[home][rumors and news][model release matrix][dealer network][desktop calendar][exhaust notes][tov forums][links][search][sponsors][garage][login]

Tire Rack Upgrade Garage
 Search for a Dealer:
 Canadian Flag US Flag
 Honda Acura
 ZIP  
Is Acura going to reveal a new Legend at Pebble Beach this year?
More.......................
Honda reports February Sales
More.......................
Honda revealing production RWD prototype of Urban EV Concept at the Geneva International Motorshow
More.......................
BBC: Honda set to close Swindon factory in 2022
More.......................
Nikkei: Honda enters agreement with CATL for battery supply contract through 2027
More.......................
Acura Marks 30 Years Since Debut of Iconic NSX Supercar
More.......................
American Honda reports January sales
More.......................
Acura Marks 15th Anniversary of Super Handling All-Wheel Drive™
More.......................
Today's Reading Links --> Re: How Acura orchestrated a massive turnaround with a renewed focus on design
Join Discussion......
Civic --> Re: I chose the Si over the GTI
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Honda / Acura Shakeup?
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Hyundai i30 Fastback N (2019)
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Car and Driver's new site.
Join Discussion......
Ridgeline - General Talk --> Re: 2020 Ridgeline
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: DC-R
Join Discussion......
Type R --> Re: Desmond Regamaster Installed!
Join Discussion......
Hot Deals --> Re: K-Tuner For Sale!!!
Join Discussion......
Amateur Racing & Driving --> Re: Vigor @ NCCAR Apexfest
Join Discussion......
General Talk --> Re: Accord-based CT5?!
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: 2024 Honda Le Mans Racecar.
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: IMSA - 2019 Mobil 1 Twelve Hours of Sebring
Join Discussion......
Professional Motorsports --> Re: F1 - 2019 Australian Grand Prix - Spoilers
Join Discussion......
Ridgeline - General Talk --> 2020 Ridgeline
Join Discussion......
2019 Honda Passport PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
2019 Acura NSX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Acura ILX
Read Article....................
2019 Acura ILX PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................
First Drive: 2019 Honda Pilot
Read Article....................
2019 Honda Pilot PR Photo Gallery
Read Article....................

[fancy] [flat] [simple]
TOV Forums > General Talk > > Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail

Go to:

Viewing Threshold (What is this?)

Thread Page - [1]
Author
  Post New Thread
outersquare
Profile for outersquare
CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2019 02:34
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
"California state senator John Moorlach (R-Orange County) has introduced a bill to that state’s legislature that would add lanes to both north- and southbound Interstate 5 and State Route 99 that would have no posted speed limit.

SB319 does not itself state the specific stretches of road where the lanes would be added, but local reports indicate the lanes would run from Stockton to Bakersfield, a distance of approximately 240 miles via I-5 or 230 miles via CA-99."

https://www.automobilemag.com/news/calinornia-speed-limit-unlimited-lanes/

I think is an excellent idea, hopefully those in CA support this.

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2019 09:50
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
While that may help with speed (debatable- I don't think traffic problems can be fixed with "more lanes" even if they intended are for high speed limit traffic only because ultimately people still have to get on and off the highway and merge with much slower traffic), it does not help with the environmental factor.

Rail transports a lot of people at high speeds, making it more efficient overall than tons of vehicles trying to do the same thing.

jshaw
Profile for jshaw
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2019 10:23
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Will never happen. All one has to say is: high speed = high emissions, and the bill is dead here. Also, R in a D supermajority state.
notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2019 11:49
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
While that may help with speed (debatable- I don't think traffic problems can be fixed with "more lanes" even if they intended are for high speed limit traffic only because ultimately people still have to get on and off the highway and merge with much slower traffic), it does not help with the environmental factor.

Rail transports a lot of people at high speeds, making it more efficient overall than tons of vehicles trying to do the same thing.



That particular route has very few major on/off ramps. It's largely agricultural with the occasional gas/restaurant oasis and small town. High speed lanes on that route could see you travelling for 100+ miles without having to worry about merging.

