Bullet train? Yes or no? (Los Angeles, San Jose: school, college, affordable housing)

[neutrino78x]

I still say they should have run it up I-5. Two layers of monorail (one built on top of the other), one northbound one southbound. Make it average 200. Not 200 top speed. AVERAGE 200.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

I still say they should have run it up I-5. Two layers of monorail (one built on top of the other), one northbound one southbound. Make it average 200. Not 200 top speed. AVERAGE 200.

They should have built the first legs from a nearby suburb into the major cities and then expanded it and finally connected all the legs. After who would use it more, people wanting a trip from LA to SF or people living quite a bit away and wanting to take it to work?

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by expatCA

They should have built the first legs from a nearby suburb into the major cities and then expanded it and finally connected all the legs. After who would use it more, people wanting a trip from LA to SF or people living quite a bit away and wanting to take it to work?

I would guess they started in the Valley first because that is actually the "easiest" (relatively flat) and cheapest construction-wise, even with all of the cost overruns. The two ends going into LA and San Fran are going to involve tunnels, some pretty long and a lot more expensive ROW. I can only imagine what the inflated price tag is going to be for those sections.

[Reziac]

Originally Posted by cjseliga

The two ends going into LA and San Fran are going to involve tunnels, some pretty long and a lot more expensive ROW. I can only imagine what the inflated price tag is going to be for those sections.

I recall reading that the Los Angeles subway tunnels cost as much as $5 million per FOOT. And that was a couple decades back and didn't involve much drilling through rock.

[BB_210]

Originally Posted by ketch89

The facts haven't changed, just the political winds. HSR is still cheaper than the hundreds of highway and airport expansions we would need to accommodate a California with 50 million people.

I need to get from LA to SF in four hours, but I don't want to drive, I'm afraid of flying and I want it to cost less than $100.

Said no one, ever.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by cjseliga

I would guess they started in the Valley first because that is actually the "easiest" (relatively flat) and cheapest construction-wise, even with all of the cost overruns. The two ends going into LA and San Fran are going to involve tunnels, some pretty long and a lot more expensive ROW. I can only imagine what the inflated price tag is going to be for those sections.

Then start those when the prices are lower than they will be in several years.


It would help more people of built initially where they want to use it, rather than the middle of nowhere.

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Then start those when the prices are lower than they will be in several years.


It would help more people of built initially where they want to use it, rather than the middle of nowhere.

Prices will NEVER be lower! That's the thing about construction, they always underestimate the true cost and with delays/inflation, costs always go up.

If they wanted lower costs, they should have built this entire thing 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by cjseliga

Prices will NEVER be lower! That's the thing about construction, they always underestimate the true cost and with delays/inflation, costs always go up.

If they wanted lower costs, they should have built this entire thing 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Here is a nice article on the situation etc and one of the root peoblems in CA (and everywhere).


"The key thing in all three cases was that the route adjustments increased the number of elected officials who could get “a win” from the project, at the expense of serving the project’s core function."



https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-rail-canceled

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by expatCA

Here is a nice article on the situation etc and one of the root peoblems in CA (and everywhere).


"The key thing in all three cases was that the route adjustments increased the number of elected officials who could get “a win” from the project, at the expense of serving the project’s core function."



https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-rail-canceled

Yeah, one of the reasons why I voted no.

Although San Jose is the bigger city, so if anything San Jose SHOULD get a direct stop. There's no reason to run HSR to SF because they already have Caltrain to connect SF to San Jose.

Sooner or later SF is going to have to accept that San Jose has overtaken it as the largest city in the region, and going forward, will be remembered as being more important, because San Jose is the capital of Silicon Valley, which is far more influential for the future of the world than anything happening in Frisco.

San Jose would be a spur connection anyway if they followed my model, which was to go up the median of I-5. There would have to be a spur/people mover from downtown San Jose out to I-5 to meet HSR.

[bajeez56]

The money spent on this train could be better used elsewhere - maybe improving the public transportation in the metro areas? If there has to be a train, it would make more sense between big commuter areas rather than SF-LA.