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)

jg6544 Feb 22, 2011 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5142611)
One solution for airport overcrowding? High speed rail


BY ROBERT J. HAWKINS,
JANUARY 26, 2011

"A different sort of solution to San Diego International Airport's seam-busting future pulled into the spotlight Wednesday night: the high-speed rail train.

If the proposed high speed train were to connect to the north end of Lindbergh Field, it could draw away from the airport an estimated 1.5 million passengers who might otherwise be flying to such California destinations as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Sacramento and Ontario, according to airport consultants.

That conclusion came out of the draft version of the Regional Strategic Airport Plan, a first-time ever look at the potential of all 12 public airports in the county..."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...gh-speed-rail/

If genuine high-speed rail gets built in California, probably 40% of the people who fly between LA and San Diego or LA and the Bay Area or Sacramento will switch to the train.

electricron Feb 23, 2011 4:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5175080)
If genuine high-speed rail gets built in California, probably 40% of the people who fly between LA and San Diego or LA and the Bay Area or Sacramento will switch to the train.

Do you have a study performed by professionals suggesting so that you can provide a link to?
Read post 386 for more details, and by the way, there is a professional study supporting those numbers.
Because, as far as San Diego is concerned, the study suggests less than 10% of all air traffic will switch to trains. Yes, I realize that study is looking at all air traffic and not just the short hops air traffic between California cities. You may be correct for the short hop California flights, but I still would like to see a link to a study. Or did you form your opinion in a vacuum?

Jasonhouse Feb 23, 2011 4:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 5175080)
If genuine high-speed rail gets built in California, probably 40% of the people who fly between LA and San Diego or LA and the Bay Area or Sacramento will switch to the train.

And I guarantee that everyone with sinus problems will. lol

M II A II R II K Feb 24, 2011 11:04 PM

http://spur.org/files/policy-reports...racks11211.pdf

Quote:

A study suggests that changes in land use planning will be necessary for California cities to reap the full economic and environmental benefits of HSR.

The study conducted by the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) "identifies specific land-use planning strategies that will contribute to the success of HSR and help cities, and ultimately California, realize the full potential of the multi-billion-dollar system." (From SPUR Website)

SPUR uses the example of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to show how land use and transit planning together can determine a project's success.

JDRCRASH Feb 25, 2011 6:46 AM

DesertXpress is asking for a loan...

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/s...rain-high.html

You might as well go for the Maglev, now that both projects are inevitably gonna ask for funding.

202_Cyclist Feb 25, 2011 11:45 AM

Quote:

DesertXpress is asking for a loan...

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/s...rain-high.html

You might as well go for the Maglev, now that both projects are inevitably gonna ask for funding.
I posted this a few days ago on this thread. As I've said earlier, I'm very skeptical of this project and I view it either as a scam or as a joke. This loan comes from different sources of money but I'd rather see LA get a loan for its 30/10 Plan instead of this project.

hammersklavier Feb 25, 2011 1:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 5178399)
DesertXpress is asking for a loan...

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/s...rain-high.html

You might as well go for the Maglev, now that both projects are inevitably gonna ask for funding.

The question isn't whether they're going to be asking for funding, but how they want to fund it. IIRC the loan they're applying for is one commonly leveraged by freight railroads (needing to build spurs to new mining lodes, for example). So long as their funding sources come exclusively from what for-profit businesses normally leverage, their implicit assumption of eventual profitability will not be shot...

I'm still ambivalent about DX, but skeptical unto the point of cynical about Maglev.

tigernar Feb 25, 2011 1:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 5175538)
Do you have a study performed by professionals suggesting so that you can provide a link to?
Read post 386 for more details, and by the way, there is a professional study supporting those numbers.
Because, as far as San Diego is concerned, the study suggests less than 10% of all air traffic will switch to trains. Yes, I realize that study is looking at all air traffic and not just the short hops air traffic between California cities. You may be correct for the short hop California flights, but I still would like to see a link to a study. Or did you form your opinion in a vacuum?

With travel times below 2 1/2 hours for rail it has been shown empirically that most high speed railways take 60 percent and above of the air/rail modal split.

See: http://www.travelindustrywire.com/article27223.html
and the figure on the last page of this study: http://www.aerlines.nl/issue_43/43_J...bstitution.pdf

Beta_Magellan Feb 25, 2011 5:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier (Post 5178531)
I'm still ambivalent about DX, but skeptical unto the point of cynical about Maglev.

Agreed, and there’s no chance of linking maglev up with CAHSR to reach eventually reach Los Angeles.

I was going to ask why DesertXpress was only 150 mph, but using the 2.5-hour criterion it seems like LA-LV service would be competitive with flying. It’s supposed to be half an hour from Los Angeles to Palmdale and 1.5 hours from Victorville and Las Vegas. It should be less than a half-hour between Palmdale and Victorville, so the total trip will still be under 2.5 hours. Even though a shorter trip would be nice, no need to spend more money than you have to.

Even though a train to Las Vegas seems somewhat gimmicky, this and all the private funding might make it more likely to happen under the current Republican mindset. Despite constantly lashing out against HSR as an expensive toy, when they come out in favor of it they always put it in silly niches—HSR to Disneyland instead of Lakeland or Tampa, for example (whatever your opinion of that project, at least Lakeland and Tampa were actual population centers). They seem only able to understand rail as a tourist attraction, not a piece of infrastructure.

JDRCRASH Feb 26, 2011 1:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 5178803)
Agreed, and there’s no chance of linking maglev up with CAHSR to reach eventually reach Los Angeles.

It doesn't need to link with it, actually. Transfer stations at ARTIC (which I think I saw on the ARTIC website) and Ontario Airport would work pretty well.

Beta_Magellan Feb 26, 2011 6:03 PM

If our objective is to have an overland intercity transport system that’s seriously competitive with air travel, I don’t see how forcing a transfer helps. You want your connections between large travel markets to be as direct as possible—having to transfer to from HSR to a maglev in Anaheim or drive to an airport in San Bernardino or Anaheim doesn’t take doesn’t strike me as all that direct. Even though you can’t do much about accessibility in Las Vegas, in LA the goal should be to serve the city as directly as possible, which means a connection to Union Station. And unless you want to build a lot of redundant infrastructure, that means having a Las vegas link that is interoperable with CAHSR.

pesto Feb 26, 2011 7:28 PM

I agree strongly with the idea of non-stop or easy connections. But how exactly would someone trying to get from, say, Downey to LV actually have to travel using Desert Express and how long would this take?

tigernar: SD to SF is 4 hrs. by HSR, if you get a train with few stops and make your connections; LA to SF is 2hr 38, if the technology claims are right and you catch a non-stop. This seems to put HSR outside your success parameters.

In any event, HSR claims only about 15 percent of their ridership will come from former air travellers, so this is not the make or break demographic.

jg6544 Feb 26, 2011 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 5175538)
Do you have a study performed by professionals suggesting so that you can provide a link to?
Read post 386 for more details, and by the way, there is a professional study supporting those numbers.
Because, as far as San Diego is concerned, the study suggests less than 10% of all air traffic will switch to trains. Yes, I realize that study is looking at all air traffic and not just the short hops air traffic between California cities. You may be correct for the short hop California flights, but I still would like to see a link to a study. Or did you form your opinion in a vacuum?

Nope, just a CA resident for over 20 years, most of them in L.A. Here are the facts: If I'm lucky and the flight takes off and lands on time at both ends and I can grab a parking space at LAX fairly quickly (and don't mind paying a fortune for it) and a cab at SFO and if there isn't traffic on the surface streets leading to LAX (just forget the 405 unless it's 2 in the morning on a Tuesday) and the traffic on the freeway into SF is moving fairly well, I can get from my residence in LA to my destination in downtown San Francisco in ca. 2 hrs. 15 mins. Of course, that never happens. More likely, traffic in both cities will be nightmarish (worse if it's rush hour). The lots at LAX will be packed (and the remote lots are at least half-an-hour away); cabs are usually fairly easy to come by at SFO. The flight will be a minimum of an hour late leaving LAX and even later arriving at SFO and that's not even counting the security nazis and the hour they add to flight time.

I can be downtown in 45 minutes. You bet I'd take a 2 hr. 38 minute train trip over the marathon barefoot over broken glass that is flying. I don't think I'm that atypical.

I also lived in Washington, DC for 20 years and once the Metroliners were introduced, dropping the travel time to around 4 hours, I doubt if I bothered with the shuttle a dozen times, total. Even in the pre-airplane-as-cattle-car and pre-security-nazi era, taking the train was just more pleasant.

Oh yes, when I go to San Francisco now, I drive. It doesn't take a lot longer and it's a hell of a lot more pleasant.

JDRCRASH Feb 27, 2011 1:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 5179980)
If our objective is to have an overland intercity transport system that’s seriously competitive with air travel, I don’t see how forcing a transfer helps. You want your connections between large travel markets to be as direct as possible—having to transfer to from HSR to a maglev in Anaheim or drive to an airport in San Bernardino or Anaheim doesn’t take doesn’t strike me as all that direct. Even though you can’t do much about accessibility in Las Vegas, in LA the goal should be to serve the city as directly as possible, which means a connection to Union Station. And unless you want to build a lot of redundant infrastructure, that means having a Las vegas link that is interoperable with CAHSR.

Transfers aren't the best way to connect cities, indeed. However, one thing to keep in mind is that if the DesertXpress was built, you're looking at transfers as well, mainly at Palmdale (for a little while) and Victorville, both via Metrolink. And that's assuming a Metrolink extension through the Cajon Pass ever happens before HSR does. If you're willing to transfer between the DesertXpress and Metrolink (Commuter Rail - HSR), why not do the same between Maglev and CHSR (HSR - HSR)?

Another problem is that Palmdale and Victorville, unlike ONT and ARTIC, are well outside the population centers of LA. It would be MUCH easier for the vast majority of people in the LA area to drive to Ontario and Anaheim to jump on the Maglev, rather than head to the High Desert to reach the DesertXpress.

DJM19 Feb 27, 2011 6:53 AM

I dont see how you would need to transfer for desert xpress, in the long run. Can it just share HSR track and go to los angeles?

electricron Feb 27, 2011 5:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJM19 (Post 5180637)
I dont see how you would need to transfer for desert xpress, in the long run. Can it just share HSR track and go to los angeles?

Yes, it could. It really depends upon whether there will be slots available for the DesertXpress trains on the CHSR rail corridor and at Union Station.

Beta_Magellan Feb 27, 2011 6:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 5180382)
Transfers aren't the best way to connect cities, indeed. However, one thing to keep in mind is that if the DesertXpress was built, you're looking at transfers as well, mainly at Palmdale (for a little while) and Victorville, both via Metrolink. And that's assuming a Metrolink extension through the Cajon Pass ever happens before HSR does. If you're willing to transfer between the DesertXpress and Metrolink (Commuter Rail - HSR), why not do the same between Maglev and CHSR (HSR - HSR)?

Another problem is that Palmdale and Victorville, unlike ONT and ARTIC, are well outside the population centers of LA. It would be MUCH easier for the vast majority of people in the LA area to drive to Ontario and Anaheim to jump on the Maglev, rather than head to the High Desert to reach the DesertXpress.

True enough—I was just extrapolating some hypothetical future with DesertXPress running directly to LA’s Union Station, having no idea whether that was eventually in the cards or not. If it is, I’d still recommend waiting to make the direct link or investing in that rather than using different technologies for CAHSR and SoCal-LV, but your point makes sense too.

Do either of these projects have definite timescales, BTW? I know DesertXPress is in the perennially-being-pushed-back category—is the maglev doing any better?

Gordo Feb 27, 2011 6:38 PM

^The maglev project hasn't even finished initial studies.

On the DX topic, there is simply no way that there would ever be a transfer involved at Palmdale for passengers coming from LA, because there's no way that a Palmdale-Victorville extension would be built in the first place if we weren't talking about direct routing for trains from LV-LA.

Seeing what incompatible technologies has done to Bay Area transit (BART vs other rail), there is no way in hell that I could ever support a single dollar of federal or state funds going to the maglev project.

