California High Speed Rail

>>1053689
also, what a fucking garbage colour scheme. CALIFORNIA HAS RED AND WHITE IN THEIR FLAG

There is no excuse for those colours!

LATEST NEWS

>$64-billion high-speed rail ready to lay some track in California

http://abc7.com/travel/$64-billion-high-speed-rail-ready-to-lay-some-track-in-california/1783882/

>Trump Transport Secretary Elaine Chao Pulls $647 Million Dedicated To California Rail Electrification

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/03/03/trump-transport-secretary-elaine-chao-pulls-647-million-dedicated-california-rail-electrification/

Also reading it'll also use non-high speed rail lines as well in parts of the layout meaning it won't be able to go fast there anyway

>>1053689
It is literally under construction and they are laying track in the Central Valley.

>>1053690
Blue and Gold are the official state colors you fucking dipshit.

>>1053695
> Also reading it'll also use non-high speed rail lines as well in parts of the layout meaning it won't be able to go fast there anyway

This is is an idiotically misleading statement.

>>1053704
It doesn't matter if they're the official colours, this design still looks like trash on trains.

>>1053714
You're welcome to kill yourself at any time.

File: OhShit2.png (2MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1200px

>>1053717

Red and white make a superior colour scheme faggot.

>>1053689
>2017
>still thinking this thing will be built

Where will the money for this boondoggle come from? Last I checked voters only approved an $8 billion bond in 2008, where's the rest of the $60+ billion coming from?

>>1053718
>>1053717

Red and white are superior colors. The only one who should kill themselves is someone arguing for a blue and gold color scheme

>>1053718
>>1053740
Agreed. I'd prefer a red and white scheme on a train in my own state (Florida), but Brightline's livery is alright.

>>1053690
fpbp

the HSR is a huge slush fund to line the pockets of the connected. Senator (((feinstein's))) husband has already made tens of millions from it.

should have hired Japan Rail to do it. They would have had it built on time and under budget.

>>1053747
The brightline livery is very pretty. Also should be coming in a few color combinations.

America's entire rail network should be torn up to make room for shitty underfunded highways with tolls every 10 miles.

>>1053703
This. This is true.

>>1053820

>Senator (((feinstein's))) husband has already made tens of millions from it.

That's up for debate.The only sites that support this notion are heavily partisan. Last anyone looked into it was 2013. No new information has surfaced since.

>should have hired Japan Rail to do it. They would have had it built on time and under budget.

Most of the JR companies' record with projects ain't so hot. I recommend looking up JR Hokkaido.

Flights to LA aren't all that expensive, and driving to LA doesn't take all that long. I'd rather have the money spent to give the socal area some sort of rail infrastructure

>>1053875
Answer this post, dipshit.
>>1053719

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE MONEY COMING FROM FOR THIS BULLSHIT AND WHY ARE YOU FUCKS SO AFRAID OF PUTTING IT UP FOR ANOTHER VOTE? YOU AND YOUR CORRUPT BUREAUCRATIC CRONIES WILL LOSE. FREEDOM WILL PREVAIL AND TYRANNY WILL FAIL.

>>1053892
>>1053719
wait what they only need 60+ billion USD to build it? why so cheap

>>1053896
Conservative estimates are now at least $81 billion, I've seen credible claims of $100+ billion.

Either way, way more than the ~$10 billion voters approved. The proponents of Prop 1A lied to the voters and need to be held accountable with another vote on this thing.

>Proposition 1A approved the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This money is supposed to partially fund an 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In 2008, when voters approved the measure, the estimate for the total cost of the project was $40 billion. In 2011, the California High-Speed Rail Authority issued a new cost estimate for the entire project, saying that it will cost between $98.5 billion and $118 billion.[3]

>A Field Poll conducted in November 2011 says that 64% of Californians want the opportunity for a re-vote. Furthermore, 59% of those voters say that they would reject the plan, if they could vote on it again. Of those who voted for Proposition 1A in 2008, 37% said they would now vote against it.[11] The poll was conducted from November 15-27, 2011 among a random sample of 1,000 registered voters in California.[12]


https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Act_(2008)

>>1053899
Wew, the cost overruns are becoming worse than the Big Dig, proportional-wise. That project ended up costing 8x the original budget. California HSR looks to be at around 10x at this point.

