Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-30-2010, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,628 posts, read 67,146,871 times
Reputation: 21164

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX View Post
Why the hell does it cost $40 billion to bring high-speed rail between L.A. and the bay area...?
The cost is totally inflated.

There was a scathing report released a few weeks ago by an independent group that basically said its way overbudgeted, will probably not pass legal scrutiny by SF Peninsula towns that DO NOT want a bullet train zipping by their 5-50 Million Dollar homes(LOL) and they are STILL wishy washy about their end terminal in Downtown SF.

I personally think its more cost effective to have a bullet train from LA to Las Vegas and San Diego.

The Bay Area would be better off having BART modernized and FINALLY circle the entire Bay. Oh, and maybe since we're in the mood for wild, unfounded speculation, BART can extend OUT into the Valley(perhaps express trains to Sacramento-that would be the coolest thing ever).

Anyway, Ever since they chose San Jose to enter the Bay rather than the East Bay, I've been against the entire HSR.

Nothing wrong with San Jose, but future growth estimates show 8 million more people moving to the East Bay/San Joaquin Valley corridor and there will be no HSR link between the pertinent counties of the valley and the Bay Area...and that is totally unacceptable to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2010, 08:31 PM
 
Location: Spain
1,854 posts, read 4,901,258 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
The cost is totally inflated.

There was a scathing report released a few weeks ago by an independent group that basically said its way overbudgeted, will probably not pass legal scrutiny by SF Peninsula towns that DO NOT want a bullet train zipping by their 5-50 Million Dollar homes(LOL) and they are STILL wishy washy about their end terminal in Downtown SF.

I personally think its more cost effective to have a bullet train from LA to Las Vegas and San Diego.

The Bay Area would be better off having BART modernized and FINALLY circle the entire Bay. Oh, and maybe since we're in the mood for wild, unfounded speculation, BART can extend OUT into the Valley(perhaps express trains to Sacramento-that would be the coolest thing ever).

Anyway, Ever since they chose San Jose to enter the Bay rather than the East Bay, I've been against the entire HSR.

Nothing wrong with San Jose, but future growth estimates show 8 million more people moving to the East Bay/San Joaquin Valley corridor and there will be no HSR link between the pertinent counties of the valley and the Bay Area...and that is totally unacceptable to me.
What does $40 billion buy anyways? I was under the impression that hsr could utilize existing rail lines and avoid laying down new track. It was shocking to see the pricetag even a penny over $10 billion.

Having said that, I want hsr for California so bad I think the high price will be worth it. Can you imagine how many European and Asian tourists would flock to California if they knew they could pass between L.A. and San Fran in 2 1/2 hours without having to fly? I think another line from L.A. to Vegas would also be awesome.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2010, 09:38 PM
 
593 posts, read 1,755,453 times
Reputation: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
The cost is totally inflated.

There was a scathing report released a few weeks ago by an independent group that basically said its way overbudgeted, will probably not pass legal scrutiny by SF Peninsula towns that DO NOT want a bullet train zipping by their 5-50 Million Dollar homes(LOL) and they are STILL wishy washy about their end terminal in Downtown SF.

I personally think its more cost effective to have a bullet train from LA to Las Vegas and San Diego.

The Bay Area would be better off having BART modernized and FINALLY circle the entire Bay. Oh, and maybe since we're in the mood for wild, unfounded speculation, BART can extend OUT into the Valley(perhaps express trains to Sacramento-that would be the coolest thing ever).

Anyway, Ever since they chose San Jose to enter the Bay rather than the East Bay, I've been against the entire HSR.

Nothing wrong with San Jose, but future growth estimates show 8 million more people moving to the East Bay/San Joaquin Valley corridor and there will be no HSR link between the pertinent counties of the valley and the Bay Area...and that is totally unacceptable to me.
I still fully support the project, but I agree the East Bay alignment would have been better. Mostly because then they wouldnt have to deal with uptight penninsula NIMBYs!

The East Bay also connects to more areas, like you said, in the valley and there is more space for routing options. Once they electrify CalTrain it will increase speeds between SF and SJ and make for an easy connector.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2010, 11:23 PM
 
Location: On the Rails in Northern NJ
12,380 posts, read 26,749,800 times
Reputation: 4580
It will cost 52 billion $$$ to upgrade the Northeast Corridor and 4 feeder lines. It will allow capacity for up 3,000 trains and will redesign the corridor to be used by up to 1+ million daily. The Current number of trains is 1,200 daily and up to 500,000 people use it. Newer Electric Asian Trains are being bought or made in the Northeast and bought by Connecticut and PA to replace some older trains fleets. My state is buying new German Locos for our Electric lines and Spanish Diesels for our Diesel networks and we have plans to reactivate 7 lines this decade , 4 electric. Slowly the Northeast Network is rebuilding itself , most cities in the Region are planning to rebuild streetcars and light rail that was ripped up. By 2030 our Network should be back to almost to pre 1950s levels. The Northeast Corridor will also be upgraded so the Acela can have an average speed of 160+ and tops of 180mph+. Also Northeast Regional will be replaced will a higher capacity fleet more Asian looking.

My Northeast Corridor Videos filmed at Seacacus JCT


YouTube - Amtrak Regional to DC


YouTube - Amtrak Regional Train @ Seacacus JCT


YouTube - Departing North Jersey Coastal Train to NY Penn Station


YouTube - EB Acela Express to Boston@ Secacus JCT


YouTube - Amtrak Northeast Corridor Train heading to DC


YouTube - NJT Northeast Corridor Line to Trenton


YouTube - Northeast Corridor Train to NY Penn Station @ Secacus JCT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,628 posts, read 67,146,871 times
Reputation: 21164
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcroJimmy2 View Post
I still fully support the project, but I agree the East Bay alignment would have been better. Mostly because then they wouldnt have to deal with uptight penninsula NIMBYs!

The East Bay also connects to more areas, like you said, in the valley and there is more space for routing options. Once they electrify CalTrain it will increase speeds between SF and SJ and make for an easy connector.
The one and only reason I still supported the HSR is because its SF terminal would be in the new Transbay Terminal-but lately they've talked about possibly just ending at the Cal Train Station on 4th and King and that is also ridiculous to me-why spend all those BILLIONS, go all the way to SF and not end in the heart of DT?

give me a break!

Anyway, my 2 pennies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-31-2010, 10:55 PM
 
593 posts, read 1,755,453 times
Reputation: 314
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
The one and only reason I still supported the HSR is because its SF terminal would be in the new Transbay Terminal-but lately they've talked about possibly just ending at the Cal Train Station on 4th and King and that is also ridiculous to me-why spend all those BILLIONS, go all the way to SF and not end in the heart of DT?

give me a break!

Anyway, my 2 pennies.
I think they were talking about that, but Im pretty sure the plan is still to end at the Transbay Terminal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-01-2010, 12:54 AM
 
705 posts, read 1,653,597 times
Reputation: 574
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX View Post
Why the hell does it cost $40 billion to bring high-speed rail between L.A. and the bay area...?
Union contracts
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top