Passenger Trains > California Looking at TGV

Taken from Yahoo! News

California eyes French high speed train

1 hour, 55 minutes ago

The US state of California is eyeing France's high speed train for a planned link between San Franciso and San Diego, the speaker of its state assembly said on Tuesday during a visit to France.

"We are contemplating in California the possibility of a high speed train that would go from the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles and San Diego, in South California. We're here to study the rail system," the speaker Fabian Nunez said.

France's TGV was on Tuesday attempting to set a new world speed record for a train on rails, with organisers aiming to hit at least 560 kilometres (350 miles) per hour.

"You have been ahead of time (in producing a) very practical rail system in France which can move people from one place to another," Nunez, California's third most powerful politician said.

"Today you'll be breaking a new speed record with your high speed train, the timing of our venue couldn't have been better."

The record attempt was to be tried on a 73-kilometre (45.3 mile) stretch of track between Paris and the eastern city of Strasbourg.

Weather permitting, the experimental Train a Grande Vitesse (TGV) will aim to break a 17-year-old speed record for a traditional rail-based train of 515.3 kilometres (320.2 miles) per hour. That was set by an earlier version of the TGV.

Nunez, who was holding talks with the Alstom company and French railway officials, said California was also looking at other trains, but had a particular interest in the French model.

"We've had several meetings with industrials. We are looking at the other models, but we are particularly interested in the French model," he said.

California is more adaptable to the French experience. The example of the Paris-Lyon liaison is an experience that is very similar to what we want to do in California between San Francisco and LA."

The planned high speed train link would go from Sacramento in the north to San Diego in the south via San Francisco and Los Angeles, covering a distance of 1,100 kilometres (683 miles). The time of the trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles would be reduced to two and a half hours.

Nunez said the timeline for the plan was early 2009.

Another political junket which may result in fat contracts for consulting firms but in the end will come to nothing. The cost of building and maintaining such a system would be staggering and the necessity for high-speed rail between San Diego/L.A. and the Bay Area is dubious at best.

You took the words right out of my mouth. Another taxpayer-paid European vacation for the politicians. They're over in France to, um, look at trains....yeah, that's what they're doing!

1702 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another political junket which may result in fat
> contracts for consulting firms but in the end will
> come to nothing. The cost of building and
> maintaining such a system would be staggering and
> the necessity for high-speed rail between San
> Diego/L.A. and the Bay Area is dubious at best.

Same as in Canada where for years various governments spent millions of the taxpayers' money to study to death a high speed train in the Windsor Quebec City corridor. Some 30 years after these studies were released, we currently have a handful of trains running at a maximum 100 mph on just a few sections of track between Toronto and Montreal. Vive Le France.

Yeah, seems like it's still gonna be a waste of time and money when they start breakin' ground, and like I said an an earlier post, and I wish I said it when I saw the video a few weeks ago on this, how the hell do they think they won't need subsides! Doesn't France and Japan governments still subsidizes their HSR Trains?

ProAmtrak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, seems like it's still gonna be a waste of
> time and money when they start breakin' ground,
> and like I said an an earlier post, and I wish I
> said it when I saw the video a few weeks ago on
> this, how the hell do they think they won't need
> subsides! Doesn't France and Japan governments
> still subsidizes their HSR Trains?

To build them absolutely, but not operating costs. Not that they make much money.

These junketing (at our expense) California political hacks also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

stone23 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These junketing (at our expense) California
> political hacks also believe in the Tooth Fairy.

WHAT ??? Next you're gonna tell us there's no Easter Bunny and our governor is just an actor ...

Fabo has his good points but come on, it's a great excuse to get in a free european vacation.


TCS - i wanna be a pollytishun to

Acquiring land in California will be much more complex than in France. The original TGV lines operated on pure eminent domain, and laid their straight line tracks wherever they wanted. You're in the way? We'll build our embankment on top of your house, vineyard, cemetery, etc.

