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)

drifting sun Jul 23, 2012 8:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5774743)
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.

Ok, so you believe that the cost mark-up had nothing whatsoever to do with all the little delays and reworkings and route adjustments of the overall plan, much of it to try to cater to every local NIMBY type, who were no doubt getting spoon-fed fear-driven "your taxes will go up, oh no!!" propaganda. You know that the planners of large projects like this don't work for free, so whenever more time has to be invested to try to work around the concerns of the locals (and deal with the established railroad entities), the bill is going to run up, no way around that.

But, I guess your saying that none of that was a contributing factor, and that the cost increases are due solely to the incompetence of the public agency, or that they take a perverse delight in quoting the public one number, then arbitrarily jacking it up just for grins.

Fair enough.

dimondpark Jul 23, 2012 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifting sun (Post 5774762)
Ok, so you believe that the cost mark-up had nothing whatsoever to do with all the little delays and reworkings and route adjustments of the overall plan, much of it to try to cater to every local NIMBY type, who were no doubt getting spoon-fed fear-driven "your taxes will go up, oh no!!" propaganda.

I happen to believe that we are undertaxed, fyi.

This project is so poorly planned before a single shovel of dirt has been moved--can you blame me for having ZERO confidence now?

I mean, for someone whom I guessing despises lack of oversight and transparency, this single project is the most smoke and mirrors Ive seen outside of a magic show.:cheers:

Yet there you all are, cheering away.:rolleyes:

Quote:

But, I guess your saying that none of that was a contributing factor, and that the cost increases are due solely to the incompetence of the public agency, or that they take a perverse delight in quoting the public one number, then arbitrarily jacking it up just for grins.

Fair enough.
Yawn.

You take perverse delight in the governor threatening social services, schools and health care.....so long as a stupid train from Hanford to Bakersfield gets built?

Someone needs to look in the mirror before pointing out what you perceive to be moral failings in others.:tup:

drifting sun Jul 23, 2012 9:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5774795)
I happen to believe that we are undertaxed, fyi.

This project is so poorly planned before a single shovel of dirt has been moved--can you blame me for having ZERO confidence now?

I mean, for someone whom I guessing despises lack of oversight and transparency, this single project is the most smoke and mirrors Ive seen outside of a magic show.:cheers:

Yet there you all are, cheering away.:rolleyes:



Yawn.

You take perverse delight in the governor threatening social services, schools and health care.....so long as a stupid train from Hanford to Bakersfield gets built?

Someone needs to look in the mirror before pointing out what you perceive to be moral failings in others.:tup:

"Yawn"....who said anything about morals or lack thereof? I just wanted to get a clearer sense of what you believe or do not believe about the circumstances surrounding this project. That's all. Why all the defensive posturing?

Anyway, you didn't engage my previous question - that of the possible "link" between the Caltrain depot and the Transbay Terminal.

Foley Santamaria Jul 23, 2012 9:18 PM

Even if nothing else is spent, it will be money well spent.

Improvements to Metrolink, significant CalTrain work, and improvements in the SD area - very positive.

Big improvements on the 5th busiest train line in the US?

Not to mention, at least the SF - LA line will get built. Hooking up that huge ridership won't happen? I don't believe it. And it will be a large success, though ticket prices will definitely be higher than what was quoted. Still reasonable. And I definitely think the project isn't perfect, but if it had been defeated there would have been a decade long, at least, delay.

The MidWest is about to roll out a lot of 110 to 125mph improved rail. Florida should have some impressive similar runs between Miami and Orlando soon. Acela makes 60 to 70 million dollars a year. What is the issue again?

drifting sun Jul 23, 2012 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foley Santamaria (Post 5774869)
Even if nothing else is spent, it will be money well spent.

Improvements to Metrolink, significant CalTrain work, and improvements in the SD area - very positive.

Big improvements on the 5th busiest train line in the US?

Not to mention, at least the SF - LA line will get built. Hooking up that huge ridership won't happen? I don't believe it. And it will be a large success, though ticket prices will definitely be higher than what was quoted. Still reasonable. And I definitely think the project isn't perfect, but if it had been defeated there would have been a decade long, at least, delay.

The MidWest is about to roll out a lot of 110 to 125mph improved rail. Florida should have some impressive similar runs between Miami and Orlando soon. Acela makes 60 to 70 million dollars a year. What is the issue again?


