I couldn't agree more. The HSR backers are promising the train will not only support itself financially but turn a profit, and yet there isn't a high speed train in the world that has yet been able to do that. While in the United States, Amtrack continues to be subsidized by the federal government. And in our own backyard the San Jose light rail system hasn't succeeded in becoming the revenue-maker
promised, coincidentally by the same group who are backing the HSR.
Not only will the money provided by the tax payers from Prop 1A never be seen again, that grant is only the beginning of tax payer money being thrown away on a project that has the potential to suck the states' finances even drier than they are now.

We have high speed rail in this country: Acela. It's very expensive and it's not profitable even though it serves a much more densely populated corridor than our HSR would.

Living is right. Prop 1A is simply the latest scheme to transfer wealth from the middle class to a small number of people. Isn't California's economy shaky enough as it is?

Aren't there supposed to be 3 stops on the peninsula? I heard Redwood City, Palo Alto, and San Jose.

Also, the Mercury-News says that the HSR plan will include badly needed upgrades to Caltrain including at-grade crossings and electrification. These improvements should increase Caltrain's capacity, thus reducing car traffic on the peninsula.

Besides, no one is claiming that the primary goal of HSR is to reduce traffic on the peninsula. Don't vote for this project only because you want to reduce traffic on the peninsula.

On the one hand, the idea of a fast, safe, reliable train shooting through the central valley sounds really cool. It sounds so clean and futuristic - very EPCOT-like. Unfortunately, something dawned on me when I was thinking about this. What happens when you get to LA? LA is certainly among the most car-oriented cities in country. It might be useful for business travelers, but pretty much useless for families. Isn't the trend towards traveling less for business?
I personally think this is a very pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking proposal, and as much as I think its a cool idea, I'm not going to vote for it.
I've also read it depends on federal matching funds - are those really going to be available?

V. Davis - the train is alternative to flying to LA. What do you do when you get off the airplane? Same thing when you get off the train.

The irony of the Bullet Train is it's 40 year old technology which the proponents are attempting to sell as state-of-the-art. Meanwhile, Germany has developed a high speed levitated train that runs on a cushion of air.

This new high speed train is being built right now in China between Bejing and it's airport. They have just announced it will be extended several hundred miles to link Bejing with cities to the South.

This is just another example of why China will be the leading technology nation of the world in the 21st Century. Meanwhile, California want to spend many billions of dollars and cling to 40 year old technology.

It is the mindset of the American people and the marketing that will make this project successul once it is built. My family went from London to Paris this year by train and used trains (subways) to get round both cities. We were able to get family style tickets which enabled us to get competitive prices for travel and the advantages of not having to worry about parking or getting stuck in big city traffic made this a wonderful option for us.

For an American family to spend a weekend in say Disneyland, there is no travel option that makes it worthwhile not taking the car from northern California. If Disneyland marketing people promoted the benefits of travel to and from Disneyland without taking the car and made it simple to use, time saving and economical, then I feel sure that it would work. Having the difficulties that such an arrangement would take to arrange and price at present makes it completely out of the picture otherwise. Families want good options and want to find them easily, if they are advertised as such then people will use them.

Taking HSR to Disneyland will cost a family of 4 around $2000 in today's prices (based on what Acela charges now) and they won't have their car when they get there. Besides, how often do you go to Disneyland?

Run the numbers (ridership, revenues) provided by the HSR backers and you will see that they don't make sense. Prop 1a is nothing more than a scam, and that $10 billion will end up in the pockets of its backers. There are no federal or private funds available for HSR. It won't get built!

Moreover, HSR would not affect traffic here. Most freeway traffic is local, and you will still need to drive from Palo Alto to your job in Cupertino or Milpitas. And HSR would not make your Caltrain ride to SF any faster, although it could be more expensive. The Prop 1a claims about traffic reduction are unwarranted, and we will still need to maintain and possibly grow our freeways.

As outdated says, the bullet train uses old technology. If you look at the proposed path of the train, it's not a straight line, not because of topography but because political pressure introduced quite a few twists and turns. It will not stop in Palo Alto; the only mid-peninsula stop will be in Redwood City.

