How CA’s bullet train went off the rails

[Velar Fricative]

Our CA posters probably know all of this but I occasionally wondered how far along they were on this project and…yeah, it’s probably dead. And so might be any other US bullet train when we could really use some.

nyti.ms/3fTmiEr (Gift link)

The part about French consultants saying there was so much political dysfunction in CA that they took their expertise to Morocco and got a train completed there…man, this is one of those times where I’m like you know what, people who don’t vote and don’t give a shit about politics because everyone’s the same are on to something.

[sakoro]

My local Reddit board was discussing this article and people who are “in the know” thought it was misleading. Apparently the author is a longtime anti-high speed rail person.

Counter-points to the article:
cal.streetsblog.org/2021/11/02/la-timess-latest-high-speed-hypocrisy/

I don’t really have an opinion. Southwest has relatively affordable flights between the major cities where I go. The benefit would be more for smaller communities and people who want to live further out and commute into the larger cities for better paying work.

[wanderingback]

Oct 10, 2022 0:29:44 GMT -5 sakoro said:

My local Reddit board was discussing this article and people who are “in the know” thought it was misleading. Apparently the author is a longtime anti-high speed rail person.

Counter-points to the article:
cal.streetsblog.org/2021/11/02/la-timess-latest-high-speed-hypocrisy/

I don’t really have an opinion. Southwest has relatively affordable flights between the major cities where I go. The benefit would be more for smaller communities and people who want to live further out and commute into the larger cities for better paying work.

I can’t bold but when you say the benefit would only be for smaller communities, aren’t trains better than planes for the environment? I always wanted more trains so that less people drove and flew to help with climate change.

[wanderingback]

.

[dutchgirl678]

Trains are much cleaner than planes for the environment and when you factor in time to drive to the airport and checking in, you could actually save time with a high-speed rail line.

I wish people would think before they hop on a plane especially when the plane ride is less than an hour. I only do it if I have to get on a longer flight from that other city, not just to get to said city.

[sakoro]

Oct 10, 2022 8:27:11 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Oct 10, 2022 0:29:44 GMT -5 sakoro said:

My local Reddit board was discussing this article and people who are “in the know” thought it was misleading. Apparently the author is a longtime anti-high speed rail person.

Counter-points to the article:
cal.streetsblog.org/2021/11/02/la-timess-latest-high-speed-hypocrisy/

I don’t really have an opinion. Southwest has relatively affordable flights between the major cities where I go. The benefit would be more for smaller communities and people who want to live further out and commute into the larger cities for better paying work.

I can’t bold but when you say the benefit would only be for smaller communities, aren’t trains better than planes for the environment? I always wanted more trains so that less people drove and flew to help with climate change.

Im not an expert on pollution but SF and LA are quite a long distance apart (about 400 miles as the crow flies). If 25% of the people who normally fly LA-SFO or LA-San Jose switched to a bullet train instead, would there be a massive difference in pollution?

I think the greatest benefit would be more getting people out of their cars for those daily commutes from Lancaster / Palmdale to Central LA or Livermore / Stockton to San Jose. Service workers have been forced to move to these outlying areas due to the high cost of housing. There currently is some train service from Stockton to San Jose area but it is slow, so many people drive instead.

[gretchenindisguise]

I loved the train system in Spain and always chose trains over flights when possible. It was cheaper, easier, in many cases faster, cleaner, and just generally more enjoyable. I wish we could have something similar here. I would absolutely do a quick train trip to SFO from SAN more readily than I would take a flight there.

[dutchgirl678]

Oct 10, 2022 9:27:31 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Oct 10, 2022 8:27:11 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

I can’t bold but when you say the benefit would only be for smaller communities, aren’t trains better than planes for the environment? I always wanted more trains so that less people drove and flew to help with climate change.

Im not an expert on pollution but SF and LA are quite a long distance apart (about 400 miles as the crow flies). If 25% of the people who normally fly LA-SFO or LA-San Jose switched to a bullet train instead, would there be a massive difference in pollution?

I think the greatest benefit would be more getting people out of their cars for those daily commutes from Lancaster / Palmdale to Central LA or Livermore / Stockton to San Jose. Service workers have been forced to move to these outlying areas due to the high cost of housing. There currently is some train service from Stockton to San Jose area but it is slow, so many people drive instead.

