|
California High Speed Rail Thread
Incredibly, I don't think a thread was ever started for CAHSR. It's past time so here it is.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...sr_map.svg.png Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cahsr_map.svg California High Speed Rail Authority web site (many interactive features, renderings, videos and other goodies): http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Lots of issues here.
But focusing on the Chinese "financing", the last I heard the Chinese were demanding federal guarantees before putting a nickel in which makes it US taxpayer financing. I would be very favorably impressed if they really put their own money in since this means that they believe the system might make economic sense. Otherwise, they are in it for the construction related profits and will let others take the risk. |
really there's no thread? just in the local section? i guess we spend too much time hating on las vegas and florida. now we all can hate on cali too. ;)
i saw that article in the times. i know china has tons of money lying around and would LOVE to invest it in something like this, but id rather ride a japanese or french train than a chinese one. im not sure if jr or sncf have 12 billion dollars lying around though. |
Quote:
|
Northbay: you're right, my mistake. It could be the same terms, but that was a different proposal.
|
the california high speed rail authority came out with some long awaited press releases today:
"Press Release: Alternatives outlined for key segments of high-speed rail. Public helps shape San Francisco-San Jose, Fresno-Merced project." http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ne...inal-40810.pdf "Press Release: California High-Speed Rail Authority approves further study of shared track alternative for Los Angeles to Anaheim section" http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ne...Release-LA.pdf these documents were taken from the ca hsra website: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ so will this satisfy people in the oc and on the pennisula? many were expecting a final decision (to elevate or dig?) to be made today, but i don't think that's coming till fall at the earliest. |
^One great piece of news today was officially discarding the Beale St. option for the SF terminus. Never saw how that would fly with all the property that would require eminent domain and demolition.
|
more news on the norcal segments everyone is so worked up about:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Lot of second guessing going on. |
PR for the CHSRA has been a disaster so far ("so far" being 10+ years now).
The Authority didn't "fail to account for inflation." The $33.6 billion number is year of bond passage dollars (2008). The $42.6 is year of expenditure dollars (with amounts spent from 2008-2020 or so). Neither is more honest or dishonest than the other, they're simply different numbers. The only reason that year of expenditure dollars were released was that it was a requirement for receiving stimulus dollars. The fact that the Authority has never come out and fully explained this themselves is ridiculous. Along the same lines, the $105 ticket is nothing more than an estimate of where airline ticket prices will be at the start of operation. The REAL PRICES being discussed are percentages - HSR prices will be set based upon a set percentage of air prices. Of course, this could change, but under the way that the business plan is written now, there is no chance at all that HSR will be priced higher than airlines - but the prices could be $30 or $300 depending on where plane tickets are. |
Quote:
|
The reviews are important because it's hard to take their estimates seriously any more. I don't know the specifics of who's reviewing, but the institutions involved strike me as potentially having conflicts of interest. Somewhere out of state and with no past connections would be ideal.
I notice also that Buena Park has joined the list of cities looking for re-routing and mitigation. Apparently eminent domain was an issue there as it was on the Peninsula. |
Quote:
|
This reeks of NIMBYism, and the stench is overwhelming...
Aaron (Glowrock) |
Quote:
|
^Pretty terrible reporting too. Including statements like this:
Quote:
"Should have resulted in a reevaluation of other alternatives" - ???? Why, exactly? Because the dude she interviewed says so? She couldn't interview the other side or possibly look at what the court said last summer when all of the requests for other alternatives were clearly thrown out, and perhaps mention that? |
:previous: I think you're being a little harsh. The article is just reporting about these letters the Peninsula cities are sending. The "Should have resulted in a reevaluation of other alternatives" bit is what one of the letters says. It's not up to the reporter to explain the logic (or lack of logic) of the city.
|
Quote:
She does go into a little bit of detail with other parts, but completely leaves out the fact that the judge dismissed every single one of the complaints regarding the peninsula section of track. If I were reading the article without knowing more, I would certainly assume that part of the EIR being revised dealt with the peninsula section. |
High-Speed Rail: Transit Solution or Fiscal Disaster? (Governing, May 2010)
High-Speed Rail: Transit Solution or Fiscal Disaster?
