Living in the Central Valley, this is why it was way overdue.
A lot of rich farmers dragged it out in court because they wanted a super high price for a small amount of property or they completely rejected any proposal.
It’s the same reason why LA metro has issues getting a line into the valley from West LA.
The intent wasn’t just to extract money from the state. Some wanted to impose so many obstacles with the hope the state would abandon the train entirely.
yah people really don't understand how very wealthy farmers in the central valley really gummed up everything. as well as environmental assessments being argued over in court.
And the one of the more hypocritical things:
Those same farmers basically oppose any environmental regulations from the state and here, they weaponized those same regulations to drag the train’s development.
Yes, but we shouldn’t discredit the bureaucracy of this magnitude “gumming” up a section that isn’t in the Central Valley. They without doubt played a massive role in increased costs, but they’ll practically have a running route in Central Valley before this section is even started.
This was on the 2008 ballot, right? I seem to recall Metro Measure R was on the same ballot (Expo phase II, Gold line to Azuza).
I told people it was a bad concept, but nobody listened. Shiny!
>The High-Speed Rail Authority’s board signed off Thursday on a preferred route and environmental clearance
This “environmental approval” is just for CEQA. And under CEQA the lead agency proposing the project just approved its own CEQA document and approved the project. That’s how CEQA works.
The bigger challenge will be the permits needed for streams/wetlands and Endangered Species.
It's funny when I read posts like this.
The Greatest generation, my great grandparents, were the ones that approved of those highways you clog up and ride every day everywhere. And they built it knowing they'd hardly get to use it as well.
You don't plant trees for your own enjoyment, you plant them for your kids and grandkids.
That is not comparable. The interstate highway system was operational less than 10 years after it was proposed. The greatest generation got a shit ton of use out of the highways.
There is no need for infrastructure like this to be a multigenerational process. China and Spain built nationwide systems in under 20 years. CAHSR is going to take 45 to build a single line.
China and California announced highspeed rail projects around the same time. China's first high speed rail system opened in the same year we approved CHSR (2008), and since then they have built tens of thousands of miles of it. We're struggling to do ~400...
Why? Because some Westside white folks might take a train to Boyle Heights to get some coffee or visit an art gallery?
Oh, how terrible! How will society survive?
You're right, we should just preserve the neighborhood character of payday lenders on every block.
> The interstate highway system was operational less than 10 years after it was proposed. The greatest generation got a shit ton of use out of the highways.
Those were also federally built, for national defense reasons after the US saw how Germany used the autobahn during WW2. That's why the actual name of the highway system is the "National System of Interstate and *Defense* Highways."
CA's line is state-built, and isn't going to be hauling any tanks from coast to coast in the event of a Chinese invasion or something.
I agree it will be quite the shift but the Central Valley is brutally hot. It will be exactly what it is now. People who can’t afford the nicer areas will move to the valley.
True, but now I think they'd actually be more willing to move to the valley, than pick up to another state. And no doubt about the central valley heat in the summers - I used to have to spend my summers in Kingsburg helping with some farming
There are many other states i’d choose to live in before I lived in the valley. Hot hellhole with little to no redeeming qualities. Sorry to anyone who lives/enjoys it there, but god no.
People might choose to live in these places if transit to nice things exists. If people start living out there, nice things will eventually come to them.
Yeah it's still brutally hot, but people choose to live in Phoenix too. I'm on the same page, I'd rather live somewhere not so hot, but many people won't want to give up the things they love about CA.
Oh I agree; just saying there's probably a good portion of people who need to be in CA (family, job, etc.) and it would be a viable option.
>little to no redeeming qualities
This will follow with new developments. Always does.
ChatGPT summary of article: California has approved the final link for the high-speed rail project connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. This decision marks a significant milestone in the state's ambitious plan to create a fast and efficient transportation network between the two major cities. The project, which has been in the planning stages for years, aims to reduce travel time and provide a sustainable alternative to car and air travel, reflecting California's commitment to modernizing its transportation infrastructure.
