• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

CA High Speed Rail

S

Suspicious-Teach8788

Lifer
First of all, if you're going to hate on CA, get out of here because that's not what I'm asking for.

As one of the 7 million people living in the Bay Area, I personally don't see any benefits of this. I drive down to LA once or twice a year but I'd imagine most people don't do it THAT many times either.

Studies show that this is far cheaper than expanding our airports or adding highways, but honestly is our problem the airport? Is jumping on Southwest really THAT bad? Or is it that bad to get on the road and drive down I-5?

If anything my biggest gripe about going to LA isn't fuel costs but rather LA's terrible traffic. It bugs me that there's this retarded Facebook group that people are inviting me to join filled with immature kids acting like this is going to be the magic pill to cure all of CA's problems, but really I see it more as prevention.

If you believe everything they feed you, then yeah we won't have to build 3300 miles of highway or 90 more airport gates. It's more like "Oh we won't have to do these things to counter growth." It seems to me this might be more of a effect we won't notice.

HSR won't end CA's dependence on cars nor the rest of the nation's desire to drive, and so to me I'd rather see I-5 and I-405 expanded to be like 10 or 12 lanes or something as it runs through LA, and the same with I-880 or 101 in the Bay Area.

Shrug.
 
I've been saying this since 1978, when I first had the chance to ride the Bullet Train.

It's a lost cause because we only have punks for leaders.
 
I agree, the money is better spent upgrading and expanding the major feeder freeways in the Bay Area and LA regions. Once you get out of the cities, traffic is never bad on Interstate 5 between the Bay Area and LA. It's usually just smooth sailing with the occasional minor slow-down for trucks passing each other.
 
I'm with the OP on this, in asking the question "is getting to LA from the Bay Area really that big of a problem now?"

The money would be better spent upgrading current infrastructure, and possibly designing reasonably intelligent public transportation (unlike our light rail).
 
1. People don't make the drive between SF and LA that often, because it takes so long. That's like saying "We shouldn't build planes because quite frankly, I rarely sail my boat across the Atlantic to visit Paris from NY."

2. Jumping on Southwest is $150 RT from SB to SF. I imagine it's that much or cheaper from LA to SF. How much is a rail ticket?

3.
Studies show that this is far cheaper than expanding our airports or adding highways, but honestly is our problem the airport? Is jumping on Southwest really THAT bad?
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?

4. The problem with driving 6 hours to LA is not fuel but traffic? Again, how is this relevant to a rail discussion? Are you suggesting they spend the money on improving LA traffic? That's like saying "Please don't build a new bike path in town, but instead, put more seats in the Denny's so I don't have to wait when I get there." LA is huge, not all of it is city, and not all of it has traffic.

 
Odd I was just looking at rail from LA -SF and in it's current landscape it is not feasible. At all.
 
While long-term I think it's a great idea, right now the money should be spent on much better subway systems. Honestly, BART sucks. It covers so small of an area. The entire Bay Area (and LA too) should have a full subway system covering all major areas.
 
Originally posted by: Dirigible
I've not heard any convincing reasoning for why we should spend megabucks on this high speed rail bollocks.
Click to expand...

Infrastructure for the future - you can't just keep cramming people onto planes - only so many corridors for them to fly through. And as for cars, I thought we were aiming to have people drive less. High speed rail is a great alternative to driving or short shuttle flights when cities are 400 miles or less apart.
 
Originally posted by: sygyzy
1. People don't make the drive between SF and LA that often, because it takes so long. That's like saying "We shouldn't build planes because quite frankly, I rarely sail my boat across the Atlantic to visit Paris from NY."

2. Jumping on Southwest is $150 RT from SB to SF. I imagine it's that much or cheaper from LA to SF. How much is a rail ticket?

3.
Studies show that this is far cheaper than expanding our airports or adding highways, but honestly is our problem the airport? Is jumping on Southwest really THAT bad?
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?

4. The problem with driving 6 hours to LA is not fuel but traffic? Again, how is this relevant to a rail discussion? Are you suggesting they spend the money on improving LA traffic? That's like saying "Please don't build a new bike path in town, but instead, put more seats in the Denny's so I don't have to wait when I get there." LA is huge, not all of it is city, and not all of it has traffic.
Click to expand...

