California Hits the Brakes on High-Speed Rail Fiasco

[Purveyor]

JUNE 28, 2016 10:00 AM EDT
By Virginia Postrel

California's high-speed rail project increasingly looks like an expensive social science experiment to test just how long interest groups can keep money flowing to a doomed endeavor before elected officials finally decide to cancel it. What combination of sweet-sounding scenarios, streamlined mockups, ever-changing and mind-numbing technical detail, and audacious spin will keep the dream alive?

Sold to the public in 2008 as a visionary plan to whisk riders along at 220 miles an hour, making the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles in a little over two and a half hours, the project promised to attract most of the necessary billions from private investors, to operate without ongoing subsidies and to charge fares low enough to make it competitive with cheap flights. With those assurances, 53.7 percent of voters said yes to a $9.95 billion bond referendum to get the project started. But the assurances were at best wishful thinking, at worst an elaborate con.

The total construction cost estimate has now more than doubled to $68 billion from the original $33 billion, despite trims in the routes planned. The first, easiest-to-build, segment of the system -- the “train to nowhere” through a relatively empty stretch of the Central Valley -- is running at least four years behind schedule and still hasn’t acquired all the needed land. Predicted ticket prices to travel from LA to the Bay have shot from $50 to more than $80. State funding is running short. Last month’s cap-and-trade auction for greenhouse gases, expected to provide $150 million for the train, yielded a mere $2.5 million. And no investors are lining up to fill the $43 billion construction-budget gap.

Now, courtesy of Los Angeles Times reporter Ralph Vartabedian, comes yet another damning revelation: When the Spanish construction company Ferrovial submitted its winning bid for a 22-mile segment, the proposal included a clear and inconvenient warning: “More than likely, the California high speed rail will require large government subsidies for years to come.” Ferrovial reviewed 111 similar systems around the world and found only three that cover their operating costs.

more...

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-28/california-hits-the-brakes-on-high-speed-rail-fiasco

[taught_me_patience]

1. As a Californian, I think that it's time to pull the plug on this boondogle n/t

[haele]

2. We do need to have transportation other than air between the major cities.

This particular project requires overhaul - mainly because of the insistence that industry will do build it in a more cost effective manner when businesses are required to make a profit.
Affordable mass transit is never profitable. Real public infrastructure - "the commons" everyone is supposed to have access to - is not profitable. And I'm always a bit sad when people talk about public boondoggles because these projects are not going to be profitable, but yet, the prevailing policy always pretends that an honest business out there is going to actually compete to do all the work the public wants for infrastructure projects - for nothing more than "cost".

But nonetheless, we do need some form of reliable mass transit between SD, LA and SF, the major Californian commercial hubs other than our environmentally unstable and aging air fleet, and we also need something that is better than 1950's infrastructure, which is what we have now.

High Speed Rail will be the optimal mass transportation method between LA and SF - if done correctly. Unfortunately, done correctly is not profitable now, is it?

SD and LA can make due for now with expanding MetroLink and MTS rail service through the I-5 and I-15 corridors.

On Edit - I fully expect any public infrastructure project will require government subsidies to maintain. That's always been the case, so I don't know why this would be unexpected...

Haele

(Long time San Diego resident, stationed in both the Bay area and LA area back in the day)

[AngryAmish]

13. What about a tunnel?

[tblue37]

41. Earthquakes. nt

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. No we don't

I don't have trouble getting from Orange County to San Francisco, I have trouble getting from Orange County to downtown Los Angeles.

Subsidizing intercity rail is like subsidizing a clinic that offers amputations for only twice the price of a cast. Southwest Airlines is really, really good at what they do.

[LeftyMom]

35. No, we need better transit on routes people use most frequently.

Spending a shitpile of money to move vacationers and business travelers around on relatively infrequent trips makes zero sense. It costs more to take less cars off the road than using that money to upgrade and connect existing transit options would.

[XemaSab]

70. I'd be so happy to have a train

that went from Redding to Red Bluff to Chico to Yuba City to Sacramento.

With a shuttle to the airport.

It would get used.

[LeftyMom]

110. We don't even have a transit link from downtown Sac to the airport!

You have to get on YoloBus and tour half of Yolo county before they finally take you to the airport.

[ripcord]

65. The people who organized the initiative shouldn't have lied to the voters

It was sold as being self sufficient needing no government subsidies. Of course the backers have lied right down the line, it won't meet the speed or travel times the voters authorized and is going to cost much, much more than we were assured it would.

[highprincipleswork]

44. I know. Other countries get to have high speed travel throughout, but we're too pathetic to have it.

We should quit setting out sights so high.

[anoNY42]

51. We have high-speed travel

It's called an airplane...

[adigal]

56. Air travel is time consuming, expensive and impractical

We are one of the few first world countries that can't seem to build a high speed rail. I'm taking one in France this summer from Paris to Strasbourg - 300 miles in an hour and 40 minutes. I guess we are just bumbling idiots that here, a trip that long takes 5 hours by rail.

[anoNY42]

62. But it is less time-consuming

if you are flying longer distances. Also, security measures can be changed.

Also, look for increased security on HSR if it ever opens in this country. The bigger the project, the bigger the target (and easier if the security is not initially as thorough as that of an airport).

[highprincipleswork]

68. Like I say, we're idiots who don't deserve the kind of pleasures other developed countries have.

[Just reading posts]

73. It depends on the distances involved. Let's look at a trip from LA to NYC.

Air travel is time consuming

By air: 5 hours. By train: 3 days. Even if there was a high speed route, I can't imagine it taking less than a day, day and a half.

expensive

By air: $400. By train: $467.

impractical

How so?

