their time. These things take time. In Japan over 40 years, in France 30. There is already skepticism about Chinas new high-speed, with accusations of graft in construction materials evident in the recent sacking of the railways minister.
@tickyul: Of course cost estimates may be off, it's a very large project. Here are two reasons people ride any train, Time (Speed) and Convinience (Direct connections to destination). The price isn't even an issue because trains don't need high prices to run. The subsidization of Amtrak is a result of the slow, inconvinient travel mode offered. It's a reaction to flawed system currently in place. Fix that and you will have crowds on day one. Then allow 5 years to build up profitable ridership.
@Civsuccess2 Same solution as the American Interstate system: You can't. You either use the profitable parts of the network to subsidise it, seek out ways to lower costs on that spur or section, or hide the drain and sell the system off to a private company and hope they'll either sort the mess or bare the losses when they realise what they've got on their hands.
@Civsuccess2 I go from the starting point that if you kill off the 'waste of time' short haul flights that could be done by railway, you don't even need to expand, thus those international flights can simply grow into the freed up slots with no need for expansion. Hence spending 10 Billion to cover the 20. Saying nothing of the capacity and reduced pressure for expansion on the other parts of the network.
@s2k997 Read the page. They are implying "it's dangerous to travel with freight". Hint: it's under safety. It says our train is safe because we use exclusive track.
It’s 2021 and their service is amazing 🤩
Lol!
Lmfao
This should have been built decades ago.
Uh, it will never be done successfully in the United States because our geography prohibits it. US is to big for an efficient system.
@@rnelson299 I don't know what you mean by "America's geography prohibits High Speed Rail". Take Japan for example. Almost the entire Japanese island is covered by mountains and earthquake faults and yet they have a fully functioning High Speed Rail line, mind you that it was built back in the 50s. So if Japan could do it, California is more than capable.
I remember how easy and convenient it was to take the train from Milwaukee to downtown Chicago. No stress, no hassles, no worry about parking; simply sit down and relax and watch the green Wisconsin countryside from the comfort of my seet. I was able to spend the day in Chicago, even go on a river and lake cruise and take the train back to Milwaukee all in one day. Public transportation is a necessity and obligation for any civilized country.
It’s 2021so I’m assuming that there will be high speed rail from San Francisco by last year.
I am a musician in a touring band. If there was a nation wide HSR system, tons of bands could leave the tour bus/motor home/van way of traveling behind. It's how many bands tour in Japan. I don't know how many countless occupations could benefit from a coast to coast HSR grid, but I'm sure music isn't the only one.
Actually, many airlines (excluding Southwest) use government subsidies. High Speed Rail is self sustainable. Many private high-speed rail companies are springing up all over the world. HSR is very profitable. This year, Amtrak's Acela Express earned a $41 per passenger profit this past year, allowing the service to be very profitable and allows expanded services.
8 years later and they got like, two pillars?
they didn't start till 2015 thats why
behind schedule, over budget, doom prospect
This will be a monumental scam... The corruption will be over-the-top, to the point billions will evaporate before tax payers eyes.
The usa went to the moon 50 yrs ago and their trains are still in the 30´s. About time they catch up, go look in europe, china and japan : it works like a charm for decades in a row now.
palmdale to la union takes over 2 hours. stockton to bay area takes a little under 2 hours. and thats not counting the majority of the line through the central valley. so when they say local transit will be upgraded, they really better mean it.
Did I hear correctly? High-speed trains from Anaheim to San Francisco in 2020? Oh I'm really excited now :D
ROFL! How's that panning out?
Try 2030 dude.
Never happening.
Yeah, by that time, China would have already built a high speed train from Beijing to Bangkok??!
or 2050
Listen to this guys folks, he knows what he's talking about.
this high speed rail is ripping right through my hometown and my families' farmland, people don't realize the negative impact of this project it has on the central valley.
It is about time we have something like that Germany France Spain and Italy already had it for 30 years....I would love to ride once is done...
9 years ago in Fresno. 9 years later, still at Fresno.
i find it somewhat smart for them to plan the train to go through the inland empire. Those who live in small communities like temecula, san marcos, escondido, murrieta, lake elsinore, etc. will have easy access to it when it fully opens. apparently, the inland communities in the riverside county never really had trains pass by them, i think.