1) Sailing that distance is ridiculous, and it's an exaggeration. I have no problems driving 6 hours and a lot of people don't either. Flying down is fine but when you have to rent a car, in the end it's not that big of a difference.

2) If you impulsively buy tickets like my idiotic friend who goes to UCSD does, then you're going to be paying $99 each way, but for my smart friends who plan out their trips back home to LA (when they're at Cal with me), most of them buy their tickets well in advance so they get the $59 or $69 at least if not the $39 specials.

3) It means that building the HSR system which costs $40 billion? is far cheaper than to expand our airports and highways to match this. I don't know why I added the 2nd part in the statement, but I think what I meant to say was that why do we have to spend $40 billion when our drive or flight isn't all that bad right now?

4) I'm suggesting that the problem right now isn't the drive from LA to SF or from the Central Valley to the Bay Area/LA. I personally haven't driven the SR-99 route, but I hear it's pretty truck heavy, and so if the Central Valley needs something that badly, I can't really argue what's best for them. Once again don't compare that to your bike/Dennys thing because that makes no sense at all. I'm saying that since LA to SF isn't really that big of an issue, why spend $40 billion on that when it can be spent improving roads in a regional manner? LA is huge, and yes a lot of it is traffic. If you don't agree, compare this:

http://www.sigalert.com/map.asp?Region=Bay+Area
http://www.sigalert.com/map.as...on=Greater+Los+Angeles

One clearly looks a lot uglier than the other.

200,000 commuters a day will benefit huh, so why don't we revamp the MacArthur Maze and the Bay Bridge because 250,000 commuters cross the Bay Bridge each day so that it's wide enough that it's traffic free and so we shorten a nightmare 1 hour drive down to its supposed 10 minute crossing? I'm sure that would still cost less than $40 billion. Maybe with the remaining amount we can expand the GG Bridge so that stupid crash incident that caused a 2 hour backup into downtown wont be such a problem.
 
I disagree. I think this IS needed. Pouring more cars on the roads is not the answer. I for one would probably frequent LA more if we had this.
 
With petroleum prices rising the cost of driving and taking the plane can go up enormously. A few years ago nobody would have believed that we'd be paying $4 a gallon for gas. Just 10 years ago we were paying about 89 cents a gallon. Having an (electric) high speed rail system enables you to travel using cheaper electricity rather than petroleum that airlines take, whether it comes from petroleum (if the market price drops), nuclear power, wind power or solar power. By having it on the grid you get some amount of energy independence since you're not limited to petroleum.

As long as they make it high speed rail and limit the amount of stops this could be worth it. If they do too much politicking and are forced to build a stop at every lawmaker's hometown, it will slow the system down to a crawl and it'll be useless.
 
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
With petroleum prices rising the cost of driving and taking the plane can go up enormously. A few years ago nobody would have believed that we'd be paying $4 a gallon for gas. Just 10 years ago we were paying about 89 cents a gallon. Having an (electric) high speed rail system enables you to travel using cheaper electricity rather than petroleum that airlines take, whether it comes from petroleum (if the market price drops), nuclear power, wind power or solar power. By having it on the grid you get some amount of energy independence since you're not limited to petroleum.

As long as they make it high speed rail and limit the amount of stops this could be worth it. If they do too much politicking and are forced to build a stop at every lawmaker's hometown, it will slow the system down to a crawl and it'll be useless.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the fuel, rail is among the most efficient ways to transport goods or people.

Your last paragraph is exactly why Amtrak needs to get out of the business. We need private companies to build the rail infrastructure because they can do it without the political pandering and bullshit approval processes that take 15 years.
 
California has the highest ridership Amtrak line outside of the NE corridor.

Yea, I think it's worth the investment for a fully grade separated HSR system. It is absolutely perfect for the distances involved.


 
Originally posted by: K1052
California has the highest ridership Amtrak line outside of the NE corridor.

Yea, I think it's worth the investment for a fully grade separated HSR system. It is absolutely perfect for the distances involved.
Click to expand...

At 180 mph with one or two stops, you could go from San Francisco to LA in ~2.5 hours. When you factor in security lines, taxing, takeoffs, and landings, it would be at least as fast as riding a plane.
 