[adigal]

106. A day and a half??? LA to San Francisco is 381 miles.

At 200 mph, that's about 2 hours! And less waiting in lines, getting your rectum examined. Etc.

[Just reading posts]

111. I believe you misread my post. I was speaking of a trip from LA to New York City.

Such a trip by train currently takes about 3 days, and even a hypothetical (and surely never to be built) bullet train would make the 3,000 mile journey in about a day to a day and a half.

[6chars]

119. Yeah, but if you can't drive 55...

What used to take two hours now takes all day - it takes 16 hours to get to LA.

[HughBeaumont]

112. Yeah, it does depend on the distances involved.

Cleveland to DC, for instance.

Nearly 400 miles.

Flight: $167 round trip, at the cheapest (and that's before taxes and fees), and that's not non-stop. Non-stop would be starting at $235 round trip.

Car: gas and tolls round trip would be $80 TOTAL.

Time:

Flight: Non-stop flight is 3 hours total time traveled (counting TSA, pick up and drop off, etc), but over 3 times as much money.
One stop flight can be anywhere from 5-7 hours depending on layover.

Car:
5 hours, 30 minutes . . . 5 hours 40 minutes if a stop's included.

So to visit my sister, what used to cost me a whopping $90 round trip now either costs twice as much and takes longer or to save time will cost 3 times as much. Oh, and I'm not squished next to some personal space-clueless dudes or hearing screaming babies as an added bonus. Driving is actually the better option.

A Hyperloop trip would cover this distance in 35-40 minutes. THAT'S something I'm hoping comes soon.

[Just reading posts]

116. You could always take the train from Cleveland to DC. It only takes 11 hours.

Driving is actually the better option.

Without a doubt.

A Hyperloop trip would cover this distance in 35-40 minutes. THAT'S something I'm hoping comes soon.

Looks promising, but it's one of those, "I'll believe it when I see it" megaprojects.

[Initech]

80. Because other countries have government oversight and accountability.

40 years of Nixon and Reagan and their batshit crazy "government is the enemy" policies are exactly why we can't have nice things in this country. You know like high speed rail, paid vacation, and pregnancy leave.

[Auggie]

53. I voted against it. Upgrade/expand local public transit instead.

Much better use of money.

[Initech]

77. Yeah I agree, kill it.

This is why we can't have nice things in this country. High speed rail is a great idea in theory, but when you hand it over to for profit big money interests with no government to hold these people accountable for their actions, it just becomes a money laundering catastrophe.

We could do that weird thing of bringing back government accountability and oversight committes, but we don't have time for rational solutions!

[brush]

81. Just as with the interstate highway system, the Feds will have to do this for the public good

Trying to build HSR for profit will never work.

It need to get built though. If not for repug obstructionism against infrastructure improvement, the thousands of good jobs such a huge project would generate would already have our economy booming.

[Throd]

3. Kill it, already.

[Agnosticsherbet]

4. As a Californian, I think we should build it faster

And expand it to link the entire state.

It will be more efficient and less poluting.

[Throd]

6. You sure about that?

It's a vanity project for Jerry.

[Agnosticsherbet]

8. High speed rail in other countries is all I said about it.

We can do the same thing here.

In my opinion, the federal government should fund and build a national high speed rail system. That and mass transit are necessary to end the age of the private automobile.

Sadly, we are too polarized for sane government.

[Throd]

11. It's a simple math equation that doesn't pencil out.

I also have no interest in ending the private automobile. That's an odd goal.

[Agnosticsherbet]

17. What is odd about ending a low efficiency high energy, pollution heavy, space using

method of transportation.
As our population increases, public transportation systems are the only viable alternative.
Time to engineer a driverless society.

[Herman4747]

63. Private automobiles cause global warming...

...in addition to being a threat to bicyclists.

[ripcord]

12. It isn't high speed rail

They will never meet the speeds or travel times required to be considered high speed rail because they the tracks are going to be a mix of high speed and regular, this is why they can't meet the requirements of the ballot initiative that authorized it.. The high speed backers have lied to the people of California at every turn.

[liberal N proud]

5. Why does high speed rail work every where but the US?

[gratuitous]

7. My guess is magic

Or because we're so gosh darned exceptional.

[cherokeeprogressive]

9. "111 similar systems around the world and found only three that cover their operating cost."

Doesn't sound like it does.

[seabeckind]

60. How does the interstate equation work out?

Do the people who use it really pay for it?

Or does somebody else?

[Recursion]

10. It doesn't. It works in very dense places like Western Europe, Japan, and coastal China

The place it is working in the US, the Bo-Wash corridor, is the only part of the country that approaches that density.

Russia finally after decades of trying opened a high speed line between Moscow and Petrograd, and it's losing money hand over fist and is being kept around as an ego-stoking project for Putin.

[Firebrand Gary]

38. Because oil addicted interest in the US are trying to kill it.

Every entity from Ford, Exxon and including Bloomberg would love to see the California project as HSR's "Waterloo"...

[liberal N proud]

45. And that is the answer!

OIL Companies and their death grip on this country.

[RME_SFC]

102. I would love to have High Speed Rail...

I would love to have an efficient, more eco-friendly, lower cost (for travelers) form of transportation to move individuals around the state, or even regionally. This particular project isn't it.