The funny part is the average speed in the fast lane is already in the 85-90 mph range during light traffic. A special high speed lane would be nice because the only thing that slows you down is the semitrucks deciding to pass each other at 1 mph differential and slowing everyone down by 20 mph for awhile.

The only way rail would work on that route is if you could put your car on a transporter and unload it when you arrived because getting around major California metro areas is tough without a car (even in the age of Uber). But the train would need to do 100-120 mph to be worthwhile IMO.

SC

outersquare
Profile for outersquare
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2019 15:21
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Yes the proposal is basically for separate high speed lanes between LA area and SF, mostly open, flat highway in agricultural areas. Even if they initially capped it at 100 MPH that would still be in improvement.

When I was in Taipei/Taiwan, the high speed rail went ~300 KPH/~188 MPH, but that is a point that after riding the rail, you still need further ground transportation which in CA really means you need a car anyways once you reach urban/suburban areas. From what I last saw, the CA HSR as proposed was gerrymandered in a way that made the length and distance unnecessarily long, but politically expedient.


GoFaster
Profile for GoFaster
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2019 16:19
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
HSR estimated $100,000,000,000.00 Cost to create / 30 years to pay / 365 Days Per Year = $9,132,420.09 per day. Divide that by a train filled with 300 people / 100 trains per day. That is $304.41 for a one way ticket for 30,000 people per day wanting to take the train between LA and SF. 100 trains per day / 18 hours of opporation per day is 5.555 trains per hour leaving LA for SF or vice-versa. You need a full train to leave every 20 minutes going in both directions all day long.

Who the heck are these people? Then when you find the $304 per ticket is twice the cost of flying, then something in our computation needs to double.

That does not include any opporation and maintenance costs, that is just to pay for making the thing over 30 years with no interest. Just penciling it out shows why there was ZERO private investment in HSR. It can't work in CA.

And already Skype for Business is set to take over the need to be anywhere. New conference rooms are so hightech already that being there is actually worse than a conference call, because you can get what you forgot, because you are where you need to be.

And look at the government produced drawings of HSR, they forget to include the ugly electric wires running along the track. Why not show the truth?


Here is actual HSR, not so pretty.



TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2019 16:53
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
While that may help with speed (debatable- I don't think traffic problems can be fixed with "more lanes" even if they intended are for high speed limit traffic only because ultimately people still have to get on and off the highway and merge with much slower traffic), it does not help with the environmental factor.

Rail transports a lot of people at high speeds, making it more efficient overall than tons of vehicles trying to do the same thing.



I've driven those routes a lot. Moorlach is spot on correct. You are not.

On the California Central Valley the I5 (and the 99 as well) has looong stretches and wide medians. The only place where they might have to do some significant earth moving will be around Coalinga where they will have to do some hill conforming to widen the median, but otherwise that route was designed for more lanes, the overpasses are wide and there is lots of space and rights of way.

IMHO, they could easily build two "express lanes" per side with egress/ingress every 30 miles and keep the busses, trucks and semis off those lanes. It shouldn't cost too much to build.

As Shawn noted, the traffic pretty much cruises at 80 mph. The biggest issues are:

(1) Road condition... the semis really hammer the "slow lane" so the "fast lane" is much smoother and Caltrans is constantly having to do resurfacing ( long delays in summer nights ).

(2) Semis passing semis. Cluster fuck. One truck doing 61 decides to "pass" another one doing 60. Then the road changes and their speeds are reversed....

(3) Trucks spaced widely in the "slow" lane. Then Left Lane Bandits (LLB) cars case long "trains" on the "fast lane"... doing 73 mph.

(4) The way to make time thus is to speed on the "slow lane" between the trucks and then cut back into the "fast lane" to pass the truck. Unfortunately this also triggers the dicks who think they own the fast lane at 73 mph....

Putting two express lanes per side will fix that. Not much we can do with the LLB... but at least the trucks won't be in the mix and the reason for the LLB to stay left (smoother surface) will go away.

We already have express lanes in the suburban freeways in SoCal, so this will be an extension... Just don't make them tollroads.

BTW- we also need extra lanes on the 15 to Vegas, the 10 and 40 to Nevada.. and likely long parts of the 101.

