Posted on 03/31/2008 8:23:40 AM PDT by calcowgirl
Zipping through California on a 220-mph bullet train – in just 2 1/2 hours from Los Angeles to San Francisco, it's being said – is certainly a romantic concept.
They do it in Europe and in Japan, bullet train devotees say, so why not do it in California and relieve highway and airport congestion?
California voters may get a chance to answer the question in November. An often-postponed $10 billion bond issue to provide initial financing for the system that would link the state's northern and southern regions through the San Joaquin Valley is finally likely to make the ballot.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has praised the bullet train idea but balked at some financial details, appears ready to offer voters a revised version that would include public-private partnership financing, The Bee reported recently.
The notion is that the state bonds, which would have to be repaid from a general fund already seeing multibillion-dollar deficits, would trigger a like amount of federal funds, but that $20 billion or so would still be less than half of the current price tag of $42 billion.
Financing the remainder – through private funds, a special sales tax or some combination thereof – has been one of the hang-ups.
It's unlikely, however, that a complete plan, including the additional financing, will be available before voters are asked to pass judgment in November. And that's troublesome, because even the most ardent advocates have yet to present a persuasive, fact-grounded rationale for spending so much borrowed money on an entirely new transportation system.
(snip)
California certainly needs to upgrade its long-neglected, deteriorating highway system and probably expand commuter transit service. But bullet trains may be a romantic solution in search of a problem.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
If it made sense, the private sector would find a way to do it.
If you’re looking for a ready-made, spectacular, easy terrorist-target, I’d say “bullet-train” has Asswad Al-Jihadi written all over it.
The private sector WOULD do it if the state government would promise not to make it into another socialist jobs program.
Can anyone tell us how many people travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco on a daily basis? Where’s the need. I haven’t seen may traffic jams on I5 between LA and San Franfreeco.
Make it nuclear powered.
And someone thinks California will have fewer regulations so this is possible? Hmmmm.
A (very expensive) solution for which there is no problem.
On the weekends you can not take a train from ventura county to orange county because no trains operate on weekends,so much about cutting smog and wasting gas WTF.
Ten billion just to start, I wonder what the payback time will be even if all the seats are filled on every trip? This reminds me of Coleman Young’s People Mover project years ago in Detroit. Thing was the most asinine idea ever, and they went ahead and spent the peoples money to do it knowing that even if every tram was filled on every trip it would take decades to pay the debt off.
I say high speed hydroplane boats off of the coast would make more sense than this does.
Point taken. How many commuters are there between LA and SF ?
Hello! Gas prices, freeway clogged up, we need a bullet train. We need one to go to Las Vegas. We need a high speed train from LA to San Francisco/Sacramento.
Large ground-effect seaplanes would be an efficient way to move people LA to SF, I would wager...
But really, the market is well served by conventional airlines. 2 and a half hours SF to LA is an hour and a half too long.
As some posts indicate, the bullet train doesn’t really need to work; it only needs to exist as a plausible concept in order to ratchet up the war on cars in California, and eventually dump everyone out onto the street, except politicians, who absolutely must drive and fly in order to do...whatever it is they do.
we don’t need or want bullet trains.
we WANT self driving automobiles.
>>Can anyone tell us how many people travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco on a daily basis? Where’s the need. I haven’t seen may traffic jams on I5 between LA and San Franfreeco.
Plus, how would people get around once they get off the train? It’s not like either city has viable public transportation..
The Roads Must Roll!
- R. Heinlein
Bullet train to AIDs.
It's going to require some parking lot!
It would be interesting to see if the folks in LA want the SF culture brought into their community and visa versa.
I would bet the San Francisco elites don't want a BULLET train from LA....literally speaking!
Dunno, but let's look at how many there would have to be. Initial cost of $42,000,000,000, and we all know that as with any big government project the cost will EASILY BE TWICE THAT so, $84,000,000,000 Now let's suppose a 20 year payback so $84,000,000,000/20 = $4,200,000,000 a year Now if you look on KAYAK.com you'll notice for three week in advance fares the one way between San Francisco and LA is $50, so this train will at least have to match that fare (And the flight takes only 1 1/5 hours) so you will need to sell $4,200,000,000/50 = 84,000,000 fares per year just to break even on the amortized capital not to mention cover the operating and interest expenses for round trips that becomes 42,000,000 per year or 42million/(52*5)= 161,358 ROUND TRIP commuters per weekday using the service. Ridiculous. They'd be lucky to see 2% of this number.
And the best part is the people of Kalifornia will for the most part be too FU**ING stupid to figure this out.
A train from Stockton to SF would make more sense...
You think a train doesn't have fuel costs? Ha ha. They RUN ON DIESEL. See Post #20
“Make it nuclear powered.”
How about Mr. Fusion?
The Union Pacific RR is now double tracking the Tehachapi Pass tracks. When finished AMTRAC passenger trains could swiftly move over the LA=SF route for no cost to the tax payers because we already pay AMTRAC’s bills.
Do Californians need a bullet in the brain? That should be the question.
LA to Vegas
airframe design has too much drag - very fuel inefficient and too weather dependent (sorry folks we can't land at you selected destination because the waves are over 5 feet we'll have to go on to ... )
But, you didn’t include the economic benefit of all the jobs it would create! /s
True - I forgot about this "benefit."
