HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2601  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 2:51 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
You are leaving out all the time consuming steps to air travel. Parking, terminal shuttles, check in if checking baggage, security, waiting waiting and more waiting. And then do much of the reverse once you land. That's a far cry from being dropped off and getting to board a hsr train that departs every 15 minutes or so. Your time savings over air with the lower average speed figured in is at the endpoints.
These are certainly good points. With increased methods of decreasing the amount of time it takes getting a passenger from the door of the airport to the passenger taking off from the runway coupled with freeway expansions and inner city mass transit improvements, this time could be greatly reduced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2602  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 3:04 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
Sweet, maybe he can give some of that money to Illinois to not upgrade the CHI-STL line.
LOL, I think we all know where he plans to move this money and it starts with "w" and ends with "all".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2603  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 4:09 AM
Illithid Dude's Avatar
Illithid Dude Illithid Dude is offline
Paramoderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Santa Monica / New York City
Posts: 3,003
imagine if newsom inadvertently funds the wall by cancelling HSR
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2604  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 5:36 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
The grant that Trump is trying to take back is the second one -- the one that CAHSR was awarded after Ohio and Wisconsin Tea Party governors sent back Obama stimulus money for rail projects in those states.

It's extremely unlikely that the feds will be able to get this money back, even if it's in escrow.

Trump is going to be gone long before this is settled in court.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2605  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 5:43 AM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 260
On a totally different note, how long it it until Amtrak could run trains Madera-Hanford on the HSR tracks? At 120 MPH, this would cut 30 min off the San Joaquin total trip time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2606  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 5:44 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by plutonicpanda View Post
These are certainly good points. With increased methods of decreasing the amount of time it takes getting a passenger from the door of the airport to the passenger taking off from the runway coupled with freeway expansions and inner city mass transit improvements, this time could be greatly reduced.
People who hate rail pretend that air and car travel are 100% reliable. I have flown maybe 20 times in my life and have experienced lengthy delays in perfect weather 3-4 times (I don't recall ever flying during the winter) and once had a flight cancelled after arriving at LaGuardia because the plane I was supposed to take was stuck in Philadelphia.

How many times have we all experienced random traffic jams on the interstate highways out in the middle of nowhere? I have been stuck in epic 2-hour traffic jams out in the middle of nowhere many times. Plus, when you drive anywhere around the east or Great Lakes region on a weekday, you inevitably hit rush hour in one of the cities because there are so many of them.

Oh, and we don't pay ourselves to drive. If we paid ourselves $15/hr to drive our own cars, then added depreciation, and had to pay that money at the time of the trip, our love for driving would be reduced.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2607  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 12:44 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
People who hate rail pretend that air and car travel are 100% reliable. I have flown maybe 20 times in my life and have experienced lengthy delays in perfect weather 3-4 times (I don't recall ever flying during the winter) and once had a flight cancelled after arriving at LaGuardia because the plane I was supposed to take was stuck in Philadelphia.
Train delays are a thing too. The NJT trains into Penn Station get delayed all the time. Although that's more to do with the decrepit condition of the infrastructure than weather.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2608  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 2:44 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Egregiously delayed trains is primarily an American and third-world problem. Talk to the Germans and the Swiss and the Japanese about how they feel about showing up late. This is the standard that would be in place with a modern true high speed railway.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2609  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 4:47 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
The grant that Trump is trying to take back is the second one -- the one that CAHSR was awarded after Ohio and Wisconsin Tea Party governors sent back Obama stimulus money for rail projects in those states.

It's extremely unlikely that the feds will be able to get this money back, even if it's in escrow.

