tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post9009328495354392685..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: HSR Should Go Where the People AreRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-7974109169419371792009-11-19T23:52:54.460-08:002009-11-19T23:52:54.460-08:00There is just the slightest possibility that Balfo...There is just the slightest possibility that Balfour Beatty(apparently nee Bechtel)could have a last minute epiphany about the I-5-Grapevine solution.<br /><br />The State is in worsening budgetary straits and I believe that the hierarchy's plan to tax the middle class to pay for peripheral canals, welfare cadillacs, UC sinecures, legislative per diems, and Palmdale real estate scams will come to naught. Dearth of funds might cause a rethink.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31239060237044300542009-11-19T14:22:10.180-08:002009-11-19T14:22:10.180-08:00It's good to see the support for the cost-effe...It's good to see the support for the cost-effective I-5 alignment. I am sensitive to the needs of the Central Valley. I've lived there half of my life.<br /><br />With the I-5 aligment, a Fresno resident could ride the existing San Joaquin to either Bakersfield or Stockton in 2 hrs. The new HSR line would then get them to L.A. or the Bay Area or L.A. in about 1 hr. <br /><br />The same would be true for Sacramento, which is left out of the current plan. The 3 hr. travel time from the Central Valley would be the same as L.A. to Bay Area trips at half the cost and mileage. <br /><br />I am promoting a phased approach that would bridge the gaps between our existing corridors first, with additional HSR segments (Las Vegas and San Diego) coming later. The goal is a California HSR system as soon as possible.TransitPlannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10463069776974576813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-9471309009394408792009-11-19T13:19:51.860-08:002009-11-19T13:19:51.860-08:00The Northeast Corridor is a historical assemblage ...<i>The Northeast Corridor is a historical assemblage of smaller regional rail systems with long-distance trains running through on the assembled network. The Northeast Corridor wasn't built from scratch.</i><br /><br />No, the NEC is a historical assemblage of intercity corridors. The current line in New Jersey is a high-speed cutoff of the original line from New York to Philadelphia, which reduced travel time from 6-7 hours to about 3-4. North of New York, it's one line from New York to Boston, built mostly by the same company.<br /><br />About the only thing an I-5 alternative would have in common with the NEC is that the NEC skipped Princeton, creating a branch line to a junction called Princeton Junction. That would work for HSR, too, if there were one intermediate city to serve in the Central Valley instead of five. And, unlike on the NEC, the option that does serve the intermediate cities is dead straight because the tracks came before the cities, whereas in New Jersey the only way to serve Princeton would have been on a curvy alignment.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-24654958114836687722009-11-19T10:13:57.923-08:002009-11-19T10:13:57.923-08:00No need to do all the nose-bleed expensive grade s...<i>No need to do all the nose-bleed expensive grade separations on the Peninsula and other urban areas when the proposed HSR speeds are already limited. Grade separation is the dominating cost factor in building HSR.</i><br /><br />No need to do all those grade separations when caltrain is running 2-4x as many trains per day as they are now to handle the increased passenger loads? There's a need to build those NOW, speeding up caltrain and increasing it's service to the level of the proposed shared corridor is going to require the same amount of concrete and cost as calling the trains "caltrains".<br /><br /><br /><i>The Grapevine crossing will require significant engineering, but it is most certainly achievable, even more so if the train is slowed down during the high crossing. The Tehachapi crossing won't be any cheaper or easier, and it involves significantly more construction and travel time. </i><br /><br />Saying it doesn't make it so. Unless you have a solution to the fault-crossing tunnels, you're just spouting jibberish.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-3414304402693959172009-11-19T10:03:27.499-08:002009-11-19T10:03:27.499-08:00Blarney is not speaking blarney. He is totally ri...Blarney is not speaking blarney. He is totally right that I-5 and the Grapevine are the obvious way to go.<br /><br />I assure you that if the issue were put on the ballot the majority of California voters would choose I-5 as the route for the hsr. Dump Palmdale and Bechtel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-36759907180187040652009-11-19T01:04:41.901-08:002009-11-19T01:04:41.901-08:00Christ the view points here are are so LA as the c...Christ the view points here are are so LA as the center of the word centric its just ridiculous.<br /><br />The valley is not populated by a bunch of cave dwelling hunters and gatherers. Get over yourselves LA, we can live without The OC housewive and we can live without TMZ, but we can not live without Sierra snowpack and the edible bounty it supplies.<br /><br />We should have made this a north of the tehcaphis system anyway. linking the bay and the central valley from reddding to bakersfield and then then turn off the faucet too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-87677231659465905252009-11-19T01:00:17.617-08:002009-11-19T01:00:17.617-08:00Adirondacker, why did they build the I-5 in the Ce...Adirondacker, why did they build the I-5 in the Central Valley in the first place? It's actually a relatively new highway designed to be a quicker, more direct route than 101 and SR99.<br /><br />Oh, it only connects the Bay Area (6-7 million people), Sacramento (2 million people), and LA (12 million people). Compare that to the dispersed and impoverished 2 million people scattered along SR99. Do you design for the urban masses or the agricultural workers? Easy choice.<br /><br />The Central Valley I-5 connects well over 20 million people, but the beauty is that the people are at the ends of the corridor, not along it. The ROW is clear, inexpensive, and without NIMBYs. It connects millions of people without rocketing through millions of people. It's absolutely perfect for HSR!Blarneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-20800297174956403832009-11-18T20:49:18.182-08:002009-11-18T20:49:18.182-08:00The I-5 is the ideal corridor for a sustained-high...<em>The I-5 is the ideal corridor for a sustained-high-speed racetrack by having virtually no inhabitants</em><br /><br />Virtually no inhabitants means virtually no passengers either. Sounds like a plan, build a passenger railroad where there are no passengers....Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-64685485265514388752009-11-18T18:21:57.943-08:002009-11-18T18:21:57.943-08:00As for the 2 million people who live in the most i...As for the 2 million people who live in the most impoverished part of the state, they already have the Amtrak San Joaquin service, which could be improved significantly without resorting to expensive grade separations. It is well known that poor people have the lowest demand for long-distance travel, so this explains why Fresno and Bakersfield have such a miniscule level of air service. If the demand was there, the airlines would serve it, but the demand just isn't there.<br /><br />The western edges of Bakersfield could be integrated directly into an I-5 route, so Fresno's low level of long-distance demand is best served by regional rail feeders.Blarneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-25098268532377950362009-11-18T18:15:09.959-08:002009-11-18T18:15:09.959-08:00How is TransitPlanner's concept much cheaper a...How is TransitPlanner's concept much cheaper and realizable than CHSRA current overbuild proposal? No need to do all the nose-bleed expensive grade separations on the Peninsula and other urban areas when the proposed HSR speeds are already limited. Grade separation is the dominating cost factor in building HSR. HSR is essentially a grade-separated highway for trains using the exact same construction techniques (same consultants and contractors too). For urban areas, you just don't need a fully grade-separated rail highway on the Peninsula, across Altamont, along the San Joaquin route, or across the Metrolink network around LA for 100-110mph service. Who benefits from grade separations anyway? Trains don't need the grade separation. The cars do! Grade separations are about improving car traffic, which sorta goes against the whole ideology of HSR as an alternative to car use. Make the cars wait, I say. <br /><br />For the truly high speeds (>125mph), you will have to go to empty corridors to avoid time-sapping and fund-obstructing NIMBY opposition and interfering with private freight rail operators. The I-5 is the ideal corridor for a sustained-high-speed racetrack by having virtually no inhabitants -- no need to stop and slow down! The I-5 corridor in the Central Valley requires hardly any grade separations, so it will be much cheaper than the SR99 route, which requires significant grade separations for anything beyond 125mph. The Grapevine crossing will require significant engineering, but it is most certainly achievable, even more so if the train is slowed down during the high crossing. The Tehachapi crossing won't be any cheaper or easier, and it involves significantly more construction and travel time. <br /><br />Capital investments should be wisely made in the interest of getting an integrated rail system up-and-running quickly and affordably, not flowing to where political patronage demands them.Blarneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-266102823934269122009-11-18T17:41:28.471-08:002009-11-18T17:41:28.471-08:00"Link improved regional systems with a high-s..."Link improved regional systems with a high-speed trunkline along I-5, and you have a network that is much better than what CHSRA is proposing at a fraction of the cost. Even integrate in improved San Joaquin service. Simple."<br /><br />Improving those systems to the point that your amalgamated system is equivalent to the CAHSR system, and "linking them" to an I-5 Racetrack is going to cost just as much if not more than what is planned. And in case you hadn't noticed, what you are proposing: that regional systems be improved, and a connections be built between them <i>is exactly what the CHSRA is doing</i><br /><br />the much maligned bay-area segment is just an improvement to the existing caltrain ROW with provisions for express trains. The SoCal sections from Anaheim to Sylmar and LA to ONT are improved metrolink sections, and the Sacramento-Bakersfield line is an improved San Joaquins.<br /><br />If your solution is to save costs by not improving them "as much", or by not allowing through trains, then your solution is not "much better than what CHSRA is proposing".<br /><br />And you still haven't answered how you're going to run a line up I5. In case you haven't checked, because I'm sure you haven't, once you've gone over the Tehachapis, the route up 99 is a whopping 12 miles longer than the route up the 5. Tell me with a straight face that it those 12 miles aren't worth connecting another 3 million people who have practically zero other transportation options?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51420925517714641522009-11-18T17:09:27.129-08:002009-11-18T17:09:27.129-08:00The Northeast Corridor is a historical assemblage ...The Northeast Corridor is a historical assemblage of smaller regional rail systems with long-distance trains running through on the assembled network. The Northeast Corridor wasn't built from scratch. It is an assemblage of separate systems made into a (somewhat) coherent whole. California should do the same with its rail network. Where's your logic, Adirondacker? <br /><br />Link improved regional systems with a high-speed trunkline along I-5, and you have a network that is much better than what CHSRA is proposing at a fraction of the cost. Even integrate in improved San Joaquin service. Simple.Blarneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-27154613080701926022009-11-18T16:37:04.196-08:002009-11-18T16:37:04.196-08:00Blarney using your logic on the Northeast corridor...Blarney using your logic on the Northeast corridor means Acela is useless because there are perfectly good regional rail systems in place. All that has to happen is extending MARC or SEPTA one stop and there would be continuous regional rail service from New London CT to Washington DC. Extend the MBTA trains to New London or the SLE trains to Providence and regional rail could get you from Boston to DC. Silly people on the East Coast with these new fangled through trains... Start in Boston and transfer in Providence or New London from MBTA to SLE. Transfer from SLE to Metro North in New Haven or Stamford. Transfer from Metro North to NJ Transit in NYC. Transfer from NJTransit to SEPTA in Trenton. Transfer from SEPTA to MARC in Newark DE or Perryville MD. Shouldn't take much more than 12 or 13 hours to get from Boston to DC. <br /><br />Or alternately build the new high speed line between NYC and DC along I95 and the NJ Turnpike. Doesn't really matter much that the straightest route is miles east of Philadelphia and the easiest route through Baltimore is around Balitmore. Let 'em take 45 minute shuttle bus rides from downtown. Even better.. avoid Manhattan altogether, that would be lots cheaper, have a very nice station out in Queens somewhere. It's probably save time too since they wouldn't have to contend with the congestion in Penn Station. I'm sure the thundering herds of people who want to get from Jackson Heights in Queens to Annapolis MD will love it....Adirondacker12800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-41123637210783111822009-11-18T14:29:42.843-08:002009-11-18T14:29:42.843-08:00TransitPlanner's concept makes far too much se...TransitPlanner's concept makes far too much sense to be implemented in dysfunctional California. I don't think CHSRA is going to be able to build much of anything while wasting $billions, but CHSRA could have easily build along the I-5 with a fast racetrack system linking the existing regional rail systems of the Bay Area and LA. The regional rail systems could have received their own funds for improvements.<br /><br />Watching CHSRA's futility play out (oh, and it will be a disaster) knowing that an efficient, viable system could have easily been build will be cold consolation for knowledgeable transit activists. See how BART-SFO turned out? It was predicted as a disaster by the informed transit activists, who recognized that improving Caltrain incrementally was always the better plan.<br /><br />Ignorance is always exposed eventually.Blarneynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-5442026778254274462009-11-18T14:27:06.069-08:002009-11-18T14:27:06.069-08:00@anons et al: Unless you're going to propose a...@anons et al: Unless you're going to propose a solution to getting over the grapevine without tunneling across the san andreas and garlock faults, then give it up on the grapevine/I5 alignment. Simply posting the same BS every thread about how grapevine/I5 is superior, without addressing the reasons why it has been rejected, is just noise.