Tentative map of California high speed rail route reviewed

I thought this high speed rail had been dumped as too expensive ..??

No, Due to the state fiscal issue, they 'tabled' it as trying to stretch the bucks too far as the 'net boom went bust,, but they kept the spigots open for certain other 'special interests' and managed somehow to ran us in the weeds budget-wise... Too much spending, I think it's called. ;-)

The HSR was the ugly stepchild that got pushed to the tracks in front of a runaway spending train for the time being.

Beside this, there will be quite a few initiatives on the '06 ballot, this will be the biggest dollars-wise in quite some time.

Unfortunately, I don't see the state turning in 2 years fiscally or legislature-wise..

AZ looks pretty good right about now but ya better beat the rush, ;-)

Maybe Prop 200 will survive the judges in AZ, forget it here for the foreseeable future until the bottom drops out.

Now WHY would I be interested in getting from one city to another 2500 miles apart OVERNIGHT when I can get from anywhere in the USA to anywhere else in half a day (or less) by air???

First, let's agree that the primary purpose of a national transportation system is to support commerce. Anything else is a byproduct. The current airline system does a poor job in the short and midrange haul category, where the overhead (getting to and from the airport, through security, etc.) can't be amortized over a trip of more than four hours. This is particularly true for morning meetings, where a participant must wake up in the middle of the night in order to catch an early flight. The alternative is to depart in the evening and stay overnight in a hotel, which, aside from being expensive, is identical to an overnight train.

This is significant, because most business trips fall into the short-medium range category. There are other factors as well; in our increasingly connected business world, the airline system effectively disconnects business travelers, who would otherwise have web and email access on the train. The energy considerations I've mentioned before; this will get only more divergent with time, as though $5000 last minute fares aren't already a burden on business. It's also possible to have business meetings on board the train enroute, resulting in more productive meetings at the destination.

Even in the long distance category, the airline system still is far from perfect. Attendees flying from the west coast to the east coast lose a full business day, not to mention the three hour timezone (and two hour cultural) "jetlag" that often results in poor meetings and loss of productivity. But I'd be hard pressed to believe that a ground-based system would be any better.

"The current airline system does a poor job in the short and midrange haul category, where the overhead (getting to and from the airport, through security, etc.) can't be amortized over a trip of more than four hours. This is particularly true for morning meetings, where a participant must wake up in the middle of the night in order to catch an early flight. The alternative is to depart in the evening and stay overnight in a hotel, which, aside from being expensive, is identical to an overnight train."

Can't agree. SMALL airlines do a pretty good job of short to midrange haul. The problem is the "hub and spoke" model of connectivity, in which (to use a notorious example--if you fly Delta, you WILL be routed through Atlanta). This situation is only improving. I'd sure as hell rather fly in the evening and sleep in a comfortable hotel than try to sleep on a train.

"This is significant, because most business trips fall into the short-medium range category. There are other factors as well; in our increasingly connected business world, the airline system effectively disconnects business travelers, who would otherwise have web and email access on the train."

You are seriously out of date. The airlines are instituting just such connectivity.

"The energy considerations I've mentioned before; this will get only more divergent with time, as though $5000 last minute fares aren't already a burden on business. It's also possible to have business meetings on board the train enroute, resulting in more productive meetings at the destination."

You can buy an awful lot of jet fuel for what establishing the necessary high-speed rail network will cost.

The problem is the "hub and spoke" model of connectivity, in which (to use a notorious example--if you fly Delta, you WILL be routed through Atlanta).

The hub model is the most efficient, which is why the airlines are moving toward it, not away from it as you suggest.

I'd sure as hell rather fly in the evening and sleep in a comfortable hotel than try to sleep on a train.

Which makes me wonder if you've ever slept on a train. Amtrak is easily the worst example; the equipment is okay, but government operated in every bad sense of the word. Even then, it's at least as good as as Super 8 and better than many of the Travelodges I've stayed in. And it's no match to the overnighters in Japan and Switzerland, which were comfortable with good service.

You are seriously out of date. The airlines are instituting just such connectivity.

You've been drinking too much airline kool-aide. At best, Conxion by Boing and the others will offer about the same connectivty as you can get now through Airphone -- hyperexpensive 28kbps. And forget about it unless you're in First or Business Class (and willing to pay 2-10x coach).

Contrast that with what I've been able to get on trains for the past decade: 28kbps, to be sure, but from my own mobile carrier, at low bulk rates. I can now get GPRS/3G rates (64-256kbps) in most metro areas. And, real broadband is not only possible but being installed, with rates above 1Mbps.

You can buy an awful lot of jet fuel for what establishing the necessary high-speed rail network will cost.

I'll take that! If the capital costs for a system are less than the operating costs of the system it replaces, that's an obvious win. But, don't forget, aside from fuel, you have to pay for operation of the aircraft, maintenance, operating the ATC system, hundreds of new airports which are already needed to handle the existing traffic load, and so on...