Moorbach is a good guy, from The OC and a Republican.. oddly though, this idea makes so much sense that even our local TV stations reported on it... ONCE.. then the Commies must have realized that Californians really do like freeways and the Propaganda machine buried the story.

This is the reason why we need to stop the Commies from stealing elections and then we have to split the State.








Power Of Dreams
Profile for Power Of Dreams
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-22-2019 17:47
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
TonyEX wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
While that may help with speed (debatable- I don't think traffic problems can be fixed with "more lanes" even if they intended are for high speed limit traffic only because ultimately people still have to get on and off the highway and merge with much slower traffic), it does not help with the environmental factor.

Rail transports a lot of people at high speeds, making it more efficient overall than tons of vehicles trying to do the same thing.



I've driven those routes a lot. Moorlach is spot on correct. You are not.

On the California Central Valley the I5 (and the 99 as well) has looong stretches and wide medians. The only place where they might have to do some significant earth moving will be around Coalinga where they will have to do some hill conforming to widen the median, but otherwise that route was designed for more lanes, the overpasses are wide and there is lots of space and rights of way.

IMHO, they could easily build two "express lanes" per side with egress/ingress every 30 miles and keep the busses, trucks and semis off those lanes. It shouldn't cost too much to build.

As Shawn noted, the traffic pretty much cruises at 80 mph. The biggest issues are:

(1) Road condition... the semis really hammer the "slow lane" so the "fast lane" is much smoother and Caltrans is constantly having to do resurfacing ( long delays in summer nights ).

(2) Semis passing semis. Cluster fuck. One truck doing 61 decides to "pass" another one doing 60. Then the road changes and their speeds are reversed....

(3) Trucks spaced widely in the "slow" lane. Then Left Lane Bandits (LLB) cars case long "trains" on the "fast lane"... doing 73 mph.

(4) The way to make time thus is to speed on the "slow lane" between the trucks and then cut back into the "fast lane" to pass the truck. Unfortunately this also triggers the dicks who think they own the fast lane at 73 mph....

Putting two express lanes per side will fix that. Not much we can do with the LLB... but at least the trucks won't be in the mix and the reason for the LLB to stay left (smoother surface) will go away.

We already have express lanes in the suburban freeways in SoCal, so this will be an extension... Just don't make them tollroads.

BTW- we also need extra lanes on the 15 to Vegas, the 10 and 40 to Nevada.. and likely long parts of the 101.

Moorbach is a good guy, from The OC and a Republican.. oddly though, this idea makes so much sense that even our local TV stations reported on it... ONCE.. then the Commies must have realized that Californians really do like freeways and the Propaganda machine buried the story.

This is the reason why we need to stop the Commies from stealing elections and then we have to split the State.










If you know anyone active in the CAGOP, tell them to support Travis Allen/Steve Frank as chairman or else there will be no opposition left if Jessica Patterson takes over, who's part of the consultant class who's decimated them.

KaizenDo
Profile for KaizenDo
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2019 04:16
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Coming from the land of the Autobahn, here are my thoughts.

1.) The reason why most people in Germany prefer car or plane over train is because german railways are horribly unreliable, uncomfortable and ridicoulsly expensive. If you're going anywhere long distance from point A to B in Germany and you have 2 people, it's already cheaper to go by car than by train. Furthermore, you then will sit in comfort with working aircon and without any juvenile scum playing their hiphop shit too loud.

2.) Most german cars are designed for high speeds, but not for comfort. I see some fundamental differences here with american or japanese cars.

3.) An unlimited highway is only as good as it's weakest part. In Germany we not oftenly get the chance for vMax, as countless construction sites that take on forever cause a lot of slow moving traffic.

garoto
Profile for garoto
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2019 12:18
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
I wouldn’t trust the idiots who would cut you off to take advantage of it without paying. That said, the environmental factor in CA would shut this idea down on its rails, pun intended.
TLOwner
Profile for TLOwner
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-23-2019 12:44
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
stoopid idea. It will be DOA bcuz it is so stoopid. It will be DOA not bcuz the commies don't like it. I5 is not meant for speed except the northern stretch past Sacto - Redding. People are already driving faster 65-70 on I5. No need for new law.
TonyEX
Profile for TonyEX
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-25-2019 13:53
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
TLOwner wrote:
stoopid idea. It will be DOA bcuz it is so stoopid. It will be DOA not bcuz the commies don't like it. I5 is not meant for speed except the northern stretch past Sacto - Redding. People are already driving faster 65-70 on I5. No need for new law.


Honestly... have you ever driven a TL between SoCal and the Bay Area?

Do you even know how the I5 is designed from the floor of the Grapevine up to the split with the 580? Heck all the way to Sacramento where the freeway finally grows to four lanes per side.

Heck, have you ever driven from SoCal to the Bay Area?

Then you got NorCal... where the I5 is tight up to Williams... and in heavy traffic weekends you got slow traffic all the way up to Redding.

Only locals, truckers and dedicated long distance drivers will drive North of Redding. You can figure that, until you posted that message here, all ToV posters belong in the last category.

Do you understand that this is NOT a new law per se? It's a call to shift the emphasis from building Intercity High Speed Rail to building more freeway lanes on the 5 and 99.

GoFaster
Profile for GoFaster
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-25-2019 15:00
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
What I would like to see in the short term is electronic speed limit signs. A sunny day with light traffic. Go 100 mph. As congestion or visibility builds, reduce it. 100 mph isn't what you have to drive, it's just the maximum you can drive. I go into work at 5am and the freeway is pretty empty for the first 30 minutes of the drive and traffic goes 80 mph. That is the speed where the CHP will leave you alone, but the official limit is 65 mph. So if you are going 85 mph, you are really just going 5 mph faster than traffic, but your ticket is 20 mph over. You end up driving tense while always looking back through your mirror.

Who is government for? The people or the government workers and their need for bloated socialist pensions? It's a complete scam. You can go 80, but if we decide to pick you for pain, we are going to stomp you. It would be perfectly safe at 5 am on lighted freeways for traffic to go 100 mph, but it would be safer if they could electronically reduce that limit to 65 mph when they know in five minutes traffic will come to a halt for you.

To me electronic speed signs would really help keep traffic moving, if the speeds are resonable and not a setup for a massive fine. Making life better for citizens of California? Never.

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-25-2019 16:28
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
notyper wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
While that may help with speed (debatable- I don't think traffic problems can be fixed with "more lanes" even if they intended are for high speed limit traffic only because ultimately people still have to get on and off the highway and merge with much slower traffic), it does not help with the environmental factor.

Rail transports a lot of people at high speeds, making it more efficient overall than tons of vehicles trying to do the same thing.



That particular route has very few major on/off ramps. It's largely agricultural with the occasional gas/restaurant oasis and small town. High speed lanes on that route could see you travelling for 100+ miles without having to worry about merging.

The funny part is the average speed in the fast lane is already in the 85-90 mph range during light traffic. A special high speed lane would be nice because the only thing that slows you down is the semitrucks deciding to pass each other at 1 mph differential and slowing everyone down by 20 mph for awhile.

The only way rail would work on that route is if you could put your car on a transporter and unload it when you arrived because getting around major California metro areas is tough without a car (even in the age of Uber). But the train would need to do 100-120 mph to be worthwhile IMO.

SC



I'm not particularly advocating for rail, just saying that I don't think that you're really going much faster in a car than you currently are, and this would do nothing except make emissions much worse. If people are already travelling at 90 mph then there's diminishing return. My experience with high speed lanes is that inevitably, someone is going to slow traffic down, since in North America it seems that people don't look in their rearview mirrors.

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-25-2019 16:34
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Trains are a nonstarter in the United States. Beyond just capital, there's also no political will. The actual communists, the Chinese, have already dominated this area by having the most extensive networks of trains in the world (most of it being built within the last decade). The Chinese are even using trains to assert political dominance in places like Xinjiang. Such a thing would never work in North America, particularly as cars are convenient and flights are cheap.

So don't worry about it.