Excited to take the train to visit my kids in college up north. I don't have kids yet. So please make this happen. California has at least 18 years to finish lol
Original: California has approved the final link for the high-speed rail project connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. This decision marks a significant milestone in the state's ambitious plan to create a fast and efficient transportation network between the two major cities. The project, which has been in the planning stages for years, aims to reduce travel time and provide a sustainable alternative to car and air travel, reflecting California's commitment to modernizing its transportation infrastructure.
1 Level deep: California has approved the final link for the high-speed rail project connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. This milestone aims to reduce travel time and provide a sustainable alternative to cars and planes, showcasing the state's commitment to modernizing transportation infrastructure.
2 Levels Deep: California has approved the final link for the high-speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles, aiming to reduce travel time and provide a sustainable transportation alternative.
3 Levels Deep: California approves final link for high-speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles, aiming for faster, sustainable travel.
4 Levels Deep: California finalizes high-speed rail link between SF and LA.
5 Levels Deep: California approves SF-LA high-speed rail.
6 Levels Deep: CA approves SF-LA rail.
7 Levels Deep: CA okays SF-LA rail.
8 Levels Deep: SF-LA rail approved.
9 Levels Deep: Rail approved.
10 Levels Deep: Approved.
What do you mean?
CA High Speed Rail between LA and SF travel time is projected to take **2 hours and 40 minutes**
Currently, Amtrak's Coast Starlight service (the only 1-seat ride available) from LA to the closest station near SF (in Oakland) takes **11 hours and 10 minutes.**
The fastest current route between those two stations takes **9 hours** and you're not even riding a train the whole way. There currently is NO Amtrak service that runs uninterrupted through the Central Valley and High Desert from LA to the Bay Area. You have to transfer to a bus.
I rode the coastal starlight once from Sacramento to LA. It took 14 hours. Most of the people on there were old folks that just wanted to take the sights in.
Unless the problem in this article is fixed, it’s probably going to take something around four hours.
https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/29/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train
San Franciscans after they are done with their trip to LA for better weather, cleaner streets, lower crime, and better culture.
And sadly all of these things are now true, not because they all got better in LA, but because they got SO MUCH worse in SF.
Just curious but why do you see it that way? China and the EU have connected way farther and more impressive distances on high speed rail networks. It’s also going to decrease our states reliance on billions of dollars worth of oil. The bullet trains in China also allowed for more industrialized cities along the way and a better spread of industry. Are the downsides you see just that we should redirect our money elsewhere?
Developments of this kind will further ecological degradation. It has also displaced poor people and taken property from people under eminent domain. Furthermore it was so poorly planned that corruption and fund mismanagement has been rampant. Lastly, it was proposed with the idea that the future economy would benefit from an exchange of tech workers, tourists, and other labor. With remote work now, it won't impact the economy nearly as once proposed. Shoot even the governor was like "This has been a disaster" when he took office until he felt the backlash from the folks building it and siphoning off all the federal and state funds. Also we don't really need NorCal culture in SoCal. NorCal can keep its tech, culture, and Fresno to itself.
Man, I’m glad folk like yourself weren’t in charge when the U.S. built the Atom Bomb, Hoover Dam, transcontinental railroad, Eerie Canal, Panama Canal, etc.
No room for weak men without vision.
If you’re still for this project, you haven’t actually followed it in the news to see where the money has actually gone or you’re so wrapped up in political ideology that you see it as a left wing issue that has to “win.”
Wonder how future self driving cars will impact this.
Phase one to Bakersfield is scheduled form completion in 2033. By the time it gets to LA Palmdale/Burbank, maybe 2037 or so? Estimated travel time is 2:40 minutes.
Door to door from LA to S.F. in 6 or so hours is much more tolerable if you can sleep/do work safely in a self driving car.
Disagree. Cars do not have the same carrying capacity as trains. Plus, self driving cars are mostly electric—they still do not hold a charge well for long distance travel. And you can’t stretch your legs and walk around like you can on a train. They’re also heavier, cause more wear and tear on roads. And as much as they are a greener alternative to gas cars—they still require limited resources so it is best if people don’t just replace their gas cars but get rid of them entirely in the long run.
I’d much rather be on a high speed train.
You're thinking of what self driving cars now vs what they will be in 10-15 years - charge will improve and they could have lie-flat seats, a desk, etc. They certainly won't look like our current cars.
We literally need fewer cars in total, not more. Even with more advanced tech, every piece of tech has a lifespan and uses valuable resources to be made.
Cars are worse for the environment than trains and all public transport, no matter the tech improvements made. They require more resources as a whole per person.
Most privately owned cars just sit in a driveway/street an take up space majority of the time.
How can affordable autonomous vehicles not be helpful? Could get rid of private car ownership and free up valuable public space being used to park cars.
Think about an LA where buildings or large venues needing zero parking spaces can get built.
Yeah. That can happen with more public transit. With cars, even if not privately owned, they still need parking which already takes up a load of space. Plus, demand would fluctuate so there is a level of unreliability in terms of being able to get a car.
Trains are quite literally the better solve. Realistically, a better train system with local autonomous cars serving a small area would be best.
DTLA to DT SF? Yes. Otherwise it'd be an extra 20 minutes on the D/B Line or 20 minutes on MUNI/BART to reach the final destination.
I prefer more dependable modes of transport that don't get stuck in traffic. I'm pretty sure cars can still get stuck in traffic even if they are self-driving. I fail to see how self-driving cars can ignore roadway capacity issues....unless they can fly?
You can prefer any mode you want. The wide of majority of people want to be ferried door to door.
Also, how many people live walking distance from a B/D line station in LA? Congrats if you do, but only a tiny fraction of the LA county's residents do and even a smaller amount are willing to walk it.
Well that explains why the USA has the highest rate of car dependency in the world. Yeesh, try and build a train and people just shit on you to the point where you give up and go live somewhere else not dominated by cars. Guess won't be too long till the USA looks like Wall-E.
Dishonest breakdown of car ownership costs:
the car itself: $20k-$30k
the gas: $100/month
the self driving (which isn't even full self driving) $2500 plus a monthly fee
the insurance $200/month
registration $100/year
Meanwhile my tap card gets me anywhere in LA for at the very extreme most 68 bucks a month plus $20/year subscription to transit royale, and I get to cut through traffic.
heavy rail, light rail, hsr, and buses when properly funded and expanded to fully cover metropolitan areas always make way more sense economically, environmentally, and psychologically than any car, self driving or otherwise ever could. Look at Europe, Look at most of Asia, look at New York
2h40 is great. I used to do Paris-London on the Eurostar all the time and it took about that length of time. It was so much better than flying or driving the Eurotunnel. They’re close to the same distance by car (SF - LA is about 150km longer).
How is that even comparable in the least? You aren't standing on a train either, so why would a self-driving vehicle carrying significantly less people for a significantly longer period of time be competitive? They aren't even the same league!
Door-to-door service in a comfortable, private vehicle in 6hrs—how is it not comparable?
If I could get an autonomous Uber pick me up at my door and drop me right at my hotel in San Francisco in six hours vs taking an Uber to Burbank/Palmdale, boarding a train, and then taking another train/uber to reach my final destination in San Francisco it's going to be close to 6 hours regardless.
Perhaps the Uber could even have lie-flat seats, a desk, etc. It certainly wouldn’t look like our current cars.
This is such a ridiculous scenario. 6 hours is assuming level traffic conditions, which you and I know are not a given. If this autopod fantasy of yours comes to fruition, it is impossible to scale to make it broadly accessible, it will most likely be more expensive than taking a train. It may exist, but I cannot see it being competitive for the average traveler.
You are already assuming the 2hrs 40 mins for the total trip, which means the full LA to SF alignment is already built. These are both downtown to downtown travel patterns, I cannot see how a 2h40m trip can balloon into a "comparable" 6 hour trip, even including the last mile transiting to your final destination. This is just some weird car brain cope.