JDRCRASH Feb 28, 2011 1:10 AM

Look, if the Maglev doesn't find a way to get built, then obviously i'd support DesertXpress (It's better than ending up with that stupid "X-Train" crap).

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 5180863)
Yes, it could. It really depends upon whether there will be slots available for the DesertXpress trains on the CHSR rail corridor and at Union Station.

It looks like CHSR is already planned to share tracks with Metrolink (though I personally hope that doesn't happen). At some point, wouldn't scheduling become an issue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 5180892)
Do either of these projects have definite timescales, BTW? I know DesertXPress is in the perennially-being-pushed-back category—is the maglev doing any better?

Both projects are looking for funding. So really both projects have no solid timetable for ground-breaking. DesertXpress has completed it's EIR, I think. But i'm not sure if that report includes the possible Palmdale extension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordo (Post 5180922)
On the DX topic, there is simply no way that there would ever be a transfer involved at Palmdale for passengers coming from LA, because there's no way that a Palmdale-Victorville extension would be built in the first place if we weren't talking about direct routing for trains from LV-LA.

Like I said, I think it depends on whether CHSR Authority decides to share tracks with Metrolink. If they don't, then you have to either A)Wait until the Bakersfield-LA segment is built, or, B)Share tracks with Metrolink. Obviously the latter sounds more appealing. But wouldn't that require track upgrades to Metrolink?

Quote:

Seeing what incompatible technologies has done to Bay Area transit (BART vs other rail), there is no way in hell that I could ever support a single dollar of federal or state funds going to the maglev project.
What about the other maglev projects across the nation, like Baltimore-DC? You can't be against maglev just for this corridor, because it's not the only potentially serious proposal in existance for this country, if not the world.

Beta_Magellan Feb 28, 2011 8:19 PM

Well, we’re straying quite far from California, but DC-Baltimore maglev makes absolutely no sense—it’s part of the NEC, and all signs point to upgrades of the existing corridor plus some new stretches to allow for true HSR and solve capacity issues. Why invest in DC-Baltimore maglev, which would only go from DC to Baltimore, when you use rails and go DC-New York, Baltimore-Boston, or whatever combination your want. Should DesertXPress eventually link up with CAHSR, it’s the same thing—why invest in a technology that can only be used along one corridor when you could use another which offers much more flexibility?

I could see maglev working in some isolated corridors that demand high speeds and don’t need to link up with the larger rail network (Colorado comes to mind—I think maglev’s been studied for various north-south corridors there), but it really doesn’t make sense to make an intercity network using incompatible technologies. It doesn’t matter whether this is the only serious maglev proposal in the country—the only thing that matters is whether or not it makes sense to use the technology in this corridor.

hammersklavier Feb 28, 2011 10:30 PM

Look, if somebody wants to build a Maglev line they believe can turn an actual profit, then I would say let them go ahead and DO IT.

Most HSR throughout the world has, however, been a direct government investment, and I would not want to see the government directly investing in Maglev as an infrastructure option, so long as it remains a (relatively) untested technology.

This is why I also say to DX: If you think you can build HSR and operate it at a profit, then go ahead and DO IT.

afiggatt Mar 2, 2011 4:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 5181977)
Well, we’re straying quite far from California, but DC-Baltimore maglev makes absolutely no sense—it’s part of the NEC, and all signs point to upgrades of the existing corridor plus some new stretches to allow for true HSR and solve capacity issues. Why invest in DC-Baltimore maglev, which would only go from DC to Baltimore, when you use rails and go DC-New York, Baltimore-Boston, or whatever combination your want. Should DesertXPress eventually link up with CAHSR, it’s the same thing—why invest in a technology that can only be used along one corridor when you could use another which offers much more flexibility?

I could see maglev working in some isolated corridors that demand high speeds and don’t need to link up with the larger rail network (Colorado comes to mind—I think maglev’s been studied for various north-south corridors there), but it really doesn’t make sense to make an intercity network using incompatible technologies. It doesn’t matter whether this is the only serious maglev proposal in the country—the only thing that matters is whether or not it makes sense to use the technology in this corridor.