Prop 1a doesn't pencil out financially, and HSR on the mid-peninsula makes even less sense.

This will help folks that have relatives in LA, but that is about it. I can't imagine ever using it b/c of no viable transportation in So. Cal.

Why does HSR say that the train will stop in Redwood City and not Palo Alto? There is no indication that one city has been chosen over the other. What are your sources?

"I can't imagine ever using it b/c of no viable transportation in So. Cal."

Maybe you should actually read about LA County's long-range plan for mass transit in the region. Measure R is on the ballot next Tuesday and it would fund a plethora of transit projects, rail, bus, and road, if passed.

Mass transit in Los Angeles in 2030 isn't going to be the same as it is now. In fact, we've made great strides in the last 20 years.

Given how many people fly back and forth between the Bay Area and the Los Angeles area every day, you can bet that the train will have customers.

It's on this kind of distance that high speed trains are very convenient competitors to airlines.

Families, tourists, and business people will take it.

"Taking HSR to Disneyland will cost a family of 4 around $2000 in today's prices (based on what Acela charges now) and they won't have their car when they get there."

Yeah, and Acela isn't California High Speed Rail. The way Amtrak operates is different from the way CAHSR would operate. Coach class does not exist on Acela. There is only business class and first class. You cannot compare business/first class to what it would cost to drive or fly coach on an plane.

Acela doesn't even sell tickets for children. Children ride for full price. They would rather families ride on the Northeast Regional because Acela is marketed to business travelers with big expense accounts.

The CHSRA has already mentioned that they will offer special fares for commuters, discounts for purchasing in advance, and other promotions. The prices for HSR in California will be somewhere between what it costs to fly on the high end and what it costs to drive on the slow end.

"Run the numbers (ridership, revenues) provided by the HSR backers and you will see that they don't make sense."

Run the numbers? How did you run them? Do you have traffic modling software that you expect everyone else to have access to?

"There are no federal or private funds available for HSR. It won't get built!"

California has to front the money first before the feds match it or private investors come forward. Sorry, but they weren't going to give us money without us putting the first step forward.

"Moreover, HSR would not affect traffic here. Most freeway traffic is local, and you will still need to drive from Palo Alto to your job in Cupertino or Milpitas."

No, it won't. CAHSR is designed to divert 30 percent of flights to the new system. It's not designed to deal with your local commute. That's for your city and county to work on. This is a STATE project.

"And HSR would not make your Caltrain ride to SF any faster"

Actually, it would. Caltrain would benefit from full grade separation and full electrification. Electric trains accellerate faster than diesel trains and would be able to operate at higher speeds on the upgraded tracks.

"If you look at the proposed path of the train, it's not a straight line, not because of topography but because political pressure introduced quite a few twists and turns."

Yes, it serves population centers. If you had designed it it would serve fewer people. It serves Palmdale Airport in order to take some stress off of LAX.

"The irony of the Bullet Train is it's 40 year old technology which the proponents are attempting to sell as state-of-the-art. Meanwhile, Germany has developed a high speed levitated train that runs on a cushion of air."

Yeah, and it's in its experimental stages. The only maglev operation in revenue service is in Shanghai and only runs for 19 miles. And if you think conventional high speed rail is too expensive for what it offers, wait until you get a load of maglev. It costs way more for only marginal benefits.

"This new high speed train is being built right now in China between Bejing and it's airport. They have just announced it will be extended several hundred miles to link Bejing with cities to the South."

Nope. The Chinese maglev project has been postponed due to NIMBY opposition and questions surrounding the need for maglev when they already have conventional rail.

Keep in mind that the 19 mile maglev line opened in 2004 and yet they keep on building steel wheel on steel rail high speed lines, including the newest one that opened just in time for the 2008 olympic games.

Another advantage of HSR is that you will start and end in the downtown cores of SF/LA instead of Burlingame (SFO) and the west side (LAX). At Union Station in LA, you can connect to the Metrolink system or to the Metro Light Rail system. In SF, you can connect to BART and MUNI to get around.

HSR will make a lot of sense for one or two people. It may make less sense for a family.

