California High Speed Rail Thread

[jg6544]

California absolutely needs HSR among the major population centers and modern, fast, efficient, rail-based mass transit within them.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by fflint

Whose claims to trust--California state officials as quoted in the Washington Post, or a forum anti-HSR extremist? Hmm.

I agree; that's a no brainer.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Who apparently has never had to get from the Oakland airport to BART after dark!

You're right. I either park or am picked up by my family, who live in Oakland. But what is the point?

[pesto]

Do we need both? No. We NEED help within the LA and Bay Areas. We don't need help getting between them.

Or putting it another way: with 6B to spend on a 120B project, where do you put your money first: Manteca to near Bako? or within the two huge congested areas that need rebuiliding and upgrading? If you say the latter, you agree with me, Jerry Brown, every state audit committee, every local transit authority from SF to SD and I would guess about 80 percent of the population.

[gtbassett]

Originally Posted by pesto

Do we need both? No. We NEED help within the LA and Bay Areas. We don't need help getting between them.

Or putting it another way: with 6B to spend on a 120B project, where do you put your money first: Manteca to near Bako? or within the two huge congested areas that need rebuiliding and upgrading? If you say the latter, you agree with me, Jerry Brown, every state audit committee, every local transit authority from SF to SD and I would guess about 80 percent of the population.

Agreed, if we're building HSR in segments, you need to start with LA to SD, and this is coming from an SF resident that desperately wants HSR between the major metro regions of California. But building a small stretch in the middle of the central valley from nowhere to nowhere is not a way to prove that HSR works and will eventually kill support for any future expansion.

[202_Cyclist]

gtbassett:

Agreed, if we're building HSR in segments, you need to start with LA to SD, and this is coming from an SF resident that desperately wants HSR between the major metro regions of California. But building a small stretch in the middle of the central valley from nowhere to nowhere is not a way to prove that HSR works and will eventually kill support for any future expansion.

For all of the criticism of the CA High Speed Rail Authority as an imperial bureaucracy that doesn't listen to anyone, this sounds like the strategy that is now being implemented with Jerry Brown's new appointees to the Authority.

Transportation agencies seek bullet train funds to upgrade local corridors
New proposals call for spending an additional $4 billion from a $9-billion bond fund to improve existing tracks in Northern and Southern California that would later become part of the bullet-train system.

February 19, 2012
By Dan Weikel and Ralph Vartabedian
Los Angeles Times

"In a major shift in thinking about the state's bullet train, powerful transportation agencies in Northern and Southern California want to quickly obtain up to half the project's bond financing to upgrade local rail corridors that could become part of the proposed high-speed network.

Until recently, the project was expected to draw down only $2.7 billion of its $9-billion bond fund in coming years to help pay for a 130-mile rail segment in the Central Valley. But the new proposals call for potentially spending an additional $4 billion upfront, which would leave just a few billion in the state's voter-approved finance package.

"We ought to be investing whatever is available now to show California and the rest of the country the benefits of high speed rail very soon," said Jose Luis Moscovich, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. "We believe there can be simultaneous efforts in Southern California and on the peninsula" between San Francisco and San Jose..."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb...-plan-20120220

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by gtbassett

Agreed, if we're building HSR in segments, you need to start with LA to SD, and this is coming from an SF resident that desperately wants HSR between the major metro regions of California. But building a small stretch in the middle of the central valley from nowhere to nowhere is not a way to prove that HSR works and will eventually kill support for any future expansion.

I agree in principle about LA-SD, but the reality is that most of this route is through more-or-less densely populated urban areas. With the possible exception of the Peninsula between SF and San Jose, this could be the most expensive stretch to build in the entire state.

I would, however, like to see the interim step of eliminating grade crossings along the entire route; double-tracking the whole thing, and electrifying it. Still couldn't run trains at HSR speeds, but that alone would cut down the travel time and probably make the train faster than driving.

[pesto]

Rational thinking seems to be taking over. Anything that is HSR compatible and links Riverside, Irvine, Ventura and the High Desert to Union Station has my support. Ditto fo linking SJ to Oakland and Sacto.

Still controversial: HSR currently wants to go from LA/Anaheim/Irvine to SD via Riverside. This is not an efficient route. Leave it for last, or never.

