California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Transferring from your local station only station to a Major station is common. Like if only all-stops served say Palo Alto and you’d hop off in San Jose to grab the limited stop from San Jose on the way to LA. ( more or less the same price so you might as well.

All CAHSR trains, including the express trains, are going to stop in San Jose, SFO, and DTSF. There they will have cross-platform transfers to Caltrains.

Which, for the 10th time, is being upgraded to very fast electric commuter rail on a completely grade-separated ROW. So it's basically turning into BART, with a max of 6 trains per hour per direction.

Same with all of the Metrorail commuter rail between Burbank, LA, Riverside, and San Diego. It is all going to be fully grade separated, just like a rapid transit line. If it is electrified, it will be an incredible service.

No way does the political will exist today to spend the tens of billions necessary to upgrade Southern California's commuter rail network to a fully grade-separated system independent of High Speed Rail.

People on the internet can sit around and whine about a maglev or a shorter I-5 HSR system but can't face the fact that connecting DTLA and DTSF is only one feature of CAHSR and not its central mission, and the 20-minute time savings that would be produced by spending $30 billion to dig a 30-mile tunnel under Silicon Valley isn't going to win the system almost any riders.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

If a Maglev (or the never-will-exist hyperloop)

Not to overlook your points regarding maglev vs. conventional HSR which are valid, I'm surprised you are so sure of statements like this.

The realities of a hyperloop are surely right to be questioned , but the concept is a no brainier. If you can pull it off, this would be a game changer only if the issue of funding could be overcome-- which it has before with the interstate system and transcontinental railroad(not to mention the tons of other mega projects and initiatives).

It won't be cheap, but ground transportation that is faster than air travel? Think how much that would revolutionize travel. It could replace as we know it. Airports transformed? Think of how much more appealing it would be skip the lengthy process to 'actually' be traveling to your destination(less security screenings, not having to board a plane, not having to take off, land, taxi, etc...). Then you have the pesky physics issue to overcome, of course.

You seem so sure that it can't be done yet you don't believe the benefits of succeeding in creating technology like this isn't even worth spending some time and money for R&D? Again, if proven successful, the outcome would be unstated.

As for Japan being the 'lone wolf' in MagLev, there also aren't many countries either that are regarded as the most high tech/advanced countries in the world. Japan also has a reputation of the having the best mass transit network in the world. Let's keep that in perspective. I'd rather take advice from them than China or any country in Europe.

[Busy Bee]

Re: "game changer"

Hyperloop can not and will never be mass transportation. Why would such a colossal investment be made in something with such limited capacity? It's not air or rail which can and do move hundreds of thousands a day. It's a unprofitable gimmick that will never be built. A classic folly by every definition of the word.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Re: "game changer"

Hyperloop can not and will never be mass transportation. Why would such a colossal investment be made in something with such limited capacity? It's not air or rail which can and do move hundreds of thousands a day. It's a unprofitable gimmick that will never be built. A classic folly by every definition of the word.

You're wrong about so much it's hard to take you seriously.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

You're wrong about so much it's hard to take you seriously.

He's not wrong about the capacity. The capacity limits of proposed designs make them effectively useless.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

connecting DTLA and DTSF is ... not its central mission

Turning Caltrain and part of Metrolink into a BART-type service can be done by focusing on these parts and ignoring the rest.

I actually think that this might be a better use of funds...

[FresnoHobbit]

I don't understand why anybody would even compare the hyperloop to HSR. From what I have read, Hyperloop will have to run in straighter lines and at less grade than rail so it will obviously cost more to get rightaways. And how could it possible be cheaper to build an airtight tube than to lay down a track? And it has lower capacity...
To build a system able to handle a number of passengers similar to what the airlines are hauling today would make HSR look super cheap. But if anybody wants to spend their own money on it feel free - but you should probably build it in the desert or the plains where there are fewer obstacles.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

You're wrong about so much it's hard to take you seriously.