The "issue" I gather is that the Central Valley section is thought of as a "train to nowhere", by detractors. As you can see from the previous posts, some here are convinced that the project was mismanaged from the beginning, although what I have seen is cost overruns resulting from not only mismanagement (there has been some of that to be sure), but also from having to deal with constant obstructionism spurred on by groups and agendas that are ideologically set against public infrastructure of this kind, something that happens often to large public projects in this country.

I generally agree that it might have made more sense to come up with an aggressive plan to get HSR going from either end, then work towards the middle. I think that the Federal funding was contingent on building the central segment first though.

By the way, I think whatever Florida is doing is private, not public, as someone here will no doubt point out.

tech12 Jul 23, 2012 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5774795)
so long as a stupid train from Hanford to Bakersfield gets built?:

It's a train from San Diego to SF and Sacramento, smart ass. Which I know that you know, so stop playing dumb. This is just the first stage, just because it's not the SD-LA or SF-central valley section getting built first doesn't mean we shouldn't build it.

And what's with you acting like you know what the "will of the people" is? Most people i know want HSR. The majority of opponents are the ones who have been fed all the negative conservative propaganda, and/or who have no understanding of the benefits of a high speed rail system.

I have to say I'm surprised to see you opposing it, dimondpark. Did you honestly expect that it wouldn't be very expensive to build?

ardecila Jul 23, 2012 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 5774985)
I have to say I'm surprised to see you opposing it, dimondpark. Did you honestly expect that it wouldn't be very expensive to build?

I'm seriously disappointed in the overall cost of CAHSR and aggravated that so many liberals seem not to care about the cost. If it were a highway project, they'd be screaming bloody murder.

On the other hand, the orphan segment in the Central Valley will be an impetus to complete the remaining segments, first by building a new line through the Tehachapis and then a new line over the Pacheco Pass.

JDRCRASH Jul 24, 2012 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5774616)
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.

What precisely is considered "working well"? 79 mph at average speed? Dream on.

twoNeurons Jul 24, 2012 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 5775042)
I'm seriously disappointed in the overall cost of CAHSR and aggravated that so many liberals seem not to care about the cost. If it were a highway project, they'd be screaming bloody murder.

On the other hand, the orphan segment in the Central Valley will be an impetus to complete the remaining segments, first by building a new line through the Tehachapis and then a new line over the Pacheco Pass.

If it were a highway project, it likely would barely hit the news. Imagine the cost to build a brand new I-5 along a parallel route.

mr1138 Jul 24, 2012 12:48 AM

Yeah I have to agree that our 19th century American rail system is absolutely not "working well," at least as far as passenger travel is concerned. And while I'm totally open to "anti big government" arguments in favor of the free market, I think some people take it WAY too far and are borderline anarchists. Infrastructure (in my opinion) is ABSOLUTELY in the realm of what government SHOULD be doing. The complexity of such a project as well as the ultimate ownership of the R.O.W. makes it no different from our road and highway network; the VAST majority of which is publicly owned and maintained.

This isn't the 19th century anymore where everything west of the Mississippi was federally owned and free for the taking. Expecting private companies to assemble the land, navigate the regulations, and build a rail system of this magnitude in this day and age is absolutely ludicrous. I think we could even debate whether doing it this way back in the 1800s really serves us any good anymore, since it is in large part the privately owned R.R. right-of-ways that are vastly complicating not only this, but other mass transit rail systems currently in planning across America (Fastracks in Denver comes to mind). If these original (and oftentimes superior) routes and right-of-ways were under public ownership, they could be upgraded to HSR at a MUCH lower cost than building a whole new system.

By all means, contract out the line to private operators to run the trains (much as private vehicles travel on public roads all the time), but the planning, construction, and ownership of a 21st century HSR system should absolutely be a public effort. To suggest otherwise seems to me a thinly veiled attempt to suggest we shouldn't be building HSR AT ALL, which I think few on this forum would agree with.

Busy Bee Jul 24, 2012 2:45 AM

Well I for one agree w/ mr... especially concerning the strategic and logistic value of rail right of way held in private hands. I don't think it's anti-American to suggest nationalizing some of these absolutely strategic private ROW's to necessitate intercity HSR that is IMO integral to a robust connected 21st century economy. Especially when considering many of these choice ROW's the Railroads bitch and complain about not only sharing with Amtrak but sharing the ROW at all for new parallel passenger tracks (Steel Interstate...) after receiving the needed right of way essentially for free from the federal government through land grants and acts of congress (Pacific Railway Act..). I say time to return the favor you greedy bastards.

mr1138 Jul 24, 2012 3:00 AM

^ Exactly! Add to that the fact that the original land grants that allowed the Railroads to secure their ROW in the first place allocated a strip of land MUCH wider than was originally needed to build 19th century train tracks. What other reason would there be for such a wide ROW other than the anticipation of future parallel tracks, as Busy Bee alludes to? What's sad is that the powerful Railroad companies now hold this additional ROW hostage for OBSCENE amounts of money, and are exempt from the use of eminent domain to obtain the land.

In retrospect, it probably wasn't wrong to give such land grants, as it was the free land (as well as the valuable free land adjacent to the tracks) that allowed us to settle the west in the first place. But let's not pretend that we're still living in the 19th century. This is no longer a viable, nor is it a desirable method for getting transportation networks constructed.

mt_climber13 Jul 24, 2012 6:56 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.

It's a pindrop in a haystack compared to the wars.
Money for wars= YES PLEASE!
Money for America= DIRTY COMMIE LIB!!!

End the Afghanistan war today and this will be paid for in a month.

phoenixboi08 Jul 24, 2012 9:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wakamesalad (Post 5775923)
It's a pindrop in a haystack compared to the wars.
Money for wars= YES PLEASE!
Money for America= DIRTY COMMIE LIB!!!

End the Afghanistan war today and this will be paid for in a month.

oh no, you'd have to still pry those funds away from the DoD anyways :haha:

fflint Jul 24, 2012 9:45 PM

Guys, this isn't a thread for statements of broad-ranging political philosophy or culture warmongering. CAHSR is the subject, please stick to it.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 24, 2012 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5774795)
I happen to believe that we are undertaxed, fyi.

This project is so poorly planned before a single shovel of dirt has been moved--can you blame me for having ZERO confidence now?

I mean, for someone whom I guessing despises lack of oversight and transparency, this single project is the most smoke and mirrors Ive seen outside of a magic show.:cheers:

Yet there you all are, cheering away.:rolleyes:



Yawn.

You take perverse delight in the governor threatening social services, schools and health care.....so long as a stupid train from Hanford to Bakersfield gets built?

Someone needs to look in the mirror before pointing out what you perceive to be moral failings in others.:tup:

I Know that's right.

mt_climber13 Jul 25, 2012 5:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 5776156)
Guys, this isn't a thread for statements of broad-ranging political philosophy or culture warmongering. CAHSR is the subject, please stick to it.

Pointing out that money could be diverted from one part of the budget to another in order to pay for something is not "culture warmongering." After all, it is our tax money, we can talk about it. Loosen up.

northbay Jul 25, 2012 2:43 PM

Everyone needs to cool their jets. Seriously, how many times do we need to hear the arguments on why it should, or shouldn't be built? A lot of us I think are tired of it.

It IS being built, so let's talk about what's going on. Like how a high-rise construction thread would focus on the building's development, and not whether it should be under-construction in the first place.

Granted, that isn't exactly analogous since we are talking private versus public sector. But remember too folks that Japan is willing to pay for half of the costs and China is willing to contribute a significant amount (was it $10 billion?) if we contract with them.

So how about more discussion and idea-sharing and less arguing. :cheers:

dimondpark Jul 25, 2012 2:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12 (Post 5774985)
It's a train from San Diego to SF and Sacramento

The train only has funding in place for the first leg within the central valley--even money for the extenstions to LA and SF at this point is not secure. And NO private investors have been identified even tho that was a major selling point back in 2008---a rush of private monies was supposed to come into play, and until now that has NOT materialized in the least.

Sacramento and San Diego are NOT included in the current financing scheme at all---the soonest those extensions will even be considered is 2032, and we'd have to find totally new money for that.

I suspect too many Californians are woefully unaware of how little planners and politicos care about the fiscal solvency of this project.

Quote:

smart ass.
:haha:

This was uncalled for, but whatever.

northbay Jul 25, 2012 3:07 PM

^Dude, dimondpark, did you not see my post right above yours? Take a breather.

Of course you have a right to your opinion. No one can take that from you. However, you are factually incorrect in saying no private investors have been identified.

twinpeaks Jul 25, 2012 3:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay (Post 5776967)
Everyone needs to cool their jets. Seriously, how many times do we need to hear the arguments on why it should, or shouldn't be built? A lot of us I think are tired of it.

It IS being built, so let's talk about what's going on. Like how a high-rise construction thread would focus on the building's development, and not whether it should be under-construction in the first place.

Granted, that isn't exactly analogous since we are talking private versus public sector. But remember too folks that Japan is willing to pay for half of the costs and China is willing to contribute a significant amount (was it $10 billion?) if we contract with them.

So how about more discussion and idea-sharing and less arguing. :cheers:

Where's the 'Like' button...

phoenixboi08 Jul 25, 2012 3:37 PM

Would the principle station for this in LA be Union, or is there a plan to build a new station?

dimondpark Jul 25, 2012 3:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay (Post 5777002)
^Dude, dimondpark, did you not see my post right above yours? Take a breather.

Of course you have a right to your opinion. No one can take that from you. However, you are factually incorrect in saying no private investors have been identified.

Not according to the Governor.
Quote:

The first segment of the line will be financed by taxpayers, and Brown said there was strong interest from private companies in financing the rest of the project. He didn’t provide any specifics on possible investment or name any of those firms.
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...id-challenges/


Im not saying the train shouldnt be built, but if most of us dont want it, if most of us feel deceived by the numbers(projected cost, projected ridership, projected travel time, projected ticket cost have ALL been proven to be exaggerations or highly understated), then it is strange that extreme supporters appear to be surprised that most of us dont want this.

Quote:

It IS being built.
Billions have been allocated and something is being built in the central valley(even that is going to face a mountain of lawsuits), that's all we know at this point.

mt_climber13 Jul 25, 2012 5:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5776984)
The train only has funding in place for the first leg within the central valley--even money for the extenstions to LA and SF at this point is not secure. And NO private investors have been identified even tho that was a major selling point back in 2008---a rush of private monies was supposed to come into play, and until now that has NOT materialized in the least.

This is California. We have the most innovative and richest investors in the world. Tesla Motors is not a money maker yet, but Mr. Elon Musk, the world's biggest gift since Ben Franklin and Steve Jobs, has put his heart, soul, and wallet into it, as well as Solar City, because he, unlike a lot of people, is thinking long term. Just this one man is helping to finance an electric car company, a solar company, and a commercial space flight company. I have faith that another investor from Silicon valley will put their heart, soul, and wallet into high speed rail, if not Mr. Musk himself.

Unlike other parts of the country, California is unique in that it is always thinking outside the box. It is what brought up the personal computer and the internet. We are a trend setter state. Just you wait, when this is built, the rest of the country will be clamoring to get their own trains.

jg6544 Jul 25, 2012 11:37 PM

From the New York Times:

Ridership on Amtrak has grown to record levels in the past five years, and the railroad is responsible for 75 percent of the air-rail passenger traffic along the Northeast Corridor, up from about 37 percent in 2001.

This is for the benefit of those of you who claim people won't use even rapid rail when they have the option.

Kngkyle Jul 26, 2012 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5777766)
That's true, thank god our state of florida and despite rick scott being another puppet, did the right thing to kill the HSR aka High Speed Rail.

I'm glad he did too, now more worthy states get to benefit. HSR between two metros that have little to no mass transit systems makes no sense to begin with. If Obama wanted a relatively cheap HSR line showing that it could work, he should have went with Chicago to St. Louis.

CAHSR is a great idea, but it's not a good project to quickly prove the value of HSR due to it's very high cost and construction time.

dimondpark Jul 26, 2012 2:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5777727)
From the New York Times:

Ridership on Amtrak has grown to record levels in the past five years, and the railroad is responsible for 75 percent of the air-rail passenger traffic along the Northeast Corridor, up from about 37 percent in 2001.

This is for the benefit of those of you who claim people won't use even rapid rail when they have the option.

Yes, let's spend money where it has been proven to be effective.

I totally agree.:tup:

202_Cyclist Jul 26, 2012 2:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 5777799)
I'm glad he did too, now more worthy states get to benefit. HSR between two metros that have little to no mass transit systems makes no sense to begin with. If Obama wanted a relatively cheap HSR line showing that it could work, he should have went with Chicago to St. Louis.

CAHSR is a great idea, but it's not a good project to quickly prove the value of HSR due to it's very high cost and construction time.

I posted an article from the WSJ about this yesterday in the Midwest rail thread but this is exactly what Obama and the US DOT done and it has proven to be some of the most effective use of stimulus funds.

Speeding Up in the Midwest
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

"NORMAL, Ill.—Passenger trains in the Midwest are becoming the first outside of the Northeast to move at triple-digit speeds, as Illinois and Michigan bet faster Amtrak service will fuel economic growth.

Trains reaching speeds of 110 miles per hour—along with new stations and plans for more daily trips—are cementing a divide in the region over passenger rail. While Illinois and Michigan beef up passenger service, Wisconsin and Ohio say it isn't a good investment. States such as Iowa sit in the middle, looking to expand but at a slower pace.

An estimated $2.1 billion being spent by Illinois and Michigan on track upgrades, new railcars and locomotives is funded mostly by the 2009 federal economic stimulus law..."

202_Cyclist Jul 26, 2012 3:53 PM

Rail opponents shelve revote plan (Fresno Bee)
 
Rail opponents shelve revote plan

Fresno Bee
July 25, 2012

"Californians having second thoughts about a proposed $68 billion high-speed train system linking Northern and Southern California are going to have to wait if they want to vote again on the project.

Former Republican Congressman George Radanovich of Mariposa and state Sen. Doug LaMalfa, a Republican from Willows, announced Wednesday that they are suspending their campaign to put the state's high-speed rail bond measure to a second vote.

Voters approved the issuance of $10 billion in bonds for the project in 2008, but public support for the plan has dwindled in recent years..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/07/25/...vote-plan.html

202_Cyclist Jul 26, 2012 3:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons (Post 5775106)
If it were a highway project, it likely would barely hit the news. Imagine the cost to build a brand new I-5 along a parallel route.

Exactly right. There is a proposal to widen I-5 in San Diego County. The cost for this project just in San Diego County is estimated to be between $3.3B - $4.5B but there are no cries of "BOONDOGGLE!!," the state is broke, why isn't the private sector paying for this, automobiles are early 20th Century technology, that we constantly hear with passenger rail.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/...ase-daily-i-5/

dimondpark Jul 26, 2012 6:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5778474)
Exactly right. There is a proposal to widen I-5 in San Diego County. The cost for this project just in San Diego County is estimated to be between $3.3B - $4.5B but there are no cries of "BOONDOGGLE!!," the state is broke, why isn't the private sector paying for this, automobiles are early 20th Century technology, that we constantly hear with passenger rail.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2010/...ase-daily-i-5/

200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants that kind of investment.

Inflated and exaggerated ridership estimates, ticket prices and unstable funding do not warrant 68 billion dollars in spending.

drifting sun Jul 26, 2012 7:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5778656)
200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants that kind of investment.

Inflated and exaggerated ridership estimates, ticket prices and unstable funding do not warrant 68 billion dollars in spending.

Spending on highway expansion is just feeding a perpetual expansion of automobile usage. At some point, adding lanes does not work too well. We need to shift to more compact forms of rapid, medium to long distance transportation. Money, yes large amounts of money, needs to be spent NOW on setting up these other modes of transportation.

And before you respond with another jack-ass "yawn" and "oh, what trite diatribe", think hard about what it would look like for all of our major cities to have freeways 10, 12, 20, (where to stop?) lanes wide going out of them, and what having an ever-growing number of individual, internal combustion-engine vehicles spewing out pollutants would do to our environment. Even if electric autos somehow come onto the mass-market at affordable prices, you still have all that congestion and space taken up by those wide freeways.

If you still want to yawn and respond like a smart-ass, then I guess you don't give a damn about what our near-future environment will be like. You prefer, I guess to prioritize things that don't matter in the longer term, like money.

mfastx Jul 26, 2012 7:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5778656)
200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants that kind of investment.

Inflated and exaggerated ridership estimates, ticket prices and unstable funding do not warrant 68 billion dollars in spending.

How do you know that California HSR won't be successful? So 200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants $4 billion in investment, yet HSR and billions of dollars in saved cost doesn't?

Are you from the future?

jg6544 Jul 26, 2012 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifting sun (Post 5778743)
Spending on highway expansion is just feeding a perpetual expansion of automobile usage. At some point, adding lanes does not work too well.


And if you ask me, that point was in 1965 or thereabouts.

jg6544 Jul 26, 2012 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5778373)
Yes, let's spend money where it has been proven to be effective.

I totally agree.:tup:

The fact that it has been so effective in the northeast corridor suggests that it will be equally effective between L.A. and the Bay Area when it's completed.

Remember, Amtrak isn't running at HSR speeds in the northeast corridor and still it's attracting more riders.

skyscraperfan23 Jul 27, 2012 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle (Post 5777799)
I'm glad he did too, now more worthy states get to benefit. HSR between two metros that have little to no mass transit systems makes no sense to begin with. If Obama wanted a relatively cheap HSR line showing that it could work, he should have went with Chicago to St. Louis.

CAHSR is a great idea, but it's not a good project to quickly prove the value of HSR due to it's very high cost and construction time.

The Government should not be involved in HSR at all, let the free market do that.

JDRCRASH Jul 27, 2012 1:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5778373)
Yes, let's spend money where it has been proven to be effective.

I totally agree.:tup:

Like Oakland? :rolleyes:

Quote:

200,000-300,000 cars a day warrants that kind of investment.
No, it warrants alternatives to cacaphony freeway investments, which only encourage car use. As a transit supporter, you should know this.

202_Cyclist Jul 27, 2012 1:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5779119)
The Government should not be involved in HSR at all, let the free market do that.

Just like with highways, right?

KevinFromTexas Jul 27, 2012 3:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyscraperfan23 (Post 5779119)
The Government should not be involved in HSR at all, let the free market do that.

Look, since this is something that benefits the public it should be paid for with public money. In Texas we have SH-130 that was paid for, owned and managed by a company in Spain and now Texans have to pay to drive on it. It's a toll road. And the ironic thing is, now that it is controlled by the free market, it has seen little to no development by the free market along its route because hardly anyone drives on it. So as a free market endeavor it is a waste of money and land since it hasn't been very successful. In fact, they're even raising the speed limit on SH-130 to 85 mph just to encourage people to drive on it!

There are certain things the government should be in charge of, fundamental things that are necessary for the health and well being of people and in the case of transportation, the productiveness of them.

Stop trolling this thread and let the dead horse rot already.

dimondpark Jul 27, 2012 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfastx (Post 5779893)
How do you determine beforehand that the proposed California HSR line won't "work?"

I never said that a high speed rail wouldnt work or should not be built, but this body, the California High Speed Rail Authority has proven itself to be inept, indifferent, deceptive(virtually all of their projections have been debunked by various government agencies and transportation think tanks) and arrogant and woefully underprepared to work with the communities that will be directly affected by this project

Quote:

Why not invest in something that might save money down the line?
I gladly support projects that I think make sense.

jg6544 Jul 27, 2012 7:20 PM

Spending on freeways never "works" in CA and hasn't for years. This nonsense about adding carpool lanes to the 405 makes me crazy. It will only make matters worse. I'd be a lot happier if they just blew the damned thing up and replaced it with rapid rail or diverted the $ to speeding up construction of the subway to the sea.

It is impossible to "improve" freeways in CA fast enough to keep up with the traffic they generate unless you want to pave over the entire state. The 405 could be 20 lanes wide and it would still be a parking lot.

phoenixboi08 Jul 27, 2012 8:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5779924)
I never said that a high speed rail wouldnt work or should not be built, but this body, the California High Speed Rail Authority has proven itself to be inept, indifferent, deceptive(virtually all of their projections have been debunked by various government agencies and transportation think tanks) and arrogant and woefully underprepared to work with the communities that will be directly affected by this project

That's a fair argument. Though, I feel it'd be most fruitful to speak to the specific instances in which you find this to be true...so the rest of us who don't know can get a better picture.

pesto Jul 28, 2012 4:36 PM

Ok. I'll explain why HSR is ridiculous for California.

First you argue about freeways WITHIN LA and weigh them against HSR. Not relevant; HSR wants to run trains BETWEEN LA and the Bay Area, where there are no jams, and plenty of room for the future (5 already has the rights of way and room). Building better transit along the 405 corridor is a no-brainer but has nothing to do with connecting "near Madera to almost Bako" (which is what HSR is now proposing in the 4th iteration).

To use it will cost FAR more than cars or air, be much slower (the great majority of trains will make multiple stops and/or changes of train) or require getting to Union Station or DT SF, two areas which are proverbially jammed with traffic in the first place. If anyone wants, I can post this analysis in some detail again.