For me to fly to LA, I leave home 2h45m before departure to take MUNI to BART to SFO, clear security. The flight time takes nearly 2 hours from the start of boarding to actually disembarking in LA. That's 4h45m. Then shuttle to the rental car center and you are at 5h15m, if everything goes perfectly. HSR is looking pretty inviting. I could leave home 30-45m before my train and have plenty of time.

The comment "The irony of the Bullet Train is it's 40 year old technology. Meanwhile, Germany has developed a high speed levitated train that runs on a cushion of air." posted by Spokker is not accurate in two ways:

1. High speed rail has been around for a while but current technology used around the world is not 40 years old. In fact, Germany and France have been replacing trainsets introduced in the 80s. The "true" high speed rail is considered to be above 250 Km/h (155mph). The French TGV was the first true HST and it was introduced in the early 80s. It required newly redesigned trains, tracks, etc. High Trains coming online in Europe today have dramatic new technology and safety features even though from the outside you can't tell. They can now run safely faster than 300 Km/h (186 mph). It does require new infrastructure though. If you try to run it on existing upgraded tracks you get an aberration like Acela which gives a bad name to HST because it really isn't.

2. The high speed levitated train developed in Germany (Transrapid) uses magnetism not air to levitate the train. It is a very cool technology and very effective and safe, but it's outrageously expensive. The only system available commercially is in Shanghai, China. Even the German local and central governments killed all proposed projects in Germany such as link between Munich and its airport, and the link between Hamburg and Berlin. Even though it's faster it only shaves a marginal amount of time over the traditional steel-on-steel HST at huge additonal cost. The Chinese built it because they just have a lot of money.

If I drive to LA in a car - I can do it in 10 gallons of fuel. If the price of fuel is $5 per gallon - that comes to $50.

So for a family of 4, the price per person is $12. Will I get a HSR ticket per person at that price?

HSR is a pipe dream. Oops when I get to LA in HSR - I need to rent a car. HSR backers are completely out of their mind. Cool does not imply practical.

Many train routes pay for themselves and turn a profit. In the northeast corridor Amtrak doesn't need any subsidies. The subsidies exist because Amtrak serves other routes that are not profitable for Amtrak. I think that the LA-SF routes would very likely pay for itself directly and would be a very good reducer of carbon emissions-airplanes are conspicuous on that front. One very good thing about the high speed CA corridor is the fact that departures and arrivals are put right inside the cities' perimeter without any need for time, money and carbon emission expense.
Can't wait to use it just like I use the Amtrak north east corridor.

Trains are more competitive in countries where fossil fuel prices are much higher. That can happen here too. It's possible that electric cars may allow you to continue driving affordably to LA, and maybe it will be the only option when flying becomes too expensive or otherwise restricted.

Personally, I'd choose the train over flying any time.

"The comment "The irony of the Bullet Train is it's 40 year old technology. Meanwhile, Germany has developed a high speed levitated train that runs on a cushion of air." posted by Spokker is not accurate in two ways:"

I didn't post that :)

It was in quotes which means I was replying to someone else who posted that.

"If I drive to LA in a car - I can do it in 10 gallons of fuel. If the price of fuel is $5 per gallon - that comes to $50.

So for a family of 4, the price per person is $12. Will I get a HSR ticket per person at that price?"

No. First of all, you aren't taking into account time savings and the ability for the driver to not have to drive and be productive (surf the Internet, sleep, play games with the kids, etc.)

Second, the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles, at a length of 381 miles, at a fuel efficiency of 30 MPG, at a fuel price of $5/gallon (probably more in 2030 lol), would cost $63. It would also take 5 hours and 52 minutes (7 hours 10 minutes in traffic). You would consume 19.05 gallons of fuel.

The average occupancy of a vehicle during rush hour is 1.1. The average occupancy at all other times is 1.6.

That carpooling is efficient is irrelevant considering people can't organize a carpool to save their life.

And I do hope there are promotions like that where families can take advantage of discount prices for traveling together, purchasing in advance, and choosing an off-peak train.

The "other community" sock puppets have invaded this thread!

