Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
2183 messages, Last post on Nov 21, 2009 at 5:13 PM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
While I applaud the intent of the visionaries to begin the planning process, I have a few questions: 1) Will this be built from the ground up, or will it attempt to use existing rail lines? 2) If the answer to #1 is "from the ground up", I cannot begin to imagine the problems with acquiring the right-of-way to build this rail line. The sheer number of local governments (city and county) that would have to give approval is mind-boggling. 3) Like Gary pointed out above, unless the cost of a ticket is equal to or less than an airline ticket between LA and SF, it's unlikely that there will be much adoption. Now, having said that, my folks live in CA and use the train frequently from their hometown north of LA to San Diego to see my sister and her family. Yes, it takes longer than it does to drive, but as my folks are in their 70's, the relaxed experience makes it worth their while. |
|
|
Replying to: michaell (Nov 06, 2008 9:59 am)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: michaell (Nov 06, 2008 9:59 am) 2) Right of way has already been established and they are just in the process of finalizing the route. This project is not starting today, it has been around a number of years already, and a lot of this preliminary planning work has already been completed. This bond measure was essentially to finance the next phase of this massive project. 3) Ticket costs should equal plane ticket costs, I think. As such, you are correct that it may not find many takers initially. However, you have to consider the ENORMOUS hassles associated with flying these days, the wasted time, the inconvenience and poor service at every stage of the trip, etc. I think overall this is needed for California's future, although just like Gary I question the timing of it and its ability to be self-sustaining economically. Of course, these are long-term bonds, so no repayment will be required on them until we are well out of the current recession. As for the self-sustaining question, well the airlines can't do it, so I'm not sure how the bullet train will either. Having ridden these trains in Europe, I have to say that you will never take a trip under 1000 miles on a plane again once you have tried the high-speed train once. The comfort, the absence of all the airport hassles, the enormous advantage the trains have in being able to stay on schedule even during holiday periods and not lose your luggage while they do it, there is just no comparison.
|
|
On the Alternate Route I'm wondering why decreasing demand for oil and gas is viewed as a bad thing.  Slippery Slopes
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: pf_flyer (Nov 06, 2008 10:34 am) |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 10:23 am) I think high speed passenger trains would require new tracks anyway, and separation from the freight tracks would be good. That's the European model. Getting the right of way could be a daunting issue. |
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Nov 06, 2008 10:23 am) I moved from California to Colorado about 15 years ago, so am not as current on the in-state issues as I used to be. I hadn't realized that they were attempting to use existing SP rail lines. Not long after I moved to Colorado, my ex and my son came to visit .. they took the train (California Zephyr, with the observation cars). IIRC, there was a problem in Utah and they were stuck there for many hours, which put them horribly behind schedule. The California Zephyr still runs daily between Chicago and San Francisco, though the original CZ ran between Chicago and LA. EDIT: Nope, I was wrong - the CZ always ran between Chicago and SF. BTW, are there still plans to build a high speed rail line between LA and Vegas? That idea has been kicked around for about 25 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: michaell (Nov 06, 2008 12:57 pm) There sure are, and in fact that one is well on its way as they have a commitment from the train manufacturer to provide all initial trains for free as part of a demonstration project, and in exchange for hefty payback once it is in operation and turning a profit. I think anything that will clear some of the enormous volumes of traffic off of I-5 south of Sacramento and I-15 south of Vegas is welcome and overdue.... |
|
|
Amtrak has a high-speed train called the Acela that runs between DC and Boston. It's capable of speeds in excess of 150 mph except for one little detail...the tracks and the overhead wires. As a result, I think its average speed drops down to something like 80 mph. Amtrak's Northeast Corridor has too many twists and turns, limiting the speed. But worse, the tracks themselves were laid too close together, so that limits how far the Acela's cars can tilt. Tilt them over too far, and they'll whack an adjacent slow-moving freight. Also, the overhead lines in many places date back to the Depression era and the old GG-1 locomotives. I believe the overhead wires have too much "bounce" to them, to accommodate a fast-moving electric train. Still, I think it can make it from DC to NYC in about 2 hours and 40 minutes. I doubt if you could drive it that fast, and an airplane ride, while quicker, might not be quicker enough to be worth the hassle. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Nov 06, 2008 9:34 am) You and the proponents are dreaming. There are environmental groups that have already filed lawsuits to block the high speed rail. This is CA man we have regulations for everything and against everything. California High-Speed Rail Project Dead? Not Dead Enough Similarly, the California high-speed rail project surely is founded on bogus projections. The cost is pegged at $40 billion, an unfathomable figure. But based on consistent past experience, the real cost could easily exceed $80 billion, not counting the interest on the bonds. Even more absurd is the ridership projection. To quote REASON Foundation policy analyst Adam Summers, "Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express, which serves the popular Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., to New York to Boston, enjoys ridership of less than 3 million passengers per year. It serves a larger market than the planned California system, yet proponents ask us to believe that California's high-speed trains will carry over 100 million passengers a year by 2030." The strategy by rail proponents is what I call the "hole in the ground" ploy. First get the taxpayers to approve a paltry $10 billion bond, leaving open the ultimate cost and the remaining financing. Then, with the project started, proponents figure that the voters will reluctantly approve massive additional expenditures, on the shaky premise that "we can't stop now." http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/09/opinion/rider/20_46_081_8_08.txt Four environmental groups and two cities today filed a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court challenging the California High Speed Rail Authority's recent decision to lay track over Pacheco Pass, The state will spend the $9 billion on lawsuits and in the end we will have nothing but debt to show for the wasted tax dollars. I will keep driving my car thank you. Or flying. I would imagine when and If this project ever gets going the security to get on the train will be the same as the airlines. More trains have been targeted by terrorists than planes.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views How does gas at $4 and higher impact you?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
