Passenger Trains > High Speed Rail Really Starts !

True, U.S. HSR construction has finally started. Not too impressive.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2015/03/03/4406619_unspectacular-work-marks-first.html?rh=1

Marty Bernard



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/04/15 00:45 by MartyBernard.

Every great journey begins with but a single step.
Cheers,
Nick

Posted from iPhone

My biggest concern is that the California High Speed Rail project will be nothing more than a west coast version of the Northeast corridor. More than likely just as slow and not as promised. In other words more like 150mph instead of the 220mph as promised. Or even a stand alone 90mph San joaquin type corridor. What a bummer that would turn out to be.

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/June-2013/The-Block-37-Superstation-Chicagos-Money-Pit/

Here, you want a bummer.

Bob

msdgbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My biggest concern is that the California High
> Speed Rail project will be nothing more than a
> west coast version of the Northeast corridor. More
> than likely just as slow and not as promised. In
> other words more like 150mph instead of the 220mph
> as promised. Or even a stand alone 90mph San
> joaquin type corridor. What a bummer that would
> turn out to be.

We will be fortunate if we get that much. What California will end up with is a Cincinnati subway.

More ridiculous statements.

msdgbar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My biggest concern is that the California High
> Speed Rail project will be nothing more than a
> west coast version of the Northeast corridor. More
> than likely just as slow and not as promised. In
> other words more like 150mph instead of the 220mph
> as promised. Or even a stand alone 90mph San
> joaquin type corridor. What a bummer that would
> turn out to be.


I guess what some people want is something like the 3C Corridor between Cleveland and Cincinnati....0 trains at 0mph. Perhaps that's the American standard.

dispr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> More ridiculous statements.


Well it took 7 years to finally break ground, and it's still gonna take forever to complete, I still say it's a waste of money and a joke!

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> msdgbar Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > My biggest concern is that the California High
> > Speed Rail project will be nothing more than a
> > west coast version of the Northeast corridor.
> More
> > than likely just as slow and not as promised.
> In
> > other words more like 150mph instead of the
> 220mph
> > as promised. Or even a stand alone 90mph San
> > joaquin type corridor. What a bummer that would
> > turn out to be.
>
>
> I guess what some people want is something like
> the 3C Corridor between Cleveland and
> Cincinnati....0 trains at 0mph. Perhaps that's
> the American standard.

I think the project needs a major makeover.

In the Central Valley the ex-SP (UP tracks) go through almost all of the downtowns. Merced, Modesto, Fresno, you name it. In contrast, the ex-Santa Fe (BNSF) go off the beaten path. San Joaquins mostly use the BNSF tracks, and majority of the depot require auto travel to connect with downtowns. Those who are observant should notice the lack of businesses near the depots in the Central Valley.

As it looks now, the CA HSR is going to follow the BNSF.

Almost all the HSR lines around the world took great efforts to go to the center of established cities along the route, yet CA HSR isn't doing so in the Central Valley. All the political and fund raising tricks should have been used to realign the San Joaquins to travel on the UP. I'm sure the so-called entrepreneural minds in CA could have made UP an offer they couldn't refuse, so to speak.

Once the San Joaquins have been realigned, CA HSR could have worked on incremental upgrades in speeds. 90-110 mph would have been perfectly fine to compete with auto travel, and once the Central Valley folks are addicted to train travel, build a ROW adjacent to or above the UP tracks for a separate HSR line for even faster speeds.

FYI, my idea assumes CA is still too wimpy to punch tunnels through the mountains between Bakersfield and Los Angeles.

Instead the project caters to "build it, and abandon" mentality, since it'll do almost nothing to revitalize established downtown areas in the Central Valley (and possibly encourage more public transit use). Instead, the project will build more isolated depots and parking lots.

Just need fast, direct service from SF to Disneyland.


reindeerflame Wrote:
> I guess what some people want is something like
> the 3C Corridor between Cleveland and
> Cincinnati....0 trains at 0mph. Perhaps that's
> the American standard.

