Teddy, you still idolize Marcia Clark as the best gov lawyer CA has ever seen…….yikes

Look at this article’s particular idea. It’s 300 miles along the great circle route from LA to SF. A typical airliner will get there in under an hour. A train will almost certainly have to take a longer route (as a previous poster mentioned, railroads need nearly flat terrain; high speed ones need them even more so, along with very high radius curves). Assuming 180 MPH, and assuming a 360 mile route (the route by highway is 380, I’d bet a rail route would actually be longer), the trip will take 2 hours, assuming no stops. Of course, every town of any size along the route will want a station. Each stop will add 30 or so minutes to the trip. So the train will be unable to compete in terms of travel time even for a nonstop trip, probably even if the time spent in both terminals are added (currently, getting on a train in most places is quick and easy compared with getting on a plane – no TSA involved in boarding a train – yet).

According to the US Department of Energy, the BTU / pax mile for a train is 2,435 while for a plane it is 2,826. So a plane’s fuel costs would be 16% higher if the rule costs were the same, but jet fuel is currently $3/gal, and diesel is $3.60/gal (although trains may pay less due to different taxes). so it looks like fuel cost per pax would be about the same.

But the real killer for the train, and why it will never be economical compared with airliners as long as jet fuel’s cost isn’t hugely higher per power produced than diesel is airliners do not have to buy, build, and maintain the roadbed (air) between their terminals; trains do.

So, trains will take twice as long as an airliner, will have about the same cost in fuel, but will have more infrastructure costs because you’ll need 720 miles of roadbed (dual track main) whereas the airline needs about 8 miles of runways and taxiways. Want to extend travel to an additional city so there are three cities involved? One airport will do it, and allow direct travel from any of the three cities to the other two. But the railroad now needs two more sets of dual track roadbeds to do the same thing.

And the final proof that the high speed train cannot compete with airlines: It’s already been done. High speed rail cars and locomotives already exist, anyone can buy them. How to construct their roadbeds is known, so nothing needs to be invented there. All someone has to do is buy the land (or have the government steal it for them), and build it and start operating it. So why don’t all those smart rich people (it’s hard to get rich if you’re dumb) in CA form a company to do it? Could it be because they don’t think it’s viable either? Why do I have to subsidize it via my federal taxes? Could it be because even government idiots know it can’t compete?

So if even the government types who want it know it can’t compete with airlines, and to have any chance at continuing to operate it will need to be subsidized forever because it will never be able to support itself on ridership (like Amtrak can’t), why do they support it? Could there be some other agenda they’re supporting in secret? Like which of their relatives will get the contract to build it, or operate it? With guaranteed income provided by the taxpayers? Nah, that couldn’t have anything to do with it. I’m just a cynic.

A routing along I-5 fails to serve 95% of the population in the Southern Central Valley.

As I recall, that’s not how it was pitched to the CA public when it was being proposed. It was supposed to be a high-speed link between the Los Angeles basin and the Bay Area.

Sure, the first idea was to route along the I-5 corridor…

…then reality reared its ugly head in two points:

1) I-5 crosses the coastal range via Tejon Pass and the Castaic grade, both of which exceed 5% grades (some places as high as 7.5%), which are not feasible for railroad construction (steep rail grades are in the 2-3% range). Ideas of tunnels were shot down because it would require roughly *thirty two miles* of tunnels (plus a number of long elevated viaducts) crossing one of the most major earthquake faults in the state. The current routing along CA-99 & then out through the Antelope Valley is the traditional rail route because it is the most practical to build…as the Southern Pacific discovered in the 1860s & 70s when they connected the Transcontinental railroad at Sacramento to Los Angeles.

2) I-5 follows the West side of California’s Central Valley, while all the significant cities and towns are on the East side. (primarily Bakersfield & Fresno, but there are others) A routing along I-5 fails to serve 95% of the population in the Southern Central Valley.

I seem to recall the original plan was to put the line in the median of Interstate 5, and a French company associated with their TGV bailed when that route was altered.

CA has an amazing ability to defy gravity, but it will be hugely amusing when it crashes back to earth. What will be particularly entertaining will be the rapidity with which High Tech and Hollywood liberals bail out when their wealth is finally squeezed, too. It will be glorious.

The people of California voted in the types of politicos who want to do this, they do this and you get upset?

Oh, right… some of these people are rich liberals who don’t want THEIR stuff stolen by Big Gubmint