The son of an old college buddy of mine has be come a rail advocate out in California. I have know this kid since he was knee high to a grasshopper and never knew he was a foamer. http://railla.org/LA-to-SF-by-rail-today
Hi speed rail from LA to SF is a pipe dream. There are two ways to go between them, up the long, winding coast or over Tehatchapi. There is a reason why the SP made a hard right turn when it got to Bakersfield. The only way to get past The Grapevine is to bore a tunnel through the San Andreas Fault. Lots Angeles is in a basin with steep grades on all sides. If there was a better route, it would have been built by now.
I have no doubt that it would be heavily utilized if it were built. There are enough folks who would give up standing in security lines at the airports in LA and SF. There is already a rail culture in California riding the commuter lines in both metropolitan area. Many folks said the same thing about the locals giving up their cars before the street car line in Houston was built. I believe the Houston line now has one of the highest ridership loads per mile in the country. Of course it is not a very long line but whenever I have ridden it, I have to stand. The problem I see is the massive amount of money it will take to build. It would take a very long time to recoup the amount if ever. But then again, I doubt any form of mass transit "pays" for itself. Most infrastructure does not. The geography of California has so many strikes against this kind of construction. It ain't the rolling hills of France by no means.
There have already been millions, maybe billions spent in studies, environmental impact stuff, pipe dreams, consultants, and nothing has actually been done. No wonder Cali is broke.
A little facts help a discussion. Current budget is $70 Billion, up from an initial estimate of $9B. What a lot of people miss out on is this project is as much about developing the Central Valley as it is connecting the two end cities. Some people cry foul because the project is having difficulty figuring out how it's going to get into San Francisco, even though more people and more jobs are in the east bay and San Jose. CAHSR just broke ground in Fresno. By 2018, the agency expects to have a 130-mile stretch through the valley that can be used as a test track for high-speed trains. And by 2022, it expects to be able to run trains from Merced to the Burbank Airport. Connections to San Francisco’s Transbay Transit Center and Los Angeles’ Union Station would be finished by 2029.
Fairly good interactive article here: http://blogs.kqed.org/lowdown/2015/...-rail-project-will-look-like-interactive-map/
http://news.yahoo.com/the-twisted-saga-behind-california-s-bullet-train-220557292.html Note the last line where the gov comments about 'getting' money. In other words, they don't even have the project fully funded. He's going to launch it and hope they can bull herd their way through.
Well, as mentioned in the article, I think for this kind of infrastructure you have to see at least a century ahead, it will cost an awful lot of money to build, and to run trains on it. But go back tho the 1850s if these guys did not think ahead, would we be stuck now with covered waggons on dirt trails?, or single lane paved roads? Here in europe, for distances below 600 miles, High Speed trains are the best way to travel (not the cheapest though): - they offer city centre to city centre connections - no transfers and less secutiry check when boarding (will get the same as airplanes, after the incident in France) - almost no issues with weather For geography, here in Italy, but also Switzerland, we have pretty long tunnels on these lines, Gotthard, Brenner (just started boring), and when it is not a single one you have something like Bologna to Florence: 50 miles, almost all 90% in tunnels. Most of it is paid with taxpayers'money as it may not get even (financially) for many years, if it gets even at all, but the overall benefits you start feeling very soon (less congestion and accidents on highways, far less airplanes flying the same route, down to the environmental benefits and the ease of traveling - for many routes now you do not need to stay overnight as you can get there and back on the same day).
It wasn't a lack of thinking ahead. It is geography. There is a reason why it is called the Los Angeles Basin. There are ski resorts an hour away from Los Angeles. If you want to tunnel through the mountains, you're going through the San Andreas Fault.