In my opinion; California (and HSR in general) would have been better served had they planned a less ambitious project. Were I in charge of dreaming this up (and there are multitudes of reasons why I should never be), I think I would've presented a Los Angeles to Vegas route. While I am not an engineer of any sort, it would appear to me that this route would be more easily and much more quickly constructed. It would be a route that many in the general public would opt to use and potentially held up as an example of how well HSR could work. Routes from other population centers could then ran to central link somewhere in the middle. I don't really know... just a thought.


I believe that the article (opinion) in the OP cited this article:
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-bullet-train-subsidies-20160609-snap-story.html

There are multiple articles and opinions that state; with a few different views/slants, that the information regarding costs and timelines were at best were exuberantly overoptimistic and at worst knowingly and fraudulently manipulated to deceive the public.

I think a serious legislative look and inquiry should be done. A committee/board could review the expenditures so far, bonafide construction proposals, cost and time projections etc. Then they could make the determination if the project should proceed as planned, route/approach be altered, or that even with the money already spent, the public would be better served if the money were to redirected to other transportation projects and initiatives.

My thoughts... but I have been wrong plenty of times.

*edited to add some missing words :/

[liberal N proud]

109. We need something that challenges domestic air travel.

This country needs high speed rail from coast to coast.

Take for example:

Cleveland to Kansas City:
By Car - 13 hours or more
By Air - non-stop 2 hours (there are no longer non-stop flights) + 2 hours preflight
............ 1 hour to New York or Charlotte 1 hour layover 2 hours flight 3 hours = 2 hours preflight 7 hours
By Rail - 7 hours

High Speed Rail should cut that down to 4 maybe.

[RME_SFC]

113. Depending on Cost/time ratio

I'd use high speed rail. While I've only ridden any kind of rail for relatively short trips; there is something to be said for being able to get up and move around a bit.

The potential to explain to my kinds various landmarks, geographic points of interest as we traveled through them (albeit it rapidly) could be another incentive.

Coast to Coast high speed rail is an interesting idea. I'm sorry... (I'll be googling some info here shortly; like the longest current HSR Route, ridership, costs (to build and to use) and time trips take...)but what's the actual feasibility of this project?

Also, my LA to Vegas could be the first leg. Just saying.

Edited to change brackets to parathensis

[liberal N proud]

118. If you use Eur pope as an example, Time/Cost is equivalent to Air

And far less stressful.

I took the TGV from Paris to Geneva, 2 hours travel time, no security hassles, seats were comfortable. Space to move about and the scenery was phenomenal.

[Fla_Democrat]

15. Is this the one that Florida....

was stupid for not building?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/02/18/high.speed.rail/


The stakes are high: In December, LaHood announced that 14 states would divvy up the $1.4 billion that Wisconsin and Ohio spurned, with California getting the lion's share. Then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, wrote to the Obama administration at the time: "You are more than welcome to redirect that money to California."

break

"It's a cloudy day in the Sunshine State," Democratic Rep. John Garamendi of Walnut Grove said Wednesday. "But Florida's deep loss is likely to be California's tremendous gain. We're prepared to show the rest of the country what a modern transportation network looks like and will gladly invest every penny the federal government is willing to provide," he said.

break

Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor said Floridians could have used the appropriation to create jobs. The funds were originally sought by then-Gov. Charlie Crist, a Republican turned independent.

"Gov. Scott's decision demonstrates a devastating lack of vision for Florida and a lack of understanding of our economic situation," Castor said. "The governor put his own rigid ideology ahead of the best interests of Florida's businesses, workers and families. High-speed rail is projected to create thousands and thousands of jobs in our state."

[Igel]

23. Yes.

The DU "banter" was quite vehement on this topic. Only an idiot state would pass up free money that would provide such a wonderful benefit. It was stimulus, it was investment in the future. To say it wasn't a great idea was to be anti-Democratic, anti-Obama, anti-environment, anti-worker, and anti- any other positive thing you could think of, and to show great mental deficiency.

It was a fairly obviously sucky idea at the time for all the sucky obvious reasons it turned out to be a obviously sucky idea now.

But it sounded good, there's that, I guess, and that's what's really important.

[LeftyMom]

36. It actually makes a lot more sense for Florida.

It's fucking flat. Moving tourists around is a worthwhile investment. Things are a hell of a lot closer together, and the stretches of boring shit in the middle are considerably smaller.

In California the obvious obstacle is that the most populous regions are along the coast, and the coast is hilly and not conducive to high speed rail. So the line has to move from the coast to the central valley. Which means it's LA-SF via a bunch of depressing agricultural towns, hours slower than air travel and only marginally cheaper. I'd buy the flight. And I'm born and bred in the central valley.

[anoNY42]

52. Florida is flat, that is true

But the HSR between Orlando and Tampa still did not make sense. Tourists come to Orlando to go to Disney and Universal. No one is itching to go to Tampa with their kids.

[seabeckind]

61. I would think between Orlando and Miami with some selective stops sure would.

Orlando/Tampa seems more a commuter rail paradigm.

Doesn't need to be that fast and needs more stops.

Using it as an argument against HSR in general is superficial.

But hey, works in a campaign speech.

[anoNY42]

64. I just don't see

anyone commuting from Orlando to Tampa. If you work in Tampa, why not just live in that area?

Orlando to Miami makes a bit more sense considering the state of I-95 and the distance.

I don't think anyone is using Orlando-Tampa as an argument against HSR in general, just in that particular case. HSR needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

[seabeckind]

66. Talking from a functional requirement standpoint.

If you look at the way the rail systems are implemented in France, you see the layers of functionality.