>>1053888
Mythbusters did an episode about this.

Driving and flying was about the amount of time. Cost is almost the same too.

>>1053875
>JR Hokkaido

Christ that was a disaster.

Frenchfag here:

can anyone explain to me what makes CHSR cost freakin' 80 billion bucks? I mean, the Chuo shinkansen is cheaper than that and it's basically viaduct+tunnels. even our Lyon-turin HSL which is basically the same cost only 25 billions (and it's a scandal here)

>>1053963
More private companies, I guess.

>>1053963
The contractor (Tutor Pernini)'s modus operandi is to ask for endless project changes and cost increases to gouge taxpayers of as much money as humanly possible. Various Californian regulatory BS also may be at play for the proposed route; the authorities previously rejected an earlier SNCF proposal to route it along Interstate 5 instead.

>Capital funding to develop the high-speed rail project will come from federal, state, local and private sources. These funds will be available to the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) at different times based on the development timeline of the system.

>Developing the first segment of the Initial Operating Section (IOS) from Madera to Bakersfield will cost $6 billion, consisting of $3.3 billion in federal funding and $2.6 billion in Proposition 1A bond proceeds. The remaining portions of the IOS will be funded using state bonds, federal support, and local funds. Cap and Trade funds are also available as needed, upon appropriation, as a backstop against federal and local support to complete the IOS.

>The Bay to Basin system is expected to be funded using a mix of federal, local, and other funds, as well as private-sector capital. Likewise, the complete Phase 1 Blended system is expected to be funded in a similar manner.

>Once the IOS is under construction and work has begun on blended improvements in Northern and Southern California, the Authority will begin to build the remainder of the IOS with initial attention on closing the passenger-rail gap between Bakersfield and the Los Angeles basin. Development of the IOS will be funded through government sources, while private-sector capital will fund future construction segments once the system is generating positive cash flow.

How would "private-sector capital will fund future construction segments once the system is generating positive cash flow"? I assume that mean there will be a long time after the finishing of the first phase before the entire project is done?

>>1054034
I assume that means the public will get shafted by the cost for building the project while the private sector gets to collect the profits once it is operating.

>>1053695
>Trump Transport Secretary Elaine Chao Pulls $647 Million Dedicated To California Rail Electrification
This is why revenue sharing is a terrible idea.

>>1054045
Fuck DRUMPF

Can the federal government intervene and just give the whole thing to SNCF or JR Central to build and manage?

>>1053963
Rail projects in the US cost so much because of 2 or 3 reasons
Regulation and Bureaucracy which can either be seen as 1 reason or 2 depending who you ask but are both basically politics effecting money and time for projects. and beatification where instead of just spending money on tracks, trains, and stations, they decide its defiantly worth it to spend a few more million bucks to place some nice trees along the line.

>>1053689
>>1053695

CAHSR is happening, it must because CAHSR exists due to a voter ballot initiative, Prop 1A. Only problem is that Prop 1A only passed with 55% of the vote, not the 67% margin needed to raise taxes. However, Democrats have a 2/3rds Supermajority in Sacramento now so they can raise taxes to fund it. Phase I builds from San Jose to Bakersfield, Phase II from SF to LA.

Note on Caltrain: while USDOT did defer the grant, they did not reject it. Likely, as what happened with PRIIA grants in the FY 2015-7 budget, House Republicans will remove the money, pass the budget, then Fienstien will add the money back into the Senate version which will be passed by both the Senate and House Budget Committee before being signed by Trump.

The only problem with this is that Caltrain only has until June 30th to select bidders for their electrification, or restart the whole process. This could send their part of the project back 12-24 months, which nobody wants to do. Of course, action (a tax increase) by Sacramento could immediately fix the problem. SB-1X, proposed by state sen. Beall, would more or less accomplish this as it would give Caltrain access to the $670 mllion they need.

>>1053719

Either Cap-and-Trade carbon taxes or a gas tax increase, depending on Sacramento's mood.

>>1053820

It's not a slush fund at all. CAHSR is being done to pave over the Central Valley and High Desert corridors into major metropolises. Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale will all explode in population once CAHSR is complete.

>>1053719
>still thinking this thing will be built
Track is actively being laid.

>>1053899

Wrong, CHSRA estimates the full build will only cost around $67 billion. Their $100 billion figure only comes in if you factor in inflation between 2008 and 2028. As for a revote, your poll was from 2011 before the transit problems in SF and LA got totally out of hand.

>>1053947

There are no cost overruns, because not much has been built yet. The big ticket items are the tunnels underneath the Pacheco and Tehchapi mountains. That's where most of the money will be burned.

>>1053963

Because two massive tunnels have to be built and existing trackage cannot be used. This is a 100% greenfield project, in the sense that it has to build a completely new system. The high cost reflects that.

>>1054034

If USDOT allows roads to be tolled, CAHSR is suddenly a profitable operation. This is not an unlikely thing to happen considering the success of toll roads in Texas and Florida (notably along corridors which TXC and Brightline parallel).

>>1054050

No because CAHSR is a state-run project, created through Prop 1A. The Feds never had any control except over 2008 PRIIA grants, but that program expires at the end of the year.

>>1054139
I mean, iirc the said first phase does not connect into San Francisco

>>1054157
It easily could. The San Jose to SF section only requires that Caltrain be electrified, which could very easily happen before 2025. Getting all the way to the Transbay Terminal by then is a different story.

>>1053984
The current route and the sheer number of stops in it is horrendous, they should've let SNCF do it instead of whining about Muh WW2 holocaust. i mean, why stop at fresno and san bernardino? why put billions of stations nearby LA/SF, it's supposed to be an HSL for christs sake.

>>1054138
this doesn't explain the cost. the Lyon-turin HSL is filled with tunnels and the biggest is about the same length as the new Gotthard tunnel (57km) and it's still 3 times less costly. Not to mention my previous exemple. the chuo shinkansen is a >maglev< line piercing through tokyo and the japanese alps while it's cost under 76billions $
how can you defend the costs of such a project with that in mind?

>>1054187
>sheer number of stops
?
Does CAHSR think it is the NEC and there will only be one train class that stops at all stations?

>>1054202
considering the political bickering around the project, it is the most probable outcome.

>>1054187

Factor in Right-of-Way acquisition and the construction of completely new station facilities. This is as if SNCF was building a totally new rail line, completely independent of any existing system, from Paris to Lyon.

>>1054202

Initially that will be the case due to congestion on the Caltrain corridor between SF to LA. Simply put, it's going to remain a two-track corridor with only a handful of passing tracks for at least twenty if not thirty or forty years. Caltrain will be running trains every 10-15 minutes, and CHSRA wants to run trains every 30 minutes.

The math works out to about 192 trains per day, or 8 trains per hour. Getting that higher requires dedicated HSR-only tracks between SF and SJ, which is not possible until after service is operative due to politics (namely Caltrain won't fight for HSR if they aren't included, because CHSRA is otherwise fine with building an isolated system directly adjacent Caltrain).

For what it's worth, as-is Caltrain operates two trains per hour with a very loose definition of "on time". Namely, most trains are about 5-10 minutes late, with "late" trains being 15-20 minutes late. This is because wheelchairs have to be manually loaded and unloaded by conductors. Also, trains cannot enter the College Park or South SF stations while another train is unloading, as the platforms are too small to permit safe deboarding (presently, passengers step into the other track). While these won't be issues later on, I mention it for context.

>>1054202
>>1054260

Also, another issue is with the new Transbay Terminal: it only has six tracks across three platforms. At any given time, two will be taken by Caltrain, two by HSR and two in reserve in case of problems with the other four. This severely limits the maximum capacity of the system as a whole. Ideally, the terminal will eventually be connected to Oakland through another transbay tube, allowing it to become a station, but this isn't in the cards yet.

>>1054257
kay, and what about the chuo shinkansen? Completely new system with 80% of the line consisting of tunnels and 20% being viaducts that tear through the most expensive cities in japan while using expensive maglev technology? This project is pharaonic yet cost less than CHSR. Face it, this thing is a big dig 2.0 and taxpayers are footing the bill.

Of course, the HSR the public thought they approved is not the one being built.

Some voted for it thinking it would cost what the promoters were saying it would cost (of course it will cost FAR more than that if we are so unfortunate for it to actually be finished). The recently leaked Federal government analysis predicts major cost overruns and identifies significant mismanagement. Their risk analysis concluded that the Central Valley portion (the easy part - no tunneling through mountains in earthquake prone areas) which the HSRA claimed would be completed in 2017 won't be completed until 2024 - seven years behind schedule and over cost projections.

