New Bullet Train Plans Delayed

Krazy925 said:
This guy knows how it is. I do that drive at least 7-8 times a year. Once you are out of the Bay Area you are good until you get over the top of the grapevine unless and accident has happened or trucks are passing slowly.
Click to expand...

Not with holiday traffic. Was over 9 hours getting back to the Bay area on a recent holiday weekend. I know that isn't every day, but still seems significant to me.
 
TwistedAegis said:
Not with holiday traffic. Was over 9 hours getting back to the Bay area on a recent holiday weekend. I know that isn't every day, but still seems significant to me.
Click to expand...
Do you really think the bullet train will fix that? Also a few weekends a year don't pay for 65b HSR.
People won't ride the bullet train for a host of reasons but again
A) too expensive. Families who drive have the option to fly for the same price as what the rail will cost or nearly as much
B) too time consuming for business. If you are serious about work then you fly, period. From home to airport about 2.5 hours total if you check a bag. I drive almost a half hour to get to the airport.
C) won't go anywhere you need for at least 5-10 years. I feel like I'm being optimistic on this one.

So if you aren't doing it cheaper, faster or better... Fuck it I'm gonna go get a liberal arts degree and talk about how good this project makes me "feel".
 
Assuming that airfare won't get more expensive decades in the future is a pretty bold assumption. Fracking and the 2008 recession has given us a temporary reprieve from $4 / gallon gas, but the fracking boom is projected to last another 10 years, tops. What do you think will happen to the cost of an airline ticket after that? How about when demand for those tickets increases along with the State's population, and it's physically impossible to meaningfully expand airports to put more planes in the sky?

As far as time consumption, I don't know if you've been to an airport recently, but the flight time is the smallest component of total time spent. Doorstep to doorstep from SF to LA you're looking at 5 hours unless you show up at the last minute and risk missing your flight, not much faster than driving. Even at the reduced 180 MPH speed, HSR can beat that by 2 hours. You've turned the conclusion on its head. Since business people always take the fastest mode of transit, the reality will become "if you are serious about work then you take the train, period".

We have a pretty simple choice as Californians: We can grit our teeth and pay for the train, or we can be very sorry in a couple of decades.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
Assuming that airfare won't get more expensive decades in the future is a pretty bold assumption. Fracking and the 2008 recession has given us a temporary reprieve from $4 / gallon gas, but the fracking boom is projected to last another 10 years, tops. What do you think will happen to the cost of an airline ticket after that? How about when demand for those tickets increases along with the State's population, and it's physically impossible to meaningfully expand airports to put more planes in the sky?
Click to expand...
We probably already paid for "$4 gas" on airlines though, can't be certain because we don't know how long out airlines buy their futures for fuel. The cheap cost of gas now? Guess what, airlines are not paying these low prices as they probably already have futures for fuel they bought at a different price point. But why do think that demand for tickets are going to really increase that much? How many people actively go from SF/SJ to LA? As cost of living goes up, as it will with population increase, people will tend to take less vacations and what not, so you might get some balance there.

As far as time consumption, I don't know if you've been to an airport recently, but the flight time is the smallest component of total time spent. Doorstep to doorstep from SF to LA you're looking at 5 hours unless you show up at the last minute and risk missing your flight, not much faster than driving. Even at the reduced 180 MPH speed, HSR can beat that by 2 hours. You've turned the conclusion on its head. Since business people always take the fastest mode of transit, the reality will become "if you are serious about work then you take the train, period".
Click to expand...
5 hours!? The fuck shitty airlines did you go on in the middle of super fogged out rainy weather during a massive travel holiday season? Because there is no other logical reason why there should be 3.5 hours of time tacked on waiting for an airline, and yes I do fly out of SFO, OAK, and SJC on a yearly basis (so I'm not living with a nostalgic view of travel pre-911). Last time I left from an airport it was to Hawaii, got there 2 hours before my plane was supposed to take off, and that was about 1hr 20 minutes too much before actually boarding the plane. If you're taking a "business trip" to LA and have no need for anything but a carry on, getting to the airport an hour ahead of time is more than reasonable unless it's something like Thanksgiving travel days.

Also SF to LA in 3 hours? Are you sure that there will actually be a non-stop train that will do that and that it won't stop in all those shitty stops (central valley) along the way? Because each of those stops significantly adds time to the total trip.