I used the term commuter not as a literal but as a different set of requirements. Just a convenient term.

[Eleanors38]

79. Miami-Orlando proposed 25+ yrs ago, but dropped. Would have dog-legged to Tampa.

In Austin, I voted for a current commuter rail between Austin and a (then) small town to the NW, just to see if Capitol Metro had the competency to pull it off. Came in over-budget and over a year behind schedule. Not encouraging, esp. since the authority had to divert $ from the bus system to this rail to a GOP suburb. Voters earlier this year killed another one which didn't even connect to the airport. The express bus does for $1.75.

[Nye Bevan]

74. Orlando to Tampa HSR was one of the stupidest ideas ever.

Mostly because in either city you need a car to get around once you're there. So who's going to park at the station, carry their luggage onto the high speed train, then move their luggage at the other end to a newly rented car? When you could just rent one car for your entire trip and drive the hour or two between the two cities?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. If California wanted to build bullet trains between LA and SF and their respective suburbs

I would think that was a great idea and would support it unequivocally.

But this is stupid, nothing we can build high-speed rail wise can best a DC-3.

[AngryAmish]

21. What if they just built a tunnel between LA and San Francisco?

[Just reading posts]

22. The world's longest train tunnel is the Gotthard tunnel in Switzerland. It's 35 miles long.

It took almost 20 years to complete, and cost $12 billion.

Los Angeles to San Francisco is almost 400 miles.

That's why.

[underahedgerow]

39. Geological issues. Such as that teeny tiny San Andres fault thing, and the many oil fields

that dot the west coast as well.

[AngryAmish]

43. They have tunnels in Iran and they have both earthquakes and oil fields.

[underahedgerow]

54. Well, it's not really a 'could just' proposition. Mapping, land acquisition, geological flaws,

faults; protected lands, such as where endangered species are; inhabited lands; not to mention the actual construction. The preparation could take at least 10 years, before 1 shovel hits the dirt.

It's taken almost 25 years to build just 100 kilometers of tunnel through the Swiss Alps, and that's just rock boring at a rate of just 40 meters a day. There was little in terms of right of way, administration and property rights to deal with, no towns or traffic to disrupt, etc.

Believe me, I love the idea of high speed transit, but I think in terms of connecting urban areas that we may have to look up sometimes, not down. I like the idea of a transit tube aligned with the freeways. I think Japan does this, elevated high speed rails. WAY easier than boring and far less in terms of footprint, in the case of California. Or it could be a combination of both....

[Major Nikon]

24. Maglev goes 400mph

Other types can go faster. The DC-3 typically would cruise at or below 170mph.

So we certainly could do so, but the question is why would we want to do so? Assuming an efficient air transport system, which we already have, high speed rail is more expensive, slower, less safe, and arguably has a bigger carbon footprint.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

25. I take it you haven't seen the route

Or the proposed speeds it will operate at.

This project is stupid.

[Major Nikon]

31. What it ultimately will or might have done isn't the same as what it could do

It's just a matter of how much money you want to throw into the pit.

[underahedgerow]

40. How about the Hyperloop? It's looking very, very cool.

The open air propulsion test launch follows news from the company about its plans to build a transit system that operates faster than a bullet train. Hyperloop One announced that it has secured 80 million and a series of partnerships to build the system. The team hopes to get Hyperloop One up and running by 2020. With talk around the table about routes such as Los Angeles to San Francisco in the USA and Marseilles to Paris in France, there's a lot riding on this technology.

http://wp.me/p7hrwY-tx
That's from Daily Caviar.

[TheProgressive]

18. Intelligent countries all over the world have high speed rail...

Need I say anything more...?

[Recursion]

27. And so do we, in the corridor where it makes sense to have it

There's high speed rail between DC and Boston.

Hell, running high-speed rail from Tampa to Houston with spurs to Atlanta and Birmingham makes more sense than CA's plan (and for that matter I imagine the Gulf Coast will probably be who actually completes the next HSR project).

[ProfessorGAC]

57. Chicago To St. Louis To New Orleans Too

They are putting high speed in. Tracks are being laid not too far from where i live.

But, that seems like a good corridor too. Or maybe St. Louis to Houston would be a smart second leg. That connects the 2 biggest cities in the midwest with a fairly good sized metro area in the middle.

[Recursion]

58. That's an interesting idea, but I think it's too sparse to be self-sustaining

That said, here's hoping I'm wrong!

[ProfessorGAC]

82. Business Travel Between Houston and Chicago is Quite High

There are a fistful of airlines out of both Midway and O'Hare that fly multiple flights per day to both Hobby and Bush.

[NewJeffCT]

121. The rail that runs from Boston to DC isn't exactly "high speed"

The Amtrak Acela from Boston to Philadelphia takes about 5 hours one way. If you didn't have traffic, you could drive the distance in about the same time. It's another 1:45 to get from Philly to DC. $305 round trip.

I can take Jet Blue or American and get a 90 minute flight for $121 round trip. Even if you add in an hour to 90 minutes at the airport, you're saving a lot of time.

What's needed in the northeast is a big upgrade in the quality of the tracks, and an increase in the number of available tracks. The Acela has to really slow down past New Haven, CT and on into NYC, and then again when it departs NYC and goes through NJ. It's 75 or so miles from New Haven, CT to NYC and it should take 30 minutes or less if it was truly high speed, but it's 90+ minutes of where the train is sometimes creaking along.

[MindPilot]

19. We need to think about optimizing our freeways for driverless cars

That is the high-speed mass transit of the future; autonomous clusters of driverless cars moving at triple-digit speeds.

