3 ms·
When you sell voters the sizzle and not the steak; this disillusion is just a matter of time. It was sold on an impossible premise; - Minimum 200 miles per hou
by jiggliemon 8y ago
When you sell voters the sizzle and not the steak; this disillusion is just a matter of time.
It was sold on an impossible premise;
- Minimum 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) where conditions permit
- Maximum travel time between SF and LA not to exceed 2 hr 40 min
- Financially self-sustaining (operation and maintenance costs fully covered by revenue)
A flight to SF is 1.5hrs from LA (take off and landing). And only costs $150 round trip. If you could reduce the hassle of “security” you have a better, faster, cheaper high speed transit system.
It was supposed to cost $30b. It will cost north of $90b. And it will still need to be subsidized. And it will be slower than 2hr 40min.
If you could possibly deliver what was sold - I’m sure the polling would reflect that. But what the people are getting is a shadow of what they approved.
- gok 8y agoThe SF/LA route has an even bigger problem: once you get to LA, then what? There's not really enough transit in the LA area to get where you actually mean to go, and that's almost certain to be true even if all the current transit projects finish. The Bay Area frankly isn't much better. You'll very likely to need to take a car (maybe an autonomous one) from the end points. And given that, flying seems even better. There are 3 big SFBA airports and 5 in the LA metro area; direct flights between those are more likely to get you closer to your endpoints. The more legitimate case for CAHSR is really opening up the middle of the state. But that could have been done much cheaper.