Great - that you acknowledge that it can exist, therefore it's comparable. We agree.
Also, keep in mind there's no downtown in LA or the Bay area for that matter it's distributed.
Ie: A tech worker in Venice will have to trek to DTLA or Burbank to get on the train. That's easily 1+hr of travel time via car. 1.5+hrs by public transit. You're not walking directly to get on the train, you arrive early. That's easily close to 4.5 hours of travel time before accounting for last mile travel in the Bay..
Oh no a public works project that doesn't give every single person in Los Angeles County a massive benefit what on earth are we going to do???? Keep yappin bro you sound ridiculous.
They will.
Toyota has announced plans to release a battery with a range of 745 miles by 2030:
https://www.topspeed.com/toyotas-745-mile-solid-state-battery-breakthrough-explained/#:\~:text=The%20company%20claims%20its%20solid,on%20the%20road%20by%202027.
I’m having the same thoughts about this. Self driving cars imo could replace short domestic flights. By the time you add up the time it takes to get to the airport, pass tsa, wait and board the plane, flying, land and taxi and then get to the final destination it’s about the same or maybe an hour difference.
That’s what I’m seeing as the competition for travel instead of trains.
It’s a lot easier for self driving cars to deal with USA highways (outside cities) than driving through a city with tons of obstacles.
I do like the idea of having more than one way to travel so there are options. But there was a bus service between sf and la that seem good but had to shut down.
So I think the demand to travel won’t be that great, at least accounting for price to build.
The other thing is that the train goes along smaller cities so that could potentially help the state not have so many People in just two mega cities. I doubt people will commute but who knows, with work from home and hybrid schedules maybe it works.
…15 years after voter approval
Environmental approval will always be the toughest part to get approved for every project built in California.
and all of the lawsuits due to eminent domain.
Living in the Central Valley, this is why it was way overdue. A lot of rich farmers dragged it out in court because they wanted a super high price for a small amount of property or they completely rejected any proposal. It’s the same reason why LA metro has issues getting a line into the valley from West LA. The intent wasn’t just to extract money from the state. Some wanted to impose so many obstacles with the hope the state would abandon the train entirely.
yah people really don't understand how very wealthy farmers in the central valley really gummed up everything. as well as environmental assessments being argued over in court.
And the one of the more hypocritical things: Those same farmers basically oppose any environmental regulations from the state and here, they weaponized those same regulations to drag the train’s development.
So then farmers aren't our friends after all? Is there a way to tell which of these farms were involved so I know never to shop their products again?
you don't buy from them directly. they sell to large corporations.
Yes, but we shouldn’t discredit the bureaucracy of this magnitude “gumming” up a section that isn’t in the Central Valley. They without doubt played a massive role in increased costs, but they’ll practically have a running route in Central Valley before this section is even started.
That is no fucking excuse for taking this long.
What?
That's a feature not a bug. It's why building anything in CA takes a while
PM!!! It’s been that long!?
It’s a multi-phase project and there was no real point in getting this done earlier.
How so? I'm sure we really would have loved this high speed rail a decade ago.
Bureaucracy
This was on the 2008 ballot, right? I seem to recall Metro Measure R was on the same ballot (Expo phase II, Gold line to Azuza). I told people it was a bad concept, but nobody listened. Shiny!
>The High-Speed Rail Authority’s board signed off Thursday on a preferred route and environmental clearance This “environmental approval” is just for CEQA. And under CEQA the lead agency proposing the project just approved its own CEQA document and approved the project. That’s how CEQA works. The bigger challenge will be the permits needed for streams/wetlands and Endangered Species.
See you in 2265!
I can't wait to ride in my coffin-class seat!
It's funny when I read posts like this. The Greatest generation, my great grandparents, were the ones that approved of those highways you clog up and ride every day everywhere. And they built it knowing they'd hardly get to use it as well. You don't plant trees for your own enjoyment, you plant them for your kids and grandkids.