[seabeckind]

59. We can call them "Trains"!

On my last cross country drive I saw all these trucks, each autonomous, each going the same place at much the same speed.

Imagine coupling them together. Like land container ships.

[vanlassie]

20. As usual, we dither while Rome burns. We should have built it years ago. People who are fighting

it here in the Central Valley are just non-travelled bumkins.

[TeamPooka]

26. maybe we can't do big things anymore. Good thing the Hoover Dam is already built.

[Recursion]

29. Could you imagine having to write the environmental impact assessment on the Hoover Dam?

Or adjudicating the multiple claims among fisheries, First Nations (I guarantee you it's sacred to someone), ranchers, etc.?

Sometimes the reasons we don't do big things anymore make sense...

[bhikkhu]

28. The money could be better spent

on basic infrastructure. Looking at alternatives to driving or flying (and, of course, alternatives aren't entirely necessay) the newer hyperloop concept seems more compelling. Why spend billions on old tech?

[KeepItReal]

32. We are spending over $1 Trillion on the F-35 Lightning II fighter/bomber

$68 Billion on a high speed link between LA and SF sounds like a deal.

Just build it right. And soon.

[1939]

49. Up to Gov Brown and the legislature.

Just crank up the state income tax bite and produce the money needed.

States and localities want all kinds of stuff. They just want Uncle Sugar to pay for it and not have to endure the political agony of taxing their own people directly to pay for it.

[SunSeeker]

30. We desperately need a high speed train between LA and SF.

I am glad Governor Brown is championing this infrastructure project. I just drove with the family from LA to the bay area last week, since flying would have been really expensive for the whole family. Good God what a horridly long drive, dodging trucks, speed traps and gagging on cow stench for hour after hour of the day long ordeal. Every time I forget and try it again, I remember why I swore I would fly no matter what the cost. I can't wait for a high speed train. We need one between LA and Vegas too.

[Liberal_in_LA]

33. It is horrid and long drive but this project isnt working out. Too many moving parts

[SunSeeker]

34. Seems to be working out to me. It survived it's biggest challenge in the courtroom.

Seems like all the opponents have left is calling it a boondoggle.

[LeftyMom]

37. The train's still going to take hours and go through smelly valley towns.

And it's going to cost almost as much as Southwest.

[SunSeeker]

42. The towns aren't smelly, it's the CAFOs stacked up along the 5 FWY.

2-3 hours is actually faster than flying when you factor in TSA security and check in.

And the cheapest flight I could find on Southwest from LA to SF is $161 one way. That article bashing the high speed train complains that its faire might be as high as $80. That's a bargain!

[Just reading posts]

46. I just checked the airfare on Southwest from LA to SF. $69 each way.

[seabeckind]

50. Well that totally destroyed his entire argument

I'd rather have a root canal than fly Southwest out of any airport they fly.

I'd rather visit the proctologist than fly on any airline (gee, how many choices do I have these days?) cause at least I get good drugs and sleep thru the exam.

And first class sucks just a tiny bit less.

[Just reading posts]

71. Just providing correct information.

I'd rather have a root canal than fly Southwest out of any airport they fly.

Southwest is my airline of choice for domestic travel, primarily because of their rewards program. I was able to score 50,000 points simply by getting a Southwest Visa card; that was enough for two round trip tickets.

They also don't charge for the first two checked bags, better than any other airline these days. I just wish they had more international destinations than the Caribbean.

For international travel, I normally fly United. The new 787 Dreamliner that goes nonstop from Denver to Tokyo in only 12 hours is quite nice.

I'd rather visit the proctologist than fly on any airline (gee, how many choices do I have these days?)

You have plenty of choice. You can choose not to fly.

Personally, I'll take the cattle cars of today over the (admittedly nice) airlines of the past for one simple reason: Cost. When adjusted for inflation, air travel is far, far less expensive than it was 50 years ago. Between reward programs and lower overall costs, I can afford two or three international vacations a year. Someone at my income level (again, adjusted for inflation) would have been lucky to be able to travel internationally once every few years back in the 1960's.

Progress.

[seabeckind]

84. Ahh, you get a coupon.

That certainly makes up for all the bad stuff.

You need a Ruby Tuesday coupon? I usually throw them away.

You missed the point about the number of airlines. (ref Oligopoly)

[Just reading posts]

88. On the whole, it certainly does make up for the bad stuff, yes.

You missed the point about the number of airlines. (ref Oligopoly)

There are a dozen major mainline carriers in the U.S. How many should there be?

[seabeckind]

97. How about more than 4?

The deal is done. Now the question is whether people flying in the United States are ready for a new era in U.S. Travel. Think about this, once the merger of U.S. Airways and American Airlines is completed 87 percent of the commercial flights in America will be flown by the four biggest carriers.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100461115

I bolded the important part. If an airline doesn't service the airports you need, it might as well be on the moon.

Dozen? Right.

BTW, no matter how big the coupon was, being diverted to Phoenix and having a 12 hour forced layover because of an ice storm in Dallas,

it ain't worth it.

Wait! That's an old article. Wasn't there another merger after that?

[Just reading posts]

99. Here's the list:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_airlines_of_the_United_States

Alaska Airlines
Allegiant Air
American Airlines
Delta Air Lines
Frontier Airlines
Hawaiian Airlines
JetBlue
Southwest Airlines
Spirit Airlines
United Airlines
Virgin America

I bolded the important part. If an airline doesn't service the airports you need, it might as well be on the moon.

You can hardly expect every airline to service Fargo, ND.

BTW, no matter how big the coupon was, being diverted to Phoenix and having a 12 hour forced layover because of an ice storm in Dallas, it ain't worth it.

I've been on over a hundred flights over the years, and never experienced such a delay. Doesn't mean I won't experience such a delay on my next flight, of course. In other words....shit happens.

In any case, isn't it good that airfares are so cheap compared to 50 years ago (adjusted for inflation, naturally)?

[seabeckind]

108. You're a real fan of absurd arguments, aren't you?

What in the world does Fargo have to do with it?

Actually if there were HSR, or even a decent regional rail, Fargo wouldn't need an airport, neither would Sioux City, Sioux Falls, etc.

As far as delays? You've been lucky to live a very sheltered existence. But I have no doubt you will consider that the norm for everyone else.

[Just reading posts]

115. You brought up venues that weren't being served by a multitude of airports. Fargo certainly

qualifies, does it not?

Actually if there were HSR, or even a decent regional rail, Fargo wouldn't need an airport, neither would Sioux City, Sioux Falls, etc. v

Well, there's not going to be such a rail network, is there? And even if there were, we're not about to tear down airports in smaller cities around the country. People would still want to fly out of such cities.

As far as delays? You've been lucky to live a very sheltered existence. But I have no doubt you will consider that the norm for everyone else.

I never said I hadn't experienced delays, just not one of that magnitude. I don't for a moment deny that they happen. If you'll recall, my exact words were, "shit happens".

You, on the other hand, said such a delay meant that air travel wasn't "worth it". Which I find absurd.

[SunSeeker]

90. Right now on Southwest.com: 1-way LAX to SFO depart 6/30/16 = $161

[Just reading posts]

91. Last-minute airfares always cost more. Purchase at least a few weeks in advance and the price drops

to $69 each way.

[SunSeeker]

94. That would not work for business travelers or anyone who wants flexibility..

An "Anytime" faire on Southwest, even weeks in advance, is $244 one way.

But Southwest is an unpleasant sardine-can of a flight, with all the attendant hassles of dealing with airports.

The high speed train would allow you to avoid all that, hop on and go that day anytime you want for $80. It would spur travel and business between LA and SF and help the CA economy. I know I would love to pop up to SF if it looks like a nice weekend weather up there.

[Just reading posts]

96. It's always worked for me, but I almost always fly for pleasure, not business.

But Southwest is an unpleasant sardine-can of a flight, with all the attendant hassles of dealing with airports.

Who isn't, these days?

The high speed train would allow you to avoid all that, hop on and go that day anytime you want for $80. It would spur travel and business between LA and SF and help the CA economy. I know I would love to pop up to SF if it looks like a nice weekend weather up there.

It doesn't appear that's going to be an option any time soon.

[LeftyMom]

114. The towns smell because the CAFOs and factories and such are the town's employers.

Hilmar stinks like spoiled milk for easily a five mile radius, and growing every day as they spread the waste water on fields farther and farther (and ruin more and more land and water with the salt.)

Southwest is routinely $69-99 for intrastate flights. You're looking at the most expensive possible last minute fare.

[seabeckind]

47. Everyone know highways are free

If it gets crowded, add a couple lanes for free and problem solved.

For another 2 years.

Everyone knows that driving between LA and SF are a most wonderful experience. One where you can embrace your free auto and become intimate with all the freedom. It's awesome.

And if you get frustrated with other people, it's good for the target heart rate.

Airplanes and airports are free also. Costs nothing to park there. Whisked away from your luxury spot in the lot by a roomy shuttle where you have mimosas as you enjoy your TSA pre-check that was free and saves so much time.

And then the airplanes themselves. Like being in your own recliner at home and dosing while enjoying the scenery in blissful comfort.

Yes, rail costs so much more.

Cause it's honest about the cost.

Now let's look at reality. We have extended the private car and air travel paradigm beyond its capacity. It's time to invest in alternatives. Heard that refrain? Alternative?

[Orrex]

48. Brockway, North Haverbrook and Ogdenville all have one

Sorry mom, the mob has spoken.

[Javaman]

69. ...

Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
Like a genuine, bona fide
Electrified, six-car monorail
What'd I say?

Monorail
What's it called?
Monorail
That's right! Monorail

Monorail
Monorail
Monorail

I hear those things are awfully loud
It glides as softly as a cloud
Is there a chance the track could bend?
Not on your life, my Hindu friend

What about us brain-dead slobs?
You'll be given cushy jobs
Were you sent here by the Devil?
No, good sir, I'm on the level

The ring came off my pudding can
Take my pen knife, my good man
I swear it's Springfield's only choice
Throw up your hands and raise your voice

Monorail
What's it called?
Monorail
Once again
Monorail

But Main Street's still all cracked and broken
Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken

Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!
Monorail!

Mono, d'oh!

[trumad]

55. This very thread is why I love DU

And keeps me coming back. I educate myself more than anything I read on the net through threads like this.

[SalviaBlue]

67. There are a lot of jobs being created in the Fresno area,

where the project begins. From planning, appraisal, legal, relocation, demolition, construction, etc.

There is a segment that will bitch about this project from start to finish.

We need to keep moving forward and move faster on HSR.

[hunter]

72. The only thing I hate more than driving is flying.

Every moment of my life strapped into a car or an airplane is a moment wasted. A little death.

We are in such a hurry to get nowhere, and to destroy our world, and ourselves in the process.

Fossil fueled transportation of all sorts ought to be extinct.

