California's High Speed Rail Follies

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · November-02-11, 08:23 AM

California's High Speed Rail project is now predicted to cost $98B and not be completed [[Anaheim to San Francisco, about half the length of the state) until 2033, 13 years later than planned. Just 2 years ago it was $43B and 2020. These are not the numbers of skeptics [[who would suggest it will cost yet more and take even longer), but are the official numbers put up by California officials in charge and in favor of it. The LA Times [[NOT a right wing rag, btw) has a story today http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,4160884.story ,
What is truly absurd is that they are plowing ahead, without any plan to pay for the bulk of the project. It is entirely conceivable that they will spend $50B and not be able to finish it. Note: they are building the central, least populated portion first. So if they can't finish it, it will be entirely unused. They could octuple the LA subway system for this money, which would take far more cars off the road, helping both traffic and the environment a whole lot more.
High Speed Rail- even if it could be done on time and on budget [[and there is no history to show that it can be)- is a very poor use of limited taxpayer transit funds. I think the Feds should insist that if it is not done on time and on budget, California should have to pay back every penny to the US Treasury. I hope Michigan can be realistic about transit projects. Already bankrupt California sees no problem with massive amounts of new spending. And the taxes are so high there already! How will they pay for it all? And keep in mind, even if actually completed, it is being planned to need substantial subsidies to operate [[again, by those in charge and in favor). A twelve-digit transit project! If all goes well! It is ragingly irresponsible.

**JBMcB** · November-02-11, 08:37 AM

Hey, the people of California voted for it, they must want it. The CA state legislature should jack up taxes by 20-30% on everyone and everything and they should be good. What could possibly go wrong?

**DetroitPlanner** · November-02-11, 08:39 AM

What does this have to do with Greater Detroit?

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · November-02-11, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

What does this have to do with Greater Detroit?

You may have heard that there has been some discussion on this board of high speed rail serving Detroit. Seeing how other places do and don't do it is a worthwhile exercise when considering projects here. What does California's High Speed rail fraud, um I mean project have to do with Detroit? Hopefully nothing.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · November-02-11, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by JBMcB

Hey, the people of California voted for it, they must want it. The CA state legislature should jack up taxes by 20-30% on everyone and everything and they should be good. What could possibly go wrong?

California voters approved spending $9B on this project.

**R8RBOB** · November-02-11, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner

What does this have to do with Greater Detroit?

I have to concur. It is not like we are looking for a high-speed rail from Detroit to Traverse City.

Having lived in Cali and made that San Francisco [[well Fremont) to Anaheim [[actually Diamond Bar but going to Disneyland) trip by car, it is a long drive and it sucks. I recall seeing one of the hills on I-5 catch fire and they had a backup that went miles and miles and I was going the other way luckily but people hate making that drive. One way or an another, they will get it. It's California. Here in Michigan,we just just want some simple like Detroit to Ann Arbor.

**DetroitPlanner** · November-02-11, 08:56 AM

Mikey, this has nothing to do with Detroit. We are not proposing anything near this. Accelerated rail in Michigan is what we are looking at statewide and commuter rail within the region. We are doing this as a money is available approach, not digging a giant hole. Yes its disappointing that it takes longer this way, but when you don't have a lot of money to spend, and it has to be streached across competing priorities this is what happens.

**MikeyinBrooklyn** · November-02-11, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by R8RBOB

IHere in Michigan,we just just want some simple like Detroit to Ann Arbor.

I. too favor a rail line linking Ann Arbor and Detroit. But that is not high speed rail, and is within the Detroit metro area's commuter transit area. You'll note, I am not opposed to spending on transit. I am just for spending it wisely. Local transit is a much better investment than intercity rail, especially fanciful plans for high speed rail. The hundreds of millions of dollars that is intended to be spent on "high speed rail" in Michigan will make it about the same travel time to Chicago as driving or taking a bus. Putting that same money in AA-Detroit rail. M1 rail, and better buses will serve infinitely more people. HIGH SPEED RAIL'S DESIRABILITY CANNOT BE DIVORCED FROM IT'S COST, WHICH IS ENORMOUS. That's my point.

**EL Jimbo** · November-02-11, 09:46 AM

Different type of high speed rail for starters. What they are proposing for the Detroit-Chicago corridor is to just get it up to 110mph. In all honesty it isn't even really high speed rail at all. What they are talking about in California is building a brand new, grade separated track to support a "bullet train" like version of high speed rail.

Also, I don't think that high speed rail is a fraud. In the long-run I think it would be a great help to our transportation network. Especially the airline industry.

The most expensive moments of operating a plane is getting it off the ground. Whether that plane is flying to Chicago or Shanghai, it's going to burn a lot of fuel simply getting in the air. Airlines lose a TON of money flying short and intermediate distance flights that feed into various hubs so that they can connect on profitable long distance routes because the cost to lift the plane eats into profit margins of those short flights so severely.

If a series of regional HSR networks were built across the country to feed into larger, hub cities, then I think the efficiency of our long distance, mass transit network would be greatly improved. Maglev trains, like the one built in Shanghai, has a top speed of 311 mph. This essentially puts anything within 600 miles of a hub city no more than a 2 hr train ride from that hub. For example, Assuming the Midwest Hub would be Chicago, a passenger could depart Toronto and arrive in Chicago in less than 2 hours with a stop in Detroit along the way.

This means people could travel within acceptable time frames while airlines could decrease the number of their non-profitable flights significantly. This would be a huge help to another transportation industry that is also heavily subsidized by the government. Furthermore, in the long-term benefits of having a clean, energy efficient, inter-regional system is well worthwhile in my book.

HSR can't beat airlines for long distance travel because of the slower speed and number of stops involved. However, by selecting a series of hub cities that serve as HSR focal points for a 600 mile radius [[ex: NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, LA, Portland, and Denver), we could create a sustainable, efficient, national mass transit network that would spur on our economy.

**j to the jeremy** · November-02-11, 09:59 AM

Typical Michigan anti-transit spin...Show an example of a wildly different system than we will ever have, in a state with a huge spending problem [[California), and hope it stands alone as reasoning never to build rail in Michigan....

I know that's probably not what was intended but It gets annoying after a while. I've heard so many grown men say things about rail that they should know are false that I don't even care anymore. After all, look at what a good investment all of our extra roads were! We have a healthy metropolis, right? And our state is doing fine, right? Let's extend I-375 into the Ren Cen basement! *sarcasm*

**Detroitnerd** · November-02-11, 10:23 AM

Seems like you could break down the numbers on any kind of transit and "prove" that it isn't worth the investment because it requires so much capital and construction to make it possible. From 1970 to 2000, federal subsidies to airlines TRIPLED. I mean, if that isn't a sign that something is wrong with a mode of transportation, what is? But how would air transportation as we know it have survived without billions and billions of dollars from the federal government? For that matter, how would any transportation system have been created?

To my mind, MiB, your outrage seems very selective...

**Ray1936** · November-02-11, 10:58 AM

There's also a plan to build a bullet train from Las Vegas to......are you ready for this?......Victorville, CA. That town is practically in the middle of the desert. It has a small mall , the closed-up Roy Rogers Museum, and a Jack-in-the-Box. Politicians pushing for it believe Los Angelenos wanting to visit Vegas will drive 60 miles from their homes to this rail line and take the train the rest of the way in.

Folks in Las Vegas would like a train from here to somewhere in Metro LA, but are snickering at the Victorville destination. Same flap over the funding as the LA - SF train.