True, I guess a plane is not as bad as a car because of the number of people it transports. But if there were fewer flights, it would make a difference. I agree with you that getting people out of cars is also important. I found this carbon footprint calculator on the website for the high-speed rail: hsr.ca.gov/programs/green-practices-sustainability/carbon-footprint-calculator/

[wanderingback]

Oct 10, 2022 9:27:31 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Oct 10, 2022 8:27:11 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

I can’t bold but when you say the benefit would only be for smaller communities, aren’t trains better than planes for the environment? I always wanted more trains so that less people drove and flew to help with climate change.

Im not an expert on pollution but SF and LA are quite a long distance apart (about 400 miles as the crow flies). If 25% of the people who normally fly LA-SFO or LA-San Jose switched to a bullet train instead, would there be a massive difference in pollution?

I think the greatest benefit would be more getting people out of their cars for those daily commutes from Lancaster / Palmdale to Central LA or Livermore / Stockton to San Jose. Service workers have been forced to move to these outlying areas due to the high cost of housing. There currently is some train service from Stockton to San Jose area but it is slow, so many people drive instead.

Yes, based on estimates it would make a difference.

[starlily]

I've done the LA-SF drive and flight countless times over the last 20 years. I'd love to have a high speed train as an option and hope they figure it all out at some point in my lifetime. I find the drive stressful and weekend flights are $$$. Add in the environmental benefits and a bullet train would be my first choice.

[goldengirlz]

Oct 10, 2022 9:27:31 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Oct 10, 2022 8:27:11 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

I can’t bold but when you say the benefit would only be for smaller communities, aren’t trains better than planes for the environment? I always wanted more trains so that less people drove and flew to help with climate change.

Im not an expert on pollution but SF and LA are quite a long distance apart (about 400 miles as the crow flies). If 25% of the people who normally fly LA-SFO or LA-San Jose switched to a bullet train instead, would there be a massive difference in pollution?

I think the greatest benefit would be more getting people out of their cars for those daily commutes from Lancaster / Palmdale to Central LA or Livermore / Stockton to San Jose. Service workers have been forced to move to these outlying areas due to the high cost of housing. There currently is some train service from Stockton to San Jose area but it is slow, so many people drive instead.

DC to Boston is also about 400 miles and people don’t think twice about doing it on the Acela (Amtrak’s express line.) A lot of people, even businesspeople, say they prefer the train, especially because it stops right downtown, vs. having to drive in from the airport. It’s a different mindset.

And sure, SFO is an easy airport to navigate in and out of but LAX is generally … not known for that.

[sakoro]

Oct 10, 2022 21:20:18 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

Oct 10, 2022 9:27:31 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Im not an expert on pollution but SF and LA are quite a long distance apart (about 400 miles as the crow flies). If 25% of the people who normally fly LA-SFO or LA-San Jose switched to a bullet train instead, would there be a massive difference in pollution?

I think the greatest benefit would be more getting people out of their cars for those daily commutes from Lancaster / Palmdale to Central LA or Livermore / Stockton to San Jose. Service workers have been forced to move to these outlying areas due to the high cost of housing. There currently is some train service from Stockton to San Jose area but it is slow, so many people drive instead.

DC to Boston is also about 400 miles and people don’t think twice about doing it on the Acela (Amtrak’s express line.) A lot of people, even businesspeople, say they prefer the train, especially because it stops right downtown, vs. having to drive in from the airport. It’s a different mindset.

And sure, SFO is an easy airport to navigate in and out of but LAX is generally … not known for that.

I used to live in Washington DC and we went up to NYC once or twice a year. Most of the time we took the regular Amtrak— couldn’t justify the extra cost for Acela since it doesn’t shave off much time (I understand that it can’t reach its max speed in some sections because the rails are also used by freight trains.). Sometimes we took the Chinatown bus. We never flew because we didn’t want to end up way out in queens and have the hassle and expense or getting into Manhattan. We never considered driving on I-95 mainly because it was such a big expensive hassle to leave the car somewhere safe while we were out and about in NYC.

It’s hard to compare the infrastructure in the Northeast to car-centric SoCal. The difference with taking a train to LA is that you need a car once you arrive there unless someone local will be driving you around. The public transit is gradually improving so maybe one day. With San Francisco, public transit is much better but it depends on where in the region you’re trying to go. San Diego, where I’m currently situated is pretty limited too.

I’ve taken the train from San Diego to LA for day trips before but that’s no longer possible because because the tracks are falling off the cliff near San Onefre.

[goldengirlz]

Oct 10, 2022 21:44:45 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Oct 10, 2022 21:20:18 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

DC to Boston is also about 400 miles and people don’t think twice about doing it on the Acela (Amtrak’s express line.) A lot of people, even businesspeople, say they prefer the train, especially because it stops right downtown, vs. having to drive in from the airport. It’s a different mindset.

And sure, SFO is an easy airport to navigate in and out of but LAX is generally … not known for that.

I used to live in Washington DC and we went up to NYC once or twice a year. Most of the time we took the regular Amtrak— couldn’t justify the extra cost for Acela since it doesn’t shave off much time (I understand that it can’t reach its max speed in some sections because the rails are also used by freight trains.). Sometimes we took the Chinatown bus. We never flew because we didn’t want to end up way out in queens and have the hassle and expense or getting into Manhattan. We never considered driving on I-95 mainly because it was such a big expensive hassle to leave the car somewhere safe while we were out and about in NYC.

It’s hard to compare the infrastructure in the Northeast to car-centric SoCal. The difference with taking a train to LA is that you need a car once you arrive there unless someone local will be driving you around. The public transit is gradually improving so maybe one day. With San Francisco, public transit is much better but it depends on where in the region you’re trying to go. San Diego, where I’m currently situated is pretty limited too.

I’ve taken the train from San Diego to LA for day trips before but that’s no longer possible because because the tracks are falling off the cliff near San Onefre.

But we’re not comparing driving vs. taking the train. We’re comparing flying vs. the train, so not having a car is kind of a moot point.

[sakoro]

I’m not arguing — I accept that a train has lower environmental impact than flying. What I’m saying is that people will ultimately choose the option that works best for them based on cost, time and perceived hassle. And perceived hassle is based on what you’re used to infrastructure-wise. Hopefully this thing gets built soonish and marketed appropriately so people make the behavior change and use it.

[basilosaurus]

What perceived hassle is there with a train compared to plane? You just show up and board. No need to get there 2 hours early. When I flew recently it took literally 3 hours from door to gate, never pausing to even sit. Just standing in line after line after line. Give me a shinkasnsen any day over that.

[tacokick]

Oct 13, 2022 15:43:59 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

What perceived hassle is there with a train compared to plane? You just show up and board. No need to get there 2 hours early. When I flew recently it took literally 3 hours from door to gate, never pausing to even sit. Just standing in line after line after line. Give me a shinkasnsen any day over that.

I think people who don’t ride the train must think it is like air travel because I see the hassle argument a lot. I can roll up to the Baltimore Amtrak 10 minutes before the train leaves with no worries. They don’t even check your ticket until the ride is well underway. They really should develop some ad campaigns around that. I guess it would also highlight the complete lack of security though!

[wanderingback]

Oct 10, 2022 23:17:57 GMT -5 sakoro said:

I’m not arguing — I accept that a train has lower environmental impact than flying. What I’m saying is that people will ultimately choose the option that works best for them based on cost, time and perceived hassle. And perceived hassle is based on what you’re used to infrastructure-wise. Hopefully this thing gets built soonish and marketed appropriately so people make the behavior change and use it.

I don’t know about this project specifically and obviously it’s already had some hiccups but I think they usually do extensive surveys and polls to get an understanding if people will use a new transport service or route.
I can imagine that a lot of business travelers would use the train vs plane- saves time, money and able to get work done more easily.

[sakoro]

Oct 13, 2022 16:21:28 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Oct 10, 2022 23:17:57 GMT -5 sakoro said:

I’m not arguing — I accept that a train has lower environmental impact than flying. What I’m saying is that people will ultimately choose the option that works best for them based on cost, time and perceived hassle. And perceived hassle is based on what you’re used to infrastructure-wise. Hopefully this thing gets built soonish and marketed appropriately so people make the behavior change and use it.

