![]() |
Excellent question, anyone know?
|
Does anyone know if there is a construction schedule posted somewhere that shows the estimated completion dates of the various segments?
I'm especially interested in the Murrieta station. Is construction scheduled to begin this decade? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
We need to fast-track this process. Southern California may not survive to 2026 without high-speed trains. |
Quote:
|
Why is everyone freaking out? We'll just pay for the full system with the future funds generated by the California 2022 FIFA World Cup!! OK well maybe not, but that'd be sick though.
|
Rail officials eye airport (Burbank Leader)
[B]Rail officials eye airport[/B]
Transportation authority is considering a station at Bob Hope. By Zain Shauk May 22, 2010 http://www.burbankleader.com/news/bl...,1457681.story High-speed rail representatives are strongly considering a stop near Bob Hope Airport as the sole San Fernando Valley station for the planned 800-mile system, local officials said. Rail representatives early this year expressed a preference for station options in Burbank along the San Fernando Road corridor, either in the city's downtown area or near Glendale, on Alameda Avenue. But after hearing public concerns about connectivity to the airport, the authority is instead considering a stop near Bob Hope, at Hollywood Way, said David Kriske, Burbank's principal transportation planner. "We're still kind of evaluating what that means for us," Kriske said. Authority representatives have also reacted to local concerns about station locations with a plan to choose one stop in the San Fernando Valley, rather than two, as was previously discussed, said Jano Baghdanian, Glendale's traffic and transportation administrator…. |
Interesting! It seems to say that the DT Glendale and Burbank crowd plus anyone coming from Santa Clarita to take HSR from Sylmar is not worth worrying about.
Conversely, a non-stop connection from DT to Burbank Airport makes the air trip from DT LA to the Bay Area or LV or other air destinations even quicker. It means you can run the HSR as far as Palmdale, get a great regional system, and then end it (even though I’m sure this isn’t what HSR has in mind). It's a shame they won't tunnel over to the airport itself and make seemless connections. I guess the DT Burbank and Glendale stops can be handled by local transit (trolley?) or left as is. |
Quote:
Quote:
:dancingbacon :dancingbacon :dancingbacon |
Great news! This was mentioned later in the article:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is a huge step forward though. It seems dramatic progress in new service and improved existing service nationwide could come from this. Excellent news! Made my Saturday! |
Time to change the map on high speed rail?
06/29/2010 By Thomas D. Elias http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...ticle_logo.gif Read More: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_154062...nclick_check=1 Quote:
|
A good addition to the discussion. This article addresses the two issues that will kill HSR if not dealt with: cost and local opposition.
The idea to avoid the Peninsula makes a lot of sense: it isn't wanted and isn't needed (Caltrain already has a very good rail service). The idea of coming into East Bay (say, Hayward, which has rail and BART connections) also makes a lot of sense. Not only is East Bay much more populated than SF, but it is well suited for connections to SJ, SF and the Pleasanton-Walnut Creek-Concord corridor, which is large and growing rapidly. Personally, I would cut out the Central Valley for the first go-round and see how it fills in before building there. But this approach is also interesting. |
We've been over this before a hundred times. The East Bay route is not easier (you think they'd really be ok with it coming through their backyard if it were actually being discussed?) and the idea that a route not reaching SF or LA wins a STATEWIDE proposition is laughable. Political feasibility is not a important factor in determining the scope of a project like this, it's THE important factor. Must be a slow day at the Merc.
|
Here's Robert Cruickshank's discussion of this from the CA HSR Blog.
Why High Speed Rail Should Remain At High Speed http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/06/why...at-high-speed/ |
High-speed rail ridership estimate doubted
July 2, 2010 Michael Cabanatuan Read More: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BA051E8DR3.DTL Quote:
|
Atherton resident Meg Whitman not too keen on bullet train (Sacramento Bee)
Another reason not to vote for eMeg.
Atherton resident Meg Whitman not too keen on bullet train Jul. 9, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 3A Sacramento Bee http://www.sacbee.com/2010/07/09/287...ident-meg.html Five cities on the San Francisco Peninsula have called for suspending planning for the state's high-speed train project until environmental and economic issues are resolved. The California High-Speed Rail Authority's proposed route runs from San Francisco to San Jose down the peninsula, where affluent communities have become a hotbed of opposition. Menlo Park Mayor Richard Cline, chairman of the Peninsula Cities Consortium, has complained that the authority is rushing to complete a route plan and draft environmental impact report so that construction can start by September 2012 in order to qualify the state for $2.25 billion in federal funds. The consortium's demand follows a report by the University of California's Institute of Transportation Studies that's highly critical of the authority's projections of ridership on the bullet train, which would link Northern and Southern California. Besides Menlo Park, the consortium includes Palo Alto, Burlingame, Belmont and Atherton. And what is Atherton resident Meg Whitman's take on the project? "Meg believes the state cannot afford the costs associated with high-speed rail due to our current fiscal crisis," said the Republican gubernatorial candidate's spokeswoman Sarah Pompei in an e-mailed statement. – Dan Walters and Micaela Massimino |
If we use her logic, wouldn't that mean that this project would NEVER get built?
