4 ms·

When people talk about using high speed rail in the US and talk about how it doesn't work, I think the problem is exemplified by how any rail system seems to ge

by xt00 10y ago

When people talk about using high speed rail in the US and talk about how it doesn't work, I think the problem is exemplified by how any rail system seems to get implemented in the US. Basically what I have seen in virtually all cities around the US that I've traveled, the train goes close to downtown or close to the airport, but not actually into the actual terminal in the airport. Or you have a fast train that drops you in some place where you have to transfer to something else like a taxi or bus or another train. For example as I understand it, the new high speed train in California in the SF area will not realistically be any better than riding Caltrain. So since it likely will cost more than Caltrain a big base of people who could be riding it everyday to get between SF and San Jose would not be using it. And I think it stops in like a far flung spot in San Jose probably far away from many people's jobs. So it's like, well may as well just keep taking Caltrain!

foolfoolz 10y ago
the goal of high speed rail project in California is not taking you from SF to SJ. it's the bay area to LA area. this is not a train for within Bay Area commuters Caltrain with express trains works very well. sfo and oak have trains that go into the airport. caltrains goal of electrification if it ever happens should make SF to SJ a lot faster. trains in the Bay Area are not as bad as you make them out to be. personally I think high speed rail should go from Santa Clarita to gilroy or south San Jose. once you pass up the Central Valley you can take bart or Caltrain to your final destination
- xt00 10y ago
  Yea I understand that the goal of the california HSR is to get you from SF to LA in its current form, but I guess what I'm getting at is that these systems become much more viable when they truly get you from point A to point B for commuters extremely quickly -- ridership goes way up. If it takes you 30 mins to get someplace that previously took an hour or more, then taking that small transfer seems like a small burden to add onto that. So at least if part of your trip is at very high speed that is extremely helpful, and focuses additional density desires for people who want to move there or build houses. For example, the Taiwan HSR can get you from Taipei downtown to Hsinchu in around 45 mins, and its around the same distance between SF and San Jose -- 50-ish miles. The baby bullet assuming you can actually catch one will take around 1.5 hours to get from SF to San Jose. In Taipei, driving to Hsinchu vs taking the HSR is kind of ridiculous because you hit so much traffic just trying to get out of the city and then the toll roads along the way can be backed up at various points.. so the result is that if you can take the HSR, a large percentage of people do take it. BTW to get that 45 minute time between Taipei and Hsinchu, it stops at I think 2-3 stops along the way. So, you could have SF downtown, SFO, maybe Redwood City, Mountain View, and then San Jose. I mean these trains can go 170 miles per hour and they only take a couple of minutes to get up to around 130 mph, so its not like they need to have zero stops. But I guess if a 1.5 hour commute vs. 45 min commute people don't care too much about, then HSR is not really that useful, but I do think people would really want that. The HSR in the SF peninsula area as far as I know will not go much faster than any trains on that same corridor right now for a variety of reasons. So basically what we really need is a totally new corridor that separates grade such as elevated or underground in order to get the speeds and safety.
gsnedders 10y ago
There are very few high-speed lines in the world that are primarily concerned with commuting over ~50 miles; very few have stops that close together, even, if we look at anything going over ~150mph.

by xt00 10y ago

foolfoolz 10y ago

the goal of high speed rail project in California is not taking you from SF to SJ. it's the bay area to LA area. this is not a train for within Bay Area commuters Caltrain with express trains works very well. sfo and oak have trains that go into the airport. caltrains goal of electrification if it ever happens should make SF to SJ a lot faster. trains in the Bay Area are not as bad as you make them out to be. personally I think high speed rail should go from Santa Clarita to gilroy or south San Jose. once you pass up the Central Valley you can take bart or Caltrain to your final destination

xt00 10y ago
Yea I understand that the goal of the california HSR is to get you from SF to LA in its current form, but I guess what I'm getting at is that these systems become much more viable when they truly get you from point A to point B for commuters extremely quickly -- ridership goes way up. If it takes you 30 mins to get someplace that previously took an hour or more, then taking that small transfer seems like a small burden to add onto that. So at least if part of your trip is at very high speed that is extremely helpful, and focuses additional density desires for people who want to move there or build houses. For example, the Taiwan HSR can get you from Taipei downtown to Hsinchu in around 45 mins, and its around the same distance between SF and San Jose -- 50-ish miles. The baby bullet assuming you can actually catch one will take around 1.5 hours to get from SF to San Jose. In Taipei, driving to Hsinchu vs taking the HSR is kind of ridiculous because you hit so much traffic just trying to get out of the city and then the toll roads along the way can be backed up at various points.. so the result is that if you can take the HSR, a large percentage of people do take it. BTW to get that 45 minute time between Taipei and Hsinchu, it stops at I think 2-3 stops along the way. So, you could have SF downtown, SFO, maybe Redwood City, Mountain View, and then San Jose. I mean these trains can go 170 miles per hour and they only take a couple of minutes to get up to around 130 mph, so its not like they need to have zero stops. But I guess if a 1.5 hour commute vs. 45 min commute people don't care too much about, then HSR is not really that useful, but I do think people would really want that. The HSR in the SF peninsula area as far as I know will not go much faster than any trains on that same corridor right now for a variety of reasons. So basically what we really need is a totally new corridor that separates grade such as elevated or underground in order to get the speeds and safety.

gsnedders 10y ago

There are very few high-speed lines in the world that are primarily concerned with commuting over ~50 miles; very few have stops that close together, even, if we look at anything going over ~150mph.