Why Japan’s Bullet Train Will Finally Bring High-Speed Rail to America

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I've flown cross country many times, but never at 700 miles per hour. More like half that - 700 MPH is almost the speed of sound.

I've done it over the ocean.

 

[Pogo]

I've flown cross country many times, but never at 700 miles per hour. More like half that - 700 MPH is almost the speed of sound.

I've done it over the ocean.

In a Concorde?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I've flown cross country many times, but never at 700 miles per hour. More like half that - 700 MPH is almost the speed of sound.

I've done it over the ocean.

In a Concorde?

Nope

 

[westwall]

The airplane is not outdated, the rail system is not practical coast to coast. Possibly the east coast it would be practical. 3000 miles, I'd fly.

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned

Not in the middle of nowhere they don't. Convention hotels are located in large cities so the conventioneer's can go out and party after they are done conventioneering. You know, like the IRS pricks have been doing on the tax payers dime for these many years.

As far as building through the Grapevine, yes it can be done. However the San Andreas Fault runs right through there, in fact it's an area we geologists call the "Big Bend", and it is due for a major quake. The last one was back in 1857 called the Tejon quake and horizontal motion during that 8+ event was 9 meters. Greater than the San Francisco quake. Additionally there is a section where the bedrock is destroyed from the constant pressure. You can take a rock, throw it in the air, and when it lands it turns to dust. Quite remarkable when you realize it is an igneous rock you are watching.

And once again, were they building this monstrosity along the I-5 corridor I might almost give them a pass as a good experiment. However, because of where they plan to build it, it can NEVER be a high speed rail system so it is fraudulent from the start. This whole project is about enriching some politicians and their cronies.

That's it.

 

[Pogo]

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned

Not in the middle of nowhere they don't. Convention hotels are located in large cities so the conventioneer's can go out and party after they are done conventioneering.

Not necessarily. I can think of:

White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Vail, Colorado
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

-- all of which, and others, host large conventions.

Hell I know a major city that only exists because a railroad once decided to put a terminus there. Today we call it "Atlanta".

Convention centers, hotels and attendant businesses don't necessarily precede the location; sometimes they create it out of nothing. Disney World used to be swamp and pasture before Disney secretly bought it up for the purpose of development.

 

[westwall]

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned

Not in the middle of nowhere they don't. Convention hotels are located in large cities so the conventioneer's can go out and party after they are done conventioneering.

Not necessarily. I can think of:

White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Vail, Colorado
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

-- all of which, and others, host large conventions.

Hell I know a major city that only exists because a railroad once decided to put a terminus there. Today we call it "Atlanta".

Convention centers, hotels and attendant businesses don't necessarily precede the location; sometimes they create it out of nothing. Disney World used to be swamp and pasture before Disney secretly bought it up for the purpose of development.

50 miles from Charleston. And, a destination in its own right.

A destination it its own right in the midst of one of the scenic wonders of the world.

A ski destination that is less than an hour from Denver. In other words less than the average Californians commute.

Once again a destination and less than 45 minutes from Charleston.

You're not very good at this are you? This is what the base of the Grapevine looks like which is where wry thinks someone is going to build a "convention hotel".

 

[RKMBrown]

Bear in mind that all of these other countries you mention are much smaller than we are and far more compact. I can possibly see the benefit of a high speed train between places like New York and D.C. or LA to Las Vegas, etc., but who would want to take a high speed train from New York to LA when you can fly there at 700 miles per hour in five hours? How much more affordable than a plane would these high speed trains be?

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

We have trains where it makes sense to have trains. Cars and planes make more sense for 99.9% of the country. Planes would be an even better option if the GD Government would end this GD frisking routine that they make everyone go through to protect us from pocket knives and water bottles.

"99.9%" huh?

Got any idea how many people live in the corridor from Washington to Boston?
At least 50 million.

Now I'm not real good at math but even if they're the only ones who need trains, we must have a population of ... approximately 50 Billion people, way more than, say Earth. But check me on that.