Condemning land in Silicon Valley and the LA or San Diego suburbs for this new train route won't be cheap.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Acquiring land in California will be much more
> complex than in France. The original TGV lines
> operated on pure eminent domain, and laid their
> straight line tracks wherever they wanted. You're
> in the way? We'll build our embankment on top of
> your house, vineyard, cemetery, etc.
>
> Condemning land in Silicon Valley and the LA or
> San Diego suburbs for this new train route won't
> be cheap.



From looking at their maps... From San Diego would use current lines to Miramar Junction, pass through new trackage along the outer northern edge of MCAS Miramar (probably trenched) which then would follow the I-15 Corridor to Riverside and San Bernardino. At San Bernardino Trains would reverse direction, following current trackage across the LA Basin into LAUPT, then reverse again and follow the Metrolink Antelope Valley line through Tehachapi and up the San Joaquin Valley, probably along the current San Joaquins Corridor on passenger-exclusive tracks.

The only new alignments required would be Miramar - Riverside, and over Altamont (Don't think they're planning on using the ACE trackage to San Fran). From Miramar to Riverside there is a huge construction project going on on the I-15 which makes land acquisition easier (I think SANBAG is already looking into building a commuter line there) and I'm willing to bet the Marine Corps would be more willing to give a 50-foot, trenched ROW along the edge of the base to the state, then they would be handing the entire base over to the San diego Port Authority.

It's actually a sensible plan from what I've seen, requiring very little new alignment (lord knows we have enough alignment new and old throuighout the state to support it). Plenty of upgrading and expanding current lines though.

---------------------

As far as Political Junkets go, I wonder how much Alstom actually forked over to get the CA Politicians to come over and say that... I'm willing to be the state paid less then half the cost of the trip for them, and as long as something happens (IE: a high speed trainset in operation in CA by 2010, even if it's just testing) I'll be happy.

One advantage to the French cars is the low-platform boarding, which would reduce expenses as the trains could use current platforms already in existence rather then having to retrofit stations with high-platforms, while somehow preserving low-platform access for current equipment (Metrolink Amcal, Amlongdistance, freight passage, etc)

So as long as this is actually happening I'm cool with it, if it's like the junkets to look at how well-maintained the streets are that occurred several times in the past (look how many potholes mwe have still) then I'll join you in saying "BOOOO"

IS the governor still trying to cut funding to HSR?

CA high-speed rail is actually progressing very nicely right now. Arnold was threatening this year's funding and also the bond measure in Nov. 2008. The legislature will likely get around all that in its version of next year's budget. It's very good to see that the legislature is interested in this project and they'll surely be impressed after seeing France's HSR network.

On a side-note: there will be a bunch of public scoping meetings (for the SoCal project segments) conducted by the CAHSRA in the next few weeks, starting tomorrow. Worth going to if you are interested in the project. Info on these meetings is available at their website: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov

Bahahaha, was that 360 mph before it went into the sidng to meet the Z-train or after it left the siding with a new crew and a bad air hose? Sure, it would be nice. Betcha they checked out the competing Vineyards as well.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bahahaha, was that 360 mph before it went into the
> sidng to meet the Z-train or after it left the
> siding with a new crew and a bad air hose? Sure,
> it would be nice. Betcha they checked out the
> competing Vineyards as well.


Remember, we're not talking Amtrak here ;)

The "no build" option in the Environmental Report speaks of thousands of miles of added highway lanes, many more airport expansions, and a huge increase in motor fuel use in the state, which is anticipating adding 20 million residents by 2050. Not mentioned is where they will build the petroleum refineries to fuel these 10-20 million added automobiles.

Please try for some constructive criticism. Those TO members in California might actually go to the CAHSRA site and get more information. Of course there will be costs and political opposition.

IMHO the role of government is to build the most basic economic infrastructure: aqueducts, canals, interstates, and now this newest form of transport. The French experience is generally that they had to subsidize the first TGV (to Lyon) but each segment added provided revenue not only for it's operating costs but to fund the extensions.

I have just spent several days both on a Southwest flight along the coast and driving in both urban traffic and on the I-5 and US-101 corridors. I cannot imagine how we can absorb a 40% increase in transportation demand with highways alone.

So I was curious why the Taxpayers of California paid for an elected official to be on the train that broke the steel on steel speed record and I kept getting the quote 'gee, we've got to get one of these'. I had not realized we had elected a Transportation expert to the State Legislature, or, maybe we didn't. Anybody have a background on our elected representative?

Another phrase coined many times today was that we are somehow lacking the technology to travel to points inside California at speeds of 350 mph, I thought it had been invented and was called an airplane. Seems to be a lot cheaper than buying and building everything from scratch.

> -----
> > Bahahaha, was that ...
>
>
> Remember, we're not talking Amtrak here ;)


Yes, then there's Amtrak. It demonstrates the problems with political compromises, the California HSR has the same path to follow and needs to be able to avoid similar fate. At this point 'they' haven't figured out a viable route to follow between the distant locations. Now that the San Francisco Region has so much National political clout the HSR map will need to include the area so as to include the Poiticians. But it's not France, the Coastal range is causing a problem with that map, not to mention the earthquake Engineering requirements. My remaining $0.02 says there needs to be some basic Engineering and Planning accomplished, distant from the Political arena, before the idea has credibility. Link to map with blue areas (red would be bad wouldn't it): http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/route/default.asp

A contemporary to this is the Seattle Alaskan Viaduct, many plans came forward, each one demonstrating distance from the original design, the Voters turned it down. Suddenly the new idea is to build a newer bigger bridge in an existing commute path. Maybe it's not the package folks want but the performance.
End of rant.

1702 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another political junket which may result in fat
> contracts for consulting firms but in the end will
> come to nothing. The cost of building and
> maintaining such a system would be staggering and
> the necessity for high-speed rail between San
> Diego/L.A. and the Bay Area is dubious at best.

Oh - let's see. Most, if not all, airports in California are congested. HUGE metro areas. Congested higways. Sounds perfect for a rail alternative. Face if folks - California is in the top COUNTRIES in the world in terms of GNP.

Interesting description of the route. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6450973.stm 185 mile route with a 62 mile extension in work. LA to SF is 382 miles using I-5.

From the article:
France's TGV trains - launched more than two decades ago - cover a network of 1,500km (930 miles) with an average speed of 300km/h (185mph).

LA to Portland is 964 miles. If we build this can we have low un-employment and 6 weeks mandatory Vacation like Europe? Maybe we could get BART to San Jose first.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I had not realized we had elected a
> Transportation expert to the State Legislature,
> or, maybe we didn't. Anybody have a background on
> our elected representative?

Sorry, no info from me, why don't you Google them? BTW: The delegation was not on board, I'm not sure they were even present for the occasion if you read the actual article

> Another phrase coined many times today was that we
> are somehow lacking the technology to travel to
> points inside California at speeds of 350 mph, I
> thought it had been invented and was called an
> airplane. Seems to be a lot cheaper than buying
> and building everything from scratch.

As I so carefully pointed out before This project wouldn't be produced from scratch, a lot of it would use upgraded ROW that is currently present.. The Politicians like the Alstom design because of its low floor boarding, which makes the train compatible to current stations without expensive retrogrades, which would in turn outdate our current fleet of equipment (Surfliner Cars and California cars can go up to 125 MPH if they have the right locomotive type, imagine how much those services would improve if we don't trash the equipment). Obviously, the technology exists, and if we keep ignoring this technology and repairing our broken down, outdated, worn out fleet so it can maintain a 79 MPH speed. Increased Diesel, Gasoline, and Jet Fuel emmissions will only hurt more then help. IMO, an electric alternative that takes approximately as long as an airplane door-to-door is worth looking in to.

Speaking of Airplanes... when was the last time an airport authority said "Hey, we can accomodate up to fifty more local flights along with our increasing international traffic, and we have a plan to add runways which doesn't displace local residents or increase traffic risk!"? How much money has been spent on researching how to add capacity to Lindbergh field alone? We can't add more flights to local locations. I recently was talking to a passenger buying a ticket to Los Angeles from me aboard the Surfliner, she randomly said "This is my first train trip, I couldn't find any local flights except one that took four hours, stopping in Las Vegas on the way." I recall dozens of "American Eagle" commuter flights going through San Diego to Las Angeles, Las Vegas... the bay area was a regular flight as well, but thos short-hop flights are decreasing as air travel is increasing. We should be looking for a way to replace those local flights completely without adding cars to the road to belch out more green smoke into our decaying atmosphere.

That's why I like the theory behind the project... In the long term it will be (relatively) inexpensive to operate once it's up and running, it will reduce Diesel emmissions from RR traffic while helping reduce local flights so the already crowded airports can focus on the long-haul moneymakers which the Railroad just can't compete with while at the same time providing the drivers stuck in traffic breathing the fumes from the cars around an alternative. That's also why Amtrak is beginning to push toward local corridors.


> Yes, then there's Amtrak. It demonstrates the
> problems with political compromises, the
> California HSR has the same path to follow and
> needs to be able to avoid similar fate. At this
> point 'they' haven't figured out a viable route to
> follow between the distant locations. Now that the
> San Francisco Region has so much National
> political clout the HSR map will need to include
> the area so as to include the Poiticians. But it's
> not France, the Coastal range is causing a problem
> with that map, not to mention the earthquake
> Engineering requirements. My remaining $0.02 says
> there needs to be some basic Engineering and
> Planning accomplished, distant from the Political
> arena, before the idea has credibility. Link to
> map with blue areas (red would be bad wouldn't
> it):
> http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/route/default.as
> p


Amtrak is wholly different, Amtrak is a Political "Blame Game", developed by politicians so they wouldn't look bad. This started from scratch and gained political favor. The fact that this is an earnest effort rising from nothing, rather then a half-cooked plan to tape a collapsing rail system together, will make it work tons better then Amtrak. To a degree I'm beginning to wish we HAD dumped passenger rail, I think it would have rebounded a lot faster then it has.

Some Political Hurtles must be overcome before the true Engineering can begin. This project is pushing forward in a way most major construction projects do, and I feel that the CAHSR Board involved has done a very good, thorough job of researching the practicality of applying true HSR in the US. Even if all the engineering requirements haven't been realized yet, getting Political powers on board the High-speed bandwagon so to speak is the best way of ensuring that the project can push ahead... and what better way to get them onboard then to expose them to a 350-MPH TGV run?

If it makes the 2008 ballot and gets voted in I hope you can change your view, I think this will be much more beneficial then many in here seem to believe. Amtrak really has shot our confisence in Passenger rail.

Let's see if I understand your arguments. Californians prefer using cars and airplanes to travel around. In fact these modes of transportation are so popular that they are overcrowded. And your solution is...to spend massive amounts of money on a new form of transportation that hardly anyone is currently using? Come on, if it wasn't such a P.C. charged environmentalist atmosphere in CA you'd be busy improving the forms of transport the people prefer, namely the car and the airplane.

dhart Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see if I understand your arguments.
> Californians prefer using cars and airplanes to
> travel around. In fact these modes of
> transportation are so popular that they are
> overcrowded. And your solution is...to spend
> massive amounts of money on a new form of
> transportation that hardly anyone is currently
> using? Come on, if it wasn't such a P.C. charged
> environmentalist atmosphere in CA you'd be busy
> improving the forms of transport the people
> prefer, namely the car and the airplane.


You obviously don't live in Southern California. This view of how Californians live is false and rooted in the past. Yes, we all still love our cars and it is hard to pry ourselves out of them, but with the increasing congestion and virtual "parking lots" that our corridors have become, people are looking for an alternative. Try boarding one of the Surfliners between San Diego and LA on a weekday. Once on board, you can tell the passenger standing next to you (standing room only) how "hardly anyone is using" this form of transport as the train stops to cram in another 50 passengers. Metrolink, the LA-area commuter service cannot expand fast enough as they have to lease cars from outside agencies to fill demand. The time has come (actually overdue) where a high speed rail solution would fit in with the future transportation goals and demands of this state.