Most voters believed it would take two hours and forty minutes to go between Los Angeles and San Francisco on HSR (that's actually a requirement in the bond measure) on regularly scheduled trains. It is, however, unlikely that if HSR is finished it will ever run regular service with that service time (it may have to run one train, once, in the wee hour of the morning with careful scheduling to avoid losing a court battle) now that they gave up on dedicated tracks up the Peninsula. When the time creeps up closer to four hours, HSR loses virtually every advantage it might have over driving, buses, or airplanes (and don't think HSR riders won't be subject to much the same TSA screenings that air travelers are -- the first bomb will end that luxury).

HSR projections have repeatedly increased fares and decreased ridership estimates to try to give the illusion that somehow the service will be financially viable. They are in a death spiral in this effort.

It's over -- all that's left is to kill it as quickly as possible before more money is poured into a bunch of tracks that future archeologists will puzzle over ("Why did this civilization build these tracks going from nowhere to nowhere and why is there no evidence they were ever used as intended -- is it some sort of religious iconolgy?").

>>1053875
>>1054134
>>1054137
>>1054135
>>1054138
>>1054139
>>1054159
>>1054260
>>1054262
How can I get a job to shill for CA-HSR on /n/ like you? Who employs you, the state government or related private interests?

>>1054264

probably because JRE doesn't have to deal with land acquisition or other legal costs

>>1054267

I voted for Prop 1A and I still support it because I want to rent my mom's shitty trailer in Fresno to tech workers for $1,000/mo like I she does with her parents' place in Cupertino. Also I fly a lot and it's a chore compared to stepping on a train.

>>1054135
cap and trade is a scam.

tree farmers are planting water hungry fast growing trees for timber. they get to sell the timber, and then sell carbon credites for the carbon content of the wood.

it's wrecking water resources and wild plant life.

File: gate_052516053841[1].jpg (65KB, 650x450px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 650x450px

>>1054277
The Japanese are really good about doing things for the common good.

>>1054277

still, at nearly 85 million dollars a mile its almost 5 times what the germans paid to do the frankfurt/koln line, which was 100% greenfield and had to purchase land from private entities.

>>1054267
Slit your wrists.

>>1054264
>Face it, this thing is a big dig 2.0
If only it cost as much as the Big Dig. We're looking it to be closer to 10 times that amount when everything is said and done.

>>1054135
>Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale will all explode in population once CAHSR is complete.

oh please god no this place is shitty enough stay out of our valley

>>1054247
>>1054260
>>1054262
Well fuck idk it's this bad.
Not advocating a better service for all to the hardest is a disgrace. Train classes and classic-compatible through service should be part of the norm and standard.
>>1054277
1. JR have to to a lesser degree. Local political struggle is a bit different there.
2. JR Central is dealing with 90% underground sections in Chuo Shinkansen.

>>1055381
*classic-compatible through service for distributing capacity

>>1054277
>Narita Shinkansen

>>1055363

Too late. Prop 1A is already law and now it's just a matter of time. Already Tracy and Stockton are filling in with rich techies that commute in on ACE. And Palmdale sits directly between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. I'd buy property now if you live in the area, because it only goes up from here. The only person who could have prevented this was Jerry Brown himself, if his original vision for intercity rail (improving the existing coastal route) was used instead back in the early 80s. But that was thirty years ago.

>>1055381

>Train classes and classic-compatible through service should be part of the norm and standard.

Not so in the Bay Area due to BART (local metro which is incompatible with regular trains). They have wanted to annex the corridor since San Mateo County rejected BART membership in 1965. It's also why Caltrain is only just now being modernized, because the last time they tried to do it (1999) the money went to an airport BART extension instead.

Through service has always been impossible in SF, as there was never any train line running through it. Private companies forced passengers to board a ferry, except for the Key System which had it's own trains across the Bay Bridge (removed in 1956). BART is the only "through" running train, as they are the only rail system with a transbay railroad track. They abuse their position and obviously don't want Caltrain or HSR screwing with their monopoly.

>>1055400
Yeah this the daily BART ridicule I know. Fits the population there.
Is the new Transbay Tube all fine then?

>>1055482
If by all fine you mean that it has no funding, route, or design... then yes.