Trump is going to be gone long before this is settled in court.
Yep
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2610  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 4:56 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illithid Dude View Post
imagine if newsom inadvertently funds the wall by cancelling HSR
Imagine that and then imagine if it funds a wall in Texas or Arizona, instead of upgrading the wall that already exists in California.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2611  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 10:59 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Imagine that and then imagine if it funds a wall in Texas or Arizona, instead of upgrading the wall that already exists in California.
If Trump & co actually understood what construction of a high speed rail line entails, they'd know that the entire thing requires a 10+ foot fence on either side of the railway. So a 300~ mile railway between LA and San Francisco will require 600~ miles of big-time industrial fencing.

All they have to do is say "why are we trying to keep people off tracks with no trains but not from illegally crossing into the USA USA USA".

Seriously though, the cost of 600+ miles of 10+ foot high-grade metal fencing will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, if not something approaching 5% of the total project cost. Heck, the fencing might cost as much as most or all of the trains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2612  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 6:48 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 481
People who think that the money for CAHSR is going to fund Trump's wall are out to lunch. Setting aside the rather huge constitutional issues of a president declaring an emergency because congress declines to fund what he wants, CA has already been given the money. You'd need a judge to issue a stay to halt construction, and for that you'd need absolute, 100% ironclad proof that it's impossible for CA to finish the HSR line from Madera to Bakersfield by 2021 (a line that's already under construction btw). The bar is so high because pulling the funding would ensure exactly that, a sudden loss of funding would guarantee the project would miss its deadline. While there are certainly some doubts if CA can accomplish this, the proof that Trump needs simply doesn't exist. All Newstrom said was that CA doesn't have the funding right now to build connecting segments to SF and LA, but even if he outright said they were being canceled all the terms of the grant say is that CA needs to complete the central valley segment. If there is any chance of that still happening by 2021 then CA is still fulfilling its end of the bargain.

Oh, and Trump is demanding $5.3 billion for his wall (for only 55 miles natch). Even if he got all $3.5 billion back from CASHR that wouldn't cover all of it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2613  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 3:49 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Start enhancing SF-Sac and LA-SD rail connections

We have an opportunity to start electrifying the Capital Corridor, Surfliner and the San Joaquin as well as carving out more dedicated rights of way to enhance existing rail corridors and improve travel times.

There’s also an opportunity to move to obtain dedicated rights of way.

There’s a great article in the Sacramento Bee this morning about the opportunity to connect the Capitol Corridor directly to the new Transbay Terminal via the proposed second tunnel.

How trains under the bay - not high-speed rail - may connect Sacramento and San Francisco
BY TONY BIZJAK

FEBRUARY 20, 2019 12:58 PM



For decades, train riders from Sacramento to San Francisco have been forced to get off in the East Bay and take a bus or BART into the city, adding time and hassle to what should ideally be a one-seat ride all the way.

Now, Northern California train and transit officials are proposing a dramatic upgrade.

Capitol Corridor train officials have joined with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to explore building a second transit tunnel under San Francisco Bay that would carry additional BART trains – as well as Capitol Corridor trains directly into San Francisco job centers.

Those trains, most of which start in downtown Sacramento, could continue down the peninsula, taking riders to San Francisco International Airport and San Jose.

Read:

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/a...226474345.html
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2614  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 4:06 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
We have an opportunity to start electrifying the Capital Corridor, Surfliner and the San Joaquin as well as carving out more dedicated rights of way to enhance existing rail corridors and improve travel times.

There’s also an opportunity to move to obtain dedicated rights of way.

There’s a great article in the Sacramento Bee this morning about the opportunity to connect the Capitol Corridor directly to the new Transbay Terminal via the proposed second tunnel.

How trains under the bay - not high-speed rail - may connect Sacramento and San Francisco
BY TONY BIZJAK

FEBRUARY 20, 2019 12:58 PM



For decades, train riders from Sacramento to San Francisco have been forced to get off in the East Bay and take a bus or BART into the city, adding time and hassle to what should ideally be a one-seat ride all the way.

Now, Northern California train and transit officials are proposing a dramatic upgrade.

Capitol Corridor train officials have joined with Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to explore building a second transit tunnel under San Francisco Bay that would carry additional BART trains – as well as Capitol Corridor trains directly into San Francisco job centers.