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52909842860450737242009-11-18T12:38:04.565-08:002009-11-18T12:38:04.565-08:00TransitPlanner is correct. The essential concept ...TransitPlanner is correct. The essential concept of an I-5-Grapevine racetrack hsr is sound. Unfortunately it is not possible to trust the incrowd who runs California to do the common sense thing. They had to let themselves be corrupted by LA developers. The CHSRA planners could screw up the proverbail free lunchl.<br /><br />That's why the voters have to turn thumbs down on every issue for the time being.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-72424446910497236532009-11-18T12:14:48.153-08:002009-11-18T12:14:48.153-08:00FResno is already a bedroom community to SF and LA...FResno is already a bedroom community to SF and LA. Didn't you know that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-22115392007759921562009-11-18T12:14:24.052-08:002009-11-18T12:14:24.052-08:00FResno is already a bedroom community to SF and LA...FResno is already a bedroom community to SF and LA. Didn't you know that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46183217039443088072009-11-18T11:45:32.662-08:002009-11-18T11:45:32.662-08:00The reason to go the I-5 route is affordability. C...The reason to go the I-5 route is affordability. CHSRA has let the budget for the project blow up, making it unlikely anything will ever get built.<br /><br />HSR should bridge the gap between our existing corridors in NorCal and SoCal. Reduce the project from 800 miles, much of it duplicating existing lines, to a more reasonable 400 and it might actually get built.<br /><br />You don not need to ram 200 mph trains through the middle of cities to provide 3 hr. travel times between L.A., S.F. and Fresno. They will have to slow down so much through those cities that it well not be that fast anyway.<br /><br />Why spend twice the money that we don't have to provide 1 1/2 hr. travel time from Fresno to L.A. and S.F. ? It makes no sense. I don't think it's in anyone's interest to have Fresno, including Fresno's, to become a bedroom community for L.A. and S.F.<br /><br />Build a new high speed line from Santa Clarita to Fremont. Travel time 2 hrs. Use existing lines to get to L.A., Palmdale, Fresno, Oakland, San Jose, San Francisco (via Dumbarton) and Sacramento. They will all be within three hours of each other for half the cost and much less enviromental impact.TransitPlannerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10463069776974576813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-54163231532050589022009-11-18T06:36:29.241-08:002009-11-18T06:36:29.241-08:00@ Dan S. -
Japan is hit by about 10% of all earth...@ Dan S. -<br /><br />Japan is hit by about 10% of all earthquakes world-wide. Add to that frequent typhoons. People there just don't expect structures to survive for very long, a few decades at most.<br /><br />A number of Japanese shrines are rebuilt every 20 years using the original medieval design and traditional construction methods, but new materials - even if the existing ones aren't damaged by a natural disaster. Impermanence and renewal is simply integral to the Shinto belief system.<br /><br />Railway stations, of course, are hardly shrines. They are not lovingly rebuilt every 20 years. However, the fundamental expectation is still that sooner rather than later, mother nature is going to destroy whatever station infrastructure is built. Therefore, little effort is put into their aesthetics or indeed, that of the <a href="http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/sb10063389d-001.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=20F9D574E655E283F89898DB187A68FA554178EE316CF818" rel="nofollow">elevated tracks</a>.<br /><br />California is subject to earthquakes as well, but attitudes toward architecture are still informed more by European history than by Japanese philosophy. Residents of the Golden State <i>do</i> want their infrastructure to look impressive, that's why the GG bridge is a landmark and e.g. the design of the new east span of the SF Bay Bridge was modified.<br /><br />Strictly utilitarian structures, e.g. BART aerials as well as the Richmond-San Rafael and Dumbarton bridges, are held up as examples of civil engineering "brutality".Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-57774713679949665622009-11-17T19:09:14.702-08:002009-11-17T19:09:14.702-08:00On platform beauty, I personally don't care ve...On platform beauty, I personally don't care very much about it. Japan's HSR platforms are ugly but functional, and I see them reaping the rewards of a long-term investment in infrastructure that I drool at with envy.Dan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46667797500686975592009-11-17T19:07:30.795-08:002009-11-17T19:07:30.795-08:00I think an important driving force in route select...I think an important driving force in route selection for CAHSR are those first two letters, "CA". This is a transportation project whose purpose is to serve California's transportation needs. Not the needs of LA and SF, not the needs PA and MP, not the needs of SD and Anahiem. It's getting its money from a statewide ballot, which means that voters from all over the state had to approve it.