61–70 of 297 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you ever ridden a train in Europe or Japan? They are far and away the most comfortable way to travel any distance under 500 miles.
They are also much, much cheaper per mile. Something is wrong with construction in the US that makes rail lines dramatically more expensive here.
Love the government pork being championed by a city who, increasingly, has to import a large portion of its workforce.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
320 kph is the maximum cruising speed. Average speed for a trip is typically much less than that because the trains can only hit 320 kph on certain stretches of track. Even 320 kph is about 30 kph short of what the California trains are planing to average. From what I understand the operating costs go up considerably between 320 kph and 350 kph due to the need for much more stringent track maintenance.
> 320 kph is the maximum cruising speed. Average speed for a trip is typically much less than that because the trains can only hit 320 kph on certain stretches of track. France and Spain have those tracks in Europe. The newer German tracks with 300km/h are operated at 300km/h with the ICE 3. Even through towns and tunnels. It's not the average speed, but a typical cruising speed on those tracks. France has more and l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is pretty common knowledge why they did this. Original plans for the BART had it traveling over the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin County. Due to high winds across the bridge, they wanted a wider gauge to prevent trains from tipping.
Yes, this is a popular theory but there's no evidence in the fossil record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a repeat of the BART mistake. Probably a different mistake but BART uses 5'6" rail gauge. Standard US rail gauge is 4'8.5". This means that every railcar, every everything, has to be custom made with no economies of scale. No one can remember why they did this.
It is pretty common knowledge why they did this. Original plans for the BART had it traveling over the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin County. Due to high winds across the bridge, they wanted a wider gauge to prevent trains from tipping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, I have no trouble imagining that the train can compete with flying between SF and LA. Even if the train has to stop in several backwater towns along the way. The shuttle flights between SFO/SJC and LAX are completely unreliable. When I was doing the SF-LA haul regularly, I'd be delayed (delayed!) by 6+ hours…
That assumption is: plane with current on-time arrival percentage vs train with mythical 100% on-time arrival. There are a whole host of additional problems that affect rail travel that you never have to think about with air-travel. Currently, Amtrak OTA is 80% - so that means 1/5 of your trips will experience a delay of some sort.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…
According to the figures released before the project, it will cost the same, but take twice as long to go from LA to SF compared to flying. No one is going to take the train instead of flying, except maybe John Madden.
Plus, we could see added environmental impact taxation for short-hop flights (carbon tax, if nothing else) that would raise airfare costs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…
> The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, I have no trouble imagining that the train can compete with flying between SF and LA. Even if the train has to stop in several backwater towns along the way. The shuttle flights between SFO/SJC and LAX are completely unreliable. When I was doing the SF-LA haul regularly, I'd be delayed (delayed!) by 6+ hours…
Especially if the train stops in "several backwater towns" (Fresno and Bakersfield ain't particularly glamorous, but I'd hardly call them "backwaters"; I digress...), this will automatically be more useful than just an ordinary flight between SFO and LAX for that reason alone.
In addition, the time required to travel from each airport to where you actually want to be can be much less, since train stations can be built much closer to major metropolitan areas. Plus, weather is far less of a problem; when the planes at SFO are grounded due to fog, the trains will still run on time.
For me, the line is effectively useless without Phase 2 (since that connects to Sacramento). With Phase 2 added, you'd have a high-speed connection to all four of California's major cities, significantly improving the already-pretty-great utility of the line.
Huge supporter of rail but sadly I believe there are a number of mistakes being made. This is a classic example of how projects like this in the US need to be monolithic, self contained, and gold plated to the hilt. The correct action would have been for CA to incrementally acquire and build railways along a number of corridors. Take the SF bay for example. There should be one agency running Caltrain, the Capitol Cor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…
According to the figures released before the project, it will cost the same, but take twice as long to go from LA to SF compared to flying. No one is going to take the train instead of flying, except maybe John Madden.
I'd wager a lot of people would take that. Once you factor in arriving at the airport an hour before your flight, along with the time taken to get to/from both airports to the actual centre of the city as opposed to where the airports actually are, 1.5 hours actually starts to sound like an improvement.