SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   California High Speed Rail Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180558)

mr1138 Jul 12, 2012 8:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schwerve (Post 5763406)
They won't be running HSR trainsets upon completion of the initial central valley segment.

So what will they be running then? Traditional heavy rail passenger trains? If so, then what is the point of building HSR in the first place? Just to put the infrastructure in place for the future? Sorry, I guess I was jumping to some wild conclusions based on what I had seen when riding the Eurostar. I guess I stupidly assumed that stage one of this project would actually get some kind of practical use.

schwerve Jul 12, 2012 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr1138 (Post 5763438)
So what will they be running then?

The existing San Joaquin trainsets.

electricron Jul 12, 2012 9:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schwerve (Post 5763448)
The existing San Joaquin trainsets.

Which use F59PHI diesel locomotives with a maximum speed of 90 mph.
Really slow for a supposedly fast train.......

mr1138 Jul 12, 2012 9:36 PM

I see now... so those are the purple lines shown on the map posted above? Does this mean that there will be no nonstop service all the way south to L.A.? And what exactly are the "early investment corridors" for if the only running trains will use the routes shown in purple?

schwerve Jul 12, 2012 9:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr1138 (Post 5763570)
I see now... so those are the purple lines shown on the map posted above? Does this mean that there will be no nonstop service all the way south to L.A.? And what exactly are the "early investment corridors" for if the only running trains will use the routes shown in purple?

The purple lines are the existing services. Current funds will be used to upgrade existing services (Caltrain, Amtrak, Metrolink, etc) with future CAHSR infrastructure (electrification, new right-of-way, etc). No "CAHSR" train will exist upon completion of the initial construction.

jg6544 Jul 12, 2012 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto (Post 5763248)
If they would have built it just in LA or just in SF starting out, it would be nothing but a super commuter rail line. HSR is designed for trips over 100 miles and under 400 miles, not short suburb trips.

Both of those areas have rail lines. It makes much more sense to build in the middle with a temporary inconvenience of not making the entire trip by train until the system is completely built out instead of just starting out with another commuter line and then building another phase in the middle which would make no sense and then finally complete it.

Not to mention, the central valley was hit hard by unemployment.

And what is it the way they're beginning it now? Nothing unless you happen to want to travel between Bakersfield and Merced or wherever it goes. All they'e doing is deferring the most expensive construction to the end of the project.

jg6544 Jul 12, 2012 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRinSoCal (Post 5762582)
I don't understand how a bullet train can safely share tracks with slower trains. Can this really work and can it still be called HSR? Cus I'm assuming it will have to travel significantly slower in certain areas.

I don't know this for a fact, but I assume the HSR lines will be added in the existing right-of-way, so they'll share a right-of-way, but not the same tracks. Think of the major subway lines in NY with two express and two local tracks. I further assume that the HSR tracks will be for passenger trains only, while local trains will continue to compete with cargoes of tomatoes and whatever other kind of freight is being hauled.

It still would have made more sense to run the lines along the I-5 corridor.

electricron Jul 13, 2012 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5763655)
I don't know this for a fact, but I assume the HSR lines will be added in the existing right-of-way, so they'll share a right-of-way, but not the same tracks. Think of the major subway lines in NY with two express and two local tracks. I further assume that the HSR tracks will be for passenger trains only, while local trains will continue to compete with cargoes of tomatoes and whatever other kind of freight is being hauled.
It still would have made more sense to run the lines along the I-5 corridor.

Where the two type of trains can share tracks, CalTrain and Metrolink owned tracks, what you're suggesting, specifically triple or quadruple track line, could happen. But Caltrain will probably keep the double track line they already have, mainly just upgrading by electrifying it. I'm not sure what Metrolink in southern California is proposing. The sections of corridor not owned by commuter rail agencies, meaning owned by the freight railroads, CHSR will lay their own dedicated tracks parallel to, and not necessarily within the existing right of way. CHSR will probably have to buy any property they will use in the existing corridor, the freight railroads will not be giving that access away for nothing, they will want to be well paid. The FRA basically places a 150 mph speed limit on shared tracks. You'll need dedicated tracks to go faster.