|
There's a reason she and Dick Cheney are as thick as thieves.
|
High-speed train would create equivalent of 50,000 one-year construction jobs -LV Sun
High-speed train would create equivalent of 50,000 one-year construction jobs
Most permanent jobs would be based in Victorville, Calif. http://photos.lasvegassun.com/media/...b3328710e01e7b A model of a proposed Las Vegas station is displayed during a news conference for the DesertXpress high-speed rail project Thursday, March 25, 2010. By Richard N. Velotta Friday, July 23, 2010 When the DesertXpress high-speed train is built, there would be up to 700 permanent jobs at an operations and maintenance facility — in Victorville, Calif. Tom Stone, president of DesertXpress Enterprises LLC, told representatives of the Associated General Contractors at a lunch Thursday that building the privately funded, $4 billion traditional high-speed rail system would create 50,000 person-year construction jobs over the four-year design and construction period expected to begin late this year. Translated, 50,000 person-year jobs is the equivalent of 50,000 people working for a full year. The statistic illustrates the vast number and diverse types of jobs — planners, architects, draftsmen, engineers, construction workers, electricians and other specialists — that will be created over the course of the project. But the bulk of the permanent operations jobs would be in Victorville, the southern terminus of 185-mile double-track system. Stone said the decision to build the primary maintenance facility, which would include an operations control center, a train-washing facility, repair shop, parts storage, track storage, meeting rooms and administrative offices, was based on the availability of a 200 acre-plus, narrow piece of land in California.... http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...ent-50000-con/ |
can someone tell me the top speed and average cruising speed of the proposals?
|
According to the DesertXpress website, the top speed is 150 mph.
http://www.desertxpress.com/technology.php |
^And the CAHSR project (not discussed in the article above, but in the rest of the thread) is a 220mph top speed project. I don't know what the average speed will be.
|
Top speeds usually mean what it's capable of travelling, they rarely get up to top speed. When you take in gradients, turns and urban areas, tunnels and so on, which all reduce speed even with advanced engineering.
That's why I was asking what average speeds will be. |
^Understood. 220mph is the planned operational top speed of the CAHSR system, which it will cruise at in the Central Valley. Once it enters the mountainous areas around the Bay Area and LA area, speeds will be lower. I have no idea what top speed capability will be, because the trains haven't been chosen yet, but with a 220mph operational top speed advertised, I would assume that the trains will be capable of much, much higher in closed environments.
|
Well this is almost entirely running through desert, so I don't see how they would have too many variables that would drive the average speed down. I'm quite surprised because of this they aren't shooting for CAHSR's goal of 220 mph for the DesertXpress program. Seems like the faster, the better. Am I wrong?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I really want this project to become a reality. It may not be very beneficial in the next few years, but believe this project will be great success in the future,
|
Quote:
Furthermore, would an airline employ this strategy? |
Quote:
|
Regardless of lease or own, you know the point I'm trying to make.
|
At least the maglev project is obtaining the FEIR and searching for funding for their WHOLE project (despite the fact that it, too, will be built in sections), while DesertXpress has considered the initial Victorville-Las Vegas leg and the Palmdale extension 2 separate projects.
|
Most Californians want bullet trains, state poll finds
Quote:
|
The rest of the article notes that this was a loaded, for-hire poll that played up the advantages of HSR before the respondents answered. It is part of an $8.5M PR campaign funded by HSR.
The opponents noted this is shockingly low for a "push poll" which is intended to give overwhelming support for a proposal. Nice to see where our HSR money is really going. |
California will ask feds for up to $1 billion for high-speed rail (SJ Mercury)
I thought there would be a high speed rail station directly at SFO, not requiring a transfer on BART, as mentioned below.
By opposing high speed rail, eMeg would rather have the state pass up this much-needed money that would create thousands of good jobs, improve mobility for CA residents, and reduce emissions. Meg Whitman can spend a $100M to try to buy the election this November but she is wrong on the issues. Hopefully voters will not be fooled. California will ask feds for up to $1 billion for high-speed rail By Mike Rosenberg San Mateo County Times Posted: 07/30/2010 10:18:02 PM PDT "The state will ask the federal government for $700 million to $1 billion to help build a California high-speed railroad, including cash for projects in the Bay Area. The California High-Speed Rail Authority said Friday the application will include funds to electrify the planned railroad from San Francisco to San Jose along the Caltrain corridor. It also requests money to build a high-speed train station in Millbrae, where passengers could transfer to BART to reach San Francisco International Airport. The application also includes projects in the Central Valley and Los Angeles. The Obama administration made $2.3 billion available in the budget this year for states to plan and construct high-speed train systems. The rail authority and Caltrans will finalize the amount of the state's request before Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger submits an application to the U.S. Department of Transportation next week... http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...nclick_check=1 |
I'm all for the Federal government helping California build it's planned HSR network, but I'm not necessarily for California consuming half the Federal rail capital building budget every year.....
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Here's a chart showing spending from the Recovery Act: http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Electricron, as long as we have unfinished systems, it will be considered "wasteful spending" by a certain political party.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Some pretty interesting points. A couple of comments:
The stimulus package was an almost complete waste of money. Essentially no effect since the public (quite rightly) is too scared of what the government might do next to start spending any money they earn. The biggest US companies and I have one thing in common: we are hanging on to our cash until the next election restores some fiscal rationality and a consistent economic policy. That's just about all a government needs to do. Having said that, large projects would have made even less sense since the idea of the stimulus (erroneous as it was) was to pump money into many places very quickly so as to stimulate current spending. Large localized projects don't accomplish that. Tax cuts tend to go to a mixture of reduction of debt (which is net saving) and spending. This is likely to translate in stronger long-term growth. One could argue that this was a last ditch effort to bring the US back to world competitiveness instead of encouraging spending and paying for it with debt, which certainly hurts the long-term economic welfare. |
Quote:
Leaving aside Obama vs. the Republicans, I seriously doubt you can cite a single example of tax cuts reducing debt (unless other taxes have also been raised). I also seriously doubt that U.S. companies are going to hold onto cash for years rather than make investments now soley due to an Administration. Lack of investment now has been primarily due to 1) lack of lending liquidity brought on by the collapse of the financial system brought on by excessive liquidity and a lack of oversight, all of which was brought on by BOTH Bush and Clinton policies and 2) a complete lack of certainty over if and when the economy will recover, a question that is still up in the air not because of Obama, whose policies as they are in effect currently aren't materially different from Bush's, but because of item 1) and, partly, the national debt which will REQUIRE either an increase in taxes to balance or a default (real or virtual). Of the two, a tax increase is - by far - the better choice. The debt is no more Obama's than it is Bush's or Clinton's. It is cumulative and responsiblity for it is shared by every Administration and Congress since at least Nixon. Any party that attempts to pin the responsibility on the other instead of facing the music and doing what needs to be done is appallingly irresponsible. When debt hits 120% of GDP sometime this decade, we would no only have to stop adding to it, but to "grow" out of it back to a 40% level, we would have to not add to it and grow at 5% annually for about 15 years. Could that happen? Maybe, but it's highly unlikely that we could BOTH grow that fast AND keep our hands off the deficit button, no matter which party is in power. If we also ratchet down immigration at the same time (which, at times, both sides seem to favor), the chances of that sort of growth is even lower. So quit supporting blowhards who try and blame all the evils on this administration or the last one, and start supporting people who actually support realistic policy. Which will, unfortunately, include tax hikes. |
pesto:
Quote:
As noted this morning by Fareed Zakaria in today's (Monday) Washington Post, Clinton raised taxes on the wealthiest households in the early 1990s and this was followed by a decade of very robust growth. Bush enacted massive tax cuts the last decade and we had sluggish growth, at best. Far more effective for stimulating economic growth is aid to state/local govts so they don't have to lay off employees (police, firefighters, teachers), extending assistance for the unemployed (who will spend nearly all of the assistance they receive, putting this money back into the economy, and yes, public works/infrastructure projects. |
Cities, residents voicing concerns about possible high speed route line along 10 Free
Cities, residents voicing concerns about possible high speed route line along 10 Freeway
By Dan Abendschein Staff Writer Posted: 08/04/2010 Pasadena Star-News http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...5-RAIl_500.jpg Rosemead council member, Sandra Armenta, center, with neighbors and a map of the affected area at Olney street and Lashbrook Ave. along the 10 Freeway corridor where commercial businesses and residential homes could be torn down due to the construction of the California High Speed Rail project on Wednesday, August 4, 2010 in Rosemead. (SGVN/Staff Photo by Keith Birmingham/SXCITY) "Some cities in the path of a proposed high speed rail line through the San Gabriel Valley are lining up against the project's potential to displace homes and businesses. Rosemead earlier this year passed a resolution opposing any route that would displace property owners, while Alhambra city officials are scheduled to meet Monday to discuss the project. Officials will consider a resolution opposing a route along surface streets. Covina City Manager Daryl Parrish said he also has concerns about the proposed routes. The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, meanwhile, is set to vote next Wednesday on a motion to oppose a surface route for the project. "The bottom line is that everybody needs to be informed," said Rosemead City Councilwoman Sandra Armenta, whose home is in one of the areas under consideration for the proposed route. Armenta, who has lived in her home for 32 years, said most of her neighbors no nothing about the rail project. "They are painting this picture that everybody is in support of this. But people don't even know it could affect them," she said..." http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_15678540 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 6:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.