By the time they could build the tracks (which is probably a 10 year undertaking), between 1:00 and 1:30.

For reference, the Shinkansen could do the route today in 1:24 at top speed (277 MPH), though they never go at top speed with passengers on board. I think it's totally reasonable that this would be a safe passenger-carrying speed in 10 years, and the mag-lev people are talking 500 MPH.

It would be quite optimistic to assume TGV speeds the whole way from SF to LA, especially considering the climbling required in the Grapevine. I'm feeling generous, though, so let's assume station to station in 2 hrs. 46 min.

So, if...

-- the departure train station is 15 min. closer to you, and if
-- you show up at the train station 5 min. before departure rather than the 90 min. at the airport (United recommends 60 min. w/o checked bags), and if
-- the plane takes 90 minutes, gate to gate, rather than the scheduled 75, and if
-- your destination was pretty much the station, so you save 60 min. from LAX to downtown, and if
-- the train is on time

You save 84 minutes (for the bargain price of $30 billion, plus cost overruns).

BUT...

-- most people in both metro areas would live closer to one of the nine airports than a train station
-- no way in hades will anyone plan on arriving 5 min. before a train departure in downtown SF, due to traffic and parking problems.
-- most people aren't going to the city centers, especially in LA (does it even have one?)
-- the train will have its delays too, just as in Europe

Between 1:00 (average speed of 390 mph) and 1:30 (260 mph). Right. Got it.

Next questions:

1. Would the ticket cost less than an airplane ticket?

2. Would the train be more environmently friendly than the plane? Consider the impact on the environment of building the thing, in addition to the energy requirements to run it.

3. Would terrorists be less likely to attack the train than a plane? (Consider the Japan poisoning incident.) If terrorism is equally likely,then we can expect to have to arrive at the train station 1 1/2 hours early, too.

All valid points, pgary, but once we start talking about the possibility of an average speed of 390 mph (through the Altamont Pass and Grapevine, no less), we should move this discussion to a Sci-Fi thread in Omni.

You should also mention:

4. Wouldn't farmers in the Central Valley hate the sonic boom once the top speed goes to 700 mph and beyond?

and

5. Won't it be obsolete with the invention of the human particle transporter?

and

6. What about Klingons and their disrupters?

The estimated travel time between SF 1st and Mission and Los Angeles Union Station is 2 hours 32 minutes for nonstop trains under the current engineering studies that have been completed. This would not be an Amtrak-operated service but would be run like an airline (except it likely would be profitable, at least on an operations basis).

CA desperately needs additional transportation options.

Finally, a realistic time estimate. Do you recall the estimated cost of such a project, Reindeerflame?

Yes. I stand by my numbers. I assume you also don't believe in computers, helicopters, space flight, or any of the other thousands of pieces of "science fiction" that have infiltrated society over the last 100 years either, right?

The 2:32 estimate is (by design) very conservative and only assumes incremental improvements in technology. I expect much larger jumps, particularly in the area of maglev. The results the Japanese are getting in current tests are amazing.

Actually, nobody in their right mind would take a car into downtown SF. That's what feeder systems like BART are for.

You are talking about 277 mph within 10 years (for the slow end of your estimate). I call that science fiction. According to this site:

http://www.pbs.org/teachersource/mat...activity2.shtm

the fastest average speed for any scheduled train service is about 162 mph. You're talking about increasing that 70% within 10 years, not even considering that i) political pressure would force several stops along the route and ii) there would be big slow downs at the Altamont Pass (>1,000 ft.) and the Grapevine (>4,000 ft.).

If engineering this within 10 years weren't enough, just think about the political engineering necessary to get the $900 quadrillion allocated.

In 1959, sending a man to the moon was science fiction. As recently as 2 years ago, the Mu-1 barrier was considered impassable. And 5 or 6 years ago, the 1 GHz CPU speed barrier was considered impossible. The surest way to stop progress is to say it can't be done. Or to get the FAA involved...

Hey, I'll concede that if we put the kind of financial and human resources into this that we put into the lunar missions, it just might be possible in 10 years. This comes back to cost, though. How many tens of billions is it worth to save a relatively small portion of SF-LA travelers a relatively small amount of time?

If that's the only thing it's applied to, it's probably not worth it. But if it signals the start of a new generation of travel, it just might be. Of course, I doubt we'll ever find out because the commitment just isn't there and probably never will be.

Since the train would of course not go that fast, it is probably not a valid comparison, but in your comparison with an airplane flight, you forgot to factor in the time it takes to get to the airport vs. get to downtown train station -- for many people it would probably be a wash. But at the airport, you have to factor in arriving early to park, check in, clear security, and board. Then at the other the other end you have to wait to get off the plane, walk to luggage claim, wait for the luggage, wait for your rental car (or for a taxi or for a hotel shuttle), and then take the time to get to wherever in that city you are going. So I do think a relatively fast train could at least be competitive with flying on the route. And on the train, you could get up and walk around if you want, get something to eat when you want to, and use electronic devices when you want to, including cell phones. Plus, Amtrak seats are usually more comfortable than airplane coach.

NYC to PHL on Amtrak is only 45 minuts faster but some 7x more expensive than NJ Transit+SEPTA.
And on NJT+SPTA I can travel with my cat while Amtrak idiotically prohibits this claiming that it is for protection of animals.

I so no reason to think you would get on this supertrain any easier or faster than an airplane. I've seen from other threads that security screening on Eurostar, for instance, is very similar to that at airports (with similar delays).

As for convenience of a downtown train station, I would argue that downtown LA is quite a bit less convenient to the vast majority of Angelenos than the nearest of the five LA airports. Downtown SF could be better if you have easy access to BART or Muni, but if you're weighted down with kids and/or suitcases, public transit is not a realistic option. Then, you would experience the joy of downtown SF traffic and parking.

Regarding the "time to get to wherever in that city you are going", that's the chief advantage of the nine airports. A train would be much more restictive on where you could go. If you extend the line to Orange County with stops in LA, Burbank and San Jose, for instance, convenience goes up, but you're starting to add tons of travel time.

The fact is, north-south air shuttles in California are frequent, cheap and convenient. Is it possible to improve on the status quo? A little, I suppose, but I can think of better uses for tens of billions of dollars.