The world leaping ahead of us, the U.S. still has no fast trains.

[the other mike]

The Japanese eat live squid too, knock yourself out, they also club baby dolphins to death because they eat the squid. Got that slant eyes

Another bright comment

You're quoting yourself dumbass.

 

[Dusty]

The Japanese eat live squid too, knock yourself out, they also club baby dolphins to death because they eat the squid. Got that slant eyes

Another bright comment

You're quoting yourself dumbass.

Exactly, all my comments are bright.

130

 

[Mushroom]

You still haven't explained why we should build something that isn't needed.

We build a lot of things that aren't needed.
The airlines are all in debt...who's subsidizing them ?

Soooo, you want to cause all sorts of environmental destruction, waste trillions of dollars, all because the airlines got fucked over by the government?

It wouldn't cost TRILLIONS, first of all, but since you guys like pulling that number out of your asses, why do you never bitch when it's the Pentagon budget ? Or subsidies for nuclear plants that NEVER turn a profit, or when BP or Exxon walk from environmental accountabilty. ?

Yes, it will.

Now to put it into perspective, the California Bullet Train now under construction has already cost over $100 billion, and is expected to if ever completed cost in the area of $500 billion to just go from LA to San Francisco.

That is half a trillion dollars, for a train to go 400 miles. And not even a "hyperloop", just a bullet train like they have been making for decades.

This is where Elron Musk and his fantasy breaks down. Hell, they just finished for over $50 million a slow moving taxi. Heck, remember when it was first announced? The Internet does not forget.

The Vegas Loop – Quick Facts​

• Includes the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop (LVCC Loop)
• Total Current Cost: $52-million
• Travel Speed: 155 mph
• Estimated Capacity: 4,000 passengers per hour
• Completion Date: Unknown, but the LVCC Loop is expected to debut January 2021
• Projected Stops: McCarran International Airport, Allegiant Stadium, Las Vegas Convention Center, Fremont Street Experience, Slotzilla and Garage Mahal at Circa.

How The Boring Company’s Vegas Loop Will Change Downtown Las Vegas

A Las Vegas City Council meeting declared that the Loop would use autonomous Tesla vehicles that will run north under Las Vegas Boulevard.

vegasexperience.com

155 miles per hour! 4,000 passengers per hour! The greatest thing ever, that will revolutionize the world! Completely autonomous vehicles!

Uhhh, no. It is taxi drivers going at slow speed in a tunnel, 3 passengers at a time.

This is the problem, you are believing all of the hype without applying logic and reasoning, and at least a healthy dose of skepticism. It will cost a great many trillion dollars, because even after all of the money poured into it, it still does not exist.

It exists as much as the flying wing passenger jets that were promised 60 years ago.

buuuut the train doesn't even go from LA to San Fran, it goes from Lancaster/Palmdale, to Tracy CA. So, 65 miles away from LA. And almost 80 miles from SF. Like I said, from nowhere, TO nowhere.

Actually, they don't even know how to get it to Palmdale.

As I have said many times, I have been watching this for decades. And for the train to get into the LA area, it has to overcome a huge obstacle. And that is traversing the Tehachapi Mountains. There is no way to avoid that, you must go over them. And they still have absolutely no plan on how they are going to do it. In other words, it will never even get past Bakersfield.

In California, there are only 2 ways to take a train from North to South. The one used by passenger trains is the "Coastal Route", which the Surfliner does. It hugs the ocean for most of the trip, never going very far above sea level. That is why the first major transit route followed the old Spanish Trail, then US 101. This is the same route that passenger trains take.

But then, there is still a problem getting from there to the Central Valley. Why do you think I have been mentioning "topography" so damned often? It is not because I like the word, it is because I am really aware of the topography of California, and what exactly that means for trains. No matter what, to get in and out of LA and the San Francisco area you need to cross mountain ranges (most times 2 or more). This can not be avoided, and it is just as much of an engineering challenge today as it was 150 years ago.

Now the Coastal Route is the only way passenger trains take. The other route is the "Tehachapi Loop".

And it is exactly what it sounds and looks like. A long, snaking train route at the summit of the pass so that trains can traverse it. But not passenger trains, they only take it when the coastal route is closed for repairs or maintenance. The max speed of the Loop is 35 miles per hour. And it is heavily traveled by freight trains, so is never used for passenger ones unless there is no other choice.

