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)

hammersklavier Sep 19, 2010 4:21 AM

I would imagine that part of whatever HSR agreement gets put into place is an industry collab between Kawasaki/Hitachi/Rotem/Alstom/Talgo/Siemens/Bombardier/AnsaldoBreda (pick one) and GE, such that GE will finally get the HSR startup tech that it'll need to compete in the field in its own home country and abroad. (The corollary? GE will sell elsewhere.)

Evidence? KTX. Alstom and Rotem collaborated to produce KTX-I; KTX-II is entirely a Rotem product. Rotem is selling its tech to Turkey. GE would be nuts not to follow Hyundai Rotem's example.

By the way, Rotem is Hyundai's rail-equipment construction arm.

ardecila Sep 19, 2010 6:43 AM

Although working with China is a tantalizing possibility, it remains to be seen how Federal and California state laws will affect the project. Theoretically, using Chinese engineering, manufacturing, and construction teams, the California high-speed rail project could see substantial cost savings. In the real world, however, there are strict Buy America requirements on Federally-funded projects (just ask Houston) and often state laws requiring unionized labor in public construction projects.

CAHSR has also been pitched to Californians as a job creation tool (just like HSR in every other state) and using Chinese labor to build the line would likely be seen as a betrayal by the electorate - not to mention an ugly echo of the days in which Chinese immigrant labor built the Central Pacific and other Western railroads.

The cost of living in California is pretty high, so the workers would either need to be paid market wages, or the construction company would have to take on the task of housing and feeding the workers itself to lower the effective cost of living.

It is interesting, though... progressive Californians would probably disagree with me, but I see nothing wrong with using Chinese labor if California can work out an agreement to give the immigrant workers American citizenship as a form of compensation in lieu of top-notch Cali labor wages.

StethJeff Sep 20, 2010 4:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier (Post 4986075)
I would imagine that part of whatever HSR agreement gets put into place is an industry collab between Kawasaki/Hitachi/Rotem/Alstom/Talgo/Siemens/Bombardier/AnsaldoBreda (pick one) and GE, such that GE will finally get the HSR startup tech that it'll need to compete in the field in its own home country and abroad. (The corollary? GE will sell elsewhere.)

Evidence? KTX. Alstom and Rotem collaborated to produce KTX-I; KTX-II is entirely a Rotem product. Rotem is selling its tech to Turkey. GE would be nuts not to follow Hyundai Rotem's example.

By the way, Rotem is Hyundai's rail-equipment construction arm.

I assume AnsaldoBreda is out of the running ever since it backed out of the deal to partially locate some of its building operations in the proposed clean tech corridor on the outskirts of downtown.

202_Cyclist Oct 1, 2010 5:42 PM

Calif. gets $194M federal grant for high-speed rail (Sacramento Business Journal)
 
Calif. gets $194M federal grant for high-speed rail

Sacramento Business Journal
Melanie Turner, Staff writer
9/30/2010

The Federal Railroad Administration Thursday announced $235 million in federal economic stimulus funds for high-speed rail projects, including $194 million for California.

The $194 million American Recovery and Reinvestment Act grant will fund preliminary engineering and an environmental analysis for 520 miles of California’s future high-speed rail corridor. The California High Speed Rail Authority is planning an 800-mile high-speed rail system linking California’s major metropolitan areas

“The funding award demonstrates again the continued confidence the federal government has in California and the progress we’re making in planning our state’s high-speed rail project,” authority chairman Curt Pringle said, in a news release. “This will give California’s system the funds we need to complete the environmental review and bring us closer to realizing the enormous opportunity this project represents for our state….”

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sa...7/daily69.html

dl3000 Oct 4, 2010 3:25 AM

Schwarzeneggar vetoed the Holocaust bill!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,1074921.story
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/10/sch...olocaust-bill/

JDRCRASH Oct 4, 2010 4:24 AM

Finally he does something right.

M II A II R II K Oct 6, 2010 5:20 PM

Peninsula cities sue to derail high-speed rail project


http://www.mercurynews.com/top-stori...nclick_check=1

Quote:

A coalition of Peninsula cities and organizations Monday sued the California High-Speed Rail Authority in another bid to derail its $43 billion bullet train project.

The project has been controversial in some mid-Peninsula cities, where residents and officials worry the bullet trains will be noisy, divide neighborhoods by running atop elevated tracks and force the seizure of dozens of homes along sections of the Caltrain corridor.

Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton -- along with three environmental groups, two citizens groups and a San Mateo resident -- filed the lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court.

The suit alleges that the rail authority's environmental assessment doesn't adequately describe the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco project, fails to fully explore all its negative impacts and gives short shrift to other alternatives, such as running the trains over the Altamont Pass and up the East Bay instead of over Pacheco Pass and up the Peninsula.

Filed by attorney Stuart M. Flashman, the suit also alleges the rail authority violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not seeking additional public comment after revising information in the environmental report.

The suit also attacks the environmental report's ridership projections, which critics say were inflated to justify the project and its cost.

fflint Oct 6, 2010 5:27 PM

"[O]ver the Altamont Pass and up the East Bay instead of over Pacheco Pass and up the Peninsula."

Add a second train tunnel under the Bay to SF and I'm in. Let the Peninsula suffocate on its own gas fumes while the rest of the region booms along with new public transit.

Surefiresacto Oct 6, 2010 7:07 PM

Would have been awesome if instead of building a whole new eastern span of the bay brigde for both directions of traffic, if they had just built a new single westbound direction bridge and used the other part of the existing bridge for HSR.

Just a random thought as I have no idea how the train would make it to the bridge from the east.

mfastx Oct 6, 2010 8:03 PM

So basically what these people are doing is attempting to prevent a development that will benefit California as a whole in order to stop "a few dozen homes" from getting torn down? LOL do they not realize that when they built the freeways THOUSANDS of homes got cleared out?

That's just selfish.

fflint Oct 6, 2010 8:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surefiresacto (Post 5006587)
Would have been awesome if instead of building a whole new eastern span of the bay brigde for both directions of traffic, if they had just built a new single westbound direction bridge and used the other part of the existing bridge for HSR.

Just a random thought as I have no idea how the train would make it to the bridge from the east.

The existing eastern span of the Bay Bridge is anchored by wood posts sunk into the bay mud. It's far too unstable in an earthquake to retain, and too expensive to retrofit.

ardecila Oct 6, 2010 10:40 PM

Duplicating the Transbay Tunnel would probably be cheaper and easier than building a bridge. Plus, it's easier to earthquake-proof and there are no concerns about aesthetics.

Using the Eastern Span for HSR would only get trains halfway across the bay. You'd still need to get them from Yerba Buena to SF... which would probably be done in a tunnel.

Really, the easiest thing would just be one long tunnel, preferably with four track spaces to allow for an additional set of tracks to be laid in the future, a la the 63rd St Tunnel in NY (but much longer, of course).

peanut gallery Oct 7, 2010 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfastx (Post 5006673)
So basically what these people are doing is attempting to prevent a development that will benefit California as a whole in order to stop "a few dozen homes" from getting torn down? LOL do they not realize that when they built the freeways THOUSANDS of homes got cleared out?

That's just selfish.

It's selfish and 90% BS. To quote the article:
Quote:

...residents and officials worry the bullet trains will be noisy, divide neighborhoods by running atop elevated tracks and force the seizure of dozens of homes along sections of the Caltrain corridor.
Noisy? HSR trains will be much quieter than Caltrain sets are today. And by separating rail completely from road, you will eliminate all the horns and bells that those intersections require. So HSR will actually make the rail corridor quieter than it is today.

And speaking of the corridor, it already divides these neighborhoods...today...without HSR, and has since long before most of these homes were built. Caltrain has been feverishly fencing off the tracks for several years to make sure it's even more effective at separating one side of the tracks from the other. This is just a nonsensical claim.

I can't positively refute the "dozens of seized homes" claim, but it doesn't seem right that that much more space is needed to finish double-tracking the whole Peninsula. I suppose it's possible. But looking at the rest of their arguments, I strongly suspect there is a fair amount of hyperbole in that statement too.

ltsmotorsport Oct 7, 2010 9:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 5006460)
"[O]ver the Altamont Pass and up the East Bay instead of over Pacheco Pass and up the Peninsula."

Add a second train tunnel under the Bay to SF and I'm in. Let the Peninsula suffocate on its own gas fumes while the rest of the region booms along with new public transit.


Right there with ya.

202_Cyclist Oct 13, 2010 6:39 PM

Kern Co. wants high-speed rail maintenance yard (Fresno Bee)
 
Kern Co. wants high-speed rail maintenance yard

Oct. 12, 2010
Fresno Bee

http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/10/12/...peed-rail.html

“The battle to land a Valley high-speed rail maintenance yard intensified this week when Kern County's bid was sweetened with an offer of free land.

At least eight possible sites for a heavy maintenance yard between Fresno and Bakersfield have been advanced, including one south of Fresno and one in Hanford.

Monday, San Joaquin Valley agriculture giant Paramount Farms said it would donate 180 acres to the California High-Speed Rail Authority if it awards the yard to Shafter.

The offer was trumpeted by Kern County high-speed rail boosters as a shot across Fresno's bow….”

202_Cyclist Oct 14, 2010 8:55 PM

Harry Reid hopeful DesertXpress gets support from next governor (Las Vegas Sun)
 
Harry Reid hopeful DesertXpress gets support from next governor
Officials outline federal loan guarantees company will pursue

By Richard N. Velotta
Wednesday, Oct. 13, 2010
Las Vegas Sun

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010...support-next-/

http://photos.lasvegassun.com/media/...b3328710e01e7b
U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, left, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Tom Skancke, president and CEO of The Skancke Company, a transportation consulting company, hold a news conference at UNLV Wednesday, October 13, 2010. LaHood and Reid announced specifics of a federal loan guarantee program for a public-private partnership to expedite development of the DesertXpress high-speed rail system between Las Vegas and Victorville, Calif.
Image courtesy of the Las Vegas Sun

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that he would meet with Nevada’s new governor after the Nov. 2 election to convince transportation leaders to support the DesertXpress high-speed rail project.

“I think they (the state) better join the team and work on something that is doable,” Reid said in an interview after a press conference at which he and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood gave specifics about federal loan guarantees that would be pursued by DesertXpress Enterprises.

DesertXpress is a $4 billion, 200-mile traditional high-speed rail proposal that would link Las Vegas with Victorville, Calif. Backers have said they would work quickly to build a 50-mile line between Victorville and Palmdale, Calif., to tie into California’s planned high-speed rail network….”

M II A II R II K Oct 19, 2010 5:56 PM

California High Speed Rail Doesn’t Need to Make a Dime to Make a Difference


October 12, 2010

By Chikodi Chima

Read More: http://alttransport.com/2010/10/cali...-a-difference/

Quote:

There are a lot of good reasons to build California’s high speed rail system. Few of them are economic. A 100-page, pier reviewed study, “The Financial Risks of California’s High-Speed Rail Project,” concluded that without a massive and continued infusion of cash from the government, the California high speed rail network will never be able to make it on its own. The plan to connect San Francisco to downtown Los Angeles would cost $42.6 billion and so far Californians have come up with $9.95 billion the federal government has chipped in an additional $2.5 billion. That just leaves $30 billion or so to meet the projected costs.

Among the most damning findings of the study:

- Unmet commitments to the California Legislature diminish the project’s credibility.

- The CHSRA’s ridership forecasts, upon which the system’s financial outcome are determined, are too optimistic.

- The CHRSA’s Phase I capital costs–the price of building the train from San Francisco to Los Angeles–should be significantly higher than have been stated.