I mean just looking at something Acela, and stop already I realize that it's not any where close to as fast as the HSR is supposed to be. But a ticket from Boston to Philly will cost you anywhere between $70 but if you're not super flexible it's closer to $200, also the $70 ticket is nearly 6 hours of train time due to all the stops along the way and the fact it can't go as fast through populated areas, 5 hours is doable but that'll cost you $200+. Same day flight from BOS to PHL, $64 can be had, and that is with all the taxes and fees, and that's a 1.5 hour trip. You know what it's so cheap? Because that is a regular commuter line, so they add additional planes, and it becomes cheaper. SF to LA is not a commuter trip, it's a more commonly a vacation trip and those are not as cheap. Which means this HSR as a commuter train is simply not going to happen like the Acela (which again is inferior in every way... except that it gets used frequently where as the HSR will not).

We have a pretty simple choice as Californians: We can grit our teeth and pay for the train, or we can be very sorry in a couple of decades.
Click to expand...
I think you're over stating things, we no longer have a choice, we're going to pay for it, and in a couple of decades when it turns out to be a financial flop, we'll still have it, but we'll have paid for it.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a true bullet type train, but I just think most of the pro-train people are really overshooting what they think will be accomplished by it.
 
sfsuphysics said:
We probably already paid for "$4 gas" on airlines though, can't be certain because we don't know how long out airlines buy their futures for fuel. The cheap cost of gas now? Guess what, airlines are not paying these low prices as they probably already have futures for fuel they bought at a different price point. But why do think that demand for tickets are going to really increase that much? How many people actively go from SF/SJ to LA? As cost of living goes up, as it will with population increase, people will tend to take less vacations and what not, so you might get some balance there.


5 hours!? The fuck shitty airlines did you go on in the middle of super fogged out rainy weather during a massive travel holiday season? Because there is no other logical reason why there should be 3.5 hours of time tacked on waiting for an airline, and yes I do fly out of SFO, OAK, and SJC on a yearly basis (so I'm not living with a nostalgic view of travel pre-911). Last time I left from an airport it was to Hawaii, got there 2 hours before my plane was supposed to take off, and that was about 1hr 20 minutes too much before actually boarding the plane. If you're taking a "business trip" to LA and have no need for anything but a carry on, getting to the airport an hour ahead of time is more than reasonable unless it's something like Thanksgiving travel days.
Click to expand...
30 minute drive to the airport + needing to show up 2 hours before the flight leaves + 1 hour flight time + 45 minutes to unboard, get your bags, leave the airport + 45 minutes to get from LAX to anywhere you're likely headed is 5 hours.

Reduced need for extensive security checks and much quicker boarding cut the 2 hours early to 15 minutes and cut the unboarding and leaving the station time from 45 mins to 5, plus train stations have a much smaller footprint than airports so you're likely to live closer to one and end up closer to your destination. A 30 minute drive showing up 15 mins early, 2 hour and 40 minute ride time, 5 minutes to get out of the station, and 30 minutes to get where you're headed from the train station, the HSR doorstep to doorstep time is 4 hours, admittedly not as fast as my previous back-of-the-envelope estimate but still a full hour quicker than air travel.

Also SF to LA in 3 hours? Are you sure that there will actually be a non-stop train that will do that and that it won't stop in all those shitty stops (central valley) along the way? Because each of those stops significantly adds time to the total trip.
Click to expand...
A train can make a stop and be at full speed again pretty quickly, but one that made every stop would indeed be about 20% slower by the best estimates. The original proposal quoted downtown SF to downtown LA in 2 hours, 40 minutes assuming 30 mins SF to San Jose and 2h10m SJ to LA, which assumes 200 MPH from SJ to LA, slower than the top speed of 220 but perhaps faster than the practical sustainable speed, which could be more like 180. Total travel time would still comparable to flying for most trips even if they can't average 200 MPH and every train makes every stop.

I mean just looking at something Acela, and stop already I realize that it's not any where close to as fast as the HSR is supposed to be. But a ticket from Boston to Philly will cost you anywhere between $70 but if you're not super flexible it's closer to $200, also the $70 ticket is nearly 6 hours of train time due to all the stops along the way and the fact it can't go as fast through populated areas, 5 hours is doable but that'll cost you $200+. Same day flight from BOS to PHL, $64 can be had, and that is with all the taxes and fees, and that's a 1.5 hour trip. You know what it's so cheap? Because that is a regular commuter line, so they add additional planes, and it becomes cheaper. SF to LA is not a commuter trip, it's a more commonly a vacation trip and those are not as cheap. Which means this HSR as a commuter train is simply not going to happen like the Acela (which again is inferior in every way... except that it gets used frequently where as the HSR will not).
Click to expand...
The Acela barely breaks 100 MPH in brief sections and is limited to conventional train speeds for most of its route. You could actually run bog-standard trains on bog-standard track at 110 MPH if it weren't for considerations like grade crossings and sharing track with slower freight engines, so in practice the Acela is just a regular train being run faster than usual. It may technically qualify as HSR since it can hit 150 MPH on paper, but it's a very different beast than HSR in CA or the existing ones in Japan, Europe, and China.

