HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1081  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 12:01 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
And moreover, when the Interstates were begun, the arguments could be made (and probably were) that highway building was principally a state responsibility; that we had plenty of perfectly good roads already; that there was infinite expansion potential in air travel; that it would gobble up too much land; divide farms; bypass towns, etc. I have read that it was sold as a "defense" measure for fear the public wouldn't buy it otherwise.
But the Interstate highways were designed, financed, built, and maintained under the Highway Department's stewardship. A fully functional Highway Department was ultimately responsible.
Who's responsible for the CHSR, Parsons Brinckerhoff? They're an engineering company, do they have any actual experience running and maintaining a HSR system?
What CHSR needs, before construction anything, is a contract with a train operating company to assist finalizing the designs to achieve the most efficient system. Build only what is needed to provide the services the train operating company will run. That's the only way California can maximize services to cost.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1082  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 12:57 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
But the Interstate highways were designed, financed, built, and maintained under the Highway Department's stewardship. A fully functional Highway Department was ultimately responsible.
Who's responsible for the CHSR, Parsons Brinckerhoff? They're an engineering company, do they have any actual experience running and maintaining a HSR system?
What CHSR needs, before construction anything, is a contract with a train operating company to assist finalizing the designs to achieve the most efficient system. Build only what is needed to provide the services the train operating company will run. That's the only way California can maximize services to cost.
If you're saying we need a Federal Railway Administration, fully-funded, to see that HSR is built, I'm all for it. If you're saying the State of California should oversee this program to a greater degree, with adequate funding, of course, I'm all for that too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1083  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 12:58 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Exactly. But you just cut your potential rail ridership in half - because rail passengers are pedestrians (or local transit riders) once they get off the train, Bakersfield can't be a destination, only an origin. (Or at least, a very limited destination.)
Are you saying people from Bakersfield don't fly because it doesn't have an airport on the scale of LAX?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1084  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 1:00 AM
jg6544 jg6544 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,113
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
When will the freight trains use the HSR corridors?
Never, I hope.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1085  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 4:51 AM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is offline
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 13,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by jg6544 View Post
Are you saying people from Bakersfield don't fly because it doesn't have an airport on the scale of LAX?
Huh? No, that's definitely not what I was saying...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1086  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 5:32 AM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,207
I previously posted what the CAHSR Authority wrote about carrying freight on its own trains--shouldn't be that many pages back. Basically they're open to carrying light freight on their own consists, but passenger service takes precedence and no "freight trains" as we know them--BNSF, etc.--will share CAHSR's tracks. This will be a separate and electrified system. California's busy freight railroads are already in place up and down the state.

As for the "Bakersfield" issue--smaller California cities with lackluster public transit--the state and cities are already planning to bolster transit to and from the stations, and to redevelop station-adjacent parcels as TOD. Fresno has a really ambitious plan, for example, but for smaller cities like Bakersfield the stations will likely be like airports, used by locals who will likely park and ride if they don't take the bus.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1087  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2012, 9:26 AM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 16,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
But the Interstate highways were designed, financed, built, and maintained under the Highway Department's stewardship. A fully functional Highway Department was ultimately responsible.
Who's responsible for the CHSR, Parsons Brinckerhoff? They're an engineering company, do they have any actual experience running and maintaining a HSR system?
What CHSR needs, before construction anything, is a contract with a train operating company to assist finalizing the designs to achieve the most efficient system. Build only what is needed to provide the services the train operating company will run. That's the only way California can maximize services to cost.
Bingo. PB has a huge conflict of interest - the more elaborate the overall plan is, the more stuff their engineers get to design (viaducts, bridges, grade separations), the more money they make.

Naturally this is gonna drive up the cost of the project unless CAHSR/Caltrans/whoever has people on staff who are willing to say no and force PB to look at other alternatives that minimize complexity and cost while still achieving the project goals of 100% grade separation and 2:40 SF-LA travel time. These people need to have expertise in the area, which (unfortunately) means that some of them will need to come from overseas.

A series of very smart, well-informed bloggers have run circles around CAHSR's planning efforts. If people like this can afford to blog for free, maybe they can afford to work for the State of California as project planning managers. Outside consultants are the reason for the problem, so California needs to hire these people in-house.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1088  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2012, 9:18 AM
bobbyv bobbyv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 301
What's everyone's thoughts on this article?
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...3152471.column
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1089  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2012, 5:04 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
SCAG adopts high-speed rail agreement (Pasadena Star-News)

SCAG adopts high-speed rail agreement

By Steve Scauzillo, Staff Writer
Posted: 02/05/2012
Pasadena Star-News

"No matter what happens to the controversial high speed rail program in the state, local governments in Southern California are negotiating for some of the early cash associated with the project.

The Southern California Association of Government's Regional Council Thursday approved a memorandum of understanding with the California High Speed Rail Authority with an eye toward claiming $1 billion in voter-approved bonds. The bonds would not go directly to the proposed L.A. to San Francisco bullet train, but rather be used to upgrade local Amtrak and Metrolink lines and stations that can, in turn, help serve the future high-speed line. The improved existing regional systems would work as feeders into the high speed lines.

SCAG recommended that the high speed rail authority use $1 billion out of $9.95 billion in Proposition 1A funds for Southern California rail improvements and make it an amendment to its 2012 Draft Business Plan.