Those trains, most of which start in downtown Sacramento, could continue down the peninsula, taking riders to San Francisco International Airport and San Jose.

Read:

https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/a...226474345.html

They're going to build HSR's entrance into San Francisco without saying they're building it. This is how politics works.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2615  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 5:39 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
This and future hsr are one in the same, they just don't know it yet. Tunneling costs aside it seems incredibly logical that having a Peninsula entrance into SF via San Jose as well as an Altamont corridor entrance branching from between Modesto and Stockton running thu Tracy to Oakland and thru a new multipurpose second tube to TT. Just imagine the operational flexibility there. It would take the pressure of the Peninsula timetable with Caltrain op's, returning HSR trains from Sacramento southward to LA and multiple options in the reverse as well as sending trains to La via East Bay and Modesto. Hell you could in theory run a circle HSR train from SF-Modesto-Merced-SJ-RWC-SF. And that's not even getting to the commuter advantages of having the ACE modernized, sped up and sharing electrification on quad-tracks all the way to Sacramento and operations to Oakland with select trains into TT if capacity allows.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding

Last edited by Busy Bee; Feb 21, 2019 at 5:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2616  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 8:53 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
This and future hsr are one in the same, they just don't know it yet. Tunneling costs aside it seems incredibly logical that having a Peninsula entrance into SF via San Jose as well as an Altamont corridor entrance branching from between Modesto and Stockton running thu Tracy to Oakland and thru a new multipurpose second tube to TT. Just imagine the operational flexibility there. It would take the pressure of the Peninsula timetable with Caltrain op's, returning HSR trains from Sacramento southward to LA and multiple options in the reverse as well as sending trains to La via East Bay and Modesto. Hell you could in theory run a circle HSR train from SF-Modesto-Merced-SJ-RWC-SF. And that's not even getting to the commuter advantages of having the ACE modernized, sped up and sharing electrification on quad-tracks all the way to Sacramento and operations to Oakland with select trains into TT if capacity allows.


Building a 3~ mile single-track tunnel to Pleasanton and another 4~ mile tunnel under Altamont ostensibly for commuter rail would enable Central Valley HSR to get to Oakland. One HSR train (600-foot, not double-length train, obviously) per hour to Bakersfield would help sell completion of the project to LA.

They could build a narrower bore single-track tunnel (around 23 feet in diameter) instead of the 28-foot bore that is necessary for 150+mph travel. If HSR from Bakersfield has to slow to 60mph for 7 miles it won't matter.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2617  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 10:39 PM
aaron38's Avatar
aaron38 aaron38 is offline
312
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Palatine
Posts: 4,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
If Trump & co actually understood what construction of a high speed rail line entails, they'd know that the entire thing requires a 10+ foot fence on either side of the railway.
So Trump should just build an HSR line from Houston to San Diego and put it on the border?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2618  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 10:41 PM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 481
Welp...


Quote:
A California Bill Aims to Create the Unlimited-Speed American Autobahn of Your Dreams

Many car enthusiasts consider Germany’s Autobahn the holy grail of high-speed highway systems, but it may someday get competition from California, as a senator there has just introduced a bill which proposes adding lanes without speed limits to two major highways.

It’s called Senate Bill 319, and it’s basically a plan to reduce vehicle emissions by keeping folks out of traffic. Here’s the juicy part of the bill introduced last week by Senator John Moorlach:

"This bill would require the department to initiate a project to construct two additional traffic lanes on northbound and southbound Interstate Route 5 and State Route 99, and would prohibit the imposition of a maximum speed limit for those traffic lanes."

You read that right. Not only would the new lanes not have a speed limit, it would be illegal for them to have a speed limit.

(Although the state could just legislate a speed limit anyways, but that’s neither here nor there.)

The proposal appears to be a response to a high-speed rail system that was supposed to reduce the stress that California’s increasing population has placed on the roadways, but that has been thoroughly struggling. Just last week at the State of the State address, Governor Gavin Newsom talked about the project’s issues, and talked about drastically reducing its size, with the Sacramento Bee writing:

In his first State of the State speech, Newsom said what many have long thought: The state’s high-speed rail project, which has ballooned in price from $45 billion to $77 billion, is out of control and needs trimming. The governor later added the project otherwise would run out of money with nothing to show for it except “angst, frustration and finger-pointing.”

Instead of trying to link to the Bay Area, Newsom said he will focus on finishing the line currently under construction that will run 171 miles through the Valley from Merced to Bakersfield. He said it could open by 2027."

o as an alternative to this rail system, and to reduce vehicle idle time and thus greenhouse gas emissions, Senate Bill 319 proposes using the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund—which is fed by California’s Cap and Trade emissions compliance system—to build four new traffic lanes (two each way) on two roads that are “integral components of California’s highway system and provide means of long distance travel for Californians.”

Automobile Magazine’s story on this topic does state that the bill “would implement a functional limit of 100 mph,” with heavy fines associated with breaking into the triple digits. However, the bill seems to propose truly limitless speed, as the 100 mph part of the bill referenced by Automobile appears to just be a proposed amendment to the current Vehicle Code that would exclude this new proposed speed limitless highway from the current 100 mph rule. Moorlach confirmed this on his website, writing:

"the 100 mph limit is current law, which my bill would eliminate for the four lanes. And, another critical detail, the lanes would be separated."

Moorlach’s website also includes a press release on the proposal, which reads, in part:

"Replacing the defunct High-Speed Rail project – or at least providing an expedited transportation option until a substantial High-Speed Rail segment can be built decades in the future – with dedicated lanes would let Californians speedily and safely traverse the Northern and Southern parts of the state. Like the German Autobahn, the new lanes would be designed for both high-speed and safety. According to a World Health Organization study, estimated road traffic deaths per 100,000 people is 4.1 in Germany, while 12.4 in the United States."

'If Sacramento is serious about allowing Californians to travel between Los Angeles and the Bay Area, and High-Speed Rail will take too long to build, let’s construct four additional lanes with no maximum speed limit to provide for high speed on a safe road,' stated Senator Moorlach."

I’ve reached out to the California Air Resources Board to get their take on this whole idea, because it was only recently that Germany was talking about actually establishing maximum speed limits on the now-unlimited Autobahn as a way of reducing emissions. I’ve also reached out to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety to see what they think about the safety aspect of this proposal.

There are obviously still lots of questions that need to be answered, here. How much will it cost? Will there be funding to keep it as glass-smooth as Germany’s Autobahn? Will drivers have to go through any training to drive on this bit of roadway? Will California crank up its car safety inspections to be as ridiculously thorough as Germany’s?

More importantly, is this going to reduce congestion and emissions that much more than simply building two more lanes on these highways and using the existing speed limit?

This seems like a dream to me, but as a car nut, I can’t say I mind it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2619  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 10:48 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaron38 View Post
So Trump should just build an HSR line from Houston to San Diego and put it on the border?
Sure, except they'd have to build the entire thing on the ground, or else those pesky Mexicans would just walk through a culvert or low bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2620  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2019, 10:59 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp View Post
Welp...
Yeah, just politics. That bill will fizzle but it'll fuel right wing radio. They'll just say it's all an Agenda 21 conspiracy.

BTW, NPR's On Point had a CAHSR discussion last night. The opposing view was classic Koch Bros/Randal O'Toole gibberish. Kept deflecting from the actual proposal to broad generalities. For example, we heard no mention of the complicated SF and LA approaches, or the tunnels.

The opponent also brought up the nonsense about city density. Thousands of people drive or take a cab to and from the SF and LA airports every day. Those same people wouldn't drive or take a cab to a train station?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:45 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.