File: florida-high-speed-rail-map.jpg (36KB, 533x505px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 533x505px

Let's talk about Floridian high speed rail as well.

Tampa-Orlando-Miami could be linked up beautifully and then Jacksonville can be added in later. The total distance you would have to cover to link the first three is really not all that much and could be fairly easily maintained if designed intelligently.

I think Florida has a lot of potential as a state with the huge population boom it had over the last few decades, the large number of decent state schools that can become much better, and the value of its tourism and property. Linking up the growing hubs of the new super state would be a great way to continue the growth and relieve the burden on our roads.

>>1055489
Too bad the politics of Florida won't allow it. They rejected a bunch of federal rail project funding years ago.

>>1055489
Assuming those cities could get their heads out of their asses and develop decent public transportation options within their city limits, I can see highspeed rail being relevant in Florida. Too bad they don't seem likely to accept it. Besides, Floridas gonna be underwater a few decades from global warming anyways

>>1055491
because the private sector is funding it.

>>1055510
Except Brightline is a joke compared to what Florida had planned before they rejected federal funding assistance.

>>1055482

The Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (the regional group charged with transit planning) releases the first draft their Core Capacity Transit Study (CCTS) sometime this month. It's expected to be the white paper/official proposal for a second transbay tube, but nobody knows if they're going to go the BART route or the Caltrain/HSR/Amtrak route, or a Frankenstienish mixture of both.

>>1055489

Important to note: Brightline exists because of the toll roads adjacent them. This is also why Texas Central is continuing, even though they're being fed shit from local NIMBYs.

>>1055529

Not the person you're responding to, but it's serviceable enough. Miami gets a new downtown station which will feature Metrorail, Tri-rail and Brightline express trains. Orlando gets a new terminal as well. And, most importantly, all of it can become proper HSR if electrification is done since track geometry is already fairly straight.

Future expansion from that eastward to Tallahassee/NOLA and northward to Jacksonville/Savannah is fairly straightforward.

Overall, it's probably about the best deal Florida voters could have gotten even if they got it in an unorthodox way.

>>1055351
how about big dig 2: HSR bogaloo?

>>1055351
>>1055733
The Big Dig is a road only a few miles long. CAHSR is hundreds of miles long and designed to have trains go 220 mph. No fucking shit it costs a lot more...

>>1054135
>It's not a slush fund at all. CAHSR is being done to pave over the Central Valley and High Desert corridors into major metropolises. Fresno, Bakersfield, and Palmdale will all explode in population once CAHSR is complete.
the only economy in these places are farming, oil and jack in the box. once the water aquifers and oil deposits dry up this is just gonna be a giant jack in the box to jack in the box connection shit train for subsidized homeless to live on

>>1057394

>the only economy in these places are farming, oil and jack in the box

That's what San Jose was in 1950 and what LA was in 1900. Also people use less water than industrial agriculture, and more importantly have to pay for water (as opposed to getting free runoff).

>this is just gonna be a giant jack in the box to jack in the box connection shit train for subsidized homeless to live on

Greyhound will still be cheaper.

File: LA to SF.gif (23KB, 490x926px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 490x926px

As one would expect for such a large undertaking, it's somewhat behind schedule and over budget.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/03/14/the-dream-of-high-speed-rail-in-california-is-taking-longer-and-costing-more/

>>1057460
>security wait to board rail

oh i'm fucking laughing.

I used to live in Japan. I could literally walk in 10 minutes before the Shinkansen left, buy a ticket at a machine, and walk on. I went skiing that way a lot. There is one ski resort with a shinkansen station inside it.

>>1057460
How big are the seats in the train though?

One thing I hate about flying is economy seats pack you like sardines.

Busses are busses.

>>1057491
Space and weight come at a much higher premium on aircraft, so you can bet the train seats are larger.

Surprisingly, they seem to be going for a significantly higher density of seats (~45% more) than something like Acela. This may be because Acela is all first class and business class.

CAHSR RFP: 450 seats in a 680ft train
Acela: 304 seats in a 666ft train

>>1057396
Eh, SJ and LA have proximity to major seaports, hence trade & commerce, hence secondary + tertiary + quaternary industries. Central Valley would maybe get some secondary stuff, at best.