Originally posted by: neutralizer
People like to drive in CA. This is how places like Sacramento end up with shit for public transportation.
Click to expand...
Fixed it. The long range vision in this town is still stuck in 1920. You can't take a light rail train from the airport to downtown. How screwed up is that ?:disgust:😱

 
Originally posted by: DLeRium
Originally posted by: sygyzy
1. People don't make the drive between SF and LA that often, because it takes so long. That's like saying "We shouldn't build planes because quite frankly, I rarely sail my boat across the Atlantic to visit Paris from NY."

2. Jumping on Southwest is $150 RT from SB to SF. I imagine it's that much or cheaper from LA to SF. How much is a rail ticket?

3.
Studies show that this is far cheaper than expanding our airports or adding highways, but honestly is our problem the airport? Is jumping on Southwest really THAT bad?
Click to expand...

What does this even mean?

4. The problem with driving 6 hours to LA is not fuel but traffic? Again, how is this relevant to a rail discussion? Are you suggesting they spend the money on improving LA traffic? That's like saying "Please don't build a new bike path in town, but instead, put more seats in the Denny's so I don't have to wait when I get there." LA is huge, not all of it is city, and not all of it has traffic.
Click to expand...

1) Sailing that distance is ridiculous, and it's an exaggeration. I have no problems driving 6 hours and a lot of people don't either. Flying down is fine but when you have to rent a car, in the end it's not that big of a difference.

2) If you impulsively buy tickets like my idiotic friend who goes to UCSD does, then you're going to be paying $99 each way, but for my smart friends who plan out their trips back home to LA (when they're at Cal with me), most of them buy their tickets well in advance so they get the $59 or $69 at least if not the $39 specials.

3) It means that building the HSR system which costs $40 billion? is far cheaper than to expand our airports and highways to match this. I don't know why I added the 2nd part in the statement, but I think what I meant to say was that why do we have to spend $40 billion when our drive or flight isn't all that bad right now?

4) I'm suggesting that the problem right now isn't the drive from LA to SF or from the Central Valley to the Bay Area/LA. I personally haven't driven the SR-99 route, but I hear it's pretty truck heavy, and so if the Central Valley needs something that badly, I can't really argue what's best for them. Once again don't compare that to your bike/Dennys thing because that makes no sense at all. I'm saying that since LA to SF isn't really that big of an issue, why spend $40 billion on that when it can be spent improving roads in a regional manner? LA is huge, and yes a lot of it is traffic. If you don't agree, compare this:

http://www.sigalert.com/map.asp?Region=Bay+Area
http://www.sigalert.com/map.as...on=Greater+Los+Angeles

One clearly looks a lot uglier than the other.

200,000 commuters a day will benefit huh, so why don't we revamp the MacArthur Maze and the Bay Bridge because 250,000 commuters cross the Bay Bridge each day so that it's wide enough that it's traffic free and so we shorten a nightmare 1 hour drive down to its supposed 10 minute crossing? I'm sure that would still cost less than $40 billion. Maybe with the remaining amount we can expand the GG Bridge so that stupid crash incident that caused a 2 hour backup into downtown wont be such a problem.
Click to expand...

1) How about cutting that 6-7 hour drive or 4+ hour plane/airport experience to a 2.5 hour train ride? Oh the bounus is thay you can just hop on one at any time for half (or less) of what the plane ride would cost. You can't tell me there wouldn't be any takers for this.

2) Look at the airlines, they're bleeding cash out their eyeballs. Air travel is never going to be as cheap as it has been particularly when SW's fuel hedges expire. Chapter 11 filings are looming unless oil prices crater.

3) A glance at what's happened to domestic gasoline consumption lately might interest you. Americans are driving less for the first time in decades. The Highway Trust fund is going to be insolvent for the first time due to the lack of fuel tax revenue. Building more roads is not the answer and we have a decreasing amount of money for just maintaining what we have.

4) Mass transit should be improved in a regional manner from a non fuel based funding source. LA has done almost nothing but pour ungodly amounts of money at the traffic problem with the result of massive sprawl (and even more traffic) that will be a monumental headache to serve with mass transit. I don't see how even more roads will solve the problem that more roads had already created.

 
Originally posted by: Ns1
Odd I was just looking at rail from LA -SF and in it's current landscape it is not feasible. At all.
Click to expand...
If you want to call Oakland the SF Bay area then it is possible. There is no Amtrak station in SF anymore.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top