29 replies to this topic

[Sugarhill]

I have less questions about the train and more on what kind of tracks it would run on, but if Elon Musk can really come up with a way to get people from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 30 minutes, then he needs to really needs to build it on the East Coast between Boston and New York and New York and Washington, D.C.

If it sounds like I'm hating on the West Coast, well yes, in this instance I am. Philadelphia too.

http://inhabitat.com...0-minutes-flat/

Quote

“You would go from downtown LA to downtown San Francisco in under 30 minutes. It would cost you much less than an air ticket than any other mode of transport,” Musk stated. Even better, Musk states that the new transit system would rely solely on power from the sun.

Read more: Elon Musk's 'Hyperloop' Train Could Travel From Los Angeles to San Francisco in 30 Minutes Flat | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I'm not sure if you know but in California, we voted to build high speed rail.  Today, our Governor signed the bill into law sealing our fate--and federal dollars for the project.  It was a long time coming and has face a lot of opposition.  We are one of the few states to stick to our plan to bring high speed rail to the area.  We've benefited from the refusal by Governor Scott of Florida and others to refuse money from the Feds.
http://www.mercuryne...speed-rail-bill

It makes me wonder if this idea Elon Musk has is part of the state project or if he is planning something separate.  If it's his own project, I have to wonder why we need the high speed rail project?  Considering the amount of money that will be spent, it doesn't seem like we need two high speed options from San Francisco to L.A.

[Sugarhill]

That's why I was wondering what it would run on? Or, if it is even considered a train? No, I didn't know that California has made the commitment to high speed rail, but now that just makes me question even more what Elon is trying to do. How many rails can run alongside each other and still be safe at that kind of speed?

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Sugarhill, it makes me wonder as well.  I had not heard of Elon Musk's project until you mentioned it.   I can't imagine that we would have space on the coast to run two different trains simultaneously.  I am assuming that would be the route Musk's Hyperloop would take.

The voters voted for high speed rail in 2010.  It's had some bumps in the road during planning, but since the Federal funds have come through, it's become a reality.  People think it's a boondoggle or they think we shouldn't do something so costly during the recession.  I doubt there is ever the right time.

What I know is two of our largest, most expensive projects, the Golden Gate Bridge and the Oakland Bay Bridge, were built during the Depression.  Both came with huge price tags.  But, both bridges created a lot of jobs.  They transformed the Bay Area by changing the way we travel.  Now most people couldn't imagine life without the access these bridges provide.

I guess we'll find out a few years after these trains are up and running whether they are a waste of money or if people decide they can't live without quick travel across the state.

[Sugarhill]

Well, I believe that the photo in the article showed something above ground and elevated. I have to wonder about the safety of that and yet again, where and how could it be built if California is already laying down track. I am vaguely aware of the PCH, is that where the tracks for the high speed rail would be laid alongside?

[Hardison]

According to the article, Musk's Hyperloop is still theortical. I have to admit I like the idea of it. 30 minutes between Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of my favorite cities.

@FamilyTreeClimber: There's a handwritten sign at the end of my block comparing Governor Brown to Sandusky, Mike Vick and Zimmerman. Someone is pretty upseted at the Governor for signing the bill. LOL!

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Hardison, it is interesting what things get folks enraged.  They aren't mad about teachers getting laid off, but darn it, don't bring high speed rail to my state!

Sugarhill,  I wasn't entirely sure about the route, so I looked up the California Rail Authority website.  It appears I was wrong to assume it was going along the coast.  The state's high speed rail is cutting through the valleys:  San Francisco to Gilroy, then inland to Fresno and Bakersfield.  It then makes it way to Los Angeles and finally to San Diego.  I've been in the area from Fresno and Bakersfield.  Hot, dry...if ever there was a region you'd want to get through very quickly, this is it.

Here is the map:
http://www.cahighspe...ip_planner.aspx

It says it would take 2 hours 38 minutes to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles.   That cuts car travel considerably.  If you calculate the time you sit in an airport before you get on your plane, the train might be a better choice.

I thought this might interest folks.  This is the environmental benefits of the system they are planning to build.

• Because the electric power to the trains can be produced by sustainable and renewable power sources like wind and solar, this system will cut air pollution and smog throughout California.
  
• Improved air quality
  
• Improved energy efficiency: high-speed rail uses only one-third the energy of airplanes and one-fifth the energy of the family car¹
  
• Reduced dependence on foreign oil: 12.7 million barrels less per year²
  
• Reduced greenhouse gas emissions: 12 billion pounds less per year³

Of course, those are estimates based on a certain level of ridership.

