SAN FRANCISCO | Salesforce Transit Center

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

...Besides, they've been trying to fund a city museum (in the Old Mint) for 20 years and can't come up with the money...

There's a lot comedy here.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by tech12

ain't nothing wrong with more science museums

No . . . if you have a funding source. Can't see any to make the TransBay a science museum (unless Mark Zuckerberg or Mark Benioff have made so much money last week they have to off-load some more).

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

There's a lot comedy here.

You are suggesting they restore the coin-making machines first? We'd need a new gold rush of course.

[mt_climber13]

HSR is so 1970s. Besides, the current plan for HSR in California would make it the slowest (and most expensive) HSR in the world. Does this make any sense at all??

It's probably for the best that the basement of the terminal is left vacant for the next decade or so while a better, faster, cheaper, more efficient form of high speed transit is invented, such as Elon Musk's hyperloop, which can then operate out of the terminal.

http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2015/0...uilt-in-texas/

http://www.livescience.com/50936-hyp...alifornia.html

[Pedestrian]

^^At this point, all that is seriously under discussion is bringing CalTrain into the TransBay and getting commuters to what was then the center of the business district was the point of building a new TransBay. Any delays on HSR are really not the issue. And any delays in CalTrain negate much of the point of building the terminal in the first place. We could have just built a nicer/grander station in Mission Bay.

But since you bring it up, the plan for CA HSR would supposedly get people city center to city center, SF to LA in around 3 hours and that's fast enough. Faster is better, of course, but what really matters is that it's competitive with air and that it permits a round trip in a single day with plenty of time in the destination city. Considering time to get to the airport and put up with all the TSA nonsense these days, a 3 hour trip to/from LA is competitive. And six hours travel time on a round trip does let you go to LA from SF, spend the afternoon and evening there and return by a reasonable bedtime (pushing it a little, you could even take in a show). That's all I personally ask. I don't care if somebody else's HSR is faster and, once the tunnel exists, the HSR technology can be improved over time.

[viewguysf]

[botoxic]

@pink94109 on Twitter

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

HSR is so 1970s. Besides, the current plan for HSR in California would make it the slowest (and most expensive) HSR in the world. Does this make any sense at all??

It's probably for the best that the basement of the terminal is left vacant for the next decade or so while a better, faster, cheaper, more efficient form of high speed transit is invented, such as Elon Musk's hyperloop, which can then operate out of the terminal.

http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2015/0...uilt-in-texas/

http://www.livescience.com/50936-hyp...alifornia.html

Every word wrong and every word ridiculous.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Every word wrong and every word ridiculous.

Why?

If traveling from LA-> SF, which I'm sure is the measurement since this is a forum about the SF terminal, It will be very slow for world HSR standards. The top speed at 200 mph and will be slowed down when in metropolitan areas to 125 mph to as slow as 90 mph. There are trains in China that top out at 300 mph.

It has too many stops. The routes are distant because of the geology of the coastal mountain ranges. It is exhibit A of how this state/ country has turned into a bloated, wasteful, inefficient, rusted cog.

Use the money to build and implement urban rail systems and with the money left over, fund the hyperloop for longer distances.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

It will be very slow for world HSR standards.

No. The design speed will be 250. The planned operating top speed will range from 200-220. These speeds will be among the fastest in the world. Faster than all operating HSR in Europe. China is the only current operator AFAIK of regularly scheduled 200+ mph HSR. Shinkansen may be close. CHSR will not be "slow for world HSR standards." You seem to not know what you are talking about.

The top speed at 200 mph and will be slowed down when in metropolitan areas to 125 mph to as slow as 90 mph.

As does every HSR system on the planet. I'm not sure how this is seen by you as unique in the proposed CHSR system. The brief slowing of non-stop trains will make of little difference in overall trip time.

There are trains in China that top out at 300 mph.

I assume you are referring to the Shanghai Airport express maglev. You must because that is the only thing that goes 300mph in China unless its flying in the sky. The airport maglev is a totally different technology, is relatively short and is completely isolated from the rest of the HSR system. It is not part of the larger system, a system China, with an infrastructure investment exponentially larger than the US (a choice one makes), chose to be traditionally steel/steel 200mph+ HSR even though clearly a higher top speed is obtainable with maglev. How is the California HSR plan any different? Thus the maglev example is a bad one and a disingenuous one.

It has too many stops. The routes are distant because of the geology of the coastal mountain ranges. It is exhibit A of how this state/ country has turned into a bloated, wasteful, inefficient, rusted cog.

It makes no sense to invest 65 billion dollars and bypass multiple metropolitan areas in the Central Valley. None. The goal should and is more than just shuttling people between the cosmo of the north to the cosmo of the south. The geology of the coastal mountain ranges has literally nothing to do with the routing with the system with the exception of the questionable decision of choosing Palmdale to enter and exit the LA basin. As for the criticism of the state/country, you simultaneously sound like a conservative crank and dreamy liberal. Muy confusing. Also not really sure what it has to do when you seem to be stating that building a world class HSR system is dumb and bad, but replacing it with a vomit slide tube in the ground that services a couple thousand rich folks a day between the cosmo of the north and the cosmo of the south is a great and worthy thing that we should be willing to wait 20-30-50 years for instead. Well never really because the technology is ridiculous, impractical, unproven and would probably be so expensive its not even worth discussing. I will give Musk credit though for thinking outside of the box, but that's where my admiration ends.