And from when they first started this project, my main question has always been the same one. "How are they going to take this train into the LA basin?" And over a decade later, there is still no solution. The closest one I heard so far basically involved condemning and destroying most of the city of Tehachapi (including the Hospital and High School), and building it there. Well, obviously that will never happen. And other than that, there is still no plan on how to get it the rest of the way to LA.

Now the part from the Antelope Valley to LA is not that big of a deal really. There is only a single low pass to get through (around Acton), and there is already existing tracks that can be upgraded to support 100 mph trains. Studies been done there long ago, back when the plan was for much of the Metrolink had that as a long term goal. But here is the thing, prior to Moonbeam taking it over, that was what they had been discussing in areas like LA and Sacramento for decades. Not a unified "Bullet Train" system like is normally seen in the world, but selectively upgrading existing lines that could support trains from 100-150 mph with that as demand called for it.

In the 1990's, LA Metrolink released a map of all their proposals, with a timeframe of like 50 years. Mostly trains with a speed of 100 mph, to go to and from selected outlying areas as a way to decrease the congestion that was already a problem. But one line at a time, starting with the ones that had the most ridership, but was already capping out because most were capped at 55-60 mph because of other factors (the trains themselves and the tracks). But never upgrading all of them, just the ones that were showing that they had the demand.

And also as a disaster system. This has been shown in California at least three times in the last 50 years. The 1971, 1989, and 1994 earthquakes devastated parts of that state, and in all three, trains were the only way to get around for months (or years). The I-5/California 14 interchange was completely destroyed twice, and at that time the Palmdale Metrolink route was only a proposal. They had it running within a week, and ridership has only grown over the decades.

But the problem is that people do not understand that the solution does not have to be what some propose, and a huge monolithic single purpose system. It can be done in segments, and not even with the idea of tying them all together into a single system. We sure as hell never built any of our other infrastructure that way, why should it be done this time?

Again bullet trains are impossible from the standpoint of moving people. Sure the yare technically feasible but they are logistically impossible because too many rails would need to be built. However if you want to bust your piggy bank go ahead

What is a "bullet train"? Do you even know what it is?

I think the biggest problem is that you really have no idea what "High Speed Rail" is.

Here is the amazing thing, as much as you are screaming that it will never work, we have been using it in the US for over 20 years!

The "Acela Express" is the line that runs from Boston to New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC. Average speed of 150 mph, over 450 miles of track, and carries over 3.5 million passengers per year.

You really have no idea what is even being discussed. I have especially been laughing as for ages you have been screaming it would "never work in the US", completely oblivious it has already been in place for decades.

The "BosWash Corridor" is the only place where population density and traffic patterns make a high speed rail system profitable. The distances are too short for efficient air travel, and there is a LOT of traffic up and down it. Sacramento to SF is similar due to commuter traffic as most people who work in SF can't afford to live there. But you've got to cross that pesky San Francisco Bay on the Bay Bridge. The old bridge was designed for train traffic, the new one isn't and can only be modified by giving up traffic lanes and even then can only carry light rail like interurban trains. The way they HOPE California High Speed rail will work would be MetroRail from downtown Los Angeles to Palmdale, change trains to high speed rail (after they figure how to get across or under the Tehachapi Mountain Range) or a conventional slow speed rail train to Bakersfield with possibly another train change for the high speed run up the central valley. A train change to BART in Sacramento. then BART to downtown San Francisco. The total time will be far longer than the existing coastal route.

Actually, I have been following the way they have wanted to do Metrorail for decades.

And they never intended HSR on each line, only on the ones that made the most sense for density. Lines like Simi Valley to LA, Riverside to LA, and the like. The AV was never intended to be a true "bullet train", because the top speed without huge changes is only around 75. But that 75 would still be a 50% improvement over the current 50.

The same with the decades old concept of LA to Vegas. Not many would have used it for commuting (other than entertainers), but the tourist traffic could have made it work in the 1980's. At that time, none of the mega resorts had been built yet, and most of their business actually came from the LA area. Of course, at that time the Indian Reservations at most had bingo parlors and that was it. And a few "Poker Clubs" in LA.

Now however, there are Indian Casinos all over the state, and some poker clubs rival those of Vegas 40 years ago. And with the mega resorts, more and more travel goes there from long distance tourists, not the more local ones. I remember driving to Vegas in the mid-1980's, and it was a nightmare. It is actually less of a problem now, as more fly there than drive now. With the mega resorts, it has become more "kid friendly", so many families pick going there instead of Disneyland.

But there are local lines all over LA that could use an improvement. But those are lines already seeing 1 million plus riders a year, and they only intended on concentrating on those lines. But as lines came up for their 20 year or so replacements, upgrade them to high speed rail so they could just add the trains later if needed.

