I have no idea why no one can see that a train which must stop for passengers cannot be "high-speed". That's a crock, an ad tactic that is killing this bad idea by starting out with a lie.

The article misses a couple of things. Any civil engineer will tell you that you cannot build your way out of traffic jams, because the highways fill to capacity as they are built - it's an enabling technology. Then, most "knowledge" and communications jobs do not actually require any commuter time. Neither does most shopping.

I don't see anyone buying the "summoning cars" idea, because I have never seen people treat things that are not their own possessions with any sort of care.

20th century? More like 19th century. And what is it with the Left and 19th century tech anyway? They want to replace airplanes and cars with trains. The Obamacare website doesn't work so they tell people to sign up by mail. And yet they call themselves Progressives. Next thing you know they'll tell us to replace smartphones with telegrams.

I voted this train down, of course. Because I am not a drooling moron.

Hah hah hah.

Also, it came as a shock when I researched this, that the more highly densified countries of in Europe and Asia also have to subsidize their passenger rail services. Maybe not a lot in some cases, but they still can't break even.

I just went to expedia to see how long air service is, and for Virgin America it is scheduled at 1 hour and 15 minutes, for $108 round trip for 2 weeks advanced purchase. And keep in mind that airlines typically inflate their flight times so that they can keep their on-time numbers high.

There was a kind of interesting idea that was floating around this area circa 1990, which tried to address the "express" problem. The proposal was for a high-speed train originating in Nashville and going to the Gulf Coast, which is a popular vacation destination for people in the Southeast U.S. The way it would have worked is that when a stop was coming up, people getting off at that stop would move to a self-powered car at the end of the train. Meanwhile, at the station, people getting on the train would have boarded another self-powered car, which would leave the station ahead of the train and start accelerating on a siding. The car with people getting off would detach itself from the train, switch to a siding, decelerate, and eventually arrive at the station. The other car that had already left would eventually join the train and couple itself, and passengers would move from that car into the main part of the train.

There were a lot of reasons why it would not have made money, but it was an interesting idea -- not the least becuase of the time-warp quality of, at any given intermediate station, departure would precede arrival.

"And what is it with the Left and 19th century tech anyway? They want to replace airplanes and cars with trains."

What is it with the Aspergery libertarians who think that a bunch of individuals all doing what they want all the time and insulating themselves in little asocial bubbles, raised to the level of a one-size fits all ideology is good for a country and carries no public externalized costs that somebody has to pay for. Let me tell you, the trains in Japan are not 20th century technology, but our cars sure are.

@Brian

I've taken the high-speed Ave trains in Spain multiple times. They are fast and highly efficient. The so-called high-speed trains here would be nothing like that. As for the rest of your rant, well, whatever...

" the trains in Japan are not 20th century technology, but our cars sure are"

The trains in japan are very much 19th century technology, and the Shinkansen is barely mid to late 20th century technology.

If you had ever lived and owned a car in Japan, as I do, you would understand that Japan pushes riders onto the trains by making them easier and faster and cheaper than using your car.

In many cases, and for many destinations, flying in Japan, is actually cheaper, and easier.
It takes 8 hours to drive to Tokyo from where we live, and you would pay about a hundred dollars in tolls in the process. If there were traffic jams, as there often are, it would take even longer. In the winter it is brutal, with long tunnels and icy roads through the mountains.

They impose a 49 mile an hour speed limit on four lane highways, build and repair those roads haphazardly, and then, the tolls.

They discount the train tickets for commuters, which pushes a lot of poor and middle class people onto the trains. ( and Japan is not a wealthy country in spite of their PR)

So the people that say "if they can make it work in Japan, we can do it here" are just being silly.

Estimates for this project have ranged from $43 billion to $98 billion. It just sounds like they're guessing. My guess is $150 billion to do it the right way - engineering wise. Even at $43 billion the cost/benefit is crap because they have to share a patchwork of existing rail lines. That's why I'll always think of this train as 'The Brown Streak.' (Not my pun, but it's worth sharing.

"So the people that say "if they can make it work in Japan, we can do it here" are just being silly"

Those people also conveniently ignore the fact that if California had the same population density as Japan, it would have 143 million people instead of 38 million people. So if the Japanese still have to subsidize their high-speed trains with that many paying passengers...

Does anyone remember the The Big Dig in Boston.

They essentially modified and built less than 10 miles of tunnels. It took from 1991 until 2006 to complete. It started out with an estimated cost of $2.8B and ended up costing $14.6B directly and about $22B by the time it was finished.

So a project that is starting out at $46B for 38M CA residents is $1210 each person. Before it is even subsidized annually. But if you think the estimate is accurate I want to know what drugs you are taking and where to get them.

It will probably be closer to $300B. Or $7894 per person. You could probably give everyone several limo rides per year or as noted above multiple plane tickets.

For a fraction of the cost of this boondoggle you could build a new airport for San Diego, expand other airports, build more freeways,etc. And you wouldn't have to wait until 2029(!) to see the benefit.

" also have to subsidize their passenger rail services."

Here in the USA we only subsidize car manufacturers, highway construction, corporations, and invasions of countries that never attacked us.

Public transit? That's for communist countries, like Japan.

Ironic how progressives get so sentimental over trains, when they were the ones to kill rail in the first place, with their regulations, price controls and lawsuits.

