Newsom scaling back high speed rail project (Oakland, Burbank: live, versus)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by CaliRestoration

Analyze and determine whether the business model is viable, like any investor would.

Is there a demand for the product or service? How much demand?

High speed rail is one of those funny unicorn services that everyone likes to say "we want" but have yet to prove that EVERYONE actually wants.

Just like "solar energy" companies like Solara.

Good point. It will depend on the cost to ride it, for sure.

[TCROX]

I agree with bugsypal ... I think the corridor surveyed for the hsr can still be used for trucking or other passenger highway projects.

[Bill the Butcher]

Originally Posted by TCROX

I agree with bugsypal ... I think the corridor surveyed for the hsr can still be used for trucking or other passenger highway projects.

Yeah i agree too. Doesn't look like it will happen but it would be a good idea. Maybe keep the trucks on the 99 since it will have all the off ramps and truck ramps already built in.

But open the HSR corridor up to energy efficient vehicles, say electric vehicles or vehicles getting better than 30 mpg highway. Assuming it will be less dense and safer, raise the speed limit to 70 or 75 and let cars cruise. Eventually, if self driving cars ever fully materialize, open it up to self driving cars only and let them really cruise around 90-95mph.

[BugsyPal]

Originally Posted by neutrino78x

France is roughly the same population as California...but the population is denser. And Paris was a major city long before the invention of the car, so it is designed to be walkable.

In Europe, drive for five hours and you've gone through five different countries. In the USA, you're probably in the same state. That's why high speed rail is more practical there.

Also, airplanes are a lot easier for private enterprise because they don't have to own land between point A and point B.

Once we get all temperature superconductors -- that don't need to be cooled to cryogenic temperatures -- we'll get more high speed trains. Maglev was actually invented here in the USA by physicists and engineers who worked on particle accelerators. It makes the train float over the tracks, and it could go 300 or 500 mph. It could break the sound barrier or go arbitrarily fast (below the speed of light) if it was in an evacuated tunnel. But we don't have those on a large scale yet because the superconducting magnets have to cooled with liquid nitrogen. When we have ones that can be superconductors at any temperature, such trains will be cheap.

Actually Paris, France began a major redesign under Napoleon III starting about 1853 which gave us the city seen today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussm...ation_of_Paris


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...lding_of_Paris


There were automobiles of a sort in Europe and that includes Paris, France by very late 1800's and certainly early part of 1900's. So the "walkability" of Paris wasn't that far ahead.

[TCROX]

Originally Posted by Bill the Butcher

Yeah i agree too. Doesn't look like it will happen but it would be a good idea. Maybe keep the trucks on the 99 since it will have all the off ramps and truck ramps already built in.

But open the HSR corridor up to energy efficient vehicles, say electric vehicles or vehicles getting better than 30 mpg highway. Assuming it will be less dense and safer, raise the speed limit to 70 or 75 and let cars cruise. Eventually, if self driving cars ever fully materialize, open it up to self driving cars only and let them really cruise around 90-95mph.

Right- and it looks like BIG trucks will be electric and solar very soon-- lots of possibilities with that land and VERY expensive effort

[Californiaguy2007]

Your right...California's HSR is still being built in the Central Valley and Governor Newsom said it's just a scale back,but the state eventually plans to finish the project which will ultimately connect The Bay Area-The Central Valley-Southern CA once completed in the future.

To be honest I have no problem with HSR for California...Our State's Population is growing and our future generations would really appreciate it,because not everyone wants to Fly,Drive or Take the Bus or remained stuck in traffic caused by whatever reasons it may be.

We live in modern times and many developed or developing countries have HSR or are building one...California is a State of Innovation,The Most Populated and has one of the Largest Economies in the World..HSR will be very beneficial for our State in the long run.

We kinda started late here with HSR,but better late than never.

Originally Posted by Drewjdeg

No, it shouldn't be returned. They're still building in the Central Valley, and Newsom has made clear he plans to eventually finish the project.

[neutrino78x]

Originally Posted by BugsyPal

Actually Paris, France began a major redesign under Napoleon III starting about 1853 which gave us the city seen today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussm...ation_of_Paris


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George...lding_of_Paris


There were automobiles of a sort in Europe and that includes Paris, France by very late 1800's and certainly early part of 1900's. So the "walkability" of Paris wasn't that far ahead.

Yeah but Paris was already a major city when horses and walking were the main modes of transportation. In 1700, Paris was already the largest city in the region. That's not true of San Francisco or Los Angeles. Well, maybe SF to some extent because they became a major city as a result of the Gold Rush.

But the only place in the USA where that's really true is the NorthEast Corridor.

[neutrino78x]

So I was talking to my father about it and suggesting that HSR should have been built down the median of I-5 or 101, rather than trying to acquire new land and build tracks. He claimed that I-5 is not straight enough for a vehicle to go 200+ MPH. What do you guys think? Is he correct?

My vision would be elevated monorail on I-5, with northbound and southbound both in the median; one would be on a lower level, and the other monorail track, for vehicles going in the opposite direction, would be built on top of it.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

Now, compare this with my options to LA. I can either get 2 hours ahead of time to airport, deal with TSA, be delayed 2 hours for a 45 min flight, then land in LA, wait 20 mins for my rental shuttle, rent car, drive to hotel and probably hit traffic.

I fly between LA and SF 2-3x/month.

I typically go and in and out of Burbank and arrive there, or in Oakland on this end, 45 mins before departure. There are 16 flights/day each way just between Oakland and Burbank, never mind all the other airports, and if I book just a little bit in advance, I rarely pay more than $100 each way. No way a $77 billion train could compete with this.

[TheseGoTo11]

Originally Posted by PuppiesandKittens

Try Amtrak between NY and DC--much better than flying.

Try Amtrak between Boston and DC, and you'll be crying.

LA-SF is 1.5x the distance between NY-DC and that's before dealing with getting over the mountains or across the Bay. It's closer to Boston-Philly, which most people fly, not fun to sit on the train that long, even on the Acela.