California is racing to build an ambitious high-speed rail system. Some cities think it should slow down. By Josh Goodman May 2010 Governing http://www.governing.com/article/hig...iscal-disaster Though Palo Alto, Calif.-a city of 60,000 people in Silicon Valley that is home to Stanford University-is clearly not a tall stick, that is literally what "Palo Alto" means in Spanish. Most likely the city's strange name comes from El Palo Alto, which is a tall stick or, more precisely, a famous redwood tree. El Palo Alto is an old stick too. The tree is 1,070 years old, give or take a few years. It's a historic landmark and the inspiration for Stanford's popular tree mascot. But in a few years, it might be dead. El Palo Alto's possible killer isn't old age. It's high-speed rail. The tree stands just a few feet from train tracks where, if all goes as planned, trains will be whizzing by at more than 100 mph within a decade. Rail officials are aware of El Palo Alto's significance and are hopeful they can design the track to avoid doing any harm. Dave Dockter, an arborist and environmental planner for Palo Alto, is skeptical. "It's inconceivable," he says, "that you could do this without really serious risks to the tree." As California advances with what is easily the nation's most ambitious high-speed rail project-and, Californians say, the largest public works project in the United States' history-El Palo Alto's uncertain fate is just one hint of the complexities of building 800 miles of new infrastructure in a heavily developed, densely populated state. How does a state pay for such a system? Who operates it? Where do you put the tracks and stations? And how do you minimize disruptions to the environment and to communities that suddenly will have trains speeding through them at up to 220 mph? With all the enthusiasm for high-speed rail in Washington, D.C., it would be easy to miss that California does not yet have answers to all of these questions. What's more, answers the state does have are making many people unhappy-nowhere more so than in Palo Alto. The United States may be on the cusp of a high-speed rail renaissance, but if that's going to happen, California must make all the right moves over the next decade. The federal stimulus package included billions in grants to states to build high-speed rail-or at least higher-speed rail. In reality, most of the money will fund things like additional tracks, upgraded signaling systems and improved grade crossings. Trains will travel somewhat faster, but they won't be anything close to high-speed by international standards. When California officials talk about building high-speed rail, they actually mean it. The plan is to build a system that stretches from San Francisco and Sacramento to San Diego that's serviced by true bullet trains, similar to those in Europe and Asia. Top speeds would be 70 mph faster than the top speed of Amtrak's Washington to Boston service-at 150 mph, it's the fastest train in the United States today. California is also different from other states in that it's been seriously contemplating high-speed rail-and arguing about it-for 15 years. Proponents advocate for high-speed rail as an environmentally friendly way to relieve congestion from clogged highways and airports. Opponents cast it as a costly boondoggle. In 2008, the proponents won a major victory. After years of delays, California voters approved a ballot measure to authorize $9 billion in bonds to build the system. That commitment helped California win $2.25 billion in stimulus funding for high-speed rail, easily the highest share of any state. But the stimulus funds come with a deadline: Construction must begin by September 2012. In other words, if high-speed rail is going to happen in California, it must happen soon. With its transit-friendly Bay Area sensibilities, Palo Alto is the sort of place where high-speed rail would be expected to find friends. And for a time, it did. The City Council voted unanimously to endorse the ballot measure in 2008. At the polls, Palo Altans supported it by a 2-1 margin. But during a Palo Alto City Council meeting in March, it was evident how much the mood has changed. The debate was between members who said Palo Alto should oppose high-speed rail unless it takes the form of a tunnel, and others who said even a tunnel might not be acceptable. Ultimately with council members still awaiting more detailed plans from the state, nothing was decided-yet. The reversal from Palo Alto's council reflects the difficulty in making high-speed rail a reality. A 220 mph train can't go just anywhere; it can't intersect any road, or easily share track with slower freight trains or conventional passenger trains. It needs a dedicated right of way that is straight and flat to maintain its speed. In practice, that means high-speed rail tracks in California will have to follow the routes of either highways or existing rail lines. Barring a last-minute reversal, high-speed rail will follow the route of Caltrain, the region's commuter rail service, from San Jose to San Francisco. That will take it straight through Palo Alto. Adjacent to the track is Palo Alto High School, as well as parks and neighborhoods with funky one-story homes designed by renowned modernist architect Joseph Eichler. Then there's El Palo Alto. At only 110 feet tall, El Palo Alto is downright diminutive compared to California's giant sequoias. But in old photos, it towers over the landscape. It survived the arrival of the locomotive, which puffed it with soot. It survived the tapping of its water table, which sickened it for several decades. And it survived Stanford students racing to climb it once a year-a tradition suspended in 1909 when a student got stuck. Today with careful management, including a pipe running up its trunk that serves as a personal sprinkler system, the tree's health is improving. Dockter, the arborist, says it could survive another 100 to 300 years-if it didn't have to cope with high-speed rail. "My wife and I voted for it too," he says. No one knows for sure how high-speed rail would affect Palo Alto's schools, homes, roads, parks and trees. One major question is what form the tracks will take. The trains might run in a tunnel or a trench, or they could run at ground level, with roads burrowing underneath. Or there's the option that the people of Palo Alto like least: an elevated track. In April, the California High-Speed Rail Authority presented alternatives on what form the track will take from San Francisco to San Jose. Acknowledging community opposition, the authority ruled out a track on top of a berm in Palo Alto-essentially a wall. Other below-ground, at-grade and elevated options remain under consideration. Tony Carrasco, a local architect, wants to bury both Caltrain and the high-speed rail underground. In its place would be a new greenway that would help connect Palo Alto's extensive network of parks. The train tracks, one of the few impediments to Palo Alto as a walkable, bikable place, would be gone. But tunnels are expensive, and Carrasco's vision may be ignored. "The high-speed rail board is charged with the task of getting this rail line done," Carrasco says. "They're not charged with the task of making the community better." That's what worries Palo Altans. They're concerned that noise and vibrations from the trains will affect their quality of life and reduce their property values. The noise will be hard to avoid: Thanks to a temperate climate, some homes' only air conditioning is an open window. Of course, before the trains arrive, the track must be built. The Caltrain right-of-way through Palo Alto squeezes to less than 75 feet wide at some places. The track configuration the authority chooses will affect just how wide the right of way needs to be for high-speed rail. But it seems likely that some homes will need to come down, especially since temporary "shoo-fly" tracks may have to be installed to allow Caltrain to keep operating while construction takes place. Opposition in Palo Alto and surrounding communities isn't unanimous. Unions are eager for the construction jobs, and many business groups hope it would enable upgrades to Caltrain allowing it to travel faster, with speeds of more than 100 mph. Still, the concern over high-speed rail is hard to overstate. When authority representatives visited Palo Alto recently, they were greeted by a crowd of 500 people, and the meeting lasted more than five hours. For their part, authority officials say they're willing to work with anyone who will accept high-speed rail. "We take all of those concerns very seriously," says Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle, who chairs the authority, "but there's very little we can do if someone starts out by saying, 'We don't want a high-speed train at all.'" In response to critics in Palo Alto and elsewhere, supporters also say, "Where have you been?" "We would oftentimes ask for meetings with city government and have a hard time getting people's attention," says Jeff Barker, the authority's deputy director, "because people didn't think it was real." Barker acknowledges that, with two years until they break ground, he doesn't have all the answers yet. There's a less charitable response that no one with the authority would say, but that serves as tense subtext to the whole debate: Palo Altans only care about what's happening in their backyards. After all, if high-speed rail lives up to its promise, it will move tens of millions of people each year, create tens of thousands of jobs, help relieve congestion, clean the environment and spur economic growth. With benefits that big, does it really matter if a few homes must be removed and some other residents have to deal with a little more noise? Or that the view in one city isn't as nice and that traffic doesn't flow quite as smoothly? Or if one old tree must be sacrificed? But there are a few reasons the critics in Palo Alto can't be dismissed so easily. For one thing, in some sense, it doesn't matter whether they're right or wrong. Local opposition could stall the project regardless. To some extent, it already is. In 2008, Menlo Park and Atherton, two nearby cities, launched a lawsuit against the authority, claiming that the chosen path of high-speed rail up the San Francisco Peninsula was based on faulty environmental reviews. The cities preferred a route that would take high-speed rail through the East Bay, avoiding their cities. In 2009, Palo Alto supported that position in court. The court ruled that the authority had to redo some environmental analysis, but the route appears unlikely to change. The suit in Menlo Park and Atherton suggests another reason why critics in Palo Alto can't be ignored: They're not alone. Burlingame and San Jose also are worried about elevated tracks. Buena Park, near Anaheim, is worried that a commuter rail station or adjacent developments will be torn down to make room for high-speed rail. Farmers in the Central Valley wonder whether vibrations from the train will knock almonds off their trees. All of this is quite familiar to anyone who's ever been involved in a major building project, whether it's a new airport, road, ballpark or Wal-Mart. Residents worry about noise and how new development will affect their quality of life. Sometimes they sue. What's different about high-speed rail in California is the scale. The state will make hundreds of interdependent design decisions that must work from an engineering standpoint and pass legal muster. In effect, California is testing whether the most mega of mega-projects can succeed in today's fiscal, legal and political context. Success certainly won't be easy. While Palo Altans are worried about their own backyards, they're also voicing much bigger concerns-concerns that are shared by many others, including key legislators in Sacramento. First, there's the question of paying for the system. Estimates peg the cost of building the initial San Francisco to Anaheim section at $42.6 billion. So far, the authority has about $11 billion from the California