Spokker, old buddy, you're never going to graduate if you spend all your time posting. You can spout all the fantasy stats that HSR feeds you (I gather that you are not majoring in math or econ) but why not admit that you have never visited this part of the world, have no idea what the impact of HSR would be on the peninsula, and are primarily interested in sticking it to "rich white people" as you have said so many times on other threads.

By the way, gas prices are now under $3. The problem with all HSR assumptions is that their numbers are dramatically skewed to favor their project; there are no middle-of-the-road or worst case scenarios. We all know that's not reality.

The discussion of HSR should focus on the future of California. Like it or not, the population of our state is predicted to continue to increase dramatically in the next 15-20 years, which will cause increased congestion on our highways and airways to rise exponentially. Rail transport is environmentally and economically efficient. None of the discussions focuses on the cost of expanding our support system for air transport and for intercity roads, which necessarily follows with a growth in population.

Also, the use of HSR is not limited to people traveling from the Bay Area to LA. It can, and will, be used by many people who live along the way, who have limited air transport right now.

Lastly, take a look at the composition of the High Speed Rail Authority that recommends this project. They consist of a cross-section of very middle of the road pragmatists, led by Judge (and former State Senator) Quentin Kopp. I have known Judge Kopp for over 40 years. His reputation as a fiscally conservative legislator in San Francisco and Sacramento, taken together with his thorough and exacting analytical ability, should belie any doubt that HSR is both wise and common sensical.

I hope that the voters in our community will support Proposition 1A.

The radio ads in favor of prop 1A say it all "prop 1A will BEGIN to build the high speed rail network". Note the word "BEGIN"...this bond money is a drop in the bucket of what will ultimately be requested... both for construction and ongoing operating expenses. The traffic reduction argument is misplaced. When you drive between San Francisco and LA, its a pleasant drive until you get into the metro areas. HSR will not significantly help traffic congestion in metro areas. To reduce traffic in metro areas you need local transit options, which HSR will be competing against for limited funds. HSR will work well for business travel (especially when operating expenses are subsidized), but won't be very cost effective for other types of trips due to the need to rent a car at the destination. Make HSR ticket to LA free ... then I have to pay $30/day for 3-4 days to rent a car. Even with free HSR tickets, the trip expense is still higher. Yes, perhaps in 10, 20, 30 years ? the economics will change significantly ... question is how much do we pay for HSR operating overhead before then?

"You can spout all the fantasy stats that HSR feeds you (I gather that you are not majoring in math or econ)"

I am an economics major.

"but why not admit that you have never visited this part of the world"

I have been there.

"have no idea what the impact of HSR would be on the peninsula"

There will be some impacts from construction. There will be some difficulties what with noise and eminent domain. But I cannot understand how a community could oppose the grade separation of a rail line that runs through their city. I cannot understand how a city that already has loud diesel trains running through them can oppose an electric train that will only go a little bit faster in that corridor.

"and are primarily interested in sticking it to "rich white people" as you have said so many times on other threads."

And I've seen harsh comments from the opposition about supporters.

"By the way, gas prices are now under $3."

That's great. Time to buy a Hummer.

Most of the regular and most noxious long-distance travel in this state is freight. Finding a more modern way to move freight would have a huge and positive impact on the environment, yet HSR does not address that at all, just as it does not help alleviate local traffic problems.

The HSR backers say that it will carry 100 million people a year and that it will account for over 1/3 of all north-south travel. Who are all those passengers? Where is the money? Is Lehman still handling their finances?

High speed rail may yet prove to be a good idea, but this is a bad proposition. It's not well thought through, and we can't afford it.

How is a train that doesn't stop here going to help reduce traffic?

Let's count the ways.

(Number One) Electrification. An electric Caltrain will accelerate and decelerate much faster than today's anemic diesel trains, saving 15% on trip times, the more so on trains with frequent stops. This will allow trains to stop more often at any given station without unduly slowing trip times, making Caltrain convenient for more people.

(Number Two) Grade separation. With the elimination at-grade crossings, you can increase the top speed from 79 mph to 100 mph (this is not rocket science: look no further than New Jersey Transit), saving another 15% on journey times, especially for Baby Bullet express service. This will make Caltrain preferable to driving for more people.

(Number Three) Four-track right of way. Today, with limited 4-track sections in Sunnyvale and Brisbane, the Baby Bullet service restricts the throughput of Caltrain because expresses can pass locals at only those two locations. Believe it or not, the ENTIRE Caltrain schedule is built around these overtaking maneuvers in Sunnyvale and Brisbane. With four tracks along the entire length of the peninsula, Baby Bullets can be weaved into HSR and local Caltrain traffic with fewer restrictions. This will allow more local service during rush hours; imagine the California Ave station being served every 10 - 15 minutes instead of once or twice per HOUR during a weekday rush hour. That might take some more cars off the road.

(Number Four) Combined 'synergy' of electrification, grade separation, and four-tracking. With faster trip times, the same equipment and crews can perform MORE trips. More frequent trips will not cause lengthy disruptions to auto traffic or those debilitating horn blasts. Ten-minute peak service, or even five-minute peak service, becomes feasible. Under such conditions, Caltrain can morph from a commuter rail operation (where you need to check the timetable first) into a more BART-like operation (where you simply show up whenever and wait for the next train)... result: even fewer drivers.

There is no question in my mind that peninsula roadway congestion will benefit if Measure 1A passes. I plan to vote yes.

Clem
(I live in San Carlos, work in Palo Alto)

"But I cannot understand how a community could oppose the grade separation of a rail line that runs through their city."

Aesthetics, Spokker, aesthetics. Imagine an elevated freeway running right down the town spine, stark and up there for all to see.

ITS A 140 YEAR OLD RAILROAD!!!YOU people moved there

Undergrounding Caltrain makes a lot of sense. Throwing tens of billions of dollars into a few deep pockets does not.

Ignore the specious arguments. Let's put our money where it can do the most good.

I'm voting yes to this prop. I travel to LA often and let me tell you that I'm sick'n tired of the airlines and driving there. I've travelled extensively in France, Spain, Germany, and Japan, where they use speed trains extensively, and it's a joy.

This prop is about connecting SF and LA. Opponents that scream about traffic relief should go shouting to the respective cities. This is not about traffic relief, it's about options. Right now, you either drive for 6-7 hours (if you don't get stuck in the rush traffic in each city), or fly for a combined of about 2 hrs (check-in an hour early plus a less-than-a-hour flight IFF the flight is not delayed). A modern bullet train will make the trip in about 1.5 hr, and you only have to show up to the station 5 minutes boarding. SO time-wise, the bullet train beats any other choice.
It's the least polluting mean of transportation for the environmentally conscious.
If speed trains have been profitable in many other countries in the world, I don't see why it shouldn't be profitable here. We cannot speculate about the ticket price, but if they have a good business plan (they're going to need in order to survive) they will have fares very attractive for everyone, even for families. It would be like flying to LA without dealing with the BS from airlines, etc. The airlines are actually the ones that are most concerned about this and pushing against this prop.
Those that already avoid the prices from airlines, will avoid the train. Honestly, if you don't mind the 6+ hr drive, more power to you. I've done it enough times, that I'll be glad to pay for my family's tickets, specially during the big holidays.
THe convenience of a speed train between SF and LA will be the best thing that would happen to this area. It's another alternative of transportation. I just hope they know how to do it well (that is, avoid the mess they have created in the bay area with 3 different train systems, which are heavily flawed in all aspects).

VOTE YES ON 1A!!!

"Undergrounding Caltrain makes a lot of sense. Throwing tens of billions of dollars into a few deep pockets does not."

You put a rail line underground, such as a subway, when there isn't space above ground for a right of way. Putting Caltrain underground makes zero since since the right of way is already there. Now that would be a huge waste of money.

"Imagine an elevated freeway running right down the town spine, stark and up there for all to see."

There is nothing to suggest that high speed rail will be as ugly as an elevated freeway.

>> "Imagine an elevated freeway running right down the town spine, stark and up there for all to see."

> There is nothing to suggest that high speed rail will be as ugly as an elevated freeway.