- The CHSRA’s operating expenses are too low.

- CHSRA’s job creation forecasts are too vague and too large to be credible.

And so the arguments about the costs versus the benefits begin anew. California’s high speed rail plan should not be sold to the public as a transportation panacea. It sets expectations too high, and there is little chance that the California High Speed Rail Authority, or any transit agency can deliver on such promises. In spite of the high costs, and the high risk, the California High Speed Rail network should still be built.

The problem that politicians and transit buffs face always face is that they’re forced to sell their ideas as a life or death struggle. In order to marshall the public to their cause, they must make the case that all the benefits to the public will accrue with minimal costs or even a surplus, as long as we ACT NOW!

Oxford professor Bent Flyvbjerg calls this “optimism bias,” and says that politicians have a perverse incentive to lie about the low costs while overstating the benefits. Californians have been living without a high speed rail system as long as there has been a state, so the need doesn’t seem quite as urgent. Therefore, since there hasn’t ever been one, it’s not hard to imagine life exactly how it is, without high speed rail. Who cares what politicians say?



http://cache.alttransport.com/upload...il-400x250.jpg

SD_Phil Oct 19, 2010 7:21 PM

Quote:

Oxford professor Bent Flyvbjerg calls this “optimism bias,” and says that politicians have a perverse incentive to lie about the low costs while overstating the benefits. Californians have been living without a high speed rail system as long as there has been a state, so the need doesn’t seem quite as urgent. Therefore, since there hasn’t ever been one, it’s not hard to imagine life exactly how it is, without high speed rail. Who cares what politicians say?
This argument is ridiculous. Imagine it's the early 1950s: California existed without a highway system as long as there had been people in California...since there hasn't been one...why add one now? It'll cost a fortune...

Run the same argument with ANY form of mass transit or infrastructure for the movement of people or goods. What is it that it's suppose to prove? Don't the changing needs of the state or the strains on current infrastructure and projected strains from increased population mean anything or are we just looking backward and saying "things were okay...why rock the boat?"

If things would only just freeze and never change we would never have to change how we live...am i right folks?

mfastx Oct 19, 2010 9:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SD_Phil (Post 5022619)
This argument is ridiculous. Imagine it's the early 1950s: California existed without a highway system as long as there had been people in California...since there hasn't been one...why add one now? It'll cost a fortune...

Run the same argument with ANY form of mass transit or infrastructure for the movement of people or goods. What is it that it's suppose to prove? Don't the changing needs of the state or the strains on current infrastructure and projected strains from increased population mean anything or are we just looking backward and saying "things were okay...why rock the boat?"

If things would only just freeze and never change we would never have to change how we live...am i right folks?

I agree. People ask "is it necessary? Uh, no, but neither was all the highways. HSR is by far the most convinient mode of transportation between medium distance cities, and that statement is backed up by the percentage of travelers using HSR in other countries, where their HSR is legit.

pesto Oct 21, 2010 1:31 AM

As I read the article, after pointing out that the politicians lied about the costs and revenues and efficiency of the HSR system, and that HSR in Europe loses massive amounts of money and always will, it says that we should build it anyway. Why? Because it eventually becomes integrated in the fabric of our lives.

This is no benefit at all. It's just an admission that there is no benefit.

northbay Oct 21, 2010 5:05 AM

^ there are definitely benefits to hsr (of course we'll 'get used' to those benefits and probably take them for granted). it comes down to more than money and some long-term thinking - something politicians (and the public) have a hard time doing.

its good for the economy, environment, society... read sd phil's post - he sums it up nicely.

k1052 Oct 21, 2010 1:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5024665)
As I read the article, after pointing out that the politicians lied about the costs and revenues and efficiency of the HSR system, and that HSR in Europe loses massive amounts of money and always will, it says that we should build it anyway. Why? Because it eventually becomes integrated in the fabric of our lives.

This is no benefit at all. It's just an admission that there is no benefit.

The problem is people thinking that the farebox is the end all, be all of the economic benefits of HSR (and mass transit in general). The difference is that the Europeans know better in this case and so do the Chinese. There is a valid reason China is spending vast sums to build an immense HSR network, the increased mobility is a huge boost to the economy.

The fact is that it is no longer politically or financially possible to expand existing highway infrastructure into a lengthening list of major cities in order to satisfy our transport requirements.

202_Cyclist Oct 21, 2010 6:52 PM

San Gabriel hears from Rail Authority and residents (Whittier Daily News)
 
San Gabriel hears from Rail Authority and residents

By Adolfo Flores, Staff Writer
Posted: 10/20/2010
Whittier Daily News

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_16391198

"With the possibility of high-speed rail line cutting through portions of the city along the 10 Freeway, Enrique Garcia's kids continually ask him if they will have to move.

On Tuesday, the City Council listened to a presentation from the California High-Speed Rail Authority and complaints from residents who believe the proposed train will change the quality of life in their small and historic town.

"I'm here because I have to look at my 10-year-old son when he asks me `are they going to take our house away?"' Garcia said.

A longtime resident, Garcia said he understands the need for the project, but "I want to make sure we're moving forward in the right direction," he said..."

JDRCRASH Oct 21, 2010 7:52 PM

I don't care what UP thinks. Let us share their ROW.

SD_Phil Oct 21, 2010 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5025509)
San Gabriel hears from Rail Authority and residents

"I'm here because I have to look at my 10-year-old son when he asks me `are they going to take our house away?"' Garcia said.

A longtime resident, Garcia said he understands the need for the project, but "I want to make sure we're moving forward in the right direction," he said..."

I honestly don't know how to respond to someone like this sometimes. I mean the appeal to sympathy wrought on us by making it seem like we're hurting a 10 year old is really indicative, to me, of the mindset behind complains of this kind.

For example:

1. It's really unlikely ANYONE will take be 'taking' a house away. They may choose to move, which is their prerogative, but that's very different from the big bad government taking a house away. Only a child would think this. If any homes will be rendered unlivable by this project then homeowners will be compensated, of course. I won't pretend like compensation is always fair but I have no indication that it won't be if it needs to happen.

2. This whole 'right direction' claim is also equally nebulous. Right for who? You and your son Mr. Garcia? It's likely that it is the right direction for EVERYONE if it increases the economic viability and productivity of the region.

At worst the sound barriers on the 10 would be heightened to increase dampening though the 10 is already so large and loud it seems like a drop or two in the ocean to worry about additional noise from the train.

I mean...I understand the guy, kind of. He's going to be affected (possibly) by this. But blaming his son and vaguely gesturing that this is bad is just emotional pandering.

I feel like a heartless SOB here...I think I should tone it down.

DJM19 Oct 22, 2010 12:37 AM

Indeed. Theres probably not very many homes going to be taken. There will be takings but mostly along existing ROWs. And hey, you can tell your son, in the unlikely chance that your home does need to be taken, "Its ok, we will be paid full value of the home, and just buy another comparable house.". Sorry for the touble, but its not a great moral crime against your family.

mfastx Oct 22, 2010 7:54 PM

The amount of homes taken will be nothing compared to when they built the freeways. Get over it people.

202_Cyclist Oct 25, 2010 8:20 PM

Feds give California nearly $1 billion for high-speed rail and related train projects
 
Feds give California nearly $1 billion for high-speed rail and related train projects

Los Angeles Times
10/25/2010

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-projects.html

"The federal government on Monday awarded $902 million for rail projects across California, including $715 million to help design and build a section of the proposed bullet train system in the Central Valley.

Officials for the U.S. Department of Transportation said the money would be distributed to 18 rail projects, including $100 million to buy rolling stock and almost $25 million for the installation of an automated braking and train control system from San Onofre to San Diego.

Another $16 million was earmarked for a length of the high-speed rail project between San Francisco and San Jose, and $7 million for signal, bridge and track improvements in Del Mar, a coastal town in northern San Diego County..."

SnyderBock Oct 26, 2010 2:04 AM

Is there an ETA on the first groundbreaking ceremony yet?

northbay Nov 5, 2010 6:54 PM

important news, the central valley will be first to start construction, by order of the federal government:

Quote:

HSRA announces $4.3b must fund Merced-Bakersfield segment
Published Thursday, November 4, 2010, by the California HSRA

FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HIGH-SPEED RAIL DEDICATED TO THE CENTRAL VALLEY
$4.3 Billion Will Go Toward Establishing Core of California System

Following last week's announcement of an additional $715 million award for the
development of California's high-speed rail system, federal officials have
clarified that the entirety of federal funding California has received so far
must be spent in one of the two Central Valley sections of the project --
meaning approximately $4.3 billion in infrastructure investment will be directed
somewhere in the region between Merced and Bakersfield.


California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof van Ark announced today that a
letter received Wednesday from Federal Railroad Administrator Joe Szabo outlines
the federal agency's requirement that all federal funds for the project must be
directed to either the Merced-to-Fresno or to the Fresno-to-Bakersfield portion
of the project. The available funding total incorporates the Authority's January
2010 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) federal funding award,
matched dollar-for-dollar with state funds, and last week's award of $715
million matched with an additional 30 percent in state funding.

"The Central Valley is indeed key to creating the core of a true high-speed rail
system in California, as that is where our trains will travel truly high speeds
of 220 miles per hour," van Ark said. "But no matter where we start building,
the goal remains the same: a statewide high-speed rail system up and running in
2020 connecting the Bay Area with the metropolitan area of Los Angeles and
Anaheim, that creates thousands of jobs, improves air quality, and provides us
all with a cheaper, faster and more convenient way to travel."

...

The Board is scheduled to select the project section which is first to be
constructed at its December meeting. The selection of a heavy maintenance
facility will not be a part of that decision, and will not be decided until
after the environmental review process has been completed.

for full article: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/46985

more info: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/11/fed...entral-valley/

JDRCRASH Nov 5, 2010 10:48 PM

^ It makes sense.

Think about it: If such a segment is very successfull in the eyes of people, they'll think highly even more of the SF-Merced and Bakersfield-LA segments.

TWAK Nov 5, 2010 11:07 PM

who's down with the I-80 corridor from sac to sf? I am :)
Do you guys think it would be a good idea? 80 is already pretty bad

fflint Nov 5, 2010 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWAK (Post 5044776)
who's down with the I-80 corridor from sac to sf? I am :)
Do you guys think it would be a good idea? 80 is already pretty bad

If I were made king, this is the very first stretch of HSR that I would implement. Just electrify the already-successful Capitol Corridor, double up the tracks (via very targeted and limited eminent domain), and run it as fast as possible.

Yankee Nov 5, 2010 11:33 PM

Oh man, as much as I wanna get excited about this, deep down I just know it's too good to be true. Now that we know the first segment will be built in the central valley, the only thing I'm counting on is that once it's built they'll just be forced to build out the rest, otherwise it's too ridiculous - a high speed rail connection that's meant to connect two big relatively distant metropolises that has 70% of the distance covered but stops 150 miles of either one. It'll be really good for the valley either way, but honestly, the full plan that you can see here - http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx

I don't see that happening in the foreseeable future. By the time it starts coming together China will have a maglev system that links all of its cities.

JDRCRASH Nov 5, 2010 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee (Post 5044805)
By the time it starts coming together China will have a maglev system that links all of its cities.