The so-called "blended systems and blended operations plan" concept could be a boon to aging Metrolink commuter rail lines that go to Los Angeles, either from from Anaheim to Industry or from San Bernardino through Claremont, Covina, Baldwin Park and Monterey Park..."

http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_19893336
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1090  
Old Posted Feb 10, 2012, 8:53 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
600,000 jobs? At 50k per job, that's 30B per year. Sound like the HSR management is about as good at math as the old management.

Upgrading LA and Bay local trains makes a lot of sense, if done right. Not only does this get done much more quickly and cheaply, but it's actually needed, given that freeways are quite congested.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1091  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 3:08 AM
DJM19 DJM19 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,518
Pretty sure its job years. 600,000 job years, so divided over the life of the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1092  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 7:46 PM
pesto pesto is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJM19 View Post
Pretty sure its job years. 600,000 job years, so divided over the life of the project.
Thanks; that would make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1093  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2012, 1:50 AM
SPIREINTHEHOLE!'s Avatar
SPIREINTHEHOLE! SPIREINTHEHOLE! is offline
Ready for blastoff!
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
Posts: 41
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportat...in-2013-budget

Obama includes $47B for high-speed rail in 2013 budget

By Keith Laing - 02/14/12 03:24 PM ET

Quote:
The $3.8 trillion budget unveiled this week by President Obama includes $47 billion for high-speed rail development, despite a Republican effort to defund the initiative this year.

The Republican-led House voted late last year to eliminate all funding for high-speed rail in the current fiscal year's budget, but Obama's plan calls for spending $2.7 billion in 2013 on rail and $47 billion over the next six years.
Sadly it won't get out of the house. I was definitely interested to see how the money would be distributed.
__________________
"If you don't expect too much from me, you might not be let down."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1094  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2012, 9:56 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
loafing in lotusland
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 6,020
It won't get out of the house, but people will blame the party that opposes it. These things are usually strategic... especially when followed up with how many jobs generated the bill will bring, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1095  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2012, 10:11 PM
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 5,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by twoNeurons View Post
It won't get out of the house, but people will blame the party that opposes it. These things are usually strategic... especially when followed up with how many jobs generated the bill will bring, etc.
I had an aunt who didn't get out of the house much. She eventually passed.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1096  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 1:38 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Why is there no compromise on HSR?? I.e, Republicans will cede half that figure and democrats will agree to a certain amount of oil drilling or something. If the only way we'll get HSR is to have a majority democratic house + senate + president, we never get it. We have to give and take. Negotiation is the key!!!

The all or nothing attitude is the reason why I'm considering leaving this country.. as nothing will get done in my lifetime. Why wait pulling your hair out living in a country that is really two countries trying to get along but failing big time.

Why doesn't Obama propose such a compromise instead of giving them an excuse to vote the bill down due to this spending and give them a chance to toot their horn to their base.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1097  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 1:47 AM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Why is there no compromise on HSR?? I.e, Republicans will cede half that figure and democrats will agree to a certain amount of oil drilling or something. If the only way we'll get HSR is to have a majority democratic house + senate + president, we never get it. We have to give and take. Negotiation is the key!!!

The all or nothing attitude is the reason why I'm considering leaving this country.. as nothing will get done in my lifetime. Why wait pulling your hair out living in a country that is really two countries trying to get along but failing big time.

Why doesn't Obama propose such a compromise instead of giving them an excuse to vote the bill down due to this spending and give them a chance to toot their horn to their base.
because the tea party douche bags have the moderate republicans by the balls. They have signed ridiculous "pledges" and they are not willing to compromise on their "core issues', especially not with a black guy from a large democratic city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1098  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 2:05 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
because the tea party douche bags have the moderate republicans by the balls. They have signed ridiculous "pledges" and they are not willing to compromise on their "core issues', especially not with a black guy from a large democratic city
Of course, how stupid was I to think compromise could be an option in the USA. I forgot a new world order is upon us. These teabaggers are fools... I laugh at their stupidity.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1099  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 5:00 AM
JDRCRASH JDRCRASH is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Gabriel Valley
Posts: 8,087
^ If "getting things done" is what your looking for, then yes, I suggest moving to a different country because this one is dying fast. Or, if changes at a city-level are enough for you, go to one that is experiencing rapid growth and change (and will for a long time) a GREAT deal. Like LA.

Maybe California should secede from the US. And maybe New York, Florida, and of course, Texas, all should as well. Heck why not make the southern states (except florida) one country. Maybe then well see how far these conservative values get them. Just don't force those values on other states that, for the most part, have clearly said they don't want them.
__________________
Revelation 21:4

Last edited by JDRCRASH; Feb 16, 2012 at 5:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1100  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2012, 5:44 AM
twinpeaks twinpeaks is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Why is there no compromise on HSR?? I.e, Republicans will cede half that figure and democrats will agree to a certain amount of oil drilling or something. If the only way we'll get HSR is to have a majority democratic house + senate + president, we never get it. We have to give and take. Negotiation is the key!!!

The all or nothing attitude is the reason why I'm considering leaving this country.. as nothing will get done in my lifetime. Why wait pulling your hair out living in a country that is really two countries trying to get along but failing big time.

Why doesn't Obama propose such a compromise instead of giving them an excuse to vote the bill down due to this spending and give them a chance to toot their horn to their base.
Why leave the country? you can't just give up unless you are not a citizen, then go. If you are, you need to fight and help make a difference for the better. We need more sane people likely you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:54 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.