California High-Speed Rail

[Damien]

Maybe I wasn't clear. See I'm the guy who actually looks at the contracts and reads the studies about the costs and compares them to others actual projects around the country and globe. You won't find a HSR project that didn't involve a substantial amount of tunneling that came in at $50 million per mile. Period.

I'm not an engineer and neither are our politicians who eat up whatever the consultants who have a clear conflict of interest put in front of their face. But I do have the capability of reading and adding, and I encourage others to do the same.

I am strongly pro mass transit and pro-rail but I have absolutely no tolerance for government waste or milking taxpayers.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by Damien

Maybe I wasn't clear. See I'm the guy who actually looks at the contracts and reads the studies about the costs and compares them to others actual projects around the country and globe. You won't find a HSR project that didn't involve a substantial amount of tunneling that came in at $50 million per mile. Period.

I'm not an engineer and neither are our politicians who eat up whatever the consultants who have a clear conflict of interest put in front of their face. But I do have the capability of reading and adding, and I encourage others to do the same.

I am strongly pro mass transit and pro-rail but I have absolutely no tolerance for government waste or milking taxpayers.

Yeah, I am sure some miles of HSR will be $10-$20million while others will be over $200million. A tunnel for example in a dense urban environment. Wherever that $50m comes from... I propose that it's just an average.

[Damien]

The high cost in tunneling are in the stations not the tunnels. HSR wouldn't have many stations.

And again, the overwhelming majority of these 700 miles are in the middle of fricking nowhere.

[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Yeah, I am sure some miles of HSR will be $10-$20million while others will be over $200million. A tunnel for example in a dense urban environment. Wherever that $50m comes from... I propose that it's just an average.

Look at the route again:



Most of the tunneling would probably have to be at the so-called "Tehachapi Loop" where the route crosses the southern Sierra at Tahachapi Pass and at the point where is crosses another mountain pass to enter the LA basin. I am not sure about within the LA basin, but in San Francisco no additional tunneling is required because the tunnel into a downtown station being built for CalTrain is already being built to accommodate future high speed rail.

FYI, here is the present rail route at the "Tehachapi Loop" which explains the name:



Clearly, a "high speed" line would require straightening things out which would, in turn, almost certainly require a tunnel.

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

Look at the route again:



Most of the tunneling would probably have to be at the so-called "Tehachapi Loop" where the route crosses the southern Sierra at Tahachapi Pass and at the point where is crosses another mountain pass to enter the LA basin. I am not sure about within the LA basin, but in San Francisco no additional tunneling is required because the tunnel into a downtown station being built for CalTrain is already being built to accommodate future high speed rail.

FYI, here is the present rail route at the "Tehachapi Loop" which explains the name:



Clearly, a "high speed" line would require straightening things out which would, in turn, almost certainly require a tunnel.

There must be some miscommunication because I do not understand your point. I understand.... in fact easily see... that portions of the HSR will have track work that is very costly. I cited tunneling in dense urban environments as an example. You cited the Tehachipi area. I don't disagree.

Much of the alignment will also utilize existing ROW and track. those portions will be less costly. Much less. I used the word 'some' to indicate that. I should have used another word because that could have been interpreted as 'few' or 'little' or a minor amount. My bad because we each know that a large share of track work will be in the Sacramento or San Juoquin Valley.... flat area in the middle of no-where...as you said.

I'd liek to assume the average cost per mile is weighted to $50 million per mile when all is said. That figure makes sense.

[BTinSF]

^^^My point was that I don't think there'll have to be much, if any, tunneling in urban areas.

[bmfarley]

Wow... 66 posts in 32 hours. That's 2 per hour!

It's a funny thing... I am sure some hours saw more activity than others such as tonight around 7-8pm. The there are times in the middle of the night when I am sure no one is posting. It's kinda like tunneling costs... but only in short segements versus at-grade costs in the middle of no-where for long segments. But, the average is still 2 posts each hour... and the average per mile cost is around $50 million. I bet, anyway.

Hold on... my outlook just recieved another message from this site. I bet another post was made before I could get this oine up!

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by BTinSF

^^^My point was that I don't think there'll have to be much, if any, tunneling in urban areas.

Yeah, I agree. What ever is not at-grade will be minor relative to the whole system.

[dlbritnot]

It seems to me that people look at that construction estimate then forget the long-term effects after the project is complete. The fact that people still perfer widening freeways over creating a much higher capacity system is ludicrous. The potential future growth for this state in all aspects greatly outweighs the construction costs. Consider all the rail construction over 100 years ago and what that accomplished for establishing the current western United States.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by slock

It would be a stunted endeavor at best to not extend to Sacramento and San Diego, and I don't think that's even an option.

The Sacramento and San Diego Spurs are conditional on a couple of points..

First the State would have to demonstrate that it can bring the intial segment of the system in on time and on budget. There is no chance this thing would be built for the $37 billion or $40 billion now estimated. ZERO

Once the poltiticans and electorate get a taste for how much this thing will end up costing, in the end, there will be zero support in the bay area or Los Angeles for building the San Diego and Sacramento spurs.


Now I can't speak for everyone in San Deigo, but the few people I've talked to, have voiced the very same concerns and skepticism.


The second probelm as I understand it, is that the spurs to San Diego and Sacramento would only be built with proceeds from fares.. So in other words if this thing proves a bust there wont be money available to construct the spurs. There wont be a second bond, and even if there were a second bond sent to the voters, it's doubtful people living in L.A. or San Francisco would have much interest iin funding the spurs, especially once they see how expensive the intial system ends up costing.


If you are a supporter of HSR, why not support building the spurs first, since that is currently where the demand is?? It makes more sense to first connect the Bay Area & Sacramento and Los Angeles & San Deigo, since both regions are struggle with growth along their respective transportation corridors. If the system can be constructed and proves cost effective on proven routes then look at a larger system.

What's wrong with that??

One more thing. This campaign hasn't even yet begun, so if your a supporter of the system as proposed I wouldn't get too comfortable with old poll numbers. Californians aren't big on supporting large bonds for projects that they think wont benefit them directly. As I said before, I believe oppositon to this proposal to link SF and LA will be overwhelming in San Deigo and Sacramento, once it goes to the polls; even without an effect campaign to oppose HSR.


Once Southwest Airlines and other carriers come out in oppositon to this (as we know they will), expect their media blitz, to start carving into the numbers of potential supporters (or the fence sitters)

This proposal is going nowhere as it is proposed right now.

But if supporters want a vote, then I say let's vote. But the risk for proponents going to the polls with an imperfect plan is that it will kill HSR permanently... Wouldn't it be better to build the spurs first or the entire system at once, making HSR more attractive to potential supporters???

Again without Sacramento and San Deigo voters support and with an effective campaign by the airline industry, HSR is going nowhere.

[william]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

If you are a supporter of HSR, why not support building the spurs first, since that is currently where the demand is?? It makes more sense to first connect the Bay Area & Sacramento and Los Angeles & San Deigo, since both regions are struggle with growth along their respective transportation corridors. If the system can be constructed and proves cost effective on proven routes then look at a larger system.

What's wrong with that??

Now you know what's wrong with that. They know there's never going to be a phase two. They want the entire state to build a system that they know will never be more than LA/SF. Because I'm a HSR believer, I might have been inclined to say yes (not at $50 bil though...) but they keep trying to promote this charade that San Diego and Sacramento will be a part of the never-going-to-happen "Phase 2."

With $10 bil (one-fifth of the ultimate HSR cost)., You could create an integrated system of local lines/and VTOL to smaller airports/urban centers that could then feed pax to each other. And/or create a sea-plane system that includes flights from the Ferry Building in San Francisco and lands at the cruise ship terminal in downtown San Diego. Put another $5 bil. in the bank and you get say, $250 mil. a year for operating costs that could then subsidize the service and make it affordable to all. This could serve all parts of the state with efficient, cheap transit at a fraction of the cost.

Fewer and fewer people are going to sign-off on HSR in its present form as the details and the costs become more apparent. I'd love to see HSR in California, but the days when LA and SF could impose their demands on the rest of the state are long over. Supporters in these areas know there will never be a phase two built and that's why they are insisting that only LA-SF is built in phase one.

[cookiejarvis]

Originally Posted by william

That depends on whom you ask. The Orange County Register recently suggested the cost was closer to $75 bil. You'll find that in a editorial from 6.14.06 titled "Taking taxpayers for a ride"

The road warriors at the Orange County Register came out with an editorial that's anti-rail? I'm shocked, simply shocked. How dare they!

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by cookiejarvis

The road warriors at the Orange County Register came out with an editorial that's anti-rail? I'm shocked, simply shocked. How dare they!

That was an letter to the editor or editiorial from a non-OC Register staffer... Wendll Cox. That should say enough. That guy would oppose an ADA paratranist shuttle van service to take his mom to see a doctor. He has no credibility with me.

[william]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

That was an letter to the editor or editiorial from a non-OC Register staffer... Wendll Cox. That should say enough. That guy would oppose an ADA paratranist shuttle van service to take his mom to see a doctor. He has no credibility with me.

The point is that there are different cost estimates even now. You dismiss this Wendell Cox and he may well be deserving of such disdain. i wouldn't know him if I ran over him in a high-speed train.

But proponents lock in on $35, 37 bil. - we've different estimates even here - as though that number were gospel. But given the performance of every single recent large California transportation project, the notion that HSR is going to come in anywhere near budget is, at best, naive.

[DJM19]

Its only an assumption that a phase two would not be built. You can assume it wont, but dont state it as fact

[william]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Its only an assumption that a phase two would not be built. You can assume it wont, but dont state it as fact

You haven't really been paying attention now have you....

[DJM19]

Im just saying, if thats going to be our mentality from now on, we will never get anything big done and will never have ambitious projects.

[william]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Im just saying, if thats going to be our mentality from now on, we will never get anything big done and will never have ambitious projects.

Read this whole thread to see why some of us doubt that what is laughingly referred to as "Phase 2" will ever be built.

HSR supporters need to rethink their approach. I believe most Californians want HSR, but in its present form, passage is unlikely. They'll probably only get one shot at this. If they blow it, they can't say they weren't warned and have only themselves to blame for no HSR in California.

[JJC50]

the bullet train idea seems to be very strong in the fresno and bakersfield and palmdale and such, but I guess California's big metro's don't really see the advantage. heh, whatever, I think we should look at Japan and how the thing works over, successful or what.

I really doubt his thing will ever get started. Just to expensive and not important to the California areas that matter.

[bmfarley]

I will claim that the $34b or $37b cited here or elsewhere is not burned into the conciousness of the California voters. Therefore, CHSR is not set up for criticism as some have forwrded here.

Further, the counter argument is already out there... build it now or the cost will keep increasing due to annual increases in the construction costs. And, we only have ourselves to blame for any delay.