I agree. My take on Maglev is that it is an expensive solution in search of the application where steel wheel rail is not the more cost effective and better option. In the case of the proposed DC-Baltimore maglev, the NEC between DC and Baltimore can be upgraded to four tracks with increased overall speeds and MARC can be expanded to 7 day service for a lot less than the cost of the Maglev line.

JDRCRASH Mar 2, 2011 5:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 5181977)
It doesn’t matter whether this is the only serious maglev proposal in the country—the only thing that matters is whether or not it makes sense to use the technology in this corridor.

How can you have a technology "proven" then? By examples. Right now there is only one.

Gordo Mar 3, 2011 5:33 PM

The advantages of any current maglev technology simply aren't high enough to support any use in the US. It's a much better use of dollars to build conventional HSR and more intra-urban area transit, and likely will be for the next 100 years.

Now, if we start talking about maglev that can achieve 500+ mph speeds in operation (at decent levels of energy usage), maybe there could be some use. To me, maglev is the same as supersonic filght - cool, yes, but never likely to be very useful because the additional relatively small increase in speed isn't worth the HUGE increase in energy usage and cost.

JDRCRASH Mar 4, 2011 1:09 AM

Well there's no rolling resistance associate with Maglev technology, so energy efficiency could be higher than steel wheels.

zilfondel Mar 4, 2011 6:02 AM

Japan's building their Chuo line. So, in abut 10+ years, we'll see. It is highly expensive to both build and operate, but shouldn't require as much maintenance - there are no rails to wear out. But who knows.

Starting from the ground up, would make no sense to build maglev. Most other countries have extensive normal-speed rail lines that move lots of people, which we barely have in the US.

OhioGuy Mar 4, 2011 5:12 PM

The Florida Supreme Court upheld this morning the governor's right to reject the high speed rail money allocated to the state by the Federal Government. Presumably a sizable chunk of this money will be reallocated to California. I'll be anxious to hear whether it enables the initial line to be constructed any further beyond the Bakersfield to Fresno portion. Will they be able to extend to to Palmdale and maybe even potentially Sylmar for the first phase?

JDRCRASH Mar 4, 2011 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OhioGuy (Post 5187322)
The Florida Supreme Court upheld this morning the governor's right to reject the high speed rail money allocated to the state by the Federal Government. Presumably a sizable chunk of this money will be reallocated to California. I'll be anxious to hear whether it enables the initial line to be constructed any further beyond the Bakersfield to Fresno portion. Will they be able to extend to to Palmdale and maybe even potentially Sylmar for the first phase?

I doubt it, since the Bakersfield-Palmdale segment involves boring a tunnel.

afiggatt Mar 4, 2011 8:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 5187324)
I doubt it, since the Bakersfield-Palmdale segment involves boring a tunnel.

Multiple tunnels at that. Looking at the CHSRA Preliminary Analysis staff report document for the Bakersfield-Palmdale segment (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/Ba..._Palmdale.aspx) , the Tehachapi subsection alternate alignments that are being carried forward in the preliminary study have total tunnel lengths ranging from 10.7 to 16 miles and elevated length of 5 to 10.9 miles. The various alternative routes carried forward keep the grade slope under the maximum design of 3.5% with average sustained slopes of 2.5% to 2.75%. The route from Bakersfield to Palmdale will be expensive and with 10 to 16 miles of dual tunnels to bore out, is going to take some years of construction work. The sooner they can make the decision on the final route, get started on the detailed design and ROW acquisition the better.

The Florida HSR funds are in 2 pots: around $1.6 billion of stimulus funds and $800 million of FY2010 funds. If CA gets $800 million to $1 billion of that, combined with some matching state bond money amount, that might allow them to complete the build from Bakersfield to Merced along with the heavy maintenance facility if that is the approach the CHSRA decides to take.

202_Cyclist Mar 5, 2011 4:39 PM

High-speed rail line environmental data delayed (Fresno Bee)
 
High-speed rail line environmental data delayed


Mar. 04, 2011
By Tim Sheehan

"Reports on the environmental effects of high-speed trains in the Valley will be delayed for several months as engineers seek less costly ways to build the project.