The original plan for the state system was to do just that, HSR to Sacramento, then the Capitol Corridor HSR to San Francisco. But the Governor did not like that, he wanted LA-SF only. Even those of us that like the idea think this is retarded, and will never work. There is just not enough of a demand through the Central Valley for this, nor for a route from SF to LA.

Yes, Acela goes from Boston to Washington, but relatively few actually take it from end to end. Most take much shorter segments, like Boston-NY, NY-Philly, or the like. And once you get outside of LA, there is really nothing anybody wants to see until SF.

Hey honey, let's go take the new bullet train! I always wanted to see Bakersfield! We can even catch a show at the Buck Owens Cristal Palace! Or we can go to Fresno, and take the bus to Oakhurst and see the Talking Bear!

At least if they had tried to do it up the Coastal Route, there would have been things that people would have actually wanted to go to. San Louis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Moro Bay, Pismo Beach, Hearst Castle, things that people would have actually taken it for for tourism if nothing else. The Central Valley is literally the "Fly-Over Area" of the state. We only go through it because we have to if we want to go somewhere else. There is nothing there of interest.

Then you have the other issue, the weather. Many may not know this, but the Central Valley can often get hurricane force winds. And every decade or so they get killer dust storms. I have a feeling that many times that route will be down because of that. If anything, it should have been built closer to the mountains to mitigate that issue. But this is not a real system, it is a huge vanity project.

Has it ever occurred to you that you are following bullet trains that do not exist for decades and that you are likely an obsessive compulsive train fanatic that does not care if a track cost a trillion dollars to build so that a few hundred can ride? You might want to lie back on a couch and explain this to Siggy

I see.

So the Acela Express never existed, and all of the 3 million plus that take it every year are what, government stooges? Under some form of mind control?

This is why I do not take you seriously at all. But please, feel free to start a thread in the Conspiracy Theory section and explain to us all how over 3 million people a year are fooled into believing they take a train that you insist never existed.

 

[Markle]

This is a bit long but it makes clear why high-speed rail is bad for Florida as well as the rest of the country.X Z CVz

24 Why

24 Why < Why Florida Should Not Build

www.yumpu.com

 

[Hellbilly]

China has the world’s fastest and largest high-speed rail network — more than 19,000 miles, the vast majority of which was built in the past decade. Japan’s bullet trains can reach nearly 200 miles per hour and date to the 1960s. They have moved more than 9 billion people without a single passenger causality. France began service of the high-speed TGV train in 1981 and the rest of Europe quickly followed.

But the U.S. has no true high-speed trains, aside from sections of Amtrak’s Acela line in the Northeast Corridor. The Acela can reach 150 mph for only 34 miles of its 457-mile span. Its average speed between New York and Boston is about 65 mph. California’s high-speed rail system is under construction, but whether it will ever get completed as intended is uncertain.



Sadly, the US is falling light years behind China.

We have this tho.

Boom - Supersonic Passenger Airplanes

boomsupersonic.com

I gave them permission to use my name.

 

[the other mike]

I thought we would look like this by 2021.

 

[Hellbilly]

Angelo I predict we will have those in the year 2112. (See what I did there)

 

[the other mike]

Angelo I predict we will have those in the year 2112. (See what I did there)

Speaking of Rush ,Alex has a new album out doesn't he ?

 

[Mushroom]

Angelo I predict we will have those in the year 2112. (See what I did there)

Why not In the Year 2525?

 

[Mushroom]

This is a bit long but it makes clear why high-speed rail is bad for Florida as well as the rest of the country.X Z CVz

24 Why

24 Why < Why Florida Should Not Build

www.yumpu.com

I can see there is a huge misunderstanding of most people over what "High Speed Rail" actually is. And this is causing a lot of problems in actual communication.

In basic, conventional passenger trains are capped in the US at 59 mph. And freight trains at 49 in most areas. "High Speed Rail" is literally anything that travels at faster speeds. It may be at 65 mph, 75 mph, 90 mph, or higher.

The average speed of the Acela Express is 85 mph. It is HSR, because of the tracks, trains, and other factors (closed track system with no other traffic along any part of the route where they travel over 59 mph) makes it so. And many places are wanting to upgrade to HSR, as it lets them do other things as well. Replace older rail lines with newer ones. Dump the expensive hybrid diesel locomotives and move to all-electric ones. And the 20-50% increase in speed allows them to service more passengers without having to increase the number of trains or their size.

