Comments for California's Future High Speed Rail at http://www.ecogeek.org , comment 1 to 22 out of 20 comments http://www.ecogeek.org Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:19:32 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-21022 local taxes and federal matching funds. - j Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:12:17 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-21021 In response to the above comment about funding the local commuter rail/transit money for hsr includes upgrades for local transit to better feed it into hsr. the initial bond includes nearly a billion dollars for existing agencies to be divided among metrolink/metro/bart/capital corridor/ACE and so forth. HSR will be a state/federal/private partnership and local transit will continue to be funded as it currently is with local - j Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:08:52 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-21017 No matter how you slice it this is a very good investment for California. The system is designed well to serve the state, Express trains between SF and LA will compete against the shuttle flights and the regional/limited trains will connect the under served and faster growing central valley/high desert/inland empire areas to the Bay and LA metro areas. Ticket prices will be based as they are now on train and airlines with a variety of fares: internet only fares/advanced purchase/multi ride tickets/ monthly passes/ economy/business anf first class/ express, local, and regional trains. So there will be a price range and trip type to meet everyones needs. The initail main line LA to SF is schedule to open in 12 years in 2020. The completed system including San Diego and Sacramento in 2030. In addition to the fares and ridership numbers keep in mind that this is a core system upon which future generations can build. This also helps connect the inland communities to the airports for long distance flight via code sharing. Chicago to Fresno via SFO on a "thru fare" plane-train ticket. As for the jobs and economics, not only will this create construction and operations jobs, but it will stimulate the local economies of the adjacent cities creating additional jobs. In addtion to that it is easily adapted to both heavy freight as well as package express, and mail delivery contracts generating additional revenue. All in all the nay sayers just don't understand the big picture. As someone who works in the railroad industry I can tell you this will be a very good investment in the long run. Also, the younger generation is all for it and when the bond payments come due they will foot the bill so it works out just right. Our job is too have the vision to get it moving. - jtatarazuk Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:32:31 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-21014 No matter how you slice it this is a very good investment for California. The system is designed well to serve the state. express trains between sf and la will compete against the shuttle flights and regional trains will connect the under served and faster growing central valley/high desert/ inland empire areas to the bay and La metro areas. Ticket prices will be bases as they are now on train and airlines with a variety of fares , - j Mon, 17 Nov 2008 23:51:32 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20960 The high speed rail will go through the rural san joaquin valley. Already the fastest growing area of California, high speed rail will only encourage an influx of Los Angeleians and Bay Area folk to move into the valley with its cheaper housing? So what? more sprawl. less agricultural land. more development and more environmental degradation. As for California being 12th largest producer of CO2, we have a large state. Per capita is more important. You'll find that we are doing pretty well as far as America goes on that measure. Of course, if you really want to go green, live like a rural East Indian. - Mr. Lee Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:01:18 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20935 The worst traffic problems in California are with commuting by car within metro regions, not travel by plane or car from one part of the state to another. I think it would have made more sense to build or expand commuter rail systems, and then connect them with a statewide HSR system. But now that we've decided to build the connector parts first, the real question now is how this inter-city system will affect plans for commuter rail-- it seems likely this HSR system will soak up most Federal and State funds available in California for rail for at least the next 22 years. The critical need is for a comprehensive network of local rail for commuters. I just hope this doesn't have to wait until 2030 for begin construction! - Roger Hiles Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:09:25 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20930 The 800 mile comment refers to the entire system not the distance between the main segment "SF to IRVINE" 502 miles. Plus the "LA to SD branch via Riverside" 167 miles. Plus the third leg from Merced to SAC 110 miles. total 779 miles plus misc. That is where the 800 mile system comes from - j Fri, 14 Nov 2008 20:42:28 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20928 I was curious about that previous comment about the environment impact statement. How much noise pollution will a 125 MPH train make? How might NIMBY types prevent the train from going near their property due to the noise. One thing that might minimize the noise is the fact that the trains have dedicated rails and they do not have to stop (which makes without having to blow their whistle at every crossing as I hear trains even though I'm miles from the tracks). - bobbobberson Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:55:10 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20918 [quote]But 22 years to be completed? That's dragging it out a bit isn't. Bureaucracy at it's best. Ridiculous. [/quote] It's the environmental impact statement. ;D - EV Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:50:39 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20914 Problems abound with passenger rail, and that's why only governments attempt it. 1. They only go where the tracks are. 2. Ongoing maintenance costs are HUGE due to the nature of the cargo (people.) 