Mod note
Please use this thread to discuss the overall merits of the CAHSR proposal, its political implications, and potential alternatives to the concept as a whole.
The other thread shall be reserved for discussion of specific details as the project moves into and through construction.
---------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by pesto
Ok. I'll explain why HSR is ridiculous for California.
First you argue about freeways WITHIN LA and weigh them against HSR. Not relevant; HSR wants to run trains BETWEEN LA and the Bay Area, where there are no jams, and plenty of room for the future (5 already has the rights of way and room).
|
HSR competes with the airplane but has the added advantage of competing with the car in certain contexts.
Quote:
|
To use it will cost FAR more than cars or air, be much slower (the great majority of trains will make multiple stops and/or changes of train) or require getting to Union Station or DT SF, two areas which are proverbially jammed with traffic in the first place.
|
The majority of trains may make multiple stops... which is useful if you want to make that stop. With airplanes, people chose to fly direct if they're travelling long-distance. HSR will be no different. You choose which service you want to use.
If you've ridden the Japanese HSR, which has gotta be one of the more expensive systems in the world due to geological constraints, you would know that you choose which service you want to take. Since trains come every few minutes or so, it's no big deal to wait (or plan your trip). Prices are comparable with airplanes, perhaps a little cheaper, rarely are on sale, more expensive than the bus, and despite having good rail connections to the airport, comparable in travel time. Max speed along the Tokaido is 270km/h.
If it's more expensive than flying, no one will ride it... therefore, it won't be.
Threaded Mode