California High Speed Rail Thread

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by pesto

And if you print your own boarding pass and don't have luggage, it is pretty much 5 minutes from cab to seated on board.

The last time I made the mistake of flying to SFO, it took me 45 minutes with pre-printed ticket and only a laptop bag, from parking structure to gate; then the flight was delayed for over an hour. When the damned plane finally got to SFO, it took me another 45 minutes to get downtown. Decent high-speed rail would take less time, including drive time to Union Station, and be vastly more pleasant.

I lived in DC for over 20 years. During that time, I took the Shuttle between DC and NY maybe a dozen times and always wished I'd gone by train when I did.

Oh yes, I had to get to LAX an hour before published departure time. Flying sucks.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan

But that’s no excuse for the overruns in the approach to the LA Basin and especially not in the Bay Area—particularly in the latter, most of the overbuilding comes from agency turf wars, Parsons writing itself checks, and general incompetence. There’s no need for HSR in San José to look like this:

• Video Link

In the past week, my opinion of CAHSR has essentially gone from “worthwhile (even if flawed)” to “long con.”

Yep. That whole video can be characterized as "excessive concrete"...and even where aerial structures are necessary, nobody seems to have a clue about how to maximize their potential. Like in Palo Alto: why not put shops under the damn viaduct!?!

First, fix organization, and then fix electronics, and finally use concrete. Even though grade crossings do need to be eliminated, you do not need to totally segragate the HSR from everything else at the station facilities. Make cross-platform transfer easy. All the excess concrete driving up CAHSR's costs comes from using concrete to not have to deal with the logistics of integrating organizations...Integrating organizations is something we don't want to do in the U.S.

If we had proper organizational interface instead of building excessive infrastructure, we could easily trim the total budget for HSR down by about 25% to 33% IMO.

[zilfondel]

deleted post

[Ragnar]

Yes let's spend $100 billion to save the people of Brentwood 15 minutes of travel time, if that.

I'm sure there is NOTHING that money could be spent on in a more useful and productive manner.

[hammersklavier]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Wait, you are advocating people to walk across train tracks between platforms?

That is a terrible idea. If you have an express train on another track traveling in excess of 100 mph, you are advocating to have people walking across those tracks in front of a train.

FAIL.

Safety is worth the money

What the f... are you talking about?

Seriously, this post makes no sense.

This is an example of a cross-platform transfer: I am riding the express subway but it doesn't stop at my stop. So at the last express stop before my stop, I get off the express subway. I wait for a couple of minutes for the local train my train passed two local stops down to get there and board the local train. I got off one train, waited for a short spell on the platform, and got on another. That's a cross-platform transfer.* They happen all the time in e.g. New York.

What did you think it was?
_____________
* In an ideal world, the trains would be timed to meet at the platform. In Europe and Japan, they often do.

[mfastx]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Southern California and the Bay Area benefit from having numerous airports which to choose from, most not needing "an hour and a half" buffer between arriving at the airport and the departure time.

And how much do you think it will cost to build and maintain all those airports? That ain't cheap either. The reason we have spent (and will spend even more) money on all of these airports is due to the fact that we have not invested in rail transit at all, in comparison to auto and air transit.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

And for those on the Westside of Los Angeles, where LAX would be the most convenient? Are you telling them they now have to endure the traffic all the way to downtown to "hop on" the train?

Endure the traffic? How about a 20 minute light rail ride?

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I am not "anti-rail". But $100 billion can much better be used to support mass transit and other FAR more beneficial projects.

If the rail line isn't built, almost double that WILL be spent on other infrastructure projects. $100 billion is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Transportation is less than 5% of the federal budget. We can afford better transit. It's the other stuff that we can't afford.

Originally Posted by Ragnar

And it's sad that those who want to play with a shiny new (expensive) toy don't understand that.

Oh well.

I don't understand the fad that anti-rail arguments have of calling trains "toys" in a condescending way. Aren't cars also "toys?" They are certainly more "toy" like than trains, considering that they get smashed like a little toy when they are hit by a train. Weird.

[DJM19]

Required reading:

High Costs Threaten California’s High-Speed Rail Project, But the Wider Context Must be Understood



Basically, Caltrans will spend a LOT more on roads in the same time span, and even a lot more beyond that if we don't build HSR.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by mfastx

And how much do you think it will cost to build and maintain all those airports? That ain't cheap either. The reason we have spent (and will spend even more) money on all of these airports is due to the fact that we have not invested in rail transit at all, in comparison to auto and air transit.

Endure the traffic? How about a 20 minute light rail ride?

If the rail line isn't built, almost double that WILL be spent on other infrastructure projects. $100 billion is nothing in the grand scheme of things. Transportation is less than 5% of the federal budget. We can afford better transit. It's the other stuff that we can't afford.

I don't understand the fad that anti-rail arguments have of calling trains "toys" in a condescending way. Aren't cars also "toys?" They are certainly more "toy" like than trains, considering that they get smashed like a little toy when they are hit by a train. Weird.

Most airports are self-funded through user taxes and tenant/landing fees. The $1.545 billion Bradley terminal expansion currently underway is being paid for by "LAX operating revenues, capital improvement program funds, fees
from airlines, passenger facilities charges and airport revenue bond
proceeds. No monies from the L.A. City general fund will be used."

http://www.lawa.org/uploadedFiles/LA...%202011%20.pdf

The current Orange County Airport Terminal C project is being paid for likewise with airport revenue, passenger use charges, and bonds.

I do agree with the bolded statement above. Too much money is wasted on "other stuff", when there should be FAR more investment in infrastructure. Unfortunately, the political will is not in place to make it happen, and until that day arrives, it seems like the $100 billion could far be better used on other projects.

And btw I don't think it will take "20 minutes" to get from the Westside to downtown on light rail. I've seen the current estimates at 45 minutes to get from Santa Monica to downtown on Expo, and 30 minutes to get from Culver City to Downtown. And of course that doesn't include catching the red line to Union Station until the downtown connector is built.

http://backup.buildexpo.org/

Since "travel time" seems to be a big argument that HSR proponents put out there, I really wish people would be more accurate in their travel time estimates.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by hammersklavier

What the f... are you talking about?

Seriously, this post makes no sense.

This is an example of a cross-platform transfer: I am riding the express subway but it doesn't stop at my stop. So at the last express stop before my stop, I get off the express subway. I wait for a couple of minutes for the local train my train passed two local stops down to get there and board the local train. I got off one train, waited for a short spell on the platform, and got on another. That's a cross-platform transfer.* They happen all the time in e.g. New York.

What did you think it was?
_____________
* In an ideal world, the trains would be timed to meet at the platform. In Europe and Japan, they often do.

To put it more simply, a cross-platform transfer is getting off the train on one side of the platform and getting on the train sitting on the other side.

I did this recently in Germany, where I hopped off a TGV in Saarbrücken and awaited the regional train on the same platform, but the opposite track.

Usually cross-platform transfers are used to link two different kinds of service. That way you can easily switch from a limited-stop HSR train to a commuter-like regional train, because a lot of people on the HSR aren't necessarily going to the biggest cities. Placing both trains at the same platform reduces confusion and makes the prospect of a transfer seem easier and more pleasant.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Required reading:

High Costs Threaten California’s High-Speed Rail Project, But the Wider Context Must be Understood



Basically, Caltrans will spend a LOT more on roads in the same time span, and even a lot more beyond that if we don't build HSR.

Very interesting, especially the last paragraph:

"At a certain point, the question is therefore whether there are other programs that would provide better societal benefit than the high-speed rail system, and this is a valid conversation worth exploring. From my perspective, moving the money into roads infrastructure would be simpleminded considering the need to expand mobility options and decrease levels of pollution. It could also be possible to use the funds for local transit expansion, which has plenty of unmet capital needs, especially in California’s largest cities. But who in the state is proposing a comprehensive effort to upgrade rail and bus networks? And how would that spending address the needs of intercity travel?"

