
California Hits the Brakes on High-Speed Rail - HillaryBriss
http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-28/california-hits-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-fiasco
======
apostacy
It's ludicrous that we in this country can't have modern infrastructure.

One thing that bothers me, is that there is this narrative that high speed
rail just somehow cannot work, and is a pipe dream, and not right for America.

We cannot afford /not/ to have high speed rail. We're already heavily
subsidizing airlines to schedule flights to nowhere. And as of last time I
researched it, a few years ago, there wasn't an HSR line in existence that
didn't net revenue for the state.

Not building this line because of some NIMBY rich people in California is the
sign of a crumbling civilization, where the elites are too concerned about
their own comfort to prevent us from being left behind, technologically.

~~~
foolfoolz
we have the best roads in the world. go to any other country, you will not
find 4, 5, 6+ lane freeways that are free, have excellent signage,
interconnect without stoplights or city streets, that extend for thousands of
miles. i can drive to any region in the country for free on uninterrupted
highway. if i drive to go skiing, i know the roads will be plowed, i can even
check on the status before i drive. our roads have dividers in the middle, we
have shoulders on the side, we have lines and botts dots between lanes. many
larger freeways in cities now have lights.

this country has modern infrastructure

~~~
twblalock
The quality of our roads is quite low compared to those in Europe.

~~~
vvanders
Was just coming here to post that, there was an article recently about the new
MB E-Class'(I think) lane keeping that wouldn't work on the majority of US
roads since it was trained on better European roads.

~~~
twblalock
The road builders there know how to paint straight lines and place the
reflectors on the lines, unlike ours, who seem to have been drunk on the job.

------
cjensen
HSR makes a lot of sense to me in general, but...

LA->SF is a _terrible_ route because of geography. SF is northwest of LA, but
the first thing the train does is head 50 miles East.

The quoted fares were laughable. The proponents were claiming the fare would
be somewhere around $50 when existing San Jose->Sacramento service (a much
shorter route) cost $40.

The insistence on running HSR all the way into SF is a bad idea as part of the
initial plan. San Jose makes a better terminus: San Jose is served by
Caltrain, Amtrak Capitol Corridor, and ACE, which provide connections to most
of the Bay Area.

The plan should have started with an MVP and gone from there. "Merced to
Bakersfield" is not useful. I would have gone with Los Baños to San Jose which
could have served commuters. Then extend it to Merced and the rest of the
Eastern Central Valley to help solve the Bay Area housing price problem.

~~~
spinlock
The route is a pretty poor outcome of special interests. I recall reading that
the best engineering firms in the world said that we should essentially have a
hub and spoke approach (i.e. you have a very straight high-speed line from LA
to SF and then you have spurs that connect all of the small towns to that main
pipe). Instead, the route curves around to get to every small town that wanted
a whistle-stop.

I would personally love to see high-speed rail. SF->LA feels better to me but
your observation that San Jose is connected to the bay area already and makes
a great terminus is really good. Plus, I live in Oakland so I'd like it even
more if it came right into my backyard :)

~~~
niftich
This is mostly inaccurate. The final route chosen is mostly a straight-line
path (as in no undue detours) through the Central Valley, and in fact attempts
by the city of Visalia to get a station were rebuked [1][2][3], as it was out
of the way. Instead, it was routed through neighboring Kings county which
opposed HSR from the beginning.

Other strange 'curves' in the path are for cost reasons: it's cheaper to crest
the Tehachapi mountains southeast of Bakersfield than to follow I-5 up the
Grapevine through Tejon Pass and through difficult terrain down to Santa
Clarita. Similarly, both the Altamont and Pacheco passes were considered to
cross from the Central Valley into the greater Bay Area, with the Pacheco Pass
(Gilroy - Los Banos) having won out because it was a more direct path between
LA and SF.

[1] [http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kings-tulare-
counties-...](http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/kings-tulare-counties-
spar-over-station/article_da10f700-210a-11e1-aa4f-001871e3ce6c.html) [2]
[http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-
rail/ci_248...](http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-
rail/ci_24889156/tale-two-bullet-train-cities-hanford-visalia-spar) [3]
[http://www.cahsrblog.com/tag/visalia/](http://www.cahsrblog.com/tag/visalia/)

~~~
HillaryBriss
This is the proposed route map, from the official HSR website:

[http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Newsroom/Multimedia/maps.html](http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Newsroom/Multimedia/maps.html)

~~~
niftich
and this is a badly-shaded topographic map that shows the geography of the
route in context:

