there is a great chance that California will loose the project because right now there teapartying the Govenor Brown like they did with Rick Scott to kill the florida High speed rail. pariently there no room or place to lay any more tracks and the cost is now over $50 billions and climbinb so there is a great chance that Brown will Kill the project before we get through 13 months.
By watching all sorts of videos about high-speed train, I came to realized that not one of the English speaking countries have a high-speed railway sistems....
Uk, Ireland, Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.... could be that they are all somehow entangled?
@vikusa2008 Uhhh, the UK does have High Speed Rail. The Intercity 225 roll around at 140 MPH, when the signalling finishes upgrading in the next three years. The Intercity 125 is the definative High Speed Train, the fastest diesel powered train in the world. The Eurostars running since 1994, on High Speed Rail, at speeds of 186 MPH. Many of Britain's systems are borderline HSR, but the already paid for signalling shift to radio beacons instead of lights will allow the same trains to go faster.
So it looks like the government after reading an article plans to spend a lot of the 8 billion to build this California line or connect the citys of Charlotte, Raliegh, Virginia, and Washington by expanding the current day Acela high speed rail That already goes from Washington to NY. It could even go to both. NC and Virginia are way ahead in the design process by obtaining rights to an Abanoned CSX Raleigh to Petersburg direct route. Charlotte is also about to build a station designed for it.
The idea is that by creating this HSR that links together the California seaboard infrastructure will be improved and people will move back into the cities.
mediaxpuppet..i'm a republican and jindal's speech was an embarassment...ofcourse it's needed and ofcourse it will take cars off the road. The BART extension to SFO wasn't a success overnight, but very much needed and it paid off didn't it? Quite frankly I was surprised that it suffered losses. I was like who wouldn't use BART??? Well I always said that stereotypes are only a poor man's virtues. hehe. Like, taking public transportation sucks because it's un-cool or something.
i think that retard bobby Jindal should have watched this before opening his mouth. this isn't a tourist trap "from disneyland to vegas". this is absolutely necessary. even if it runs at a loss for a few years, the investment will pay off not only in revenue, but quality of life and improvement in air quality. Jindal should spend some time crawling on I-5 between SF and LA on a sunday night and ask if this is needed.
Never mind the cost of upgrading the socialist Eisenhower interstates and airports ;). HSR is great, fast, convenient, efficient and safe. Big start up costs sure, but they will pay off considering the external effects.
I voted for this thing, but now im not so sure about my decision.. It appears to go right past my house.. Does anyone know if the train is expected to use the existing rail lines along monterey highway in South San Jose. I imagine that thing is going to be loud as hell and will cut my property value in half.
The new train will be far quieter than the existing trains along your house because it is electric and there will be no grade crossings so no reason for it to ever blow its whistle. You may see more trains per day on the rail line, but they will be much less noticeable than what you have now.
@neilutubename Since you reside near San Jose, your property value should go up. Being near a high speed railway station is a big plus for property value. No worries there. The trains are electric and run on grade-seperated tracks near existing ones, but not the same lines. There will most likely be a wall to block what little noise there is as well.
the channel tunnel high speed line is a huge success in england built with private money and govenment help when i go to california i have to get to chico from S.F and its a all day journey
people need to understand, as they were saying, that population in california will continue to grow, california is a hot spot. it's about time we invested on better public transportation systems. this will unite north and southern california. although along with this project, i hope they would also improve the existing infrastructure and public transportation within the LA area. improve the metro blue line etc.
i don't think it's a waste of money, i would even support an expansion of this project if it will reduce traffic, pollution, etc. i go to CSULB in southern cali, once in a while i need to head home to stockton up north and as far as i'm concerned this saves me plenty of money, i don't even have to drive to pollute california, it's under 2+ hours compared to the 7+ hours that i might have to drive getting home. aside from that this is safe, less accidents on the road, an alternative from driving.
High speed rail would work well, even though it seamse to be the waist of money, but remember the time when they put Interstate Highways in the U.S. it was a waste of money at that time so if california could afford the highways and interstate, then California could afford the high speed rails, anything would be possible. think of the project of the Panama Canel, Hover Dam, and other structure and project, if it work then this would work.
It MUST have a dedicated line and not share a rail with freight.
It must NOT have any RR crossings.
