
California High-Speed Rail No. 9 – the Chairman's Turn Again - curtis
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/08/california-high-speed-rail-no-9the-chairmans-turn-again/379381/
======
allworknoplay
"Current standard LA-SF airfares are more in the range of $250 one way."

What planet does the author live on? I just kayaked flights on a weekend
exactly one month from now and got perfect friday/sunday timing (which should
be pretty congested) for $150.

I am such an enormous supporter of rail, but we will never get there if people
keep lying about the cost competitiveness.

~~~
DrJ
don't forget to add costs for getting TO the airport. BART costs ~$15 (for
either Oakland or SFO), by cab (Uber) ~$50. So while $250 might be on the
upper side of things, I think $150 isn't exactly right either. so the low $200
range.

~~~
allworknoplay
To be clear, I got $150 round trip; they said $250 one way. My numbers fit
roughly with my experience. Their numbers are ridiculous.

------
ZanyProgrammer
I tend to align with what Alon Levy called "technicals" in my criticism of CA
HSR[0]. I think Fallows comes across as uninformed as to the details of
railroading and public transit in CA, and Dan Richards is a rather one sided
mouthpiece. The biggest challenges to HSR that I see are:

1\. Pacheco vs Altamont. Altamont is faster, involves less travel through the
Santa Clara County suburbs, is faster to Sacramento, and gives us a second bay
rail crossing.

2\. Tejon Pass vs the detour to Palmdale. Yep, HSR is going to make a big
detour out to Palmdale to help build up exurban sprawl. Never mind that its
more properly a Metrolink concern, the state is subsidizing sprawl.

Finally, this whopper from the article: "Uh, I helped build that project [JF
note: Dan Richard was on the BART board from 1992 to 2004] and it is a
smashing success. The ridership projections proved inaccurate in its first few
years only because of the effects on air travel of Sept 11th and the ensuing
economic downturn. Within five years, the project was quite robust and today
is operating at 105% of its costs from downtown SF to the airport,
extraordinary for an urban mass transit system. "

Jesus, what a joke. BART to Millbrae ruined SamTrans financially, and has been
underwhelming performance wise. Does anyone think the current system works
well? What should've happened is that the people mover at SFO should've been
extended to Millbrae or San Bruno. The Millbrae BART station is nothing more
than a massive gift to contractors (my god, how much concrete was used?), and
is horrible to actually get around in. Oh, BTW there are three BART tracks in
Millbrae, and one is never used.

I remember hearing plans of building an HSR tunnel _under_ Millbrae BART (in a
world where money grows on trees) rather than having BART give up a track or
two.

[0][http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/polit...](http://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/politicals-
vs-technicals-the-primary-division-of-transit-activists/)

------
Ancorehraq
Does anybody else find this squabbling kind of embarrassing?

It's quite clear that California has no political, fiscal or operational
capability to finish (or even begin!) this project.

Given this premise, how would you evaluate the discourse surrounding it?

~~~
Jaymoon85
It's a ploy from the rail companies to have the tax payer foot the bill to
build these high-speed rail lines, knowing full and well that there is just
not enough demand at the price (per trip) they are proposing.

Sure there will be the occasional passenger train to warrant keeping it
around, but the long term goal is to have the rail companies step in and say
"See, no demand for passengers, but since you have all of these tracks built,
we'll gladly use them to haul our freight."

------
buckbova
Criticism 9

The speed limitations and cost overages are not what Californians voted on.
This is a bait and switch.

~~~
thrownaway2424
The authority has stated over and over again that the travel time will be as
good or better than the ballot measure protected. The ballot measure did not
promise any particular cost. It only said it would cost 19.4 billion to pay
off the initial 9.95 billion in bonds.

------
maxharris
This article doesn't even mention the Hyperloop once. In doing so, it makes me
think that the author has a one-track mind, hell-bent on making "high-speed"
rail the answer to any and every question.

Ignoring serious technological advances won't make them go away. I admit, the
Hyperloop hasn't been built before, but is that really an issue for a guy that
runs a company that makes rockets that routinely go to space and back, or
electric cars that people actually want?

Given the merits of Musk's proposal, we should really be rethinking the entire
California rail project. If we don't, we could be saddled with yet another
expensive and obsolete infrastructure project for a long time to come.

~~~
krschultz
A CAD drawing and a nice powerpoint is not a 'technological advance', even if
it comes from Elon Musk. A working prototype (even small scale) would be a big
step forward. If someone starts shooting hamsters in capsules through a tube,
call me, but until then the Hyper Loop is Vapor Ware.

~~~
afafsd
Yeah, you'll note that even Elon Musk hasn't mentioned the Hyperloop (as far
as I've heard) since he sent out a press release and a back-of-the-napkin
drawing.

A small-scale prototype wouldn't cost that much, surely?

~~~
lutusp
> A small-scale prototype wouldn't cost that much, surely?

Some ideas can't be meaningfully tested on a small preliminary scale:

1\. Fusion power.

2\. A trip to the moon.

3\. Marriage.

I doubt that any practical small-scale model would educate us about the full-
sized system.

~~~
icegreentea
The Hyperloop -can- be meaningfully tested on a small scale model. For
example, the scaling laws of fluid dynamics are fairly well known. Building a
scale model with knowledge of the scaling laws can at least give us a sense of
the performance/cost of the full scale system.

Other small scale test that can be done. A 100m long full diameter segment of
the track could be built and then kept at the vacuum pressure needed for some
extended period of time while pushing simulated hyperloop vehicles through the
length. This can inform us to the real costs of maintaining the vacuum, and
give some hints towards real maintenance costs.

A key part of the Hyperloop proposal is the cheapness of fabricating the track
and pylons. Actually building the track and pylons in limited quantities is
important so that a) areas where efficiencies can be introduced can be
identified and b) give a sense of just how much efficiencies can be gained.

As far as I know, the actual compressor drive that the Hyperloop runs on has
never been used on such a scale before. At least building a single full scale
demonstration model is surely prudent before even considering it.

Maglev was tested with real prototype trains on real prototype track for
decades before commercial use. Transrapid (which made the Shanghai Maglev) has
a 31km long test track that was in use for over a decade before they started
working on the Shanghai line.

Until something of roughly that magnitude is built, the Hyperloop is an
interesting (and well thought out) idea, but nothing more.