The HSR I've ridden on in Europe bypasses lots of small to medium sized cities en route. In every case worldwide, there's a tradeoff to be made between serving and supporting existing city cores, and keeping the overall travel time down for end-to-end riders.

And there's also that pesky thing about cost--its really expensive and disruptive to go blowing through an existing downtown. Do you really help downtown Fresno by building a long elevated structure through existing neighborhoods to get there? In cases where people did that with interstate highways in the 1960s and 70s, they were heavily criticized later on for cutting neighborhoods in half, disturbing peace and quiet, and a host of other nasty things. Nicking the city along one edge seems a reasonable compromise to me. Especially if the local transit system is reconfigured to connect readily to the new station.

Seems to me the California planners have done a reasonable job of balancing these factors in the Central Valley. You can't please everybody, especially when you have a loud contingent on the sideline that's bound and determined to throw stones at ANYTHING that you do. Remember the Werner Von Braun quote that "the best is the enemy of the good." He sent men to the moon with that insight, and brought all of them back.

No matter how this works out, the horrifying, horrifying specter of building a northeast corridor (where the tracks were laid during the Ulysses Grant adminsitration) seems kinda remote. Look at the real barriers to higher speeds on the NEC (Baltimore Harbor, limited Penn Station access, the rocky coastline in Connecticut) and none of it applies in California.

With one exception. The remaining big decision--how much tunneling to get into the LA Basin??-- still remains. Go big, guys. The Japanese have already shown that you can tunnel through a continental-scale fault zone successfully. And they did it under water. You guys can surely do it in a desert.

march_hare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The HSR I've ridden on in Europe bypasses lots of
> small to medium sized cities en route. In every
> case worldwide, there's a tradeoff to be made
> between serving and supporting existing city
> cores, and keeping the overall travel time down
> for end-to-end riders.
>
> And there's also that pesky thing about cost--its
> really expensive and disruptive to go blowing
> through an existing downtown. Do you really help
> downtown Fresno by building a long elevated
> structure through existing neighborhoods to get
> there? In cases where people did that with
> interstate highways in the 1960s and 70s, they
> were heavily criticized later on for cutting
> neighborhoods in half, disturbing peace and quiet,
> and a host of other nasty things. Nicking the
> city along one edge seems a reasonable compromise
> to me. Especially if the local transit system is
> reconfigured to connect readily to the new
> station.
>
> Seems to me the California planners have done a
> reasonable job of balancing these factors in the
> Central Valley. You can't please everybody,
> especially when you have a loud contingent on the
> sideline that's bound and determined to throw
> stones at ANYTHING that you do. Remember the
> Werner Von Braun quote that "the best is the enemy
> of the good." He sent men to the moon with that
> insight, and brought all of them back.
>
> No matter how this works out, the horrifying,
> horrifying specter of building a northeast
> corridor (where the tracks were laid during the
> Ulysses Grant adminsitration) seems kinda remote.
> Look at the real barriers to higher speeds on the
> NEC (Baltimore Harbor, limited Penn Station
> access, the rocky coastline in Connecticut) and
> none of it applies in California.

You bring up a lot of good points, but in my opinion, California planners skipped a step. Europe and Asia have already established train travel as an important, if not primary mode of transportation. I bring up the realignment of the San Joaquins, because California needs a more convincing way to transform from car-centric culture to a transit-centric culture.

End to end travel between the Bay Area and the LA Basin is already covered by the airplane, which requires no tunneling through the mountains.

I guess if powers-to-be are in a selfish rush to help a politically-connected contractor, grab federal funding, and build a "legacy," then actually solving a transportation problem won't cross their minds.

It's always amazing how much prep work like this has to be done before you can start the visible stuff that people associate with a infrastructure project of this kind. They are rebuilding a stretch of I-15 by our house and right now all of the work appears to be utility line movement. It's crazy how much they'll have to rebuild/move before they can slap down some new concrete lanes - I kid, I know it's more than that. But that last step always seems to go so fast.

Nathan