>>1057494
>Acela: 304 seats in a 666ft train
>666ft
Spoopy

>>1053695
>Also reading it'll also use non-high speed rail lines as well in parts of the layout meaning it won't be able to go fast there anyway
NIMBYs cock blocked a separate ROW into San Francisco.

>>1054139
It really irks me when people criticize rail, especially CAHSR, for never being able to pay off it's construction costs. When is the Interstate system expected to pay off its construction costs?

like everything else sacramento decides, it's a scam, google richard blum, the guy running the holding company that was awarded the contract

>proposals to raise taxes at every opportunity
>every time without fail it goes right into the general fund instead of for whatever the measure said it would be for

>highest gas tax
>get lectured that we arent saving for the future by a nepotist who had 2 chances to fix the roads and never bothered until now
>http://fox40.com/2017/03/29/gov-jerry-brown-proposes-gas-tax-increase-to-fix-roads/
>t-this time i mean it !

>>1053984
>route it along Interstate 5 instead
Because an HSR line connecting just SF and LA, which I-5 would do, is pants on head retarded. Multiple studies show there's not enough demand between these two cities to justify HSR. Running it through Fresno and Bakersfield actually forms a network that can be used. People commute from Fresno to SF, and Bakersfield to LA, right now, either flying or driving, because it's so much cheaper to live in these places. There's also significant SOV traffic along 99 between Fresno and Bakersfield. Going along the east of the valley instead of the west bolsters four major corridors instead of one for slightly more time and slightly more money (most of the price comes from crossing the Tehachipi mountains, NIMBYism, and government mishandling).

>>1054187
>why stop at fresno
Because people already commute from Fresno to SF by air and road, despite the massive inconvenience, because of how cheap it is to live in Fresno. Fresno is also the fifth largest city in California. Connecting it to the other major metropolitan areas in the state is a no brainer.

>>1060281
I'm not a California, but I'm fairly certain I-5 doesn't go to San Francisco. Maybe you meant Sacramento.

>>1060276
Sacramento didn't decide it. Voters did.

>>1060281
This is blatantly false. The Bay Area to LA route is one of the busiest air corridors in the world. And that's to say nothing of road traffic between the two.

>>1060287
Very few people make that commute. You're grossly overstating how many people do that.

>>1055507

Miami has passable public transportation in its high density urban core. Tampa still has street car rails existing.

Orlando and Jacksonville are more of a concentration of strip malls than a city and are beyond saving.

File: 1429846210553-3.png (24KB, 255x255px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 255x255px

>>1053899

>$100+ billion

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Is this a meme? I'm all in favor of new passenger rail, but as it stands California has always been willing to pay to subsidize these things out the nose rather than keep costs low and negotiate with people. There's a reason Brightline in Florida can do high speed rail for a couple billion, while CAHSR appears to be lining the pockets of Senator Feinstein's husband to the tune of literally BILLIONS. Billions in bonds, I might add, so more debt. What a joke. Who knows, maybe the major metropolises of Bakersfield and Fresno will manage to make this shit-show turn a profit once it's already built.

>>1055489

All Aboard Florida/Brightline is already doing this. Once they get their line from Miami to Orlando working they plan on expanding to Jacksonville and possibly Tampa.

>>1055529

Dude, Brightline is private. That's the beauty of it, the NIMBY's would have stopped a state and federal funded project long ago. I actually have come to despise HSR autists, because you all insist on playing this wierd game of chicken with the public transport lobby where you insist on "everything or nothing at all". For fuck's sake, we all know Brightline will expand once it proves it's a viable business model. We don't have to build an entire HSR system all at once. This isn't the 1960's anymore where we have tons of empty land for highways and railroads, we have to take things slowly so that a cultural change occurs that makes trains attractive, rather than forcing it at a big government project.

File: Capitol-Corridor-Amtrak-Train-Travel-Guide-Rail.jpg (226KB, 1050x500px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1050x500px

>>1060396

CAHSR costs a lot of money because:

1. CHSRA has to build completely new trackage between Santa Clara and Anahiem
2. CHSRA has to build two new tunnels underneath Pacheco and Tehachapi
3. CHSRA has to go all the way into downtown San Francisco, up the 55-mile Caltrain corridor. This is hardcore NIMBY country, only San Mateo County really wants the train to go all the way up (SF voters hate trains, SJ voters obviously want to cut SF off).
4. In phase II, CHSRA has to blow another tunnel underneath Altamont, perhaps also rebuilding the Dumbarton rail bridge. This is also where conversations about a San Rafael rail bridge or Carquinez Tube begin.