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

pesto:


Sacramento, with 2M people, is about 80-100 miles from the Bay Area. San Diego County, with 3.5M people is 100-120 miles from Los Angeles. These are medium distance trips with sufficient population (and indeed a record of proven ridership on passenger rail for high speed rail to be successful. It won't happen, but as you've advocated perhaps these two segments should have been upgraded first. I think roughly there is another 3-4M people living in the Central Valley, including 1M people in the Fresno region.

Agree completely. Sacto to SJ (with a connection at Oakland into SF) would be very popular, lead to growth in DT Oakland and SJ. LA to SD via the OC is another obvious route. When it would be finished (say 10 years?) those areas would be pretty much populated the whole way.

[M II A II R II K]

Editorial: Realistic plan for high-speed rail requires patience


Read More: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/03/402...#ixzz1clQZJrpM

Fresno Mayor Ashley Swearengin has the right perspective on high-speed rail. She recalls I-5, which took from 1947 to 1979 to complete, segment-by-segment. "It began in the Central Valley," she notes. "It was called the 'road to nowhere.' It was called 'too expensive.' Today, it is the backbone of surface transportation in California." The latest business plan from the California High-Speed Rail Authority will not change the minds of long-time critics – there's still too much unknown about this major infrastructure project that will take decades to complete. But it should provide comfort to those who do believe that rail should be a part of California's 21st-century transportation network.

The new plan is much more explicit about tying the system together with existing commuter and intercity rail systems, promising "connections at all new high-speed rail stations to existing regional and local transit systems." In particular, the new plan calls for getting spending under way quickly using $950 million set aside by voters in Proposition 1A for regional and local rail improvements. That's important politically, too, because calling for early investments in the regional rail systems helps to build a constituency to build the backbone of the high-speed rail system in the Central Valley.

.....

Passengers board high-speed trains at Madrid's Atocha rail station last month. Spain completed its first high-speed line from Madrid to Seville in 1991, but then had to build the rest of its current network in increments over 17 years.

[skyscraperfan23]

Originally Posted by North_Regina_Boy

You know a lot of the people who reject this kind of transportation forget one BIG thing. In the 1940s the US Interstate system (and before that, the US Highway system) was created. MOST of the people currently using this system didn't drive or maybe even exist in that era. So as to say the people of the 1940s and 1950s might of been protesting because they wouldn't be able to benefit as we are now.

Infrastructure spending must be spent with the idea that 50 years is a relatively short time period (I know its hard to comprehend) but that is the reality.

Another quick point... Part of getting out of a recession is to spend capital dollars to get people working; And another thing WE as a people are lazy... Back in the 1940s and 50s people jumped over each other to get a job on the interstate system. Nowadays we seem to just complain about everything and blame others instead of trying to make our situation better.

That is today's reality and that is my two cents. I for one would LOVE to see CHSR and the Las Vegas link... Stupid Florida killed theirs, but at least the North-East corridor is getting 2.4B in capital funds to make that neck of the woods better.

Because floridians learn to stop spending, we are spending too much money that we don't have, stop spending overseas and use that money here.

[202_Cyclist]

skyscraperfan23:

Because floridians learn to stop spending, we are spending too much money that we don't have, stop spending overseas and use that money here.

Have you read the Transport Politic post above? Despite current budget constraints, we are not broke. If we have a deficit of anything, it is political courage to invest in infrastructure that will make the United States competitive in the 21st century. Using the most conservative assumption of no economic growth, California's GDP between 2011-2033 (when high speed rail is expected to be completed) is $42 trillion. High speed rail is expected to cost between $74B - $98B, depending on the rate of inflation and whether the contingency fund is used. $98B out of $42 trillion is a proverbial fart in a gale.

Despite the Any Rand-fetishes, stopping spending is absolutely the worst thing we can do in the short-term. Consumer spending and business investment has traditionally been 70-75% of the US economy. Consumer savings rates are now 5-8% (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...10/spn1001.pdf) According to an IMF analysis, this "implies a significantly lower share of private
sector demand in GDP by about 3 percentage points compared to the pre-crisis (2003–07) average." Businesses are also not investing because of uncertain demand, despite earning record profits. Similarly, state and local governments have laid off hundreds of thousands of employees and have massively slashed their spending. If consumers, businesses, and state/local governments are not spending, what is to keep the economy from falling back into recession?