It has to be cheaper than flying, but offer similar time-to-destination.
I have a problem with paying twice for something like this. You pay in taxes to build it and maintain it whether or not you use it, and you pay again if you want to use it. I think if it was economically viable, private enterprise would have jumped on it long ago.
The CA High Speed Rail Authority is building the line on exactly the principals you stated - dedicated line, no grade crossings, and cheaper than flying yet faster door-to-door times.
@taofledermaus Actually, it will be a private company operating the system. After Amtrak was established, several laws were passed making competition against the federal company very difficult, scaring away any private/public-private enterprises like the ones in Europe. Thankfully, more companies, like DesertXpress (2014), are making strides to form fuly private operations once again in the U.S. HSR is a big money maker as proven all over, no taxes will be used for operations or maintanence.
This is a really overdue idea, buy my only question about the current plan is, why does the route swing out so far to include palmdale airport? it doesnt seem like it would be the most efficient.
There has been a lot of debate over that, and some opponents see it as the High Speed Rail Authority buckling to local government lobbying (the impact to Palmdale would be huge). The official and logical reason is that it allows for 3 airports in the LA region to be tied together via high speed rail, alleviating pressure on LAX and allowing a redistribution of passengers for domestic flights away from LAX.
1. Will local trips (say from Anaheim to Downtown L.A.) have fares comparable to those of Metrolink?
2. Will they offer monthly passes?
3. Does anyone know what the hours of operation will be, or the frequency of trains? I'm guessing 30 minute service won't be available for manyy years.
1. I think it is safe to assume the trips will be a bit more expensive than Metrolink because even the local trains will be an express be comparison, and offer a much higher level of service. How much higher, I have no idea.
2. Ticketing schemes have yet to be figured out, but I bet some sort of multitrip discount or monthly pass will be put in for serving commuters as opposed to long distance travelers.
3. Service will be according to demand. The commuter routes will have frequent service.
France did it. Japan did it. Germany did it. Taiwan did it.
America NEVER did it. We had the chance back in the 1980's (anyone remember that episode about fast trains on the program, "NOVA". A Public Television program back in the 1980's?)
Why? An Inept Congress, Dirty Politics and Bonus Hungry CEO's.
The problem is that California doesn't have enough money to build this. They will need A LOT OF INVESTORS. This project will probably cost between 20 - 100 billion dollars.
When you say $20-100 billion, you mean $45 billion. That is the current projected price of the project. The highway and airport alternatives necessary to equal the capacity of this system will cost $90 billion to build.
And user5412, Southwest has made a statement saying that while they do not support the project, they have no desire to fight it.
Most large scale construction projects are underestimated. Most construction projects go well over the projected price. Even though the project would be successful, investors would be at a loss for at least 15 years before they start breaking even. I believe this risk is the major reason why companies don't want to do this project. But... they all know that California needs it.
If ExxonMobil insists that they are using their billions in profit to seek alternative means, let's make them pay for it and funding problems will be solved!
All oil companies are investing in alternative energy with their own funds. Investing in alternative energy is REALLY expensive and doesn't yield any profit. That is why they invest in a bunch of researchers and small scale projects. A lot of oil companies are trying really hard to be successful in alternative energy. All of them know oil will be nearly depleted after 30 years. There company will have no future.
It took like 100 years for oil to be as sufficient as it is today. Expecting a new efficient energy source within decade is impossible. If somebody does do it, they will probably get the Nobel Peace Prize.
You'd be surprised but airlines are actually moving in favor of HSR - American and Continental recently signed a measure in Texas that they support HSR linking Dallas and Houston. The rationale is that high gas prices are not worth flying short distances as they don't churn any profit. Instead, they'd rather have a codeshare agreement with a proposed HSR.
@user5412 I'd like to mention that often, airlines are the companies that put a great deal of investment and talent into HSR operating companies; Eurostar's management has a 10% stake held by British Airways; and 40% held by National Express, a major transport conglomerate. Big time airlines often cought up the cash, and take a share in the dividends, for high speed rail, as they know they still have the monopoly on far more profitable longer distance travel. They'll get by fine enough.
Because the Pacheco pass was chosen instead of the Altamont pass Sacramento to San Francisco will not be viable city pairs to travel between on CA HSR. That does not mean that SF to SAC cannot be connected in some other way in the future.
