3 ms·

Yeah, this makes me super upset. I honestly have no problem subsidizing it with my tax dollars. I would honestly use the LA <-> SF route, even though that would

Yeah, this makes me super upset. I honestly have no problem subsidizing it with my tax dollars. I would honestly use the LA <-> SF route, even though that wouldn't be built until I'm middle-aged. It's also ridiculous that we never built out BART to the original plans, since that could have done so much to improve the traffic situation, the housing situation, and increase property values. I never understood why wealthy land owners don't want trains; in every case I've seen, land by a train station goes up hugely in value.

jclulow 10y ago
Trains allow more people from a more diverse spectrum of socio-economic conditions to work or live in and around an area. If you're a keen isolationist, whether for more or less discriminatory reasons, you almost certainly will vote to avoid useful public transport. Besides, wealthy land owners have drivers on staff. Or don't have to commute to work on a schedule, so an occasional small ferry is good enough (cough... Marin). It's all pretty awful, but not that hard to understand once you look at the more tacit end of public behavior.
x0x0 10y ago
My problem with this project is: 1 - if you want to spend $80B on public transport infrastructure, there are productive places in CA to do that. This project is not in the top 20. You could, alternatively, build out bart/muni/caltrain/vta/LA metro. I'm sure San Diego also has transit projects available. 2 - the ridership numbers for this project are created in what can only be described as a crack-aided manner. It's already $80/pp, up from $50/pp. By the time it's actually built, I'd guess tickets will be well over $100/pp. If you have even two people, you may as well drive. How many people need to commute between LA and SF? The HSR estimates are between 18m and 31m passengers annually [1] which seems unlikely. Also note the $86 far comes to about 20c/mi, while amtrak on the east coast charges 50c/mi and most european long haul trains charge 45+c/mi [1]. Which should make you suspicious that tickets will cost far more than $86, or the ridership numbers are farcical. 3 - when these projects are sold with transparently fake numbers, it poisons public support for all transport infrastructure projects. Currently the part of the project under construction is pure bait and switch rail construction for amtrak, which will use the track until at some unnamed date HSR starts using it. 4 - the local transit projects in sfbay, san jose, LA, or probably san diego have much less risk: we can reasonably project usage. [1] http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares-20150510-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares...
- npunt 10y ago
  Spot on. Local travel is where majority of need is, and in most places in CA it's sorely lacking and could benefit a great deal from state funds. Time waste there FAR exceeds that between HSR stops. HSR is a bet on people commuting more between city centers, which - if true - would only increase the local transport problem that city centers have today (as people arrive sans cars), and if false, would remain underutilized. Isn't a win either way.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  On #1, part of the HSR program of making improvements to local and regional mass transit networks connecting to HSR. They aren't competing alternatives.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    Of course they are. Every dollar wasted on building high speed rail on, eg, merced to bakersfield could be used to build public transport lots of people will regularly use, in population centers of California.

jclulow 10y ago

Trains allow more people from a more diverse spectrum of socio-economic conditions to work or live in and around an area. If you're a keen isolationist, whether for more or less discriminatory reasons, you almost certainly will vote to avoid useful public transport. Besides, wealthy land owners have drivers on staff. Or don't have to commute to work on a schedule, so an occasional small ferry is good enough (cough... Marin). It's all pretty awful, but not that hard to understand once you look at the more tacit end of public behavior.

x0x0 10y ago

My problem with this project is: 1 - if you want to spend $80B on public transport infrastructure, there are productive places in CA to do that. This project is not in the top 20. You could, alternatively, build out bart/muni/caltrain/vta/LA metro. I'm sure San Diego also has transit projects available. 2 - the ridership numbers for this project are created in what can only be described as a crack-aided manner. It's already $80/pp, up from $50/pp. By the time it's actually built, I'd guess tickets will be well over $100/pp. If you have even two people, you may as well drive. How many people need to commute between LA and SF? The HSR estimates are between 18m and 31m passengers annually [1] which seems unlikely. Also note the $86 far comes to about 20c/mi, while amtrak on the east coast charges 50c/mi and most european long haul trains charge 45+c/mi [1]. Which should make you suspicious that tickets will cost far more than $86, or the ridership numbers are farcical. 3 - when these projects are sold with transparently fake numbers, it poisons public support for all transport infrastructure projects. Currently the part of the project under construction is pure bait and switch rail construction for amtrak, which will use the track until at some unnamed date HSR starts using it. 4 - the local transit projects in sfbay, san jose, LA, or probably san diego have much less risk: we can reasonably project usage. [1] http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares-20150510-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares...

npunt 10y ago
Spot on. Local travel is where majority of need is, and in most places in CA it's sorely lacking and could benefit a great deal from state funds. Time waste there FAR exceeds that between HSR stops. HSR is a bet on people commuting more between city centers, which - if true - would only increase the local transport problem that city centers have today (as people arrive sans cars), and if false, would remain underutilized. Isn't a win either way.
dragonwriter 10y ago
On #1, part of the HSR program of making improvements to local and regional mass transit networks connecting to HSR. They aren't competing alternatives.
- x0x0 10y ago
  Of course they are. Every dollar wasted on building high speed rail on, eg, merced to bakersfield could be used to build public transport lots of people will regularly use, in population centers of California.