GoFaster wrote:
What I would like to see in the short term is electronic speed limit signs. A sunny day with light traffic. Go 100 mph. As congestion or visibility builds, reduce it. 100 mph isn't what you have to drive, it's just the maximum you can drive. I go into work at 5am and the freeway is pretty empty for the first 30 minutes of the drive and traffic goes 80 mph. That is the speed where the CHP will leave you alone, but the official limit is 65 mph. So if you are going 85 mph, you are really just going 5 mph faster than traffic, but your ticket is 20 mph over. You end up driving tense while always looking back through your mirror.

Who is government for? The people or the government workers and their need for bloated socialist pensions? It's a complete scam. You can go 80, but if we decide to pick you for pain, we are going to stomp you. It would be perfectly safe at 5 am on lighted freeways for traffic to go 100 mph, but it would be safer if they could electronically reduce that limit to 65 mph when they know in five minutes traffic will come to a halt for you.

To me electronic speed signs would really help keep traffic moving, if the speeds are resonable and not a setup for a massive fine. Making life better for citizens of California? Never.



That's how the real autobahn works. I've also been hoping for something that simple to happen on Ontario's highway 407, since off hours the highway is quite empty and it's a very modern highway design other than the archaic 62 mph speed limit.

notyper
Profile for notyper
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-26-2019 00:33
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:

I'm not particularly advocating for rail, just saying that I don't think that you're really going much faster in a car than you currently are, and this would do nothing except make emissions much worse. If people are already travelling at 90 mph then there's diminishing return. My experience with high speed lanes is that inevitably, someone is going to slow traffic down, since in North America it seems that people don't look in their rearview mirrors.



Understood, but rail will never be popular out west just because of the need for cars wherever you arrive.

As for people slowing you down, you'd pretty much need to do what they do on the 91 freeway out here. 2 high speed lanes separated from the remaining lanes by flexible knock down pylons (won't cause damage to anything but paint if you cross them). The problem with that is that 2 additional lanes is doubling the width of the 5 for most of the run across the california central valley. I'm not really sure they have that much right of way at this time without the need for expensive center dividers between the two directions (which are often separated by grade as well).

It's a pipe dream anyways, as many here have pointed out with good reason. But its nice to imagine being able to cruise at 100 mph without having to worry about a semi truck pulling into your lane at the last second (happens all the time).

SC

HONDA AFVM
Profile for HONDA AFVM
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-26-2019 10:10
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
outersquare wrote:
"California state senator John Moorlach (R-Orange County) has introduced a bill to that state’s legislature that would add lanes to both north- and southbound Interstate 5 and State Route 99 that would have no posted speed limit.

SB319 does not itself state the specific stretches of road where the lanes would be added, but local reports indicate the lanes would run from Stockton to Bakersfield, a distance of approximately 240 miles via I-5 or 230 miles via CA-99."

https://www.automobilemag.com/news/calinornia-speed-limit-unlimited-lanes/

I think is an excellent idea, hopefully those in CA support this.


SIGN ME UP........ I would pay $10/$20 bucks to drive 100mph from Ohio to NYC or Nashville or anywhere..... I believe there would have to be nationwide state inspections across the board like PA has in order to drive on it and over all it will increase the value of cars as well because rusty crap would be out and off the road.

In Ohio currently we have emission checks but you can pull in there with 4 doughnut spare tires, no head lights or brake lights and a baseball size hole in your windshield. As long as your burns clean you are GOOD TO GO...... Just the other day I was driving to work and someones rear bumper that was BUNGIED on fell off and bounced 6 feet spinning towards the car in front of me.....

It would make people more responsible and better drivers.

And you all know me I'm not for any sort of heavy government regs..... but this will benefit all.......

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-26-2019 10:38
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Andrew, I noticed in Michigan that if you took all the broken car parts from the side of the highway and slap it together into an actual vehicle, you'd still get a better car than some of the crap rolling around out there.

As far as Ohio goes, you have well maintained roads but your drivers are a crime against humanity!

HONDA AFVM
Profile for HONDA AFVM
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-26-2019 10:47
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
While that may help with speed (debatable- I don't think traffic problems can be fixed with "more lanes" even if they intended are for high speed limit traffic only because ultimately people still have to get on and off the highway and merge with much slower traffic), it does not help with the environmental factor.