Fossil fuels ought to have been phased out in the 'seventies.

They were not, so now we are toast.

[Just reading posts]

75. What's your alternative? Just a for instance: I enjoy spending a week or two in Thailand each year.

It takes me a bit over 24 hours to get there. I don't particularly enjoy the experience, I can never sleep on airplanes. But....

How else should I get there? By train and passenger liner? Those both use fossil fuel, so that's out, it would appear.

I'm not aware of any sailing ships making runs from LA to Bangkok....

[hunter]

83. You and I live in entirely different worlds.

If my $800 car broke down this week I couldn't afford to fix it.

I'm not complaining.

Most of the world's people have far, far less than I do, and their footprints on the earth's natural environment are much smaller than my own.

I think a world with short work weeks, long vacations, electric trains, and large luxury sailing ships would be pretty nice.

[seabeckind]

85. I can't picture North by Northwest on an airplane.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

117. Not even a cropduster?

Full disclosure: I watched the DVD a few weeks ago.

The cropduster scene is unforgettable.

Just in case no one has seen it, I'll leave out the details.



Yeah, I know. You meant the Twentieth Century Limited.

[seabeckind]

120. The Empire Builder

Before the oil trains started screwing up the schedules, my wife and I did a compartment Chicago to Seattle.

I can attest that it was one of the most romantic trips we'd taken.

If you get the chance and this country gets its head together, give it a try.

[Just reading posts]

87. Let's look at my trip to Thailand in your world:

A day to get from Denver to San Francisco by train. Then sail from San Fran to Hawaii....that's going to take at least a week, surely.

There probably won't be any ships going directly from Hawaii to Thailand, so we'll have to go to Tokyo first. Call it two weeks, it's almost twice as far as the first leg. The leg from Tokyo to Bangkok will take just about as long.

Add another week for stops at ports of call. It will take at least six weeks to get there, and that's if the weather cooperates. If I take that long to get there, I'll surely spend at least a month there. Then six weeks to get back.

Total time needed: Four months. Cost? Hard to say exactly, but suffice it to say it will be far, far more than the $3000 I've budgeted for my upcoming trip in November. $20,000, perhaps? More?

I go to my boss in the real world: "Hey, boss....I'm going to Thailand in November. I'll be back in a couple of weeks."

His reply: "Have fun."

In your world: "Hey boss....I'm going to Thailand in November. I'll be back in March. If the weather's bad, though, I might be gone until May."

His reply: "Have fun. You're fired."

[hunter]

100. And you describe everything that is wrong with this world.

Economic "productivity" as we now define it is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to the earth's natural environment and our own human spirit.

Most of us are not lucky enough to have jobs that make the world a better place, or even enough to bother getting a passport for international travel. Most of us do not have the opportunity to wander, not even in our own imaginations. Our choices as individuals are severely limited by oppressive and ultimately unsustainable "free" market economies.

I'm a very fortunate child of this world. I was born in the U.S.A.. My parents are artists, neither especially successful in terms of selling their own art, but with skills they could apply to their day jobs. My dad's trade had a strong union. We could travel. My dad could even quit work for months, once more than a year, at and return right where he left off.

As a kid we lived in Europe for a year. We were living in Franco's Spain, but we had to leave in the middle of the night after my mom told a pompous and petty government official what she really thought of him. My dad couldn't sleep that evening, so just past midnight we stuffed our car with everything we could and left for France.

We were living as indigent Americans in a French public park because my dad's money was in Spain. This was before VISA cards and ATMs. The local French community was so disturbed by our presence they bought us gasoline for our car and ferry tickets to England. Barclay's Bank allowed my parents to open a checking account with a negative balance and Barclay's eventually recovered my dad's money from Spain.

It was a different world then. How did this story happen? My dad got some really, really, inexpensive tickets on a ship that was leaving New York for Europe to be refitted. We took the train from Los Angeles to New York, sleeping in our seats, eating mostly food we brought for the trip.

My own young adulthood was even more intense.

In this modern automated world our food, shelter, basic medicine, birth control, and electronic communications are cheap. Anything we choose to do beyond these things ought to be a matter of personal choice.

The neighbors I see picking strawberries in the fields near my home are subsidizing the very wealthy.

Fuck that shit.

[Just reading posts]

105. In this world I've mangaged to visit almost two dozen different countries in the last 30 years.

With luck, I'll visit at least a couple dozen more in the next 20. And this is not on a particularly high income, BTW. Granted, I do have the financial advantage of having never been married, and having no children.

In your world I might be able to afford to go on an international journey by sailing ship once.

Ever.

I like my world better than yours.

In this modern automated world our food, shelter, basic medicine, birth control, and electronic communications are cheap.

Good!

Anything we choose to do beyond these things ought to be a matter of personal choice.

Isn't it, subject to the limits of our finances?

BTW, thank you for the personal history, it was very interesting.

[seabeckind]

95. Moving the goalposts a tad there.

By throwing in an argument in the absurd.

Nobody has ever said that rail will replace long distance flights over water. Nobody.

Nobody has ever said that HSR will replace the need for some people to get from NYC to LA in less than 8 hours. Nobody.

To introduce these absurd conditions as an argument against a HSR between LA and SF is a deflection as well as being very dishonest.

The fact is that air travel relies on some very heavy subsidies. Airports, parking, access, etc. Indianapolis spent $2B to build a new state of the art terminal far, far from town. It added over 10 miles to my trip to the airport. And still no transit.

In a world of HSR, Indianapolis does not need an airport. Chicago could get by easily with one.