In fact, other than the silly system they are trying to build in California, I am not aware of any systems planning on building a true "Bullet Train" in the US. Only HSR, at speeds between 60 and 100 MPH. Not the 130 MPH plus of other countries. And in most cases, commuter rail can be rather cheaply converted to HSR. Primarily, the engines upgraded to newer ones, smoother tracks, and the route closed off to all other traffic so they operate independent of freight lines.

California has been making commuter rail lines for 30 years that are almost all capable of conversion to HSR with minimal expense. For example, most of the newer lines are isolated on their own independent rail system, with no connection to anything but commuter trains. Quite often in segments built specifically for them between freeways, so they can cheaply use existing right of ways without having to purchase additional land. Another I am aware of like this with this as a future consideration is the Concord-Oakland line, that mostly runs in between the East and West lanes of State Route 4. And many lines in LA are the same way. No need at the time of construction to become HSR, but minimal expense if they do so in the future.

 

[Markle]

This is a bit long but it makes clear why high-speed rail is bad for Florida as well as the rest of the country.X Z CVz

24 Why

24 Why < Why Florida Should Not Build

www.yumpu.com

I can see there is a huge misunderstanding of most people over what "High Speed Rail" actually is. And this is causing a lot of problems in actual communication.

In basic, conventional passenger trains are capped in the US at 59 mph. And freight trains at 49 in most areas. "High Speed Rail" is literally anything that travels at faster speeds. It may be at 65 mph, 75 mph, 90 mph, or higher.

The average speed of the Acela Express is 85 mph. It is HSR, because of the tracks, trains, and other factors (closed track system with no other traffic along any part of the route where they travel over 59 mph) makes it so. And many places are wanting to upgrade to HSR, as it lets them do other things as well. Replace older rail lines with newer ones. Dump the expensive hybrid diesel locomotives and move to all-electric ones. And the 20-50% increase in speed allows them to service more passengers without having to increase the number of trains or their size.

In fact, other than the silly system they are trying to build in California, I am not aware of any systems planning on building a true "Bullet Train" in the US. Only HSR, at speeds between 60 and 100 MPH. Not the 130 MPH plus of other countries. And in most cases, commuter rail can be rather cheaply converted to HSR. Primarily, the engines upgraded to newer ones, smoother tracks, and the route closed off to all other traffic so they operate independent of freight lines.

California has been making commuter rail lines for 30 years that are almost all capable of conversion to HSR with minimal expense. For example, most of the newer lines are isolated on their own independent rail system, with no connection to anything but commuter trains. Quite often in segments built specifically for them between freeways, so they can cheaply use existing right of ways without having to purchase additional land. Another I am aware of like this with this as a future consideration is the Concord-Oakland line, that mostly runs in between the East and West lanes of State Route 4. And many lines in LA are the same way. No need at the time of construction to become HSR, but minimal expense if they do so in the future.

Obviously, you skipped reading anything in my source, which I fully expected.

To say that it would be of minimal expense to convert commuter rail lines, in use in California is foolish and totally untrue. High-speed rails are extremely expensive and cannot go where a commuter rail had been laid. In metro areas, the rails must be elevated for safety in addition to the rails and bed for the rails has to be far superior in construction.

###

Acquisition[edit]​

In January 2015, the California High Speed Rail Authority issued a request for proposal (RFP) for complete trainsets. The proposals received will be reviewed so that acceptable bidders can be selected, and then requests for bids will be sent out.

[...]

In February 2015, ten companies formally expressed interest in producing trainsets for the system: Alstom, AnsaldoBreda (now Hitachi Rail Italy), Bombardier Transportation, CSR, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki Rail Car, Siemens, Sun Group U.S.A. partnered with CNR Tangshan, and Talgo. CSR merged with CNR in June 2015, bringing the number of companies down to eight.[49] Bombardier Transportation completed its merge with Alstom by January 2021, bringing the number of companies down to 7.[50]

Specifications[edit]​

In addition to many other requirements:[51]

• each trainset will have a sustained continuous speed of 220 mph (350 km/h);
• a maximum testing speed of 242 mph (389 km/h);
• a lifespan of at least 30 years;
• a length no longer than about 680 feet (210 m);

California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dusty]

This is a bit long but it makes clear why high-speed rail is bad for Florida as well as the rest of the country.X Z CVz

24 Why

24 Why < Why Florida Should Not Build

www.yumpu.com

I can see there is a huge misunderstanding of most people over what "High Speed Rail" actually is. And this is causing a lot of problems in actual communication.

In basic, conventional passenger trains are capped in the US at 59 mph. And freight trains at 49 in most areas. "High Speed Rail" is literally anything that travels at faster speeds. It may be at 65 mph, 75 mph, 90 mph, or higher.

The average speed of the Acela Express is 85 mph. It is HSR, because of the tracks, trains, and other factors (closed track system with no other traffic along any part of the route where they travel over 59 mph) makes it so. And many places are wanting to upgrade to HSR, as it lets them do other things as well. Replace older rail lines with newer ones. Dump the expensive hybrid diesel locomotives and move to all-electric ones. And the 20-50% increase in speed allows them to service more passengers without having to increase the number of trains or their size.

In fact, other than the silly system they are trying to build in California, I am not aware of any systems planning on building a true "Bullet Train" in the US. Only HSR, at speeds between 60 and 100 MPH. Not the 130 MPH plus of other countries. And in most cases, commuter rail can be rather cheaply converted to HSR. Primarily, the engines upgraded to newer ones, smoother tracks, and the route closed off to all other traffic so they operate independent of freight lines.

California has been making commuter rail lines for 30 years that are almost all capable of conversion to HSR with minimal expense. For example, most of the newer lines are isolated on their own independent rail system, with no connection to anything but commuter trains. Quite often in segments built specifically for them between freeways, so they can cheaply use existing right of ways without having to purchase additional land. Another I am aware of like this with this as a future consideration is the Concord-Oakland line, that mostly runs in between the East and West lanes of State Route 4. And many lines in LA are the same way. No need at the time of construction to become HSR, but minimal expense if they do so in the future.

Obviously, you skipped reading anything in my source, which I fully expected.

To say that it would be of minimal expense to convert commuter rail lines, in use in California is foolish and totally untrue. High-speed rails are extremely expensive and cannot go where a commuter rail had been laid. In metro areas, the rails must be elevated for safety in addition to the rails and bed for the rails has to be far superior in construction.

###

Acquisition[edit]​

In January 2015, the California High Speed Rail Authority issued a request for proposal (RFP) for complete trainsets. The proposals received will be reviewed so that acceptable bidders can be selected, and then requests for bids will be sent out.

[...]

In February 2015, ten companies formally expressed interest in producing trainsets for the system: Alstom, AnsaldoBreda (now Hitachi Rail Italy), Bombardier Transportation, CSR, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki Rail Car, Siemens, Sun Group U.S.A. partnered with CNR Tangshan, and Talgo. CSR merged with CNR in June 2015, bringing the number of companies down to eight.[49] Bombardier Transportation completed its merge with Alstom by January 2021, bringing the number of companies down to 7.[50]

Specifications[edit]​

In addition to many other requirements:[51]

• each trainset will have a sustained continuous speed of 220 mph (350 km/h);
• a maximum testing speed of 242 mph (389 km/h);
• a lifespan of at least 30 years;
• a length no longer than about 680 feet (210 m);

California High-Speed Rail - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

220mph trains are not even possible in most areas because the curves must be wider requiring buildings to be moved. Mushroom eats too many magic mushrooms and is obsessive disoriented with high speed trains.

 

[Markle]

I can see there is a huge misunderstanding of most people over what "High Speed Rail" actually is. And this is causing a lot of problems in actual communication.

In basic, conventional passenger trains are capped in the US at 59 mph. And freight trains at 49 in most areas. "High Speed Rail" is literally anything that travels at faster speeds. It may be at 65 mph, 75 mph, 90 mph, or higher.

Oops.

What is High-Speed Rail?​

Better Tracks, Better Trains, and a Big-Picture Plan

There is no fixed definition of high speed rail. It can be loosely defined as trains operating at speeds of at least 125 mph, with the fastest modern trains reaching speeds of about 220 mph. HSR is also defined by dedicated tracks and separated grade crossings, which dramatically reduce delays. And HSR is almost always part of a network of conventional and commuter trains, as well as transit systems. When all of these pieces are tightly coordinated and working in harmony, HSR creates a paradigm shift in travel options.

 

[Dusty]

This is a bit long but it makes clear why high-speed rail is bad for Florida as well as the rest of the country.X Z CVz

24 Why

24 Why < Why Florida Should Not Build

www.yumpu.com

I can see there is a huge misunderstanding of most people over what "High Speed Rail" actually is. And this is causing a lot of problems in actual communication.

In basic, conventional passenger trains are capped in the US at 59 mph. And freight trains at 49 in most areas. "High Speed Rail" is literally anything that travels at faster speeds. It may be at 65 mph, 75 mph, 90 mph, or higher.