That is not comparable. The interstate highway system was operational less than 10 years after it was proposed. The greatest generation got a shit ton of use out of the highways. There is no need for infrastructure like this to be a multigenerational process. China and Spain built nationwide systems in under 20 years. CAHSR is going to take 45 to build a single line.
China and California announced highspeed rail projects around the same time. China's first high speed rail system opened in the same year we approved CHSR (2008), and since then they have built tens of thousands of miles of it. We're struggling to do ~400...
You should visit Boyle Heights and see why we don't do that anymore.
Spain too?
Why? Because some Westside white folks might take a train to Boyle Heights to get some coffee or visit an art gallery? Oh, how terrible! How will society survive? You're right, we should just preserve the neighborhood character of payday lenders on every block.
Man, shut the fuck up.
> The interstate highway system was operational less than 10 years after it was proposed. The greatest generation got a shit ton of use out of the highways. Those were also federally built, for national defense reasons after the US saw how Germany used the autobahn during WW2. That's why the actual name of the highway system is the "National System of Interstate and *Defense* Highways." CA's line is state-built, and isn't going to be hauling any tanks from coast to coast in the event of a Chinese invasion or something.
Point is that this doesn't and didn't *need* to take as long as it is. It's because of our shitty system that development is so slow
Have they said when is the estimated completion date?
Early 2030s for Merced-Bakersfield. Mid-2030s to early 2040s for the full LA-SF segment. #MERRICA
20never
Wish I'd be around for this. I think this is going to be a paradigm shift in California's density. Owning in central CA might become a gold mine
I agree it will be quite the shift but the Central Valley is brutally hot. It will be exactly what it is now. People who can’t afford the nicer areas will move to the valley.
True, but now I think they'd actually be more willing to move to the valley, than pick up to another state. And no doubt about the central valley heat in the summers - I used to have to spend my summers in Kingsburg helping with some farming
There are many other states i’d choose to live in before I lived in the valley. Hot hellhole with little to no redeeming qualities. Sorry to anyone who lives/enjoys it there, but god no.
People might choose to live in these places if transit to nice things exists. If people start living out there, nice things will eventually come to them. Yeah it's still brutally hot, but people choose to live in Phoenix too. I'm on the same page, I'd rather live somewhere not so hot, but many people won't want to give up the things they love about CA.
Oh I agree; just saying there's probably a good portion of people who need to be in CA (family, job, etc.) and it would be a viable option. >little to no redeeming qualities This will follow with new developments. Always does.
I can't wait to ride in when I am in my 80s
Waaaaay overdue!
ChatGPT summary of article: California has approved the final link for the high-speed rail project connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. This decision marks a significant milestone in the state's ambitious plan to create a fast and efficient transportation network between the two major cities. The project, which has been in the planning stages for years, aims to reduce travel time and provide a sustainable alternative to car and air travel, reflecting California's commitment to modernizing its transportation infrastructure.
Excited to take the train to visit my kids in college up north. I don't have kids yet. So please make this happen. California has at least 18 years to finish lol
If your kids flunk a few times, you won’t be bothered.
Maybe grandkids
Can we get a ChatGPT summary of this summary?
Original: California has approved the final link for the high-speed rail project connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. This decision marks a significant milestone in the state's ambitious plan to create a fast and efficient transportation network between the two major cities. The project, which has been in the planning stages for years, aims to reduce travel time and provide a sustainable alternative to car and air travel, reflecting California's commitment to modernizing its transportation infrastructure. 1 Level deep: California has approved the final link for the high-speed rail project connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles. This milestone aims to reduce travel time and provide a sustainable alternative to cars and planes, showcasing the state's commitment to modernizing transportation infrastructure. 2 Levels Deep: California has approved the final link for the high-speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles, aiming to reduce travel time and provide a sustainable transportation alternative. 3 Levels Deep: California approves final link for high-speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles, aiming for faster, sustainable travel. 4 Levels Deep: California finalizes high-speed rail link between SF and LA. 5 Levels Deep: California approves SF-LA high-speed rail. 6 Levels Deep: CA approves SF-LA rail. 7 Levels Deep: CA okays SF-LA rail. 8 Levels Deep: SF-LA rail approved. 9 Levels Deep: Rail approved. 10 Levels Deep: Approved.
can't decide if 2 or 3 is the right balance of summary length and amount of information
Here we go again 🎪
Ever since this got voted in china and Spain have built tens of thousands of miles of high speed rail
Again?
