California - High Speed Rail

cgcsb

Manic Moran wrote: »

The density is far too localised for that.
Yes, CA more densely populated than Ireland, in theory. 95/km2 vs about 70/km2. But in CA, that's all in the cities. The density of the San Francisco city is 6,600/km2, , the city of Los Angeles is 'only' 3,275/km2 (But some satellite cities go much higher. West Hollywood is 7,000, Maywood 9,000.)

Dublin's population density is 1,736/km2. Rural Ireland is 26. When California gets rural, it gets -really- rural. Inyo county is larger than all of Munster, with a population of 18,000. That's 0.7/km2. The Bakersfield metro area is 34/km2. Merced county, the other end of the rail line, 50/km2.

Basically, where the population density supports it, we have public transport. SF's muni system is quite viable, with rail and bus both. My wife took BART to the office, 40km each way. I took it to the airport, over 60km. Where we don't have public transport, we have few people to transport in the first place. A rail link stopping off at all those towns between SF and LA is basically of limited utility as you need a car to get around places like Fresno, they're too spread out for effective public transport (Or a great uber system). If you need a car at the end of the two hour train ride, you might as well drive yourself at the cost of the extra half hour.

If you're talking about inter City high speed, yes it isn't comparible to Germany where you have cities of half a million only a few kms apart

However California is comparable to Spain (92 people per sqm, land area smaller than California), there's just desert between Madrid and the coasts and yet there is a 3,240km high speed network (second largest high speed network in the world after China) connecting Madrid to the capitals. Castile La Mancha and Castile y León have only 26people per sqkm yet these desolate regions are transversed by high speed lines owing to their location between population centres.

The thing about high speed rail is, it's actually faster in countries like Spain where it skips vast swathes of unpopulated countryside compared to places like germany where there's a major city every 50km on most lines.

Crossing Germany by high speed can be torture with the number of stops, congestion on the lines and overcrowding on trains. Book a seat on a high speed train in Spain and you'll get from the central capital to any other City in under 3 hours with few stops

France also has a sparsely populated interior and thus enjoys a similar breezy journey from one end of the country to the other.

an_fathach

cgcsb wrote: »

If you're talking about inter City high speed, yes it isn't comparible to Germany where you have cities of half a million only a few kms apart

However California is comparable to Spain (92 people per sqm, land area smaller than California), there's just desert between Madrid and the coasts and yet there is a 3,240km high speed network (second largest high speed network in the world after China) connecting Madrid to the capitals. Castile La Mancha and Castile y León have only 26people per sqkm yet these desolate regions are transversed by high speed lines owing to their location between population centres.

The thing about high speed rail is, it's actually faster in countries like Spain where it skips vast swathes of unpopulated countryside compared to places like germany where there's a major city every 50km on most lines.

Crossing Germany by high speed can be torture with the number of stops, congestion on the lines and overcrowding on trains. Book a seat on a high speed train in Spain and you'll get from the central capital to any other City in under 3 hours with few stops

France also has a sparsely populated interior and thus enjoys a similar breezy journey from one end of the country to the other.

Faster but less economic.

cgcsb

an_fathach wrote: »

Faster but less economic.

Therein lies the issue, the anglo saxon world developed a fascination with public transport services generating profit, the USA being the more extreme end of that. That is even evident on boards.ie.

Zebra3

an_fathach wrote: »

Faster but less economic.

I wonder what profits their motorways generate.

cgcsb

Zebra3 wrote: »

I wonder what profits their motorways generate.

Indeed the existing highway system of middle America is literally falling apart because nobody wants to pay maintenance.

an_fathach

Zebra3 wrote: »

I wonder what profits their motorways generate.

Well if they are free to use none and if they have a toll, often quite a lot. The same principals apply.



Are you suggesting such rail systems should be free on use or are you just trying to be witty. Investment in public infrastructure is limited and profitability has to be considered in order to prioritise the most needed services.

defrule

On the other end of the scale, China went from next to no high speed rail to more than the entire world combined in 10 years... lol

Zebra3

an_fathach wrote: »

Well if they are free to use none and if they have a toll, often quite a lot. The same principals apply.



Are you suggesting such rail systems should be free on use or are you just trying to be witty. Investment in public infrastructure is limited and profitability has to be considered in order to prioritise the most needed services.

My point is simple.

Infrastructure built mainly for private vehicles does not tend to undergo the same financial scrutiny as that built for PT.

spacetweek

Mod:
Rubbish about how great roads are and fascists removed.

Back to California HSR.

LuckyLloyd

Good video on the topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaf6baEu0_w

In short, there are numerous political, financial and self imposed regulatory challenges in the US that will inhibit a project like this from succeeding.

cgcsb

The drone they lost trespassing in Iranian territory(opposite side of the world, none of their business) cost $110million, no eye lids batted, try funding essential health services or public transport though and you'll be met with pure venom.