4 ms·

> Why? That is well within the speeds of typical high speed rail systems. So consider this set of goals: 1. You want to get from SF to LA as fast as possible;

by jmyeet 4y ago

> Why? That is well within the speeds of typical high speed rail systems. So consider this set of goals: 1. You want to get from SF to LA as fast as possible; 2. You want to go 220mph; and 3. You want to stop in many places along the way. With just these 3 goals you already have conflict. More stops makes 220mph less valuable because it takes time to accelerate and decelerate. The driving distance between SF and LA is (according to Google maps) 382 miles. Will this route get there in 382 / 220 = 1h44m? No, it's more like 4 hours. Getting from SF to LA in 2 hours by train would be fantastic. But that's not what's getting built. > Going threw those towns actually makes a lot of sense for a serious rail project and potentially even safes money. You clearly don't realize the consequences of this as I described above. You may pick up extra passengers in Fresno but you may then lose passengers by taking too long to get from SF to LA. LA is building a rail extension to LAX, which is going to solve so many problems for using LAX. I believe it's costing $2.2 billion and it's about the best money you could spend. If the route takes too long you may as well just drive or take a plane. That's what you're competing against.

panick21_ 4y ago
> 1. You want to get from SF to LA as fast as possible; This is a dumb goal, and a total misunderstanding of the whole point and benefit of a rail system. The real benefit of rail is that you can have stops and integrate the high speed rail with many other regional rails and local transport solution in order to build a sustainable practical transportation system for the whole state. We are not talking about 100s of stops, you take a few stop in a few places where you have 100'000s of people living. A system that doesn't just connect 2 things point by point but rahter all cities directly to the next closes large city and the next closes after that. HSR should be the backbone of a transportation system that enables as many people as possible to live without a car. Its far more important to prevent people from driving all those inside of California routes with their cars, then it is to prevent non-stop travel between SF-LA by cars or planes.

by jmyeet 4y ago

panick21_ 4y ago

> 1. You want to get from SF to LA as fast as possible; This is a dumb goal, and a total misunderstanding of the whole point and benefit of a rail system. The real benefit of rail is that you can have stops and integrate the high speed rail with many other regional rails and local transport solution in order to build a sustainable practical transportation system for the whole state. We are not talking about 100s of stops, you take a few stop in a few places where you have 100'000s of people living. A system that doesn't just connect 2 things point by point but rahter all cities directly to the next closes large city and the next closes after that. HSR should be the backbone of a transportation system that enables as many people as possible to live without a car. Its far more important to prevent people from driving all those inside of California routes with their cars, then it is to prevent non-stop travel between SF-LA by cars or planes.