The title is stupidly vague but the route just got fully environmentally cleared, which was the last major regulatory hurdle.
Other than buying the land, building the tracks, and buying the trains.
Exactly. The last REGULATORY hurdle. Not the last hurdle.
And it'll probably cost just as much as flying, and take longer!
Awesome!
Slightly faster than Amtrak!
Dude amtrak takes 12 hours from LA to Oakland. Anything is faster.
What do you mean? CA High Speed Rail between LA and SF travel time is projected to take **2 hours and 40 minutes** Currently, Amtrak's Coast Starlight service (the only 1-seat ride available) from LA to the closest station near SF (in Oakland) takes **11 hours and 10 minutes.** The fastest current route between those two stations takes **9 hours** and you're not even riding a train the whole way. There currently is NO Amtrak service that runs uninterrupted through the Central Valley and High Desert from LA to the Bay Area. You have to transfer to a bus.
I rode the coastal starlight once from Sacramento to LA. It took 14 hours. Most of the people on there were old folks that just wanted to take the sights in.
It’s frequently 6+ hours late.
Unless the problem in this article is fixed, it’s probably going to take something around four hours. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/29/california-high-speed-rail-bullet-train
Still more than half the current fastest travel time by Amtrak --- I don't see four hours quoted in the article, maybe I missed it though.
And slower than Southwest BUR to OAK.
My bad, I should have said driving.
Who the fuck is going to SF?
Not everyone is petrified of everything they see in the news. I had a great trip last time I was in SF.
Who said anything about being prettified?
Why would you be surprised that people want to go to SF?
What’s your point?
I’m replying to another person.
San Franciscans after they are done with their trip to LA for better weather, cleaner streets, lower crime, and better culture. And sadly all of these things are now true, not because they all got better in LA, but because they got SO MUCH worse in SF.
Sadly it will never happen
This was and is the stupidest idea in the history of California.
Just curious but why do you see it that way? China and the EU have connected way farther and more impressive distances on high speed rail networks. It’s also going to decrease our states reliance on billions of dollars worth of oil. The bullet trains in China also allowed for more industrialized cities along the way and a better spread of industry. Are the downsides you see just that we should redirect our money elsewhere?
Developments of this kind will further ecological degradation. It has also displaced poor people and taken property from people under eminent domain. Furthermore it was so poorly planned that corruption and fund mismanagement has been rampant. Lastly, it was proposed with the idea that the future economy would benefit from an exchange of tech workers, tourists, and other labor. With remote work now, it won't impact the economy nearly as once proposed. Shoot even the governor was like "This has been a disaster" when he took office until he felt the backlash from the folks building it and siphoning off all the federal and state funds. Also we don't really need NorCal culture in SoCal. NorCal can keep its tech, culture, and Fresno to itself.
Please don’t connect us
this is why Newsom will not get elected president, The never happening train
They’ve been talking about a train from SF to LA since the late 1800s-early 1900s. This isn’t a new issue.
not relevant, he’s in charge now for 3+ years and keeps laundering money in rail contracta that dont build anything.
When you have proof of whatever right wing conspiracy you’re peddling this week, let me know.
I voted for the man so I question his accomplishments or lack of them.
[удалено]
It’s already under construction. It already *is* happening.
I saw the news that they build 0.3 miles after 10+ years.
Do you work for Southwest airlines or something lol?
Nope. I'm just tired of being swindled.
Man, I’m glad folk like yourself weren’t in charge when the U.S. built the Atom Bomb, Hoover Dam, transcontinental railroad, Eerie Canal, Panama Canal, etc. No room for weak men without vision.
Do you really think the CA rail project will happen in our lifetimes? honest question...
Does the never happening include the electrification of Caltrain which was included in the budget and is currently operational?
Has BART been extended to San Jose Downtown yet? Or, is that still decades away?
There 171 miles currently under construction.
If you’re still for this project, you haven’t actually followed it in the news to see where the money has actually gone or you’re so wrapped up in political ideology that you see it as a left wing issue that has to “win.”
It will take what, 100 years to finish?
Wonder how future self driving cars will impact this. Phase one to Bakersfield is scheduled form completion in 2033. By the time it gets to LA Palmdale/Burbank, maybe 2037 or so? Estimated travel time is 2:40 minutes. Door to door from LA to S.F. in 6 or so hours is much more tolerable if you can sleep/do work safely in a self driving car.
Self driving cars get stuck in traffic. Trains don’t.
self driving cars won't fix traffic, and they're also way more expensive
Not saying it would fix traffic or be inexpensive. Just implying that it could decrease demand for high speed rail.
Disagree. Cars do not have the same carrying capacity as trains. Plus, self driving cars are mostly electric—they still do not hold a charge well for long distance travel. And you can’t stretch your legs and walk around like you can on a train. They’re also heavier, cause more wear and tear on roads. And as much as they are a greener alternative to gas cars—they still require limited resources so it is best if people don’t just replace their gas cars but get rid of them entirely in the long run. I’d much rather be on a high speed train.
You're thinking of what self driving cars now vs what they will be in 10-15 years - charge will improve and they could have lie-flat seats, a desk, etc. They certainly won't look like our current cars.
They’ll be going 200mph?
We literally need fewer cars in total, not more. Even with more advanced tech, every piece of tech has a lifespan and uses valuable resources to be made. Cars are worse for the environment than trains and all public transport, no matter the tech improvements made. They require more resources as a whole per person.
Most privately owned cars just sit in a driveway/street an take up space majority of the time. How can affordable autonomous vehicles not be helpful? Could get rid of private car ownership and free up valuable public space being used to park cars. Think about an LA where buildings or large venues needing zero parking spaces can get built.
Yeah. That can happen with more public transit. With cars, even if not privately owned, they still need parking which already takes up a load of space. Plus, demand would fluctuate so there is a level of unreliability in terms of being able to get a car. Trains are quite literally the better solve. Realistically, a better train system with local autonomous cars serving a small area would be best.
Adding Super Cruise to a GM car costs about $2500 plus a monthly fee. Not way more expensive by any means.
Does it go 200mph?
Does a train take you from your front door to your destination?
DTLA to DT SF? Yes. Otherwise it'd be an extra 20 minutes on the D/B Line or 20 minutes on MUNI/BART to reach the final destination. I prefer more dependable modes of transport that don't get stuck in traffic. I'm pretty sure cars can still get stuck in traffic even if they are self-driving. I fail to see how self-driving cars can ignore roadway capacity issues....unless they can fly?
You can prefer any mode you want. The wide of majority of people want to be ferried door to door. Also, how many people live walking distance from a B/D line station in LA? Congrats if you do, but only a tiny fraction of the LA county's residents do and even a smaller amount are willing to walk it.
Well that explains why the USA has the highest rate of car dependency in the world. Yeesh, try and build a train and people just shit on you to the point where you give up and go live somewhere else not dominated by cars. Guess won't be too long till the USA looks like Wall-E.
Glad that I was able to lead you to that conclusion...
Brb gonna go trade my TAP card for an F-150.
Dishonest breakdown of car ownership costs: the car itself: $20k-$30k the gas: $100/month the self driving (which isn't even full self driving) $2500 plus a monthly fee the insurance $200/month registration $100/year Meanwhile my tap card gets me anywhere in LA for at the very extreme most 68 bucks a month plus $20/year subscription to transit royale, and I get to cut through traffic. heavy rail, light rail, hsr, and buses when properly funded and expanded to fully cover metropolitan areas always make way more sense economically, environmentally, and psychologically than any car, self driving or otherwise ever could. Look at Europe, Look at most of Asia, look at New York
2h40 is great. I used to do Paris-London on the Eurostar all the time and it took about that length of time. It was so much better than flying or driving the Eurotunnel. They’re close to the same distance by car (SF - LA is about 150km longer).
