I am not completely disagreeing with that Troy. The problem is simple. When you have those stops, unless you have "extra" tracks to run express trains through (akin to Japan and its 3 different speed rails) then you are limited to how fast a local train can run the route as to when you can schedule an express.Originally Posted by Troyeth
Being able to do an express every 2 hours rather than every 30 minutes during peak is a concern.
But right now all we get are bright blue lines on maps and nice looking renderings. I am wondering if they have even (seriously) considered what I am talking about, or if they are more concerned about selling it right now.
Some areas.
There are areas of San Diego that are still not 100% "nice" to be in (especially at night). Friend of mine said he heard gunshots after dark on many nights in his first apartment down there.
Not saying that Diego is not MUCH better than the LA and its surrounding townships, just that SD is not perfect.... (but where is?)
Zip, just looking at that article puts it in context, but at the same time it is still a load of cash.
As also stated there, people want something for nothing. They will not commit to anything long term (how much leg twisting did it take to get our incomplete 2AS or new water mains in?)
the one thing I would also look into would be the networking of the rail with other transit systems to make commuting as quick and convenient as possible.
If you could live 100 miles out of town and still get to work in an hour or less, you will see a big expansion of development in the state (putting more burden on the infrastructure, etc etc). I, for one, have preferred having a 40 minute commute where I do not have to drive the entire way (can't read while driving) as compared to driving for 30 minutes.
I think many other people would feel the same once they started doing it.
My observation has been that either people have a mind set in favor of public transit, or they abhor it. I can't think of anyone i know that has a 'take it or leave it' attitude about their car.
Why building the the high speed rail now makes sense in the long run ...
From a 2007 Report "California's Future Population":
BY 2025, CALIFORNIA WILL GAIN BETWEEN 7 AND 11 MILLION NEW RESIDENTS. Between 2005 and 2025, the state’s population will increase from 37 million to between 44 million and 48 million people. Natural increase (the excess of births over deaths) and immigration will be the key drivers of this growth. The foreign‐born population will grow slightly faster than the U.S.‐born population. By 2025, 30 percent of the state’s residents will be foreign‐born.
INLAND AREAS WILL GROW FASTER THAN COASTAL AREAS. Over the next two decades, populations are projected to increase by 48% in inland counties, compared to 17% in coastal counties. Absolute growth will also be greater in the inland than in the coastal counties (5.3 million compared to 4.4 million). The fastest growth rates will be in the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties), the San Joaquin Valley, and the Sacramento metropolitan area. Despite these uneven growth rates, 62% of the state’s residents will still live in coastal counties in 2040.
And this:
California Population Projections
California's population is projected to reach almost 60 million people by 2050, adding over 25 million since the 2000 decennial census, according to long-range population projections released in July 2007 by the California Department of Finance. From less than 34 million Californians counted in that census, the new data series shows that the state will pass the 40 million mark in 2012, and exceed 50 million by 2032.
I'm not, but...
Give the sprawling nature of development in CA, do you thing the travel time to the HSR stations will be any different than getting to an airport?
Do you think that the HSR will be exempt from TSA security?
We tend to think of the NYC model of rail travel (take Amtrack to Penn station, get on the subway to your final destination.) Anyplace but SF in Cali won't work like that.
Alternately, if they're building local transit to interface to the HSR, they could interface to the airports with the same amount of effort (and gain much more flexibility than going to the HSR)
Maybe fine for the present, how do you accommodate growth?
Just like ignoring the economic alternatives I mentioned, physical alternatives are also ignored.
Plus we need redundancy in transit, more than amply shown after 9/11 when all air travel was suspended for a few days after. And BB, the only security checks required on Amtrak, and Eurail the last time I visited, is to show ID when boarding with the occasional spot check in transit. Trains do not have the freedom to veer off course and run into a building, like a plane can. Your arguments are becoming childish.
Stache: please keep to the topic at hand rather than making snide comments to others about fellow forum members. He has not made comments about you.
I disagree with what BBMW has to to say about public transportation but do appreciate hearing an opposing viewpoint. This is a discussion forum.
---------------------
The London and Madrid terrorist bombings involved busses and trains...not planes. One more incident and TSA style security might not be so far fetched.
Last edited by Fabrizio; July 10th, 2012 at 12:23 PM.
Good point.
Meet "Italo", Europe's first privately run high-speed train service: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/22/tr...ntv/index.html
^That CNN article also includes a very informative video about the Italo (in the left margin).
And at the bottom of the page is a link to a rather negative video about the California high-speed train:
California's high speed train to nowhere?
I have never said that San Diego is perfect: I just afferm that overall is a beautiful city... as far as crime is concerned, in fact it's the safest USA city.
Hmmmmm......
145. New York City
186. San Diego, Calif.
(in all fairness, I did not read up on the methodology of the study/ranking....)
Back on topic.
Thank you.
Re: safest city.
That survey is from 2006.... but be that as it may: that same survey also breaks the ranking down by population size.
Of cities with a population of over 500,000 (IMHO a fairer comparison) San Diego ranks 6th.
Perhaps Renato has San Diego confused with another Southern California "San" city, San Jose.
It ranks at number 1.
http://www.morganquitno.com/cit07pop.htm#500,000+
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks