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.
Montclair you need to "bite the bullet" ...LOL and accept the fact that the Los Angeles to San Francisco Bullet Train will become a reality , it's not hard to do just "breathe out breathe in" feel better , now the Las Vegas to Los Angeles Bullet Train will follow that " and the Central Valley Bullet Train Is Burned Toast". If we can send a man to the MOON with our NATIONAL WILL disregarding the cost , and Build Interstate highways that cost BILLIONS of American Taxpayers Dollars...We can easily Do The Bullet Trains.
Sorry but I dont see it happening either. First off, $9B from San Fran to LA is not going to cover the cost of a brand new high speed rail. Secondly, the only logical place to put high speed rail is in the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak actually makes $.
Sorry but I dont see it happening either. First off, $9B from San Fran to LA is not going to cover the cost of a brand new high speed rail. Secondly, the only logical place to put high speed rail is in the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak actually makes $.
Time will tell , then we both will know sooo very well , it ain't over until the fat lady sings......
1. There is no 375 mile traffic jam between LA and SF. What a joke.
2. A Bullet train will not alleviate intra-city freeway congestion in either LA or the Bay Area. No clue how you deduced that?
3. As far as airports, Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco and Sacramento are all way below their historic highs as far as passenger volume. We have PLENTY of space to grow at all 4 airports.
BART going into San Jose and up around the Peninsula should be more of a priority than a ridiculous bullet train from LA to SF.
Cal Train needs to die and be replaced by BART.
Without BART, traffic on the Bay Area freeway system grinds to a halt instantly. Without HSR, nobody would even notice.
Once again, your saying that building a bullet train from LA to SF will alleviate intra-city traffic in LA and SF.
Apples and Oranges.
Montclair is completely correct about this. The limited transportation funding that's available should go to exanding Bart, expanding the Metro in L.A., expanding mass transit in Sacramento and San Diego, etc.
The air infrastructure that is in place today is completely adequate for SoCal - NorCal travel, and for $150 or so round trip, it is an absolute BARGAIN. I-5 through the Central Valley is also fine for the 6 hour car trip.
The only corridor that I see HSR being attractive in within CA would be LA-San Diego, because the freeways are at their limits. But of course that's not even "phase 1" of this boondoggle.
Montclair you need to "bite the bullet" ...LOL and accept the fact that the Los Angeles to San Francisco Bullet Train will become a reality , it's not hard to do just "breathe out breathe in" feel better , now the Las Vegas to Los Angeles Bullet Train will follow that " and the Central Valley Bullet Train Is Burned Toast".
Actually Howest2008, the Fresno to Hanford section is slated for construction first.
They should start the LA to San Diego leg first, but they are stupid so Im not surprised.
Quote:
If we can send a man to the MOON with our NATIONAL WILL disregarding the cost , and Build Interstate highways that cost BILLIONS of American Taxpayers Dollars...We can easily Do The Bullet Trains.
We could also build a floating bridge to Hawaii but that doesnt mean we should does it??
1. There is no 375 mile traffic jam between LA and SF. What a joke.
During heavy travel periods like holidays it sure can feel that way. Just curious, how often do you drive between the Bay Area and LA versus flying? I've done that drive quite a lot of during peak periods it can get really backed up in the middle of nowhere. It's bad enough driving by some of those smelly farms but try sitting in traffic next to them.
Quote:
2. A Bullet train will not alleviate intra-city freeway congestion in either LA or the Bay Area. No clue how you deduced that?
Depends on how many people switch from driving to the train. But generally rail lines don't usually reduce congestion but rather provide an alternative to it. And it would allow for another mode of transportation to absorb future travel growth between the two regions.
Quote:
3. As far as airports, Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco and Sacramento are all way below their historic highs as far as passenger volume. We have PLENTY of space to grow at all 4 airports.
But what happens when they hit their capacity? It may not happen anytime soon but 20-30 years down the road the could be a possibility. Sacramento could probably expand but I don't see how the other 3 could or how any of the major airports in SoCal could either. And good luck finding the land and community anywhere near CA's major metro areas to build a new one. San Diego has been trying for decades to build a new airport somewhere but with no success.
Quote:
BART going into San Jose and up around the Peninsula should be more of a priority than a ridiculous bullet train from LA to SF. Cal Train needs to die and be replaced by BART.
This is only benefiting one part of the state and your idea to ring the entire Bay Area with BART would easily cost upwards of $45 billion.
Back in the 1950's and 60's when BART was first being proposed and planned I wonder how much of a dire need there was for it then. Sure right now they Bay Area couldn't survive without BART but I'd imagine 50 years ago when it was being planned the Bay Area managed to do fine. But luckily leaders had the foresight to plan for the future and that is what the HSR is doing. You coulnd't build BART's system today because it would be too expensive and face plenty of community opposition as well. Just look at some of the "BART" extensions that are proposed that don't even use BART trains and instead use diesel trains and require a transfer just to continue along the same route because of the cost of building heavy rail today. HSR is expensive today, imagine what it will be 40 years down the road when we are kicking ourselves in the head for not building it today. Basically imagine the Bay Area trying to built BART today.
Just look at the ridiculous cost for the Oakland Airport connector but as I recall you support that which is pretty ironic considering what a boondoggle that is expected to be. $500 million to build something that won't carry that many more passengers as the current AirBart buses do, what's the point of that?
And just look at the CENTRAL SUBWAY in SF, I'm usually all for rail projects despite their high costs but I've never seen such a ridiculous waste of money ever in transit. Who in their right mind would ever support a 1.5 LIGHT RAIL line that will cost a BILLION dollars per mile?!?! And what's messed up is the fed and state contributing over 90% of the projects costs, Sf should be paying a much higher share. I'd be pretty weary of handing over billions of dollars to Bay Area transit agencies when they are approving stuff like the Central Subway and Oakland Airport Connector.
LA decided not to build a rapid transit heavy rail system back in the 1940's and look at how that turned out. Now they are spending billions more to build something that should have been built a long time ago and I feel that will be the case with HSR 30 years down the road.
Sacramento's airport is already going through a massive expansion. Light rail is planned to go to SMF in the near future. The city is also developing a transportation hub downtown where amtrak, light rail, and buses will converge.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,872,410 times
Reputation: 2501
Why would Sacramento be a major airport destination (unless for to visit the city itself, not layovers)? To undercut San Francisco or LA? It doesn't seem to make sense....
I'm with 18Montclair on this. The high speed rail in California does not make sense at the moment, and the funds being directed there would be much better served by simply improving conventional rail around the nation, speeding up high speed rail in the northeast corridor, or if possible, directed towards mass transit in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. High speed rail is not useful to that many if the metros in between the Bay Area and Los Angeles are fairly small and the terminal ends have inadequate mass transit where people would rather get into a car once they reach their destination (in which case, if you drove your own car then you will have it with you to get around Los Angeles and the Bay Area). This is even worse of a deal once you look at the state of mass transit in stops like Bakersfield or Fresno.
I think the only two parts where high speed rail plans right now make sense is the northeast corridor where mass transit is already in and there are a lot of connecting services through regional/commuter rail radiating from the main cities or even the northwest where they are going a fairly economical route of upgrading conventional rail to be faster and less bottle-necked and where at least two of the cities (Vancouver in BC and Portland) already have fairly good mass transit while Seattle is steadily improving.
Sorry but I dont see it happening either. First off, $9B from San Fran to LA is not going to cover the cost of a brand new high speed rail. Secondly, the only logical place to put high speed rail is in the Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak actually makes $.
Amtrack cascades corridor is always making money and beating projections. The trains are already running and with track improvements it will eventually be runnin 120 mph using french talgo high speed trains . And its already under construction and it got 1billion in stimulus to finish improvments. It connects Portland , Seattle and Vancouver.
I'm with 18Montclair on this. The high speed rail in California does not make sense at the moment,
And when it finally does make sense to other people out there it will cost double to triple maybe even more to build.
The LOS-SAN rail corridor is the second busiest in the nation after the northeast, clearly inter-city rail can work in CA. I think a LA-SD should be first though.
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.
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.