CHSR will not be able to use eminent domain to buy that land from the freight railroads, as they fall under the jurisdiction of federal interstate commerce provisions that exempt them from local eminent domain laws. So the only land CHSR can use in the existing corridors are where the freight railroads are willing to sell or lease.

Additionally, CHSR where they plan to go over 90 to 110 mph, will not be able to use the existing corridors much, because they will want wider radius curves for the much higher train speeds. Freight railroad companies in America and California have laid few curves designed for higher speeds. Therefore, CHSR will probably buy property adjacent to the existing corridors, but not necessarily immediately adjacent.

jg6544 Jul 13, 2012 5:18 PM

I agree; I think the right-of-way will contain two existing tracks shared by freight and local passenger traffic and two more for HSR.

afiggatt Jul 13, 2012 8:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 5763548)
Which use F59PHI diesel locomotives with a maximum speed of 90 mph.
Really slow for a supposedly fast train.......

By the time, the CV segment is completed, CA should have some of the NextGen diesel locomotives which are to be capable of 125 mph speeds. The HSIPR grants are providing funds to buy around 33 new diesels for CA and the Midwest. Amtrak will could supply P-42s which are capable of 110 mph if they have too.

The current batch of Surfliner cars are rated for 110 mph max speeds, I think. The new NextGen corridor bi-levels which are being ordered by CA and the Midwest will be rated for 125 mph. Amtrak and Caltrans could possibly shift enough of the new bi-levels to the San Joaquin service to make up some all 125 mph consists.

Any use of the new tracks with conventional equipment should be for an interim period anyway. By the time the first Central Valley segment is completed, they should be building the segments to the north and from Bakersfield to Palmdale. The tunnels through the Tehachapi mountains with the proposed sustained 3.3% grade over 8 miles & ~10 miles of tunnels will be among the biggest engineering challenges of the entire LA to SF corridor. The sooner they can get the engineering studies, surveys, and design done for Bakersfield to Palmdale, the better.

Wizened Variations Jul 15, 2012 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afiggatt (Post 5764641)
By the time, the CV segment is completed, CA should have some of the NextGen diesel locomotives which are to be capable of 125 mph speeds. The HSIPR grants are providing funds to buy around 33 new diesels for CA and the Midwest. Amtrak will could supply P-42s which are capable of 110 mph if they have too.

The current batch of Surfliner cars are rated for 110 mph max speeds, I think. The new NextGen corridor bi-levels which are being ordered by CA and the Midwest will be rated for 125 mph. Amtrak and Caltrans could possibly shift enough of the new bi-levels to the San Joaquin service to make up some all 125 mph consists.

Any use of the new tracks with conventional equipment should be for an interim period anyway. By the time the first Central Valley segment is completed, they should be building the segments to the north and from Bakersfield to Palmdale. The tunnels through the Tehachapi mountains with the proposed sustained 3.3% grade over 8 miles & ~10 miles of tunnels will be among the biggest engineering challenges of the entire LA to SF corridor. The sooner they can get the engineering studies, surveys, and design done for Bakersfield to Palmdale, the better.

Whether getting to this point was "necessary education" on the part of planners, whether achieving real compromise was the result of dealing with a public increasingly disgusted by the endless discussion and escalating buildout out cost, I am very pleased that something is being done

While all of us who love steel rails have at one or more times in our lives been smitten by feelings of jealousy towards Japan, Germany, China, Spain, and, others with true HSR, I suspect that most HSR US advocates realize that getting the "steel put down and the concrete poured" has to begin somewhere.

Too much money has been spent on studies, political positioning, etc. as it is.

IMO, what is most important is average speed once built. A four hundred mile +/- length that can be traveled at an average speed of 70 mph that connects a string of metro areas, while not 'world class' is truly signficant.

Maybe, within 20 - 30 years, with sustained improvements, the system could be made to average 80 or 85 mph. Average speeds in that range would be highly competititve to automobile travel.

(of course getting these speeds means brief station stops, and, 60 mph + average speeds within metro city boundaries. Therein lies the difficulties in attaining 70 to 85 mph speeds system wide.)

pesto Jul 15, 2012 5:41 PM

So now you see why some of us think 100B for this is a doubtful use of money (the LA Times has noted that the only supporters are construction companies and unions).

First you get "near Merced" to "almost Bako" (you don't actually get to these teeming metropolises that have been screaming for rail transit for God knows how long). Second, you get "improvements" to Caltrain which don't actually save any meaningful time and will be subject to protracted litigation.

And when done, the typical train will have multiple stops, spend half it's time at low speeds and take a circuitous route to keep the CV happy. It will cost about the same as air, and multiple times what cars will cost, while taking longer than either. And this in about 30 years.

202_Cyclist Jul 17, 2012 2:27 PM

Alternate high-speed rail route through Kings County proposed (Fresno Bee)
 
Alternate high-speed rail route through Kings County proposed

By Tim Sheehan
Fresno Bee
Jul. 16, 2012

“The state's high-speed rail authority has offered an alternative route around Hanford aiming to address criticism of its plan by Kings County residents.

But some of those same critics said the new plan -- highlighted by adding a Hanford bypass west of the city -- does little to ease their concerns over lost farmland, homes and businesses.

Aaron Fukuda, a Hanford resident whose rural neighborhood east of the city would be displaced by the original east-Hanford bypass, said the western option will do little to appease opposition in Kings County…”

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/07/16/...nty-route.html

ltsmotorsport Jul 19, 2012 5:42 AM

Can they just route it through Goshen/Visalia already and stay away from the clowns in Kings County. Visalia/Tulare County actually want it and you can then switch the BNSF ROW south of the city. Just have to get UP on board.

M II A II R II K Jul 20, 2012 5:06 PM

TRANSIT: Bullet train OK sends $100M to local rail projects


July 20th, 2012

By CHRIS NICHOLS

Read More: http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sd...5cf8b8b2d.html

Quote:

This week's California bullet train go-ahead by Gov. Jerry Brown will result in a $100 million infusion for San Diego County rail and trolley projects, a regional rail planner said Thursday.

- Culp said the region "would have eventually received these funds, but these are short-term projects and will benefit from the funds right now." This week's approval by the governor also moves forward plans to add a second track along the state's coastal commuter rail line, which runs from San Diego to Los Angeles to San Luis Obispo. While it funds portions of that line from Anaheim north, it does not provide money to double-track San Diego County's portion of the line, Culp said.

- In addition to the $100 million for the county's trolley and rail safety projects, Culp said $56 million was set aside to plan the San Diego-to-Los Angeles portion of the bullet train network. Culp said it's hard to say how much would actually be spent on the San Diego County portion of the line. The San Diego-to-Los Angeles stretch is the last one planned and won't start construction for a decade or more, officials have said.

Linda Culp, a regional rail planner for the San Diego Association of Governments, said the region's $100 million will be divided this way:

- $58 million will go to the Blue Line Trolley rehabilitation, which would improve grade crossings, tracks and add signals from San Ysidro to downtown San Diego;

- $42 million will go to a computerized train safety project along San Diego County's coastal rail line, from downtown San Diego to the Orange County line.

.....



http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townn...review-620.jpg

jg6544 Jul 20, 2012 10:29 PM

I'm not wild about where they decided to start building HSR in CA, but I'm glad they're going to start. I might not live to see it completed, but one day, there's going to be fast, comfortable rail transportation between the LA area and the Bay Area and that's a good thing. Big improvement over what we've got now.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 21, 2012 12:41 AM

You can have your high speed rail california, enjoy it.
thank god our state made it possible to reject it and allowing the free market like FEC to build their own.

LosAngelesSportsFan Jul 21, 2012 1:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5772503)
You can have your high speed rail california, enjoy it.
thank god our state made it possible to reject it and allowing the free market like FEC to build their own.

we get it, you dont like HSR and you're a teabagger. go away

Rail>Auto Jul 21, 2012 6:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5772503)
You can have your high speed rail california, enjoy it.
thank god our state made it possible to reject it and allowing the free market like FEC to build their own.