The delay will not postpone the anticipated start of construction in late 2012, the California High-Speed Rail Authority said. But it will push the environmental assessments beyond a fall deadline in the state's agreement for billions in federal dollars.

"Only the estimated schedule for environmental milestones has changed," authority CEO Roelof van Ark said this week. "The schedule for construction has not."

A 120-mile stretch of high-speed tracks between Fresno and Bakersfield is tabbed to be the first portion built for California's high-speed train system..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/03/04/...rail-line.html

electricron Mar 5, 2011 6:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5188260)
High-speed rail line environmental data delayed. The delay will not postpone the anticipated start of construction in late 2012, the California High-Speed Rail Authority said. But it will push the environmental assessments beyond a fall deadline in the state's agreement for billions in federal dollars.

Doesn't not meeting the deadlines in the state's agreement with the Feds place this whole project at risk? I can forsee some Congressmen using this excuse to push for rescinding Federal funds.

CHSR planners should work triple time to meet this fall's deadline if that is required. Meet your promises, or loose all credibility. HSR projects around the country are falling like dominoes, and I'm afraid CHSR is next.

JDRCRASH Mar 6, 2011 12:00 AM

I'm afraid electricon is right. No longer can people afford to take their time trying to study and build infrastructure projects across the nation (even in California and the NE states, both places where support is strong). The political climate has changed, unfortunately. We have an insane political movement of truly unprecedented proportions, with daftarses in Congress bent on wasting everyone else's time by cutting the limbs of civic services. The bottom line is if you're the CHSR Authority, it's time to put up or shut up.

Beta_Magellan Mar 7, 2011 2:32 AM

Before we go all chicken little, let’s first note that this is happening with the FRA’s approval. From the end of the article:

Quote:

The new timeline won't jeopardize the federal funds because the state has the blessing of the Federal Railroad Administration, said Rachel Wall, the state authority's press secretary.
"Everything we do is in partnership with FRA," Wall said. "They're aware and they're involved in planning progress."
And the cause of the delay is:

Quote:

A ground-level track originally was among the options being considered, but was abandoned because engineers believed it would not be feasible, a state official said.
"A number of the aerial structures that were proposed in the Central Valley now can be eliminated," Umberg said. "That track can be at grade rather than on aerial structures."
Over the past couple of months, van Ark said, engineers have been looking at route options "to identify opportunities to minimize environmental impacts and also to take a hard look to see if there are reasonable ways to reduce project costs."
The exact savings aren't known, but reducing the amount of elevated tracks could shave tens of millions from the price of the Fresno-Bakersfield section, estimated at about $5.5 billion.
I’d argue that they were mistaken to not investigate the at-grade option before (which could have avoided this deadline extension), but seeing that they didn’t do that I’d rather they take the time to reduce the cost and complexity of the project down the road than going ahead with a project that’s more expensive than it needs to be.

fflint Mar 7, 2011 2:50 AM

^Good post.

Godwindaniel Mar 8, 2011 12:45 PM

I had an doubt whether it have all the features like japanese and chinese trains. Whether it contains all the luxuries and comfort as other trains.


________________________________________________________
gps tracking | gps fleet tracking

twoNeurons Mar 9, 2011 4:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godwindaniel (Post 5191445)
I had an doubt whether it have all the features like japanese and chinese trains. Whether it contains all the luxuries and comfort as other trains.

Can you elaborate? I don't know Chinese trains, but Japanese trains vary, depending on the series.

twoNeurons Mar 9, 2011 4:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 5189747)
Before we go all chicken little, let’s first note that this is happening with the FRA’s approval. From the end of the article:



And the cause of the delay is:



I’d argue that they were mistaken to not investigate the at-grade option before (which could have avoided this deadline extension), but seeing that they didn’t do that I’d rather they take the time to reduce the cost and complexity of the project down the road than going ahead with a project that’s more expensive than it needs to be.

Just for clarification, the CAHSR project won't have any level crossings, right?

northbay Mar 9, 2011 4:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons (Post 5193072)
Just for clarification, the CAHSR project won't have any level crossings, right?

that is correct

electricron Mar 9, 2011 5:41 PM

No level at grade crossings are in the plans now, but who knows how many there will be after this new delay causing review trying to save money? Grade separated crossings cost $10 to $20 Million each. You can save significant amounts of money if you're willing to have at grade crossings, especially in cities near train stations where the HSR trains have already slowed down.

fflint Mar 10, 2011 12:27 AM

Motor vehicles and pedestrians will NOT touch the HSR tracks regardless of the eventual design.

ardecila Mar 10, 2011 4:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 5193185)
Grade separated crossings cost $10 to $20 Million each.

Yes, to install them individually on an existing rail line. However, if you're building an elevated viaduct for a new rail line built from scratch, the cost per crossing is much less than that (ignoring land acquisition).

Out in rural areas where the tracks are at grade, any roads will either be closed off or elevated over the tracks, and here your cost estimate is valid. But since the trains will presumably be going full-speed in rural areas, it's not safe to build grade crossings - it's out of the question.

Gordo Mar 10, 2011 5:36 AM

Anybody who watches the show "Mad Men" and follows this thread should like this video:

Video Link


It was made by the two actors, who are both adamant HSR supporters.

More info about it can be found here: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/7e1...-men-on-trains

zilfondel Mar 11, 2011 3:57 AM

^ Very awesome. Hope it goes viral.

Beta_Magellan Mar 11, 2011 6:47 AM

Never saw the show and I thought it was awesome.

Seriously, I wonder what an alternate universe America where we did Shinkansen-type innovations on the NEC and Midwest in the late 1960’s and ’70’s would look like…after all, I’ve read that Shinkansen built on pre-1960 (maybe even steam era?) American 100-mph technology.

electricron Mar 11, 2011 5:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beta_Magellan (Post 5196220)
Never saw the show and I thought it was awesome.

Seriously, I wonder what an alternate universe America where we did Shinkansen-type innovations on the NEC and Midwest in the late 1960’s and ’70’s would look like…after all, I’ve read that Shinkansen built on pre-1960 (maybe even steam era?) American 100-mph technology.

The original Shinkansen trains had maximum speeds of 130 mph (210 km/hr) just slightly faster than Metroliners on the NEC.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_Series_Shinkansen

I believe the straighter corridor allowed the Shinkansen to maintain maximum speeds significantly longer than even the faster Acela trains on the NEC. I believe there's still significant gains that can be achieved on the NEC if we invest wisely on it. I'm not so sure a brand new corridor paralleling the NEC will be a wise investment.

JDRCRASH Mar 16, 2011 2:56 AM

It's official: Ontario and Barstow don't want the DesertXpress.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/d...rain-high.html

hammersklavier Mar 16, 2011 3:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 5202638)
It's official: Ontario and Barstow don't want the DesertXpress.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/news/d...rain-high.html

This has fail written on all sides.
(a) Barstow passing a resolution against DX is as silly and ineffectual as Frisco passing a resolution against UP. As long as DX has control of its easement the municipalities can stew all they want, but they're not really in control of land use within the granted easement. Philly, interestingly enough, had a similar problem with the B&O ca. 1900. CSX (B&O's corporate successor) still runs on those tracks.
(b) It does not seem like DX has made any effort to placate Barstow. Why would it be so hard to just plunk down a station there? It doesn't look like even that attempt has been made. Instead DX is plowing ahead bullishly with its own plan come hell or high water.
(c) Why the **** is maglev still in the discussion? And what the **** does a municipality have to do with passing a resolution opposing one, and supporting the other, when both proposals are (ostensibly) private-market driven? :sly:

JDRCRASH Mar 16, 2011 5:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier (Post 5202675)
This has fail written on all sides.
(a) Barstow passing a resolution against DX is as silly and ineffectual as Frisco passing a resolution against UP. As long as DX has control of its easement the municipalities can stew all they want, but they're not really in control of land use within the granted easement. Philly, interestingly enough, had a similar problem with the B&O ca. 1900. CSX (B&O's corporate successor) still runs on those tracks.

Yeah, but if public assistance is present, then municipalities will likely have a say.

