Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [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 01-12-2022, 08:43 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,656 posts, read 67,506,468 times
Reputation: 21239

Advertisements

LA-Vegas replaced O'Hare-La Guardia as the nation's 2nd busiest air route.

The only US routes in the world's top 20 are LAX-SFO and LAX-LAS.

The World Ranking 2021
https://simpleflying.com/worlds-busiest-routes-2021/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-12-2022, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Houston, TX
8,338 posts, read 5,492,671 times
Reputation: 12286
Yes, that makes sense but bear in mind its capacity not O&D.

By O&D, NYC to South Florida is actually the busiest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2022, 02:28 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,133 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
It's pretty insane that there still isn't a high speed rail connection between the two and there won't be for a while. Same with Los Angeles to Las Vegas. How did we come to being so incredibly terrible at building what in other developed countries would be reasonable and highly prioritized infrastructure? FIGURE IT OUT, FOLKS, GEEZ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2022, 12:49 AM
 
130 posts, read 159,961 times
Reputation: 116
Good news tho is that (THE CALIFORNIA HIGH SPEED RAIL) is getting more funding of about $4.2 billion dollars. I'll give credit where credit is due as California is in advantageous but also disadvantage spot compared to our europeans and asian counterparts rail systems. California pays the local californians really well that work on the project sites, unlike china or Dubai California can't just start building it was delayed by 6 years of imminent domain cases being processed very similar to high way system that faced similar scrutiny from the few who owned the land blocking progess on connecting americans to other big cities via Freeways back in the day. Thirdly, after the labor cost and the usual slow accusation of land, then their is the fact California isn't a country technically speaking as even though european countrys are part of the european union their tax burden is much lower to be part of the EU. California pays alot of money to be part of the US in many cases half of the income taxes are lost due to federal government taking the money away. Other High Speed Rail Governments have a majority control of their tax base. There is no other side government taking half a cut lol. California High Speed Rail will come just probably 5-10 years delayed similar to the Golden Gate Bridge taking forever with similar hassles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2022, 05:36 PM
 
Location: East Bay, San Francisco Bay Area
23,528 posts, read 24,011,889 times
Reputation: 23956
I’m assuming this includes traffic for just the LAX-SFO route?

The routes between adjacent airports in Southern California (e.g., BUR, ONT, SNA) flying to adjacent Bay Area airports (e.g., OAK, SJC) are probably not counted?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2022, 11:45 AM
 
15,839 posts, read 14,472,390 times
Reputation: 11916
Given the vast unwashed boondoggle the high speed rail project has become, maybe it should just be scrapped, and a couple of new short range centric airports (ie commuterports) be built, one in LA and one in SF. Put them relatively close to the cities, and build mass transit access. Given that the projected total cost of the HSR project is not topping $100 billion, and likely to continue to grow, a couple of new commuter ports, with mass transit links would likely be substantially cheaper. And they could also serve much more than the LA-SF route.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
It's pretty insane that there still isn't a high speed rail connection between the two and there won't be for a while. Same with Los Angeles to Las Vegas. How did we come to being so incredibly terrible at building what in other developed countries would be reasonable and highly prioritized infrastructure? FIGURE IT OUT, FOLKS, GEEZ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2022, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
702 posts, read 953,858 times
Reputation: 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Given the vast unwashed boondoggle the high speed rail project has become, maybe it should just be scrapped, and a couple of new short range centric airports (ie commuterports) be built, one in LA and one in SF.

Yeah and while we're at it how about we pile up a bunch of tires and burn them? Cus why not
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2022, 05:30 PM
 
15,839 posts, read 14,472,390 times
Reputation: 11916
So you want to waste 100 BIIIILLLLIIIIOOOONNNN dollars on this white elephant that only connects two cities. For a quarter of that they could build transportation Infrastructure that already works, and could connect a lot more major cites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ketch89 View Post
Yeah and while we're at it how about we pile up a bunch of tires and burn them? Cus why not
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2022, 05:52 PM
 
158 posts, read 159,529 times
Reputation: 277
I do the Lax one to sfo once a month……
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2022, 07:32 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,133 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
Given the vast unwashed boondoggle the high speed rail project has become, maybe it should just be scrapped, and a couple of new short range centric airports (ie commuterports) be built, one in LA and one in SF. Put them relatively close to the cities, and build mass transit access. Given that the projected total cost of the HSR project is not topping $100 billion, and likely to continue to grow, a couple of new commuter ports, with mass transit links would likely be substantially cheaper. And they could also serve much more than the LA-SF route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBMW View Post
So you want to waste 100 BIIIILLLLIIIIOOOONNNN dollars on this white elephant that only connects two cities. For a quarter of that they could build transportation Infrastructure that already works, and could connect a lot more major cites.
It's pretty common to hear responses like this. It's not unique and unfortunately it's ubiquitous enough to actually have negative ramifications for infrastructure projects in the US.

My comment was that it's incredible this thing does not already exist. The distance, the route, the existing travel patterns, etc. when you look at the economics and engineering of high speed rail systems in multiple parts of the world in comparison are what makes it seem so incredible that this doesn't already exist. The criticism of it currently not existing does align with what you're saying and acknowledges it's terrible that it's been this costly and has taken this long given that there's an obvious business case for this and the costs of such a high-speed rail system in other developed countries of this kind of complexity, stations and length are substantially lower and built out faster.

However, it's possible to acknowledge that and understand that scrapping it if that means not having high-speed rail between the two is not a good idea since this is an ideal route for high speed rail. It does not change that a high speed rail line between SF and LA is technically feasible, and should be the economically most sensible thing. Scrapping the whole idea then would be foolish. Rather, it would seem that reforms in the process are necessary. A reset in terms of how it's done or reforming the ease at which it can be impeded thus driving up timelines and spending is pretty insane and is something that the US overall needs to address. A massive part of the issue with its ballooning costs and expanding timelines hasn't been about the actual idea, engineering, or material and labor needs of it, but the constant impediments put forward by NIMBYs, often well-funded NIMBYS, as well as bad faith politicians tossing in impediments that jack up the price and expand the timeline *so* that they can point to its budget and timeline. Turning popular opinion away from the absurdity of both how it works as it is now or the absurd idea that this shouldn't be done at all should also be pushed in order to direct attention towards what needs to be fixed and to admonish the people and parties that continually impede (and thus drive up the costs) of the project.

You also have something wrong there with the cities served. It's not just SF and LA. It's a train, so it's pretty easy to make stops along the way. SF and LA are the projected main event, but riding end to end is not how passenger ridership usually works. SF (and SJ as well) and LA are certainly by far going to be the most popular stations and have the greatest density, but a lot of that popularity is going to be back and forth traffic on the points that are going to and from one of those two major nodes and one of the smaller Central Valley nodes. Remember, those nodes in California aren't bereft of people like a Great Plains state--they still include million people metropolitan areas that are still seeing growth. These places are likely to and engender traffic going to and from one of the larger nodes and so the actual ridership is going to be a cumulative of every single pair combination within the line which is a lot. You also should realize that the intention was for there to be other phases and with both extensions and spurs that would add more population and trip pairs to places like Sacramento, San Diego, and Las Vegas while reusing much of the already created infrastructure and systems.

I do think the economics and engineering for short haul passenger flight in electric planes is promising and can likely reach broad commercialization for these sorts of routes within the next two to few decades if the rate of battery improvements as they've happened for the last several decades with about 9 to 14 years between doubling of energy density continue again within the next few decades. However, it's also clearly not a reasonable replacement for a while and would almost certainly never be more sustainable than electric rail due to the massive needs of having to constantly work against the gravity vector. This is pretty apparently the case even as you extrapolate out further energy density improvements to batteries.

Recall that Eviation's Alice line of electric planes that they're prototyping, as just a twin-engine 9-seater at best, requires 820 kWh of battery capacity using pretty pricey cathode chemistry since it needs the highest energy density commercially available batteries for its targeted 440 nautical mile range even after extensive, and very expensive lightweighting.The highly trafficked route between just the two LA/SF endpoints, and remember, a train does a lot more than endpoints, numbers over 2 million passengers a year. These planes have to recharge and slots at airports that are heavily trafficked are expensive per time (and building more airports, partially because of CEQA and NIMBYs, for a slew of different reasons is an extremely time consuming and thus costly endeavor) so you likely need to do something like battery swapping which would then require you to have even more capacity deployed. This means that the kind of battery capacity necessary to service these kinds of passenger numbers is absolutely astounding and even at the exponential increase of battery capacity production we've seen and should probably expect to continue at least for the near future, this would mean a single route taking up a pretty large proportion of upcoming battery capacity pipeline for a pretty long time that would probably be better for other purposes (other EVs like road and rail vehicles, nautical vehicles, other planes in other parts of the world, stationary storage, random devices, etc.) aside from servicing the number of passengers on this route. On top of that, keep in mind that the train, like other road vehicles, will have gravity offset by the normal force from contact with the ground so the operating expenses of the train are likely to be far lower than that of these many electric airplanes.

I would like to see a better path forward though. I think California needs to greatly reform CEQA, and not just for this project, so it can't be rapidly wielded to block any project of any scale (this thing is one of the ultimate NIMBY tools and has been yielded incredibly well by opponents of high sped rail). I also think California should do some horse-trading on the route--they should go directly through to Bakersfield rather than the jog to Palmdale. The horsetrade Palmdale should get though is a concurrent and faster-moving timeline project that upgrades the current Metrolink link through the San Fernando Valley and to Los Angeles Union Station and beyond to go faster, and run more frequently with cheaper operating costs. I think that can make a horse trade of not being on the HSR line a lot more palatable and it's a wine for everyone. Given that jog is still a while away from serious construction, I think there's still a good chance and a good reason to make that happen. If they can't do that, it's not all bad as there's arguably a case for that Antelope Valley jog to be useful as part of getting to Las Vegas.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grune D View Post
I do the Lax one to sfo once a month……

Yea, it's awful!

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-06-2022 at 08:42 PM..
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:53 PM.

© 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