I support FEC but isn't the system they are building in Fl slow speed rail like the current AMTRAK system?

202_Cyclist Jul 21, 2012 2:59 PM

Long Wait for the Arrival of Transit Upgrades (Wall Street Journal)
 
Long Wait for the Arrival of Transit Upgrades


By Max Taves
Wall Street Journal
July 18, 2012

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/im...0718135413.jpg
Passengers exit a Caltrain commuter train during the morning commute in San Francisco. (Image courtesy of the Wall Street Journal)

"The $4.7 billion approved by the California legislature for construction of the state's high-speed rail system included more than $900 million for Bay Area transit investments. But it will likely be years before the region's commuters and economy get much of a lift.

The biggest share of the funds approved this month, $700 million, is to go to Caltrain, the rail line connecting 42,000 commuters each weekday from Gilroy and San Jose to San Francisco. According to state plans, the funds would be spent on new and safer signaling systems and on converting the diesel-powered line to run on faster and cleaner electric power, a $1.5 billion project in total. This would enable the future high-speed trains to use the same tracks, according to Caltrain.

An additional $145 million is designated for buying 46 new cars for Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART. And $61 million would be spent on completing San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency's Central Subway, a 1.7-mile extension of the light-rail T Third Line from 4th Street's Caltrain Station to Chinatown..."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...580431244.html

pesto Jul 21, 2012 4:04 PM

I can't comment on the technical choices, but generally this makes sense. Rail within the LA and Bay areas should be expanded and upgraded so that it is easy to move among the outlying cities, SF, SJ and Oakland with ease and speed.

202_Cyclist Jul 21, 2012 4:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5772853)
I can't comment on the technical choices, but generally this makes sense. Rail within the LA and Bay areas should be expanded and upgraded so that it is easy to move among the outlying cities, SF, SJ and Oakland with ease and speed.

I digress but I was looking yesterday and Metrolink offers free Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim tickets if you take the train to the game. The round-trip ticket is $7, so that is an incredible deal.

pesto Jul 21, 2012 4:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5772856)
I digress but I was looking yesterday and Metrolink offers free Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim tickets if you take the train to the game. The round-trip ticket is $7, so that is an incredible deal.

That actually sounds interesting; do you have the link?

202_Cyclist Jul 21, 2012 4:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5772864)
That actually sounds interesting; do you have the link?

You might get altitude sickness since the seats are up so high but any chance to watch a game for free is a great offer.

http://www.metrolinktrains.com/news/..._Express_Train

afiggatt Jul 21, 2012 9:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rail>Auto (Post 5772714)
I support FEC but isn't the system they are building in Fl slow speed rail like the current AMTRAK system?

Depends on what you mean by the current Amtrak system. Electrified 125/150 mph NEC or diesel 79 or 110 mph max speed corridors?

The FEC plan, to the extent that has been reported so far, is for a diesel powered system operating over their frieght tracks. The speeds have been reported, IIRC, as 79 mph max from downtown Miami to around West Palm Beach, then 90 to 110 mph max speeds to Cocoa, FL. Then up to 125 mph over the new 40 mile segment from the coast to Orlando Airport which will presumably be free of grade crossings allowing the 125 mph speeds w/o the hassles of getting FRA approval for grade crossings at those speeds. The current FEC tracks have numerous grade crossings, so the FEC will have to upgrade them to quad gates with vehicle detection sensors to allow 90 to 110 mph speeds.

The FEC is a near unique set of circumstances is that they have well maintained generally straight tracks running along the FL coast with valuable land rights which are not getting that much freight traffic. Passenger service from Miami to Orlando may allow them to capture the value of their tracks and real estate holdings, so they look to be serious about their plans.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 22, 2012 6:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan (Post 5772518)
we get it, you dont like HSR and you're a teabagger. go away

First of all I'm not a teabagger (the real tea party has been hijacked by the neocons) and second of all, I Think the government should stay out of HSR, I Love HSR, But government should not using OUR taxpayer money to build this, we cannot afford it.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 22, 2012 6:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afiggatt (Post 5773072)
Depends on what you mean by the current Amtrak system. Electrified 125/150 mph NEC or diesel 79 or 110 mph max speed corridors?