"I'll take that! If the capital costs for a system are less than the operating costs of the system it replaces, that's an obvious win. But, don't forget, aside from fuel, you have to pay for operation of the aircraft, maintenance, operating the ATC system, hundreds of new airports which are already needed to handle the existing traffic load, and so on..."

Unfortunately, the capital cost of establishing a nation-wide high-speed rail infrastructure will DWARF any and all of the expenses of expanding the air network, including airports and new airplanes, and probably by a factor of ten or greater. If you believe differently, then you are living in a fool's paradise.

You're assuming a one-or-the-other choice, as well as neglecting the EIR cost impacts of airports versus rail. Simple truth of the matter is that the major airports have been maxed out, and can't be expanded without condemning large swaths of private property. Removing the short and medium traffic from those airports is more viable than trying to build new ones. And it's a lot easier to condemn a strip of property than an entire area. Want proof? Try Pena's Folly, aka New Denver International.

If you believe differently, then you are living in a fool's paradise.

I believe differently because I'm an engineer and have actually looked at the numbers and political reality. The airline industry is incredibly fuel inefficient, and its subsidies make Amtrak look like the pauper that it has been for 30 years.

It's about time that the "private industry" myth of the airlines was debunked.

Japan is a postage stamp compared to the USA, and the interconnecting distances between cities in Europe are similar. High speed rail is simply impractical in a country this size.

Proponents of more passenger rail in this country believe that we have the required population density. Only problem is, they don't think in terms of people per square mile, they think in terms of how stupid the public would be to pay for this nonsense. Bakersfield to Sacramento? Gimme a break!

"You're assuming a one-or-the-other choice, as well as neglecting the EIR cost impacts of airports versus rail. Simple truth of the matter is that the major airports have been maxed out, and can't be expanded without condemning large swaths of private property. Removing the short and medium traffic from those airports is more viable than trying to build new ones. And it's a lot easier to condemn a strip of property than an entire area. Want proof? Try Pena's Folly, aka New Denver International."

Yeah, right---and how many thousands of square miles of will need to be stolen (excuse me, "condemned") to lay all that track. This amount of money ALONE will dwarf the requirements for future airports.

"The airline industry is incredibly fuel inefficient, and its subsidies make Amtrak look like the pauper that it has been for 30 years."

Yeah, and how much will the subsidies for this fantastic high-speed rail be?? Probably 100X those for air travel.

A railroad right-of-way is only 100ft wide. Thus it takes 50 miles of ROW to make a square mile of real estate. By comparison, DIA alone required 70 square miles, not to mention the new freeway construction, etc. So in "railroad" terms, one airport equals 3500 miles of ROW.

Yeah, and how much will the subsidies for this fantastic high-speed rail be?? Probably 100X those for air travel.

You're getting despirate. Let me spell it out for you:

1. A 747-400 plane cruises at 576 mph, burns 3378 US gallon of fuel per hour, and carries 409 passengers when full.

2. Jet Fuel is currently running over $1.10 per gallon.

3. Fuel cost alone, per passenger mile, is thus $0.0143.

4. The current price of 747-400 tops out at $227 million per aircraft.

In contrast: 1. The 500-series Nozomi Shinkansen tops out at 200 mph, consuming 18.24 MW, seats 1,324 passengers.

2. Bulk nuclear electric rates run about $0.01 per kWh, not including the "runback" from regenerative braking.

3. Energy cost per passenger mile: $0.0007.

4. Cost per trainset: $40 million.

So, your system is only three times faster, yet requires 20 TIMES as much to operate, at an upfront cost FIVE TIMES that of proven High Speed Rail technology. I submit that in fact, YOUR system is 100x more expensive!!!

"So, your system is only three times faster, yet requires 20 TIMES as much to operate, at an upfront cost FIVE TIMES that of proven High Speed Rail technology. I submit that in fact, YOUR system is 100x more expensive!!!"

There's one "slight" flaw in your reasoning, "Mr. Engineer". Your calculations assume that the "choo-choo train" will actually HAVE 1324 passengers per trip. Here in the US, if they have 132 passengers per trip, I'll be VERY surprised.

Also, you always pick on Denver International Airport, which is the most ill-conceived, ill-designed, and ill-managed airport project in the history of the US. There is no earthly reason for airports to take 70 square miles. What is the AVERAGE SIZE of airports in the USA. THAT little trick is called "cherry-picking the data" to support your "case".

And finally, from your FR hompe page: "Assistant General Manager on a 10 mile volunteer-run tourist railroad."

So I conclude that you are just another nutcase like Willie Green who is fixated on "choo-choo trains". Stick to your "tourist railroad", and stop trying to steal my tax dollars to fund your fantasies of ressurecting the "age of rail".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.