I've used Japan's bullet trains, Eurostar and the French, German and Spanish High Speed train networks. They are so far advanced, air travel is not a rival until it gets over 600miles. City Centre to City Centre, More space for passengers, WiFi. and its so green. Centre of London to Centre of Paris - 2Hr 15min. Centre of Madrid to Centre of Barcelona (386ml) 2hrs 38mins
They first began talk of the HSR even as we were going bankrupt due to the Enron energy crisis and Gray Davis was governor. All of these projections about energy mitigation are more optimistic than even best case scenario.
Their timetable is about 10 years late
Of course I do. I have studied trains ever since I was very young.
I love California High Speed Rail.
Sounds great. If you want an example of a first-class system, look at Japan.
Yes, this will definitely have an effect on the Central Valley, which is currently cut off from the outside world.
It's 50 miles by road from Fresno to the I-5, and more than 100 miles from there to the nearest city. travel in and out of the area is slow and inconvenient, as a result of which the area is mired in a 19th century agricultural economy and high unemployment.
By increasing the accessibility the area can use its low cost of living and quality transportation to lure tech and information industries to expand there, increasing and diversifying the local economy.
LA to San Francisco is one of America's busiest transportation corridors, and the additional choice and capacity will provide a great boost to economic activity, as well as opening new markets in the LA to Bakersfield and Fresno routes.
Not sure how you're defining "city", but I'm about 40 miles from Fresno in a city with over 130,000 people in.
Also, while I-5 is quite a ways away (for those who don't know, I-5 runs down the west side of the valley, while the overwhelming majority of people live on the east side), it's not like we're having to slog our horse and cart teams through the mud to get somewhere. SR-99 is a full freeway from the southern end at the foot of the Grapevine all the way to Stockton, and most of that is at Interstate standard. It connects with I-5 at the south end, and a couple of miles on SR-4 connects you to I-5 on the north end.
Claude
LOL WOW, somebody drank That Koolaid Deeply (
Jonestown gone Bad)
FYI who has rated that Bond
Issue? ( the same that cooked up that Mortgage Derivative that worked so well in 2007-2008?) OKAY, our
Banksters are now
so "trustworthy" right?
Claude
Sounds like much RE & Right-of-way will fall to corrupt corporations, sad.
China High Speed rail
Build California High Speed Rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim and Sacramento to San Diego now.
i hope they built this..it will bring tons of jobs and a better way to travel
This video has aged like a fine wine *chefs kiss*
Grandpa, tell us about California High Speed rail.
Well, honey, when I was a young man, only a little bit older than you are now, I voted for a thing called 'HSR'. It was going to be wonderful! We will travel at '200 miles per hour', they said. The years went by, quicker than I expected. By the time I was married, and had a child of my own, who was to become your mother, by the way, the HSR authority had completed...the first round of studies! We were SO hopeful! Well, the years passed. My baby girl grew up to become your mother. By then, the HSR authority had actually BUILT something, tracks, I think, in the middle of nowhere. Around Fresno maybe. We never actually saw it, and there were no trains yet, of course. But I hear it is beautiful. So, darling, they tell us that if we just keep hoping and praying, and spending LOTS of money, SOMEDAY, maybe, we will see a high speed train go by! It won't be soon. Perhaps YOUR grandkids will get a chance to see it. They won't be able to afford to ride on it, of course. It will be WAY to expensive to purchase a ticket.
Gosh grandpa! I really hope I get to see that!
@CATPWRD: Right now a private company called DesertXpress is going to construct the high-speed line into Las Vegas from Victorville, where it will have connections to downtown LA via Metrolink. The company will not be recieving any tax dollars and announced last week that their project is running on schedule. Construction starts in March 2011 and service will begin in 2014.
2018 not single track yet, it's exiting but along time coming probably not until 2030.
safe at third well they have to make a place for the tracks to rest first, bridges and viaducts. It’s coming. Check out the Central Valley.
Its going to be great being able to go to a Dodger game and be back in Northen Cali within 3 hours
Get ready to get screwed with high taxes.
