Home Open Account Help 265 users online

Passenger Trains > Progress on CA High Speed Rail


Date: 06/11/19 08:30
Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: WP17

The second paragraph in the following article https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/Open-Forum-High-speed-rail-is-still-the-best-way-13964184.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=headlines&utm_campaign=sfc_morningfix&sid=5452d8933b35d010308e8df2
about HSR makes the claim that 1hat more than 120 miles have already been laid 

If the past is any guide to the future, costs will probably be higher. So, Gov. Gavin Newsom has declared that the project should run from the Central Valley, where more than 120 miles of track have already been laid, to the Bay Area

This is the first time I've heard anything about rail being laid. And I don't think they have completed anywhere close to 120 miles of right of way.

I have not been able to find any concrete (pun intended) reports on how much has been completed. Can some point me to anything that specifies how much has been actually completed.

Thanks
WP17



Date: 06/11/19 08:37
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: GenePoon

It doesn't say 120 miles of WHAT.



Date: 06/11/19 08:44
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: WP17

It dioes state
where more than 120 miles of track have already been laid


GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't say 120 miles of WHAT.



Date: 06/11/19 08:46
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: ts1457

I think the reporter just got confused. I have not heard of any track being laid.



Date: 06/11/19 08:49
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: Dcmcrider

WP17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It dioes state
> where more than 120 miles of track have already
> been laid
>
>
> GenePoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It doesn't say 120 miles of WHAT.

120 miles of Grade A prime bull effluvium.

Screenshot below. It plainly says "120 miles of track."



 

Paul Wilson
Arlington, VA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/19 08:50 by Dcmcrider.




Date: 06/11/19 10:17
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: jcaestecker

I was up in the Central Valley 2 weeks ago calling on my publishing clients between Bakersfield, Fresno, and Atwater.  Here are the number of miles of laid HSR track I observed:  0

More fake news from the SF Comical.

-John 



Date: 06/11/19 14:39
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: Duna

jcaestecker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was up in the Central Valley 2 weeks ago calling
> on my publishing clients between Bakersfield,
> Fresno, and Atwater.  Here are the number of
> miles of laid HSR track I observed:  0
>
> More fake news from the SF Comical.
>
> -John 



Fake news. Just like Sarah Huckabee Sanders saying two weeks ago that 115 miles of border wall have been built, but unable to say where.  BS is non-partisan.

The goal of these HSR clowns is to separate chumps from their cash.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
Marx, Groucho this time

Always follow the money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/19 16:22 by Duna.



Date: 06/11/19 16:19
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: Duna

(Posted on the other CAHASR thread, but I'll re-post here)

People, railfans included, continue to miss the point.

Allow me, a former transportation planner who started in travel demand forecasting, to share-

The failure of CAHSR is not due primarily to incompetence or lack of engineering or railroading skills.  The "failure" is not even really a failure, because the entire project was based on faked data.

I have been saying this since the inception. So have people like O'Toole, staff at CA Division of Rail, and at least some at the CA Train Riders Association.

In order to secure necessary popular and political support, boosters (aka those who stood to profit, and did) put forth unrealistic numbers.  Future ridership was WAY exaggerated and costs were low-balled.  This was no accident, it is done all the time on transportation projects. Look around.

People say the planning methodology is bad (Fed Alternatives Analysis, other agency & financing analyses), but the main problem isn't the methods which are mandated by law, it's the fact that the resultant numbers are purposely distorted in order to achieve a pre-determined (aka top-down or otherwise political) result.  The larger the project, the more likely it is the result of top-down mandates. The concept of grass-roots efforts resulting in large gov't projects is BS. The world does not works that way.

Large projects seeking Federal funding MUST follow a well-established planning procedure. There is no other way.  Don't like it? Change the laws. Until then, projects MUST show, among other things, sufficient NEW RIDERS and TOTAL RIDERS. Raw, per-mile, etc etc. These are divided by forecast capital and operating costs to determine the basic VALUE of the project vs. other projects. If the project does not meet the criteria, it is done. So there is a lot of pressure to fake the numbers. And it's not hard to produce fake numbers. The messy process is hidden, like Oz and planners are the wizards.

In other words, if necessary, unbiased objective travel demand and financial forecast results are supressed and fake numbers are published. Then other plans are made based on the fake numbers...  If Calif voters would have been presented with realistic ridership and cost forecasts, they probably would not have passed the State bond measures in the first place.  Underwriters and others would have stayed away. The project would have remained in the dreamland, where it belongs and is headed after... how much has been spent and encumbered to-date?

Forecast results can be easily skewed as lots of inputs go into the mix including other forecast results- HH size, income, future jobs in analysis zones, vehicle operation costs, even birthrates.  Conscious and unconscious bias of planners comes into play too.  There's the popular concept of "advocacy planning". But advocacy is the opposite of providing accurate, objective information to decision makes and voters. It's BS, and we are living with the results.

In short, garbage in, garbage out.

Now the Bay Area is going to get a very expensive commuter train, if that.  If you want to see the future of California, look to Brazil or Bosnia, not Switzerland.

And people are still surprised the State and big money lied to them?  lolz.

CA taxpayers got bent over, yet many ask for more.  The beatings will continue until morale improves.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/11/19 16:20 by Duna.