<br /><br />That includes all the votes from the valley where people are expecting the train to come to their towns and not to the less populated I-5 corridor. And it also includes all the votes from people living from SF to SJ who don't live immediately adjoining the Caltrain corridor.<br /><br />And because it is a political process, we have to give up on requiring it to be the optimal design. It's parameters are to satisfy the political constraints that want to kill it. So far it has survived by making all sorts of compromises. That's just how something big like this is going to go down.<br /><br />It's fine with me if people are strongly opposed to the project. But I don't see them acknowledging the benefit that the train can bring to all their neighbors and fellow citizens in the state, or just the fact that a good portion of Californians want this train built. Certainly the project is neither all good nor all bad. After all, this train might get built and it might not; our kids will still be going to school together.Dan S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4837179587151600452009-11-17T17:12:00.618-08:002009-11-17T17:12:00.618-08:00Finally, greenhouse gas analysis does not account ...<i>Finally, greenhouse gas analysis does not account at all for alternative energy. It's true that most of our power comes from coal, but CHSRA seeks to get as much power as possible from alternative sources, and those sources are bound to expand in the future.</i><br /><br />Except that it's not even true that most of our power comes from coal. Any assessment that doesn't look at our <b>actual</b> power generation and simply looks at powering everything with coal, is at best myopic and at worst intentionally misleading.<br /><br /><a href="http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=CA" rel="nofollow">Here's a rough rundown</a> on our nationwide power generation versus CA power generation. The numbers listed for non-carbon-emitting sources like nuclear, hydro, solar and wind are higher than I've seen elsewhere, but most places I've seen put it around 50%.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4045551911611416172009-11-17T16:58:42.243-08:002009-11-17T16:58:42.243-08:00@Morris Brown
The article comes from a respectabl...@Morris Brown<br /><br />The article comes from a respectable source. Unfortunately, it falls victim to many of the most common mistakes and misconceptions floating around. For instance, it bases ridership SOLELY on current travel between SF and LA, completely neglecting trips that will be taken from destinations between the two cities (of which there are plenty). Intermediate stations are a critical part of HSR.<br /><br />Its assessment of total line haul times does not account for time spend waiting in airport security etc. It also neglects the fact that HSR seeks to improve local transportation (you may have noticed that they already set aside money for that), as well as the fact that many of the stations are planned at existing transportation hubs (i.e. LAUS). While what we have/will have will probably never rival local transport in Europa/Japan, you still have to give some credit.<br /><br />Finally, greenhouse gas analysis does not account at all for alternative energy. It's true that most of our power comes from coal, but CHSRA seeks to get as much power as possible from alternative sources, and those sources are bound to expand in the future.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-76095952611165448582009-11-17T16:51:53.576-08:002009-11-17T16:51:53.576-08:00Since this symposium had faculty from the Highly r...<i>Since this symposium had faculty from the Highly respected Berkeley Transportation Institute, perhaps it shouldn't be dismissed lightly.</i><br /><br />I'll bite:<br /><br />On connecting transit being crucial to HSR success:<br /><br /><i>" This connectivity, or short access and egress time, is essential to the success of high-speed rail, and California has very little of it." .. "But if access and egress times from HSR stations are as long and onerous as those for air, passengers will save time by driving to an airport instead.</i>"<br /><br />In the countries mentioned, they also have easy rapid transit access to airports which HSR must compete against. Also, the author has apparently never tried to save time driving across LA to one of our many airports, all of which are 30 minutes to an hour away from downtown in traffic.<br /><br /><i>"Furthermore, electricity to run the trains must be generated from coal-fired plants, leading to additional greenhouse gas emissions once HSR is operational."</i><br /><br />Even if you think the claim that CAHSR will run entirely on renewable energy is BS (and I think it partially is, but for other reasons), the system will have no choice but to pull it's power from the California grid. Our power in CA is about 45% non-carbon emitting, and the remainder is mostly natural gas, we have very little if any coal.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.com