So yes the quoted $70-80 billion pricetag is real, $100 billion if you count another transbay tube. This is perhaps the biggest construction project in California since the Alameda Rail Corridor (1991), or the Interstate freeway system itself (1957). The full buildout is nothing short of unfucking Northern California's mass transit, which has been extremely lacking since the 1960s when BART replaced the private sector.

>Billions in bonds, I might add, so more debt. What a joke. Who knows, maybe the major metropolises of Bakersfield and Fresno will manage to make this shit-show turn a profit once it's already built.

First of all 4/5ths of California's debt comes from Calpers, so cutting out as many bus drivers as possible by using trains is a net benefit. And all Californians will see CAHSR benefit them, because it'll increase the carrying capacity of the state. CV and high desert residents benefit the most though, you'd be a fool not to by buying land out there right now.

File: LA-metro-various-slides-collect-3.jpg (70KB, 672x568px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 672x568px

>>1060908

The only modern comparable example I can think of is LA's Measure R and M, which put about ~120 billion into the LACMTA and Metrolink systems over the next fifty years. Prop 1A (ie, CAHSR) does the same but with Norcal (because Norcal is made up of ~10ish counties, instead of three).

>>1053689
Haha trains in California will NEVER look like that.
I did not even know L.A has metro before last year

>>1060913
Seattle is also spending $50 billion for a bunch of all-new urban and suburban light rail right-of-way.

So, assuming California does eventually get a functioning LA-SF high speed rail line, what would you think of closing LAX, SFO, and OAK airports, and building a mega-airport somewhere between Bakersfield and Fresno on that line to replace them?

>>1053963
I've read that land acquisition alone eats away about 1/3 of the budget

Then there's the "build in america" clause in which the train needed to be built in the US if the Feds is involved. Building things in america costs more not only because of higher labor and material cost (40 percent of the train must be american made yo), but also constructing assembling factory and new machine that would easily cost several million dollars (without any tangible benefit post-Cali HSR).

>>1053689
This hare-brained idea has been studied (and over studied) since Bechtel Corp. began it in the early '70s. Every concern since then has come to the same conclusion: YOU CAN'T MAKE IT PAY!!!!. Approximately 90% of the the travelers between NorCal and SoCal go by auto. The other 10% go by air or bus. The need is being met by these modes. Jerry Brown and his liberal cronies in Sacramento are determined to force their behavior modification on the rest of us here in the formerly Golden State to promote their climate-related agenda. I say let the market determine what is best.

Oops, I think it already is.

>>1060396
Feinstien needs to go.She's example of why term limits are necessary, I hate that gun grabbing bitch.

>>1061022
I think a really big reason why Jerry Brown is advocating this project so much is because he wants it to be his "legacy" since he grew up in the shadow of his father who was the California governor who basically built the modern California. Basically a son trying to emulate the greatness of his father.

>>1060995
For all we know, CAHSR may go with Talgo which has established a manufacturing presence in the US.

>>1061022
I keep forgetting how the interstate highway system and commercial air travel are complete unsubsidized...

>>1060908
But we still haven't addressed the question of why other countries can do comparable jobs for so much less money.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-infrastructure-costs-so-much

>>1061034
She's going to be replaced by someone equally or more liberal. If you don't understand that, you don't understand modern California politics.

>>1061022
This is a retarded statement and you should be forcibly sterilized.

>>1060982
Terrible idea all around.

>>1060908
> only San Mateo County really wants the train to go all the way up (SF voters hate trains, SJ voters obviously want to cut SF off).
This is the exact opposite of what's true. SF has voted more than once to fund rail. San Mateo county is where all of the resistance is. San Jose wants to act as a gateway and gain the extra traffic that comes with that status, which can't exist without HSR going all the way up to SF.

>>1061109
Not an argument.

