
High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it - MilnerRoute
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/High-speed-rail-taking-shape-even-as-opponents-10926131.php
======
erentz
Huge supporter of rail but sadly I believe there are a number of mistakes
being made. This is a classic example of how projects like this in the US need
to be monolithic, self contained, and gold plated to the hilt. The correct
action would have been for CA to incrementally acquire and build railways
along a number of corridors. Take the SF bay for example. There should be one
agency running Caltrain, the Capitol Corridor, the ACE. It should electrify
and improve all the routes. Extend reach to Monterey and other Central Valley
locations. And do the same in Southern California.

The incompatibility of CAHSR with other rail strikes me as a repeat of the
BART mistake.

~~~
rst
Other successful high-speed rail systems (France's TGV, for example) also have
dedicated rights-of-way, not shared with older equipment, and rail physically
built to different standards (specially welded). You really don't want
genuinely high-speed trains (300 km/h) running on the same tracks as anything
slower, in normal operation. And if you try to build a high-speed system on
earlier rights-of-way, you get something like Acela, in the US Northeast
corridor. It can go at ~150 mph on track that can support it, but there are
only a few miles of the route between Boston and Washington can support that.
Net: it's only half an hour faster than conventional rail on the same route
and track -- and something like half the difference is accounted for by the
conventional trains making a lot more stops.

~~~
erentz
Correct. A difference is they start by thinking of (and running) the rail
network as a whole system of supporting lines. Then add high speed railway
segments to the network like expressways along key routes. This is what I
think CA should do/have done. It's not too late actually, they could set up a
"Caltrak". Develop a state wide rail plan that covered everything but urban
metros, and begin buying assets/access and merging them into one whole
network. What the CAHSR is building could continue, maybe with some
adaptations of that plan, to just be those "expressway" sections mentioned.

~~~
gozur88
This. I know HSR is sexy, but for the money California should put in a
conventional rail network first. People would take the train between San
Francisco and LA, say, if speeds were comparable to driving.

------
datahack
If I had known that they were going to run this through the Central Valley
instead of down the coast where it belongs I never would have voted for it. It
should have gone straight from la to Oakland or emeryville, turned and gone
straight to Sacramento. Instead we have a convoluted mess of rail connections
that take people places they don't even want to go (no offense to Bakersfield
buts it's hardly a holiday destination).

It's a farse because of how it's getting implemented, and nobody is under any
illusions this isn't going to turn into another bay bridge budget monster in
California.

Still a rail proponent, but bitterly disappointed in the implementation
choices of this project.

~~~
pm24601
Seriously - trains should go where the people are. The people are in the
central valley. Between Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz the population is very
light and the terrain is very difficult.

It wasn't until the 20th century that access to the Big Sur area was possible.
And even today for over a hundred miles highway 1 is the only access.

Fresno - 509,000 people Bakersfield - 363,000 people

The first segment connects 1 million people with a high quality dedicated rail
connection. Take a trip on the San Joaguin train - that train slow as it is,
is very popular.

Next take a look at a map. Los Angeles is due south of Lake Tahoe. So going to
central valley is not a detour or some other political game.

The real political mess is the choice of Pacheco Pass (hwy 152) rather than
the Altamont Pass.(I-580) Once again Altamont Pass - a lot of people. hwy 152
- crickets in comparison.

~~~
WillPostForFood
_trains should go where the people are_

That's why the money would be better spent on local transit improvements
inside the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area, not connecting them.

~~~
mikekchar
Making trains go where people aren't relieves the pressure on ever increasing
prices in populous areas. People will have a realistic option of living in
cheaper areas.

AND it allows real estate speculators to get a _much_ higher rate of return
when they build up cookie cutter neighbourhoods in cheap land that is soon to
be linked up by rail.

Both a good and a cynical reason for this behaviour, which is why I don't
think you'll ever see it change (no matter where you are).

------
jorblumesea
Forget high speed rail, where's the commuter trains? It seems ridiculous that
in most US cities public transit is mostly non-existent. Traffic is bad in
most major US cities you'd think people would be jumping for this as
urbanization increases.

~~~
Sanddancer
Those are covered under other bond measures. LA has a multi-generation plan
[1] for building out several new rail lines, busways, etc. It's harder to find
an overarching document for the Bay Area because there are too damn many
counties and transit agencies around here, but there are lots of projects --
BART to San Jose, Caltrain electrification, new rail lines and improved lines
in SF, rebuilding the Dumbarton Rail Bridge -- that are in various stages of
planning and construction.

[1] [http://theplan.metro.net/](http://theplan.metro.net/)

------
niftich
Not sure why they decided to build an elaborate viaduct [1] to allow for a
high-speed curve radius in Southeast Fresno, if Fresno will be a likely stop
anyway. Just make all trains stop in Fresno, a place conveniently midway
between SF and LA and desperate for improved connections with California's
more prosperous areas. After all, isn't the whole point of HSR to improve
connectivity between more than just the two termini, since those who want to
go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option?

[1]
[https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NYS0Y3nyyYZowXFDtJ...](https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1NYS0Y3nyyYZowXFDtJst5nEJYKg&hl=en&ll=36.72964523009003%2C-119.77272911322018&z=12)

~~~
magila
> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a
> direct flight as an option

Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it
provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the
only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance
between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time
is incredibly difficult. To achieve parity the trains will need to _average_
around 220 MPH, which is incredibly optimistic. Existing high speed rail lines
rarely run at 200 MPH even momentarily due to high operating costs.

All this means that most trains will have to run nonstop between SF and LA to
even have a hope of competing with flying. If the trains fail to draw
passengers away from the airlines, ridership will be far too low to sustain
the line without absurdly high subsidies.

~~~
melling
NYC to Boston is 230 miles, about 3.5 hours by "fast" train. It's about an
hour flight. A lot of people still take the train.

If you can get the trains to take you directly into the city center, it can
often be a better option.

~~~
WildUtah
_If you can get the trains to take you directly into the city center, it can
often be a better option._

That's because Boston and NYC are both navigable without a car. Only one side
of the SF-LA link can claim to be close to that ideal.

But the time and hassle of airport parking and security and delays might be
able to keep a 3.5 hour train ride viable even in CA. That would require a
train system that allowed passengers to step through a quick scanner with no
line and onto the train without queueing or carefully organized boarding. Lots
of train systems used to do that in the USA but the bureaucrats don't like
passengers freely walking around platforms by heavy machinery or directing
themselves or quick predictable security procedures. Acela has been abandoning
efficient and established traditional practices to copy instead the airports.
How long are they going to stand for a train system that isn't as awful as
airport security and boarding?

Since politicians can't risk being blamed for trouble, we have no ability to
control the bureaucrats and every high speed transportation system will
inevitably get to be as bad as airports.

If rail could be built at the same costs as in France or Japan (or even,
optimistically, Spain or Korea), to wit, $20-30MMM, you could justify it just
for saving the cost of airport expansion. But at $80-120MMM it's lunacy to
proceed.

~~~
0max
You don't think Measure M passed last year would make any difference?
[http://theplan.metro.net/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/factshee...](http://theplan.metro.net/wp-
content/uploads/2016/09/factsheet_measurem.pdf)

~~~
WildUtah
You can't make a city transit and walking friendly by grafting rail
infrastructure over a car-based design. You need to allow development on
narrower streets without minimum parking requirements on every lot and you
need more population density.

You'd have to actually change the rules and overcome the NIMBYs. Some problems
can't be solved with cash.

~~~
trome
Pretty much this, if its sub-5 story slum (aka most US cities & nearly all
suburbs) overlaying rail is a bandaid. The city was built wrong in the first
place, and needs to gain density, rail can keep a dense city economically
viable by providing reliable, rapid transit. There is no good transit solution
for suburban sprawl.

------
sand500
As I see it, the price of rail tickets will be pretty high.whats stopping the
price of flights from being halved in the next couple of decades and killing
this train service too?

~~~
helthanatos
High speed trains are much better than flights for small commutes, after the
expenses are payed, it will be cheaper, it's easier to get on a train than
wait hours for flights to take off. High speed rails are the future; flights
are the past. Why would you not want to see this work out? Flying is quite
annoying because it has constant delays, TSA, and hours of waiting in between.

~~~
dclowd9901
You really think the TSA isn't going to want a piece of this?

~~~
avn2109
The TSA's primary mandate is just to socialize legal liability for terrorist
attacks away from the airlines.

Their secondary mandate is crony capitalism.

Their tertiary mandate is to acclimatize the population to the trappings of
the unconstitutional American police state.

Only the latter would be substantially aided by encroachment onto rail, so I'm
not too worried about it for now.

~~~
briandear
The airlines never asked for TSA. In fact the airlines would prefer doing
their own screening like the old days. And 'crony capitalism?' That makes no
sense.

~~~
dragonwriter
The airlines asked for both retrospective and prospective relief from
liability for the actual past (retrospective) and potential future
(prospective) security failures in the wake of 9/11.

Nationalization of the security function was the mechanism for the prospective
portion of that relief; since they no longer controlled the function, they
would no longer be liable for any failures.

Now, they would have preferred immunity from liability while controlling the
function, but even their allies in Washington couldn't sell that open-ended a
handout publicly. But TSA security theater made adequate political cover for
the real purpose.

------
arca_vorago
I loved Chomsky's response to this "Like the one I took in Japan... in the
1950's..."

For extra fun, realize that California had already begun about the same time
as Japan to install more public transport, but the car companies moved muscle
on them to stop it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

------
bcheung
I would prefer to see the money spent on improving Caltrain. It really is not
a viable option for a lot of people. South of SJ Diridon, the trains only run
3x in the morning and 3x in the evening and they require you to basically wake
up at 5 or 6 AM depending on the train you want to catch. A lot of tech
workers don't come into the office until after 10 AM.

The high speed rail won't really help people already living in Silicon Valley
except for the rare few who live near downtown San Jose and plan to work in SF
(or vice versa).

And yet, they are the ones who will bear the inconvenience. The proposed plans
I have seen will have the train elevated 60 ft in the air, it's about 70-80 ft
total from my bedroom window and the train will travel 150 mph several times
an hour at around 100 dB. Additionally, they will be narrowing a major road
that is 2 lanes in each direction to 1 lane in each direction to make room for
the train. Which is weird, because the Caltrain tracks are just another 30
feet away so not sure why they don't just build it above that.

There was some talk of a proposal to reimburse home owners due to the loss of
value to their homes if this goes through. Based on the proposal I was looking
at they showed a $100K to $200K loss of property value if the train goes
through.

If I actually wanted to take the train, it would take me 20-45 minutes to get
to the train station in San Jose even though I am already in San Jose.

I'm really disappointed in how impractical this is for the majority of people
who live and work in SF bay area and the level of cost and inconvenience it
will cause.

~~~
ericd
High speed rail isn't generally meant for commuters - if it had frequent
stops, it would never have a chance to reach high speeds before it would have
to slow down again.

Perhaps they could provide some subsidy to help you soundproof the side of
your house facing the tracks?

Also, it's 100 dB at what distance?

------
jboggan
Probably should be spending that money on infrastructure (read: dam)
maintenance.

~~~
Sanddancer
Both can, should, and are being done. The California Water Project is rather
adequately funded. The Oroville Dam problem is due to a pretty unprecedented
winter, not a lack of maintenance. The emergency overflow seems to have held,
at least for now, so with hope they can put in a fix for the spillway.

------
Figs
I was against the project back when it was a ballot measure, but since then my
opinion on it has changed -- I don't care if trains ever run on the damned
thing, what really matters in this project is getting the right of way to the
land, because they're going to put in a MASSIVE amount of fiber optic cable as
they dig out the path.

------
klinquist
One thing that nobody has mentioned - autonomous cars. Close to the time this
will be completed, I assume I'll be able to sit in my vehicle and be shuttled
from SF to LA in 5 hrs in the comfort of my own vehicle.

~~~
jwatte
The car is slower, and an order of magnitude less efficient. And efficiency
matters -- there's a limit to how much energy can be sustainably spent, and if
transportation is more efficient, we get to do more other things.

~~~
adventured
Not to mention that the US is going to continue to expand in terms of
population. We've added 60 million people in 20 years, nearly equal to the
population of France. We'll add another 20+ million in the next decade.

Simultaneously we'll become slightly less rural and more urban in terms of
population concentration.

Even if the autonomous electric vehicle has a huge role to play in improving
traffic in the US - which it clearly does - high speed rail (whether
hyperloop-like, above ground, below ground, whatever) will still make sense
alongside that. There is going to be plenty of demand to go around, such that
having multiple approaches will be useful. Sometimes the autonomous car will
make sense, sometimes rail will make sense.

------
intrasight
>America’s biggest infrastructure project is both in limbo and full-speed
ahead.

There is a logic to that for a project of this magnitude that may take dozens
of years to complete.

------
zlynx
"planning snafus" AKA politically motivated outright lies.

------
valuearb
$64B just in startup costs, for a slower trip than flying. Why this
infatuation with a technology that hasn't been leading edge since the 1800s?

~~~
erentz
Have you ever ridden a train in Europe or Japan? They are far and away the
most comfortable way to travel any distance under 500 miles.

~~~
jimrandomh
They are also much, much cheaper per mile. Something is wrong with
construction in the US that makes rail lines dramatically more expensive here.

~~~
nimish
Its a hell of a lot easier to fly over the dozens or hundreds of different
landowners and jurisdictions than it is to convince each of them to allow you
to build a giant railroad through them

The us rail infra was built when this wasn't an issue or could be solved by
sending some heavies in or bribing the right people.

~~~
chiph
Texas Central is about 1/3 of the way through right of way acquisition on
their Houston to Dallas route.

[http://www.texascentral.com/alignment-
maps/](http://www.texascentral.com/alignment-maps/)

They're partnering with Japan National Railways and planning on running the
N700-I Bullet total system (the international version of the Tokaido
Shinkansen).

