sttom
OBS Chief
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2019
- Messages
- 824
No, they consulted with engineers. This is the best way to construct a major project. Iron out problems with the easiest first.They really should have done Tehachapi Pass first. This is what we get when you consult politicians instead of transit planners.
It was but it was probably "deemed to cost to much" and would be visible for Brown to get glamour shots and for people to see it getting built.Isn’t what we really need a high speed connection from Bakersville to LA? That would connect the Bay Area and LA right?
That seems to be the logical first step to me.
It was also sold as being a commuter service when high speed trains aren't built for that.(1) The project was a disaster area from start to finish. There were a number of onerous requirements in the initial specification that were non-starters (most notably, the 30-minute San Francisco-San Jose runtime demand, as well as the 2:40 San Francisco to Los Angeles demand). Looking at HSR operations elsewhere, many of these items weren't even necessary (an end-to-end time of three or three and a half hours would likely have been sufficient and would have allowed more engineering flexibility). Being saddled with this nonsense meant that they were stuck with vexatious lawsuits that dragged on for years.
It was also mis-sold (in terms of price) from the start, probably to shuffle that initiative through. In a sense, the project was probably in permanent trouble from when that initial cost estimate jump occurred. Clearly some folks thought they could simply channel Robert Moses' ghost and get a lot more money for it that way.
(3) All of the issues with the project don't avoid the fact that California is going to have to spend a LOT of money on transportation infrastructure regardless. New airport runways aren't cheap, most of the highways in the major cities have filled out their physical capacity, etc. Oh, and that's all happening as the Highway Trust Fund is in long-term trouble because of (in particular) mounting vehicle fuel efficiency.
And now we are getting stuck with $9 billion in debt and a useless line. They still should have pushed through the Tehachapi Pass and given us the capacity to travel between Northern and Southern California.No, they consulted with engineers. This is the best way to construct a major project. Iron out problems with the easiest first.
The problem with that comparison is that there is a perfectly good line between Dijon and the Rhine-Rhone TGV segment that has been invested in over the years, is double track, electrified and is cleared for 100mph operation. It's not perfect of course, but it does the job pretty well.ICE, TGV, KTX and other system do the same, build out the core line, upgrade existing line and then build out the rest in phases. In France on our way to Switzerland, we left Gare de Lyon on conventional tracks then got onto LGV Sud and back onto conventional tracks near Dijon before getting back on the LGV.
That's not really true. California has a great amount of experience as a State with huge infrastructure projects. One could even argue that it is one of the most experienced public organizations in the United States. As an example, the California State Water Project is an incredibly complex and extremely expensive entirely State-owned public works system that actually embarrassed the US Federal Government to a degree, mainly because it was implied that the Feds were the only ones who could design, build and operate something so huge... California simply replied with a "hold my beer" kind of response and made it happen. The SWP makes the CAHSR project pale in comparison.especially in a state that has no pre-existing experience with a project of that scale.
Yes, my parents and grandparents actually oversaw many of those projects, there's an extensive history of massive non railroad projects in that state. I should have said Railroad projects (and have edited appropriately). I'm not sure that the contractors California brought in (who where the usual suspects) helped that cause.That's not really true. California has a great amount of experience as a State with huge infrastructure projects. One could even argue that it is one of the most experienced public organizations in the United States. As an example, the California State Water Project is an incredibly complex and extremely expensive entirely State-owned public works system that actually embarrassed the US Federal Government to a degree, mainly because it was implied that the Feds were the only ones who could design, build and operate something so huge... California simply replied with a "hold my beer" kind of response and made it happen. The SWP makes the CAHSR project pale in comparison.
In regards to the HSR project, it was a political football from the inception even back in the 1970's. The opposing side is entrenched and radical about wanting nothing to do with it, and they've been very well funded. And the Phase 1 portion is right smack in the middle of the geographical epicenter for the opposition; the major voices and political movers there are the large land owners: corporate agriculture, the petroleum industry and shipping. The have nothing to gain from HSR, and have something to loose in a tiny portion of their land and perhaps some profit with a flashy new transportation option that will pull dollars and people out of the highway and airport sectors.
Not really. It will connect a city with 500,000+ (Fresno) with a ctiy of about 400,000 (Bakersfield).Wow. They're literally going to spend BILLIONS to connect a town of 90,000 to a city with 900,000.
Just wow.
&Merced to Bakersville. HSR to nowhere............
HSR is still being fought tooth and nail by the landed gentry and by special interest groups that are well connected with deep pockets. Right now CA is forced to work under an extraordinarily adversarial federal government that was not envisioned when this project was being planned and promoted. This means reduced funding, more bureaucratic setbacks, and fewer options for resolving disputes and shortfalls. In that context it's reasonable to pump the breaks now in order to keep things moving at a slower speed while you try to rework the process so it can hopefully survive long enough for prospects to improve further down the line. For now the anti-rail side has largely won the current battle but the war itself is not yet over. The real question is whether HSR can survive whatever 2020 brings.Wow. They're literally going to spend BILLIONS to connect a town of 90,000 to a city with 900,000. Just wow.
Actually no. No system, except probably China, built their system 100% from the ground up. Even the latest TGV running in Morocco uses a combination of upgraded lines with it. If you read the history of KTX train in South Korea, they ran into money issues as well and had to cut back phase 1 to half its length and then upgrade the existing tracks. France's TGV and LGV speed were incrementally increased over time.And if you're going to spend those big dollars, isn't it better to spend them on proper HSR?
The real roadblock in the USA to the incremental approach is that the existing railroad infrastructure is largely privately owned. You really won't get UP to agree to anything above 90 or to the frequency you'd need. So the USA largely is stuck with an all or mediocre approach.Actually no. No system, except probably China, built their system 100% from the ground up. Even the latest TGV running in Morocco uses a combination of upgraded lines with it. If you read the history of KTX train in South Korea, they ran into money issues as well and had to cut back phase 1 to half its length and then upgrade the existing tracks. France's TGV and LGV speed were incrementally increased over time.
I think if there is money, the line should be built to Stockton and then use regular rail all the way Emeryville / San Jose and Sacramento. LGV Atlantique was just recently extended and before then, it was not uncommon for diesel locos to pull the TGV trains further down the conventional line. Get it up and running ASAP and getting people on the trains is what will change peoples minds.
If they can get Bakersfield to Emeryville in 2.5 to 3 hours using HSR + Conventional, then I think they may have a temporary solution until funding for tunneling comes though. Stockton to Sacramento is currently little over 1 hour but if combined with HSR could just make it in little over 2 hours from Bakersfield.
Enter your email address to join: