Why aren't there bullet trains in California?

Question

Trafic is terrible in LA and SF Bay area, and gas is expensive, and there are many long-distance commuters, especially in SF Bay area, why aren't there bullet trains or some train system to transport people to work?

Answer 1

There are three main reasons:

One is our dependency on car culture, which means that not enough people (or voters) are demanding reliable public transportation.

Two, there's a general mistrust of government out there thanks to Republicans who have run successful campaigns portraying "big government" as a freedom-limiting, incompetent, corrupt manager of taxpayer money. As a result, taxes continue to go down, but government doesn't have the money it needs to provide such basic public services.

Three, instead of a focus on track maintenance to prevent accidents in the first place, U.S. safety regulations require trains to be so fortified to protect the passengers inside that making them run any faster than the 115-mph Acela service in the Northeast is impractical.

Cut through and solve two of these three problems, and you'll have high-speed service (if we solve problem one, problem two takes care of itself).

Answer 2

This is why there are no bullet train in California Yet.

ANGELES – Someday a 700-mile bullet train may shoot north-south through California, and already the idea means that fresh debate is shooting through this state on quality-of-life issues ranging from smog to congestion, from sprawl to the Golden State virtue of mobility.
Of course, the estimated price tag of $37 billion for a high-speed rail from San Diego, to L.A., to San Francisco - with possible connections through the Central Valley to Sacramento - is raising eyebrows during the current budget crunch.

Related stories:

07/03/01

Bring back the trains, fast


In the Monitor
Monday, 07/17/06






But that isn't stopping anyone here from at least pondering the bliss of a rapid ride through oak-adorned hills while enveloped in a cushy seat.

In fact, the first $10 billion of the cost, for a first leg of the project, is currently planned for a November vote.

Costly, but perhaps not costliest

Some say that vote could be derailed. But a new draft report by the state commission that has been studying the project for years, says the cost may be half of other alternatives for transporting a projected 68 million riders by 2020.

To move the same people by car and/or plane would require $82 billion of upgrades, including 2,970 additional miles of freeway lanes, 60 new airport gates and five new runways, the report says..

"Up to 98 million more intercity [region to region] trips and 11 million more [residents] will mean a greater demand on the state's infrastructure," says the study by the California High Speed Rail Authority. That growth will result in "more traffic congestion, reduced safety, more air pollution, longer travel times, less reliability, and less predictability in intercity travel."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) has proposed putting off the vote, looking over his shoulder at his own proposed $15 billion bond measure to solve the state's financial crunch. But other transportation experts and agencies are welcoming formal dialogue because it could inform substantive debate about other projects planned up and down the state.

Answer 3

High speed new lines DON´T HAVE level crossings (that for other user that said some ridiculous thing about that).

Oh, about earthquakes... there are high speed trains AND earthquakes in Japan! And yes, the Metrolink service around Los Angeles was greatly pushed by the 1994 earthquake.

And metro/tramway/bus have little in common with long distance passenger trains.

Now, asking your questions:

There are several regional railway services (BART metro and SF, San José and Sacramento streetcars/trolleys out) around SF Bay (not high speed trains), ACE (Stockton-San Jose commuter trains), Caltrains (San Francisco-Gilroy commuter trains), Amtrak California (San José-Oakland-Sacramento-Auburn, Sacramento-Bakersfield, Oakland-Bakersfield - other lines around Los Angeles) and fedeer buses to trains. Los Angeles area has Metro and streetcars and several commuter train services operated by Metrolink.

The problem with trains in USA (not only in California) is that the goverment doesn´t want to invest in them, but they invest in roads and airports. Without correct funding, trains (like roads and airports) cannot work. It is NOT TRUE that there is no market for trains in USA, the problem is the lack of investment since a long time ago.

Look here to read about benefits for the community of high speed trains:

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog2006q3.htm#RY-FRANCE_20060701

And look here for more information about California regional rail services:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/rail/history.htm

Answer 4

Bullet trains require very precise tracks and an earthquake prone area would not be an ideal candidate.

Answer 5

In California, we can't even get trains to run without idiot motorists trying to beat them and causing major wrecks. It would be a disaster to have high speed trains combined with bonerhead motorists. Then you have pot-smoking engineers trying to drive trains and running into each other. We can't even build a subway in Los Angeles without screwing it up.

Answer 6

in both la and sf there is a subway/bus system. the metro! one problem is that there is not a significant demand from people. they prefer they're own private transportation.

Answer 7

because ppl from the great state of cali haven't figured out that its far more efficient to go mass transit to buy eggs and milk at the corner store than drive a car.

Answer 8

Are you willing to pay for it?