What about a high speed train going from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and back? I have been hearing about that train to. What happen to that plan?
DarthWray1138 3 months ago
California looks pretty awesome
nashville1510 5 months ago
What is the song in the background
HurriCanes0698 5 months ago
there is a great chance that California will loose the project because right now there teapartying the Govenor Brown like they did with Rick Scott to kill the florida High speed rail. pariently there no room or place to lay any more tracks and the cost is now over $50 billions and climbinb so there is a great chance that Brown will Kill the project before we get through 13 months.
sideslide23 6 months ago
So what happened to this plan?
lokeradekadente81 1 year ago
It'll be as good as Amtrak!!!!
Oh, wait...
temporalpitmage 1 year ago
Ohhh, I hope this becomes reality.
thanksfrank93 1 year ago
I cannot wait for this to be built im gunna live in cali after stanford so when i get out i can high speed to L.A! lol. WOOOOO!!!! HOOOO!!!
refresh967 1 year ago
Comment removed
sideslide23 6 months ago
Finally is getting built!
VoilaMr619 1 year ago
By watching all sorts of videos about high-speed train, I came to realized that not one of the English speaking countries have a high-speed railway sistems....
Uk, Ireland, Canada, America, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.... could be that they are all somehow entangled?
vikusa2008 1 year ago
@vikusa2008 England has High Speed Trains to France and elsewhere.
simpletimes222 1 year ago
@vikusa2008 Uhhh, the UK does have High Speed Rail. The Intercity 225 roll around at 140 MPH, when the signalling finishes upgrading in the next three years. The Intercity 125 is the definative High Speed Train, the fastest diesel powered train in the world. The Eurostars running since 1994, on High Speed Rail, at speeds of 186 MPH. Many of Britain's systems are borderline HSR, but the already paid for signalling shift to radio beacons instead of lights will allow the same trains to go faster.
s2k997 1 year ago
So it looks like the government after reading an article plans to spend a lot of the 8 billion to build this California line or connect the citys of Charlotte, Raliegh, Virginia, and Washington by expanding the current day Acela high speed rail That already goes from Washington to NY. It could even go to both. NC and Virginia are way ahead in the design process by obtaining rights to an Abanoned CSX Raleigh to Petersburg direct route. Charlotte is also about to build a station designed for it.
southparkline1 2 years ago
About time the americans started to do someting for the environment to..
Sockerpyssl4 2 years ago
Agreed. It's great that California is doing the HSR-concept first. We used to be the innovation capital.. but we've started to lag behind.
scaremenga 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Too privatized. The seats should just be comfortable benches. Get over yourselves America.
zetterling1 2 years ago
@zetterling1 are you homer simpson?
MrEiriku 4 months ago
are they also gonna build new buildings around the station.
because this video shows it
9pluto 2 years ago 2
The idea is that by creating this HSR that links together the California seaboard infrastructure will be improved and people will move back into the cities.
scaremenga 2 years ago
mediaxpuppet..i'm a republican and jindal's speech was an embarassment...ofcourse it's needed and ofcourse it will take cars off the road. The BART extension to SFO wasn't a success overnight, but very much needed and it paid off didn't it? Quite frankly I was surprised that it suffered losses. I was like who wouldn't use BART??? Well I always said that stereotypes are only a poor man's virtues. hehe. Like, taking public transportation sucks because it's un-cool or something.
trayceyv 3 years ago
i think that retard bobby Jindal should have watched this before opening his mouth. this isn't a tourist trap "from disneyland to vegas". this is absolutely necessary. even if it runs at a loss for a few years, the investment will pay off not only in revenue, but quality of life and improvement in air quality. Jindal should spend some time crawling on I-5 between SF and LA on a sunday night and ask if this is needed.
mediaxpuppet 3 years ago
Never mind the cost of upgrading the socialist Eisenhower interstates and airports ;). HSR is great, fast, convenient, efficient and safe. Big start up costs sure, but they will pay off considering the external effects.
jpbalkenende 2 years ago 8
I voted for this thing, but now im not so sure about my decision.. It appears to go right past my house.. Does anyone know if the train is expected to use the existing rail lines along monterey highway in South San Jose. I imagine that thing is going to be loud as hell and will cut my property value in half.
neilutubename 3 years ago
The new train will be far quieter than the existing trains along your house because it is electric and there will be no grade crossings so no reason for it to ever blow its whistle. You may see more trains per day on the rail line, but they will be much less noticeable than what you have now.
oddperson12 3 years ago 2
I agree because when I lived in Fresno the Train horns sometime keeps me awake allot.
sideslide23 2 years ago
Comment removed
gibb1991 1 year ago
@neilutubename There will be a stop in San Jose,but it isn't official.
jeremykhn 1 year ago
@neilutubename Since you reside near San Jose, your property value should go up. Being near a high speed railway station is a big plus for property value. No worries there. The trains are electric and run on grade-seperated tracks near existing ones, but not the same lines. There will most likely be a wall to block what little noise there is as well.
gibb1991 1 year ago
does anyone have any new info about when it will start being built? hopw long until its functional? etc?
bukowskimouski 3 years ago
yes 2011, thats when the project will begin
sideslide23 3 years ago
the channel tunnel high speed line is a huge success in england built with private money and govenment help when i go to california i have to get to chico from S.F and its a all day journey
alancarter9 3 years ago
people need to understand, as they were saying, that population in california will continue to grow, california is a hot spot. it's about time we invested on better public transportation systems. this will unite north and southern california. although along with this project, i hope they would also improve the existing infrastructure and public transportation within the LA area. improve the metro blue line etc.
Sonnyville919 3 years ago 8
i don't think it's a waste of money, i would even support an expansion of this project if it will reduce traffic, pollution, etc. i go to CSULB in southern cali, once in a while i need to head home to stockton up north and as far as i'm concerned this saves me plenty of money, i don't even have to drive to pollute california, it's under 2+ hours compared to the 7+ hours that i might have to drive getting home. aside from that this is safe, less accidents on the road, an alternative from driving.
Sonnyville919 3 years ago 3
Same here man ;)
Driving between sac and sf already risking the threath of accident on-the-go.... think about sac to LA....!? I'm glad the prop 1a has passed
marsahmars 3 years ago 2
High speed rail would work well, even though it seamse to be the waist of money, but remember the time when they put Interstate Highways in the U.S. it was a waste of money at that time so if california could afford the highways and interstate, then California could afford the high speed rails, anything would be possible. think of the project of the Panama Canel, Hover Dam, and other structure and project, if it work then this would work.
sideslide23 3 years ago
It MUST have a dedicated line and not share a rail with freight.
It must NOT have any RR crossings.
It has to be cheaper than flying, but offer similar time-to-destination.
I have a problem with paying twice for something like this. You pay in taxes to build it and maintain it whether or not you use it, and you pay again if you want to use it. I think if it was economically viable, private enterprise would have jumped on it long ago.
taofledermaus 3 years ago
The CA High Speed Rail Authority is building the line on exactly the principals you stated - dedicated line, no grade crossings, and cheaper than flying yet faster door-to-door times.
oddperson12 3 years ago 2
@taofledermaus Actually, it will be a private company operating the system. After Amtrak was established, several laws were passed making competition against the federal company very difficult, scaring away any private/public-private enterprises like the ones in Europe. Thankfully, more companies, like DesertXpress (2014), are making strides to form fuly private operations once again in the U.S. HSR is a big money maker as proven all over, no taxes will be used for operations or maintanence.
gibb1991 1 year ago
This is a really overdue idea, buy my only question about the current plan is, why does the route swing out so far to include palmdale airport? it doesnt seem like it would be the most efficient.
unknownsoldier30 3 years ago
There has been a lot of debate over that, and some opponents see it as the High Speed Rail Authority buckling to local government lobbying (the impact to Palmdale would be huge). The official and logical reason is that it allows for 3 airports in the LA region to be tied together via high speed rail, alleviating pressure on LAX and allowing a redistribution of passengers for domestic flights away from LAX.
oddperson12 3 years ago
my guess is that they needed to go out to save money on land and that airport was close enough so they said "hey why not?"
kahunakronik 3 years ago
palmdale already has existing rail lines, and the route goes over the tehachipi pass. it uses mostly existing rail right of ways.
mediaxpuppet 3 years ago
Just a few questions..
1. Will local trips (say from Anaheim to Downtown L.A.) have fares comparable to those of Metrolink?
2. Will they offer monthly passes?
3. Does anyone know what the hours of operation will be, or the frequency of trains? I'm guessing 30 minute service won't be available for manyy years.
wrcousert 3 years ago
1. I think it is safe to assume the trips will be a bit more expensive than Metrolink because even the local trains will be an express be comparison, and offer a much higher level of service. How much higher, I have no idea.
2. Ticketing schemes have yet to be figured out, but I bet some sort of multitrip discount or monthly pass will be put in for serving commuters as opposed to long distance travelers.
3. Service will be according to demand. The commuter routes will have frequent service.
oddperson12 3 years ago
does anyone know the song or music artist of this video? Thanks a bunch
ljhas 3 years ago 2
France did it. Japan did it. Germany did it. Taiwan did it.
America NEVER did it. We had the chance back in the 1980's (anyone remember that episode about fast trains on the program, "NOVA". A Public Television program back in the 1980's?)
Why? An Inept Congress, Dirty Politics and Bonus Hungry CEO's.
Modeltrainguy 3 years ago
The problem is that California doesn't have enough money to build this. They will need A LOT OF INVESTORS. This project will probably cost between 20 - 100 billion dollars.
yellowman88 3 years ago
When you say $20-100 billion, you mean $45 billion. That is the current projected price of the project. The highway and airport alternatives necessary to equal the capacity of this system will cost $90 billion to build.
And user5412, Southwest has made a statement saying that while they do not support the project, they have no desire to fight it.
oddperson12 3 years ago
Thanks for the info.
Most large scale construction projects are underestimated. Most construction projects go well over the projected price. Even though the project would be successful, investors would be at a loss for at least 15 years before they start breaking even. I believe this risk is the major reason why companies don't want to do this project. But... they all know that California needs it.
I would love to travel by train from SF to LA.
yellowman88 3 years ago
If ExxonMobil insists that they are using their billions in profit to seek alternative means, let's make them pay for it and funding problems will be solved!
But no...they'll never will. Hmmm, I wonder why?
yumifukuzawa1 3 years ago
All oil companies are investing in alternative energy with their own funds. Investing in alternative energy is REALLY expensive and doesn't yield any profit. That is why they invest in a bunch of researchers and small scale projects. A lot of oil companies are trying really hard to be successful in alternative energy. All of them know oil will be nearly depleted after 30 years. There company will have no future.
yellowman88 3 years ago
30 years? only if we stop drilling.
sockmess 3 years ago
It took like 100 years for oil to be as sufficient as it is today. Expecting a new efficient energy source within decade is impossible. If somebody does do it, they will probably get the Nobel Peace Prize.
yellowman88 3 years ago
The airline lobbyists will never allow this to happen.
The feds might like it because they can finally kill Amtrak, a slow money loosing project.
user5412 3 years ago
You'd be surprised but airlines are actually moving in favor of HSR - American and Continental recently signed a measure in Texas that they support HSR linking Dallas and Houston. The rationale is that high gas prices are not worth flying short distances as they don't churn any profit. Instead, they'd rather have a codeshare agreement with a proposed HSR.
yumifukuzawa1 3 years ago
@user5412 I'd like to mention that often, airlines are the companies that put a great deal of investment and talent into HSR operating companies; Eurostar's management has a 10% stake held by British Airways; and 40% held by National Express, a major transport conglomerate. Big time airlines often cought up the cash, and take a share in the dividends, for high speed rail, as they know they still have the monopoly on far more profitable longer distance travel. They'll get by fine enough.
s2k997 2 years ago
WE WANT IT NOW!
lacklustreproduction 3 years ago
Wooooooooow!
primociak 3 years ago
OMG THAT IS SO COOL! =D
xaznkraziedudex 3 years ago
What about from Sac to S.F.???
DERrockigeSUPPY 3 years ago
Because the Pacheco pass was chosen instead of the Altamont pass Sacramento to San Francisco will not be viable city pairs to travel between on CA HSR. That does not mean that SF to SAC cannot be connected in some other way in the future.
Spokker 3 years ago
OMG I CAN'T WAIT!!!! ^____^
lizthecheesewhiz 3 years ago
Build it! Built it! Build it!
foo79 3 years ago
Please....make this so.
MsGeek703 3 years ago