Actually, HSR is quite profitable. Just this past year, Amtrak's Acela Express (America's only current high-speed service) earned a $41 per passenger profit. This is not the only profitable case, many new private high speed rail companies are springing up and companies that were once government companies are privatizing (i.e. British Rail, Japan Rail, etc.) because of HSR's profitability.
Working class in bay area could hardly afford BART. San Francisco bay area is broke. I don't think they could afford HSR tickets
It's not about Crossings, it's about not having accidents. Try and stop a train when it's moving a 220mph. You can be a railfan at the train station.
Had an experience once regarding trains. I took a cab to a train station to go from one place to another. For some reason, the train schedule change- WITHOUT notice. I had just enough to pay the cab fare and the train fare- no more. I was stuck in the MIDDLE of no where!! I was scared! Had to hitch a ride from a stranger. That was scary too! What a great opportunity for someone to get robbed or murdered! I was fortunate- but many won't be.
@Civsuccess2 to answer your question, no, LGV Nord is not used for freight during the day. There's a second, older, duplicate lines more or less following the route that was there prior to construction, that is used. Makes the freight a little slower, but keeps the HSTs going full pelt. The LGVs are used during the night only by heavier slower freight, as the line is safer with full automatical train protection.
@taatpringist The full, finalized business plan is up to the private company who will operate and eventually own the system. The company, Alstom Technological Industries (they built the TGV and the new AGV) was selected today.
Caltrain is a slow train. Slow train has its own signal system. HSR is a fast train. It has its own signal system. You have to get rid of Caltrain if you want HSR. Then you have to make sure the track is compatible and the signal system is scraped. It's essentially apple vs orange.
Electric cars wouldn't have any return and much space would be wasted for parking and highways, while trains can be more dense. Trains are the way forward
@Civsuccess2 The feature isn't really from intention but a byproduct of the system's efficiency itself. Stripping away at the money behind the project won't do much to decrease this capacity further, it's a simple fact of train capacity times the potential operating numbers to the max on the infrastructure. It is a good thing to have a system that happens to come with a lot of capacity without having to spend to get it.
As I, a european, that frequently uses his Highspeedrail. Second this idea, it's wonderful. We use our with pleasure, reaching daily speeds of up to 350km/h with ease. Elimating the fuss of driving 8 hours from amsterdam - paris to a 2h 44min ride on the TGV, or using the airport. I live close to amsterdam central station I'd use the local train to get to get from Amsterdam Muiderpoort to Central station a 10minute ride before arriving 3 hours later in Paris.
This is at the end of 2017, I haw yet to see any progress on California HSR
Because there is none! Estimated cost has doubled as well.
Drive down 99 through the Central Valley. You can't miss it. Construction sites all over.
Yeah but you're seeing progress in tax increases.
Kansas. Say, isn't that the state where they cut all the taxes and the economy went into the porcelain god?
America's success is innovation. Airplanes and automobile are best technologies ever invented in the past 100 years. They have their advantages in comparison to train. US can improve upon the current transportation system, which is already very efficient by new engine technology. HSR is back tracking in technology. It's a point to point transport and has all the disadvantage associate with it.
@Civsuccess2 It's the same in Britain, Frace and Germany. We could theoretically whack more trains onto the lines, but it doesn't fit the demand, so we don't, and slowly dial it up as demand grows. Far better than the four hour a day gridlocking on the freeways, wish they'd built them with proper capacity aside...
It depends on what type of train too. A highly specialized train that require a highly specialized track will take really long to "patch up". That's why I think it's better to build a cheaper train. It still waste money, but it waste less.
BTW, planes usually don't empty their tanks before their designation. There's no track record of that being a problem.
Is this the reason for the fires?
Yes u can check the Map on 3:29 and compare it to the Map where the CalFire startet and u will see what i mean!
So....for the first 9 years after the voters of California passed the bond to start the project, we have a lot of reports and studies to show for it. Great!
Still a PLAN
@Civsuccess2 I add short haul international travel, because the grand majority of it falls within High Speed Rail's reach. We're a smaller nation than California, simply put, and our biggest corridors have always been leading across the national boundries, on the same route our tracks do now. If it can be and IS served by HSR, it should be counted as covered and competitive.
If the rail connected to yosemite or kings canyon or sequoia national park you can imagine a lot of people using rail. A rail- bus system would alleviate the overcrowding of cars in these parks
HSR coming to a country near you excludes the USA.
Build California High Speed Rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles and Anaheim and Sacramento to San Diego.
america should really do this all over the country
Is everyone forgetting how many earthquakes California has? That trail would be on it's track as much as a drunk driver is in his own lane!
It actually is a lot cheaper than maintaining airports and planes. I've been doing research for many years on HSR and this past year I went to Europe and used their HSR system. The cost of expanding California's airport system would be double that of high speed rail ($84 billion). THAT would take a long time to pay off since airlines rely almost soley on government subsidaries.
High Speed Train can go downtown to downtown, earn a profit, and attract more passengers than airplanes, and are safer than driving or even flying. That has been proven time and time again in every other developed nation. Planes can't just go anywhere either. Every flight has to have a specific flight pattern approved by the government.
I want California High Speed Rail.
I think transcontinential HSR is feasable with express trains. I've done the math and an express HSR from NYC to Miami is 30-45 minutes faster than flying if you consider the 2+ hours of security lines.
NYC to Chicago, to Denver, to LA is possible if you really don't want those body scanners to see your junk.
Yeah, they build a "passing loops" which is probably not utilized (as HSR). They build 2 tracks per direction and they only use 1 to carry passenger, so you get 1 reserve track.
Very efficient. Still cannot beat airplane in term of volume.
@Civsuccess2 And the Japanese Train Stations are private. The Stations, tracks, and trains are owned owned entirely by four companies split by region, and they run it at a profit for their investors and for further improvements. Who knows, maybe I'll get you to accept that maybe it has a place in society after all.
@robwedekind The area is very mountainous terrain with peaks at 12,000+ feet. Trying to build a straight-shot rail line would require more tunnels and grades, greatly increasing the cost of the project. Since the rail line is given to a private company once completed, costs need to stay as low as possible.
Oh, and the $84 billion would just be the initial construction cost of expanding pollutive highways and airports. It would cost another $10 billion per year to maintain them. HSR makes a profit, so it doesn't require an operating or maintanence subsidy. Example, this past year the Acela Express made $41 per passenger in profits. JR, BR, and Southeastern Railways are companies that are private or have privatized because of profitability.
wow here in Germany we have highspeed trains already for quite a long time (by the time we even have highspeed freight trains...), I somehow thought that there would already be something similar in California. Would be cool if they build it :)
Japan Rail privatized itself because of its extreme profitability and they now provide expansive services at speeds of 215 mph. The new private Italo will run at 225 mph. There are many companies that run high speed rail at extreme profitability.
Funny, because everywhere HSR has been built, lots of people ride in. In some places it has put air routes out of business. On the Northeast Corridor, the only place in America with HSR (even though it's a poor excuse) it carries more passengers between D.C.-Boston than all the airlines combined. 64% of travelers take the train.
This is an excellent and vital idea. The cost doesn't matter. It should be done no matter what the cost is because high speed rail is the future of transportation. Instead of bailing out corrupt and dishonest banks, invest in modern infrastructure! The benefit to the economy in the long run far outweighs the initial cost.Obama should have immediately helped finance this project after getting into office.He would have had something tangible to show for.They should use existing routes and upgrade.
if 1 billion people are going to be traveling one rial line isnt going to do it, youll need many of them.
Well I've mentioned three times "Passing loops", do keep up. The Cal Train route already has several in existence! So those won't even have to be built. That's how you get slower traffic alongside faster, though you usually try to speed up both as you can. Hence why some freight trains in Britain move at about 125 MPH, it can be done. The Cal Train route will be reused, just not the Cal Trains themselves.
Sir, have you been to San Diego county? They have a wonderful public transport system whith regional and local rail connecting with Amtrack statewide system. Look up the Sprinter, Coaster and the downtown San Diego colored lines. One can go from Escondido to Oceanside to San Diego and back all with rail. They can afford it by not spending on other less important things.
