5 ms·

I think it would be a good idea to make sure the California "high speed" rail program is never funded. It is a terrible idea. As it stands, it would be as slow

I think it would be a good idea to make sure the California "high speed" rail program is never funded. It is a terrible idea. As it stands, it would be as slow as conventional rail, redundant with AmTrak, and the most expensive rail line ever built. It would be absolutely devastating for the government's relationship with at least tens of thousands of land owners, hundreds of thousands of home owners, who would see depreciation or outright loss of use of their land (which may hold sentimental or historic value not accounted for, or impossible to account for, in eminent domain assessments).

mhermher 9y ago
It's not redundant with amtrak. There's no way to get from LA to SD on passenger rail without transferring through busses.
- mhermher 9y ago
  That should be SF, not SD.
- k_sh 9y ago
  The Coastal Starlight runs from Union Station in DTLA to Jack London Square in Oakland. From there, it's a quick walk to BART to get into San Francisco - no bus required. That being said, the trip takes 13 hours and some change, depending where in SF you're trying to go - which would be blown out of the water by HSR.
  - mhermher 9y ago
    That must be new. That wasn't available as of like we years ago or so.
    - ac29 9y ago
      That rail route has ran continuously since 1971: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight. The transbay tube connecting Oakland to San Francisco via BART opened in 1974.
      - rrix2 9y ago
        it's worth noting that coast starlight's once-a-day-each-way schedule sort of makes it limited as a commuter rail option.
        ac29 9y ago
        Its too long and slow to be commuter rail anyways. The Bay Area -> LA segment takes about 12 hours (of a total 35ish), if its on time (its often multiple hours late). Even if it was never late and left every hour, it wouldnt be a very practical commute. It is fun if you enjoy trains though! Take it if you have the time.
        k_sh 9y ago
        +1. I took it once, and it was a wonderful time. Jump for the business class seats, they aren't much more expensive and are quite nice. But yes - absolutely terrible from a commuter perspective.
valas 9y ago
"it would be as slow as conventional rail" - citation? Even Reason Foundation (which is as biased as it gets - it's funded by Koch brothers and ideological critic of almost any government investment) claim SF to LA times will be 3:30 to 4:40, which is faster than any train today.
- nradov 9y ago
  That's barely faster than driving, once you account for the time spent moving between your origin/destination and the train station as well as transferring luggage.
  - chipotle_coyote 9y ago
    An under-four-hour train trip still sounds like a win over a six-hour-with-good-traffic drive. Especially for people who don't really like making that drive, which I suspect is a substantial subset of the population. (I like driving, personally, but that trip is decidedly less than a thrill.)
  - baldfat 9y ago
    In the near age of driverless cars I think this might be its biggest demise. If cars are automated people wouldn't need a train. It will be cheaper and less confining to a schedule and to a destination. I think air travel for short to medium flights will fall off. By the time I leave my house and get to someplace that is 8 hours by car it would take 5 hours to check in and check out and you still need to rent a car.
    - phinnaeus 9y ago
      Autonomous vehicles do not obviate grade-separated transit options. Even if we imagine a road network populated only by highly efficient and inter-connected autonomous vehicles, the increased capacity allowed in such a situation will only create more demand, which will scale up traffic problems. Now, other than traffic, I agree. When deciding whether to drive somewhere or take the train, my second factor is whether or not I feel like actually driving a car. That answer is usually no, so I'm very excited about driverless cars.
kbenson 9y ago
> I think it would be a good idea to make sure the California "high speed" rail program is never funded. Never funded? It's already under construction[1]. Although it's likely pre-pre-pre-construction, as they grade items and fix obstacles for the actual railway construction, which I doubt will happen within a decade, if ever. 1: https://www.buildhsr.com/interactive_map/ https://www.buildhsr.com/interactive_map/
- jcranmer 9y ago
  > Although it's likely pre-pre-pre-construction They're building the bridges right now, that's not exactly pre-pre-pre-construction.
Frondo 9y ago
It's a great idea and I can't wait to see more high speed rail built all across the country. We've already criss-crossed uncountable acres of historic, sentimental (what?? really??) land with roads, both local the state/federal highway system. HSR would be so much better use of land than roads, for moving a lot of people quickly and comfortably. Not at all redundant with Amtrak. Happily, the California project is funded and is already underway, and I think there's one or two others being talked about/planned.
- dkersten 9y ago
  On top of that, my experience of (southern) Californian roads is that they are muuuuuch wider and take up much more space than the coaster/amtrak train tracks take up, so roads have been much more damaging to historic sentimental land than rail is or would be.
  - Frondo 9y ago
    What really irks me with that particular sentiment (the land is historic/already in use) is how the federal highway system absolutely decimated communities of color in a lot of major cities. They'd put a highway right through where the black folk live, and who cares? Well, all the people in that neighborhood care, but they're poor minorities--they have no political power, no ability to push back. If you want to start talking about land being taken from people, don't fucking start with farmers in rural California and HSR, start with the inner city neighborhoods the highway system destroyed.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      Who says I agree with either?

mhermher 9y ago

It's not redundant with amtrak. There's no way to get from LA to SD on passenger rail without transferring through busses.

mhermher 9y ago
That should be SF, not SD.
k_sh 9y ago
The Coastal Starlight runs from Union Station in DTLA to Jack London Square in Oakland. From there, it's a quick walk to BART to get into San Francisco - no bus required. That being said, the trip takes 13 hours and some change, depending where in SF you're trying to go - which would be blown out of the water by HSR.
- mhermher 9y ago
  That must be new. That wasn't available as of like we years ago or so.
  - ac29 9y ago
    That rail route has ran continuously since 1971: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_Starlight. The transbay tube connecting Oakland to San Francisco via BART opened in 1974.
    - rrix2 9y ago
      it's worth noting that coast starlight's once-a-day-each-way schedule sort of makes it limited as a commuter rail option.
      - ac29 9y ago
        Its too long and slow to be commuter rail anyways. The Bay Area -> LA segment takes about 12 hours (of a total 35ish), if its on time (its often multiple hours late). Even if it was never late and left every hour, it wouldnt be a very practical commute. It is fun if you enjoy trains though! Take it if you have the time.
        k_sh 9y ago
        +1. I took it once, and it was a wonderful time. Jump for the business class seats, they aren't much more expensive and are quite nice. But yes - absolutely terrible from a commuter perspective.

valas 9y ago

"it would be as slow as conventional rail" - citation? Even Reason Foundation (which is as biased as it gets - it's funded by Koch brothers and ideological critic of almost any government investment) claim SF to LA times will be 3:30 to 4:40, which is faster than any train today.

nradov 9y ago
That's barely faster than driving, once you account for the time spent moving between your origin/destination and the train station as well as transferring luggage.
- chipotle_coyote 9y ago
  An under-four-hour train trip still sounds like a win over a six-hour-with-good-traffic drive. Especially for people who don't really like making that drive, which I suspect is a substantial subset of the population. (I like driving, personally, but that trip is decidedly less than a thrill.)
- baldfat 9y ago
  In the near age of driverless cars I think this might be its biggest demise. If cars are automated people wouldn't need a train. It will be cheaper and less confining to a schedule and to a destination. I think air travel for short to medium flights will fall off. By the time I leave my house and get to someplace that is 8 hours by car it would take 5 hours to check in and check out and you still need to rent a car.
  - phinnaeus 9y ago
    Autonomous vehicles do not obviate grade-separated transit options. Even if we imagine a road network populated only by highly efficient and inter-connected autonomous vehicles, the increased capacity allowed in such a situation will only create more demand, which will scale up traffic problems. Now, other than traffic, I agree. When deciding whether to drive somewhere or take the train, my second factor is whether or not I feel like actually driving a car. That answer is usually no, so I'm very excited about driverless cars.

kbenson 9y ago

> I think it would be a good idea to make sure the California "high speed" rail program is never funded. Never funded? It's already under construction[1]. Although it's likely pre-pre-pre-construction, as they grade items and fix obstacles for the actual railway construction, which I doubt will happen within a decade, if ever. 1: https://www.buildhsr.com/interactive_map/ https://www.buildhsr.com/interactive_map/

jcranmer 9y ago
> Although it's likely pre-pre-pre-construction They're building the bridges right now, that's not exactly pre-pre-pre-construction.

Frondo 9y ago

It's a great idea and I can't wait to see more high speed rail built all across the country. We've already criss-crossed uncountable acres of historic, sentimental (what?? really??) land with roads, both local the state/federal highway system. HSR would be so much better use of land than roads, for moving a lot of people quickly and comfortably. Not at all redundant with Amtrak. Happily, the California project is funded and is already underway, and I think there's one or two others being talked about/planned.

dkersten 9y ago
On top of that, my experience of (southern) Californian roads is that they are muuuuuch wider and take up much more space than the coaster/amtrak train tracks take up, so roads have been much more damaging to historic sentimental land than rail is or would be.
- Frondo 9y ago
  What really irks me with that particular sentiment (the land is historic/already in use) is how the federal highway system absolutely decimated communities of color in a lot of major cities. They'd put a highway right through where the black folk live, and who cares? Well, all the people in that neighborhood care, but they're poor minorities--they have no political power, no ability to push back. If you want to start talking about land being taken from people, don't fucking start with farmers in rural California and HSR, start with the inner city neighborhoods the highway system destroyed.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    Who says I agree with either?