$42 Billion? Double that. That would be the eventual cost IF it ever gets completed.
private could never pull it off because the enviromental wackos would slap soo much damn studies and regulations on it, it would never been able to be constructed. It would be the same reason no new oil refineries have been built in CA in decades.
Remember the wind farm saga. All the moonbats pushed for alternative energy power in CA, they built a bunch of wind farms, then the moonbats said to shut them down because it might interfer with migrating birds.
Private would only work if the environmentalists and unions were told to take a hike. I also doubt private could make in financially work, even if those demands were met. Look at the England to France bullet train. Its always operated on a massive loss and demand is always strong for passengers.
Having taken the shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka many times, I can remark that it's very convenient as compared to flying between the two cities. While a flight is certainly quicker just measured in miles covered per hour in transport, taking the train puts you in the city center of both cities which is very convenient since from there you can take a local train, a bus, or a taxi. The overall travel time using the shinkansen is certainly less if you are going from central Tokyo to central Osaka using the shinkansen than flying, and the convenience is outstanding. (As to price, I believe that the shinkansen is actually slightly more expensive, at least if you want to use the green car which I preferred to do.)
But I am not sure that would hold true in California. Even if the state managed to get convenient locations for stations, without other public transport infrastructure at these locations to get passengers in and out I am not sure how effective a high speed rail system alone would be.
I noticed that the author assumed that daily commuting would be an appreciable part of such a line. Having seen the shinkansen in use in Japan, I don't believe that such commuting would be a large fraction of the ridership. For instance, I didn't know anyone who did a daily commute from Osaka to Tokyo; I did know a few people who did use the shinkansen daily to go a relatively short commute in and out of Tokyo, and some who used it every Friday afternoon and Monday morning (these folks had a home well away from Tokyo, and an apartment in the city.)
I would also note that these type of central train stations make for very good business venues (assuming the lines are successful.) The foot traffic through such stations as Osaka, Tokyo, and Shinjuku is amazingly high. But California is not nearly as densely populated as Japan, so again I am not sure that the Japanese experience is particularly applicable.
Bullet train? Does it have engraved serial numbers? How do we know it won’t fall into the hands of criminals who have train guns? Won’t it kill someone?
Private worked in pre-socialized America. I bet some entrepreneurial company could have done it for a small fraction of the cost numbers they’re throwing around now and turned a profit from ticket sales.
———————————————————————>
I would agree.
In Japan they use the Metro in the major cities which are very effective for moving people from place to place.
When I rode the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka during the week the train was almost empty.
I think the Chinese have one in Shanghai that goes faster than the train in Japan, but I think it's only three miles long. I guess the Chinese ddn’t pay the Germans so it came to a screeching halt.
Thank you for this analysis. I will be repeating this part “you will need to sell $4,200,000,000/50 = 84,000,000 fares per year just to break even on the amortized capital “ to all my friends who tell me the train is a good idea.
LA to ‘Vegas would make more sence...
Personally, I wish some enterprising company would look into this and see if it is financially viable, and if it is build it. I would love to see a fast train service all over the states as an alternative to flying, but not at my expense please, not owned and operated by the government.
It will be when we have to sell it to China to pay off our debts.
Anyway, if you really want a LA-SF train, why not lease the use of existing tracks to private entrepreneurs willing to build new rolling stock? Though Shinkansen speeds wouldn't be achievable on the existing track, I can see a market for a slower, modestly priced overnight train on that route. Given today's rickety airline service, a travel day is a day wasted anyway, even for tightly scheduled business travelers. Why not board a train at Union Station late in the afternoon, enjoy a leisurely dinner and a good night's rest in a fold-flat seat, then arrive fresh at Moscone Center in the morning?
Actually, there are tons of commuters everyday between southern and northern CA. I am not sure about SF, but Sacramento has planes leaving every hour to Southern CA, like a bus service, and every plane is packed to the rafters, every day hour after hour. I know, I used to fly those planes regularly for my job.
So, yes there are people who need to get back and forth, but they do it now on planes and most of them would probably not want to change to trains, especially when the government would regulate them to the point they were really only traveling 70 miles per hour instead of the touted 220.
The only viable selling point to these travellers would be the delay time now experienced at airports for even the short flights, if trains didn't require you to show up 3 hours early and be searched by some low IQ idiot, they might steal quite a few passengers, IF the speed was kept to 220 and they had express service.
Should have built one from Vegas to L.A. years ago when they 1st thought of doing it. Todays cost will be quite high.
Another from L.A. to Frisco also.
Today I don’t think the private sector can afford to do it.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We can either make more and more roads, or use the same roads more efficiently.
you get off your government sposnored bullet train, you go to your government sponsored people mover, to go to your assigned government employment assignment.
you can only move at assigned times, you can only go to approved destination, you are carbon credit limited to you luxury purchases.
They want to convert citizens into cattle.
The Vegas airport expanded, but I-15 and 215 are packed every Friday and Sunday with traffic for 300 miles, sometimes bumper to bumper.
as for me, the Indians have my business. Who needs to drive or fly to Vegas?
U2 did a song awhile ago called "Bullet to Blue Sky".
I guess this would be "Bullet to Brown Eye".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.