Your talking about light rail mainly and most cities in the USA have it.
lol, I've lived in San Diego my entire life. My parents were born here, and my grandparents immigrated to this city after WWII. Public transportation is a joke that nobody here wants or needs. Every once in a while it might be convenient to hop on the Trolley from Old Town to catch a Padres game only because the city council has decided to purposely make driving and parking downtown as inconvenient as possible so as to socially engineer people into using the transit system, but beyond that, it's a joke. Hell, the Trolley doesn't even go to the fucking airport of all places! How's that for you? And unless you live across the street from a stop, forget about it.
alpidistra SD's transit is a joke, compared to even LA's.
I'm originally from Oakland, living in San Diego, and I must say that their public transportation system, while it may look good, is one of the WORST I've ever used.
Once it is built, this will make WAY more sense to travel on financially than by car or plane. I live in California and am absolutely thrilled about this plan, although yes, it does cost an immense sum of money to build. No longer will I have to spend loads of money on gas and time driving to LA, or paying through the roof to fly there.
Hey, how’s these wonderful trains doing now? California politicians at their finest!
Can't wait for the LA/Ontario airport / Office District station that will change our entire region. This is why they call us the Inland EMPIRE of Southern California...the Gateway to California. Looks like President Obama and Vice President Biden have a plan and as a future beneficiary of this plan I say hoorah! Thanks for a futuristic Californian transportation system that rivals entire national economies all over the world. As a young American I am excited. The right direction for CA.
The Interstates can be replaced with cheaper, slower dirt tracks, it doesn't mean it'll be as socially benfitial to society to do so. HSR has a hell of a lot more potential to pay for itself than the interstates, believe me. I agree, the interstates can't be compared with HSR, the interstates were far worse in the business case and still got federal funding, which is more than can be said for High Speed Rail in America.
@s2k997 Ontario International is more of a domestic airport. International flight landing is also available but way less. The thing about airport is it can be used both domestic and international. HSR on the other hand relies on the route it takes. For California HSR, it's mainly domestic. It's another reason why flight is better than HSR.
@PlebeianLavigne One good reason is that air prices have being going up, and are going to go nowhere but up. And that's not just because of fuel costs. The Airports plan to charge far greater landing fees so that the airports aren't a continual drain of public money to keep them open, as the public can't afford to subsidize air year after year like it has before. The train has a far lower energy requirement, as a matter of physics it takes less energy to run, thus the running costs are lower.
@Civsuccess2 provide a single source that the land purchase costs are "100 billion". As I understood, the land purchase costs were already apart of the project.
Were is D Feinstein she’s from California isn’t she you congress woman why is she silent? Someone should talk to her nudge her on she should talk to the governor.
Thumps up!!!
Japan Rail used to be subsidized. It privatized in 1986 and broke away from government msubsidies.
@gibb1991
Southwest is selling LA to SF ticket for 130 bucks (round trip). The time it takes for the flight is equal to the HSR riding time. If that's the case, HSR price will be 130. According to the amount of riders from LA to SF, it will take 50 years to recover the cost of the project. That's not including maintenance cost.
@Civsuccess2 I would expect, though you may disagree, it won't completely oblitorate existing airtravel. Even today, there is the occasion flight between London and Paris, Paris/London and Brussels, or London to Birmingham ect. But it stands to take up half or 60% of the existing market, the lower price point may bate some newcomers on as well as the intermedian 9 or so communities with their travelling.
A high-speed rail could be a substantial & valuable asset for California. The idea and function are sound. However, to assess the success of this project, citizens must use the mechanisms available to provide constructive input or raise valid opposing points. How can citizens participate? Contact the Public Board. Participate and monitor the feedback of the individual projects segments. Check out the State Audits over time.
I'd also like to see the calculations for the job creation stats.
@sideslide23, I thought of that question when I thought what if California had it's own version of the TGV La Poste, a TGV train made for carrying mail throughout France. May I ask you another question, since high speed trains carry mail, can high speed trains transport produce, milk, & eggs from the state's farms to the stores?
@s2k997 I totally agree with you. California HSR should not dig into taxpayer's pockets and lands to build its rail road. In fact, I wish some private company pays for it. Purchasing the land in SF and LA down town with government subsidy is going to be more expensive. 40 billion dollars isn't going to cover it.
