California - California's high speed rail dream!

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/24/news/economy/high_speed_rail/index.htm?source=cnn_bin&hpt=Sbin

Let's the speculations begin.

Regards

Looks like they are starting by building a line from nowhere to nowhere. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/us/03borden.htm) As much as I would love to see it happen, this will be a fiasco.

Looks like they are starting by building a line from nowhere to nowhere. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/03/us/03borden.htm) As much as I would love to see it happen, this will be a fiasco.

There are many things about the CHSR that could be a fiasco, but the fact that construction is starting in the middle of nowhere is not one of them. It's a lower risk location for working out problems in construction.

I look forward to seeing how CHSR develops. I've enjoyed riding high speed trains in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. In the near future I might take fast rail between major cities in China instead of flying. Having an alternative to flying for all my SJC-LAX/BUR/SNA/SAN trips will be nice.

Everyone along the San Francisco Peninsula, once the strongest group of supporters of this concept, has pretty much been turned into an opponent. Why? Because the Commission is trying to "railroad" through that the tracks will run above ground, or in an open pit, in such a way to divide virtually every community in half -- far more dramatically than the current Caltrain tracks do. For example, in my town of Palo Alto, the current proposal would eliminate an entire lane of traffic on the key north-south thoroughfare, creating a real traffic nightmare.

The result is that several towns along the Peninsula are suing the Commission, which now refuses to have public meetings in our area because of our alleged bad attitude. All they had to do was come up with the plan everyone expected them to (covered trenches or underground tunnelling in the populated areas) and the first section could have easily been built here with strong public support.

Everyone along the San Francisco Peninsula, once the strongest group of supporters of this concept, has pretty much been turned into an opponent. Why? Because the Commission is trying to "railroad" through that the tracks will run above ground, or in an open pit, in such a way to divide virtually every community in half -- far more dramatically than the current Caltrain tracks do. For example, in my town of Palo Alto, the current proposal would eliminate an entire lane of traffic on the key north-south thoroughfare, creating a real traffic nightmare.

The result is that several towns along the Peninsula are suing the Commission, which now refuses to have public meetings in our area because of our alleged bad attitude. All they had to do was come up with the plan everyone expected them to (covered trenches or underground tunnelling in the populated areas) and the first section could have easily been built here with strong public support.

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/railroad+through

Looks like they are not living up to their idiom. In China, for example, railroading a railroad through is a productive way to get the job done. In the US, it is apparently impossible to railroad a railroad through, at least one that anyone would be able to use.

Everyone along the San Francisco Peninsula, once the strongest group of supporters of this concept, has pretty much been turned into an opponent. Why? Because the Commission is trying to "railroad" through that the tracks will run above ground, or in an open pit, in such a way to divide virtually every community in half -- far more dramatically than the current Caltrain tracks do.

I have about as strong a stake in this particular issue as anyone. My home is within 100' of the Caltrain tracks. I hear and feel every train that rolls past. Despite this I am not opposed to a ground level alignment for the high speed rail. Why? Because it will be electrified, and I know from experience in other countries that modern, electrified trains are much quieter than the diesels currently rumbling past.

There are many things about the CHSR that could be a fiasco, but the fact that construction is starting in the middle of nowhere is not one of them. It's a lower risk location for working out problems in construction.

Except when they run out of money to construct the REST of the line, and have to support this high-speed white elephant that has NO traffic base with taxpayer subsidies... And what "problems of construction?" There are plenty of mature examples of this technology.

The first section constructed should have been Gilroy to SFO along the Caltrain corridor. The second should have been from Los Angeles to Palmdale/Lancaster Airport. (...adding a line to Ontario Airport, rather than Disneyland would have made too much sense for politicians to actually include in their planning....) Only when these two sections are running AND MAKING MONEY, should the Central Valley bridge section have been built.


I look forward to seeing how CHSR develops. I've enjoyed riding high speed trains in Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. In the near future I might take fast rail between major cities in China instead of flying. Having an alternative to flying for all my SJC-LAX/BUR/SNA/SAN trips will be nice.

I rather doubt given CA's endemic budget shortfalls you'll ride it in your lifetime.

Everyone along the San Francisco Peninsula, once the strongest group of supporters of this concept, has pretty much been turned into an opponent. ...


Can you say "NIMBY?" (Not In My Back Yard) The people who oppose are not "everyone along the San Francisco Peninsula" ( Yes, I know plenty of SFO Peninsula supporters of at-grade construction....but they don't live near/adjacent to the right-of-way)

The cost of subway construction or trench and cover would more than triple the construction costs....and effectively kill the project.

Except when they run out of money to construct the REST of the line, and have to support this high-speed white elephant that has NO traffic base with taxpayer subsidies... And what "problems of construction?" There are plenty of mature examples of this technology.

The first section constructed should have been Gilroy to SFO along the Caltrain corridor. The second should have been from Los Angeles to Palmdale/Lancaster Airport. (...adding a line to Ontario Airport, rather than Disneyland would have made too much sense for politicians to actually include in their planning....) Only when these two sections are running AND MAKING MONEY, should the Central Valley bridge section have been built.


Reminds me of the story of the Philadelphia Art Museum (Rocky museum). They had a limited budget, and the developer took the bold move of building only the wings rather than the main part of the museum. With 2 wings and no main building, the city (or was it donors) had to appropriate additional funds to get the whole museum built.

Perhaps it is a good idea to build the useless part first. Risky, though. By this logic, maybe it would have been an even better idea to build 1 rail for the entire length?

Can you say "NIMBY?" (Not In My Back Yard) The people who oppose are not "everyone along the San Francisco Peninsula" ( Yes, I know plenty of SFO Peninsula supporters of at-grade construction....but they don't live near/adjacent to the right-of-way)

The cost of subway construction or trench and cover would more than triple the construction costs....and effectively kill the project.

Not many supporters left in Palo Alto or Menlo Park, regardless where they live relative to the tracks. That's because the proposed approach would destroy local traffic flow. Palo Alto also originally wanted the Peninsula station but balked when the High Speed Authority demanded that huge parking structures be built at City expense as a condition of getting it.

And even if it does triple the costs (which I doubt for covered trenches), it would only be for about 20 miles of the entire run 400 mile run of the line.

I wonder why no one proposed building it above US101 like the AirTrain in NYC?

...
And even if it does triple the costs (which I doubt for covered trenches), it would only be for about 20 miles of the entire run 400 mile run of the line.

First off, the actual track length will be over 550 miles. 400 miles is the *shortest highway distance* between LA & SFO. Railroads can not run on the curves and grades that a car can.....which is why (for example) the route detours from the Central Valley via Tehachapi out through Palmdale/Lancaster and thence into the LA Basin rather than following I-5 directly over the Ridge route.

Secondly, if the communities of the San Francisco peninsula can bully the rail authority into cut-and-cover construction (SFO to San Jose is about 45 miles of track by my count), what makes you think that the Los Angeles section from Santa Clarita to Anaheim will not equally demand it? (Hint: that's more than 60 miles)

And as for the costs, I'd say that merely tripling them is damn low...
LA's Alameda Corridor has 10 miles of cut-and-cover trench for freight operation....and that cost $700 Million to construct. (the total project was more than $2.5 Billion) And it does not have the additional issues of being dug in waterlogged soils, being electrified, numerous curves, having to provide underground stations, passenger evacuation routes, or high-speed operation. By contrast, at grade construction of high-speed electrified line costs roughly $15-20 million a mile in Germany, France, or Japan.

I wonder why no one proposed building it above US101 like the AirTrain in NYC?

Because such construction is terribly expensive; not handy for access for intermediate stations, parking, or transit connections; and construction would disrupt an already at capacity highway...