The average speed of the Acela Express is 85 mph. It is HSR, because of the tracks, trains, and other factors (closed track system with no other traffic along any part of the route where they travel over 59 mph) makes it so. And many places are wanting to upgrade to HSR, as it lets them do other things as well. Replace older rail lines with newer ones. Dump the expensive hybrid diesel locomotives and move to all-electric ones. And the 20-50% increase in speed allows them to service more passengers without having to increase the number of trains or their size.

In fact, other than the silly system they are trying to build in California, I am not aware of any systems planning on building a true "Bullet Train" in the US. Only HSR, at speeds between 60 and 100 MPH. Not the 130 MPH plus of other countries. And in most cases, commuter rail can be rather cheaply converted to HSR. Primarily, the engines upgraded to newer ones, smoother tracks, and the route closed off to all other traffic so they operate independent of freight lines.

California has been making commuter rail lines for 30 years that are almost all capable of conversion to HSR with minimal expense. For example, most of the newer lines are isolated on their own independent rail system, with no connection to anything but commuter trains. Quite often in segments built specifically for them between freeways, so they can cheaply use existing right of ways without having to purchase additional land. Another I am aware of like this with this as a future consideration is the Concord-Oakland line, that mostly runs in between the East and West lanes of State Route 4. And many lines in LA are the same way. No need at the time of construction to become HSR, but minimal expense if they do so in the future.

You are cookoo

 

[Dusty]

I can see there is a huge misunderstanding of most people over what "High Speed Rail" actually is. And this is causing a lot of problems in actual communication.

In basic, conventional passenger trains are capped in the US at 59 mph. And freight trains at 49 in most areas. "High Speed Rail" is literally anything that travels at faster speeds. It may be at 65 mph, 75 mph, 90 mph, or higher.

Oops.

What is High-Speed Rail?​

Better Tracks, Better Trains, and a Big-Picture Plan

There is no fixed definition of high speed rail. It can be loosely defined as trains operating at speeds of at least 125 mph, with the fastest modern trains reaching speeds of about 220 mph. HSR is also defined by dedicated tracks and separated grade crossings, which dramatically reduce delays. And HSR is almost always part of a network of conventional and commuter trains, as well as transit systems. When all of these pieces are tightly coordinated and working in harmony, HSR creates a paradigm shift in travel options.

I think musk hyperloop is 700mph which gets mushrooms tits hard. Not real of course, never going to be built, but it still tweaks shrooms tits

 

[Dusty]

You still haven't explained why we should build something that isn't needed.

We build a lot of things that aren't needed.
The airlines are all in debt...who's subsidizing them ?

Soooo, you want to cause all sorts of environmental destruction, waste trillions of dollars, all because the airlines got fucked over by the government?

It wouldn't cost TRILLIONS, first of all, but since you guys like pulling that number out of your asses, why do you never bitch when it's the Pentagon budget ? Or subsidies for nuclear plants that NEVER turn a profit, or when BP or Exxon walk from environmental accountabilty. ?

Yes, it will.

Now to put it into perspective, the California Bullet Train now under construction has already cost over $100 billion, and is expected to if ever completed cost in the area of $500 billion to just go from LA to San Francisco.

That is half a trillion dollars, for a train to go 400 miles. And not even a "hyperloop", just a bullet train like they have been making for decades.

This is where Elron Musk and his fantasy breaks down. Hell, they just finished for over $50 million a slow moving taxi. Heck, remember when it was first announced? The Internet does not forget.

The Vegas Loop – Quick Facts​

• Includes the Las Vegas Convention Center Loop (LVCC Loop)
• Total Current Cost: $52-million
• Travel Speed: 155 mph
• Estimated Capacity: 4,000 passengers per hour
• Completion Date: Unknown, but the LVCC Loop is expected to debut January 2021
• Projected Stops: McCarran International Airport, Allegiant Stadium, Las Vegas Convention Center, Fremont Street Experience, Slotzilla and Garage Mahal at Circa.

How The Boring Company’s Vegas Loop Will Change Downtown Las Vegas

A Las Vegas City Council meeting declared that the Loop would use autonomous Tesla vehicles that will run north under Las Vegas Boulevard.

vegasexperience.com

155 miles per hour! 4,000 passengers per hour! The greatest thing ever, that will revolutionize the world! Completely autonomous vehicles!

Uhhh, no. It is taxi drivers going at slow speed in a tunnel, 3 passengers at a time.

This is the problem, you are believing all of the hype without applying logic and reasoning, and at least a healthy dose of skepticism. It will cost a great many trillion dollars, because even after all of the money poured into it, it still does not exist.

It exists as much as the flying wing passenger jets that were promised 60 years ago.

buuuut the train doesn't even go from LA to San Fran, it goes from Lancaster/Palmdale, to Tracy CA. So, 65 miles away from LA. And almost 80 miles from SF. Like I said, from nowhere, TO nowhere.

Actually, they don't even know how to get it to Palmdale.

As I have said many times, I have been watching this for decades. And for the train to get into the LA area, it has to overcome a huge obstacle. And that is traversing the Tehachapi Mountains. There is no way to avoid that, you must go over them. And they still have absolutely no plan on how they are going to do it. In other words, it will never even get past Bakersfield.

In California, there are only 2 ways to take a train from North to South. The one used by passenger trains is the "Coastal Route", which the Surfliner does. It hugs the ocean for most of the trip, never going very far above sea level. That is why the first major transit route followed the old Spanish Trail, then US 101. This is the same route that passenger trains take.

But then, there is still a problem getting from there to the Central Valley. Why do you think I have been mentioning "topography" so damned often? It is not because I like the word, it is because I am really aware of the topography of California, and what exactly that means for trains. No matter what, to get in and out of LA and the San Francisco area you need to cross mountain ranges (most times 2 or more). This can not be avoided, and it is just as much of an engineering challenge today as it was 150 years ago.

Now the Coastal Route is the only way passenger trains take. The other route is the "Tehachapi Loop".

And it is exactly what it sounds and looks like. A long, snaking train route at the summit of the pass so that trains can traverse it. But not passenger trains, they only take it when the coastal route is closed for repairs or maintenance. The max speed of the Loop is 35 miles per hour. And it is heavily traveled by freight trains, so is never used for passenger ones unless there is no other choice.

And from when they first started this project, my main question has always been the same one. "How are they going to take this train into the LA basin?" And over a decade later, there is still no solution. The closest one I heard so far basically involved condemning and destroying most of the city of Tehachapi (including the Hospital and High School), and building it there. Well, obviously that will never happen. And other than that, there is still no plan on how to get it the rest of the way to LA.

Now the part from the Antelope Valley to LA is not that big of a deal really. There is only a single low pass to get through (around Acton), and there is already existing tracks that can be upgraded to support 100 mph trains. Studies been done there long ago, back when the plan was for much of the Metrolink had that as a long term goal. But here is the thing, prior to Moonbeam taking it over, that was what they had been discussing in areas like LA and Sacramento for decades. Not a unified "Bullet Train" system like is normally seen in the world, but selectively upgrading existing lines that could support trains from 100-150 mph with that as demand called for it.

In the 1990's, LA Metrolink released a map of all their proposals, with a timeframe of like 50 years. Mostly trains with a speed of 100 mph, to go to and from selected outlying areas as a way to decrease the congestion that was already a problem. But one line at a time, starting with the ones that had the most ridership, but was already capping out because most were capped at 55-60 mph because of other factors (the trains themselves and the tracks). But never upgrading all of them, just the ones that were showing that they had the demand.

And also as a disaster system. This has been shown in California at least three times in the last 50 years. The 1971, 1989, and 1994 earthquakes devastated parts of that state, and in all three, trains were the only way to get around for months (or years). The I-5/California 14 interchange was completely destroyed twice, and at that time the Palmdale Metrolink route was only a proposal. They had it running within a week, and ridership has only grown over the decades.

But the problem is that people do not understand that the solution does not have to be what some propose, and a huge monolithic single purpose system. It can be done in segments, and not even with the idea of tying them all together into a single system. We sure as hell never built any of our other infrastructure that way, why should it be done this time?

Again bullet trains are impossible from the standpoint of moving people. Sure the yare technically feasible but they are logistically impossible because too many rails would need to be built. However if you want to bust your piggy bank go ahead

What is a "bullet train"? Do you even know what it is?

I think the biggest problem is that you really have no idea what "High Speed Rail" is.

Here is the amazing thing, as much as you are screaming that it will never work, we have been using it in the US for over 20 years!

The "Acela Express" is the line that runs from Boston to New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and DC. Average speed of 150 mph, over 450 miles of track, and carries over 3.5 million passengers per year.

You really have no idea what is even being discussed. I have especially been laughing as for ages you have been screaming it would "never work in the US", completely oblivious it has already been in place for decades.