Quote:

(b) It does not seem like DX has made any effort to placate Barstow. Why would it be so hard to just plunk down a station there? It doesn't look like even that attempt has been made. Instead DX is plowing ahead bullishly with its own plan come hell or high water.
This is why not having SOME government involvement in the rail industry is a mistake. It's likely that DX has skipped Barstow to avoid costs. But it shouldn't be that expensive, since nothing fancy is required. A couple large platforms should be all that's necessary.

Quote:

(c) Why the **** is maglev still in the discussion?
Why SHOULDN'T Maglev be in the discussion? Because of it's cost?

Quote:

And what the **** does a municipality have to do with passing a resolution opposing one, and supporting the other, when both proposals are (ostensibly) private-market driven? :sly:
Much of it IS private-market driven, but it's becoming more and more clear that both are going to need federal assistance (though let's be honest, we all knew that going into this debate).

hammersklavier Mar 17, 2011 1:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 5202869)
Yeah, but if public assistance is present, then municipalities will likely have a say.

To a degree, but I-10 creates an already-established transportation easement. I do not believe RR loan monies are doled out with any municipal input, either.
Quote:

This is why not having SOME government involvement in the rail industry is a mistake. It's likely that DX has skipped Barstow to avoid costs. But it shouldn't be that expensive, since nothing fancy is required. A couple large platforms should be all that's necessary.
Agreed. Add on a small ticket office. The RR is supposed to be built at a higher speed ceiling than what the Reginas can handle, so why not offer a few local stops for them when they sell slots to faster trains?
Quote:

Why SHOULDN'T Maglev be in the discussion? Because of it's cost?
No, it's because no government enterprise (municipality, administration, office, etc.) has any business promoting any one technology at the expense of any other. That would be a completely unfair, unenforceable, and unconstitutional taking. In other words, this bill wouldn't get through a court trial.

I did not mean that it should be ignored--I meant that Barstow cannot (or at least should not) be blatantly preferring one mode over another, especially if they are not paying, or securing funding for, either mode. It is akin to NIMBYism on a large scale--"if we can't have an Urban Outfitters/Target/Starbucks/name chain here here, NOTHING should be built!"
Quote:

Much of it IS private-market driven, but it's becoming more and more clear that both are going to need federal assistance (though let's be honest, we all knew that going into this debate).
As did the Interstates. As did the airports. As did the original freight railroads. When was the last time there was large infrastructure investment done completely by private enterprise? Canals?

JDRCRASH Mar 17, 2011 2:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier (Post 5204014)
To a degree, but I-10 creates an already-established transportation easement. I do not believe RR loan monies are doled out with any municipal input, either.

So there's no community meetings or anything like that?

Quote:

Agreed. Add on a small ticket office. The RR is supposed to be built at a higher speed ceiling than what the Reginas can handle, so why not offer a few local stops for them when they sell slots to faster trains?
The most stops it seems right now for DX, other than LV and Victorville, would be ones in Primm/Ivanpah and Barstow. Same for the Maglev plan (in the High Desert section).

Quote:

No, it's because no government enterprise (municipality, administration, office, etc.) has any business promoting any one technology at the expense of any other. That would be a completely unfair, unenforceable, and unconstitutional taking. In other words, this bill wouldn't get through a court trial.

I did not mean that it should be ignored--I meant that Barstow cannot (or at least should not) be blatantly preferring one mode over another, especially if they are not paying, or securing funding for, either mode. It is akin to NIMBYism on a large scale--"if we can't have an Urban Outfitters/Target/Starbucks/name chain here here, NOTHING should be built!"
I see. So it might be more likely that they'll complain about something else about the project and use that as a platform for their ultimate goal of stopping the project?

By the way, are MTA's across the country city departments, or are they independent organizations?

Quote:

As did the Interstates. As did the airports. As did the original freight railroads. When was the last time there was large infrastructure investment done completely by private enterprise? Canals?
Oh, I know that. I just thought that when you mentioned "private-market driven", you INDICATED that it was going to be paid off with zero government funds; which, like I said, is impossible.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:22 PM.

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