• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

high speed rail fail

afm199 said:
I like the idea more than the reality. If we get a bullet rain from LA to SF, it still leaves most of the urban and suburban population in both places stuck at home, with an antiquated and unworking transportation system. I'm in Oakland. If the thing goes to SF, I have to get there. That's a bus or Uber to BART, BART to SF, and then Uber or a bus to the train station. When I get to LA, it's the same thing. End result? 2-3 hours of secondary transport, and 2 hours of primary transport. 4-5 hours total. lol
Click to expand...

Same thing can be said about getting to airport, then also adding time to get a special touch by TSA.
 
tzrider said:
From the customer perspective, HSR will be less impacted by weather, so potentially more reliable. It will also use less fuel and produce fewer emissions per passenger mile, though I don't know that passengers would be motivated by that unless there is a related price decrease.
Click to expand...

Also something to be said not being treated as a sardine in a can.
 
I'll stick with my truck for getting around CA. No TSA bullshit, no rail delays bullshit.

If CalTrain ran from Salinas to SF I would consider it...but it doesn't. And Amtrak is a bad joke; it uses buses between our stations.


.
 
Last edited:
I believe someone on this forum pointed out that the HSR could never go to SF because no real estate for it could be purchased or emanate domain'ed thru Palo Alto, Menlo, Atherton etc. Leaving one to catch Cal-Train in Santa Clara or Bart in Fremont; alot of us know how fun that is... IMO if HSR cannot go it the inevitable end points, it is a ridiculous waste.




afm199 said:
I like the idea more than the reality. If we get a bullet rain from LA to SF, it still leaves most of the urban and suburban population in both places stuck at home, with an antiquated and unworking transportation system. I'm in Oakland. If the thing goes to SF, I have to get there. That's a bus or Uber to BART, BART to SF, and then Uber or a bus to the train station. When I get to LA, it's the same thing. End result? 2-3 hours of secondary transport, and 2 hours of primary transport. 4-5 hours total. lol
Click to expand...
 
nebulous said:
I believe someone on this forum pointed out that the HSR could never go to SF because no real estate for it could be purchased or emanate domain'ed thru Palo Alto, Menlo, Atherton etc. Leaving one to catch Cal-Train in Santa Clara or Bart in Fremont; alot of us know how fun that is... IMO if HSR cannot go it the inevitable end points, it is a ridiculous waste.
Click to expand...

Pahhhh. We all, in our inner souls, admit to a need to visit Wasco!
 
Was just looking stuff up and ran into some interesting information

Less than half the costs of the 1.3 billion dollar renovation to SJC appears to have come from user fees. Even less of the 3+ billion SFO work. People should make sure they account for that when comparing projects ;)
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71801
http://onesanfrancisco.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/Agenda Item 4 - SFO Budget Presentation_1.pdf

Passenger traffic between SFO and LA is almost double the second most popular destination (Seattle). Same for San Jose and both grew considerably in the past year
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airpo...CA: San Francisco International&carrier=FACTS

SFO is projected to reach capacity soon (possibly within 5 years) which will likely cause an increase in fares. I believe their only option to expand is filling into the Bay which I'd imagine would be more than the $3+ billion spent revising the terminals (if and when they are ever granted permission)
https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/article/SFO-slot-contols-FAA-12948559.php

I'd imagine SJC has more room, but will eventually cap out too. Not to mention it has no direct mass transit links beyond bus service. OAK has a BART connection but is in pretty poor shape facility wise

Here is the recently released 2040 regional transportation plan
https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/plan-bay-area-2040
 
Last edited:
mlm said:
Was just looking stuff up and ran into some interesting information

Less than half the costs of the 1.3 billion dollar renovation to SJC appears to have come from user fees. Even less of the 3+ billion SFO work. People should make sure they account for that when comparing projects ;)
https://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/71801
http://onesanfrancisco.org/sites/default/files/2018-02/Agenda Item 4 - SFO Budget Presentation_1.pdf

Passenger traffic between SFO and LA is almost double the second most popular destination (Seattle). Same for San Jose and both grew considerably in the past year
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/airpo...CA: San Francisco International&carrier=FACTS

SFO is projected to reach capacity soon (possibly within 5 years) which will likely cause an increase in fares. I believe their only option to expand is filling into the Bay which I'd imagine would be more than the $3+ billion spent revising the terminals (if and when they are ever granted permission)
https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/article/SFO-slot-contols-FAA-12948559.php

I'd imagine SJC has more room, but will eventually cap out too. Not to mention it has no direct mass transit links beyond bus service. OAK has a BART connection but is in pretty poor shape facility wise

Here is the recently released 2040 regional transportation plan
https://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/plans-projects/plan-bay-area-2040
Click to expand...

How much of that air traffic to LA is:
1) changing planes on-route to their real destination?
2) or, business travel, which is less likely to try HSR than someone travelling for personal reasons?
 
Last edited:
nebulous said:
I believe someone on this forum pointed out that the HSR could never go to SF because no real estate for it could be purchased or emanate domain'ed thru Palo Alto, Menlo, Atherton etc. Leaving one to catch Cal-Train in Santa Clara or Bart in Fremont; alot of us know how fun that is... IMO if HSR cannot go it the inevitable end points, it is a ridiculous waste.
Click to expand...

Not sure who pointed this out, nor do I recall hearing any specific facts or sources. This is the HSR report (linked from CalTrain BTW) that indicates the plan is to use the CalTrain corridor http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/Draft_2018_Business_Plan.pdf

Not denying that NIMBY and anti-HSR legal obstacles are up, but the information above indicates they're planning to make further improvements to the CalTrain line, and it isn't just HSR that has issues with the at grade crossings in the Palo Alto area. It took 15 years to complete I280, so the thought we should just throw up our hands because of some objections seems naive and short sighted.
 
Reli said:
How much of that air traffic to LA is:
1) changing planes on-route to their real destination?
2) or, business travel, which is less likely to try HSR than someone travelling for personal reasons?
Click to expand...

It looks to me like those are destinations and not segments. Check the “T-100” source
 
Last edited:
Reli said:
Palmdale, bruh
Click to expand...

We here in SoCal call it "Pompton". There's a reason you get a lot for your money out there, and it isn't a good one.
 

'Love' the 2 optimistic dudes who got put in place 'just recently' to play jester for the public.

All the money has long ago been 'stolen' / I mean appropriated.....
 
Dmitriy said:

'Love' the 2 optimistic dudes who got put in place 'just recently' to play jester for the public.

All the money has long ago been 'stolen' / I mean appropriated.....
Click to expand...
Watched that last night.

They called HSR in California rightly the "Ghost Train."

An abject failure.
 
I've been saying so since late 2008. Any fool should know it wasn't going to work, it simply failed "more than usual" and thinks it can spend (our money) its way out of trouble.
 
Last edited:
The most only way it could work / spend its way out of trouble is if the gov did the legwork for track right of way eminent domain and a private company did the infrastructure and operations
 
Widening I5 would be a much better plan than a high speed rail.

Since it opened (50 years ago?) as the major artery through CA it's always been two lanes N and two S. And the right lane is the truck lane.
Yet in those 50 years the population of CA has increased a bunch and number of vehicles has increased so there's a need.
Tax revenue has increased so there's a way.
I understand Caltrans owns a lot of the land along I5 so why not put it to use?
 
Even if they built it, it'd be an endless subsidy pit. Flying is barely faster than driving even without the ss checkpoints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top