Howiek wrote on Aug 13, 2008 5:04 AM:Ten bucks says they do not amend Prop 1. A high-speed bullet train between L.A. and San Diego is a myth. Even if Prop 1 passes it will be at least 10 years before it would be completed.

It is sort of like trying to get a decent airport to replace that little “teacup” of an airport called Lindbergh Field—Mission Impossible!

Derek wrote on Aug 13, 2008 7:22 AM:The cost of high speed rail: $40 billion overall ($9.95 billion coming from the state).

The cost of doing "nothing": $80 billion to widen freeways and expand airports, plus we remain slaves to the airlines and oil companies.

I prefer the first option.

harry wrote on Aug 13, 2008 7:57 AM:This project is a boondoggle. It has been formed to accommodate the needs of developers, land speculators and in particular the needs of San Jose and San Francisco.

The project will never meet its projected ridership numbers and will be a continuous drain of the State Treasury. It will cost much more then the $45 billion dollars now projected.

San Diego, Sacrament and Oakland will never get service, but Gilroy will; it will do severe harm to pristine sensitive areas by going through the Pacheco pass --- a chosen route to satisfy Rod Diridon and San Jose

Pie in the Sky wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:00 AM:A high-speed rail line up and down the state would be a wonderful toy. But we can't afford to buy $40 billion toys when we're already up to our eyeballs in debt. Derek's choice is a false dichotomy, because doing the rail doesn't mean we wouldn't still have to widen freeways and expand airorts. If we had such a rail we might be able to delay some widenings and expansions longer, but they'll still need to be done. (And for anyone who thinks that rail line can actually be built for $40 billion, please call me: I have some choice real estate in Florida for sale.)

Oh brother wrote on Aug 13, 2008 8:31 AM:Those of you who don't see high speed rail as transportation of the future are short-sighted. There isn't enough money or available land to continue to widen freeways or make new roads. Remember Highway 56? Almost didn't get built. Probably the last of its kind too. We need to look at the future and realize transporation needs will only increase. Once the rail is in the place, it will be successful.

Chuckles wrote on Aug 13, 2008 9:13 AM:What's wrong with, you know, airplanes? My recent roundtrip from Palomar to SFO cost me about $219. I doubt that high speed rail is ever going to be able to beat that price, even with a massive taxpayer subsidy.

George wrote on Aug 13, 2008 10:50 AM:Hi, Derek! The cost of adding four lanes to I-5 (San Diego to Oceanside), I-15 (San Diego to Escondido), SR-76 (Oceanside to Pala), and SR-78 (Oceanside to Escondido) is less than $10 billion (allowing for expected cost overruns of 33%). SANDAG has a transportation budget of $58 billion and is supposed to be spreading it equally among transit, surface streets, and freeways (that's over $19 billion each). We've already got money earmarked for freeway expansion but it's being misdirected into mass transit projects. Have you looked at "SANDAG Reacts To Grand Jury" in the August 3rd Perspective section yet? You'll discover: Rail projects are over 6 times more expensive than freeways. Rail projects have a lower passenger capacity than freeways.

Derek wrote on Aug 13, 2008 10:52 AM:Pie in the Sky> doing the rail doesn't mean we wouldn't still have to widen freeways and expand airorts.

For that matter, neither would widening freeways and expanding airports. Every time we do that, they get congested all over again. High speed rail is a low-cost alternative to a round of widenings and expansions.

Snickers wrote on Aug 13, 2008 1:12 PM:I don't doubt the cost figures that Chuckles and George cite. But here are a couple of points in defense of high-speed rail: 1) Compared to airplanes, it's more useful for people want to go from Carlsbad or Riverside to Ventura or Santa Barbara. And 2) if you're going to compare it to cars and trucks, you have to consider the costs of gasoline and maintenance that drivers pay, and the billions we all spend for our military to guard oil reserves and shipping lanes. Those costs may be mostly justified in 2008, but we've got to find a way to crawl out from under them so we don't get our peckers caught in the door every time Chavez, Ahmedinijihad, Putin decides to stir up trouble.

Chuckles eats Snickers for Breakfast wrote on Aug 13, 2008 3:14 PM:Think about the massive, near astronomical mitigation costs involved with constructing a high-speed rail line from San Diego to San Jose. We're talking billions. Think of all the lawsuits that will be filed on behalf of endangered frogs, birds, and rodents. Just think of all the delays and cost-overruns experienced by our own little, local 22-mile Sprinter line, and multiply those delays and cost over-runs by a factor of twenty (since we're dealing with a proposed rail line some twenty times longer.) And then, in comparison, check out the current cost of a puddle-jumper airplane ticket from Palomar to LAX or Las Vegas (LAS), since you can get just about anywhere in the world from those two locations. Why build rail on the ground when its cheaper and more efficient to fly in the air? Moreover, a commercial common carrier requires very little in the way of on-going public subsidies -- yet passenger rail (with only one known exception in Japan) NEVER EVER MAKES MONEY. It would be cheaper to give people free airplane tickets to SFO than it would be to build high-speed rail.

Derek wrote on Aug 13, 2008 5:21 PM:George wrote: "Rail projects have a lower passenger capacity than freeways."

That's probably true for the Sprinter, but during peak hours the Coaster takes a lane of cars off the freeway. Neither of them do much to take market share from the airlines as high speed rail will, if the northeast corridor's almost-high-speed Acela Express is any indication.

Chuckles eats Snickers for Breakfast wrote: "Why build rail on the ground when its cheaper and more efficient to fly in the air?"

False. Airliners get something like 45-65 passenger miles per gallon, while high speed rail is 300-500. A one-way high speed rail ticket from Los Angeles to San Francisco is projected to cost $55. Not even Southwest can beat that price, and when their fuel hedge runs out a few years from now and another airline or two shuts down (barring another bailout), the price gap between high speed rail and air travel will widen.

Chuckles eats Snickers for Breakfast wrote: "passenger rail (with only one known exception in Japan) NEVER EVER MAKES MONEY."

False. Every high speed rail system ever built started making a profit within a few years after completion.

Chuck wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:22 AM:>>>The measure was drafted to be a true test of voters' willingness to go into debt for $9.95 billion in bonds to spur the state's long-stalled high-speed rail plans.>>>> The people have long said "No" to choo-choos. North County didnt believe the people and their $80 million proposed choo-choo, turned into a $680 million disaster. I was up in Vista on South Santa Fe (I think) and had to wait for the choo-choo who stopped to drop off no one, and pick up no one-- The sucker was totally empty

George wrote on Aug 14, 2008 7:46 AM:Hi, Derek! Rail projects are six times more expensive than freeway projects. Misdirecting money that could build six freeway lanes with a capacity of 13,200 solo drivers per hour into a Coaster-style project that handles 2,500 passengers per hour is inefficient. Another shortcoming of rail is the inability to board at your point of origin and ride to your destination -- the Coaster only provides service between train stations. If your schedule doesn't correspond with the train schedule, you can't use the train anyway -- good luck getting home after a concert in the Gaslamp ends at 1 AM. Given our recent experience with massive Sprinter construction delays and cost overruns, we should be turning our attention to remedying the overcrowding on our freeways instead of concentrating on High Speed Rail.

George wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:07 AM:Hi, Derek! Quentin Kopp, head of California High Speed Rail, defines "profitable" as "receiving more in revenue than spending on operating expenses". ("Veteran former lawmaker and judge to lead charge for high speed rail ballot measure", Interview on KTVU quoted at PolitickerCA website, July 8, 2008). This definition casually ignores the total cost of the system such as debt service and maintenance activity. If you define "profitable" as "money left over after all the bills are paid", the story changes drastically.

Walt wrote on Aug 14, 2008 8:21 AM:From Derek: "-----------but during peak hours the Coaster takes a lane of cars off the freeway. Neither of them do much to take market share from the airlines as high speed rail will, if the northeast corridor's almost-high-speed Acela Express is any indication."
No and Yes. According to SANDAG counts, the six Coaster trains during peak commute carry, in actual on-boards,only 0.9%,about 1/3rd of one lane used on I-5 alongside. Even two trains in one peak hour carry less than 1/2 a lane. This is a current illustration about what little rail in general can do to meet growing commuter travel demand.And a solid reason not to make HSR into a new wide coverage network. Despite recent press about big increases in ridership, large percent changes are still tiny compared to real needs for underbuilt highways. And the energy getting to and from trains is not counted in the slight advantage in energy per passenger-mile for rail compared to even gas guzzler current autos. Regarding HSR for intercity, yes even if San Diego is not included. But what started as fast non-stop competition for air travel is becoming service for every city along the way. USDept of Energy data shows inter-city buses are more efficient and flexible than rail for that function. And expanded roads will support their use, as with the Bus Rapid Transit lanes being built along I-15. Getting true HSR started with the bond issue makes sense. Spreading rail lines around the state to mislead voters they will benefit is simple a repeat of the "something for all" spin which started TransNet 20 years ago and its failure to meet real transportation needs

Walt wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:04 AM:Sorry. Coaster at peak carries 9% of I-5 alongside using more right of way than one freeway lane and 1/3rd to 1/2 the one lane flow. Additional argument for inter-city buses; they can be adjusted to meet actual demand, using available roads, and without large capital expense of a rail system.

George wrote on Aug 14, 2008 9:48 AM:Hi, Walt! Just wondering -- where did you find the Coaster passenger counts on the SANDAG website? (And when are you going to write another Community Forum piece?)

Timray wrote on Aug 14, 2008 10:23 AM:As someone who neither drives, owns a car or pays taxes I say increase gas taxes and personal taxes. As someone who rents, no kids in school, I say increase property taxes and give billions to the dysfunctional school system. As a true Californian I believe in robbing Peter to pay Timray!!

Walt wrote on Aug 16, 2008 7:03 AM:San Diego transit passenger counts are at http://pcp.sandag.org State-wide freeway traffic counts plus some analysis are at http://pems.eecs.berkeley.edu