Moreover, as previously noted, I live in an area where you've gotta go over 100 miles just to GET TO a train. Not to get to a track, but to get to a passenger train.

Do you need me to point out on a map the .00001% of the country that includes the narrow corridor between washington and boston? How many stops along that NARROW corridor do you think a HIGH SPEED train would make?

Sooo......... in order to resuscitate your point we're going to pretend the phrase "the country" means "that portion of land required to lay a railroad bed"?

Desperation strikes deep.

So to understand why you are bad at math we merely have to look to your statement that the corridor between washington and boston is merely the portion of land required to lay the railroad bed. Basically you're full of hot air.

 

[Pogo]

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned

Not in the middle of nowhere they don't. Convention hotels are located in large cities so the conventioneer's can go out and party after they are done conventioneering.

Not necessarily. I can think of:

White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Vail, Colorado
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

-- all of which, and others, host large conventions.

Hell I know a major city that only exists because a railroad once decided to put a terminus there. Today we call it "Atlanta".

Convention centers, hotels and attendant businesses don't necessarily precede the location; sometimes they create it out of nothing. Disney World used to be swamp and pasture before Disney secretly bought it up for the purpose of development.

50 miles from Charleston. And, a destination in its own right.

(White Sulphur Springs, WV)
Uh---- ever been there? Because I have. WSS has two things to recommend it; it's a great drive in a real car (I know you get that), and it's 60 miles from the monster telescope at Greenbank, if you have time to escape -- say an afternoon off, which is how I did it.

That's it. The place doesn't even have a restaurant worth the name. It's a complete waste of time. But it does have the Greenbriar, which sells itself to conventions on its "history" as the place where the whole government would go hide out in the event of nuclear holocaust.

(I didn't bother with that tour)

A destination it its own right in the midst of one of the scenic wonders of the world.

A ski destination that is less than an hour from Denver. In other words less than the average Californians commute.

Once again a destination and less than 45 minutes from Charleston.

You're not very good at this are you? This is what the base of the Grapevine looks like which is where wry thinks someone is going to build a "convention hotel".

None of them are "cities", which was your point. And no, an hour's commute to somewhere --each way-- isn't something a whole lot of conventioners are going to consider "local". You know what places like WSS do to present the illusion of something to do? Golf.

Point stands: some such facilities are put where cities already are; others are simply carved out of nothing and made an artificial attraction.

 

[Pogo]

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available. It's a matter of what one likes. I enjoy trains and being able to see the country. I'm talking about Europe, of course, since AMTRAK is a joke.

We have trains where it makes sense to have trains. Cars and planes make more sense for 99.9% of the country. Planes would be an even better option if the GD Government would end this GD frisking routine that they make everyone go through to protect us from pocket knives and water bottles.

"99.9%" huh?

Got any idea how many people live in the corridor from Washington to Boston?
At least 50 million.

Now I'm not real good at math but even if they're the only ones who need trains, we must have a population of ... approximately 50 Billion people, way more than, say Earth. But check me on that.

Moreover, as previously noted, I live in an area where you've gotta go over 100 miles just to GET TO a train. Not to get to a track, but to get to a passenger train.

Do you need me to point out on a map the .00001% of the country that includes the narrow corridor between washington and boston? How many stops along that NARROW corridor do you think a HIGH SPEED train would make?

Sooo......... in order to resuscitate your point we're going to pretend the phrase "the country" means "that portion of land required to lay a railroad bed"?

Desperation strikes deep.

So to understand why you are bad at math we merely have to look to your statement that the corridor between washington and boston is merely the portion of land required to lay the railroad bed. Basically you're full of hot air.

Your original quote was, and I quote, "Cars and planes make more sense for 99.9% of the country".

Again, not great at math but somehow I'm skeptical fifty million people amounts to 0.1% of the country. But maybe it does, and I'm posting from some kind of time warp from the ancient past of 2015.

 

[westwall]

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned

Not in the middle of nowhere they don't. Convention hotels are located in large cities so the conventioneer's can go out and party after they are done conventioneering.

