Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [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 05-02-2017, 12:24 AM
 
3,335 posts, read 2,926,874 times
Reputation: 1305

Advertisements

yep!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2017, 12:26 AM
 
3,335 posts, read 2,926,874 times
Reputation: 1305
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flovis View Post
And go where?

Portland = expensive
Seattle = expensive
Austin = expensive
SLC = getting expensive
Vegas = hotter
Phx = much hotter
ABQ = too isolated

Reno and Boise are like the only two affordable big western cities not in CA that they can easily build in and arent in the desert. No way they'll pick those two cities over the CV for most projects.

They're going to put some tech jobs and good manufacturing jobs in the central valley. They're just waiting for the rail to be near completion before announcing. This much has been said by CV politicians aready; online whining from anyone isn't going to stop it.
1. They're in the desert 2. Phoenix and Boise have become expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2017, 11:18 PM
 
5,888 posts, read 3,225,564 times
Reputation: 5548
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
I tend to agree with you. That's part of why I voted No on the HSR. Although, in theory, a sufficiently fast train will compete with airplanes.

Well, planes have two major advantages over passenger trains:

* speed
* operator doesn't need to own land between point a/b which leads to much greater competition and more flexibility of route

So a high speed train is attempting to eliminate the first advantage. It is hard to truly mitigate the second factor. Trains need tracks. You can only build so many tracks between point A and point B.

The British seem to do it well. Check out the result of their train system privatization:

Wikipedia article listing passenger train operators in the UK

But if you only have one set of tracks between A and B, you're not going to have much competition among train operators.

You haven't truly implemented High Speed Rail anyway until you're using Magnetic Levitation via liquid nitrogen cooled superconductors. Sometime in the future, we will discover a way to achieve superconductivity at room temperature, and that will change a lot of things, including trains. A maglev train has no friction with the rails, so in theory it can go as fast as an airplane (just under the sound barrier, since we don't want a sonic boom shattering people's windows). In practice, you might not want to go that fast, because any deviance from your straight path might send the train careening off the track at those high speeds.
All things being equal even maglev trains will never be as fast an aircraft....you're forgetting aerodynamic drag. The reason planes are fast is because they fly so high that dynamic pressure is very low.

Hence Elon Musk and his stupid Hyperloop concept. Another dumb thing that won't ever get built.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 09:40 PM
 
3 posts, read 2,188 times
Reputation: 14
Anything beats gridlock on 6 or 8 lane freeways - and if freeways are at capacity today, where will we be in a decade? I ask critics of the high speed rail to ask themselves two questions, #1 have they ever been on a high speed rail way in Europe? #2 have they ever taken Amtrak from the Central Valley to Los Angeles? I have done both, and I am rooting for the HSR. Although somehow I think artificial intelligence may be the answer IF they design for long distance high speed, not just tootling across town. And as I bounce down the highways dodging the pot holes I tend to envision ai high speed cars on a smooth steel rail (saving tires) reaching 200 mph somewhere in the near future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 10:01 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,822,024 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by macabhaird View Post
Anything beats gridlock on 6 or 8 lane freeways - and if freeways are at capacity today, where will we be in a decade? I ask critics of the high speed rail to ask themselves two questions, #1 have they ever been on a high speed rail way in Europe? #2 have they ever taken Amtrak from the Central Valley to Los Angeles? I have done both, and I am rooting for the HSR. Although somehow I think artificial intelligence may be the answer IF they design for long distance high speed, not just tootling across town. And as I bounce down the highways dodging the pot holes I tend to envision ai high speed cars on a smooth steel rail (saving tires) reaching 200 mph somewhere in the near future.
Air travel is cheaper and already in place for longer travel throughout the third largest state by size.


No one is arguing against a robust reginional transportation system that ties both rail and expanded freeways.