The FEC plan, to the extent that has been reported so far, is for a diesel powered system operating over their frieght tracks. The speeds have been reported, IIRC, as 79 mph max from downtown Miami to around West Palm Beach, then 90 to 110 mph max speeds to Cocoa, FL. Then up to 125 mph over the new 40 mile segment from the coast to Orlando Airport which will presumably be free of grade crossings allowing the 125 mph speeds w/o the hassles of getting FRA approval for grade crossings at those speeds. The current FEC tracks have numerous grade crossings, so the FEC will have to upgrade them to quad gates with vehicle detection sensors to allow 90 to 110 mph speeds.

The FEC is a near unique set of circumstances is that they have well maintained generally straight tracks running along the FL coast with valuable land rights which are not getting that much freight traffic. Passenger service from Miami to Orlando may allow them to capture the value of their tracks and real estate holdings, so they look to be serious about their plans.

Got that and it's privately funded.
getting the government out of the way.

drifting sun Jul 22, 2012 7:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5773596)
First of all I'm not a teabagger (the real tea party has been hijacked by the neocons) and second of all, I Think the government should stay out of HSR, I Love HSR, But government should not using OUR taxpayer money to build this, we cannot afford it.

Who is "we" and what is "our taxpayer money"? Whatever you call yourself, I always find it amusing that people with your philosophical bent apparently assume that your opinion on government spending and involvement in infrastructure projects is either held by the majority, or that the segment of Americans that support taxpayer spending is the "kool-aid majority".

I am also a taxpayer, and I would like nothing more than more of the money I contribute to Federal taxes to be allocated to these sorts of projects, and if I was far wealthier than I am now, I wouldn't object at all to even more of my earnings being "stolen" for the greater good, even as imperfect as it may be at times. So, speak for yourself, and since you already have multiple times, and if you have nothing else to contribute except for vague, anti-government rants, then go away.

At least Pesto criticizes specific issues involved with these projects, and even raises legitimate concerns....sometimes.

One of my concerns is that they eventually electrify the whole route(s). Do we know if this in the long-term scope of the plan? I am not too keen on the prospect of dmu's chugging along the central valley at 90-110 mph spewing out sooty exhaust. I had an opportunity earlier this year to take Caltrain down to Palo Alto from San Francisco, and while I enjoyed the ride, I would have enjoyed it much more gliding along under smooth electric power.

fflint Jul 22, 2012 7:51 PM

^Yes, CAHSR will be electrified.

drifting sun Jul 22, 2012 8:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 5773672)
^Yes, CAHSR will be electrified.

So, Caltrain is planning to electrify their current routes, probably before any significant progress is made on the HSR, right?

I know this detail was probably discussed a little ways back in the thread, but I am going to ask to be refreshed on it anyway. Does the overall plan call for HSR trains to roll all the way into the Transbay Terminal, or will the service switch to Caltrain (electrified) cars on Caltrain tracks for the stretch to the Caltrain Depot (which wouldn't place them quite at the Terminal, I guess)?

mfastx Jul 22, 2012 8:32 PM

Anyone who claims that "we" as taxpayers cannot afford HSR needs a reality check. HSR is a drop in the bucket compared to our national budget. Hell, it's even a drop in the bucked compared to the California transportation budget, lol.

M II A II R II K Jul 22, 2012 8:33 PM

And then there's the long term benefits of having it freeing up the skies and the roadways.

202_Cyclist Jul 22, 2012 8:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5773596)
First of all I'm not a teabagger (the real tea party has been hijacked by the neocons) and second of all, I Think the government should stay out of HSR, I Love HSR, But government should not using OUR taxpayer money to build this, we cannot afford it.