Not necessarily. I can think of:

White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Vail, Colorado
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

-- all of which, and others, host large conventions.

Hell I know a major city that only exists because a railroad once decided to put a terminus there. Today we call it "Atlanta".

Convention centers, hotels and attendant businesses don't necessarily precede the location; sometimes they create it out of nothing. Disney World used to be swamp and pasture before Disney secretly bought it up for the purpose of development.

50 miles from Charleston. And, a destination in its own right.

A destination it its own right in the midst of one of the scenic wonders of the world.

A ski destination that is less than an hour from Denver. In other words less than the average Californians commute.

Once again a destination and less than 45 minutes from Charleston.

You're not very good at this are you? This is what the base of the Grapevine looks like which is where wry thinks someone is going to build a "convention hotel".

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned

Not in the middle of nowhere they don't. Convention hotels are located in large cities so the conventioneer's can go out and party after they are done conventioneering.

Not necessarily. I can think of:

White Sulphur Springs, West Virginia
Jackson Hole, Wyoming
Vail, Colorado
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina

-- all of which, and others, host large conventions.

Hell I know a major city that only exists because a railroad once decided to put a terminus there. Today we call it "Atlanta".

Convention centers, hotels and attendant businesses don't necessarily precede the location; sometimes they create it out of nothing. Disney World used to be swamp and pasture before Disney secretly bought it up for the purpose of development.

50 miles from Charleston. And, a destination in its own right.

(White Sulphur Springs, WV)
Uh---- ever been there? Because I have. WSS has two things to recommend it; it's a great drive in a real car (I know you get that), and it's 60 miles from the monster telescope at Greenbank, if you have time to escape -- say an afternoon off, which is how I did it.

That's it. The place doesn't even have a restaurant worth the name. It's a complete waste of time. But it does have the Greenbriar, which sells itself to conventions on its "history" as the place where the whole government would go hide out in the event of nuclear holocaust.

(I didn't bother with that tour)

A destination it its own right in the midst of one of the scenic wonders of the world.

A ski destination that is less than an hour from Denver. In other words less than the average Californians commute.

Once again a destination and less than 45 minutes from Charleston.

You're not very good at this are you? This is what the base of the Grapevine looks like which is where wry thinks someone is going to build a "convention hotel".

None of them are "cities", which was your point. And no, an hour's commute to somewhere --each way-- isn't something a whole lot of conventioners are going to consider "local". You know what places like WSS do to present the illusion of something to do? Golf.

Point stands: some such facilities are put where cities already are; others are simply carved out of nothing and made an artificial attraction.

No, I pointed out that none of them are in the middle of nowhere. Which is where wry seems to think the investors are going to build their hotels. It simply beggars belief that someone can be that divested from reality. Where are the workers going to come from? Where are their children going to go to school? He is advocating building a small town in the middle of nowhere to hold conventions. You really can't see the problem with that?

 

[Unkotare]

Red Herring

Nope,....

Yup. We are not in a civil war, not recovering from WWII, and not building an infrastructure that serves an unmet need.

Red Herring.

You're aware that we have debt and unemployment, both of which would be improved by fixing out infrastructure....

No, they would not.

Bullshit -

Destruction does not create wealth - or why government make work projects don t stimulate - Financial and Investment Advisor Investment Company


Government Make Work Programs


The Economy Hits Home What Makes the Economy Grow

 

[Papageorgio]

The romance that people have with the railroad is no reason to now put in a high speed railroad.

 

[Muhammed]

People used trains cross-country in the past, when planes were available.

Yes, planes were available, but hardly affordable for the average joe back on those days. Eventually plane travel became far more economical for the vast majority of people and that is why today traveling by train across the country is pretty much obsolete.

I used to frequently go from Ohio to Illinois and back. On average, it seems to take the same amount of time whether I'm going by train, plane or automobile. About six hours, each way.

On a train, I can take a shower, smooth talk a fellow traveler who is a complete stranger in the lounge car and F her brains out.

You can't do that on a commercial airplane.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Going to SFO, landing at LAX is a hastle. Parking is expensive at SFO and renting a car at LAX and then trying to get anywhere in the basin is problem. High speed rail will be a benefit to business and government as business friendly transit villages along its route will be created and collegues can prepare for meetings, as both travel in wi-fi cars with restrooms and tables and room to roam. Beats siting in a seat with no leg room anyday.

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned

Not in the middle of nowhere they don't. Convention hotels are located in large cities so the conventioneer's can go out and party after they are done conventioneering. You know, like the IRS pricks have been doing on the tax payers dime for these many years.

As far as building through the Grapevine, yes it can be done. However the San Andreas Fault runs right through there, in fact it's an area we geologists call the "Big Bend", and it is due for a major quake. The last one was back in 1857 called the Tejon quake and horizontal motion during that 8+ event was 9 meters. Greater than the San Francisco quake. Additionally there is a section where the bedrock is destroyed from the constant pressure. You can take a rock, throw it in the air, and when it lands it turns to dust. Quite remarkable when you realize it is an igneous rock you are watching.

And once again, were they building this monstrosity along the I-5 corridor I might almost give them a pass as a good experiment. However, because of where they plan to build it, it can NEVER be a high speed rail system so it is fraudulent from the start. This whole project is about enriching some politicians and their cronies.

That's it.

This is it:

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_System_2015.pdf

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_Topo_22X34_July_2014.pdf

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/SWRM_060414.pdf

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Newsroom/Multimedia/maps.htm

Fact Sheets - California High-Speed Rail Authority

Above are maps and facts which will frame the discussion on rail in CA today and into the future. I still don't get the objection to buidlng new and repairing old infrastructure. I suppose part of this is self interest ("it's my money"), myopia and ignorance.

I understand opinions, but when opinions are not supported by facts or evidence they have little if any value.

 

[westwall]

How are villages along the way going to benefit from it? The point of high speed rail is to go fast. Stopping slows you down. Way down. So, you are NOT going to benefit those villages along the way. Unless you're not going to go fast, in which case it's not a high speed rail system in which case it isn't needed. Understand?

Really? Have you ever driven I-5? Most of the way from the city of Sacramento's southern border to the base of the grapevine is farm land, transit villages will be few and far between and be part of the general plan. They generally include a business friendly hotel, reataurants, office buildings and a depot connecting local transportation with the high speed rail station.

I've probably driven it more times than you. They are not following the I-5 corridor, they are over on the 99 side the last time I checked. Has that changed? And no, there shouldn't be "transit villages" along the route. That would be yet more construction in the middle of nowhere that is not need. That's the whole point. If you have a fast train, you don't need a hotel to rest in. The whole point is to get to your DESTINATION. Haven't thought about this too carefully have you?

I have, and it is the future.

Business hotels exist to hold conventions, meetings and trainings.

My point in noting I-5 is this, it is farmland, straight and level. Of course the grapevine is steep, but so are the Alps and the Pyrenees.

I know the route is through the central valley, closer to 99 I'd imagine, the hills and coast range make anything west of I-5 most unlikely.

Europe and Asia seem able to plan and build high speed rail, do you doubt the ability of the US to do so? Or, do you have a conflict of interest?

I imagine local and express trains will make use of the track, express trains will make few stops and few full transits. There is much to be learned

Not in the middle of nowhere they don't. Convention hotels are located in large cities so the conventioneer's can go out and party after they are done conventioneering. You know, like the IRS pricks have been doing on the tax payers dime for these many years.

As far as building through the Grapevine, yes it can be done. However the San Andreas Fault runs right through there, in fact it's an area we geologists call the "Big Bend", and it is due for a major quake. The last one was back in 1857 called the Tejon quake and horizontal motion during that 8+ event was 9 meters. Greater than the San Francisco quake. Additionally there is a section where the bedrock is destroyed from the constant pressure. You can take a rock, throw it in the air, and when it lands it turns to dust. Quite remarkable when you realize it is an igneous rock you are watching.