I don’t know about this project specifically and obviously it’s already had some hiccups but I think they usually do extensive surveys and polls to get an understanding if people will use a new transport service or route.
I can imagine that a lot of business travelers would use the train vs plane- saves time, money and able to get work done more easily.

The author of the article in the OP is a long time skeptic of high speed rail who thinks that the studies weren’t done properly. I would take some of his reporting about how badly it’s going with a grain of salt.

There are a bunch of people in CA who have been skeptical about this project for a long time for various reasons— they would prefer the money to go into commuter rail from the outskirts of LA into central LA and same for Bay Area rather than going between the two regions, they hate public spending in general, they would rather spend the money on highway improvements etc.

I’m willing to give high speed rail a chance if they eventually bring it down to San Diego and it’s not outrageously expensive. But it’s going to be a big behavior change for Californians. Amtrak shares rail with freight trains (unlike the Northeast) which makes it not a reliable option. They are going to have to market HSR as a reliable easier choice to change consumer behavior.

[sakoro]

Oct 13, 2022 16:05:43 GMT -5 tacokick said:

Oct 13, 2022 15:43:59 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

What perceived hassle is there with a train compared to plane? You just show up and board. No need to get there 2 hours early. When I flew recently it took literally 3 hours from door to gate, never pausing to even sit. Just standing in line after line after line. Give me a shinkasnsen any day over that.

I think people who don’t ride the train must think it is like air travel because I see the hassle argument a lot. I can roll up to the Baltimore Amtrak 10 minutes before the train leaves with no worries. They don’t even check your ticket until the ride is well underway. They really should develop some ad campaigns around that. I guess it would also highlight the complete lack of security though!

On the West coast, the passenger Amtrak rails are shared with freight trains unlike in the Northeast. I’ve taken Amtrak from San Diego to LA for concerts before and been caught in multi-hour delays because of a freight train issue. The perception is that it’s always late/ delayed. Maybe that’s the hassle people are talking about. I don’t know the on time statistics but I don’t remember as many issues with Amtrak when I took it during my Washington DC days.

[basilosaurus]

When my partner and I were in different states, we tried once and only once to visit by Amtrak. The train was delayed by many hours. Because, yes, freight gets priority. The overnight train was good in theory only.

Am I incorrect in the assumption that high speed would be a dedicated track? I've taken high speed in a few countries, and the tracks are different than regular rail.

Agreed that la rail is severely lacking. But they should address both that and long distance. It's not either or

[wawa]

Oct 13, 2022 17:41:35 GMT -5 sakoro said:

Oct 13, 2022 16:05:43 GMT -5 tacokick said:

I think people who don’t ride the train must think it is like air travel because I see the hassle argument a lot. I can roll up to the Baltimore Amtrak 10 minutes before the train leaves with no worries. They don’t even check your ticket until the ride is well underway. They really should develop some ad campaigns around that. I guess it would also highlight the complete lack of security though!

On the West coast, the passenger Amtrak rails are shared with freight trains unlike in the Northeast. I’ve taken Amtrak from San Diego to LA for concerts before and been caught in multi-hour delays because of a freight train issue. The perception is that it’s always late/ delayed. Maybe that’s the hassle people are talking about. I don’t know the on time statistics but I don’t remember as many issues with Amtrak when I took it during my Washington DC days.

The northeast corridor has less shared track with freight than other areas, but it's all partially shared. Freight has Amtrak by the throat though the whole country and it has turned rail into a cute quaint idea rather than a viable long distance travel mode. There's is an ongoing issue pending in the gulf coast that is about to create major precedent on how far freivht is allowed to go in fuvking Amtrak.

Re other poster - yes high speed would be dedicated track. Generally. I don't know this project well.

Trains would be unquestionably better than flying and driving except it takes 15 hours to get across Pennsylvania. Because freight.

[mysteriouswife]

I get envious of those who have adequate public transit. The south is known for the crappy options we have to get around. There is no way my family can function without two cars. I would love the option of train travel for vacation. We drive anywhere under a 6 hour commute. Longer drives we do weigh the options for air.

Fingers crossed the US gets their shit together in my lifetime