The original poster (Paul) equates grade separation with elevated tracks. Sadly, this is a very common misconception-- probably related to BART, and certainly fomented by NIMBY opponents who need to dramatize their claims about the catastrophic impact of eminent domain takings to build the extra tracks. It's hard to scare people about their neighborhoods getting bulldozed without conjuring images of very wide, raised berms that blight the landscape of their leafy neighborhoods and cut through the very fabric of their communities.

Discreet grade separations can of course be achieved by sinking roads below grade... in all of FOUR places throughout the long spine of Palo Alto.

Meanwhile, quite oblivious to this fact, those good folks endure nearly continuous horn blowing and clouds of diesel fumes... a status quo they dearly want to hang on to, apparently!

How's the econ program at Cal State, Spokker? Fact is, undergrounding the train in an affluent area like ours makes huge sense. The value of the land that would be freed up for development would more than pay for the cost of undergrounding the train.

By the way, high speed rail in Europe is heavily subsidized, and still accounts for only a small percentage of all long distance travel. HSR's claims that it will soon capture 35% of the market are not supported by any real world examples.

These comments are in the great part written with 20th century mentality and 20th century values. This is a new century and new technology and innovation will mean that 20 - 30 years from now what we are envisioning will look as outdated as Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock does to us.

Yes, 21st century - we need to include the personal jet back technology, etc., that your crystal ball reveals. If it doesn't pencil out, it doesn't pencil out - no amount of faith-based, trust-me-the future-will-be-different reasoning will change that. The only thing certain about HSR is that billions will be spent and contractors will get rich.

yes there are space jews even in menlo park..yes say smart people

If a HSR will reduce the number of air miles flown, air quality will improve. Isn't this what its all about? Air quality is directly related to CO2 emissions. In addition to helping with air pollution, we do our part in reducing green house gases which do their dirty work on the entire planet.
An earlier post claimed that HSR is a transfer of wealth from one class to another. Have you noticed that most of the seats on inter-California flights are most of us? And interminable and frustrating waits on the ground and at airports affects all "classes".

As for the subsidy arguments, consider the subsidies for the automobile: Insurance; death and dismemberment; street and highway building and maintenance; air pollution: asthma, cancer, species stress; noise; smells. The list is endless. The automobile's convenience is a tragic illusion.

More highways and lanes are not an answer. We need alternatives. We can afford better.

"HSR's claims that it will soon capture 35% of the market are not supported by any real world examples."

Look up high speed rail in Spain. Similar population density to California. Similar distances. Go read about what it did to air travel between those two cities.

Air France is getting into the high speed rail business in Europe. Yeah, HSR is really failing to make an impact there...

Palo is not going to bet a tunnel and neither is Atherton or Menlo Park. What they are all going to get is a big wall, 15 feet high with catenaries above another 20 feet. Ugly to say the least and about 100 feet wide besides.

then think about the central valley. They want major growth in the valley, an area where 1/4 of the children already have asthma. They claim a major reduction in pollution because of the auto traffic being taken off of i-5. But hey guys, what about the 450,000 jobs they claim are gong to be created. How about all the families that will move in with their auto and be making hundreds of thousands of daily trips to do everyday tasks.

We can't afford this project and boy it is a bad project on it s own merits.

It's up to Central Valley cities to improve bus service by introducing rapid and express buses, and look into building light rail that radiates from the high speed rail stations. For example, in Bakersfield, find out where people are going when they get off a high speed train. In the short-term, start up some rapid bus service. In the long term, build light rail to those places.

I can see HSR stations in the Central Valley as local transportation hubs for people who ride and don't ride the high speed train.

Q: "How is a train that doesn't stop here going to help reduce traffic?"
A: Because traffic travelling through the community will be reduced.

Simple really.

Q: "How is a train that doesn't stop here going to help reduce traffic?"
A: Because traffic travelling through the community will be reduced.

Simple really.

It passed.

To take a train from Seattle to Portland costs a lot more than an airline ticket. Driving is the cheapest and most convenient way to travel.
Even with Portland's great public transit system. We were left without a car once we got there and had to find a place to rent a car to visit friends and see sights outside the area covered by the Portland light rail.

Train travel is always more expensive.