Also, Boston to Philly isn't any more of a commute than SF to LA is. They're both trips that a lot of people make frequently for business and pleasure and that translates to a high daily demand, but it's not like there are people who live in Philly and go to work in Boston every day.

I think you're over stating things, we no longer have a choice, we're going to pay for it, and in a couple of decades when it turns out to be a financial flop, we'll still have it, but we'll have paid for it.

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of a true bullet type train, but I just think most of the pro-train people are really overshooting what they think will be accomplished by it.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but it's also easy to overstate the cost. The $64B is spread out over decades, so let's say the annual cost is $3B per year. The GDP of California runs about $2 trillion, so assuming no economic growth it's only 0.15% of GDP. Not chump change, but not exactly going to bankrupt the state even if we build the thing and General Zod shows up on day one and carries it all off to the Negative Zone.
 
The current plans call for the bullet train to use portions of existing tracks, there goes pretty much any time savings. Hell, the last story I read concerning the train pointed out how California didn't even bother using companies in Europe who have experience with planning routes. It was more important that state politicians get their slice of this giant taxpayer fucking pie.
 
Brian_B said:
A flight from San Fran to LA takes just as long as driving, by the time you add in all the TSA BS, the delays in the terminals, the boarding and unloading time, etc. Jets fly a lot faster than the HSR will. I just don't see how HSR will be any better than that
Click to expand...

Tokyo to Osaka is faster via bullet train than flight, also mostly due to security. Train stops only twice or three times maximum from memory, it's very pleasant, smooth, quiet and nice to ride on. TGV is also a great train service. Germans and French do it best in EU but I think the Japs have them beat.. tried them all!
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
30 minute drive to the airport + needing to show up 2 hours before the flight leaves + 1 hour flight time + 45 minutes to unboard, get your bags, leave the airport + 45 minutes to get from LAX to anywhere you're likely headed is 5 hours.
Click to expand...
If it takes 30 minutes to get to the airport, it'll take 30 minutes to get to a train station. Where are those train stations? I live in San Francisco there sure as hell isn't going to be HSR access from here to LA, so more likely than not I take Caltrain to San Jose, if they do actually share track they're not going to go any faster than CalTrain so that take an additional 45 minutes at a minimum simply due to stops/crossings/populated areas just to get to San Jose before the train starts to go "high speed". 2 hours before a flight, maybe if you bags to check, if all you have is a carry on, 1hr can easily be done with a check-in kiosk, 1.5 hours to be safe unless it is a major travel season. No luggage than the "get your bags" bit doesn't apply. And if it takes 45 minutes to get anywhere from LAX, it'll take 45 minutes from any train station as well. If you're doing Disneyland you're not flying into LAX anyways you're going to John Wayne, and hopping on the Disney bus to get there without having to worry about paying or driving (you'll pay through the teeth at Disneyland).

So your 5 hour trip to LA, for me is closer to 3.5 hours if I show up 2 hours early, because I'm ignoring the "getting to the airport and getting anywhere from the airport" because those times will be added to both forms of transportation.

The original proposal quoted downtown SF to downtown LA in 2 hours, 40 minutes assuming 30 mins SF to San Jose and 2h10m SJ to LA, which assumes 200 MPH from SJ to LA, slower than the top speed of 220 but perhaps faster than the practical sustainable speed, which could be more like 180. Total travel time would still comparable to flying for most trips even if they can't average 200 MPH and every train makes every stop.
Click to expand...
I call BS on those proposal numbers, the only way it's getting from SF to SJ in 30 minutes (it can't go too fast, too many populated areas) if if 1) there are no stops in between. and 2) there are no CalTrain cars on it since they're supposed to be sharing the same tracks, and CalTrain will be using those tracks, hell the Baby Bullet express trains from SF to SJ take an hour, and that's with people not bringing any luggage on board. Personally I think all the time proposals that were put forth are a bit on the more fast end of what could possible happen but most likely won't. Then who knows how many stops they'll put along the way, central valley will have a few stops (for some ungodly reason) then we'll have to see how they get into LA proper. Overall I would probably put an estimate from SF to LA closer to 4-4.5 hour range without batting an eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top