Rail transports a lot of people at high speeds, making it more efficient overall than tons of vehicles trying to do the same thing.


The train still has to stop and your options are limited. If you want to go from LA to SanFran on a High Speed rail in an hour and 15 min that's good but if the train has to stop 10 times in between than it's not worth it.

You still have to drive to the station, park and there is always a safety issue with leaving your car anywhere. You pay to get on and that money goes to maintain the highway. You won't have to hire 100's of high paid workers to work the a highway once it's complete, it's all automated with an EasyPass system. Trains need maintenance, you have earthquakes that an inch shift in tracks will derail a train and kill 100s.

Just saying......

HONDA AFVM
Profile for HONDA AFVM
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-26-2019 12:45
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
The roads are good on the highways but the surface streets in the Cleveland area are like driving on the Moon........

I love when i see a spare tire on a car and you can tell it's been on for months but the $3,000 stereo is booming, Cigarettes a smoking, iPhone X/S Plus on the dash magnet and a vanity plate on a 2003 Cavalier is brand new.....

LOL!!!!!!!!

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-27-2019 00:50
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
Trains are a nonstarter in the United States. Beyond just capital, there's also no political will. The actual communists, the Chinese, have already dominated this area by having the most extensive networks of trains in the world (most of it being built within the last decade). The Chinese are even using trains to assert political dominance in places like Xinjiang. Such a thing would never work in North America, particularly as cars are convenient and flights are cheap.

So don't worry about it.

GoFaster wrote:
What I would like to see in the short term is electronic speed limit signs. A sunny day with light traffic. Go 100 mph. As congestion or visibility builds, reduce it. 100 mph isn't what you have to drive, it's just the maximum you can drive. I go into work at 5am and the freeway is pretty empty for the first 30 minutes of the drive and traffic goes 80 mph. That is the speed where the CHP will leave you alone, but the official limit is 65 mph. So if you are going 85 mph, you are really just going 5 mph faster than traffic, but your ticket is 20 mph over. You end up driving tense while always looking back through your mirror.

Who is government for? The people or the government workers and their need for bloated socialist pensions? It's a complete scam. You can go 80, but if we decide to pick you for pain, we are going to stomp you. It would be perfectly safe at 5 am on lighted freeways for traffic to go 100 mph, but it would be safer if they could electronically reduce that limit to 65 mph when they know in five minutes traffic will come to a halt for you.

To me electronic speed signs would really help keep traffic moving, if the speeds are resonable and not a setup for a massive fine. Making life better for citizens of California? Never.



That's how the real autobahn works. I've also been hoping for something that simple to happen on Ontario's highway 407, since off hours the highway is quite empty and it's a very modern highway design other than the archaic 62 mph speed limit.



There is no will here because the geographic realities involved. The infrastructure to support a plane is much smaller, the flexibility orders of magnitude greater, the ability to tailor schedules vastly better, the travel times much shorter and thus the convenience much higher. This allows the cost to be spread over a lot more people because, unlike a train, I can tailor my operation to seasonal flows, weekly flows, etc, so I am always maximizing my capital.

As for emissions, that only pencils out if the trains are reasonably full. Multiple studies have shown that when actual total ridership is accounted for the gains are actually very marginal as they consume tons of energy and resources whether full or empty. Cargo trains in the US make sense because the goods are typically flowing between large metro areas on a set schedule that isn't dictated by tons of individual demands. The US simply doesn't have the population density outside of 4 or 5 metro areas to support such systems, which is why despite the left's push for them, they don't exist. It is also why the once existed in much larger quantities and then quickly disappeared as the main transportation means. It probably works a lot better in China because of population density.

The US would be more like Russia, where we are TOLD they are better, but they actually aren't.

owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-27-2019 00:55
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
As previously stated, R in a D state and the NIMBY's/Enviros fight ANY infrastructure increase tooth and nail because it will harm GAIA or "people will just drive more."

Never mind that an army of cars idling in traffic makes way more pollution (don't believe me? Go to Mexico City sometime).

Hell, they can barely keep airports open in that state anymore.

CarPhreakD
Profile for CarPhreakD
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-27-2019 09:02
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
Trains are a nonstarter in the United States. Beyond just capital, there's also no political will. The actual communists, the Chinese, have already dominated this area by having the most extensive networks of trains in the world (most of it being built within the last decade). The Chinese are even using trains to assert political dominance in places like Xinjiang. Such a thing would never work in North America, particularly as cars are convenient and flights are cheap.

So don't worry about it.

GoFaster wrote:
What I would like to see in the short term is electronic speed limit signs. A sunny day with light traffic. Go 100 mph. As congestion or visibility builds, reduce it. 100 mph isn't what you have to drive, it's just the maximum you can drive. I go into work at 5am and the freeway is pretty empty for the first 30 minutes of the drive and traffic goes 80 mph. That is the speed where the CHP will leave you alone, but the official limit is 65 mph. So if you are going 85 mph, you are really just going 5 mph faster than traffic, but your ticket is 20 mph over. You end up driving tense while always looking back through your mirror.

Who is government for? The people or the government workers and their need for bloated socialist pensions? It's a complete scam. You can go 80, but if we decide to pick you for pain, we are going to stomp you. It would be perfectly safe at 5 am on lighted freeways for traffic to go 100 mph, but it would be safer if they could electronically reduce that limit to 65 mph when they know in five minutes traffic will come to a halt for you.

To me electronic speed signs would really help keep traffic moving, if the speeds are resonable and not a setup for a massive fine. Making life better for citizens of California? Never.



That's how the real autobahn works. I've also been hoping for something that simple to happen on Ontario's highway 407, since off hours the highway is quite empty and it's a very modern highway design other than the archaic 62 mph speed limit.



There is no will here because the geographic realities involved. The infrastructure to support a plane is much smaller, the flexibility orders of magnitude greater, the ability to tailor schedules vastly better, the travel times much shorter and thus the convenience much higher. This allows the cost to be spread over a lot more people because, unlike a train, I can tailor my operation to seasonal flows, weekly flows, etc, so I am always maximizing my capital.

As for emissions, that only pencils out if the trains are reasonably full. Multiple studies have shown that when actual total ridership is accounted for the gains are actually very marginal as they consume tons of energy and resources whether full or empty. Cargo trains in the US make sense because the goods are typically flowing between large metro areas on a set schedule that isn't dictated by tons of individual demands. The US simply doesn't have the population density outside of 4 or 5 metro areas to support such systems, which is why despite the left's push for them, they don't exist. It is also why the once existed in much larger quantities and then quickly disappeared as the main transportation means. It probably works a lot better in China because of population density.

The US would be more like Russia, where we are TOLD they are better, but they actually aren't.



Believe me, the reasons in China are as political as they are for environmental reasons (mostly political); but, Chinese circumstances and feasibility for their rail systems actually isn't much different from the majority of the USA- outside of the supercity corridors, China has similar issues with population density in more rural areas. The train to Xinjiang does not make any sense at all and is one of the biggest 'boondoggles' I've ever seen (per infamous TOV parlance), but it serves to strengthen government rule in that area. Amazing what an authoritarian government that brainwashes its citizens can achieve.

That being said, a highly integrated network of high speed rail, local trains, light rail, aircraft, etc. suddenly popping up and being the largest system within a decade is an incredible achievement.

Dren
Profile for Dren
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-27-2019 09:20
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
Watch the Grand Tour China episode if you haven't. It's very impressive what they've built road wise in the last 10 years. Sustainability is a question. I know bad engineering practices were in place when Korea built up their infrastructure prior to the Olympics years ago which resulted in a lot of failures down the road.
owequitit
Profile for owequitit
Re: CA proposing local autobahn instead of rail    (Score: 1, Normal) 02-28-2019 00:52
Reply to This Message Attach Quote to Reply
CarPhreakD wrote:
owequitit wrote:
CarPhreakD wrote:
Trains are a nonstarter in the United States. Beyond just capital, there's also no political will. The actual communists, the Chinese, have already dominated this area by having the most extensive networks of trains in the world (most of it being built within the last decade). The Chinese are even using trains to assert political dominance in places like Xinjiang. Such a thing would never work in North America, particularly as cars are convenient and flights are cheap.