Just think how empty your cattle car of choice would be if all the people on that flight had a good alternative. In the time it takes me to get to the airport, go thru all the preflight stuff, then sit and wait to depart... an HSR from downtown would get me to Ohare.

In comfort.

[Just reading posts]

98. The post I was replying to argued for the elimination of fossil fuels, which would certainly impact

the multiple international flights I take each year. Hence my reply.

Nobody has ever said that rail will replace long distance flights over water. Nobody.

But the other poster did argue for replacing long distance flights over water with sailing ships.



In a world of HSR, Indianapolis does not need an airport. Chicago could get by easily with one.

But that's not going to happen, is it?

Perhaps my perspective is a bit skewed, in that living near Denver there simply isn't anyplace I want to go that's in realistic reach of a rail line, HSR or otherwise. Even if there was an HSR network throughout the United States, I would still fly to Seattle, NYC, or Orlando.

[seabeckind]

103. The sailing ships was your absurd argument.

The poster was saying he is opposed generally to fossil fuels. To some extent so am I but I have some pragmatism. I think we can get it down considerably from where it is but it will never disappear. There will always be outlying requirements.

The problem as I see it is that those outlying requirements like yours have become the standard.

Of course Denver needs an airport. That's another one of your absurd rebuttals. Indianapolis is a couple hours by car from the Chicago hub. If I didn't abhor the drive THROUGH Chicago, it'd be faster for me to drive there than do the flight.

The last time I returned from my flight to Seattle and sat in that POS terminal for 4 hours over the scheduled departure time I kicked myself for not driving.

As I keep saying and you seem to not hear... your case is far from the norm. Far, far from the norm. You may never want to take a train from Denver to Seattle but the people in Vancouver or Portland might.

Change will never happen until somebody actually takes the first step. And the people who can't or won't see the benefits get out of the way.

[Just reading posts]

107. He said no fossil fuels, not me.

The poster was saying he is opposed generally to fossil fuels. To some extent so am I but I have some pragmatism. I think we can get it down considerably from where it is but it will never disappear. There will always be outlying requirements.

The other poster made no such nuanced argument.

As I keep saying and you seem to not hear... your case is far from the norm. Far, far from the norm. You may never want to take a train from Denver to Seattle but the people in Vancouver or Portland might.

I'm not arguing against trains in high density areas, if the market can support them. But I would assert there are enough people in Indianapolis who want to be able to fly directly to or from there that it makes sense to have an airport there.

As I keep saying and you seem to not hear... your case is far from the norm. Far, far from the norm. You may never want to take a train from Denver to Seattle but the people in Vancouver or Portland might.

They can take the train from Portland to Seattle right now. 4 hour trip.

https://www.google.com/search?q=train+from+portland+to+seattle&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

It takes an estimated 2 3/4 hours if driving, mind you.



Change will never happen until somebody actually takes the first step. And the people who can't or won't see the benefits get out of the way.

I will be astonished if the US invests in HSR to a meaningful degree in the next few decades.

[deathrind]

76. We can spend trillions...

on nation building and a jet fighter without blinking an eye but infrastructure...."whoa differences"...

[geek tragedy]

78. That, and it inspired Season 2 of True Detective nt

[Xolodno]

86. Read the article a little more closely...

It does a lot of referencing to older issues that have been resolved. And there is a healthy dose of opinion by the author.

Nor does it go into detail about "operating subsidies".

If this is so bad, why not also do a comparison of the cost of adding two lanes on the 99 and I5 from LA to SF? Oh and how often highway expansion often has cost overruns? Or take longer than planned? Nor mention the operating subsidies our highway system already gets?

Hey if its that bad, show the cost alternatives to more concrete.

And why didn't they mention that, sure, the project is overdue (largely to lawsuits to stop it), but the project is actually AHEAD of schedule given when you account the ground breaking starting later than planned.

And one last thing, again, if its such a boondogle, why isn't XpressWest also being derided as such?

[yuiyoshida]

89. I am sure I will never get to ride one of these in my life time...

unless I visit Japan sometime in the future, and that's not very likely any longer. I don't have the ability to afford such a lavish vacation, and I was hoping that I would get to ride one, but by the time I am 90 years old, this state will probably still be making excuses not to build it.

[Just reading posts]

92. I rode a high speed train when I took the Channel Tunnel from Dover to Paris some years ago.

It was very impressive, and for such a short journey every bit as practical (or more) than air travel....and certainly more comfortable.

The train from Paris to Rome....not so much. But it wasn't a high speed train.

[MisterP]

93. how'd I know it'd be Vartabedian? he's said CAHSR is dead every other month

meanwhile several anti-rail lawsuits have not only failed simultaneously, but are no longer being heard to begin with
anti-rail forces have been reduced to calling proponents--well, I won't say it, but it rhymes with "mouse figure"
the reign of the Leninist cults and bluehair biddies and some REALLY bizarre sects is over and about to be buried
even the airlines don't want a :35 loss-leader puddlejumper from SoCal to the Bay Area where the "fog delay" is longer than the actual flight

[stopbush]

101. We have low-speed rail in SoCal in the form of Amtrack and Metrolink.

One can easily get from Union Station to San Diego via rail.

My daughter takes the train from Irvine to San Diego. Round trip is around $37. Not bad if you're alone, but if you're a family of four making the same trip, it's much cheaper to go by car.

[upaloopa]

104. Similar things have been said for every rail system built

in this country. From the transcontinental railroad to this one.

It takes visionaries to get them built. And Yes most all included corruption