Be my guest future human. Elaborate.

[lrt's friend]

Until there is a working test track, there is no point in discussing hyperloop. Even after that, who is going to gamble on building the first operational line, with the likely cost overruns?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Until there is a working test track, there is no point in discussing hyperloop. Even after that, who is going to gamble on building the first operational line, with the likely cost overruns?

Do the napkin math on how much steel this is going to take. It's like laying an inch of steel the width of a divided 4-lane highway and then rolling them into a burrito. Then think about how much steel that is as compared for four rails.

So each linear foot of hyperloop is going to require about 100 feet of 1" steel, or 100 cubic feet. That's like 25-100x as much steel per linear foot as compared to HSR depending on diameter and thickness of the tubes.

How innovative.

[Busy Bee]

Not to mention that it will still require concrete piers and other infrastructure as it crosses terrain. I think the gullible are thinking of this like a pipeline. It's more like a Mars mission of challenge. And then you realize no one will finance such an endeavor. And then it dies. Move on.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Not to mention that it will still require concrete piers and other infrastructure as it crosses terrain. I think the gullible are thinking of this like a pipeline. It's more like a Mars mission of challenge. And then you realize no one will finance such an endeavor. And then it dies. Move on.

Given the quoted speeds it will also need to be incredibly straight. So you won't be able to avoid terrain either, it will need insane numbers of bridges and tunnels (far more than HSR). Basically anyone with half a brain can see that the hyperloop is going to cost 10x as much as HSR and if you know anything about HSR you know the cost is already pretty prohibitive. This isn't something technology can fix like writing a more efficient computer code, it's basic physics.

[TrackMan]

Yep, hyperloop is ridiculous.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

This isn't something technology can fix like writing a more efficient computer code, it's basic physics.

People are easily duped into believing that future technologies will provide profound benefits over current methods and do so at a lower cost.

Theranos is a perfect example. Elizabeth Holmes convinced the press and everyone from Henry Kissinger to Rupert Murdoch to Betsy Devos that there was an opportunity to improve significantly upon current blood testing methods. Without a proof of concept, Murdoch and Devos each tossed in $100 million and each lost that entire sum. Poof.

It was all a scam.

Hyperloop is the same scam. Convince people that vast improvements can be made over conventional HSR in order to convince politicians to not pursue "old-fashioned" HSR.

[dubu]

im just hoping it will be driverless and come up to the nw some day. they say if theres a big earthquake then redmond (central oregon) will be the new portland and if boise turns into a seattle then there would be closer big cities to california. there could be a boise to la train and central oregon to this train. if theres such thing as hyperloop then a hyperloop from central oregon to boise. thats a ways away but it would be cool having two long hsr lines on the west coast. then finally burning man can become a city, i think burning man is as old as me 33 years old. but with trains you can create new cities.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

People are easily duped into believing that future technologies will provide profound benefits over current methods at a lower cost.

Theranos is a perfect example. Elizabeth Holmes convinced people to part with $100+ million dollars (Rupert Merdoch, Betsy Devos), plus the press, that there was a need to improve upon the blood testing methods that currently exist. That are currently 100% accurate. That are currently cheap. That are currently fast.

It was all a scam.

Hyperloop is the same scam. Convince people that vast improvements can be made over conventional HSR in order to convince politicians to not pursue "old-fashioned" HSR.

100%

Like I keep saying, we have this "always pregnant with the future" culture. Frustrating as hell since in the meantime we don't have nice things.

[jmecklenborg]

Google recently updated its imagery in and around Fresno. These images are from February 2018, so 10 months old at this point, but are much newer than the imagery this replaced.

[202_Cyclist]

Jeff Denham, a Republican from Modesto who was the number one high-speed rail opponent in Congress, ended up being defeated last Tuesday. Good riddance!

[Busy Bee]

I saw that. Nov 6 was a very good day for CHSR.

[Busy Bee]

November photo update up on Flickr.