The Rich are Different -- Social Class as Culture

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The Acela Express averages just under 80 mph in the NE corridor between DC and Boston. 6.5 hours enroute- that sucker cooks, no argument here. There's various reasons for the reduced average (speed limits on shared lines, tilting limits passing other trains, etc). It's also one of the only Amtrak lines that runs at a profit. But what is the cost of 80mph average with a modified Acela express track versus 55-65 mph average with the ordinary PAX service trains?

for a project with the goal of building a high volume transit line between LA and central Bay Area (esp San Francisco), the bulk of the cost is in the land and assembly, not the rail technology being used. High speed is not the cost point, it's getting an exclusive rail line through expensive real estate. And that's the troubling part about starting with an easy stretch in the middle of the valley. We may end up with a line that stops at Gilroy and as such is hardly viable for the benefits being sold at this time.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

OK, now I'm glad you posted that. What happens is the rest of us outside Cali read "California High Speed Rail Project Estimates Top $98 Billion" and we go into sticker shock.. So it's not a tech/construction issue, it's a right-of-way issue,

it's sticker shock here too. Same with the recent freeway projects for the I-880 (earthquake damage, Oakland) and I-105 (new, LA). It costs hundreds of millions per mile to lay down new freeway. But these are essential for cities with millions of residents.

[billvon 2,989]

>It costs hundreds of millions per mile to lay down new freeway. But these are
>essential for cities with millions of residents.

Agreed. The question is - is that money best spent on more freeway lanes or on a rail line?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>It costs hundreds of millions per mile to lay down new freeway. But these are
>essential for cities with millions of residents.

Agreed. The question is - is that money best spent on more freeway lanes or on a rail line?

While I-5 could be expanded, the approaches into the Bay Area or LA cannot. Never mind that each additional freeway lane does not result in as much marginal capacity as the one before.

Also it's well established that the fuel economy of the train is very difficult to beat. Certainly beyond the single occupant car, even if we were talking about not yet existent EVs with a reliable 600 mile range.

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

The Acela Express averages just under 80 mph in the NE corridor between DC and Boston. 6.5 hours enroute- that sucker cooks, no argument here. .

Cooks? Seems pretty lame compared to a TGV.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,989]

>Cooks? Seems pretty lame compared to a TGV.

If you saw some of those tracks you'd be amazed it could hit 80mph.

[lawrocket 3]

And in the news today:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bullet-train-report-20120104,0,3258448.story

Independent panel has big problems with the high speed rail project right now.

Quote

But in a report Tuesday, a panel of experts created by state law to help safeguard the public's interest raised serious doubts about almost every aspect of the project and concluded that the current plan "is not financially feasible." As a result, the panel said, it "cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for this project."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[pirana 0]

Quote

I'd say it's been "perfectly and on purpose REdesigned" - and that is no accident

Ah yes, good catch there.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This is a much better option.

Velocibus- The Bus of the Future is Here

buses do not solve the problem of LA-SFO or LA-LAS transportation.