bonding measure and the federal stimulus. This is an impressive start. There's no way California could attract private investment without this upfront public commitment. But cost estimates already have increased. What if they increase again? The authority's business plan counts on $17 billion to $19 billion in federal funding and $10 billion to $12 billion in private funding. The stimulus package only had $8 billion for high-speed rail for the entire country. If Congress doesn't provide recurring funding for high-speed rail, the project's budget will a have giant hole. It's a hole that California-the nation's most fiscally troubled state-is uniquely unqualified to fill. "They don't appear to have the dollars to do the $43 billion of construction that they're estimating," says Palo Alto Mayor Pat Burt, "and $43 billion appears to be severely below what it will really cost. They're two giant steps away from reality." Another question is ridership. A series of trade-offs will influence how many people ride the trains. The more stations that are built, the more places trains can pick up riders. But stopping frequently slows high-speed rail down. Likewise, lower fares would mean higher ridership, which would relieve more train and plane congestion. But up to a point, higher fares would generate more revenue for the system. The authority's most recent business plan floated the idea of train fares at $104.75 from San Francisco to Los Angeles-or 83 percent of a plane trip's projected cost, instead of the 50 percent in its previous report. For ridership, that difference is huge: The authority projects 58 million riders with the 50 percent level in 2035. At 83 percent, it drops to 41 million. Critics contend that the projections are unrealistic. Everyone agrees ridership estimates are, at this point, informed speculation at best. But how do you design a rail system if you don't know how many people will ride it? "It drives everything-how many tracks, how many parking spots, how many everything," says Nadia Naik, co-founder of Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design, a Palo Alto-based group that has pushed for more disclosure from the authority. Ultimately Palo Altans worry that their homes will be razed to build capacity the system won't end up needing. All of these obstacles would be difficult enough if the authority had complete flexibility to execute the project. But it doesn't. In addition to the 2012 deadline to begin construction under the stimulus, the 2008 ballot measures included two key requirements: Trains must run between Los Angeles and San Francisco in two hours and 40 minutes or less, and the state isn't allowed to pay an operating subsidy for the system. It must at least break even. The optimistic view is that these rules will help keep the project focused on key goals. "Of course they tie your hands, but they also create the parameters in which you operate," Pringle says. The less optimistic view is that the mandates are one reason the doomsday question is unavoidable: Will high-speed rail ever be built in California? It turns out the authority has addressed that question explicitly. On orders from the Legislature, its most recent business plan included a section titled, "Risks That Could Jeopardize Project Completion." The section reads like a road map for what could prevent high-speed rail from becoming a reality. Federal funding could fail to materialize. Low ridership projections could drive away private investment. Political support could crumble. The project could fail to meet environmental standards or could get tied up in courts. Construction problems could leave the authority short on cash to complete the system. Burt, Palo Alto's mayor, worries the system won't be built, citing costs. "Once it gets over $50 [billion] to $60 billion," he says, "we think there'll have to be a 'come to God' on why we are spending all this money on a plan that can't conceivably be funded." But he also worries that the system will be built. "Our fear," he says, "is that [the authority] is planning to do what's called the 'stake-in-the-ground' strategy, which is that you get something partly built and so much money spent that they can't back out because they've already put so much money into it. Somebody somehow has to come up with tens of billions of dollars more." Burt's mantra is that he's for high-speed rail if it's done right. His fear is that signs point to high-speed rail being done wrong just to get the project completed one way or another. Authority officials think this view is awfully cynical for a project that, despite its lengthy conception, is in many ways just getting started. They acknowledge that the challenges are great, but feel that with trains not scheduled to start carrying passengers for a decade, they can overcome the obstacles. In fact, Barker, the authority's deputy director, has his own idea as to the project's biggest threat. "The biggest hurdle from a governing point of view is going to be public involvement," he says. What he means is that in places such as Palo Alto, the authority has lost the goodwill of local officials and residents. As a result, Barker says there've been many disagreements about process, but comparatively little discussion of substance: what high-speed rail should look like and how it can best serve California's people. Barker says it's essential that the authority make up for lost time by fostering a constructive, respectful dialog. Such a complicated, expensive endeavor will never succeed unless the people most affected by it are, by and large, on board. On this point, no one in Palo Alto would disagree. |
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr...-rail-20100430
Quote:
|
Slowly but surely, this proposal is dying...how sad.
|
Andd...the plan is taking hits, what do you know. California will be lucky if they get anything out of it all now.
|
What reallly pisses me off is that despite the passage of Prop1A, which allocated $10 Billion to the project, it still is being opposed.....