How do we know it isn't going to work? Well, presumably it will work in the sense of actually running. But we know it will require permanent subsidies, since HSR has had 4 years of trying to find private investors, partners, private lenders, etc., and has found exactly zero who are willing to put money in. Even the proposed Japanese and Chinese builders DEMANDED US federal guarantees of payment before putting a nickle in. And not one analyst has ever thought it would make money (which is how HSR sold themselves) or was properly funded or had an operating plan that made sense.

Just as a side note, why is irrational defense of HSR not trolling? Yet pointing out the facts of its weakness (which Jerry Brown, 3 Democratic auditors, 2 Democrat controlled legislative bodies, the LA Times, various neutral academics, etc. have repeatedly done) is trolling?

fflint Jul 28, 2012 7:14 PM

This is supposed to be a thread about California High Speed Rail--about a railroad, about high-speed train service, about transportation.

This isn't supposed to be a thread about other modes of transportation and why they're so great. It isn't supposed to be a thread about other projects, or what is and isn't happening in other states. It isn't supposed to be a thread for those who have no interest in CAHSR to use as a platform for preaching partisanship, political and cultural ideology, and grand philosophy. And while opposing viewpoints can enrich a discussion, this thread isn't supposed to be dozens and dozens of pages of "Again, I hate it!" and "Again, I don't want it!" and "Again, if you don't hate it you're crazy!" There's no good reason to read in this thread something like "Thank God Florida knows the free market is the only legitimate way to build anything, ever!"

But this thread hasn't been what it was supposed to be for quite some time now. The other day, a forumer felt the need to ask me where the train was going to terminate in San Francisco. He realized the answer was somewhere in this thread, but understandably didn't want to spend an eternity wading through all the preaching and bickering and philosophizing. Forumers can no longer easily locate any useful information about the CAHSR project in its own dedicated thread. Few even try anymore. And nobody interested in railroads, high speed train service, or CAHSR specifically is going to bother to join SSP and contribute, given the nature of this thread. Forum fail.

drifting sun Jul 29, 2012 1:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 5780845)
But this thread hasn't been what it was supposed to be for quite some time now. The other day, a forumer felt the need to ask me where the train was going to terminate in San Francisco. He realized the answer was somewhere in this thread, but understandably didn't want to spend an eternity wading through all the preaching and bickering and philosophizing.

This was probably me; I asked this question twice and did not get any takers, although I admit I am also guilty of feeding into the trollish back-and-forth.

So, what about that termination on the SF end? What plans have been floated around? What are people's opinions on the potential need (or not) to dig tunnel to the Trans Bay Terminal from the Caltrain station? Would such a tunnel face routing issues with the already-begun "Central Subway"?

jg6544 Jul 29, 2012 2:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 5780845)
This is supposed to be a thread about California High Speed Rail--about a railroad, about high-speed train service, about transportation.

It is and there's no doubt CA needs HSR as an alternate mode of transportation in the LA-Bay Area corridor.

fflint Jul 29, 2012 2:39 AM

The Transbay Transit Center, under construction right now, is the planned terminus for CAHSR in San Francisco. While the tunnel that is to carry Caltrain and high-speed service from 4th and King to the Transbay terminal is a long way off, the center itself will open in 2017 with all necessary infrastructure to accomodate two underground levels of electric train service.

Here's the Transbay site about a week ago, posted by forumer Peanut Gallery:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8164/7...7ecd7033_b.jpg

Check out the project website for all kinds of info, pictures, schedules and even a sweet video or two. There's a dedicated Transbay Transit Center thread here on the forum.

Nexis4Jersey Jul 29, 2012 2:50 AM

When will work start on the Tunnel or the Caltrain upgrade?

fflint Jul 29, 2012 4:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey (Post 5781125)
When will work start on the Tunnel or the Caltrain upgrade?

Good question. According to an article in today's Chronicle, Caltrain electrification may take "the better part of a decade." While I don't know of any timetable yet for the Caltrain-CAHSR tunnel work, I do know they won't run diesel trains in a tunnel that long--so I wouldn't expect to see a completed tunnel before full electrification.

mt_climber13 Jul 30, 2012 7:01 AM

Here is a good aerial shot I took of the terminal project site:

http://i1110.photobucket.com/albums/...d/IMG_0284.jpg


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:25 PM.

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