Somebody once described modern passenger trains as "kinetic art."

" also have to subsidize their passenger rail services."

Here in the USA we only subsidize car manufacturers, highway construction, corporations, and invasions of countries that never attacked us.

Public transit? That's for communist countries, like Japan.

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at January 9, 2014 10:42 AM

You don't think Amtrak is heavily subsidized and, oh, by the way, running at a loss?

We still subsidize airlines in this country with public infrastructure, and we used to subsidize them a lot more to the point, where getting on a 747 with only twenty passengers or so was a pretty regular occurrence.

Gee, I would love to see those days back.... (Sarc)

I voted this train down, of course.

Well, you voted against it, as did I. Sadly, we failed to vote it down.

Does anyone remember the The Big Dig in Boston.

I saw it first hand on a visit a few years ago. The running joke was that the state bird of Massachusetts is the crane. . .

"Here in the USA we only subsidize car manufacturers, highway construction, ..."

In most states, with highway construction it's the other way around: gasoline taxes that are supposed to pay for highway work get siphoned off for other uses. There's a local debate going on where I live about raising the local gasoline tax to pay for road work that the state is supposed to pay for but can't afford to. It will be on the ballot in March. My sense so far from what I'm hearing is that it will pass.

"We still subsidize airlines in this country with public infrastructure..."

Not today. I'm pretty sure that airport work is paid for entirely by user fees (ticket taxes, license fees, airplane landing fees, gate rental fees, etc.) In the past, admittedly it was different. The FAA and the air traffic control system are paid for by the same fees.

Boo-hoo. We subsidize a crucial national infrastructure that I don't use every day.

"We still subsidize airlines in this country with public infrastructure..."

Not today. I'm pretty sure that airport work is paid for entirely by user fees (ticket taxes, license fees, airplane landing fees, gate rental fees, etc.) In the past, admittedly it was different. The FAA and the air traffic control system are paid for by the same fees.
Posted by: Cousin Dave at January 9, 2014 1:30 PM

So you think the Air Traffic controllers, and the FAA , and the TSA and customs agents are all paid out of money from the airlines? I don't quite believe that., although I am sure that is the political spin.

I know a lot of public money went to build DIA ( and to build and maintain the roads and parking lots) and also the new Mile High stadium. I don't think the taxpayers in Colorado got it back out of ticket receipts.

http://www.colorado.edu/libraries/govpubs/dia.htm

From 1996, but still relevant

Why is anyone advancing the idea that aircraft can move as many passengers as surface traffic?

Have you not noticed the lines to be patted down?

Here's a Jan.9 quote off the California HSR blog: "Governor Jerry Brown’s proposal to use $250 million out of $1.3 billion in cap-and-trade revenues (that’s 19%) for high speed rail is generating controversy." I'll bet.
He already borrowed $500 million from cap-and-trade last year for the general fund. Even the Sierra Club is disappointed in him. “This shift in funds is extraordinarily disappointing,” Sierra Club California Executive Director Kathryn Phillips.
He's writing I.O.U.s against money we hoped would go toward moderating our C02 emissions and spending it on entitlements, legal fees and a HSR project that is losing steam on a long uphill grade.

Why is anyone advancing the idea that aircraft can move as many passengers as surface traffic?

Have you not noticed the lines to be patted down?

Posted by: Radwaste at January 9, 2014 5:47 PM

Of course they cant, but they can move a certain portion of it quicker, and more economically than a bus or a truck. The point of any good transportation system is redundancy and choices. When people chose the best options for themselves, rather than being forced into a government subsidized monopoly, everyone is happier, and more productive.

I might not choose to fly from Phoenix to Las Vegas which is maybe a four hour drive but flying is a less expensive, and less time consuming option than Seattle to Maine, in a car, by myself.

Also, it came as a shock when I researched this, that the more highly densified countries of in Europe and Asia also have to subsidize their passenger rail services. Maybe not a lot in some cases, but they still can't break even.

Unfortunately, even the highways in usa are subsidised and they still have not broken even despite the heavy usage. Which is why the tolls which were supposed to have been stopped quite some time ago continue and on top of it, they continue to rise. So the same thing is applicable even to roads. It just seems to be a common pattern to any infrastructure project - so common that it actually seems deliberate.

I just went to expedia to see how long air service is, and for Virgin America it is scheduled at 1 hour and 15 minutes

Unfortunately, that doesn't count the strip-search time at both airports.

I am not really a conspiracy nut, but if I were, I might note that all of these pieces work together:

The panicmongers, Elephant and Jackass, combine to make air travel too big a hassle for any but the abjectly compliant or those who truly need it. That drives people to alternate transportation:

Other panicmongers work on our guilt about emissions to force us to adopt expensive, inconvenient, and inefficient modes of mass transit. Those can't possibly be self-supporting through user fees, since the cost per ride is prohibitive. The only way to get us out of our automobiles is to subsidize the ride:

Getting the hands of Fed, state, and local governments further in our pockets, and their collars 'round our necks, both as individuals and as a society. It's all about control.

But I don't think it's really a "conspiracy" in the classic sense of being driven by the Rothschilds, the Illuminati, or the Council on Foreign Relations. I think it's just an unfortuitous confluence of "Crazy Eddie."