Quote:
HSR isn't going to do a damn thing for intra-city transit anyhow, so the traffic choking in the Bay Area and the L.A. Basin's not really going to change. HSR is more competition for airlines than cars, anyhow! Or did you suddenly expect a big drop in traffic in those regions when HSR stops will only be every 20 miles or so? Aaron (Glowrock) |
Did people really think the entire 500 mile system would get built all at the same time?
|
Quote:
Train tracks are typically built in segments, from one end to the other. Heck, our new Portland streetcar line has been under construction for about a year now, and they've only laid half the track. They do it one block at a time... |
Rhetoric my friend, rhetoric.
|
Quote:
Nobody poses a threat to the California's HSR funding. The governor, the president, California's senators, the new head of the transportation committee. They all support HSR, especially in California. The track being built will be in use whenever the first phase finishes. Those other parts of phase one will not wait for this section to be finished. Another section will be begin construction while this part recently announced is still being constructed...and another piece...and another piece. There will be work going on all along the line at some point, in various levels of completeness. |
Hey guys, major problem here.
I'm having a new home built, and the contractor insists on starting with the foundation. WTF? It's a multi-year project and he's starting with a useless part. I mean, I'm having carpet put in so people won't even see it! It's the concrete to nowjere! There won't even be shelter! What use is a home if it doesn't even protect you from the rain! I demand he either start with the roof or build the entire thing at once. This is madness! Seriously, how do people not understand that a project under construction is not useful until it is done....? |
Because they are motivated to look for any reason to attack it.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's how I think and I want you to prove me wrong. I don't know, it just seems like a gamble. What will happen is that money gets spent to build a high speed line in the Central Valley. Then, HSR dies forever because of politics and that line gets used by a handful of crappy conventional Amtrak trains which may or may not even be able to go all the way to LA. Actually, the part about going to LA seems like the biggest deal to me, after all the reason why no passenger services continue south going that way is because freight has clogged the famous railfan photo spot loopy loop route through the mountains at Tehachapi pass. A tunnel from there to Sylmar would cost 823 gazillion dollars and take 20 years because the environmentalists want to save the mountain lions or something, then fuck it all, am I right? My question is whether or not it is worth it to tie up a couple billion on something like this, if it was at all possible to take that money and fund something elsewhere. On the East Coast where results would be immediate and would show how HSR could work, and fix the political problem. Planning anything is a long term thing that is not for the impatient, as I have heard before. But politics change rapidly, elections every couple years and public opinion comes and goes. Attempting a megaproject in the good ol' USA of 2010 seems like an enormous waste of effort. |
Quote:
This is NOT a waste of effort, my friend. Give it time, things will turn out. After all, who the hell thought that the L.A. Basin would have so many transit projects either being constructed or planned at this time? Patience, young grasshopper. Patience. Aaron (Glowrock) |
The main point of this line is to get from LA to SF. That sort of the genesis of why it was considered in the first place. No matter where is starts in that area, it will be pretty useless if not completed. I suppose a train from LA to Bakersfield could be cool, but not what we desire to build.
If you are complaining that it might not ever finish, it doesnt matter where it starts. An unfinished line wont achieve its top goal by far of connecting LA to SF. Then consider it HAS to start in the central valley. Thats federal mandate. |
I have no problem with it starting in the central valley. A commute from Fresno to Bakersfield where it's top speed (220 Mph) will be easily achieved, sounds pretty awesome.
|
Agreed, and they need a place where they will be able to let the train flex its proverbial muscles. Plus the Central Valley is probably where they are going to get the most bang for their buck, and I feel that once the immediate effects of its construction shows itself(jobs, economic surge, etc), then I think that more funding should become available a little easier.
|
Quote:
I think it's a great analogy. As others have mentioned, to finish the system, we need every bit of track built. The goal is not a half-finishes system, it's 100%. California has been working on this since the 1970's. Complaining at every step of the way that "it will never happen" is easy but counterproductive. I don't understand how the east coast is even relevant, considering California voters put up 10 billion, something no one else has done. You also say: "On the East Coast where results would be immediate " False. The east coast didnt even get money because they weren't prepared. Building rail is far from immediate, it takes years of planning. I agree that I would have preferred phase 1 to be between Bakersfield and Palmdale. But it wasn't even considered because that section isn't ready, the studies haven't been finished. Here are the reasons why it was a good choice: -Every portion of the system needs to be built, might as well start where you get the longest track for your dollar. -The Valley has an unemployment rate of 18%, 26% when you include underemployment. -Very little resistance. The counties are on board, the mayors are on board, the people are on board. -Worst case scenario, amtrak can use it. You say: " line gets used by a handful of crappy conventional Amtrak trains " These "crappy" trains are the number 5 most popular amtrak line in the country. 12 trains a day (6 each way). 100,000 people a month ride the San Joaquin. For a place where "nobody" rides transit, that's a lot of people. Even if HSR fails, we get: Speed increase from 79 to 125mph Double tracking Dedicated ROW, no freight, no intersections =Faster speeds, less delays, ability to schedule more trains a day. That's pretty much the investment getting thrown at Ohio, upper New York state, georgia etc. Take conventional trains and make them better. Note: If money allows, Amtrak/Caltrans plan on adding a round trip in 2012 and another in 2013 to the San Joaquin line, for 16 trains a day. |
one state's loss is california's gain:
Quote:
|
Quote:
If you wanted a starting route that would function right off the bat, it would be SD-LA. It would have the highest ridership of any other starting route, but the problem is that it would be costly and untimely and politically difficult to dig through such a highly urbanized area. There would be inevitable cost overruns. You don't want backlash or give ammo to opposition when you've barely started. And it's outside of the main SF-LA route, so sensitive Norcal would throw a political fit. So the Central Valley is a logical place to start. It's still within the LA-SF route, (which SD-LA isn't) yet it's politically neutral with much less local opposition then you'd get in SoNorCal. And it's mostly cows (which you can move) and large swaths of lands, so you can get more rail for your time and buck, and politically, the project will give the appearance of being less expensive than it will eventually be when it gets the ends of the full route. |
Its logical and its mandated by the federal government that their money be spent there. Kind of made it easy for the rail authority to decide.
Now that California just got more money, this initial segment may go to Bakersfield, thus covering the two big central valley cities. |
Fresno to Bakersfield is a big deal for grade-separate double-trackage. It will improve passenger rail service no matter what ultimately gets run on the rails there.
|
At Start of Rail Project, a Tussle Over Where to Begin (WSJ 12/13/2010)
At Start of Rail Project, a Tussle Over Where to Begin
By JOSH MITCHELL Wall Street Journal 12/13/10 "California's plan for high-speed rail service envisions bullet trains zooming from Sacramento to San Diego. To start off, the state intends to spend $4.3 billion to build a 65-mile stretch of track and stations linking two small towns in rural Central Valley. Proponents of high speed rail say building this portion of track is a good way to launch a multiyear building program. Critics call the project the "train to nowhere" and are using it to fuel a broader attack on the Obama administration's rail strategy. http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/i...1212192418.gif "It defies logic and common sense to have the train start and stop in remote areas that have no hope of attaining the ridership needed to justify the cost of the project," U.S. Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D., Calif.) wrote in a Nov. 30 letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood..." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...825514428.html |
^ Don't build anything north of Fresno, and instead use the money to extend the first segment's southern end to Bakersfield. Common sense, really.
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.