Opponents of California high-speed rail don't understand the law

San Jose Mercury-News ^ | 3/15/10 | Quentin Kopp

[Willie Green]

Throughout California history, our economic might and transportation advances have led to progress and development — first with construction of railroads and ports, and later by large public investments in highways and airports. Now, California must connect our major metropolitan cities with an economically viable, environmentally friendly, sustainable high-speed rail system.

Since introducing the legislation creating the California High Speed Rail Authority in 1996, I've pursued the most logical transportation option for Californians, a 220 mph train system carrying passengers from downtown San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles.

Californians agree. Their endorsement of Proposition 1A in November 2008 defined the high-speed train system as "the corridor of the high-speed train system between San Francisco "... and Los Angeles," so it's disingenuous for opponents to advocate ending the system in San Jose.

The so-called "hybrid" or "no-build" notion of terminating high-speed rail in San Jose and forcing passengers to transfer to Caltrain is both against the law and the will of the voters. It's also intended to destroy the system. In their increasingly frenetic desire to stop the voter- and lawmaker-approved undertaking, it's no wonder the public might be confused. Let's correct the record once and for all.

[super7man]

I can currently fly out of three convenient Bay Area airports and into three convenient LA airports for $48 on South West. Flight time <1hr.

My time is worth at least $50/hr so to take the extra hour to ride rail to LA, they need to pay me $50 to induce me to ride. So to get me off the plane and get me to ride the rail net fare would be $2 to me.

Not much profit there is they have to pay each passenger $2 to ride.

[Uncle Miltie]

That’s why we love you, Willie. No facts stand in the way of your preferences.

[tradergem]

How can they run a high speed train along the coastal route when they can’t keep the present rail line operating all of the time due to the unstable geology of the California coast?

They can run a high speed train down the San Joaquin Valley with little problem until they hit the southern transverse mountain ranges. They have a hard enough time running regular trains over the Tehachapi Mountains. Ever hear of the Tehachapi Loop? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehachapi_Loop

[oldenuff2no]

First San Francisco can be reached by buss. That is good enough. Run the high speed train from Sacramento to Los Angles. Sacramento is the capital of this state and should have primary service. If you want to extend it run it on north to Seattle. People would use that system. If San Francisco really needs service then they need to build a spur from Sacramento over the hill and then charge them enough to make it pay for itself without any of my money subsidizing it. We have been paying San Francisco's bills since the last big earth quake. Many of us are tired of this rip off. We too know of natural disasters. We have suffered droughts that put many thousands out of business. We didn't see one single dime from the cities of this state.
They can rot, they can walk, or they can ride the buss. I'll gladly toss a big wrench in anything they have going.

[ctdonath2]

What is the cost per rider ... ? Zero. That's because these are not costs but a long term investment in infrastructure assets

The "long term investment" pays off via cost per rider, which is not zero. You can play semantic games with "cost" vs. "investment" etc., but fact is checks must be written to make this project happen, and riders will pay to re-fill those bank accounts (and then some).

Thus, the question remains: what is the cost per rider for a decade when amortizing capital costs (the train & tracks etc. aren't free) + real estate costs (seizing property isn't free, even if it sounds like it; property owner must be compensated and lawyers paid) + any other costs to create what the rider rides?

[BenKenobi]

Sigh, the density in CA is only 1/4th that of the only actually successful high speed train.

It’s too far, and there are not enough people in CA to make ridership worthwhile.

[ctdonath2]

Hence my recurring comment: high-speed passenger rail is a linear solution to an area problem.

[GonzoGOP]

seizing property isn't free, even if it sounds like it; property owner must be compensated and lawyers paid

Got into it with WG yesterday and he was fairly clear that compensation for property seizure isn't a priority with him.

[ctdonath2]

Fine. Let’s take his.

[Attention Surplus Disorder]

“Now, California must connect our major metropolitan cities with an economically viable, environmentally friendly, sustainable high-speed rail system.”

Why “must”? What “must”? What is the impetus, themotivation? Just because it’s paintable as “forward looking? What makes this goofball scheme “economically viable”? Just saying it’s so?

I shudder to think of the corruption involved in handing over to the state the dozens of billions of dollars it will take to complete this project.

Sure, it would be desirable to have such a train. I’d like to have a Lamborghini, too. Yet the history of these projects show conclusively that they *never* make economic sense. The fairly obvious conclusion is that such a system will never impact travel patterns in a state so spread out as California. Not having a magic wand to somehow conjure such a system out of fairy dust, it’s nothing more than a giant union-based decade-plus project amounting to very little. Studies have shown that ticket prices for this thing would have to be very high; and a good starting point for a price estimate would be 2.5 times what’s currently being guesstimated. It would be dozens of times more productive to begin building half a dozen nuclear power plants.

[Willie Green]

Why “must”? What “must”? What is the impetus, the motivation? Just because it’s paintable as “forward looking? What makes this goofball scheme “economically viable”?

Peak Oil will make traditional fossil fuels less and less affordable in coming years.
We need to be constructing more fuel efficient transportation infrastructure before the next Oil Crisis hits.

[dalereed]

18th century transportation from nowhere to nowhere!

There is no reason for massive amounts of people to travel on your junk!

[dalereed]

That brown stuff is raising so high that it's flowing out your mouth!

[WackySam]

Government Mandated Peak Oil will make traditional fossil fuels less and less affordable in coming years.

There, fixed it for you.