I see this idea as fundamentally flawed in that it's trying to do 2-person cars. After I read that, none of the ensuing calculations mattered at all. We need to work around the train schedules, not try to work them around our schedules. Look at downtown SF. Mass transit there is AMAZING. Muni stations are every few /blocks/.
Also, why choose below-the-rail? Requires stronger towers, can't turn as fast as existing rail, etc. This was a silly decision IMO. I think these guys need to work with roller coaster engineers if they can only do /10kmph/ around curves.
Yet another still-born mass transit idea. Can we please just get the Cali high-speed rail done already to prove to the rest of USA something that other countries know already? High speed rail works great and can indeed "work" economically.
Also, why choose below-the-rail? Requires stronger towers, can't turn as fast as existing rail, etc. This was a silly decision IMO. I think these guys need to work with roller coaster engineers if they can only do /10kmph/ around curves.
Yet another still-born mass transit idea. Can we please just get the Cali high-speed rail done already to prove to the rest of USA something that other countries know already? High speed rail works great and can indeed "work" economically.