Use the money to build and implement urban rail systems and with the money left over, fund the hyperloop for longer distances.

I'm all for building and implementing urban rail systems. But with the few million left over from the tight budgeting of important urban rail projects, I think the closest you'd come to funding a "hyperloop" would be a slick scale model. Also, see above. With the money left over... that's a good one.

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Also not really sure what it has to do when you seem to be stating that building a world class HSR system is dumb and bad, but replacing it with a vomit slide tube in the ground that services a couple thousand rich folks a day between the cosmo of the north and the cosmo of the south is a great and worthy thing that we should be willing to wait 20-30-50 years for instead. Well never really because the technology is ridiculous, impractical, unproven and would probably be so expensive its not even worth discussing. I will give Musk credit though for thinking outside of the box, but that's where my admiration ends.

Wow, who's the crank here

Yes, let's keep the horse and buggy technology from generations ago. While we're at it, let's continue on the path of "clean coal" and oil and the combustible engine, because new technology has no place in preserving my old fashioned view of things. New is scary to me!


Anyway, it will be fun to see what ends up happening with all of this. I predict that HSR in its current form will be replaced with something evolutionary than its current form or perhaps replaced with an entirely different new technology altogether (like a vomit tube )

And by that time autonomous vehicle technology will be so advanced that trains will probably be obsolete anyway. I predict widening of I-5 and speed limits increased to 100 mph or more with automated buses and cars.

[Busy Bee]

^Wow. You've got some learnin to do. A modern HSR train is "horse and buggy/coal/old timey" huh? I guess all those other countries building them are jist really dumb and can't see the wisdom of waiting for some unnamed unidentifiable future technology, or better yet, and ironically your advice of a literal four wheeled computer driven sans horse buggy hotrod. That will of course require more money than rail system build-out to fund its absurdly inefficient and maintenance heavy infrastructure. Welcome to the future?

[mt_climber13]

The first high speed train was built ½ century ago (and the first train over two centuries ago). By the time it's built in California it will be almost a century old technology. Yeah, I'd say, that's pretty antiquated, especially considering the rapid rate of the growth of technology we are now entering. But this is all up to much bigger players than you or me.

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

That will of course require more money than rail system build-out to fund its absurdly inefficient and maintenance heavy infrastructure.

Proof? The cost estimate is only $7 billion for a $20 ride from SF to LA. (Queue the "there will be cost overruns!" from somebody defending CA HSR ) I guess your claim above that it is just for the "rich" (while HSR tickets are expected to cost exponentially more) is more hyperbole from somebody claiming to be so full of "truth." Face it- you're a bleeding heart HSR cheerleader with no grounding.

[Busy Bee]

I love how you are quoting a cost estimate for a technology with no proof of actual functionality attached to a proposal which is dubious at best. And I'm the "full of truth bleeding heart with no grounding"? O-K

As for the autonomous vehicle love that I can feel radiating off of you through the interweb, it's interesting how much pleasure you seem to get deriding railroads as antiquated seemingly without a shred of awareness that you are pushing high tech computer driven versions of a transport form actually older than the train. Fitted and furnished carriage, four wheels with sacrificial outer belt, suspension for comfort, steering stick, high torque propulsion system, fuel (oats, diesel, gas, electric...). Hmm, sounds familiar. That's funny.

The problem with always being "pregnant with the future" is that you never have anything practical and useful to show for the present.

[mt_climber13]

Autonomous cars can use pre- existing infrastructure and don't require $60- 70 billion (and counting) of new infrastructure to build out. And many things can come of it, such as hovering vehicles, that use the aforementioned infrastructure. With a train, you're stuck with the technology. To upgrade to something else, the track must be changed as well. Vehicles can be invented which hover over asphalt- and they probably will if the problem of civilian drivers operating them is eliminated. I actually love the idea of high speed trains, but California has mucked this up so badly that I regret having voted for it and if I knew it would turn out this way I would never have. Which makes me wonder- are you even a California citizen? If not, your opinions really don't matter.

But the topic is the Transbay Terminal, which is right now a bus station (soon to be automated buses), and within a couple decades a Caltrain station, and, hopefully, hyperloop terminus

[Busy Bee]

...but California has mucked this up so badly that I regret having voted for it...

I've been following the project since day one. Big projects are hard. Especially big projects that are continually under assault and sabotage for political purposes. Considering the circumstances, I think the authority is handling things quite well. Things are being built. And will continue to. And all the wet dream talk of evacuated tubes is not going to amount to a hill of beans.

hovering vehicles

This is where I leave you. Have fun on Tatooine.

[mt_climber13]

I will send you a postcard from the future

[pseudolus]

I'll side with Busy Bee. Shall we take a poll?

[viewguysf]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I'll side with Busy Bee. Shall we take a poll?

Busy Bee is right for me. While I agree we should never stop looking forward, our country has not been the most adept with public infrastructure for quite some time. Interstate 5, Highway 99, and other transit corridors/freeways can't continue to be ever expanded; neither can airports. It make sense to add rail and to do it as quickly as possible. We are way behind other countries with HSR, a number of which I have experienced.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by pseudolus

I'll side with Busy Bee. Shall we take a poll?

Me too.

[hammersklavier]

Busy Bee is in the right of it.

From an efficiency standpoint -- whether it's moving cargoes across a continent or whisking passengers between nearby urban centers, there is no more efficient overland technology than rail. Many have tried alternatives, and all of them have failed either from pure physics problems or from financing issues.