I don't know why people say expanding freeways is a bad idea because they will have traffic in ten years while pretending not expanding freeways wouldn't make that same situation worse. Bart already runs at capacity and needs funding for expansion, modernizatio. Instead of making a robust regional travel system the state is duplicating a relatively effectuate and cheap transportation system that is more costly and less in demand.


Any sort of critical thinking beyond "Europe has trains, I like trains, lets build trains" shows the hsr as a waste of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2017, 11:29 PM
 
817 posts, read 922,556 times
Reputation: 1103
The CA HSR is not intended to be a commuter train, nor could it be HSR if it was a commuter train. I rode commuter trains into downtown Chicago for 12 years. Stations are positioned every 3-5 miles outside the city limits, and there are lightly used stations inside the city limits every 2-3 miles. Not all trains stop at all stations, but with diesel-electric trains, traveling 20 miles in 40 minutes is an accomplishment.

Looking at examples of other HSR systems, they also are not intended for daily commutes to work. On my recent ride of the Eurostar from Paris-London, there was one stop outside of London, and it was a discharge-only stop.

One smart move the organizers made was to plan stops in every place where they would need votes. No one votes for a train they can't use. SF is a little speck on California's population map. Los Angeles, while over 10% of the population, is a large enough place that its own residents may not vote for a train that only stops downtown. Both cities are not particularly loved by the rest of the state, so the way to get the train is to run it to everywhere that would vote against it if they were left out. So we have LA, Burbank, Palmdale, Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, San Jose, and SF, plus Anaheim, because that is a popular destination. Then a second phase includes Sacramento, the Inland Empire, and San Diego, while bypassing the coastal Orange County NIMBYs, so not only do they get enough "yes" votes, they also avoid "no" votes. Most trains will not make all of the stops, but we have to count on trains making at least half. That slows the train down.

After all of the expense of building, then operating expense will also have to be taken into account. In the Chicago area, a Zone E Monthly Ticket costs about $185, and that includes a subsidy funded by sales tax. This will get you to places that are about 20 miles away, like Roselle, Homewood, or Northbrook, running on tracks which have been in place for about 100 years, and the trip is about 40 minutes. If the HSR gets built, the fares will keep it from becoming a commuter train.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dmlandis View Post
Amazing how far the USA is behind China. Tianjin to Beijing (110 km) in 1/2 hour at 300 km trains all for the price of $8. When I'm in the Bay Area next month, I'm sure how marvel at the BART Trains going 60mph and spending twice as much at half the distance. When is the high speed rail supposed to be operational??
Not comparable. China's government determines what railroad builders and railway operators get paid. CA will deal with unions the entire way, which is much more expensive. Also China doesn't have environmental restrictions. The HSR will run into activists finding some rare pest in unpopulated areas to halt the construction.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mrsltd View Post
Yeah; the rubber and auto companies bought up the track lines (at least in the LA metro) and shut them down so that more people would drive and/or ride buses.
As documented in Who Framed Roger Rabbit, but that was local transit, not intercity trains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-26-2017, 12:50 AM
 
Location: Near L.A.
4,108 posts, read 10,803,014 times
Reputation: 3444
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliRestoration View Post
High Speed Rail has about a 20% chance of being finished in the next 70 years.


/thread
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 10:43 AM
 
478 posts, read 691,360 times
Reputation: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by EclecticEars View Post


/thread
wrong

its going full speed ahead

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hsrcagov/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjmrjDoNS38

They already did the studies in pacheco pass as well
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/n...-mean-for.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 11:05 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
12,287 posts, read 9,822,024 times
Reputation: 6509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moddedintegra56 View Post
If full speed ahead is soaking tax payers so the politically connected get rich then you are right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2017, 11:06 AM
 
272 posts, read 322,495 times
Reputation: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moddedintegra56 View Post
wrong

its going full speed ahead

They already did the studies in pacheco pass as well
really?

simple 10-15 miles BART east bay extension still is not completed after how many years of work?
And it didn't have any problem with approval, environment, budget...

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfranci...sta-ebart.html
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 > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:33 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