@Civsuccess2 Last I checked, 11+43 is equal to 54, but that's just me. We are linked to the continent by rail you know. High Speed Rail, of varying degrees, covers at least four entries in the top ten destinations directly, and two more are within the definition of reach by HSR but without the infrastructure to do it. Currently there is a program to replace the link to three of those with new generation HSR over the 1970s era.
I agree. It'd be daft to do so. Technically, I could keep switching trains all the way to Moscow from London, right the way across Europe, but it's just utterly pointless. It's bordering on pointless going from London to Berlin by train right now, if such notions don't work in the so-called 'home of High Speed Rail' I seriously doubt they'll be more effective in the aviation-saturated US market. Great distances will always be the plane's territory, HSR has a strong place in society as well.
Build California High Speed Rail now.
You are assuming
1. there's no security check for train (NOT possible in US due to terrorist threat)
2. there's a train every hour (in case of it is not filled, train runs empty)
3. You can build many expansion of the airplane run way with that 40 billion dollars. It will decrease taxi time of airplane.
Yes and yeah.
@Civsuccess2 It wasnt HSR at all, those were two commuter trains travelling at low speeds on a classic line with classic signals.
Don't eliminate Crossings!!! I like crossings =( Best place to railfan. Power, noise, horn, and the ability to be more important then traffic =))
@gibb1991
Acela Express is essentially a slow and cheap tilt train that uses conventional rail. There is no need for building and maintaining a new rail track. I hope you understand the difference between exclusive track and conventional track.
@EpiDemic117 I'm in complete agreement with that point actually. The government is great for getting the system booted up, getting the planning together and legal hoops out of the way, and attracting/giving stable funding, but they know nothing about running transportation in many cases. Japan and Britain have proved that for railways to flourish, they need stale lifetime officials kicked off and dynamic businessmen put into place, to operate, maintain, and grow using the whole market.
@Civsuccess2 Finally, simply because California has bought into the exclusive track principle, in no way implies there is danger with the freight trains being in the mix. Simply that they don't want much slower American freight trains (far slower than British freight services) mixing in with the High Speed Trains for clear running and great service speed, no mention of danger there.
Might as well build a bridge that leads to no where. The cost to travel from Ozaka to Tokyo is 120 dollars, which you can buy an airline ticket from LA to SF. You don't need governments to spend 40 billion dollars to satisfy this dream.
@Civsuccess2 Two reasons come to mind here. To avoid further minute increases with regional airports with yet more overflow; and the decreased costs/subsidies of the HSR network. It has lower operating costs and will essentially need less if any support, while all the airports are on the taxpayer's bank account slurping away to account for airlines using them and not covering the real costs of an airport operating.
Better for them to take their time. These things take time. In Japan over 40 years, in France 30. There is already skepticism about Chinas new high-speed, with accusations of graft in construction materials evident in the recent sacking of the railways minister.
@tickyul: Of course cost estimates may be off, it's a very large project. Here are two reasons people ride any train, Time (Speed) and Convinience (Direct connections to destination). The price isn't even an issue because trains don't need high prices to run. The subsidization of Amtrak is a result of the slow, inconvinient travel mode offered. It's a reaction to flawed system currently in place. Fix that and you will have crowds on day one. Then allow 5 years to build up profitable ridership.
@Civsuccess2 Same solution as the American Interstate system: You can't. You either use the profitable parts of the network to subsidise it, seek out ways to lower costs on that spur or section, or hide the drain and sell the system off to a private company and hope they'll either sort the mess or bare the losses when they realise what they've got on their hands.
@Civsuccess2 I go from the starting point that if you kill off the 'waste of time' short haul flights that could be done by railway, you don't even need to expand, thus those international flights can simply grow into the freed up slots with no need for expansion. Hence spending 10 Billion to cover the 20. Saying nothing of the capacity and reduced pressure for expansion on the other parts of the network.
@trueboltsfan: Amtrak will not be operating the line. The line, once completed, will be handed over to a private company.
@s2k997 Read the page. They are implying "it's dangerous to travel with freight". Hint: it's under safety. It says our train is safe because we use exclusive track.
I guess the East Bay Area was not on board with this. No plans for station in Oakland?
Brent Foster Who would want to go to Oakland???