Date: 06/11/19 16:24
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: ProAmtrak

jcaestecker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was up in the Central Valley 2 weeks ago calling
> on my publishing clients between Bakersfield,
> Fresno, and Atwater.  Here are the number of
> miles of laid HSR track I observed:  0
>
> More fake news from the SF Comical.
>
> -John 

How many miles of it!



Date: 06/11/19 18:03
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: CarolVoss

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (Posted on the other CAHASR thread, but I'll
> re-post here)
>
> People, railfans included, continue to miss the
> point.
>
> Allow me, a former transportation planner who
> started in travel demand forecasting, to share-
>
> The failure of CAHSR is ndue primarily to
> incompetence or lack of engineering or railroading
> skills.  The "failure" is not even really a
> failure, because the entire project was based on
> faked data.
>
> I have been saying this since the inception. So
> have people like O'Toole, staff at CA Division of
> Rail, and at least some at the CA Train Riders
> Association.
>
> In order to secure necessary popular and political
> support, boosters (aka those who stood to profit,
> and did) put forth unrealistic numbers.  Future
> ridership was WAY exaggerated and costs were
> low-balled.  This was no accident, it is done all
> the time on transportation projects. Look around.
>
> People say the planning methodology is bad (Fed
> Alternatives Analysis, other agency & financing
> analyses), but the main problem isn't the methods
> which are mandated by law, it's the fact that the
> resultant numbers are purposely distorted in order
> to achieve a pre-determined (aka top-down or
> otherwise political) result.  The larger the
> project, the more likely it is the result of
> top-down mandates. The concept of grass-roots
> efforts resulting in large gov't projects is BS.
> The world does not works that way.
>
> Large projects seeking Federal funding MUST follow
> a well-established planning procedure. There is no
> other way.  Don't like it? Change the laws. Until
> then, projects MUST show, among other things,
> sufficient NEW RIDERS and TOTAL RIDERS. Raw,
> per-mile, etc etc. These are divided by forecast
> capital and operating costs to determine the basic
> VALUE of the project vs. other projects. If the
> project does not meet the criteria, it is done. So
> there is a lot of pressure to fake the numbers.
> And it's not hard to produce fake numbers. The
> messy process is hidden, like Oz and planners are
> the wizards.
>
> In other words, if necessary, unbiased objective
> travel demand and financial forecast results are
> supressed and fake numbers are published. Then
> other plans are made based on the fake
> numbers...  If Calif voters would have been
> presented with realistic ridership and cost
> forecasts, they probably would not have passed the
> State bond measures in the first place. 
> Underwriters and others would have stayed away.
> The project would have remained in the dreamland,
> where it belongs and is headed after... how much
> has been spent and encumbered to-date?
>
> Forecast results can be easily skewed as lots of
> inputs go into the mix including other forecast
> results- HH size, income, future jobs in analysis
> zones, vehicle operation costs, even birthrates. 
> Conscious and unconscious bias of planners comes
> into play too.  There's the popular concept of
> "advocacy planning". But advocacy is the opposite
> of providing accurate, objective information to
> decision makes and voters. It's BS, and we are
> living with the results.
>
> In short, garbage in, garbage out.
>
> Now the Bay Area is going to get a very expensive
> commuter train, if that.  If you want to see the
> future of California, look to Brazil or Bosnia,
> not Switzerland.
>
> And people are still surprised the State and big
> money lied to them?  lolz.
>
> CA taxpayers got bent over, yet many ask for
> more.  The beatings will continue until morale
> improves.
Thank you for being the first to  tell the whole factual sordid truth about this incredible fiasco.
C

Carol Voss
Salinas, CA



Date: 06/11/19 18:34
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: trainjunkie

Duna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The failure of CAHSR is not due primarily to
> incompetence or lack of engineering or railroading
> skills.  The "failure" is not even really a
> failure, because the entire project was based on
> faked data.

I've been saying this since this whole fiasco began. Prop 1A was so full of nonsense I can't believe anyone fell for it.
Fifth post down in this thread from 2008.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,1788323



Date: 06/11/19 18:53
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: ts1457

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've been saying this since this whole fiasco
> began. Prop 1A was so full of nonsense I can't
> believe anyone fell for it.
> Fifth post down in this thread from 2008.
> https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,
> 1788323

Some TO members who are still with us called it correctly back then.

 



Date: 06/12/19 04:58
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: WrongWayMurphy

That was fascinating reading, going back 11 years when it all started.

You nailed it with the term “money pit”.

That said, it didn’t take Nostradamus to see this failure coming.

trainjunkie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duna Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The failure of CAHSR is not due primarily to
> > incompetence or lack of engineering or
> railroading
> > skills.  The "failure" is not even really a
> > failure, because the entire project was based
> on
> > faked data.
>
> I've been saying this since this whole fiasco
> began. Prop 1A was so full of nonsense I can't
> believe anyone fell for it.
> Fifth post down in this thread from 2008.
> https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,
> 1788323



Date: 06/13/19 22:24
Re: Progress on CA High Speed Rail
Author: cchan006

WP17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the first time I've heard anything about
> rail being laid. And I don't think they have
> completed anywhere close to 120 miles of right of
> way.

The editorial was written by a political science professor. I'd say his knowledge regarding transportation issues is suspect, and it shows.

Ultimately, he's advocating people to take sides ("support the project!") and he's no different than the empty "support CA HSR" we've heard here on TO for years. Excuse me while I yawn.



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.1145 seconds