GOOD LORD I HATE NIMBYs..... |
oh well , at least we know the Northeast Corridor will be upgraded to speeds of 190mph and i know that nimby's in the Northeast are really low.:)
|
Hopefully this is the first step in reshaping HSR into something that makes sense. There never seemed to be any doubt that the economics didn't work and this is what led to the dramatic shifts. Hopefully one or two more good auditors can weed out the nonsense and figure what is salvagable.
Again, I would focus on the intra-regional (LA and Bay Area) sections; each of those areas has legitimate traffic issues already and each area expects substantial growth. Palmdale, IE, OC to DT LA should be quite heavily used if priced correctly. Since the Peninsula doesn't want the train, I would just upgrade the existing service, and focus on SJ-Oakland-Sacto, which has train connections but they are very slow and with multiple stops. Of course, these routes need to be audited for reasonable costs and ridership projections so that the amount of the losses expected can be budgeted for. |
Did I miss something? Nothing has changed with the project. A state auditor released a report, nothing more.
The Bay Bridge had several such reports showing that the price was likely to double or more - guess what? The auditor was wrong - the price ballooned by several times that. Guess what else? The bridge is still being built. Until there's an actual ballot initiative to kill the project, I don't understand why everyone's getting in a tissy about it being killed. We can talk about poor management or wasted money, but those things happen with projects (public and private) every day, everywhere. Doesn't mean that they don't get built. |
Gordo: the single most cynical post I have ever seen: "just because it doesn't make sense, doesn't mean we shouldn't build it; none of our projects make any sense!".
btw, any idea how the state got so broke? |
Quote:
BTW, I certainly don't think that the auditor's report showed that the project "doesn't make sense" - it simply showed that the authority has been poorly managed and that the total price of the project is likely to go up. Most folks would concede that the Bay Bridge still "makes sense" to build at $6 billion, even though the original price tag was $1 billion. |
Quote:
|
Damn, the new bridge's cost increased by 600%? Why?
|
Short-comings of the CHSRA can be fixed. Probably the biggest obstacle they have had is insufficient funding and inability or permission to increase staff. As a result, they have resorted to hiring consultants... whom must also be overseen.
I don't trust that the State auditor is qualified to understand and appropriately measure the effectiveness of the HSR program... and they seem to overlook that the entire plan was to build the system in operable segments... to assure that something usable is constructed should funding come in spits and spurts... as would be expected with a $40 billion project. They also overlook that CHSRA just was awarded $2.5 billion in Federal funds that were not originally planned... they are ahead of the game. |
Quote:
HSR, likewise, has had its cost misinterpreted in the media because cost is relevant to time. The longer we wait, the more it costs. |
Quote:
From the article I previously posted (you have to click on the link to read the whole article :) ) Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Hey, does anyone know if there's a reason the Caltrain and CAHSR trains won't be set up to share tracks when needed, eg to run an express Caltrain service? After the electrification is done, Caltrain trains won't have to be FRA compliant will they? So there shouldn't be a regulatory reason to keep them separate, should there?
|
Quote:
Everything would point to at least HSR trains using the Caltrain tracks at times (since it's likely some express trains will have to pass locals somewhere on the peninsula), so hopefully we'll see the reverse as well. |
Everything you ever wanted to know about CAHSR and Caltrain compatibility and inter-operation can be found at http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/
|
Quote:
I do agree very much with Pesto that working on the intraregional service before the backbone Initial Operating Segment is preferable, even though doing so may be less profitable in the short term. The car and highway problems are probably more immediate than the airplane issues. |
PI: thanks for the support. It's rare I get any.