[http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_Topo_2016...](http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_Topo_2016.pdf)

~~~
HillaryBriss
How much more would it cost to build it in a very straight line from Burbank
to Gilroy, roughly parallel to Highway 101, right through the coastal
mountains?

------
glup
I just got back from 3 weeks travel in Europe, taking HSR from Rotterdam to
Paris and Paris to Lausanne, fast commuter (max 170 mph / average 80 mpg but
they don't consider that high-speed!) from Lausanne to Zurich and Berlin to
Amsterdam, and several commuter trains. For trips under 300 miles, there's no
contest with air travel... top speeds are lower but there's a lot less
overhead and the experience is uniformly better. Some notes:

1) You can put a train station in the city center. Yes, getting the right of
way is a huge pain but it simply isn't feasible to put an airport in the
center of a city. This means minimal commute times to the airport—in contrast
I have twice spent more time in traffic from LAX to downtown LA than on the
plane from SFO to LAX.)

2) HSR requires far less security theater because, you know, a train isn't a
deadly projectile (or if it is, it's got a pretty limited set of uses). Couple
this 1) and it means that you can arrive at the central station ~10 minutes
before departure. I budget 90 minutes these days when flying out of SFO.

3) Volume! A 10 car TGV Thalys train, for example, can carry 370 people.
That's almost a 747-400 worth of people. And that's with seating arrangements
in 2nd class that are more generous than US business class. With airplane-like
density I think you could get 600-650 per 10-car train.

4) Trains are more robust to weather events: thunderstorms don't shut down
train stations; snow and ice can be dealt with pretty easily.

5) Electrical outlets are standard in every seat. I know that US air carriers
are trying to roll this out now, but this has been standard for a while in
trains.

I find the comparison with self-driving cars odd: high speed rail is currently
20 times as efficient, but obviously it doesn't work for final-mile
transportation. Maybe that will drop to 5 or 10 times with traffic control /
convoying / etc., but really the right comparison for HSR in the
transportation ecosystem is plane travel.

------
twblalock
If a state or national government in another first-world country had decided
to build a high-speed rail system in 2008, when California did, they would
have made significant progress by now -- they might even be operational on
part of the line, or even all of it.

When the richest country in the world can't get this kind of infrastructure
project off the ground, it's a sign of serious dysfunction. There are way too
many interest groups that are able to block development of infrastructure and
housing projects in this country.

------
niftich
HSR is California was always a bit of a gamble because there's three mountain
chains to cross between LA and SF, which makes for expensive mountain
crossings. But I'm perplexed as to why they're having cost overruns in the
flat Central Valley.

After the NE Corridor, a Chicago hub network would make the most sense for
high speed rail. The Northeast Corridor is already profitable (in isolation),
but is also the best spot for HSR, so for another network one shouldn't expect
profitability from day one.

~~~
fps
I've lived in New York or Boston my entire life, and travel from Boston to NY
and back again about 6 times a year. I've only ever ridden on Amtrak once
(from Albany to NY) and it was slow, uncomfortable and expensive. To drive
from Boston to NY in a 15 mpg pickup truck costs about $50 in gas and tolls,
and takes a little over 4 hours under normal traffic conditions. My car is
comfortable and has all my stuff in it, and it costs the same if I travel by
myself or with my family of 5. The same trip by high speed rail is 4 hours 11
minutes, and costs $200 per person, and I have to get to the train station
early so I don't miss my train. HSR in the northeast corridor is terrible.

~~~
niftich
'under normal traffic conditions' \-- this is the problem, you never know if
your trip up and down I-95 will take 4 hours or 6+, because of some traffic
incident. Acela has a dedicated right-of-way and a (more so than automobiles)
predicable timetable, enabling citycenter-to-citycenter travel for business
folks. You don't fit the target market. I don't either. But for the usecase
that it's for, it works very well.

------
williamscales
This is just disappointing. There's nothing wrong with a large project
requiring government subsidies. If you leave people to their own devices
obviously they will self-organize to the best of their abilities---they will
put their money towards automobile based transportation. If we, the voters of
California, decide that it is worth pursuing this project then at the same
time we should decide that it is worth funding it.

------
jkot
30 years old TGV is not possible, but somehow Hyperloop will materialize :-(

------
dragonwriter
The actual article has an even more shrill headline than the HN title, but
doesn't support even the HN title. The only policy change in the article is a
bill under consideration in the legislature (and so, not an action that
California, per se, has taken) that would increase transparency of certain
HSRA decisions.

So, California hasn't done _anything_ yet, and the thing it is considering
doing _isn 't_ anything remotely like hitting the brakes on HSR.

------
mikeash
Can't say I'm surprised, nor disappointed. I'm a fan of high-speed rail, but
this project is a perfect example of everything that's wrong with such
projects in this country. A high-speed rail link between LA and SF seems like
a great idea, but the plan is way too expensive ($70 billion! holy shit!) and
the route is idiotic, veering out of the way to make far too many stops.

------
matt_holden
The 2015 federal transportation bill allocates $48B to transit over 5 years
and $205B to highways.

I've never understood why people frequently describe transit spending as a
"government subsidy" but would never say the same thing about the much larger
highway spending.

If you don't insist on adding tolls everywhere to make highways break even,
why hold transit to a higher standard?