The "BosWash Corridor" is the only place where population density and traffic patterns make a high speed rail system profitable. The distances are too short for efficient air travel, and there is a LOT of traffic up and down it. Sacramento to SF is similar due to commuter traffic as most people who work in SF can't afford to live there. But you've got to cross that pesky San Francisco Bay on the Bay Bridge. The old bridge was designed for train traffic, the new one isn't and can only be modified by giving up traffic lanes and even then can only carry light rail like interurban trains. The way they HOPE California High Speed rail will work would be MetroRail from downtown Los Angeles to Palmdale, change trains to high speed rail (after they figure how to get across or under the Tehachapi Mountain Range) or a conventional slow speed rail train to Bakersfield with possibly another train change for the high speed run up the central valley. A train change to BART in Sacramento. then BART to downtown San Francisco. The total time will be far longer than the existing coastal route.

Actually, I have been following the way they have wanted to do Metrorail for decades.

And they never intended HSR on each line, only on the ones that made the most sense for density. Lines like Simi Valley to LA, Riverside to LA, and the like. The AV was never intended to be a true "bullet train", because the top speed without huge changes is only around 75. But that 75 would still be a 50% improvement over the current 50.

The same with the decades old concept of LA to Vegas. Not many would have used it for commuting (other than entertainers), but the tourist traffic could have made it work in the 1980's. At that time, none of the mega resorts had been built yet, and most of their business actually came from the LA area. Of course, at that time the Indian Reservations at most had bingo parlors and that was it. And a few "Poker Clubs" in LA.

Now however, there are Indian Casinos all over the state, and some poker clubs rival those of Vegas 40 years ago. And with the mega resorts, more and more travel goes there from long distance tourists, not the more local ones. I remember driving to Vegas in the mid-1980's, and it was a nightmare. It is actually less of a problem now, as more fly there than drive now. With the mega resorts, it has become more "kid friendly", so many families pick going there instead of Disneyland.

But there are local lines all over LA that could use an improvement. But those are lines already seeing 1 million plus riders a year, and they only intended on concentrating on those lines. But as lines came up for their 20 year or so replacements, upgrade them to high speed rail so they could just add the trains later if needed.

The original plan for the state system was to do just that, HSR to Sacramento, then the Capitol Corridor HSR to San Francisco. But the Governor did not like that, he wanted LA-SF only. Even those of us that like the idea think this is retarded, and will never work. There is just not enough of a demand through the Central Valley for this, nor for a route from SF to LA.

Yes, Acela goes from Boston to Washington, but relatively few actually take it from end to end. Most take much shorter segments, like Boston-NY, NY-Philly, or the like. And once you get outside of LA, there is really nothing anybody wants to see until SF.

Hey honey, let's go take the new bullet train! I always wanted to see Bakersfield! We can even catch a show at the Buck Owens Cristal Palace! Or we can go to Fresno, and take the bus to Oakhurst and see the Talking Bear!

At least if they had tried to do it up the Coastal Route, there would have been things that people would have actually wanted to go to. San Louis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Moro Bay, Pismo Beach, Hearst Castle, things that people would have actually taken it for for tourism if nothing else. The Central Valley is literally the "Fly-Over Area" of the state. We only go through it because we have to if we want to go somewhere else. There is nothing there of interest.

Then you have the other issue, the weather. Many may not know this, but the Central Valley can often get hurricane force winds. And every decade or so they get killer dust storms. I have a feeling that many times that route will be down because of that. If anything, it should have been built closer to the mountains to mitigate that issue. But this is not a real system, it is a huge vanity project.

Has it ever occurred to you that you are following bullet trains that do not exist for decades and that you are likely an obsessive compulsive train fanatic that does not care if a track cost a trillion dollars to build so that a few hundred can ride? You might want to lie back on a couch and explain this to Siggy

I see.

So the Acela Express never existed, and all of the 3 million plus that take it every year are what, government stooges? Under some form of mind control?

This is why I do not take you seriously at all. But please, feel free to start a thread in the Conspiracy Theory section and explain to us all how over 3 million people a year are fooled into believing they take a train that you insist never existed.

Correct the Acela Express is not nor was it ever high speed rail. You are the fool who is confused as to what a high speed train is.

Seek help

 

[the other mike]

The US attempt at high speed rail

 

[the other mike]

Even Africa has some.

 

[Dusty]

The US attempt at high speed rail
View attachment 507849

The USA has airports kid. Now go fart

 

[Dusty]

Even Africa has some.

Africa has AIDS