All Aboard the Eco-Express: Rail's Hybrid Energy Solutions

[HAL 9000 96]

Why is it dumb?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

You be shaggin! Like a punk dude! Poor lil man.

Poor lil GUY! So funny to Watch!

Poor Lil FOOL!<object width="425" height

[DEDixon 39]

Why is it dumb?

Take for example a family of four going to LA for pretty much any reason. The train will cost each one of them which will cost way more than gasoline and once they arrive, they need a rental car to get around (most people will). The train will takes 2 hours, but at least 3 by the time you drive to the station, park, wait for the train, wait for the train to load with people. Oh, did I say park at the station? That too, will likely cost you.

I can drive in 6 hours and have my car the entire time to get around so no hassle.... no rental car and no taxi and no bus.

The time difference, between car and train, just isn't great enough. If this ever gets done, it will need to be subsidized by the state and the feds to an even greater degree than AMTRACK.

ooops, travel time 2 hours, 38 minutes, even worse than I thought.

Edited December 4, 2009 by DEDixon

[HAL 9000 96]

Why is it dumb?

Take for example a family of four going to LA for pretty much any reason. The train will cost each one of them which will cost way more than gasoline and once they arrive, they need a rental car to get around (most people will). The train will takes 2 hours, but at least 3 by the time you drive to the station, park, wait for the train, wait for the train to load with people. Oh, did I say park at the station? That too, will likely cost you.

I can drive in 6 hours and have my car the entire time to get around so no hassle.... no rental car and no taxi and no bus.

The time difference, between car and train, just isn't great enough. If this ever gets done, it will need to be subsidized by the state and the feds to an even greater degree than AMTRACK.

ooops, travel time 2 hours, 38 minutes, even worse than I thought.

I like your example. Not everyone, however, is traveling as a family unit. The majority of travelers that travel frequently are single riders.

Right now I went to Gas Buddy and looked for the lowest price for regular unleaded gas in CA (says Yuba City): $2.57/gal

Its $2.73 at the food4less in Paramount (LA area) and $2.75 at the Costco in Redwood City (SF area). These, of course are lowest prices. So if you calculate the distance you're looking on I-5 its about 380 miles. Assuming you have a car with 'decent' fuel economy of about 30mpg (not considering the 40mpgs for new cars that is supposedly in effect for new cars in CA) you're looking at 380/30 = 12.7 gallons. That's 12.7 * the LA/SF lowest average $2.74 = $34.80. Very nice savings, assuming your car's tank has that fuel capacity (12.7 gal/tank) then its one fill-up per trip.

Then again, your example deals with an assumed family of 4 at a 5-8 hour trip, not including spending on meals on the trip, your car's actual gas mileage, capacity, etc. Costs can add up either way, and the amount of pollution may end up accumulating much more than the cost of traveling by rail- hence coming back to bite you later in other costs as CA continues to try to compensate.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

"The average train in 1980 used four liters of fuel to move one ton of freight 380 kilometers, and by 2007 the average increased to 700 kilometers, or three times the fuel efficiency of a truck"

Interesting. Since most of us don't drive a train it's probably a little known statistic.

It's going to be the next trend...just watch.

It will for me if my wife keeps hitting yard sales.