Same for spending money on the Peninsula. It will be very expensive and the locals don't want it or need it (Caltrain is already in place and quite efficient). I would improve the East Bay corridor and allow those going to SF to switch to Caltrain at SJ.

[202_Cyclist]

pesto:

Still controversial: HSR currently wants to go from LA/Anaheim/Irvine to SD via Riverside. This is not an efficient route. Leave it for last, or never.

It might be a very indirect route but there are 5M residents in the Inland Empire, this was one of the fastest growing parts of the state last decade, and sa you've pointed out several times, there is an airport that can be served with high speed rail that has plenty of extra capacity. Highway 91 is also one of the most congested roads in CA.

[JDRCRASH]

^ And if anyone really thinks that South OC residents will be willing to let HSR run along the coast, I'm sorry but they're simply being delusional.

[jg6544]

Originally Posted by pesto

Rational thinking seems to be taking over. Anything that is HSR compatible and links Riverside, Irvine, Ventura and the High Desert to Union Station has my support.

And if California were two states - north and south - I might agree with you. But it isn't, is it?

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Who apparently has never had to get from the Oakland airport to BART after dark!

Originally Posted by pesto

You're right. I either park or am picked up by my family, who live in Oakland. But what is the point?

Really? Even I've done this, and I don't even live in California! They have these shuttle bus things that go between BART and the airport every 30 mins or so.

==========

In all seriousness tho, upgrading trackage along the route will not allow anything close to the 220 mph speeds they were targeting. Track bed & geometry simply won't allow it - curves need to be superelevated based on the speeds of the trains, not vice-versa.

However, since the tracks in urban areas that connect to stations will never run anywhere close to 220 mph, they could tackle the "last mile" problem first. As the most politically and technically challenging aspect of HSR construction, not to mention the longest for construction, getting the stations built first would be a huge step. Then they could just swap out those HSR middle sections with new track, like they did on the new Bay Bridge span (ok, metaphorically), and buy new trains.

It will probably cost more in the long run, however, as they will need to spread costs over several additional decades. Maybe finish in the 2350?s Just in time for warp travel to the Delta Quadrant! (which will be in Chinese starships, btw).

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

pesto:


It might be a very indirect route but there are 5M residents in the Inland Empire, this was one of the fastest growing parts of the state last decade, and sa you've pointed out several times, there is an airport that can be served with high speed rail that has plenty of extra capacity. Highway 91 is also one of the most congested roads in CA.

Agree with all of this; in 20 years maybe it makes sense if there is a meaningful amount of transit between them. But HSR's estimates of commuters between the IE and SD are very small (or were when I checked a year or two ago). The great majority of hoped for riders are from the 13M people in LA/OC and they are going to take much longer to get there than if they drove. And, when driving you can take 3 other people (or more) with you. So I'm not optimistic.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

Really? Even I've done this, and I don't even live in California! They have these shuttle bus things that go between BART and the airport every 30 mins or so.

==========

In all seriousness tho, upgrading trackage along the route will not allow anything close to the 220 mph speeds they were targeting. Track bed & geometry simply won't allow it - curves need to be superelevated based on the speeds of the trains, not vice-versa.

However, since the tracks in urban areas that connect to stations will never run anywhere close to 220 mph, they could tackle the "last mile" problem first. As the most politically and technically challenging aspect of HSR construction, not to mention the longest for construction, getting the stations built first would be a huge step. Then they could just swap out those HSR middle sections with new track, like they did on the new Bay Bridge span (ok, metaphorically), and buy new trains.

It will probably cost more in the long run, however, as they will need to spread costs over several additional decades. Maybe finish in the 2350?s Just in time for warp travel to the Delta Quadrant! (which will be in Chinese starships, btw).

Chinese starships? You must not have read the WSJ article on the Chinese engineers trying to reverse engineer the French and Japanese HSR technology. They finally gave up and kluged together a system of having a guy watch the gauges and run down the train screaming to the driver when one goes into a danger zone.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by zilfondel

In all seriousness tho, upgrading trackage along the route will not allow anything close to the 220 mph speeds they were targeting. Track bed & geometry simply won't allow it - curves need to be superelevated based on the speeds of the trains, not vice-versa.

However, since the tracks in urban areas that connect to stations will never run anywhere close to 220 mph, they could tackle the "last mile" problem first.

At one time, one could find a map of the maximum speeds allowed on the various CHSR track sections, but I can't find it anymore, looks like someone is sweeping what they don't want the public to know under a rug.

But the only track sections ever proposed to reach 200 mph speeds was in the central valley - what the FRA wants to built first. The LA-SD segment never reached 200 mph, but I believe it did once indicate faster than 110 mph. Likewise with the SF to SJ segment.

But I'm not certain because I can't find that old map. I do believe we could kill many arguments here if someone could find and repost that map.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by pesto

Chinese starships? You must not have read the WSJ article on the Chinese engineers trying to reverse engineer the French and Japanese HSR technology. They finally gave up and kluged together a system of having a guy watch the gauges and run down the train screaming to the driver when one goes into a danger zone.

Which did not work out too well for them, as they already have had at least one horrendous accident, due most likely to their lack of safety tech planning. No, whatever shape or form CA and other HSR in the U.S. takes, we should look to the Japanese, if anybody. I believe that they have a record of zero passenger fatalities throughout all the years of running the Shinkansen.

Edit: I think someone got stuck in the doors when they were closing one time, but that's about the only one (not counting the suicides).

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by pesto

Same for spending money on the Peninsula. It will be very expensive and the locals don't want it or need it (Caltrain is already in place and quite efficient). I would improve the East Bay corridor and allow those going to SF to switch to Caltrain at SJ.

Depends what you mean by "spending money". If they split the $4 billion equally between northern/southern California, then that's $2 billion for the Peninsula and Altamont. (A Pacheco crossing would have to wait much longer, if ever.)

Caltrain estimates that you could electrify the whole corridor to Tamien (SJ) and install the PTC signal system required for HSR for about $950 million. You can also build a "mid-line overtake" - essentially passing tracks - for $600 million. That leaves $450 million for Altamont... I'm not too clear on what needs to be done over there.

All of a sudden you've got a corridor that can support HSR.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by jg6544

Who apparently has never had to get from the Oakland airport to BART after dark!

I dont know what your trying to imply with this comment, but the AirBART bus service between Oakland Airport and the Coliseum BART station is just fine at night, in fact every 10 minutes during all BART service hours.

Furthermore, this is currently being built between Oakland International Airport and the Coluseum BART station.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/wp-content...09/OAC-pic.jpg

Construction pics:

[202_Cyclist]

High-speed rail board backs SoCal bid for $1 billion

San Diego Union-Tribune
Written by Robert J. Hawkins
3/2/2012

"The board of the High Speed Rail Authority today voted to support a memorandum of understanding from a group of Southern California transportation agencies seeking $1 billion for local rail improvements.

In return for bringing the local rail system up to HSR performance standards and essentially supporting the high-speed rail project, the coalition of agencies wants the High Speed Rail Authority to release $1 billion in Proposition 1A funds – from the $9 billion voter-approved bond referendum.

The general feeling of the board was that the request fits in with "blended approach" for the high speed rail project. Similar requests are being prepared by Inland and Northern California transportation agencies..."

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...bid-1-billion/

[202_Cyclist]

High-speed rail project likely delayed until 2013

By Tim Sheehan
The Fresno Bee
Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012

“Construction of a high-speed train line in the central San Joaquin Valley was supposed to start late this year. Now, officials say, it's not likely to start until early 2013, even if state legislators approve billions in bond money this spring.

At its meeting Thursday in Sacramento, the California High-Speed Rail Authority will learn about an updated schedule for the $6 billion construction project.

The slowdown in the schedule is the result of revisions to environmental reports for the 120-mile Fresno-to-Bakersfield section of the rail line -- part of the backbone of a proposed 520-mile system of electric trains connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles. Later extensions would add lines to Sacramento and San Diego.

About $3 billion in federal stimulus and transportation funds earmarked for the project in 2010 and 2011 were based on construction starting by September 2012. But a 2013 start isn't expected to endanger the funds, high-speed rail officials said, because the more important deadline is having the work completed by late 2017…”

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/02/28/...struction.html