No, they'll have a Vactrain system.

northbay Nov 6, 2010 12:06 AM

^ i'm pretty sure once the backbone of the system is built, the rest will be also. china and japan have already pledged billions of dollars (if they're made partners). once the 'demonstration' section is complete, even if local and/or federal dollars aren't forthcoming, the rest can be finished by outside investors.

also, ohio and wisconsin are canceling their high speed rail plans (due to republican takeovers in the election) - i really hope the federal dollars they were to receive get redistributed to california.

i always thought the i-80 corridor was the most ideal for high speed rail. i never understood why it wasn't in included in cahsr's plans :koko:
fflint for king! ;)

ps. john mica (the probable new chairman of the house committee on transportation and infrastructure) has been supportive of super fast high speed rail (which cali fits the definition of). so hopefully, even with republican takeovers, cali will still get support for its project. http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...tation-agenda/

Onn Nov 6, 2010 1:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH (Post 5044820)
No, they'll have a Vactrain system.

The entire high-speed rail system is going to bleed China to death in red ink. Don't fool yourself, it's a fairy tale at its best. You know when something is too good to be true...

LosAngelesSportsFan Nov 6, 2010 1:17 AM

can the republican take over of the house have an unforeseen positive effect for California High Speed? All these canceled HSR projects can be funneled to California< Chicago Hub and the northeast, exactly where they should have gone initially.

Onn Nov 6, 2010 1:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan (Post 5044882)
can the republican take over of the house have an unforeseen positive effect for California High Speed? All these canceled HSR projects can be funneled to California< Chicago Hub and the northeast, exactly where they should have gone initially.

Probably not, it's hard to see how Republicans are going to support the system more if the Democrats could hardly support it.

northbay Nov 6, 2010 2:00 AM

^ pessimism gets you nowhere ;)

democrats more the 'hardly' support it. as i said before, john mica has been cautiously supportive of TRUE super fast high speed projects. it's too soon to say that cahsr won't happen. (arnold is republican and he supports it, ray lahood is republican too for the record)

Busy Bee Nov 6, 2010 3:20 AM

Oh and for the record - Wisconsin and Ohio have NOT been officially cancelled. Wisconsin has at least been put on pause for review. I don't know if anyone at this point really knows whats going on - or if the new Gov really has the politically capital/power to stop it, or if he's just doing the charades to look tough for his feeble minded supporters.

northbay Nov 6, 2010 3:59 AM

^ you're right bb, thanks for the clarification - but the arc tunnel wasn't officially canceled for a month either ;)

both governors-elect however are on record saying they will not support the projects

Onn Nov 8, 2010 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay (Post 5044921)
^ pessimism gets you nowhere ;)

democrats more the 'hardly' support it. as i said before, john mica has been cautiously supportive of TRUE super fast high speed projects. it's too soon to say that cahsr won't happen. (arnold is republican and he supports it, ray lahood is republican too for the record)

Washington supporting the system would mean them writing a check for 100 billion dollars to the state of California. That's the supporting the system. That's what every other government in the world does. Not these little bite size sums that have no real effect on the project at all. There's a long way to go if California expects to have the country's first real high-speed rail system. I'm not sure it matters Democrat or Republican, no one wants to take that leap of faith in giving them that kind of money. The bureaucracy won't allow it.

I don't know where the money is going to come from for this thing, it's not being pessimistic but realistic. It's a high mountain to climb. Truthfully I'm not sure California needs it or that it will make much of a dent in transportation congestion...of course it would be nice to have.

northbay Nov 8, 2010 6:22 PM

^ your right that california has 'a high mountain to climb', but if you give up before climbing it, you'll never reach the top.

we all know things are going to be harder now that the house is controlled by republicans but i don't think that necessary means all high speed rail is now dead. california's investment of 10 billion - combined with what the federal government has already pledged, plus the election of a very pro high speed rail governor (which shows public support of the project) hopefully means eventually it will be built (though granted it may take a very long time).

i don't know if you live in california but we DO need this project, at least if california wants to compete with the rest of world. we don't need 100 billion, that's 10s of billions more than we need. we need about half that and we're making slow but steady progress towards getting there. (think tortoise and hare story)

the northeast corridor (117 billion) however is another matter.

hammersklavier Nov 8, 2010 10:03 PM

Infrastructure is infrastructure. If Wis. and Ohio want to de-fund their systems and return the money to the Gov't, I'm sure Obama would find a way to funnel it into the Cali plan and other parts of the Midwest network.