>>1061105
found a somewhat watchable video that kinda explains it

https://youtu.be/-DMhBFxOM1g

File: 400px-Vl_TKY_20110723_329536.jpg (38KB, 400x268px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x268px

>>1061063
Kek that shit is fucking ugly

>>1061112

>SF has voted more than once to fund rail.

and yet they can't figure out how to connect 4th&king to their new bus stop under Millenium tower

>San Mateo county is where all of the resistance

Atherton is, and they're no worse than Palo Alto. Burlingame fell in 2013 when their grade sep was done, Belmont/San Carlos fell in 2003 when theirs were done. San Mateo (the city, itself) is already committing their own money to build a new station and separate 25th avenue. The only outlier is RWC, but this isn't due to political resistance insomuch as it is engineering issues (figure 5+ new crossings, rebuilt RWC stop, while not touching the switches for Dumbarton and the Port).

>San Jose wants to act as a gateway and gain the extra traffic that comes with that status, which can't exist without HSR going all the way up to SF.

SJ doesn't care in the slightest, they have VTA to ferry people into Diridon. San Mateo County only has Caltrain.

>>1061116
You didn't make an argument you dense fucking nigger. You just stated this that are objectively false.

>>1061170
It like you didn't even bother to address the point or the facts.

>>1053963
Conservatives stalling the project with endless lawsuits cause the cost of building to go up, since you still have to pay workers and contractors even if you're not building anything. So, basically, it's the fault of the people opposed to the project, who conveniently point to the rising cost as a reason to shut it down.

LA needs to upgrade all Metrolink lines to full electrification, grade separated and 15 minute headways. Freight traffic be damned.

>>1053718
>>1053717
>>1053714
you guys will argue over fucking anything

>>1053689
>California High Speed Fail

FTFY

>>1067193
Great one, dipshit. Too bad for you that it's under construction as we speak.

>>1068898
Post proof or fuck off.

Also, how is it being funded? Where is that $100 billion coming from since that's certainly not what voters approved in 2008.

>>1068898
>under construction
At over 60 billion dollars that's still a fail.

>>1070223
A small fraction of that has been spent. It would cost over $100 billion to build the equivalent capacity by expanding airports and highways.

>>1070127
You could even get the basic figures right. Fucking kill yourself.

Also, die in a fire: https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/albums/

>>1070227
Does the California state government know that its employed CAHSR shills are telling people to kill themselves, and if so do they condone it?

>>1070127
The broke ground in January 2015. You're over 2 years late.

>>1070227
Fair enough, airports are expensive enough as they are and eat up way too much land, and I'm not keen on more highways either.

I support high speed rail and want to support CAHSR but the ridiculous cost overruns leave me hesitant. Nothing has changed since the Big Dig days, we're still spending 10x the amount for any type of infrastructure than a European country would.

>>1070230
> gets proven wrong with easily verified facts
> calls other people shills

You should have quit while you were behind.

>>1070244
Will you ever actually explain how this is being funded? You've been asked multiple times in this thread and have never given an honest answer. Just shitposts.

So can you state for the record how much this will cost and where the money is coming from?

>>1060344
I never said how many people made it, retard, nor did I say how often they made it. Maybe try sticking to what I said, next time.

>>1070254
It's weird that you haven't once admitted that you've made objectively false claims despite being proven false multiple times.

Funding comes from a voter approved bond measure, stimulus funds, cap-and-trade funds, and private investment.

I also guarantee you can't name a single infrastructure project of similar scope that was fully funded down to the last penny before being approved and before construction started.

But keep being an ignorant fucking tool who makes himself look retarded without even being prompted. It's working out great for you...

>>1070291
This is, surprisingly, the single most dishonest post in the entire thread. You directly implied that it is a common commute when it is, in fact, negligible right now. The connection to Fresno is not because of any existing commute pattern. Nothing you can say changes that very simple fact.

>>1060396
Brightline is (by design) the toy of a brain damaged orangutan compared to CAHSR.

File: ICE2_Hilpodrom.jpg (550KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1000x667px

>>1053690
>CALIFORNIA HAS RED AND WHITE IN THEIR FLAG
Fick dich, das sind unsere Farben!!
t. DB ICE

Thoughts about this article?

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/03/good-news-for-caltrain-federal-budget-includes-100-million-for-electrification/

I was reading another article from WaPo mentioning that a number of states have connections with the project as several manufacturing companies would be awarded contracts (Ohio, Utah, West Virginia, etc.) thus employing workers.

>>1071226
It's true, and even more have connections to CAHSR than to Caltrain electrification.

>>1061063
>>1061128
They might pull an Acela and have two separate companies work on it.