3. Scheduling is difficult due to thin ridership and local service requirements. 4. Profitability is elusive and NEVER justifies the huge capital requirements. I can't imagine return on investment, after factoring opportunity cost of capital, risk, inflation, and other imponderables EVER rising above negative 10%. But when you are using other people's money, pie in the sky is very tasty indeed. - Big Bustard Fri, 14 Nov 2008 12:01:49 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20910 Sacramento to San Diego? Sounds like a fast way for lazy politicians to get to the beach. That's not the heart of the long distance commute in CA. SF to LA. That's where the real demand will be. - jello5929 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:54:38 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20907 But 22 years to be completed? That's dragging it out a bit isn't. Bureaucracy at it's best. Ridiculous. - Misoh Orney Fri, 14 Nov 2008 10:44:41 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20905 Market shares question: this is right, HSR takes over plane on medium/short distances. Examples below: - Paris-Brussels: 1h22, 100% train - Paris-Lyon: 1h55, 90%/10%. The 10% people flying are mostly on connecting flights to and from international long haul flights. Air France now offers train flight tickets in partnership with SNCF, the French national railways operator. - Paris-Marseille: 3h05 to 3h18, 60%/40% to 70%/30% the distance is critical and Marseille airport serves Orly airport in Paris, quite convenient - small airport to small airport, low delays. - Paris-London: 2h15, around 80%/20% - mostly connecting flights on British Airways Air France shuttle for business people. - Paris-Strasbourg (new east HS line): 2h17, they reached 60%/40% quite quickly and it tends to 80%/20%... My comments on other issues will be continued in a next post. - Matthieu Desiderio Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:50:05 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20900 In Europe and Japan HSR trains tend to dominate the market share of any distance below 3 hours. The Sanfran to SanD is 3 hours and 50 minutes. Everyplace else on the line takes less time to get to. I think people will flock to this system because of further airline problems. As for the costs I would love to see if this whole project is cheaper than the actual costs of building the airports at every one of those cities. - bobbobberson Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:02:29 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20890 When you read the business plan on the website, it's 160,000 construction jobs, and 320,000 permanent jobs by the year 2030 (when they plan on the system to be finally done...seriously 22 years??). It looks like they'll have different type trains..some that will travel the long routes exclusively with virtually no stops, and some that will only run short routes. Will people actually use it? It all depends on how easy it is to get around the city of destination once you arrive at the train station...if it's convenient and easy to then transport around the city, then people will use it. - Julie Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:35:11 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20887 It's great that CA is going the High speed train route but... the stupid thing is that special and different tracks in every state each with different trains doesn't solve the bigger problem. We need a nation wide high speed MagLev something that can go coast to coast at over 250mph. Plus they need to have a system that doesn't stop at every little burg along the way... this is the kind of system would compete with airlines and could move a lot of people There is a system being proposed in japan that has little shuttle cars the link up with a passing by train then the car drops off the back when people need to depart. The whole point is there is no need to stop. This allows access points along the way but maximizes speed and energy. - TrainsAreGood Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:59:39 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20885 Trains are more comfortable than planes. Trains are faster over short distances (up to about 400-500Km) thanks to less time being wasted in check-in and security. Trains can have the main station right in the middle of the city. Trains can carry more people than planes. Trains have no restrictions on using electronic devices. Trains allow you to keep all your baggage with you. Trains don't suffer from turbulence. - David Keech Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:39:34 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20877 First legitimate electric car coming to the market. Safe, reliable and affordable. Check it out............$15,995-$17,995 Article: http://planetgreen.discovery.com/tech-transport/electric-c100-vehicle.html Video-You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=begreenadvocate&search_type=&aq=f BeGreen Advocate - BeGreen Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:14:42 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20874 It's 505 miles according to google maps. That's Sacramento to San Diego (not LA, not SF) - brent Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:28:43 +0100 http://www.ecogeek.org/preventing-pollution/2291#comment-20866 LA and SF are about 400 miles apart, not 800. - Richard Kaye Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:10:16 +0100