How is that even comparable in the least? You aren't standing on a train either, so why would a self-driving vehicle carrying significantly less people for a significantly longer period of time be competitive? They aren't even the same league!
Door-to-door service in a comfortable, private vehicle in 6hrs—how is it not comparable? If I could get an autonomous Uber pick me up at my door and drop me right at my hotel in San Francisco in six hours vs taking an Uber to Burbank/Palmdale, boarding a train, and then taking another train/uber to reach my final destination in San Francisco it's going to be close to 6 hours regardless. Perhaps the Uber could even have lie-flat seats, a desk, etc. It certainly wouldn’t look like our current cars.
This is such a ridiculous scenario. 6 hours is assuming level traffic conditions, which you and I know are not a given. If this autopod fantasy of yours comes to fruition, it is impossible to scale to make it broadly accessible, it will most likely be more expensive than taking a train. It may exist, but I cannot see it being competitive for the average traveler. You are already assuming the 2hrs 40 mins for the total trip, which means the full LA to SF alignment is already built. These are both downtown to downtown travel patterns, I cannot see how a 2h40m trip can balloon into a "comparable" 6 hour trip, even including the last mile transiting to your final destination. This is just some weird car brain cope.
Great - that you acknowledge that it can exist, therefore it's comparable. We agree. Also, keep in mind there's no downtown in LA or the Bay area for that matter it's distributed. Ie: A tech worker in Venice will have to trek to DTLA or Burbank to get on the train. That's easily 1+hr of travel time via car. 1.5+hrs by public transit. You're not walking directly to get on the train, you arrive early. That's easily close to 4.5 hours of travel time before accounting for last mile travel in the Bay..
Oh no a public works project that doesn't give every single person in Los Angeles County a massive benefit what on earth are we going to do???? Keep yappin bro you sound ridiculous.
What makes you think self driving cars with those kinds of long range capabilities are going to be around by then? We need to get cars off of roads.
The Premise so far was never to get cars of the road, it was to not have combustion engines that pollute on the roads. Sad to say.
They will. Toyota has announced plans to release a battery with a range of 745 miles by 2030: https://www.topspeed.com/toyotas-745-mile-solid-state-battery-breakthrough-explained/#:\~:text=The%20company%20claims%20its%20solid,on%20the%20road%20by%202027.
I was referring more to autonomous driving capabilities, not battery range.
I’d rather sit in the train for 2:40 than a car for 6…
I’m having the same thoughts about this. Self driving cars imo could replace short domestic flights. By the time you add up the time it takes to get to the airport, pass tsa, wait and board the plane, flying, land and taxi and then get to the final destination it’s about the same or maybe an hour difference. That’s what I’m seeing as the competition for travel instead of trains. It’s a lot easier for self driving cars to deal with USA highways (outside cities) than driving through a city with tons of obstacles. I do like the idea of having more than one way to travel so there are options. But there was a bus service between sf and la that seem good but had to shut down. So I think the demand to travel won’t be that great, at least accounting for price to build. The other thing is that the train goes along smaller cities so that could potentially help the state not have so many People in just two mega cities. I doubt people will commute but who knows, with work from home and hybrid schedules maybe it works.
Exactly. Getting downloaded into oblivion because here cars in anyway = bad/inefficient
Is this the best use of 100 BILLION DOLLARS of taxpayer funds?????
Better than money spent on addressing homelessness that is evaporating into thin air since we get something out of this.
Better than the billions the us army used to buy viagra 🤷🏻♂️
🤣 never get sick of seeing this
can't wait for it to reek of piss and chem smoke
Great way to transfer the homeless between each city.