You do realize that more federal money was spent on highways in 2010 than has been spent on Amtrak in its entire forty year history combined.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...ing-last-year/

Should the government not pay to build and maintain roads and highways either? Who needs facts when these teabaggers have their Ayn Rand, neo-Hoover ideology?

LosAngelesSportsFan Jul 22, 2012 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5773596)
First of all I'm not a teabagger (the real tea party has been hijacked by the neocons) and second of all, I Think the government should stay out of HSR, I Love HSR, But government should not using OUR taxpayer money to build this, we cannot afford it.

hmmm how about highways? should govt get out of the way? how about sewer systems? you sound like a parrot whos been stuck in front of a tv showing fox news on loop

LosAngelesSportsFan Jul 22, 2012 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5773712)
You do realize that more federal money was spent on highways in 2010 than has been spent on Amtrak in its entire forty year history combined.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey...ing-last-year/

Should the government not pay to build and maintain roads and highways either? Who needs facts when these teabaggers have their Ayn Rand, neo-Hoover ideology?

you're arguing with a rock

dimondpark Jul 23, 2012 3:15 PM

I guess Matier and Ross are now 2 fascist conservative puppets. lol:rolleyes:

Quote:

Bay Area faces new high-speed rail costs

Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross, Chronicle Columnists

Published 09:10 p.m., Sunday, July 22, 2012

Now that Gov. Jerry Brown has signed legislation to allow the state to spend billions on high-speed rail, Bay Area residents had better brace for the real ride - a push for $650 million in toll hikes and new San Francisco taxes.

That's how much will be needed to help pay for a tunnel to connect the Transbay Terminal to the Caltrain station at Fourth and King streets.

As it turns out, none of the $2.5 billion in tunnel costs were included as part of the narrowly approved high-speed-rail deal.

It's up to the locals to make the tunnel happen. If they don't, the $68 billion high-speed-rail line from Los Angeles will dead-end several blocks from downtown proper.

Building the tunnel will put San Francisco in competition with those hoping to finish BART to San Jose - both projects will be tussling for $1.8 billion that the federal government will direct to the Bay Area in the coming years...

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier...ts-3726796.php


dimondpark Jul 23, 2012 3:28 PM

I still dont know why they didnt build the LA-SD line first? That makes more sense imo.

Maybe it would have been more exciting(and energizing to the public) if they had 2 separate projects to connect LA-SD and SF-Sac first and then build their way toward each other? I guess that's too big of a dream nowadays-especially with the whole thing about us being broke. lol

Anyway, my biggest gripe about this Governor and Democratic legislature pushing this thing through is the fact that they know most voters would vote to repeal this entire thing if they could, and going against the will of the people(a bad habit that appears to be an emerging problem with Sacramento nowadays)

Meanwhile Brown thinks nothing of threatening deep cuts to K-12 education, Community colleges, CSU and UC, social programs that help the needy, health care programs and so forth.

AND I DONT CARE IF this train has a separate bond----at the end of the day the taxpayers that are footing the bill regardless. Voters agreed to one thing and then it was inflated to 98 Billion and now it supposedly wittled down to 68 billion(or so they think). That's not what we voted on in 2008.

That alone makes this whole thing null and void as far as Im concerned.

And that speaks nothing of the fact that ZERO private investors have been identified and that was a major selling point. And so forth.

jg6544 Jul 23, 2012 4:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5772503)
You can have your high speed rail california, enjoy it.
thank god our state made it possible to reject it and allowing the free market like FEC to build their own.

Yes, the "free" market has done such an outstanding job of developing passenger rail, hasn't it.

jg6544 Jul 23, 2012 4:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5773596)
First of all I'm not a teabagger (the real tea party has been hijacked by the neocons) and second of all, I Think the government should stay out of HSR, I Love HSR, But government should not using OUR taxpayer money to build this, we cannot afford it.

You realize, with this attitude, we might not have had a transcontinental railroad (or railroads in most other places) until the 20th Century, if then.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 23, 2012 6:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfastx (Post 5773701)
Anyone who claims that "we" as taxpayers cannot afford HSR needs a reality check. HSR is a drop in the bucket compared to our national budget. Hell, it's even a drop in the bucked compared to the California transportation budget, lol.

and it will add to california's national budget even further

Ya'll need to cut spending and cut spending now.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 23, 2012 6:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5774444)
Yes, the "free" market has done such an outstanding job of developing passenger rail, hasn't it.

Because it's working well and without taxpayers expense, unlike you big government loving libs.

And I'm neither liberal nor conservative, those terms mean nothing today.

mfastx Jul 23, 2012 7:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5774609)
and it will add to california's national budget even further

Ya'll need to cut spending and cut spending now.

Y'all? I don't live in California. It will add to it by about 1% maybe? I know it's only like 5% of the transportation budget. And the transportation budget is what percentage of the federal budget?

If one is looking at things to cut in the budget, only an idiot will look at HSR spending first. There are many, many other larger expenses that need to be curtailed.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 23, 2012 7:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifting sun (Post 5773657)
Who is "we" and what is "our taxpayer money"? Whatever you call yourself, I always find it amusing that people with your philosophical bent apparently assume that your opinion on government spending and involvement in infrastructure projects is either held by the majority, or that the segment of Americans that support taxpayer spending is the "kool-aid majority".

I am also a taxpayer, and I would like nothing more than more of the money I contribute to Federal taxes to be allocated to these sorts of projects, and if I was far wealthier than I am now, I wouldn't object at all to even more of my earnings being "stolen" for the greater good, even as imperfect as it may be at times. So, speak for yourself, and since you already have multiple times, and if you have nothing else to contribute except for vague, anti-government rants, then go away.

At least Pesto criticizes specific issues involved with these projects, and even raises legitimate concerns....sometimes.

One of my concerns is that they eventually electrify the whole route(s). Do we know if this in the long-term scope of the plan? I am not too keen on the prospect of dmu's chugging along the central valley at 90-110 mph spewing out sooty exhaust. I had an opportunity earlier this year to take Caltrain down to Palo Alto from San Francisco, and while I enjoyed the ride, I would have enjoyed it much more gliding along under smooth electric power.

Because I Refuse to spend taxpayer money that I Don't have, come on $68 billion dollars for HSR, while their debt is at 389 Billion dollars, what a joke.
we need to cut spending.

drifting sun Jul 23, 2012 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5774332)
I guess Matier and Ross are now 2 fascist conservative puppets. lol:rolleyes:


Well, I guess that answers my earlier question, sort of.

Why do they need a connecting tunnel? Wouldn't it be acceptable to have HSR terminate at the existing Caltrain station? I know that the Transbay Terminal is supposed to be at the Nexus of Reality and so forth, but if they upgraded the T-line (or whichever one passes through the Caltrain station right now) and made it better, more reliable, more frequent, and added a connection to one of the other MUNI lines going in some other direction, that wouldn't put riders too far from all the action would it?

skyscraperfan23 Jul 23, 2012 7:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfastx (Post 5774623)
Y'all? I don't live in California. It will add to it by about 1% maybe? I know it's only like 5% of the transportation budget. And the transportation budget is what percentage of the federal budget?

If one is looking at things to cut in the budget, only an idiot will look at HSR spending first. There are many, many other larger expenses that need to be curtailed.

How about slash all california spending.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 23, 2012 7:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5774359)
I still dont know why they didnt build the LA-SD line first? That makes more sense imo.

Maybe it would have been more exciting(and energizing to the public) if they had 2 separate projects to connect LA-SD and SF-Sac first and then build their way toward each other? I guess that's too big of a dream nowadays-especially with the whole thing about us being broke. lol

Anyway, my biggest gripe about this Governor and Democratic legislature pushing this thing through is the fact that they know most voters would vote to repeal this entire thing if they could, and going against the will of the people(a bad habit that appears to be an emerging problem with Sacramento nowadays)

Meanwhile Brown thinks nothing of threatening deep cuts to K-12 education, Community colleges, CSU and UC, social programs that help the needy, health care programs and so forth.

AND I DONT CARE IF this train has a separate bond----at the end of the day the taxpayers that are footing the bill regardless. Voters agreed to one thing and then it was inflated to 98 Billion and now it supposedly wittled down to 68 billion(or so they think). That's not what we voted on in 2008.

That alone makes this whole thing null and void as far as Im concerned.

And that speaks nothing of the fact that ZERO private investors have been identified and that was a major selling point. And so forth.

Thank you for defending me, thank god I Don't live in california

Plus this HSR will also destroy california's farms as we know it.


http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/C...il-3684819.php

thank god a lot of people are fleeing that state.

Foley Santamaria Jul 23, 2012 7:25 PM

Enough with the political talk, both sides.

What do you support skyscraperfan as it relates to this thread? Otherwise, please stop in this thread. You have made your opinions clear.

drifting sun Jul 23, 2012 7:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5774359)
I still dont know why they didnt build the LA-SD line first? That makes more sense imo.

Maybe it would have been more exciting(and energizing to the public) if they had 2 separate projects to connect LA-SD and SF-Sac first and then build their way toward each other? I guess that's too big of a dream nowadays-especially with the whole thing about us being broke. lol

Anyway, my biggest gripe about this Governor and Democratic legislature pushing this thing through is the fact that they know most voters would vote to repeal this entire thing if they could, and going against the will of the people(a bad habit that appears to be an emerging problem with Sacramento nowadays)

Meanwhile Brown thinks nothing of threatening deep cuts to K-12 education, Community colleges, CSU and UC, social programs that help the needy, health care programs and so forth.

AND I DONT CARE IF this train has a separate bond----at the end of the day the taxpayers that are footing the bill regardless. Voters agreed to one thing and then it was inflated to 98 Billion and now it supposedly wittled down to 68 billion(or so they think). That's not what we voted on in 2008.

That alone makes this whole thing null and void as far as Im concerned.

And that speaks nothing of the fact that ZERO private investors have been identified and that was a major selling point. And so forth.

Yeah, well why was it inflated to "98 billion"? It couldn't have been due at all to all the time and effort taken to try to appease every last NIMBY and conservative think-tank troll by altering the route every 5 minutes, could it?

Nah, it couldn't be any of that - as Skyscraperfan23 and others will tell you, you know, because they possess infinite wisdom and all that, it's all because whenever the big, oppressive government gets involved in anything, it is always less efficient and TRAMPLES ON EVERYONE'S GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS!!

skyscraperfan23 Jul 23, 2012 7:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifting sun (Post 5774673)
Yeah, well why was it inflated to "98 billion"? It couldn't have been due at all to all the time and effort taken to try to appease every last NIMBY and conservative think-tank troll by altering the route every 5 minutes, could it?

Nah, it couldn't be any of that - as Skyscraperfan23 and others will tell you, you know, because they possess infinite wisdom and all that, it's all because whenever the big, oppressive government gets involved in anything, it is always less efficient and TRAMPLES ON EVERYONE'S GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS!!

There is nothing liberal nor conservative about this, big government owns both parties and this taxpayer spending HSR in california is only gonna deepen the problems this state's debt has done.

dimondpark Jul 23, 2012 8:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifting sun (Post 5774673)

Nah, it couldn't be any of that - as Skyscraperfan23 and others will tell you, you know, because they possess infinite wisdom and all that, it's all because whenever the big, oppressive government gets involved in anything, it is always less efficient and TRAMPLES ON EVERYONE'S GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS!!

Yawn. Please spare us the trite diatribe.

Regardless of political persuasion, most polls indicate that most Californians no longer support building a high speed rail system.

The sock-it-to-the-right mentality by exteme left-wingers on this issue(just like Neocons on the flip side) will eventually be their undoing as cooler heads always prevail in the end. The only problem with that is that these colossal policy blunders cost us tons of money. So I hope the Central Valley enjoys their new Disneyland-like Monorail, because that is how this is all going to end.:haha:

Brown thinks that just because we've starting spending money will obligate us to spend whatever else is necessary. Such thinking is foolish, at best.


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.