What's new

Why California Failed High-Speed Rail

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
14,988
362
14,683
Country
China
Location
Australia
That is why Amtrak operates on tracks run by the commuter rail companies around New York. Their intercity service piggybacks on the tracks of Metro North and New Jersey or they just all share the cost in some kind of joint funding/operational standpoint.

At this point the best bet for the CA HSR is to get the tunnel built between Palmdale and the San Fernando Valley (in the tehachapi pass area) to allow for the private brightline west project to build out their project and connect to the section in the Central Valley for the sake of housing.


A lot of Americans feel public transportation is for the poor (and the poor have less resources to influence elections)
Most rail line are serviced by private company nowadays, most Port Authority have given their operation license to lower the cost/production management. The main reason why railway still earn their bucks is not passenger transport by the way, it's to move material around the US with hauler and such, those are the service making money for the tracks. Passenger rail usually in the red because it is really hit and miss, you have enough ridership but you generally do not charge enough (Which is the reason why you have ridership)

Which mean private-public partnership is the way to go for Railway, which would be a problem for HSR, because you cannot run HSR on freight line.

On the other hand, the purpose of Tunnel defeated the exact reason why they would need a HSR, you want the view, not the train when you hop on board, why I drove down 101 instead of Interstate (5??) is because I enjoy the view up in Santa Monica, not because I want to go thru the tunnel........

I m discussing now
yet you raise no point other than "I am discussing now"
 

Hamartia Antidote

ELITE MEMBER
Nov 17, 2013
30,095
28
20,053
Country
United States
Location
United States
Sydney to Melbourne 900km in 4 hours. This includes acceleration and deceleration times. These times compare favorably to the total time CBD to CBD using a plane.

SydToMel.png

1.5 hours non-stop from Sydney to Melbourne by plane
 

WotTen

FULL MEMBER
Mar 18, 2022
1,006
-3
1,692
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
View attachment 849405
1.5 hours non-stop from Sydney to Melbourne by plane

Even if you are travelling carry-on bags only, it takes .5 hours from MEL/AVV to the CBD. Add .5 hours pre--flight checkin and .5 to get to SYD from CBD, and you are looking at 3 hours CBD to CBD.

P.S. And this is the optimistic time, assuming you catch the airport bus just as it is leaving and there is no road traffic. With HSR, the 4 hours is almost guaranteed.
 

Cancerous Tumor

FULL MEMBER
Oct 2, 2011
374
0
497
Even if you are travelling carry-on bags only, it takes .5 hours from MEL/AVV to the CBD. Add .5 hours pre--flight checkin and .5 to get to SYD from CBD, and you are looking at 3 hours CBD to CBD.

P.S. And this is the optimistic time, assuming you catch the airport bus just as it is leaving and there is no road traffic. With HSR, the 4 hours is almost guaranteed.
Airlines had it too good for too long it's time to adapt 120$ oil is no joke.
 

WotTen

FULL MEMBER
Mar 18, 2022
1,006
-3
1,692
Country
Australia
Location
Australia
Airlines had it too good for too long it's time to adapt 120$ oil is no joke.

Even regular speed trains are not competitive in Australia.

From Canberra to Sydney (300km), I can take a 3.5 hours bus for $42 ($25 on a frequent traveller pass) but the same trip takes 4.5 hours by train and costs almost $100 and the plane trip takes 2.5 hours (CBD to CBD) and costs $175
 

FuturePAF

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 17, 2014
7,813
22
8,752
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Most rail line are serviced by private company nowadays, most Port Authority have given their operation license to lower the cost/production management. The main reason why railway still earn their bucks is not passenger transport by the way, it's to move material around the US with hauler and such, those are the service making money for the tracks. Passenger rail usually in the red because it is really hit and miss, you have enough ridership but you generally do not charge enough (Which is the reason why you have ridership)

Which mean private-public partnership is the way to go for Railway, which would be a problem for HSR, because you cannot run HSR on freight line.

On the other hand, the purpose of Tunnel defeated the exact reason why they would need a HSR, you want the view, not the train when you hop on board, why I drove down 101 instead of Interstate (5??) is because I enjoy the view up in Santa Monica, not because I want to go thru the tunnel........


yet you raise no point other than "I am discussing now"
Yeah it would have been better had they upgraded the Coast Starlight. You right, a lot of people would take it for the views (so they wouldn’t have to drive, and the train trip is the fun (especially if bundled with decent food service); going from San Diego to LA in phase 1 to fund the upgrades as they went along, and then up to SF. Tunnels here and there wouldn’t be so bad if it balances views and travel time and coastal towns to visit.

But your right, It would be fair to say the project has failed as planned.
 

cloud4000

SENIOR MEMBER
Oct 11, 2015
4,826
-8
4,694
Country
India
Location
United States
High-speed rail is a loser. It's expensive to build, even more, expensive to operate and maintain, and it doesn't even make money to pay its bills, requiring massive government subsidies to balance its books.

Even in countries where high-speed rail is popular, many are losing money.

Honestly, has the US learned nothing from Amtrak, whose only profitable route is the Boston-New York-Washington corridor and rest is a money pit?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom