You still need me to after I did spell it out explicitly and so did others?
The damage you can do with a train is less
You can only blow up the train, and not the train and something else
The damage you can do with a train is less
The damage you can do with a train is less
So you don’t need the same security measures as with an airplane
I am saying security measures aren’t this blank module that you plug in. They are designed and tailored toward the situation. Obviously it wasn’t done well with air travel, but the point is that we don’t need to make sure no one brings a box cutter onto the train for instance.
I looked for your calculations but didn’t really see much. So I decided to examine the case you were mentioning. On the high-speed rail example, I can’t offer any travel times with traffic, because it appears that google maps doesn’t do it for these areas.
Woodland Hills to Hayward, CA
Start in Woodland Hills and drive to the Sylmar station. This takes 25 minutes. Then take the train from there to the Redwood City / Palo Alto stop. This takes two hours and thirteen minutes. Finally drive from the Redwood City / Palo Alto stop to Hayward, CA. This takes 22 minutes. So it is literally three hours door to door using Google Maps and the estimated HSR timetables.
Google Maps says it takes five hours and twenty three minutes to travel by car. What about flying? Again google maps says, that it takes twenty minutes to get to SFO (30 mins with traffic)
and once you get to LAX it takes another 33 minutes. But including traffic this could be as high as an hour and twenty minutes (again according to google). So you’re talking minimal 55 minutes and maximum 1:50 in getting to the airports and back. The flight itself according to flight schedules takes 1:35. So right before you consider getting to the airport early for security you have now spent between 2:30 and 3:25. But then what about security? I think most sane people would not recommend getting to the airport less than 20 minutes before takeoff, no? So that’d give you 2:50 minutes best-case scenario, and in the worst case it would be 3:45 minutes.
So I don’t really see how you’re saying that HSR is not going to be able to compete with flying. It’s pretty clear that in this case HSR is at least a viable option.
I am not necessarily saying that it will be a success, but your arguments aren’t good enough to stand on their own merit. It is a clever plan because it can compete with air-travel. It can do this because it doesn’t have the attendant delays associated with getting to the airport / going through security / waiting on the tarmac etc. I think that HSR is definitely not an easy thing to roll out anywhere, but I think this is not a bad idea.
You can’t compare it to regular rail because regular rail isn’t able to even compete with car-travel speeds much less air-travel speeds.
Finally, look at it from an infrastructure point of view. The sate of California is definitely going to need to invest in transportation infrastructure. It is a rapidly growing state and it needs to start working on such projects now. The benefit of building this is that it is unlikely to be a huge loss. I used the Madrid Barcelona AVE to explain that it is possible to cover such a distance over similar terrain with many stops and frequent service in a reasonable amount of time. It’s technically feasible as planned. As far as the market is concerned, I don’t see why it couldn’t take even a portion of the air-travel market. And then it’d probably take a portion of the driving market too. I think from my calculations that I’ve proved that it’s as least as fast as flying.
Secondly, trains are especially beneficial to individuals. Not everyone is traveling with a family. It’s probably cheaper to pile 5 people into a car, but then if you want to go by yourself, the train would be cheaper too, probably.
So if it’ll likely be at least a moderate success, but in ten years it might be very helpful because of fuel costs. So I think it’s a wise investment
No, you’ve said that you’re skeptical, but actions speak louder than words.
You can’t just say it’s not a personal attack, and then it’s magically not a personal attack. It’s a belittling argument, to the extent that it constitutes an argument at all.
I will do that, in exchange for you kindly being respectful when referring to me or the electorate to which I belong.
Not to mention lower ticket costs. Even the cheapest airline ticket bought online can’t compete with the HSR’s projected ticket cost. Superior cost + superior convenience + roughly comparable speed = win.
Personally I’m willing to concede the pricing argument. The prices listed on the website seem to be a bit low. I mean 50 dollars for a one-way trip? The Spanish example I posted above does seem competitive with air-travel prices though.
I call BS on the “estimated HSR timetables.” Earlier in this thread, you compared the proposed line to the Barcelona/Madrid high speed rail line and linked to a Wiki article. According to that article, the Spanish train averages 146 mph when running express and 128 mph when running local. Your estimate assumes that the California train will average 177 mph when running local.
Let’s assume that the California train averages the same speed as the Spanish train. I’m skeptical of even that, but anyway, that would mean that the trip from Burbank to Palo Alto takes 3 hours and 5 minutes. Adding in the two drives gives you 3 hours and 53 minutes. Further, you have to add in time to park, get to the station, find the right platform, and be there a bit early; as well as time at the end to get your bags, find a taxi, or whatever. Optimistically, the total time door to door is about 4 and a half hours.
By contrast, driving (according to Yahoo maps) would take 5 hours and 20 minutes.
So one question you might ask is whether families will sacrafice convenience and spend signficantly more money in order to shave 50 minutes off of a 5 hour and 20 minute drive. Personally, I doubt it.
If you are factoring in those sorts of delays in flying, then to do an honest comparison, you need to factor in delays that come from train travel. You aren’t going to hop on the train the instant you walk in the door of the train station. You’re going to get there early. Probably not as early as if you were flying, but still.
Also, if you get stuck in traffic getting to the airport, it’s also possible to get stuck in traffic getting to the train station.
I disagree. It seems to me you are comparing the best case scenario of rail travel with the less-than-rosy reality of air travel.
From painful experience, I can be pretty confident that high speed rail would NOT be as fast or as direct as its proponents predict. Again, look at your own wiki article:
Strictly from an investment point of view, if I were investing my own money, I would go with roads and airports. Why? Because (1) they are proven winners in this country; and (2) airport infrastructure is much more flexible than railroad infrastructure.
Let me ask you this: If you had to invest your own retirement savings on (1) roads; (2) airports; or (3) high speed rail (all in California), and your return on investment would be based on the volume of users, which would you choose?
Heck, it’s probably cheaper to pile 2 people into a car.
I don’t even know about that. Once you add in the parking and cab fare, it might very well be cheaper to drive the whole way yourself.
Please quote whatever words I’ve used which show that I’m certain or admit that “certain” is a mischaracterization. Your choice.
:shrug: The wisdom of the California electorate is an issue in this thread.
Sorry no deal. I’ve compared the motivations of the California electorate to those of young children. If you perceive this as a personal attack, I can’t help you.
Can you provide a link for that website? I was quoted $74 by proponents of this when it was on the ballot, and I’d be tickled pink if it were lower. $50 is about as high as it can get while still being competitive with the fuel price of driving.
I’m not going to play your silly little game. Your certainty has been shown by the consistent tone and timbre of your arguments in this thread. If you can’t see that, it’s not my problem.
I do. I voted yes on Prop 1A and have an “I’d Rather be Riding High-Speed Rail” bumper sticker. I consider it a personal attack for you to compare my motivations to those of your children when shopping for toys, especially considering all the thought I put into all of my voting decisions.
i.e. you can’t back up your claim. I have my own rules of debate. Rule 1 prohibits strawmanning, i.e. mischaracterizing my position.
No doubt it’s easier to argue against a more extreme position which you have fabricated, but it’s against my rules. I will no longer respond to your posts except to explain why I am not doing so.
Bye.
Oh, and merk, would you kindly admit that I did not express certainty? Either that or quote me where I did. Your choice.
In which post did you spell out your argument explicitly? Just give me a number.
Having thought about it, I agree with your conclusion, but I disagree to a certain extent with argument. Before 9/11, when planes were hijacked, they were generally NOT crashed into buildings. Nevertheless, there was still a good deal of security. Perhaps not as much as now, but you still had to go through a metal detector etc.
In any event, it’s certainly plausible that a terrorist incident or threat could result in security measures which delay rail travelers. Perhaps not as much as at airports, but still something.
I would guess that the most obvious vulnerabilities of high speed rail to terrorism would not necessitate putting a terrorist or materiel on board the train.
Some of these points have been made already, but still…
Forget the idea of trying to convince families to take the train. Some will, just like some currently fly. The car will remain cheaper and more convenient to move four or five people (some of them small, leaky, and tantrum-throwing) than either rail or air. And that’s fine. you lot will enjoy the reduced road traffic the train will bring. Now, when I go to the domestic terminal at Sydney airport in the morning, there will be some El Cheapo airline with a check-in counter open for a flight up to the tropics. That queue will have a few families in it. But there will be multiple check-in desks open for flights to Melbourne. These will have hundreds of dour-faced laptop-clutching suits lined up. There’s your market right there - the business market. That’s the market HSR will steal to a large extent, not the Griswalds on vacation. For two medium-distance cities, it doesn’t matter if there is large, low-density suburban sprawl. Well at least, not so much, for this market. These guys are typically going downtown-to-downtown, and the company is picking up the check, including the cab ride. And as much as it’s sad to say, frequent travellers on any mode of transport are more likely to come from the inner-city, for socio-economic reasons. If you live fifteen miles out in a suburb, you might travel to Aunt Zelda’s once a year. If you are a senior manager on high income, you’re probably closer to the city, and travelling once a week. This train, if it goes ahead, will be for the business traveller. In fact, if the HSR people know what’s good for them, they’ll hash out some sort of code-sharing arrangement with an airline. No flight from Australia to SF? Fine, I’ll book through on the train from Los Angeles, luggage and all.
The train isn’t necessarily a socialist’s wet dream. Car drivers are currently subsidised to all hell with regards to the relatively low level of road tax etc they pay in relation to the cost of highway maintenance. And that’s without even mentioning road trauma and the like. Want to start a railroad? You have to buy your land and lay your tracks first. Want to start a trucking company? You just buy a rig, and let the government build the interstates. Trains and trucks are big simply machines with wheels on them - they don’t care about politics.
No. You have already made your claim why you will no longer respond.
Either hold to your word and do not respond or change your mind and respond to the posts, but do not clutter up this thread (or forum) with repeated “explanations” of why you will no longer respond that are little more than personal attacks that your opponent argues badly.
= = =
This is doing nothing to promote discussion, either. Putting the word “hostile” in your username does not give you license to be rude or make antagonistic observations about other posters.
There’s a huge problem with investing more money into airports in California – all the major ones are surrounded by NIMBYs, such that they cannot exand their operational area signficantly. For instance, LAX and SFO both desperately need new runways, but it looks like it’ll never happen, because the surrounding communities are vehemently opposed.
Transportation is all interconnected. One thing HSR is supposed to do is relieve the pressure on the airports.
I should declare my hand here - I’m a card-carrying rail enthusiast.
But I’m not a dribbling foamer “There-should-be-trains-everywhere” type. I’d like to see the rail renaissance (which *IS coming) be done in slow, steady, and logical steps, without the mistakes of the past, and more importantly with acknowledgement of situations in which other transport modes are superior.
I go against some of my fellow HSR devotees in arguing that for many cities, there should be a downtown terminal but also an airport station if possible (and the airline/train code-sharing I mentioned above). The purists say this detracts from the speed door-to-door. I reply that it’s only one extra station, and anyway, so what? It’s actually an ideal business for the likes of Richard Branson.
It seems to me that any rail project will face NIMBY and BANANA issues too.
Anyway, here’s an idea: A lot of people flying through LAX are there to transfer, not to actually go to or from LA. So build a big airport in the middle of nowhere to serve these people. That ought to relieve pressure on LAX.
Anyway, we could relieve pressure on LAX by getting people who are flying into LA to fly into Onterio, Burbank, or Long Beach instead of LAX. But that doesn’t happen.
Actually that might be a point in favor of your argument that people will continue to fly, I am not sure.
Here is just a datapoint that I don’t know what to make of, but Burbank airport is 15 minutes away from my current home, but both my SIL’s fly into LAX instead because it is that much less expensive to fly into LAX instead of Burbank. (So they say, I haven’t actually checked out the prices myself since we always drive when we go to SF.)
For what it’s worth, I just went to priceline.com – the cheapest ticket available from Newark, NJ to Burbank, CA was cheaper than the cheapest ticket from Newark to LAX.
Maybe your SIL’s live in a city which is dominated by one airline which flies mainly into LAX?
They both live in San Francisco, which is why I figured it was relevant. Not that I should expect anyone to remember it, but I brought them up…3 days or so ago. I should have made that more explicit when I brought them back up again. :smack: