U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
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)
Old 03-26-2016, 03:45 PM
54 posts, read 47,153 times
Reputation: 107


Originally Posted by Big-Bucks View Post
200 billion. There are much more important projects if we want to spend that kind of money. More dams, expanding freeways within cities, etc.

Not to mention that this rail project was fraudulently pushed on the voters. They lied about the cost, lied about the speed, etc.
This is CA, we're talking about. The most populous state and one with the largest economy. If any state needs it this 200 billion $ project, it is CA.
Quick reply to this message

Old 03-26-2016, 06:17 PM
17,193 posts, read 18,590,873 times
Reputation: 24969
Originally Posted by NyWriterdude View Post
High speed rail could increase commerce and travel between cities on a reason basis. Say LA, SF, SD, and Sacramento.

It needs an infusion of major money from the federal government. Let's hope this goes through.

So what exactly needs to get there by high speed train? What cargo exactly? How is this train going to increase Tavel and commerce? It will NEVER recoup its initial building costs and will never be self sustaining but it will be a drag on the taxpayers of California. Forever. Why is it that no other state really wants to build such abortion? I dont see anyone in any other state clamoring to build a high speed train.

Originally Posted by daily_mist View Post
This is CA, we're talking about. The most populous state and one with the largest economy. If any state needs it this 200 billion $ project, it is CA.
We don't need it. What we do NEED is wider freeways, better roads, desalinization plants, water storage facilities not a high speed train that's not really high speed that's never going to self sustain
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-26-2016, 08:21 PM
184 posts, read 97,930 times
Reputation: 34
Originally Posted by Tribes View Post
Hyperloop is faster & better than maglev??
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
You can forget about both maglev and hyperloop.
So they are about the same??
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-28-2016, 01:30 AM
Location: Nescopeck, Penna. (birthplace)
11,718 posts, read 7,104,383 times
Reputation: 15195
Originally Posted by Electrician4you View Post
So what exactly needs to get there by high speed train? What cargo exactly? How is this train going to increase Tavel and commerce?\
For openers, the proposal has nothing to do with freight. "High speed freight" (Chicago to Los Angeles in 40 hours, was offered in the late Sixties, and had very few takers, mostly the Postal Service. The Super C (promoted by the same Santa Fe System that produced the Chiefs passenger fleet), lasted for about ten years, and then was quietly withdrawn.

What the proposal in question seeks to do is duplicate the Boston-New York-Washington "Northeast Corridor", which has been slowly and quietly improving times and speeds on an existent conventional rail line. The new (and dedicated and electrified) line north of Fresno will eventually advance speeds to an expected 200 MPH in most of the flat and less-settled Central Valley, and local service will be far faster than driving, but the proposed end-to-end San Diego - Los Angeles - Bay Area - Sacramento project would involve a very long time horizon.

Not much enthusiasm either for or against here; it's a very long-term project in the hands of the public sector, and it will be a substantial improvement if it's ever completed, but I'm pretty sure the nature of politics will both delay it and add to the cost in the process.
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-28-2016, 06:35 AM
4,065 posts, read 8,471,213 times
Reputation: 2922
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkyPunks View Post
Well then Mr. Richy McRichman, please kindly send me a check for 300 dollars whenever I feel the need to fly somewhere.

No, the goal of high-speed rail is to allow people to travel for cheaper than flying - it doesn't have to match service/time. The same people who rely on public transit can't fork out cash for place tickets on a regularly or even occasional basis. Currently, regional rail (ie amtrak) is so insanely overpriced b/c it's systems/trains are beyond antiquated (and they're desperate for cash). A modern high-speed rail would aim to be much lower cost to operate.
It's under $100 rt to sfo from lax. Unless you go last minute. Or are a snob who won't fly south west.

Cheaper than driving. Check out wanna get away rates on southwest in May if you don't beleive me.

The railway is a colossally stupid idea that is a solution for a nonexistent problem. Use the money to build light rail in LA Metro.
Quick reply to this message
Old 03-28-2016, 07:56 AM
Location: West Hollywood, CA from Arlington, VA
2,770 posts, read 2,599,559 times
Reputation: 1542
All I have to say is that I'm moving to Southern California soon and it absolutely blows my mind that it takes 12 hours to go from San Francisco to LA (not to mention there's 1 train a day going each way!). I can go from DC to Boston which is further and it take about half as long.

I think what gets overlooked a lot of times is the convenience of being dropped off at a train station in the heart of the city that doesn't require taking a taxi or subway train somewhere. A lot of times you can fly into NYC cheaper, but that only gets you to the outlying parts of the city -- you still have a 45 minute to 1 hour taxi or subway train ride into the city. If you take the train into the city, you get dropped off at 34th Street in the heart of midtown. You are within walking distance of everything. You pay a premium for that convenience, but I have definitely found it worth it on occasion.

I would add that the Northeast Corridor is the only Amtrak line in America that is profitable. Amtrak is recouping costs that it paid to invest in the line for decades.
Quick reply to this message
Old Today, 03:26 PM
Location: Planet Earth
1,752 posts, read 1,978,146 times
Reputation: 1943
There are many threads/posts on the "bullet train/high-speed rail" subject. How many do we really need? Please read all of them and don't bring up any point that has already been raised.

Thank You.

Newsom scaling back high speed rail project

Bullet train? Yes or no?

High Speed Rail in the San Joaquin Valley

1 more reason the "high speed rail" needs to be axed

8 years later, $68B high speed rail project still unsure, now might ditch LA segment in favor of Bay Area first

California High Speed Rail Discussion

Will High Speed Rail Turn The Central Valley Into A Bay Area Bedroom Community?

San Jose Mercury News: "Stop the California bullet train in its tracks"

"California Bullet Train Project Advances Amid Cries of Boondoggle"

California's bullet train could cost multiple billions dollars more than expected

Bullet train headed to San Jose first
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.


Quick Reply

Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

Hide US histogram

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 > California > Los Angeles
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, 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