I think it's kind of exciting.  BART was built when I was a child.  This is the first major transportation project of this kind for the state since I was in elementary school.

[Sugarhill]

The two and a half hours would be great, just as it is fantastic between DC and New York, so if they can do it, then great. You said through the Valley, I am assuming that most of that land is already razed or close enough? I'm just wondering if that was part of the battle in trying to get this built.

30 minutes would be even better. I wonder what their route would be and if it is strictly an express train from San Francisco to Los Angeles. In that regard, I guess two trains wouldn't be a problem especially if they are laid in different places. The pricing of the trips would be rather interesting as you know there would be competition in ridership. The Hyperloop would probably become the trip of the business man and upwardly mobile after some point.

[Hardison]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 19 July 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Here is the map:
http://www.cahighspe...ip_planner.aspx

It says it would take 2 hours 38 minutes to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles.   That cuts car travel considerably.  If you calculate the time you sit in an airport before you get on your plane, the train might be a better choice.

That interactive map is awesome. The visualization has a projection of what the train will look like. It's great. I usually take me 5 1/2 to 6 hours to drive to Northern California. I would love the train.

@FamilyTreeClimber: That poster was really surprising. People are really focused on being green in my area/neighborhood. There are some many hybrid cars, recycling and community gardens. It was really out of place.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Sugarhill, The area that they are going through is agriculture and sometimes barren nothingness.  It's flat, dry, hot, and boring for car travel in some areas.  You get miles of the landscape looking exactly the same.  If a train could get through this part quicker, I think many travelers would be pleased.

I wonder what route the Hyperloop would take as well.  There may be several options, though I suspect the environmental review on the coast would be much more difficult to pass than in the valley.  Plus there would be concerns about safety.  There are some stretches along the coast that are known for their landslides.

Haridson, that is interesting.  I wonder why the attitude towards it?  I know some folks who are angry at the money being spent.  I wonder how many of them originally voted for the project not realizing that it would actually cost the state money.

[Sugarhill]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 20 July 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Sugarhill, The area that they are going through is agriculture and sometimes barren nothingness.  It's flat, dry, hot, and boring for car travel in some areas.  You get miles of the landscape looking exactly the same.  If a train could get through this part quicker, I think many travelers would be pleased.

Is there a chance that now that the train will be going through these areas that it stimulate business or a new area to live in as there will be heavy traffic going through it and those people may need to be attended to? Or, is the route very strict on it's stops and where and when it will stop?

[Sugarhill]

So, I thought I would have a chance to return to my smugness of the OP with my own high speed rail story, but at $151 million and a date of 2040, I'll just have to watch what California is doing from afar.

http://www.treehugge...94-minutes.html

Back to the hatred.

[artistry]

If it can be made safe to run, and passes  whatever necessary codes, it sounds like a great idea. There was another report on a train such as this,  or a tube, that would travel; from New York  to California in a very short period of time. It's spreading.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Sugarhill, I think that promoting business is one of the reasons that they are working it through Bakersfield, Fresno, etc.  San Jose is a hub of business activity now.  I suspect they are trying expand that business region down to the other areas.

Sometimes I am embarrassed that we do not have high speed rail already since it's so prevalent in so many other countries.  We have BART (a type of subway/high speed train system) which was first built in the 1960s.  Since then,  it has slowly expanded beyond the originally route.

Once a long time ago, BART was considered high speed travel.  But, traveling at 80 mph is slow compared to what high speed rail achieves today.  It is a nice way to travel, especially if you have to go into the city (i.e. San Francisco).  Just getting out of Bay Area traffic makes BART worthwhile.  But, expansion is slow.  Many areas like San Jose should have it, but don't.

[Hardison]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 20 July 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Haridson, that is interesting.  I wonder why the attitude towards it?  I know some folks who are angry at the money being spent.  I wonder how many of them originally voted for the project not realizing that it would actually cost the state money.

I have no idea why. Someone took it down a couple of days ago.

I thought the train path would follow I-5. That's the route I take when going to the Bay Area, but doesn't. The only reason I can see for going through Fresno and San Bernandino is to bring people to the area. Oops,  I forgot, many people bought homes in San Bernandino, but commute to Los Angeles to work.

I really looking forward to it. It will cost money, but it will bring much needed jobs to California too. It will stimulate the economy in so many ways.

[Sugarhill]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 22 July 2012 - 07:09 PM, said:

Sugarhill, I think that promoting business is one of the reasons that they are working it through Bakersfield, Fresno, etc.  San Jose is a hub of business activity now.  I suspect they are trying expand that business region down to the other areas.

Sometimes I am embarrassed that we do not have high speed rail already since it's so prevalent in so many other countries.  We have BART (a type of subway/high speed train system) which was first built in the 1960s.  Since then,  it has slowly expanded beyond the originally route.

Once a long time ago, BART was considered high speed travel.  But, traveling at 80 mph is slow compared to what high speed rail achieves today.  It is a nice way to travel, especially if you have to go into the city (i.e. San Francisco).  Just getting out of Bay Area traffic makes BART worthwhile.  But, expansion is slow.  Many areas like San Jose should have it, but don't.

But, did those other countries have any type of subway/train system when they built those high speed rail systems? It's easy to come in almost 20-50 years after another city has done it and improve on what they've done. But, just as it is an issue right now, the money to replace an entire country's rail system, even piece by piece is a huge task. Especially with the concerns of how it will affect the areas that it would go through and the environment.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Sugarhill, no, there was no system before BART was built.  In fact, they raised many neighborhoods to make way for BART.  We were two blocks away from being pushed out of our home in the late 1960s to make way for progress.  Then, they finalized the plans and our street was saved.

I shouldn't say there was no system before BART.  The San Francisco Bay Area used to have trolley and cable cars going everywhere.  There was a line that went across the Oakland Bay Bridge, in fact.

In the 1940s, the big automakers got the idea that they could dominate transportation and sell more cars if they pushed the Key System (trolleys) out of business in the Bay Area.  And, that's what they did.  By the 1950s, most families had one car and the trolleys were seen as redundant.  Little did they know that traffic would get so bad in a couple of years that they wished they had those trolley cars.

All those tracks were ripped up and paved over to make way for the automobile.  New housing and businesses were built in the same spots.  San Francisco is the only city in this area that preserved and maintained a cable car system.  They added Muni and have BART, too.

I learned about this tidbit of history on PBS's History Detectives.  I think the story was originally about the trolley system in Chicago.  But, it was a plot that played out across America.

[Sugarhill]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 23 July 2012 - 11:11 PM, said:

Sugarhill, no, there was no system before BART was built.  In fact, they raised many neighborhoods to make way for BART.  We were two blocks away from being pushed out of our home in the late 1960s to make way for progress.  Then, they finalized the plans and our street was saved.

No, I knew that BART was the original or only mass transit system in the area. You were talking about other countries having high speed rail. I don't think they had anything before that, so they were able to look at cities like New York, Chicago, the Bay Area and see that they wanted a transit system, but decide to use high speed rail instead, because they could improve upon what they've already seen.

All of the rail systems in the US had no other countries to observe first, so that is why their systems seem ancient.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Sugarhill, Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.  I'm not really sure when other countries began developing their systems, so I did a little checking.

Japan's Bullet Train came into being in 1964.  According to Wikipedia, they began discussing these types of trains in the 1930s.  There was this little problem of a war that got in the way though.  The article says that in 1957 Japan developed the first real high speed train which could go 90 mph.  That was when they began to reconsider the project.  Approval came in 1958 and the first trains were in service by 1964.

What's interesting is that the author says that many people believed trains were on the way out.  They figured cars and airplanes would replace them.  Considering how the trolley and train system in the San Francisco Bay Area was wiped out in the mid-1950s, you can see that it was losing favor elsewhere as well.

I from the article that Germany was the first to develop high speed rail.  They had an electrical line in 1903 that went 126 miles per hour.  In the 1930s, they moved to a diesel powered system.  Spain and then, France, were next.  But, the Japanese Shinkansen line was a breakthrough at 210 mph.  Tests in 1963 showed they could go as fast as 256 mph.  These were the Bullet Trains.  They were considered a breakthrough because of the length of their route and the fact that they could be run on a schedule which made them an alternative for mass transportation on a daily basis instead of a novelty.

BART's planning began in 1957--the same year Key System went out of business in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Construction began in the last 1960s and the first line from Oakland to Fremont was opened in 1972.  So, really, this system didn't start construction until a couple of years after the Shnkansen system was already in place.

It's an interesting history:
http://en.wikipedia....High-speed_rail

[fancyfingers]

It would be nice to see something like this run from Los Angeles, CA to Phoenix, AZ. There is so much desert with loads of sunshine between the two cities that this route would be heavily used. There are many families that vacation to and from both states, it would help cut car emissions, generate revenue from tourist travel to both states. Not to mention all of the good it would do to the planet. Sometimes I wonder if big businesses want us to stay dependent on these things (oil, plastic, etc).