4 ms·

Seriously - trains should go where the people are. The people are in the central valley. Between Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz the population is very light and t

by pm24601 10y ago

Seriously - trains should go where the people are. The people are in the central valley. Between Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz the population is very light and the terrain is very difficult. It wasn't until the 20th century that access to the Big Sur area was possible. And even today for over a hundred miles highway 1 is the only access. Fresno - 509,000 people Bakersfield - 363,000 people The first segment connects 1 million people with a high quality dedicated rail connection. Take a trip on the San Joaguin train - that train slow as it is, is very popular. Next take a look at a map. Los Angeles is due south of Lake Tahoe. So going to central valley is not a detour or some other political game. The real political mess is the choice of Pacheco Pass (hwy 152) rather than the Altamont Pass.(I-580) Once again Altamont Pass - a lot of people. hwy 152 - crickets in comparison.

WillPostForFood 10y ago
trains should go where the people are That's why the money would be better spent on local transit improvements inside the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area, not connecting them.
- mikekchar 10y ago
  Making trains go where people aren't relieves the pressure on ever increasing prices in populous areas. People will have a realistic option of living in cheaper areas. AND it allows real estate speculators to get a much higher rate of return when they build up cookie cutter neighbourhoods in cheap land that is soon to be linked up by rail. Both a good and a cynical reason for this behaviour, which is why I don't think you'll ever see it change (no matter where you are).
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Money is being spent on local transit improvements in the LA and Bay Area as part of the High Speed Rail project.
- jmalicki 10y ago
  It's not an either-or proposition - the local subway systems in both LA and the Bay Area are undergoing very large expansions at the same time.
masklinn 10y ago
> Seriously - trains should go where the people are. For HSR you want to connect large hubs, there's no point in a train which can go 200mph if it has to stop every 60mi.
- kijin 10y ago
  Not every train needs to stop at every station. If you design the tracks and stations properly, you can operate a mix of non-stop trains and other trains that take some or all of the stops in between, and you can vary the composition depending on actual ridership.
jmalicki 10y ago
BART is already being extended to Livermore (just west of the Altamont pass), and already goes to Dublin, so that area is at least already well-served by regional transit. Going over the Pacheco Pass allows the train to hit San Jose and the Silicon Valley without going through huge windy detours, which has a lot more people in it than the Altamont Pass area.
- pm24601 10y ago
  Distance does not matter - sustained speed matters. Higher sustained speeds = shorter trip times. Go look at a terrain map. Pacheco Pass ---------------------- From Gilroy to San Jose the train can go no faster than ~125, ~150mph because it has to do a fairly sharp turn. Anyone come from San Francisco is doing the first ~100 miles at speeds no greater than ~125mph. Altamont Pass -------------------- Trains leaving San Francisco and San Jose join up in Fremont. Once they leave Fremont, the right of way opens up. The trains can then hit 220 mph until Los Angeles. This saves in total time ~ 30 minutes.

by pm24601 10y ago

WillPostForFood 10y ago

trains should go where the people are That's why the money would be better spent on local transit improvements inside the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area, not connecting them.

mikekchar 10y ago
Making trains go where people aren't relieves the pressure on ever increasing prices in populous areas. People will have a realistic option of living in cheaper areas. AND it allows real estate speculators to get a much higher rate of return when they build up cookie cutter neighbourhoods in cheap land that is soon to be linked up by rail. Both a good and a cynical reason for this behaviour, which is why I don't think you'll ever see it change (no matter where you are).
dragonwriter 10y ago
Money is being spent on local transit improvements in the LA and Bay Area as part of the High Speed Rail project.
jmalicki 10y ago
It's not an either-or proposition - the local subway systems in both LA and the Bay Area are undergoing very large expansions at the same time.

masklinn 10y ago

> Seriously - trains should go where the people are. For HSR you want to connect large hubs, there's no point in a train which can go 200mph if it has to stop every 60mi.

kijin 10y ago
Not every train needs to stop at every station. If you design the tracks and stations properly, you can operate a mix of non-stop trains and other trains that take some or all of the stops in between, and you can vary the composition depending on actual ridership.

jmalicki 10y ago

BART is already being extended to Livermore (just west of the Altamont pass), and already goes to Dublin, so that area is at least already well-served by regional transit. Going over the Pacheco Pass allows the train to hit San Jose and the Silicon Valley without going through huge windy detours, which has a lot more people in it than the Altamont Pass area.

pm24601 10y ago
Distance does not matter - sustained speed matters. Higher sustained speeds = shorter trip times. Go look at a terrain map. Pacheco Pass ---------------------- From Gilroy to San Jose the train can go no faster than ~125, ~150mph because it has to do a fairly sharp turn. Anyone come from San Francisco is doing the first ~100 miles at speeds no greater than ~125mph. Altamont Pass -------------------- Trains leaving San Francisco and San Jose join up in Fremont. Once they leave Fremont, the right of way opens up. The trains can then hit 220 mph until Los Angeles. This saves in total time ~ 30 minutes.