Posted on 05/01/2004 4:27:12 PM PDT by Willie Green
Cars aren't supposed to drive 80 mph, either, which Amtrak Pacific Surfliner is supposed to reach or exceed. However, it takes Amtrak between 2'40" and 3 hours to go 120 miles from downtown San Diego to downtown Los Angeles, assuming the train is ever capable of running on schedule (which it cannot whenever the train is over 50% full), and not including the time one must spend waiting in line to pick up an unreserved ticket and waiting for the train. That works out to 40-45 mph.
single lane won't handle anywhere near as many passengers as Maglev, especially if trying to accommodate vehicles going in opposite directions on an alternating shedule.
Public transportation ridership projections are often inflated and not matched by reality in order to get projects approved, so it would be difficult to believe Maglev passenger estimates aren't also inflated. In contrast, freeway traffic estimates around here have been notoriously lower than the traffic levels eventually turn out to be, which is why freeways are jammed but trains are rarely full. Once cars drive themselves, lanes will not need to be as wide, either.
much higher cost of building multiple lanes to match Maglev's capacity, but you still haven't matched Maglev's speed.
A freeway lane carries more people than a typical SoCal rail line. Speed is nice, but that's not the only factor determining the duration of a trip.
I hope you aren't misunderstanding me. I think trains are great, and public transportation is definitely very important. But, the problem at this time is that not enough of the transportation money goes to freeway projects while the traffic there is ever increasing. Most people travel short distances, and high-speed public transportation will not save them as much time as smoother traffic flow.
If reliance of petroleum is the concern, Maglev should be competing with short-hop flights, not with cars, since airplanes are not very fuel efficient and those passengers are already accustomed to delays, buying tickets, finding parking, catching a schedule, lack of privacy, and other inconveniences that go with air travel.
If we were discussing a project in Dinkyville, South Dakota, I might agree with you. But more densely populated urban areas and regions such as Southern California need all the transportation infrastructure they can erect to accommodate their population growth.
However, it takes Amtrak between
I don't know why you're babbling about Amtrak... that rail technology is antiquated and irrelevant. At best, Amtrak trains travel maybe 90 mph, and even that is severly slowed by numerous (and dangerous) ground level-road crossings. Besides, the existing routes are more likely to service freight cartage to industrial centers rather than passenger destinations to airports.
Maglev is a separate system altogether. And with regular, frequent scheduling, there'd be little need for long lines and ticket reservations. It'd be more like hopping aboard the subway in NY or DC or the El in Chicago. Yeah, buy a ticket (probably from an automated ticket machine that looks like an ATM), then when the Maglev arrives at the platform, get on board and find a seat. So what if you just "missed" the Maglev that left as you were arriving at the platform? Another will be along in 10~15 minutes and you can take that one instead! (Once again, we're not talking about Amtrak's paltry schedule of only 5~6 trips per day -- sometimes less.)
It competes with BOTH cars and short-hop flights for trips of 100~450 miles. Within an urban area, stations are placed about 15 miles apart - which provides some opportunities for local commuters WITHOUT bogging down the system with too many stops. The multiple stations are also more convenient for longer distance travelers than having to go to a central airport.
When traveling BETWEEN major metro areas, stations are located at LEAST 50 miles apart to take advantage of the system's high speed. These stations in the outlying smaller towns are sensibly selected for their suitablity as a potential passenger destination, providing service to/from the larger metro areas.
Environmentalists will never allow it to be built. They don't really want "eco-friendly transportation solutions" for the public at large, they want no transportation. All the serfs staying home in their peaceful, agrarian villages while environmentalist leaders fly over them their Gulfstream V jets to their private enclaves in Lake Tahoe.
Such a train link requires too much infrastructure to ever pass the required environmental impact reports - at best twenty years from now we would end up with a 250 mile maglev line from Patterson to the Grapevine down the I-5 median, requiring a 90 minute drive on either end and used by almost no one.
Which is why freeways are now most important: they carry far more people than any other public transportation system per dollar, and private cars reduce the transmission of diseases like the flu, SARS, or other communicable diseases.
I don't know why you're babbling about Amtrak
Amtrak is a current model of government-run longer-distance public transportation. The local LA MTA actually goes on strike every two years.
Unfortunatley for any mass transit system, most So Cal people don't live and work in two dense urban areas like people do in Asian and European big cities, and many people run errands besides traveling between home and work.
that rail technology is antiquated and irrelevant. At best, Amtrak trains travel maybe 90 mph, and even that is severly slowed by numerous (and dangerous) ground level-road crossings. Besides, the existing routes are more likely to service freight cartage to industrial centers rather than passenger destinations to airports.
Even if the trains traveled at much higher peak speeds, they would not cut passengers' travel time significantly, since so much time is spent waiting at each station stop and traveling between the stations and home or work.
Passenger trains in So Cal are scheduled pretty well so that many trains rarely encounter freight trains. The trains usually stop at sidings for other passenger trains to pass because some areas have a limited number of tracks.
True, rail does not service the LAX, SAN, or intermediate airports, and it probably would have been nice if they did, allowing the airports to become transportation mini-hubs. I'm sure many people could find use for such a system.
But, that can be accomplished by building (probably light rail) connections to the existing system after eliminating competition/disapproval from shuttle operators and parking companies. Burbank airport, which has an Amtrak/Metrolink station, prohibits pedestrian crossing from the station to the airport because the government did not want to compete with a new private parking lot between the station and the airport. These little inconveniences discourage people from seeking public transportation. Why would the existing government or private companies want competition that would reduce revenues?
And with regular, frequent scheduling, there'd be little need for long lines and ticket reservations.It'd be more like hopping aboard the subway in NY or DC or the El in Chicago. Yeah, buy a ticket (probably from an automated ticket machine that looks like an ATM), then when the Maglev arrives at the platform, get on board and find a seat. So what if you just "missed" the Maglev that left as you were arriving at the platform? Another will be along in 10~15 minutes and you can take that one instead!
That would require enough riders to have a system like the light rail lines, which have stations every 1-4 miles with frequent service, and large subsidies. It sure would be convenient if I lived near one station and wanted to arrive at another station, but I wouldn't want to live in a place like Shanghai or wear face masks daily like some people in Asia do.
(Once again, we're not talking about Amtrak's paltry schedule of only 5~6 trips per day -- sometimes less.)
Amtrak runs 11 daily round trips between LA and San Diego. With the recent introduction of Rail2Rail, which allows sharing of tickets with Coaster and Metrolink on the same rail routes, the number of roundtrips increases to at least 12 for the full distance, and more for intermediate points. Amtrak stations are spaced 10-20 miles, and Metrolink/Coaster stations are spaced about 5 miles. Most people don't both live and work near stations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.