U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: San Francisco or Seattle?
San Francisco 45 54.88%
Seattle 37 45.12%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2010, 08:31 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,161 posts, read 21,760,655 times
Reputation: 10232

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DJKirkland View Post
Ack...you prefer OAKLAND to Seattle?? Care to clarify- ugh.
I like my cities close to the action (which would be SF though Berkeley and parts of Oakland itself is pretty neat), but inexpensive (which means slightly rundown and attracts more interesting and hungry people) and with a bit of grime and decent public transportation. It's why I moved to Brooklyn after having lived in Manhattan. Also, the weather in Oakland is better than either place (SF or Seattle) and there's a good deal of flatlands which makes it better for biking (is awesome (true fact))
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2010, 08:32 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,161 posts, read 21,760,655 times
Reputation: 10232
Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
It is true that Seattle is closer to more 1 million-plus metro areas than SF. Vancouver BC and Portland equal two. Sacramento equals one. And both VAN and PDX are bigger than SAC. So with those parameters, SF is more isolated than SEA.
More importantly, both VAN and PDX are a helluvalot more fun than SAC--plus, if you hopped on a train to get to these places, you don't really need to rent a car to get your kicks since mass transit in either city is pretty good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 09:15 PM
 
594 posts, read 1,493,739 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
Actually, yes we do have trains capable of 125 mph, and yes there are plans for HSR in the state of Washington. Now, who is talking nonsense...?
Local News | Washington to get $590 million for high-speed rail improvements | Seattle Times Newspaper


"Years ago, Washington and Oregon purchased Talgo trains capable of 125 mph, because of advanced suspension systems that lean into curves. But they are constrained to 79 mph because of congestion, street crossings and flaws in the trackways."

"Along with better reliability, travel time from Seattle to Portland is supposed to improve 5 percent [about 10 minutes] as a result of the new projects, the White House said"

If you read the article you'll see the 590 million will not actually be creating a high speed rail corridor. It will slightly increase speed and improve the reliability and frequency of service.

The long term goal (far beyond the scope of that money) for the corridor is 150 mph, but that truly is just a pipe dream at this point, and is techincally not true high speed rail.

California's rail project is to be 220 mph, and all the preliminary studies have been completed. The passage of Prop 1A in 2008 allowed for 9 billion in bonds to be used for the project. Yes, there are still funds that need to be obtained, but the project will in all likelihood be underway within a few years and completed by the end of the decade. Construction is slated to begin in 2012.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/


You guys should really do some research before you start posting.

Last edited by AcroJimmy2; 05-06-2010 at 09:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 09:21 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,783,923 times
Reputation: 5617
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
More importantly, both VAN and PDX are a helluvalot more fun than SAC--plus, if you hopped on a train to get to these places, you don't really need to rent a car to get your kicks since mass transit in either city is pretty good.
sac is one of those "why bothers" to me... so its pretty isolated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 09:32 PM
 
594 posts, read 1,493,739 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
It is true that Seattle is closer to more 1 million-plus metro areas than SF. Vancouver BC and Portland equal two. Sacramento equals one. And both VAN and PDX are bigger than SAC. So with those parameters, SF is more isolated than SEA.
Yes, but those are silly parameters.

The Bay Area itself offers so much more than the Seattle Metro in terms of urbanity.

In addition youve got the Northern Cali Region to the North, the Central Coast to the South, LA and San Diego not too far away, all the other destinations I previously mentioned, and far more international flights out of SFO than SeaTac, plus a much higher foreign-born population.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,455 posts, read 6,171,112 times
Reputation: 3569
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2 View Post
Local News | Washington to get $590 million for high-speed rail improvements | Seattle Times Newspaper


"Years ago, Washington and Oregon purchased Talgo trains capable of 125 mph, because of advanced suspension systems that lean into curves. But they are constrained to 79 mph because of congestion, street crossings and flaws in the trackways."

"Along with better reliability, travel time from Seattle to Portland is supposed to improve 5 percent [about 10 minutes] as a result of the new projects, the White House said"

If you read the article you'll see the 590 million will not actually be creating a high speed rail corridor. It will slightly increase speed and improve the reliability and frequency of service.

The long term goal (far beyond the scope of that money) for the corridor is 150 mph, but that truly is just a pipe dream at this point, and is techincally not true high speed rail.

California's rail project is to be 220 mph, and all the preliminary studies have been completed. The passage of Prop 1A in 2008 allowed for 9 billion in bonds to be used for the project. Yes, there are still funds that need to be obtained, but the project will in all likelihood be underway within a few years and completed by the end of the decade. Construction is slated to begin in 2012.

California High-Speed Rail


You guys should really do some research before you start posting.
Key word in my post is "capable", look it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 09:52 PM
 
594 posts, read 1,493,739 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
Key word in my post is "capable", look it up.
Point is, to try and propose that the Seattle-Portland corridor is anywhere near California high speed rail is absurd.

There are currently no concrete plans for high speed rail between Portland and Seattle, there are plans to improve service and increase speed, but not high speed rail.

CA is by far the furthest ahead in terms of high speed rail. As I mentioned before, voters approved 9 billion in bonds to be used for the project, and they recieved by far the biggest chunk of high speed rail stimulus money.

More importantly, the route has been determined and most of the preliminary studies have been completed. They are currently working on things like determining where the maintenance yard is, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 10:35 PM
 
Location: In the heights
20,161 posts, read 21,760,655 times
Reputation: 10232
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2 View Post
Local News | Washington to get $590 million for high-speed rail improvements | Seattle Times Newspaper


"Years ago, Washington and Oregon purchased Talgo trains capable of 125 mph, because of advanced suspension systems that lean into curves. But they are constrained to 79 mph because of congestion, street crossings and flaws in the trackways."

"Along with better reliability, travel time from Seattle to Portland is supposed to improve 5 percent [about 10 minutes] as a result of the new projects, the White House said"

If you read the article you'll see the 590 million will not actually be creating a high speed rail corridor. It will slightly increase speed and improve the reliability and frequency of service.

The long term goal (far beyond the scope of that money) for the corridor is 150 mph, but that truly is just a pipe dream at this point, and is techincally not true high speed rail.

California's rail project is to be 220 mph, and all the preliminary studies have been completed. The passage of Prop 1A in 2008 allowed for 9 billion in bonds to be used for the project. Yes, there are still funds that need to be obtained, but the project will in all likelihood be underway within a few years and completed by the end of the decade. Construction is slated to begin in 2012.

California High-Speed Rail


You guys should really do some research before you start posting.
Eh, you were wrong about them having trains capable of 125 mph, and you were wrong about the Pacific Northwest not having plans for hsr as it is a federally designated hsr corridor (which is part of why it received any funding at all). You're still off about the plans for hsr. The long term goal citing eventual 150 mph is the big pipedream--the smaller pipedream is the one asking for 90 to 120 mph.

Like California's, the first round of funding isn't going to do much (the long term goal of California's HSR is also well beyond the scope of its 2.25 billion ARRA grant), but they've outlined already what this first 598 million (590 to Washington, 8 million to Oregon) will do and what's being funded are necessary first steps for it to work in the Northwest. There does need to be bypasses, crossings do have to be changed, control systems do have to be updated, etc.

The projects being funded by the ARRA grants are specifically for the development of high speed rail (the article's repeated mention of these funds being used for high speed rail might've tipped some off on that). As I said before, California's is a lot more ambitious because it's essentially building a whole new system while Washington/Oregon are trying to to improve a working system into a hsr line.

Like California, the Northwest will have to wait on additional funds to become available (like the 2.5 billion for the 2010 fiscal budget and the projected billion that's supposed to come every year for the next several years as well as state funding which both California and Washington are pursuing).

You're right on the technicality to some extent--90 miles per hour certainly doesn't qualify almost anywhere while 120 may qualify in the US and the EU, but it's definitely on the slow side compared to the one planned for California or the one's planned for China's network.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter still. A decade if everything goes as planned in California is still a long ways away especially when no sections of it are currently active much less constructed. A decade (at the very least) is a long ways away. Right now, and for quite a while to come, going by rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles is ridiculous in the time and transfers required (and you'll still want to drive in Los Angeles though that'll probably change quite a bit by the time hsr is available). If I wanted to be snitty, I could mention that these little improvements being funded for the northwest will at least incrementally improve the speeds in the very short term (and in a decade from now, all those little increments will add up significantly) whereas California's whole hog plan means they get little to nothing until it's actually built.

I know that weekend excursions from Seattle to Vancouver or Portland happen pretty frequently because I have friends who do them (or from Portland and Vancouver to Seattle). I grew up in LA and weekend trips to the Bay Area were not common at all. My friends who live in either area still don't do it all that often because the drive is grueling. I've made it several times and it's usually not the best of times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 11:21 PM
 
594 posts, read 1,493,739 times
Reputation: 306
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Eh, you were wrong about them having trains capable of 125 mph, and you were wrong about the Pacific Northwest not having plans for hsr as it is a federally designated hsr corridor (which is part of why it received any funding at all). You're still off about the plans for hsr. The long term goal citing eventual 150 mph is the big pipedream--the smaller pipedream is the one asking for 90 to 120 mph.

Like California's, the first round of funding isn't going to do much (the long term goal of California's HSR is also well beyond the scope of its 2.25 billion ARRA grant), but they've outlined already what this first 598 million (590 to Washington, 8 million to Oregon) will do and what's being funded are necessary first steps for it to work in the Northwest. There does need to be bypasses, crossings do have to be changed, control systems do have to be updated, etc.

The projects being funded by the ARRA grants are specifically for the development of high speed rail (the article's repeated mention of these funds being used for high speed rail might've tipped some off on that). As I said before, California's is a lot more ambitious because it's essentially building a whole new system while Washington/Oregon are trying to to improve a working system into a hsr line.

Like California, the Northwest will have to wait on additional funds to become available (like the 2.5 billion for the 2010 fiscal budget and the projected billion that's supposed to come every year for the next several years as well as state funding which both California and Washington are pursuing).

You're right on the technicality to some extent--90 miles per hour certainly doesn't qualify almost anywhere while 120 may qualify in the US and the EU, but it's definitely on the slow side compared to the one planned for California or the one's planned for China's network.

Anyhow, it doesn't matter still. A decade if everything goes as planned in California is still a long ways away especially when no sections of it are currently active much less constructed. A decade (at the very least) is a long ways away. Right now, and for quite a while to come, going by rail from San Francisco to Los Angeles is ridiculous in the time and transfers required (and you'll still want to drive in Los Angeles though that'll probably change quite a bit by the time hsr is available). If I wanted to be snitty, I could mention that these little improvements being funded for the northwest will at least incrementally improve the speeds in the very short term (and in a decade from now, all those little increments will add up significantly) whereas California's whole hog plan means they get little to nothing until it's actually built.

I know that weekend excursions from Seattle to Vancouver or Portland happen pretty frequently because I have friends who do them (or from Portland and Vancouver to Seattle). I grew up in LA and weekend trips to the Bay Area were not common at all. My friends who live in either area still don't do it all that often because the drive is grueling. I've made it several times and it's usually not the best of times.
California's high speed rail has been voted on (passed), extensively studied, and is slated to begin construction fairly soon.

Van-Eugene has been identified as a potential corridor, but there are no concrete plans to actually develop a high speed rail line there for a long, long time. No substantial studies have been conducted, no funding sources have been identified, no one is expecting HSR (90-120 mph is not, by an stretch, high speed rail) in the Northwest--as I said--for a long time.

To somehow make the 2 seem equal is disingenuous at best.

I live in Seattle and closely follow HSR developments. I sometimes do consultant work for various transportation agencies. I can say without any hesitation that the NW HSR is nowhere near where CA HSR is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2010, 11:26 PM
 
3,971 posts, read 11,444,606 times
Reputation: 1576
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2 View Post
Yes, but those are silly parameters.

The Bay Area itself offers so much more than the Seattle Metro in terms of urbanity.

In addition youve got the Northern Cali Region to the North, the Central Coast to the South, LA and San Diego not too far away, all the other destinations I previously mentioned, and far more international flights out of SFO than SeaTac, plus a much higher foreign-born population.
Why are those "silly parameters"? Yes, agreed, the Bay Area offers many qualities, many of which can be equalled in the Seattle metro. Some, even closer such as nearby National Parks, ski areas, etc. The point here is Seattle is closer to other large metro areas than the Bay Area is. Simple geography, sorry. (Oh, I will admit that "wine country" is closer to SF, but Seattle ain't no slouch in that department either. Cheers!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top