Now is exactly the time we should be investing in our $2.2 trillion infrastructure shortfall. Interest rates are near record lows, labor costs are stagnant, and prices of raw materials have moderated. This would create a lot more jobs than further tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires.

[202_Cyclist]

skyscraperfan23:

Because floridians learn to stop spending, we are spending too much money that we don't have, stop spending overseas and use that money here.

Despite what Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter may have told you, our foreign aid budget is about one half of one percent of total federal spending and most of that goes to making sure Egypt and Israel play nice.

If however, you want to reduce the $300B we spend every single year on foreign oil, as well as stop spending $10B on the endless Middle East tribal feuds of Afghanistan and Iraq (which thankfully is coming to an end), I completely support this. We'll need sustainable transportation (improved passenger rail) however, to do this.

[s.p.hansen]

In the Mountain West, if we can get away with it, we generally always elevate our freeways by bringing in a ton of dirt and then pave the road on top of it. Whenever you need paths to pass under it, you simply dig out a section of the elevated roadbed and create an overpass to bridge the freeway across the gap. This is cheaper to build and easier to maintain.

So this may be a dumb question, but why is California insisting upon elevating High Speed Rail with huge concrete piers?


• Video Link

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Required reading:

High Costs Threaten California’s High-Speed Rail Project, But the Wider Context Must be Understood



Basically, Caltrans will spend a LOT more on roads in the same time span, and even a lot more beyond that if we don't build HSR.

At this point, I have zero faith in any report issued by the CAHSR authority.

They have proven themselves to be incapable of giving us a straight answer on the financials of their own project. So why the heck should we believe anything they have to say regarding other modes of transportation?

[dimondpark]

This is a scathing indictment of the arrogance of the CAHSR Authority:
• Video Link

They are treating the Central Valley like a red-headed stepchild.

And that's one thing, but those Peninsula towns are going to nail their asses to the wall.

[skyscraperfan23]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

skyscraperfan23:


Despite what Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter may have told you, our foreign aid budget is about one half of one percent of total federal spending and most of that goes to making sure Egypt and Israel play nice.

If however, you want to reduce the $300B we spend every single year on foreign oil, as well as stop spending $10B on the endless Middle East tribal feuds of Afghanistan and Iraq (which thankfully is coming to an end), I completely support this. We'll need sustainable transportation (improved passenger rail) however, to do this.

Cut Foreign aid and use that money for transportation.

[skyscraperfan23]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

skyscraperfan23:


Have you read the Transport Politic post above? Despite current budget constraints, we are not broke. If we have a deficit of anything, it is political courage to invest in infrastructure that will make the United States competitive in the 21st century. Using the most conservative assumption of no economic growth, California's GDP between 2011-2033 (when high speed rail is expected to be completed) is $42 trillion. High speed rail is expected to cost between $74B - $98B, depending on the rate of inflation and whether the contingency fund is used. $98B out of $42 trillion is a proverbial fart in a gale.

Despite the Any Rand-fetishes, stopping spending is absolutely the worst thing we can do in the short-term. Consumer spending and business investment has traditionally been 70-75% of the US economy. Consumer savings rates are now 5-8% (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...10/spn1001.pdf) According to an IMF analysis, this "implies a significantly lower share of private
sector demand in GDP by about 3 percentage points compared to the pre-crisis (2003–07) average." Businesses are also not investing because of uncertain demand, despite earning record profits. Similarly, state and local governments have laid off hundreds of thousands of employees and have massively slashed their spending. If consumers, businesses, and state/local governments are not spending, what is to keep the economy from falling back into recession?

Now is exactly the time we should be investing in our $2.2 trillion infrastructure shortfall. Interest rates are near record lows, labor costs are stagnant, and prices of raw materials have moderated. This would create a lot more jobs than further tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires.

But federal government intervention is not the answer either, end the income tax, that is why I Like ron paul's ecomonic plan.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG7guBRY7-g