So don't worry about it.

GoFaster wrote:
What I would like to see in the short term is electronic speed limit signs. A sunny day with light traffic. Go 100 mph. As congestion or visibility builds, reduce it. 100 mph isn't what you have to drive, it's just the maximum you can drive. I go into work at 5am and the freeway is pretty empty for the first 30 minutes of the drive and traffic goes 80 mph. That is the speed where the CHP will leave you alone, but the official limit is 65 mph. So if you are going 85 mph, you are really just going 5 mph faster than traffic, but your ticket is 20 mph over. You end up driving tense while always looking back through your mirror.

Who is government for? The people or the government workers and their need for bloated socialist pensions? It's a complete scam. You can go 80, but if we decide to pick you for pain, we are going to stomp you. It would be perfectly safe at 5 am on lighted freeways for traffic to go 100 mph, but it would be safer if they could electronically reduce that limit to 65 mph when they know in five minutes traffic will come to a halt for you.

To me electronic speed signs would really help keep traffic moving, if the speeds are resonable and not a setup for a massive fine. Making life better for citizens of California? Never.



That's how the real autobahn works. I've also been hoping for something that simple to happen on Ontario's highway 407, since off hours the highway is quite empty and it's a very modern highway design other than the archaic 62 mph speed limit.



There is no will here because the geographic realities involved. The infrastructure to support a plane is much smaller, the flexibility orders of magnitude greater, the ability to tailor schedules vastly better, the travel times much shorter and thus the convenience much higher. This allows the cost to be spread over a lot more people because, unlike a train, I can tailor my operation to seasonal flows, weekly flows, etc, so I am always maximizing my capital.

As for emissions, that only pencils out if the trains are reasonably full. Multiple studies have shown that when actual total ridership is accounted for the gains are actually very marginal as they consume tons of energy and resources whether full or empty. Cargo trains in the US make sense because the goods are typically flowing between large metro areas on a set schedule that isn't dictated by tons of individual demands. The US simply doesn't have the population density outside of 4 or 5 metro areas to support such systems, which is why despite the left's push for them, they don't exist. It is also why the once existed in much larger quantities and then quickly disappeared as the main transportation means. It probably works a lot better in China because of population density.

The US would be more like Russia, where we are TOLD they are better, but they actually aren't.



Believe me, the reasons in China are as political as they are for environmental reasons (mostly political); but, Chinese circumstances and feasibility for their rail systems actually isn't much different from the majority of the USA- outside of the supercity corridors, China has similar issues with population density in more rural areas. The train to Xinjiang does not make any sense at all and is one of the biggest 'boondoggles' I've ever seen (per infamous TOV parlance), but it serves to strengthen government rule in that area. Amazing what an authoritarian government that brainwashes its citizens can achieve.

That being said, a highly integrated network of high speed rail, local trains, light rail, aircraft, etc. suddenly popping up and being the largest system within a decade is an incredible achievement.



The difference is that China has multiple population centers that number above 15-20 million. The US has no such feature, and yes, millions matter. Also, don't forget that the US actually has a very extensive nationwide rail network, but that it is much smaller than it used to be because a lot of operators couldn't run profitably after air travel became cost effective. You don't see as much passenger service because it doesn't make sense, but we actually have a lot more rail infrastructure that most people realize.

That said, you can also expect China to double or even triple their aviation infrastructure in the near future. So in the end, their total system may not be much different at all.




 
Thread Page - [1]
Go to:
Contact TOV | Submit Your Article | Submit Your Link | Advertise | TOV Shop | Events | Our Sponsors | TOV Archives
Copyright © 2018 Velocitech Inc. All information contained herein remains the property of Velocitech Inc.
The Temple of VTEC is not affiliated with American Honda Motor Co., Inc. TOV Policies and Guidelines - Credits - Privacy Policy
29 mobile: 0