~~~
strictnein
The federal gov collects $30-$35 billion in taxes and fees for the Highway
Trust Fund. 5x that number covers most of the $205B.

------
DorintheFlora
_The officials who have to make the budget tradeoffs that weren’t on the
ballot in 2008 are finally pushing back. The question now is when they’ll have
the guts to pull the plug._

    
    
      We can do "The Innuendo"
      We can dance and sing
      When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
    

Don Henley - Dirty Laundry

[http://www.metrolyrics.com/dirty-laundry-lyrics-don-
henley.h...](http://www.metrolyrics.com/dirty-laundry-lyrics-don-henley.html)

It is an editorial -- in other words, _opinion_ not news -- and the strongly
worded title really does not fit with the content. This should not be getting
taken so seriously here.

------
DorintheFlora
FYI: Existing train (Amtrak) service in the Central Valley is being expanded
currently and they are looking to expand it further. The expansion, from 6
trips to 7, went into effect June 20th. Fresno is the same city where ground
is being broken on the nation's first high speed rail.

This sort of contradicts this editorial claiming high speed rail makes no
sense and will not fly.

[http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article84917817.html](http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article84917817.html)

------
scandox
Trains are are a commitment to the long term future. To me they are visionary
in the sense that they show confidence in stability and continuity that
extends over multiple generations. Whether big engineering of this kind is
actually the right choice or not is another question that I cannot answer. But
I would be sad to think that America (and I'm not American) didn't have that
vision any more.

------
mozumder
How much subsidies do public roads get?

Are they profitable?

~~~
HillaryBriss
"Transportation officials have identified about $57 billion in repairs needed
for state roads in the coming decade ..."

[https://calmatters.org/articles/long-neglected-road-
maintena...](https://calmatters.org/articles/long-neglected-road-maintenance-
is-now-urgent-and-expensive/)

But, though the dollar amounts are similar, this comparison is not direct,
because the HSR would not cover anywhere near as many miles as all California
state roads.

~~~
spinlock
I would put the difference at military spending vs. everything else. The
highway system was funded so that troops could be deployed quickly in the case
we were attacked. You don't get that from HSR.

------
skybrian
Clearly the author of the article doesn't like the project, but what is the
actual news here?

------
VLM
Its politically unacceptable to state any public opinion about HSR other than
fawning endless praise. The painful truth of the situation cut and pasted from
the article:

"The high-speed rail project is a classic example of how concentrated benefits
and diffused costs shape public policy, even when the general public has a
direct say."

Clearly the general public isn't doing enough to help our poor starving elites
get even more elite.

This does show an interesting business model, try to find something blindly
loved by social media signalling, then cash in with no intention of ever doing
it. There are people making millions off the CA HSR phenomena.

------
mtgx
Are they considering the hyperloop then?

[http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-hyperloop-
is-10x-ch...](http://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-hyperloop-
is-10x-cheaper-than-hsr-2013-5)

~~~
mozumder
No, since it would be much more expensive.

------
rosstex
Bring on the hyperloop!

------
bubbleRefuge
Fed-really fund it . The Fed can issue new currency to fund it. It is off the
books as fed balance sheet is not counted against the deficit. Jobs jobs jobs.

------
ocschwar
We can thank the GOP for having a political system that will happily spend far
more money on far worse infrastructure: blacktop highways that have nowhere
near the longevity of train tracks.

~~~
crusso
I didn't realize that California politics was controlled by the GOP.

~~~
MaulingMonkey
Highways are federally funded. California's politics don't enter into that
very much.

~~~
crusso
State funding of transportation makes up a larger portion of the budget than
federal.

[http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/06...](http://www.vta.org/sfc/servlet.shepherd/document/download/069A0000001EOGZIA4)

Additionally, this measure was kicked off with a voter-approved bond measure.

------
baq
i'm all for mass transit, but maybe HSR just isn't the right place to spend
the money in 2016? perhaps spending all this money on making self driving cars
working, legalized and a common thing would be a better choice?

~~~
Aelinsaar
That's decades from being a substitute, and throwing more money at the problem
seems unlikely to alter that fact.

~~~
ghughes
Many major car manufacturers expect to be shipping autonomous vehicles by 2021
or earlier: [http://www.driverless-
future.com/?page_id=384](http://www.driverless-future.com/?page_id=384)

~~~
Aelinsaar
Which level of autonomy? Hint: It won't Lvl 6.