Onn--The evangelism of the truly deluded can be prodigious. Stating as facts things which are empirically unsupported is the purview of a certain class of society few want to belong to--and few even know they belong to. Think over this.

twoNeurons Nov 8, 2010 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 5044880)
The entire high-speed rail system is going to bleed China to death in red ink. Don't fool yourself, it's a fairy tale at its best. You know when something is too good to be true...

Uh-huh... just like the interstate system was a horrible idea for the USA?

Onn Nov 8, 2010 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons (Post 5047836)
Uh-huh... just like the interstate system was a horrible idea for the USA?

Japan high-speed rail 1980s = 200 billion dollar bailout. Do your homework before thinking you know everything, China's system is way beyond any country's capacity. China is not even the largest economy in the world.

Onn Nov 8, 2010 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hammersklavier (Post 5047703)
Onn--The evangelism of the truly deluded can be prodigious. Stating as facts things which are empirically unsupported is the purview of a certain class of society few want to belong to--and few even know they belong to. Think over this.

You’re in for a rude awaking. :yes:

Onn Nov 8, 2010 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by northbay (Post 5047439)
i don't know if you live in california but we DO need this project, at least if california wants to compete with the rest of world. we don't need 100 billion, that's 10s of billions more than we need. we need about half that and we're making slow but steady progress towards getting there. (think tortoise and hare story)

I don't know, but this is the sense I've had all along about this...

Quote:

High-Speed Pork

Why fast trains are a waste of money.

Robert J. Samuelson

October 29, 2010

Somehow, it has become fashionable to think that high-speed trains connecting major cities will help “save the planet.” They won’t. They’re a perfect example of wasteful spending masquerading as a respectable social cause. They would further burden already-overburdened governments and drain dollars from worthier programs—schools, defense, research.

Let’s suppose that the Obama administration gets its wish to build high-speed rail systems in 13 urban corridors. The administration has already committed $10.5 billion, and that’s just a token down payment. California wants about $19 billion for an 800-mile track from Anaheim to San Francisco. Constructing all 13 corridors could easily approach $200 billion. Most (or all) of that would have to come from government. What would we get for this huge investment?

Not much. Here’s what we wouldn’t get: any meaningful reduction in traffic congestion, greenhouse-gas emissions, air travel, or oil consumption and imports. Nada, zip. If you can do fourth-grade math, you can understand why.

High-speed intercity trains (not commuter lines) travel at up to 250 miles per hour and are most competitive with planes and cars over distances of less than 500 miles. In a report on high-speed rail, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service examined the 12 corridors of 500 miles or less with the most daily air traffic in 2007. Los Angeles to San Francisco led the list with 13,838 passengers; altogether, daily air passengers in these 12 corridors totaled 52,934. If all of them switched to trains, the number of airline passengers, about 2 million a day, would drop only 2.5 percent. Any fuel savings would be less than that; even trains need fuel.

...

Consider California. Its budget is a shambles; it furloughed state workers to save money. Still, it clings to its high-speed rail project. No one knows the cost. In 2009, the California High-Speed Rail Authority estimated $42.6 billion, up from $33.6 billion in 2008—a huge one-year increase. The CHSRA wants the federal government to pay about half the cost. Even if it does and the state issues $9.95 billion in approved bonds, a financing gap of almost $15 billion would remain.

Somehow that is to be extracted from cities, towns, and investors. The CHSRA says the completed system will generate operating profits, $3 billion by 2030. If private investors concurred, they’d be clamoring to commit funds; they aren’t.

All this would further mortgage California’s future with more debt and, conceivably, subsidies to keep the trains running. And for what? In 2030, high-speed rail trains would provide only about 4 percent of California’s inter-regional trips, the CHSRA projects.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/29/w...ake-sense.html

Busy Bee Nov 9, 2010 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onn (Post 5047842)
China is not even the largest economy in the world.

Yet.......................


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:18 AM.

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