California HSR plan not supported by Californians? (Barstow: how much, buy)

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by tickyul

Nope, build more roads...............99% of the people WANT to drive to where they are going.

The fine example of the history of L.A.'s freeways will attest to the fact that no matter how many more roads and lanes you add, they will instantly be jammed. The idea, which nearly every other industrialized country in the world has learned, is to get more cars off the road.

Sure, lots of people want to drive, but there are all too many cases where it can't be done. Unless sitting in a parking lot disguised as a freeway counts as "driving".

And there's that little problem with the compounding effect of emissions from a gazillion vehicles going nowhere...

[mtkomori]

Originally Posted by 1200RT

I do the LA/SF drive 1-2 times per year. Even if available I wouldn't take a train.

Really?? Nobody in their right minds would drive between Tokyo and Osaka which is roughly the same distance between LA and SF. It would be too expensive (the highways in Japan have tolls) and it would just take too much time. With the Tokaido Shinkansen which links Tokyo and Osaka, it takes 2.5 to 3 hours. Actually, flying time between the two cities is about 65 minutes, but if you factor in all the hassles of checking in and security not to mention getting to and from the airport, taking the HSR could be a quicker jouney! With the high population density in Japan and provided that one goes through large metropolitan areas between Tokyo and Osaka, it is not practical to drive. You may think it's convenient to drive between LA and SF but that is because other modes of transportation (excluding flying) are inconvenient or non-existent.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by Bunjee

I'm no Vegas nut, but there's a route right there. Los Angeles to Las Vegas. A shorter distance over more manageable terrain benefiting two states and inland regions for a huge population of eager users. I think its commercial viability could fund more rail rather quickly. Las Vegas would benefit as an attractive westward travel hub. It would certainly free up traffic.

If the casino owners want to bring Californians to Las Vegas, let they pay for the train. How does a rail link to Vegas benefit the California economy?

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by mtkomori

Really?? Nobody in their right minds would drive between Tokyo and Osaka which is roughly the same distance between LA and SF. It would be too expensive (the highways in Japan have tolls) and it would just take too much time. With the Tokaido Shinkansen which links Tokyo and Osaka, it takes 2.5 to 3 hours. Actually, flying time between the two cities is about 65 minutes, but if you factor in all the hassles of checking in and security not to mention getting to and from the airport, taking the HSR could be a quicker jouney! With the high population density in Japan and provided that one goes through large metropolitan areas between Tokyo and Osaka, it is not practical to drive. You may think it's convenient to drive between LA and SF but that is because other modes of transportation (excluding flying) are inconvenient or non-existent.

California is not Japan. There's nothing but farm and ranch land between LA and San Jose.

[Count David]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

California is not Japan. There's nothing but farm and ranch land between LA and San Jose.

Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, Salinas, and other areas would disagree.

Unless you go up I-5.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, Salinas, and other areas would disagree.

Unless you go up I-5.

Yeah I'm referring to I-5 since that's the quickest way to the Bay Area by car.

[1200RT]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

Oxnard, Ventura, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, Salinas, and other areas would disagree.

Unless you go up I-5.

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Yeah I'm referring to I-5 since that's the quickest way to the Bay Area by car.

The 1/101 route would not make any sense unless you planned on stopping/enjoying the drive (which rules out a train). The 5 route is ideal for a nonstop blast up north (which i argue the train is not ideal for either). I wouldn't take the train because (1) i need a car at destination, (2) i like to travel on my own time, (3) i like to be in control of who i am spending time with and (4) i sometimes travel with more than just a suitcase.

[Count David]

Originally Posted by 1200RT

The 1/101 route would not make any sense unless you planned on stopping/enjoying the drive (which rules out a train). The 5 route is ideal for a nonstop blast up north (which i argue the train is not ideal for either). I wouldn't take the train because (1) i need a car at destination, (2) i like to travel on my own time, (3) i like to be in control of who i am spending time with and (4) i sometimes travel with more than just a suitcase.

There are still people who have:
-fears of flying
-fears of driving long-distances (or at all)
-cost restraints
-plenty of time to travel

Cars can always be rented. Sometimes letting go of control can be refreshing. Train people are interesting. My wife/kids just took 9 pieces of luggage on the Amtrak -- without fees.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

Sometimes letting go of control can be refreshing.

Sometimes not having to drive 300 miles is refreshing. In fact, much business can be done on the ride that can't be attended to behind the wheel.

"We saw the WiFi, and it was good"...as long as it's free, unlike on airplanes.

[1200RT]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

There are still people who have:
-fears of flying
-fears of driving long-distances (or at all)
-cost restraints
-plenty of time to travel

Cars can always be rented. Sometimes letting go of control can be refreshing. Train people are interesting. My wife/kids just took 9 pieces of luggage on the Amtrak -- without fees.

And I'm sure there are people with fears of trains (maybe??). I dont necessarily think a train is a bad idea, but i also don't necessarily want to pay for it.

Lets be real here for a second - proponents of this train don't care about people with the above mentioned fears - they care about waging war on automobile travel. If you could tell me that this thing would be funded with private capital and ticket sales, I wouldn't care either way (still probably wouldn't take it), but that simply isnt the case. Private industry hasn't built this thing because it wont be profitable (unless, of course, the state of CA outlaws cars).