And once again, were they building this monstrosity along the I-5 corridor I might almost give them a pass as a good experiment. However, because of where they plan to build it, it can NEVER be a high speed rail system so it is fraudulent from the start. This whole project is about enriching some politicians and their cronies.

That's it.

This is it:

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_System_2015.pdf

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Statewide_Topo_22X34_July_2014.pdf

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/SWRM_060414.pdf

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Newsroom/Multimedia/maps.htm

Fact Sheets - California High-Speed Rail Authority

Above are maps and facts which will frame the discussion on rail in CA today and into the future. I still don't get the objection to buidlng new and repairing old infrastructure. I suppose part of this is self interest ("it's my money"), myopia and ignorance.

I understand opinions, but when opinions are not supported by facts or evidence they have little if any value.

So yes, they are indeed following the 99 corridor, then they are shooting up and over the 58 through Tehachapi and dropping down by Mojave and running straight south on the 14 through Palmdale and stopping in Lancaster.

Notice all those turns? Those are where the train will be going fairly slow. There are way more turns than there are straight sections where you can get up to speed.

This will be far, far from a high speed rail system. In other words, it is fraudulent from the very beginning.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why are you so opposed to high speed rail? Do your work in the oil or aviation industry? Trains can take turns at high speed, if the engineering is sound and computer technology is able to prevent operator error.

 

[westwall]

Why are you so opposed to high speed rail? Do your work in the oil or aviation industry? Trains can take turns at high speed, if the engineering is sound and computer technology is able to prevent operator error.

I am opposed to waste, graft, and corruption. This rail will not be high speed, it will not handle the kind of traffic they seem to hope it will, it will bankrupt the taxpayers of California and it will enrich the politicians who are pushing it, the industrialists who have bought those politicians, and the bankers who are manipulating the money. In other words this is a project who's sole purpose is to enrich the one percenters and fuck over the 99 percent.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Other countries are far ahead of the US.

Why Japan s Bullet Train Will Finally Bring High-Speed Rail to America

High-speed trains—which can hit 300 miles per hour or more—are the ultimate example of how futuristic engineering can solve real-world transportation problems. In the past several decades, dozens of safe, sustainable high-speed train systems have started racing across the planet. And the place that does high-speed rail best is where it all started over 50 years ago: Japan.

In contrast, high-speed rail in the US often feels like vaporware. The closest thing we have to it is the Acela Express, an East Coast Amtrak train that tops out at 150 miles per hour. While proposals in places like Florida have sputtered out, California and Texas currently have the most enduring high-speed rail plans.

<more>

Yeah, jets that go 600 miles and hour are nothing in contrast...

Just think, when the California high speed is completed, you'll be able to get from Bakersfield to Stockton in just 5 hours, for about a thousand dollars.

The days of flying from LAX to SFS in 42 minutes for $79 will be a distant memory.

Communists: Making the world a better place, one bread line at a time....

 

[Wry Catcher]

LOL: Read the two posts above. Two opinions, both are against high speed rail, and each opinion is based on diametrically opposed reasons.

 

[Political Junky]

Other countries are far ahead of the US.

Why Japan s Bullet Train Will Finally Bring High-Speed Rail to America

High-speed trains—which can hit 300 miles per hour or more—are the ultimate example of how futuristic engineering can solve real-world transportation problems. In the past several decades, dozens of safe, sustainable high-speed train systems have started racing across the planet. And the place that does high-speed rail best is where it all started over 50 years ago: Japan.

In contrast, high-speed rail in the US often feels like vaporware. The closest thing we have to it is the Acela Express, an East Coast Amtrak train that tops out at 150 miles per hour. While proposals in places like Florida have sputtered out, California and Texas currently have the most enduring high-speed rail plans.

<more>

Yeah, jets that go 600 miles and hour are nothing in contrast...

Just think, when the California high speed is completed, you'll be able to get from Bakersfield to Stockton in just 5 hours, for about a thousand dollars.

The days of flying from LAX to SFS in 42 minutes for $79 will be a distant memory.

Communists: Making the world a better place, one bread line at a time....

Another Con making shit up, knowing the Right will believe it.