I understand how much sexier SF-LA is, with images of Hollywood and the Golden Gate and bullet trains flying through the desert at 200 mph plus; and how mundane a commuter train from Palmdale sounds, even if it gets you DT in 27 min., which allows you to catch LRT to the westside, LB, etc., and still take under an hour. But the reality is that the major commuting freeways in LA (and the Bay) are choked now and will just get worse, and the LA-Bay routes generally move well and air service is wide-spread and reasonably priced. Even the regional pieces will take 10-15 years to implement and in the meantime we can see what new facts drive future builidng plans. |
^I would certainly welcome that approach being taken, and those areas being built first, but that would be nearly impossible politically. You have to face facts - ballot initiatives are the only way to fund things in California, and the only way to get enough money to build what you're talking about is to go statewide with an initiative framed like prop 1A was (which allowed 50%+1 to pass). Very unlikely that you'd get San Diego County or Riverside County to vote to pay for a train from LA to Palmdale. The Bay Area would be even more difficult - San Mateo or Marin County paying for high speed service connecting San Joaquin County to Santa Clara County? LOL. Only the "sexiness" of LA to SF (and the state-level, assembly-initiated tricks to make it a 50%+1 prop) make it remotely feasible politically.
You could possibly get something done in Southern California, because of the ginormous counties (and small number of them) that exist, but trying to put together anything in the 15+ counties of the Bay Area and Central Valley (Sac to Fresno)? Impossible. |
Prop. 1A was sold to people, though, with the prospect of the Sacramento and San Diego routes. I think it would be very easy to find the political will to establish two separate high-speed rail systems in the northern and southern parts of the state before a line is established through the Central Valley.
I think everyone recognizes the immediate need for better connectivity among San Francisco, San Jose, and Sacramento and among Anaheim, Los Angeles, Sylmar, San Bernardino, and San Diego. |
California can learn from Japan's Shinkansen (SF Chronicle)
California can learn from Japan's Shinkansen
Michael Cabanatuan Sunday, May 9, 2010 San Francisco Chronicle http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...9031_part6.jpg A Shinkansen high-speed train approaches a station in Tokyo. They arrive and depart every three to four minutes. In a conference room in the Central Japan Railway Co.'s high-rise headquarters, Kenji Hagihara, a public relations manager, pauses in his telling of the story of Japan's high-speed rail system and glances at a calendar on the wall. "By the way," he says, nonchalantly, "yesterday was the 45th anniversary of the Shinkansen." http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...0501569119.jpg A Shinkansen high-speed train awaits maintenance in the East Japan Railway Rolling Stock Center. While California's plans to build high-speed rail agonizingly inch forward, attracting federal funding and support as well as increasing opposition from communities concerned about noise and critics who question its financing, in Japan, the world's premier high-speed rail system offers a glimpse at how high-speed rail could change communities, cope with the challenges of noise and earthquakes, and become a part of everyday culture. The Shinkansen, as the speedy train network is known in Japan, is not considered futuristic, fancy or for the elite, as some critics of California's high-speed rail plans have scoffed. Rather, it's part of the fabric of daily life, something not so much taken for granted as relied upon. The sleek trains - better known outside Japan as bullet trains - shoot through much of the nation almost unnoticed every few minutes, efficiently hauling more than 300 million riders per year. The world's first high-speed rail line, the Shinkansen opened in 1964, just in time for the Tokyo Olympics, with a single line between Tokyo and Osaka. It was like nothing the world had seen, with dedicated tracks and a train that ran at speeds of 130 mph. http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/20...0501568756.jpg The bullet train's cars feature comfortable seats, plenty of legroom and windows to watch the scenery speeding by. Japan's rail culture Today, the Shinkansen, which means "new trunk line" in Japanese, covers about 1,400 miles on five lines. Another 400 miles of extensions are under construction and 300 miles are planned. Three private rail companies run the trains at speeds up to 186 mph on tracks built and maintained by the national government. Japan's high-speed trains run with an efficiency, frequency and reliability unimaginable to those familiar with Amtrak or U.S. commuter railroads. The sleek trains with the distinctive long noses depart as often as 14 times an hour - and they're almost always on time. Over the past 45 years, the average delay is less than one minute - and that includes stoppages because of floods, earthquakes, accidents and natural disasters. Rail officials also note their safety record: There's never been a passenger fatality on the Shinkansen. "The Shinkansen is very fast, very comfortable - you can relax," said Soichiro Takeda, a marketing manager for a construction corporation, who rides it at least once a month. "And it's never late. Time is very sacred here." Commuters account for about 5 percent of riders, railway officials say, but the reclining airline-style seats (but with more legroom) are also filled with business travelers, families, students, shoppers, weekend adventurers and a few wide-eyed foreign tourists. But while Japan and the Shinkansen show the promise of high-speed rail to California, they also reveal the challenges. "Japan, especially Tokyo, is the epitome of rail culture," said Tomohiko Tanaguchi, a senior adviser for the Central Japan Railway, "and California, especially Los Angeles, is the epitome of car culture." Even before the Shinkansen's debut, Japan was a rail-oriented society. And the Shinkansen, now with five lines operating, remains just a small part of the nation's extensive rail infrastructure, which includes a subway system with 19 lines run by public and private operators. Other large cities have subway networks as well, and even smaller towns have rail lines that loop through the city. "You can get anywhere in (Tokyo) without a car, and around the country as well," said Jared Braiterman, a former San Franciscan studying sustainability in Japan as a research fellow. "Trains are coming every three to four minutes. The coverage is phenomenal; the efficiency is amazing." Challenge of urban planning California lacks such an extensive transit network, even in the Bay Area, and the tradition of traveling by train disappeared more than half a century ago, replaced by a culture of driving and flying. California doesn't have the same population density as Japan either, and it's only been a recent convert to building around transit stations. But that will probably change with high-speed rail, as it has in Japan. "Whether it can succeed (in California) totally depends on the development of the area around the stations," said Teruo Morita, general manager of East Japan Railway Co.'s international railway business division. The advent of the Shinkansen brought a population and business boom in many cities, and spurred others, like Kakegawa City, in the green tea-growing Shizuoka Prefecture, about 120 miles southwest of Tokyo, to lobby for stations of their own. Kakegawa, a city of 63,000, was dying like many American farm towns, with children heading off to college in Tokyo and never returning. A Shinkansen station, residents figured, would lure new businesses and would also allow people to commute to work in Tokyo. They reached a deal with the railway, raised $120 million for construction, including $30 million in donations from residents, and built a large town square in front of the station site. The station opened in 1988, and businesses and residents began moving to town. Multistory buildings rose around the station, rents increased and the city developed an industrial park filled mainly with tech businesses, and new residential areas. The population nearly doubled, along with tax revenues. Success at curbing noise Deputy Mayor Kimiharu Yamamoto believes the station saved Kakegawa City, and advises smaller cities to embrace high-speed rail. "If we didn't have any station, there would be no industrial park, no businesses," he said. "We would just be left alone as a farming town." High-speed trains don't just deliver prosperity, though. They also come with problems, and noise has been a primary concern, much as it is on the Peninsula where some residents and cities are fighting with the High-Speed Rail Authority. Japan has a national noise standard for the Shinkansen, limiting the noise it generates to 70 decibels in residential areas and 75 decibels in commercial districts. For comparison, a vacuum cleaner at 10 feet produces 70 dB, and a car passing 10 feet away measures 80 dB. To meet Japan's stringent standards, rail officials say, they use lightweight trains with sleek and sometimes odd-looking noses, design windows, doors and the spaces where cars connect to be as smooth and aerodynamic as possible, cover the wheels, and work to quiet the overhead electrical supply system, a major noise source. The railways also install sound-walls in some locations along the tracks, ranging from roughly 2 to 12 feet high, and they travel at reduced speeds in the densest areas. From beside the elevated tracks in the countryside, the Shinkansen is definitely noticeable as it whips past at top speed. But the low rumble and swishing sound it produces seems quieter than a passing BART train or Caltrain. There's no high-pitched screech or metallic roar, and no blaring horns. In urban areas, where the trains travel at lower speeds, the sound is mostly a muffled rumble. Built to survive quakes Japan also has experience in dealing with another California problem - earthquakes. The nation is as seismically unstable as California, and the Shinkansen is built to survive major temblors. While the system has been damaged in earthquakes, there has never been a death or injury on the Shinkansen caused by a quake. The Shinkansen employs an early warning system that officials at the Japan Railway Construction, Transport and Technology Agency say is unique. It detects the primary waves of an earthquake, which travel faster than the main shock waves, instantly calculates the intensity and location and potential damage, then, if the temblor seems serious, cuts off the electrical supply to trains in the region and automatically applies emergency brakes. "You need a mile, a couple of miles to stop," said Kazunari Kikuchi, special projects director for the agency. "Every second counts." Ready to build in California With its seismic sensibilities, its longevity and its reputation for punctuality and safety, Japan considers itself a good candidate to build California's high-speed train system. California's system is still deep in the planning stages with engineers and planners mapping out specific alignments and station sites and completing environmental studies. The High Speed Rail Authority has $9.95 billion in state bond funds and another $2.25 billion in federal high-speed rail money but needs to line up more private and public investment to pay for the $43 billion cost of the first phase between San Francisco and Southern California. Construction is expected to begin by 2012 with the first trains running in 2019. Japan, along with a number of other nations, has served as an adviser to the High-Speed Rail Authority and would like to bring the Shinkansen to America. "I have a strong dream that the Shinkansen bullet train will be running on the land of California some day," said Seiji Maehara, the minister of Land Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism. While the Japanese have plenty of advice for California about the system's design and operation, their overall message is simple: Build it. "California doesn't have any image of the benefits they will get," Kikuchi said. Chronicle staff writer Michael Cabanatuan visited Japan in the fall of 2009 on a fellowship provided by the Foreign Press Center, Japan. |
Back-seat Driver: Sacramento's off the bench in high-speed rail competition
By Tony Bizjak tbizjak@sacbee.com The Sacramento Bee Published: Monday, May. 10, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1B Some say California's bullet train is a dream that'll never happen or a bad idea that'll end up being a money pit. State voters, however, have given a thumbs up, approving $9 billion in seed money. And the feds just kicked in a few billion more. That's caused some in Sacramento – including Mayor Kevin Johnson – to begin pushing the case for fast trains to Sacramento. At the moment, Sacramento's bullet train ticket is stamped "second-class city." San Francisco and Los Angeles scored the good seats. The first high-speed rail line is planned to run between those two cities. Sacramento and San Diego would get service later, if the first line makes money, as projected in the state high-speed rail business plan. That's a huge if. The business plan's ridership numbers are being challenged in a new lawsuit. Meanwhile, Bay Area communities and advocacy groups are bickering over the S.F.-L.A. route. Some Sacramento leaders figure the moment is good to try to move this area up from caboose status. Last week, they took a step forward. The High Speed Rail Authority board agreed to study the feasibility of building a precursor system (call it a mini-bullet train) linking Sacramento, Stockton, Merced and Livermore. It would be electrified and have grade separations, allowing the state's high-speed rail trains eventually to share the line. "It whets the appetite," said Stacey Mortensen of the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission. Michael Faust of the Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce likes the creative thinking. He was among several last week who asked the state to make Sacramento part of phase one for the bigger system. But where's the money to build the regional line? How many will ride? Proponents say answers are a ways off. For now, Sacramento finally is stepping into the game. Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/10/273...#ixzz0ngrZKzSB |
:previous:
I'm glad you posted the above. I was going to post it tonight. Positives 1. I'm glad Sacramento's leaders are finally stepping-up. They have been absent regarding the subject far too long. 2. We all know once High Speed Rail gets going between LA and SF; it will be another 25yrs before they connect Sac to the network, so in the meantime, this Sac-Stk-Merced-Livermore ("SacMerMore") electric train gives us a better alternative other then relying on amtrak to connect us with Merced and therefore the whole High Speed Rail network. Negatives 1. If this "SacMerMore" electric train is successful then the High Speed Rail leaders may feel it isn't necessary to truly connect Downtown Sac with the network because the "SacMerMore" train is sufficient. 2. On the other hand, (you have five fingers), if the "SacMerMore" train is not successful then the High Speed Rail leaders may feel it isn't worth the cost to connect Downtown Sac. |
^ Another 25 years? C'mon, that's a stretch.
|
Quote:
|
Guns vs. butter
Factbox: A look at costs of Afghan war to U.S. taxpayers
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64914820100510 This is pretty amazing. The administration is seeking $33B to prop up the corrupt Hamid Karzai. High speed rail connecting the 7M people in the Bay Area with the 18M people in Southern California is expected to cost $43B. CA voters already approved $10B in state bond money in 2008. For the cost of this war supplemental, we could fund an infrastructure investment that will reduce our consumption of oil, make the US more competitive, and create good paying jobs for the hundreds of thousands of people out of work in CA. I don't mean to bash the Chinese but we have plenty of money to fight these wars but we have to beg China and other countries to fund our infrastructure? Some times you can't help but ask which is the developed country and which one is the developing country. |
So what happens if Meg Whitman becomes governor? She strikes me as someone who probably doesn't care all that much about transportation issues, other than her party's general pro-road stance. Is she different? Or will she come in and strip away state financial support for high speed rail?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 7:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev