/n/ - Transportation » Thread #1219448

[169 / 32 / ?]

95KiB, 600x1392, rail-300.jpg

California High Speed Rail Project

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 18:11:21 No.1219448 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>1219454 >>1219478 >>1219612 >>1220006 >>1220406 >>1220792 >>1221600 >>1221605

In which Californians are complaining of the high cost (an inevitability of any infrastructural project of this scale) and long completion time of a high speed rail project that could completely reshape the entire state.

If we're being fair, if the federal government fails to financially support this project, then they will be fucking up one of the most important infrastructural projects in the US, in the most prosperous state, and will be delaying the inevitable for an even less-convenient time. And what even is the Republican position on any transportation for the matter? If not in the monstrosity of Southern Suburbia California, where else? Why are Californians so opposed to not using their godforsaken cars for once? Why the fuck does Trump disapprove of it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/california-high-speed-rail.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 18:36:28 No.1219454 Report

Quoted By: >>1219463 >>1219480

>>1219448
It's honestly one of the first large U.S. infrastructure projects to be started since the 60s. And I'm really looking forward to it's completion.
The U.S. really needs newer infrastructure. Specifically construction that's not a highway.
If this was a new highway no one would bat an eye. But how dare we finally spend money on rail. Most U.S. tracks are still using wooden ties and riveted joints, well the rest of the developed world all has concrete ties and welded rails.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 18:58:39 No.1219461 Report

Quoted By: >>1219480 >>1219481 >>1221523

That's like 2000 bucks per californian in costs?

Meanwhile an average person probably spends 5000 to 10000 a year on their private vehicle without giving a shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 19:04:51 No.1219463 Report

Quoted By: >>1219480

>>1219454
The wooden ties are just because lumber is cheaper here.

They don't rot or anything because we cover them in creosote. Works fine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 20:09:23 No.1219478 Report

Quoted By: >>1219481 >>1219615 >>1220792

>>1219448
>Californians are complaining of the high cost (an inevitability of any infrastructural project of this scale)
They're complaining because the cost went from high to astronomical in the matter of years. They were deceived about it, and they have a right to be upset and refuse to fund it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 20:12:02 No.1219479 Report

Quoted By: >>1219616

Maybe they should've waited til it was Her Turn before greenlighing a project of this scope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 20:12:59 No.1219480 Report

Quoted By: >>1223511

>>1219454
>Most U.S. tracks are still using wooden ties and riveted joints
As >>1219463 said, creosoted ties still work well enough here although concrete is becoming the standard for heavy main lines, especially in curves.

Bolted rail? No. That's been gone on mainlines for decades.

>>1219461
A car provides far more utility to an individual than a bullet train ever will. Flawed argument imo

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 20:15:05 No.1219481 Report

Quoted By: >>1219528 >>1219539 >>1219618 >>1220061 >>1220792

>>1219478
There's also the issue of the route. It's a weird winding path through the middle of fucking nothing. I'm no expert but can even induced demand save a route that's 85 percent farms and desert wasteland?

>>1219461
They absolutely give a shit. They've recalled politicians over car licence fees as it is for a fraction of that, and most californians will never utilize the high speed rail ever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 22:34:08 No.1219526 Report

Quoted By: >>1219548

Californian here

I'm in the central valley and have family in the SF, LA, and SD areas, I also just like to go to said areas for specific events but would never want to live there bc of the costs. I fucking hate driving to any of said areas, there's always traffic, and flying is too expensive, while normal rail limits me to the Bay area and takes forever. I think most of the people not in one of the three areas would benefit similarly from HSR, especially those commuting into the areas for work. The rush is huge from Bakersfield to LA, and from Stockton/Manteca/Modesto etc to the Bay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 22:39:04 No.1219528 Report

Quoted By: >>1219536 >>1219539 >>1219619 >>1220792

>>1219481
The most offensive part of it all is how weird and winding the route is especially given that most of it goes through the middle of nowhere. That thing should be straighter than an LGV for the entirety of the central valley, and the fact that it isn't speaks volumes about just how big of a clusterfuck CHSR is.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 23:05:23 No.1219536 Report

Quoted By: >>1219539 >>1219558

>>1219528
The three major metro areas are getting overcrowded, having the rail go through the next largest areas will help grow them and provide alternative places to live. The scope isn't just to provide SF-LA travelers with an alternative to driving/flights

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 23:18:17 No.1219539 Report

Quoted By: >>1219555

>>1219481
>>1219528
The routing seems to be about as bad as those Tokaido Shinkansen stations at Shizuoka. Probably they are errors that needs to be attempted and to be learn from for future rail plans.
>>1219536
Next largest? You mean San Diego?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 23:39:10 No.1219548 Report

Quoted By: >>1219551 >>1219621 >>1220149

>>1219526
>Stockton/Manteca/Modesto etc to the Bay

You keep missing the point completely.
HSR cannot go through Palo Alto.

"Unfortunately, the vocal NIMBYs in that community have begun to jeopardize the city's position of leadership in support of sustainable and forward-looking policies. Led by those who continue to sow the misinformation about HSR acting as some kind of "Berlin Wall," Palo Alto is in danger of opposing high speed rail outright, and in the process fatally undermining Caltrain - and therefore, fatally undermining the city's own stated commitments to mass transit.

This November, Palo Alto voters will fill five seats on the city's nine-member council. Unsurprisingly, high speed rail is a major issue in the race, as evidenced by this report of a recent candidates' forum:"

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 20100406_101415_rail_map_graphic.jpg, 37KiB, 424x401

Anonymous Mon 30 Jul 2018 23:48:21 No.1219551 Report

Quoted By: >>1219622

>>1219548
If it is to be a tunnel then that shouldn't matter?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 00:01:52 No.1219555 Report

Quoted By: >>1219558

>>1219539
Plural

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 00:16:05 No.1219558 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219555
>>1219536
If you are talking about those area with less than 1 million population and the goal is to develop them then regional transit network extending from SF/LA would probably be a better way to achieve what you want. And then especially note that high speed line passing through sparsely populated area could result in a straw effect that make population of those area even more easier to move into large cities along the line and result in further decline of those area.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 06:42:08 No.1219612 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219448
A majority of voters supported the seed bond back in 2008. I was one of them. Polling on the system has remained surprisingly steady with a slim majority still supporting it, even after cost increases and delays, a number of which were due to NIMBYs and other external forces.

What it fundamentally comes down to is this:
Adding equivalent capacity in the form of highway lanes and airport gates/runways would be substantially more expensive while providing no alternative method of travel compared to the status quo.

Air traffic between northern and Southern California is insane, one of the world's busiest routes. The number of gate slots that are used to serve that market is fucking retarded. A built out HSR system (even more so if they eventually build phase 2 to Sacramento and San Diego) has the potential to reduce the needs for these flights, freeing up existing gate slots to be used on higher value, longer distance flights. That's especially important for airports like San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, Burbank, Long Beach, John Wayne, Ontario, and others that don't have a lot of longer distance domestic (not to mention international) flight options.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 06:44:27 No.1219615 Report

Quoted By: >>1219772 >>1220792

>>1219478
That's fucking bullshit. The 2008 bond measure was always advertised as just a starter package. The total cost did go up on its own, which is true of every other major infrastructure project in US history, but a not insignificant amount of the increase was driven by Koch-style lawsuits that had no real basis.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 06:45:46 No.1219616 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219479
Nigga, it was approved the same year Obama got elected and as the recession started. Spoiler: a recession is an advantageous time to start infrastructure projects.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 06:47:46 No.1219618 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219481
It hits all the most populous parts of the state that happen to lie on the phase 1 route. The alternative (i.e. the coast) is much more difficult to build on and has a much lower population.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 06:49:49 No.1219619 Report

Quoted By: >>1219799

>>1219528
Again, you stupid fucking cunt, it goes through Fresno and Bakersfield. Those are by far the most populous parts on the Central Valley other than Sacramento. Bypassing either to *slightly* straighten the route in fucking retarded.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 06:51:13 No.1219621 Report

Quoted By: >>1220149

>>1219548
>HSR cannot go through Palo Alto.
Except it's literally going to do that. Some of the infrastructure to support that is already under construction.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 06:52:50 No.1219622 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219551
That map is extremely outdated. It isn't going to be a tunnel anywhere in the Bay Area except the Pacheco Pass and from east-central SF to downtown.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 19:13:20 No.1219772 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219615
>The total cost did go up on its own,
So it's not bullshit

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 21:02:19 No.1219799 Report

Quoted By: >>1219806

>>1219619
>You stupid fucking cunt

I'm not the one defending budget bloat and mission creep that's probably going to kill the best shot that the US had of building a proper HSR setup.

If they were smart, they would have built a cheaper line like LA<->San Diego or San Fran <-> Sacramento that would have effectively turned the smaller of each pair into a commuter city for the bigger one, while hopefully driving up public interest in HSR so that the insane cost for connecting the northern and southern halves of the system across Tehachapi, etc would be palatable to the 90+% of voters who aren't foamers or /n/ fetishists.

The problem now is that CHSR has become a monster that will never happen without Federal funding, only Federal funding will be next-to-impossible to nail down since the project's scope is limited to just one state.

At this rate you'd have a better shot at getting a NYC to Chicago HSR built than this mess in CA, because at least in that case you could sell 5 of the biggest states in the country on the economic benefits.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 21:29:55 No.1219806 Report

Quoted By: >>1219811 >>1219826 >>1219859

>>1219799
I'm a little suprised they didn't go with LA to Vegas HSR.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 21:53:22 No.1219811 Report

Quoted By: >>1219826

>>1219806
Exactly. LA to Vegas and San Diego would have been a perfect, low-cost startup that wouldn't have needed pie-in-the-sky average system speeds of nearly 200mph to hit marketable timetables. A system using tilting trainsets and Shinkansen speeds would have been perfect and would have cost barely 10-20 billion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 31 Jul 2018 22:53:24 No.1219826 Report

Quoted By: >>1219852

>>1219806
Maybe because it's a fraction of north-south California traffic.

>>1219811
Pretty easy to make shit up without anything to support it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 00:53:24 No.1219852 Report

Quoted By: >>1219856 >>1219860

>>1219826
>Pretty easy to make shit up without anything to support it.

Tilting trainsets and ~150mph ops allows you to widen existing freight ROWs which minimizes land purchases, and so your only real costs are electrification and station construction. If you want to be *really* ghetto you can even forego the electrification and buy 125mph Siemens Chargers and tilting coaches and have a service that would still wreck air travel between LA and LV/SD.

The only way those solutions are in any way deficient is that they don't get you the pie-in-the-sky "faster average service speeds and tighter timetables than either the Shinkansen OR the TGV and their collective century's worth of experience have tried to achieve" system speeds that CHSR needs to be a convincingly viable alternative to flying between LA and the Bay area.

And in the event that CHSR *doesn't* hit those speeds, you've now spent the inflation-adjusted equivalent of the Apollo program to link Bakersfield, Salinas, Stockton, and Fresno with expensive bullet train service that nobody will use.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 01:00:37 No.1219856 Report

Quoted By: >>1219858

>>1219852
You've provided literally zero evidence to support your cost estimates or ridership assumptions.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 01:20:03 No.1219858 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219856
Brightline has cost less than $2b so far, and covers a similar distance as San Diego<->LA<->Las Vegas. My "Tilting Brightline" idea would likely cost less than $10 billion to build, and I'm being extremely liberal estimating an additional $10 billion to electrify it, as it would likely be a good bit less.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 01:25:31 No.1219859 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219806
>I'm a little suprised they didn't go with LA to Vegas HSR.
That's the XpressWest train, that plan failed because China want to use the project to.dump their excess production capacity but US government banned them from using Made in China trains.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 01:27:09 No.1219860 Report

Quoted By: >>1219867

>>1219852
Cheap upgrade of existing track is not a proper way to do HSR

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 02:09:23 No.1219865 Report

Quoted By: >>1219866

I'm a Californian and I voted for the project. One of the big problems with the high speed rail project is that California (or nearly all of the US) doesn't have a functioning passenger rail system. Amtrak is all we have, it costs as much or more than flying and no one uses it. We need a massive nationwide infrastructure project that not only replaces aging roads and bridges, but also introduces more alternative methods of transportation such as rail and safe bike pathways.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 02:11:45 No.1219866 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219865
How are buses in both cities.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 02:13:53 No.1219867 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219860
So true

Just hamstringing yourself long-term for short-term gains

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 02:24:40 No.1219871 Report

Quoted By:

I live in bumfuck nowhere midwest and I want this project to be completed because maybe if it turns out good and they build similar things elsewhere we'll luck out and end up a stop on some line between two places that fucking matter

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 05:45:43 No.1219907 Report

Quoted By: >>1219973

Itt:murikans being murikan.

If you are building new. HSR, then you build it on deducated ROW a d aim for higest humanly possible ridership and speed. Any compromise between those will jeapordise the project. Initial system, if it does not kill domestic airlines, is considered a failure.

Its better to overspend and get design goals met.

Also, wtf did anyone expect. Chsr is built over developed land, often through mountains and hordes of nimbys. Of course its going to be expensive.

T. Eurofag

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 11:59:34 No.1219973 Report

Quoted By: >>1220002 >>1220014

>>1219907
It's more hilarious because California's political climate is directly responsible for the rise of "environmental concerns" based NIMBY tactics, tactics that have stalled or killed major projects like this for the past 50 years and now their political chickens have come home to roost.

The reality is that stuff like this is nigh-on impossible to build in the US, with its climate of environmental impact studies and lawsuits by "displaced and affected communities" and the only way you can build any of it is with European or Asian-style eminent domain laws.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 16:23:17 No.1220002 Report

Quoted By: >>1220405 >>1224453

>>1219973
Japan has notoriously difficult to work with eminent domain laws, so I call bs.

Its nearly impossible to evict someone in Japan, even when they're offered 10x more than their shitty house is worth. Just look at Narita airports protestors for proof.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO study_area_map_th.jpg, 43KiB, 390x531

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 16:30:46 No.1220006 Report

Quoted By: >>1220134

>>1219448

The Feds won't likely back out. In order to do so they'd have to rewrite the PRIIA and pass it, a thing that is unlikely because few people in Congress (other than Denham and McCarthy) want to tamper with how pork money is spent. Trump himself is the most HSR-neutral Republican available (see how he had Sec Chao authorize the Calmod grant, even if late) so we're not getting activism from the oval office. At any rate this fight isn't nearly as important as the one in the state senate.

>And what even is the Republican position on any transportation for the matter?

Most (in the state senate) are now at least partially supportive of transit, and their main attack vector onto CAHSR is that it will sap money from local transit projects. This is how Cannella (R-Ceres) could justify his vote for SB-1, because the $3-4 billion being dumped on ACE isn't HSR. But even here, ACE is expanding down to Merced where CAHSR's tracks begin until CAHSR can expand up to Sacramento, just as ACE is doing through SB-1. ACE's tracks were also the original proposed route of CAHSR, so basically the CA GOP ensured CAHSR's survival by giving them a cheap plan B.

The Governor's office is more complicated since Newsom has voiced opposition to the project before (and would readily kill it if he felt he could benefit from that) while Cox wants to kill it outright, a power the Governor doesn't have since CAHSR was passed as Prop 1A. However, Cox also styles himself as a clone of Illinois's Bruce Rauner who himself is mildly pro-HSR in regards to IL's projects.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 37550338136_5480626ef8_b.jpg, 335KiB, 1024x683

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 16:36:24 No.1220009 Report

Quoted By:

Anyway, look at CHSRA's latest business plan, which calls for letting diesel San Joaquins use their tracks until CHSRA has built the Pacheco tunnels and can pay for catenary + trainsets. Even if Republicans were to somehow take over Sacramento, I'd just expect them to water down CAHSR into better SJ service while the fights come down to tunnels and wires. Which, given how Metrolink is at least tabling future electrification now (in their most recent business plan) indicates to me that the GOP will just give in on this even if they do it in their own stupid way.

The most telling vector will be if the newly formed Tri-Valley San Joaquin Valley Regional Rail Authority chooses full-size EMUs and ACE as an operator. In that case ACE goes under wire between Stockton and Livemore, which with the Capitol Corridor's move to the Coast Subdivision makes the prospect of doing wire all the way to SJ plausible. At this point wire would only have to go up between Stockton and Merced for a CAHSR Phase 1 system. Bonus if a Dumbarton rebuild is done as well. Failing that, CHSRA would have to focus on building the Pacheco tunnels sooner rather than later and then making sure they can take diesels. Either way, the norcal sections are going to get built.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 16:40:29 No.1220014 Report

Quoted By: >>1220026

>>1219973

It's easy to build, so long as you're not the government. The primary way NIMBYs block projects in CA is through the California Environmental Quality Act, a law which does not apply to companies operating in California that have their headquarters elsewhere. These companies include both major freight railroads, BNSF is located in Fort Worth and UP from Omaha. Both are interstate businesses so local governments have no standing against them, which is why they have to take their claims to DC to the STB who usually tells them to fuck off. Local shortlines get it easier as well since they can all claim to be interstate businesses based upon interoperability with the national network.

But again, this only applies to freight and occasionally Amtrak. State led entities don't get these sorts of power therefore they have to bend over backwards to avoid a NIMBY suit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 17:46:25 No.1220026 Report

Quoted By: >>1220065

>>1220014
This just fuels my hunch that the best shot CHSR has of happening is as a JR or Brightline-style private project using real estate development income to offset the cost of development.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 19:53:53 No.1220061 Report

Quoted By: >>1220066 >>1220411

>>1219481

>bakersfield
>fresno
>madera
>merced
>san jose

What? All of those cities are enormous. Bakersfield is a "standard california city" has 400,000, which nearly comparable to my state's largest city, Milwaukee. Its metro area is nearly 900,000.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 20:00:57 No.1220065 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220026

Theoretically that was the plan of CHSRA all along, since PRIIA grant money requires them to make an operational profit. This is why the US-99, Pacheco and Tehapchi alignments were chosen in the first place, and why Deutchebahn was chosen as the operator (who would of course charge a fee).

If anything Republican tampering only ensures DB exits while Caltrans' employees get experience running high-speed (125-150 mph) trains, creating the foundation for the project being entirely a public one and not private at all.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 20:03:41 No.1220066 Report

Quoted By: >>1220067 >>1220100 >>1220129

>>1220061
They may be huge, but they're relatively undervalued. The best bet to getting a proper HSR ROW built in the central valley would be to do the Brightline thing around each and every one of the new, centrally-located stations to use the income from all the new megadevelopment to offset the cost of building an LGV spanning the central valley.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO fl-brightline-miami-station-upda (...).jpg, 819KiB, 2048x1382

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 20:05:39 No.1220067 Report

Quoted By: >>1220100

>>1220066
Pic related should be on the far smaller side of things given how cheap land in the central valley is and how valuable being less than 2 hours from LA or SF will be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 20:28:55 No.1220073 Report

Quoted By: >>1220075 >>1220098

If climate change hits as badly as the scientists are predicting, I can see the day where flights become a thing of the past and HSR becomes the workhorse of interstate travel.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 20:33:14 No.1220075 Report

Quoted By: >>1220191 >>1220333

>>1220073

That's explicitly the goal of CAHSR since all the local airports have filled up and can't be cheaply expanded. Independent of climate change, it's a sheer congestion issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 21:40:32 No.1220098 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220073

Can you expand on this? Are you implying that coastal airports will be submerged from rising sea levels?? Or stricter regulations on the amount of carbon output airplanes create?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 21:44:24 No.1220100 Report

Quoted By: >>1220130 >>1220417

>>1220066
>>1220067
Depends on what tickets actually end up costing, I think. Plenty of people in LA commute 2+ hours each way to work, so if you could live in a big house out in the country and still take HSR into town in less than that time it'd be a pretty attractive proposition, but not if it costs as much as the Shinkansen does.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 23:44:44 No.1220129 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220066
>The best bet to getting a proper HSR ROW built in the central valley
That's already been done. They are building 100% new, HSR dedicated track in the Central Valley.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 23:45:26 No.1220130 Report

Quoted By: >>1220172 >>1220191 >>1220417

>>1220100
Spoiler alert: it's going to cost damn near what the THV or Shinkansen does, ticket-wise, and will probably go the way of the Acela, where only far upper middle class-ers and the 1% use it because they're the only ones worth enough that they can expense account their tickets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 01 Aug 2018 23:50:01 No.1220134 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220006
Newsom has explicitly said he'd continue supporting the project.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 00:12:14 No.1220149 Report

Quoted By: >>1220152 >>1220153

>>1219621
>>>1219548 (You)
>>HSR cannot go through Palo Alto.
>Except it's literally going to do that. Some of the infrastructure to support that is already under construction.

Not in Palo Alto.

"The city's current timeline calls for launching construction in 2023"

Then you also get liars like this:
"A new Los Angeles Times poll finds that only 31% of California voters want to continue building the high-speed rail project. The poll, which was"

That was published in Palo Alto. Plan on the rail line crossing at San Mateo.

http://padailypost.com/2017/11/22/train-crossing-improvements-in-palo-alto-could-cost-as-much-as-4-billion-new-report-says/

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 00:19:55 No.1220152 Report

Quoted By: >>1220154

>>1220149
>That was published in Palo Alto. Plan on the rail line crossing at San Mateo.
So much for the San Jose service, then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 00:20:29 No.1220153 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220149
The electrification project, which goes through Palo Alto has already been fully and finally approved. There is literally nothing they can do to stop it. Just because catenary poles haven't gone up yet in Palo Alto doesn't mean they won't. That aspect of it will be done before 2023.

Grade separations are another issue. And again, the city can't prevent Caltrain or HSR from passing through it on the existing right of way. When the Caltrain electrification is complete, there will be up to 6 trains per hour per direction. Traffic at non-grade separated intersections will get worse unless they (and other cities) have grade separated crossings built. It's inevitable that they will be built. The longer they wait, the more they suffer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 00:21:30 No.1220154 Report

Quoted By: >>1220155

>>1220152
You fucked up the geography. San Jose is south of Palo Alto.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 00:24:04 No.1220155 Report

Quoted By: >>1220158 >>1220159 >>1220174

>>1220154
My bad, I thought were implying that the line will end up crossing the bay at San Mateo and heading west to Stockton from there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 00:30:51 No.1220158 Report

Quoted By: >>1224260

>>1220155
Nah, that'll never happen. There is currently a study underway to restore and double track the Dumbarton rail corridor, which theoretically could bring ACE trains from as far away as Stockton. But if that crossing ever does get reactivated, I don't think it'll be ACE trains running on it.

If HSR is ever going to cross the bay, it's going to be via a 2nd transbay tube (containing both conventional rail and BART) that would take it to Oakland. From there I guess you could theoretically build new ROW (which would likely involve a lot of tunneling) to take it towards Sacramento.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 00:31:53 No.1220159 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220155
And Stockton is east...

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Passenger-Rail-and-Highways.png, 307KiB, 787x1037

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 01:13:32 No.1220172 Report

Quoted By: >>1220501

>>1220130

The Acela is also the backbone with NE Regionals that connects VRE, MARC, PATCO, NJT, LIRR, M-N, and MBTA trains all into one system. This is exactly what CAHSR wants to copy but in regards to Caltrain, the Capitol Corridor, ACE, San Joaquins, Metrolink and Sprinter. It is why Sacramento had CHSRA move towards a northern Initial Operating Segment, so that Northern California Unified Rail Service could be built sooner rather than later. It is also why CHSRA chose a Pacheco alignment despite it costing more since it causes the existing SJQs to be redundant, replaced with a dedicated SJ-Sacramento train and a Sacramento-Bakersfield train. This is still a major improvement over the current situation.

Image extremely related.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO altamont.jpg, 144KiB, 590x471

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 01:19:19 No.1220174 Report

Quoted By: >>1220177 >>1220208

>>1220155

Original HSR plans had the crossing over a rebuilt Dumbarton bridge south of Redwood City, wherein they would cross over and wye off just before Stockton. This plan of action still has it's supporters since it would give equal access to SF, SJ, and Oakland rather than having all trains be routed through SJ while SF becomes a dead-end. I note it above because, if ACE electrifies using SB-1 money, this becomes an expedient way to run HSR trains into the Bay Area without having to build tunnels under Pacheco Pass, letting CHSRA save money for Tehapichi Pass.

That said, the case for the Pacheco tunnels remains extremely strong because of San Jose's huge population, which CHSRA needs to make an operational profit thus allowing them to have PRIIA money. My point above was that even if Republicans try to kill this one part, they've already given CHSRA a backup plan to the north.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO california north 3 options 2018-01.png, 130KiB, 1582x1264

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 01:24:17 No.1220177 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220174

another image demonstrating what I mean

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 02:06:25 No.1220190 Report

Quoted By: >>1220329

I can't wait to step on human feces and used aids needles at over 200 kmh.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 02:07:17 No.1220191 Report

Quoted By: >>1220208

>>1220075
>local airports have filled up and can't be cheaply expanded
Still way less expensive to do that than build CHSR

>>1220130
Yeah, people think HSR is like a slightly more expensive subway, in reality it's priced more like flying a discount airline

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 03:11:47 No.1220208 Report

Quoted By: >>1220213

>>1220191

>Still way less expensive to do that than build CHSR

No because the Bay Area's two largest airports (SFO, OAK) border the bay, which cannot be filled in without an equal amount of land swapped somewhere else. The other one (Mineta) is lodged adjacent downtown San Jose, whose development is severely capped by the runways which fly directly over downtown. Expansion here can only happen as the periphery at Sonoma County Airport or Stockton's airport, the former of which has a SMART station and the latter of which wants an ACE station. Meanwhile smaller airports with strong charter service (Palo Alto, San Carlos, Hayward) can't expand into commercial airports because NIMBYs don't like the noise or traffic.

For the Bay Area at least, the limit has been hit. Expanding any of the airports to an equivalent capacity of rail would easily cost over $40 billion as major freeway tunnels and huge amounts of ED (and ED of some of the most valuable land in California no less) would have to occur. The only feasible way to expand airport capacity is to build out ACE and funnel people in through rail, basically creating CAHSR as described here >>1220174

>Yeah, people think HSR is like a slightly more expensive subway, in reality it's priced more like flying a discount airline

That's good enough and better than the present condition.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 03:52:08 No.1220213 Report

Quoted By: >>1220228

>>1220208
>No because the Bay Area's two largest airports (SFO, OAK) border the bay
You use the fill from dredging the bay to expand. This option attracts a lot of environmental opposition though.

>>1220208
>That's good enough and better than the present condition.
True but it's a tough sell when the cost of airport expansion is far less than the cost of CHSR

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 04:56:15 No.1220228 Report

Quoted By: >>1220229

>>1220213

>You use the fill from dredging the bay to expand. This option attracts a lot of environmental opposition though.

The entire SF Bay is a protected zone that has it's own state agency (the Coastal Commission) dedicated to stopping all attempts to develop it, that "environmental opposition" includes the entire state government and (as of right now) a majority of CA voters who would happily vote for more stringent anti-bay development restrictions which environmentalists would immediately put on the ballot the moment they think their court fitgt wouldn't go their way (this is exactly what CAHSR's opponents are doing this year with their attempted repeal).

As things stand filling in any parts of the bay isn't allowed unless a land swap happens, and even then it still has to clear the normal pile of CEQA checks (such as garter snakes, which stopped the international terminal's construction for four days when a construction worker reported a dead one).

>True but it's a tough sell when the cost of airport expansion is far less than the cost of CHSR

It isn't, because it is much cheaper to build track through the central valley and under some mountains than it is to fight people over valuable land within the Bay Area, whether it's the bay itself or downtown San Jose. And since the state won't pay for airport expansion, all the money would have to come from SF, San Mateo and Alameda counties whose voters do not want expanded airports (or expanded anything really).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 05:05:06 No.1220229 Report

Quoted By: >>1220334

>>1220228
>The entire SF Bay is a protected zone
Expanding SFO into the bay has been proposed before to the tune of a few billion with some kind of accompanying restoration. Hard but not impossible

>it is much cheaper to build track through the central valley and under some mountains
I don't believe that

>fight people over valuable land within the Bay Area
CHSR will have to do that as well

>all the money would have to come from SF, San Mateo and Alameda counties
Feds primarily fund airport expansions

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 11:12:48 No.1220269 Report

Quoted By: >>1220766

>tfw Californian
>tfw want high speed rail
>tfw LA metro sucks but too poor to afford a car and shit atm
>tfw but a motorbike but all the crappy drivers hit me and drive bad and fucked me over
>tfw the bus sucks
>tfw no HSR
Why cant they replace metro with HSR?
Fuck, why cant they just build HSR on all the ground level freeways?
A rail in the middle of or adjacent to the 91 and the 405 alone would be kino and if its fast enough would easily get people doing work commutes

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:25:05 No.1220329 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220190
This doesn't happen on Amtrak routes in the state, so why the fuck would it happen on HSR?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO OAK expansion 1.png, 384KiB, 1433x898

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:32:16 No.1220333 Report

Quoted By: >>1220335 >>1220341 >>1220344

>>1220075
I agree with your point.

I will point out that both Oakland and San Jose airports can expand their capacities pretty significantly (without any bay fill), and have master plans to do so as demand justifies it. SFO can increase its capacity somewhat, though not be a huge percentage. This is already underway with the reconstruction and remodel of Terminal 1, as well as the future construction of International Terminal Area H.

Pic related is one of the OAK expansion alternatives.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:35:57 No.1220334 Report

Quoted By: >>1220486

>>1220229

>Expanding SFO into the bay has been proposed before to the tune of a few billion with some kind of accompanying restoration. Hard but not impossible

so about $3 billion which is the price of a Pacheco Pass tunnel, but with only 1/5th of the legal bullshit involved

>Feds primarily fund airport expansions

SFO's new terminal was paid for by SF, SMC voters. The exact same pot of money that was going to go to Caltrain electrification in the late 90s, but was changed in 1999 for an expanded airport. Now look at where we are.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO sfo expansion 1.png, 85KiB, 1019x436

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:37:46 No.1220335 Report

Quoted By: >>1220340

>>1220333
Here's the SFO terminal expansion plan. New Terminal 1 Area B, remodeled T1 Area C, new INTL Terminal Area H.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:41:17 No.1220340 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220335
Here's the whole development plan executive summary for those interested:

http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.com/default/about/Chapter_0_Executive_Summary_Draft_Final_Stand_Alone.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:42:19 No.1220341 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220333
And the one for OAK.

https://www.oaklandairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/chapter_4.pdf

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:46:04 No.1220344 Report

Quoted By: >>1220345

>>1220333

Likewise SFO is doing what they can with their Terminal 2 rebuild, but there's a huge case of diminishing returns here. Hence why I bring up Stockton, they have enough spare land for a 40+ gate terminal and could probably fill it all up if they had their own ACE station. And there's not enough people living near the airport to bitch and whine about noise so they could have planes coming and going all night, exactly the spot OAK currently fills.

To be clear, I don't have anything against airports or airplanes. It's merely a math problem and the math doesn't work out in favor of airport expansion, at least not without similar rail expansion. Hence why Alameda County built the OAK-BART connector first before even considering major airport expansion.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:49:55 No.1220345 Report

Quoted By: >>1220349

>>1220344
The Terminal 2 rebuild was completed several years ago.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1528058947000.jpg, 9KiB, 234x215

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 16:56:07 No.1220349 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220345

I know, time flies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 20:44:01 No.1220405 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220002
Some ROW for Tokaido Shinkansen were acquired during wartime by force so that helps as the country's first system

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 21:00:01 No.1220406 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219448
WTF is Cali spending money on? They're fucking bankrupt!!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 21:17:13 No.1220411 Report

Quoted By: >>1220415

>>1220061
>city size of 400,000, metro size near 900,000
That's just about the size of city of Gifu which is not really impressive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 21:24:45 No.1220415 Report

Quoted By: >>1220420

>>1220411
It's way more than enough to justify a station. That's the fucking point.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 21:26:13 No.1220417 Report

Quoted By: >>1220768

>>1220130
What? Everyone use Shinkansen or TGV, are average American people far more poor than people in Japan or France?
>>1220100
But still daily commute isn't going to popular. Daily commute via high speed train is going to be a waste of resources especially when development density of cities along the line are still just so low

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 21:35:35 No.1220420 Report

Quoted By: >>1220427

>>1220415
But not really worth to take a diversion for unless there're something special (and especially when a more direct route can also setup stations to serve Bakersfield and other area). And even the Shinkansen station near the city of Gifu was speculated to be a result of bribery and political pressure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 22:16:15 No.1220427 Report

Quoted By: >>1220441

>>1220420
There is no diversion. What the fuck don't you understand about that? It's using a stretch already designated for tracks that brings passengers into a downtown core.

Read a fucking book nigger. Christ.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 23:21:40 No.1220441 Report

Quoted By: >>1220444

>>1220427
Existing infrastructure will be used uptil Bakersfield's station?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 23:27:24 No.1220444 Report

Quoted By: >>1220450

>>1220441
No, it won't. Outside of the Burbank-LA/Union section and the SJ-SF section, the system is running on completely new and HSR-dedicated track.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 23:39:47 No.1220450 Report

Quoted By: >>1220453

>>1220444
Then what does it mean by saying "It's using a stretch already designated for tracks"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 23:48:48 No.1220453 Report

Quoted By: >>1220457

>>1220450
A piece of land that that is already zoned for it, and in some cases already has tracks on it, but also has enough space for a separate set of new HSR-dedicated tracks.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 02 Aug 2018 23:52:08 No.1220457 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220453
I see.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 01:46:19 No.1220486 Report

Quoted By: >>1220499 >>1220512

>>1220334
>$3 billion which is the price of a Pacheco Pass tunnel, but with only 1/5th of the legal bullshit involved
Still a fraction of the cost of CHSR and has a likelier chance of happening than CHSR

>SFO's new terminal was paid for by SF, SMC voters.
I meant an actual expansion including new runways. If they just want a new terminal then yeah they should pay for their own shit

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 02:22:12 No.1220499 Report

Quoted By: >>1220507

>>1220486
Pretty inconsistent to say runways should be federally funded and terminals should be locally funded. You kinda need both for an airport to... you know... function.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 02:28:55 No.1220501 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220172
A bit off topic but I live near Fairfield and Vacaville and I love seeing the AMTRAK and UP trains.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 02:38:57 No.1220507 Report

Quoted By: >>1220709

>>1220499
The new SFO terminal just replaces an old terminal. Not much of an expansion (if any)

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 03:09:49 No.1220512 Report

Quoted By: >>1220517 >>1220710

>>1220486

>Still a fraction of the cost of CHSR and has a likelier chance of happening than CHSR

It isn't though, since trains can run at 2-3 minute intervals while planes have to sit and wait on one of the Bay Area's six commercial runways. And one for one it is much easier to get a greenlight from the courts for a tunnel underneath some grassy hills than it is to get the courts to greenlight filling in the bay.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 03:26:38 No.1220517 Report

Quoted By: >>1220711 >>1220734

>>1220512
>It isn't though,
Airport expansion is objectively cheaper than CHSR, by tens of billions of dollars

>easier to get a greenlight from the courts for a tunnel underneath some grassy hills than it is to get the courts to greenlight filling in the bay.
How do you know

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 18:54:34 No.1220709 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220507
It definitely expands the throughput capacity of the terminal and greatly I creases flexibility.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 18:57:01 No.1220710 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220512
The Bay Area has 8 runways used by commercial passenger airlines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 18:58:42 No.1220711 Report

Quoted By: >>1220757

>>1220517
That's a horseshit false equivalency. Adding the equivalent capacity of HSR in other for a requires both airport AND highway expansion, which would cost ~$150 billion. There are public studies of this exact issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 20:15:14 No.1220734 Report

Quoted By: >>1220757

>>1220517

>Airport expansion is objectively cheaper than CHSR, by tens of billions of dollars

Not for an equivalent capacity. SFO and Mineta cannot be easily expanded much, and certainly not have any new runways added. Doubling OAK's size would cost at least $20 billion, down south LAX would have to completely consume an entire city (El Segundo) to expand further. Cheesing it by expanding Stockton's and Palmdale's airports only services to build CAHSR anyway.

>How do you know

hello?

https://www.coastal.ca.gov/

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Creation_of_the_California_Coastal_Commission_(1972)

>At the time Proposition 20 was on the ballot, developers in the state had plans to "expand Highway 1 to four lanes, with major links to the 101; they envisioned a string of nuclear power plants at Malibu, Moss Landing, Bodega Bay and Point Arena, and water projects, including damming all the coastal rivers of Northern California."[2]

>According to its author, Peter Douglas, "After the initiative passed, speculative subdivisions came to a grinding halt — dozens of ranches like Sea Ranch had been bought up — you had a lot of wealthy speculators who'd invested in [land for] these second-home subdivisions and now realized we wouldn't approve them. So they went to [then-Gov.] Reagan and said, 'Help us sell them off.' So there was a huge upswing in purchases of parks along the coast."[2]

Among the things they don't approve is airport expansions, at least not without a very expensive (and limited) land trade. This is not a problem CAHSR has to deal with unless they want to rebuild the Dumbarton bridge, which they don't have to do if they build under Pacheco Pass instead.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 22:14:28 No.1220757 Report

Quoted By: >>1221235

>>1220711
>adding in highway expansion
That is a false equivalency

>>1220734
Read the thread, this whole discussion centers on using fill from the bay to create more land for terminals and runways

Even if doubling OAK's size costs $20 billion, CHSR's estimated price tag is $77 billion now and is only expected to increase.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 22:36:58 No.1220766 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220269
That's not how HSR works. It's for long-distance travel, it takes miles and miles for the trains to get up to speed and slow back down. There's not enough distance between stations on a commuter line for a high-speed train to actually provide any advantage. What we need is more light and heavy commuter rail lines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 22:41:16 No.1220768 Report

Quoted By: >>1220775 >>1224279

>>1220417
>What? Everyone use Shinkansen or TGV, are average American people far more poor than people in Japan or France?
Yes, but that aside I know a lot of Japanese people and almost none of them use the Shinkansen more than once a year or so. It's like flying in the US, only used for vacations or business travel, not for common stuff.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 22:50:47 No.1220775 Report

Quoted By: >>1220777

>>1220768
What are some "common stuffs" one would do to travel more than 100km, other than vacation or business or family/friend visit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 23:09:02 No.1220777 Report

Quoted By: >>1221203

>>1220775
Many people here in California have daily commutes longer than that. It's also very common to do day trips of 100mi or more on weekends here, for example for concerts and sporting events, for things like skiing and snowboarding, or even driving from a smaller city to a bigger one for shopping and dining. I guess a better way to put things is that people in Japan only seem to use the Shinkansen for multi-day trips, even though it's fast enough that you could use it for day trips if it weren't so expensive.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO California-Population-Density-Ma (...).png, 640KiB, 1234x1324

Anonymous Fri 03 Aug 2018 23:58:07 No.1220792 Report

Quoted By: >>1221128 >>1221134 >>1221239 >>1221244

>>1219448
Californian here, that NY article is little more than vague, sensationalist bs. Use Californian newspapers in the future.

http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20180729/california-bullet-train-might-not-attain-states-mandated-speed

First, the cost of the project is $77 billion, up from $33 in 2008. It is not $100 billion as the NY times claims.

Second, most of the public has forgotten about the project. I think that if sections do become complete and have trains actually moving on the tracks, then support will become visible. No one is going to be cheering in front of a construction site.

>>1219528
>>1219481
The route hits most Central Valley population centers. There's more people in the interior than on the coast. The engineering challenges are steep but not insurmountable.

>>1219615
This is bs. The bond measure was not advertised as a starter package.

>>1219478
Initial costs were too optimistic. To my knowledge rail bonds have sold poorly. Furthermore, there's a huge amount of land speculation going on. Everyone is trying to make money off this thing.

My personal view is that high speed rail is a good idea, but the social realities make the project difficult if not impossible. Sacramento is full of bureaucrats who care far more about welfare than they do about infrastructure. When they do think about it, it's from a social/legal lens not engineering or business. Cost overruns and delays are irrelevant to them. They try to not even mention that they have pushed the Phase 1 completion date to 2029. Phase 2, and therefore the whole project, doesn't even have a completion date.

I don't come to /n/ often, but I am pretty sure that this is not how rail is built in Europe and Japan. I believe the California High-Speed Rail Authority has behaved scandalously. No one is taking responsibility for cost increases, no one is taking responsibility for the long delay.

I want to tell you the truth /n/. This project has no leader. I don't know if it has a future.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Aug 2018 23:18:03 No.1221128 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220792
>I am pretty sure that this is not how rail is built in Europe
It all sounds eerily similar to this European...
Except... there's an actual will here to get it sorted.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 04 Aug 2018 23:41:28 No.1221134 Report

Quoted By: >>1221537

>>1220792

>I want to tell you the truth /n/. This project has no leader. I don't know if it has a future.

It does have a leader, in the form of Caltrain, Metrolink, ACE and SJJPA. These four systems stand to benefit greatly from better connections with each other, and will bring the public support needed for HSR.

This much is reflected in CHSRA's business plan which lets the SJs use their existing route until the tunnels are built, while also interoperating with Caltrain. It is also why Metrolink proposed electrification in their most recent business plan.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Aug 2018 05:37:37 No.1221203 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220777
It is common for people in Japan to make day trip via Shinkansen if they're attending the event from a relatively faraway places, like when the previous shinkansen stabbing incident occur, report said there were many fans of a Korean pop star group on the train who's going to get home after listening to their concert.
But a problem is that if an event end later or start early in the morning than people won't be able to use the train while fully enjoying the event due to maintenance down time at midnight
As for long distance daily commute, people used to do that in Japan in 1980-1990s era, however as the Japanese real estate bubble collapse, the home price different between those that are further away and those that are closer to the city have reduced below the high speed train commute cost, people progressively move back closer to the city and thus few people do this nowadays.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Aug 2018 07:46:50 No.1221235 Report

Quoted By: >>1221516

>>1220757
No it's fucking not. Adding capacity for north-south people movement is the only requirement. Highways are unquestionably part of that equation, and therefore their costs need to be accounted for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Aug 2018 07:51:05 No.1221239 Report

Quoted By: >>1221537

>>1220792
The bond was absolutely sold as a starter package. It was never advertised as covering the entire, or even the majority of, the total cost. The anti-HSR crowd tried made up the idea that it was ever advertised differently, an objective falsehood.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Aug 2018 07:52:46 No.1221244 Report

Quoted By: >>1221537

>>1220792
Lengthy reporting of problems and costs has been addressed in successive business plans, all of which are publicly available.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 05 Aug 2018 23:11:08 No.1221516 Report

Quoted By: >>1221656 >>1225240

>>1221235
>Highways are unquestionably part of that equation
Has there ever been a bigger case of moving the goalposts

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 00:06:58 No.1221523 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219461
Half of californians are illegals who don't pay taxes

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Chair.png, 407KiB, 1176x688

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 01:19:34 No.1221537 Report

Quoted By: >>1221655

>>1221134
>It does have a leader, in the form of Caltrain, Metrolink, ACE and SJJPA. These four systems stand to benefit greatly from better connections with each other, and will bring the public support needed for HSR.

>systems are leaders
>public support comes from systems

Individuals are leaders. My point is that someone like Dan Richard has done very little to take responsibility for the cost increase and project delays. When the Tōkaidō Shinkansen was under construction, Shinji Sogō resigned from the company to shield both them and the government from the issues of cost overruns. The project proceeded apace and was completed without him. Sometimes leadership means taking one for the team. On the other hand, maybe the team isn't really all that capable either.

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Board/Members/index.html

>>1221239
I had to reread the bill. You are correct that the, $9.95 billion quoted in 2008 was a starter package. But the total cost estimate at that time was $40 billion, not a starter package by any means. This total cost estimate was recalibrated to $100 to $118 billion in 2011.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Act_(2008)

>>1221244
Public opinion is influenced by results, not plans. Completed infrastructure and trains on tracks is the surest method of burying the word Boondoggle forever.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 06:06:25 No.1221600 Report

Quoted By:

>>1219448
Because if you wanna go from Northern CA to Southern CA you get a plane ticket for 80-90 bucks and you're there in an hour and some change.

I think air is the way to do long distance at least in the US, trains are nice but we just don't have the infrastructure built, nor the political will to commit so much money to public transportation when most people in the US have a car they can drive.

Nathan Bedford Forrest

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Coast Daylight_leaving_San_Franc (...).jpg, 352KiB, 1600x1005

Nathan Bedford Forrest Mon 06 Aug 2018 07:27:05 No.1221605 Report

Quoted By: >>1221658 >>1222161

>>1219448

The whole project is a scheme to enrich the (((Feinstein))) family and was never intended to be finished, let alone profitable. The fact they were retarded to route the line through Central California and not the direct coastal route up to San Francisco (which was still extremely profitable even in the dying days of private passenger rail in the 60s) is proof enough of that.

If they really wanted to bring high speed rail to California, they could've just upgraded Union Pacific's track from LA to SF, bought New York's three remaining RTL Turboliner sets, and restarted a limited run of the Coast Daylight to see if a high speed train was feasible (gaining experience running the route, ticket sales, ability to maintain a schedule etc.) and then began an eventual upgrade to an electrified line if it proved successful. All at a fraction of the original price of HSR (not counting the countless cost overruns).

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 13:10:26 No.1221655 Report

Quoted By:

>>1221537
The current estimate is $77 billion. Nothing changes the fact that the 2008 bond was a starter package. Nothing

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 13:11:29 No.1221656 Report

Quoted By: >>1221784

>>1221516
It's your fault that you don't even remotely fucking understand the discussion and issue at hand. Stop being such a willfully stupid cunt.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 13:14:09 No.1221658 Report

Quoted By:

>>1221605
Learn geography you dumb nigger. The coast between the Bay Area and LA has no major population centers and is many times more difficult to build on. If you think the Central Valley route was a bad idea, do our species a favor or and cave you skull in with a claw hammer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 19:40:34 No.1221781 Report

Quoted By: >>1222163

So CAHSR is going to use UIC loading gauge?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 19:47:43 No.1221784 Report

Quoted By: >>1222116

>>1221656
And now ad homs. Some people just can't handle logic and facts, I guess. Sad, really.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Us-Freight-Train-Map-Map-Of-Cali (...).png, 713KiB, 768x1194

Anonymous Mon 06 Aug 2018 22:18:55 No.1221809 Report

Quoted By: >>1222117 >>1222161

Why the plan from Los Angeles to San Diego would route through San Bernardino?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 01:04:08 No.1222116 Report

Quoted By:

>>1221784
By "facts" do you mean the complete and verifiable falsehoods you've created here?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 01:06:29 No.1222117 Report

Quoted By: >>1222316

>>1221809
Because the route is less challenging in terms of geography, jurisdictions (Like the fact that the military owns all the land between San Clemente and Oceanside) , environmental concerns, and NIMBYism. Plus, there's way more people inland than on the coast at that section.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 05:21:09 No.1222161 Report

Quoted By:

>>1221605

California's first HSR proposal, or at least suggestion, dates back to Brown's first term in the 70s which predates Fienstien. This is really his passion project, for better or for worse. Also 125-50mph service sounds great on paper until all the technical issues are presented namely:

>getting UP to share their tracks with hourly trains
>getting UP to share their tracks with high speed trains
>getting the CCC to sign off on any track improvements that happen, and paying out huge mitigation costs building duck tunnels so local wildlife is not affected
>bribing UP to rebuild every bridge on the route to accommodate high speed trains, or going through decades of litigation with the CCC over it
>not having all the rich coastal communities sue over stupid shit like tree removal like Atherton did, stalling the project for years like Atherton and Palo Alto did
>dealing with the Air Force because UP's ROW goes through Vandenberg AFB
>overall rougher terrain that has to be flattened

This doesn't even factor in other issues like stringing up wire (a thing UP does not want), or the shit tier norcal east/west connectivity that CAHSR aims to address. All of these problems are avoided with an inland alignment.

>>1221809

As mentioned above coastal development means more environmental clearances that make it impractical, or at least more expensive than improving the eastbound route which Metrolink can assist with like Caltrain can up north.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Gabarit.gif, 15KiB, 800x162

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 05:27:40 No.1222163 Report

Quoted By: >>1222165 >>1222318 >>1222322

>>1221781

Loading gauge is technically TBD but realistically speaking everything they use must be AAR compatible because of the shared lengths of track on the Peninsula (and plausibly in LA and Altamont). Since AAR's plates are fat compared to Europe's, this isn't really a problem but it does mean flip-out gap ramps. Only the wires are issue for freight trains carrying double stack containers due to the arcing/shock hazard, but the wires themselves will be 22' (6.7m) tall so tall cars can pass. Likewise CAHSR is expecting double-deck trainsets from the start for this reason, a decision SF forced by dragging their heels on connecting rails into their new train terminal which means trainsets will remain capped at 800' instead of the desired 1600'.

A deeper and more technical overview of this can be seen on Clem Tiller's Caltrain-HSR compatibility blog.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO extra_wide_emu.png, 189KiB, 1600x1003

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 05:30:03 No.1222165 Report

Quoted By: >>1222166

>>1222163

also from clem's website, if CAHSR uses standard ICE/TGV trainsets (likely due to Siemens' factory outside of Sacramento) then they'll fit without any problems, although the trains will be about 2-3' smaller than local trains

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO AAR_plates_with_UIC.gif, 194KiB, 1042x1492

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 05:34:59 No.1222166 Report

Quoted By: >>1222167 >>1222168

>>1222165

Another image, notice how American tunnels/overpasses have to be significantly larger than non-US ones. This is also why CAHSR didn't want to put trains down I-5's median, because it would require either digging out or replacing every overpass to about 25' (7.62m) for wire safety unless they got waivers.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO crot.png, 176KiB, 674x295

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 05:39:17 No.1222167 Report

Quoted By:

>>1222166

From the most recent valley link meeting, demonstrating the problem and why they're choosing eBART-style DMUs over F40s or light rail styled vehicles with catenary.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 05:48:44 No.1222168 Report

Quoted By:

>>1222166
HSR going down a highway median sounds good but if you think about it for more than a minute the drawbacks outweigh any benefit by a significant margin

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Exhibit 1.2 Tract-to-Tract Commu (...).png, 930KiB, 1220x1640

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 17:34:15 No.1222300 Report

Quoted By:

Here's some maps from the 2018 California State Rail Plan

http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/

http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/docs/CSRP_PublicReleaseDraft_10112017.pdf

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Exhibit 1.11 Line-Haul Freight T (...).png, 2MiB, 1248x1470

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 17:35:20 No.1222302 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Exhibit 2.1 California Intercity (...).jpg, 2MiB, 2680x3700

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 17:36:34 No.1222304 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Exhibit 2.2 California Intercity (...).png, 1006KiB, 1300x1232

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 17:37:40 No.1222305 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Exhibit 2.3 California Commuter (...).png, 2MiB, 1350x1600

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 17:39:48 No.1222306 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO Exhibit 2.5 Class I and Public A (...).png, 1MiB, 1390x1690

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 17:41:57 No.1222308 Report

Quoted By:

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 18:22:11 No.1222316 Report

Quoted By: >>1222440 >>1223561

>>1222117
Wouldn't it be easier to ask military to give up lands than civilian?
How much longer would the track be?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 18:25:39 No.1222318 Report

Quoted By:

>>1222163
>800'
~250m?
Sound like French situation?
Any possibility for platform extension?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 08 Aug 2018 18:43:17 No.1222322 Report

Quoted By: >>1222432

>>1222163
I hate that these loading gauge charts never include the Shinkansen's gonzo loading gauge.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO cl&cl.gif, 36KiB, 352x430

Anonymous Thu 09 Aug 2018 00:34:24 No.1222432 Report

Quoted By: >>1222652

>>1222322
Too OP

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Aug 2018 01:15:32 No.1222440 Report

Quoted By: >>1222446

>>1222316
1) No. This is Camp Pendleton, not some random base in the plains.

2) Notably longer, but also much less difficult to engineer and closer to more population. The coast route is not easy to build HSR on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Aug 2018 01:41:13 No.1222446 Report

Quoted By: >>1222479 >>1223561

>>1222440
1. How the existing Orange Country line passed through it?
2. What are other challenges for the coastal route? Can one at least upgrade it to a higher speed line? As the alignment seems rather straight

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Aug 2018 03:38:44 No.1222479 Report

Quoted By: >>1223561 >>1224427

>>1222446
1. Camp Pendleton didn't exist until the 1940s. Pretty sure the line predate it.

2. Erosion, more prone to earthquake damage, extra bridges and stabilization needed, etc.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 09 Aug 2018 15:08:43 No.1222652 Report

Quoted By:

>>1222432
>When you make AAR Plate F look like the british loading gauge by comparison

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Aug 2018 09:57:21 No.1223511 Report

Quoted By: >>1223833

>>1219480
>car provides far more utility

yea if you're not stuck in traffic... ever ridden on the pacific coast highway that runs parallel to this project?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 11360101213_16b2d28cd3_b.jpg, 416KiB, 1024x810

Anonymous Sat 11 Aug 2018 12:29:57 No.1223561 Report

Quoted By: >>1223562 >>1224427

>>1222316

Vandenberg AFB is the primary military rocket launch site west of the Mississippi River. Especially with the XS-1 coming in 2021, the USAF is not giving it up and will only expand their operations there, meaning more train delays due to rocket launches.

Pics related, Vandenberg was listed as a space shuttle launch site and extensively outfitted for it (especially as nearby Edwards AFB was a shuttle landing port). However, the Challenger disaster happened and put a stop to these plans although launches continued using non-space shuttle vehicles. My point is that Vandenberg represents a major investment for the US military, it's littered with 50+ years of rocket tech and is the military's primary launch site (aside from Cape Canaveral itself).

The military is never going to give this place up, at least not within our lifetimes. It's not like Alameda NAS or Hunters Point where the military is downsizing, the military is expanding here especially with Congress seriously pushing for a space force which would likely be based out of Vandenberg.

>>1222446

As what >>1222479 said about Pendleton, Vandenberg didn't exist until WW2 and didn't start launching rockets until the 1950s. The RR line goes back to the 1850s.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 543009-boeing-xs-1-darpa-spacepl (...).jpg, 41KiB, 810x456

Anonymous Sat 11 Aug 2018 12:31:19 No.1223562 Report

Quoted By: >>1223564

>>1223561

XS-1, for reference. Due in about four years.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 382451pr.jpg, 54KiB, 640x515

Anonymous Sat 11 Aug 2018 12:34:29 No.1223564 Report

Quoted By: >>1223565 >>1224263

>>1223562

Did I also mention most of the freight mainlines in Socal is cleared for nuclear waste transport? This is another stumbling block for high-speed trains, due to safety concerns speed restrictions would be put in place any time waste is moved. While this isn't a common thing (and most moves happen at night) it's another thing that serves to screw up scheduling and is a variable California has no control over.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO snake river idaho.png, 439KiB, 640x360

Anonymous Sat 11 Aug 2018 12:36:35 No.1223565 Report

Quoted By: >>1224263

>>1223564

wrong picture

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 11 Aug 2018 23:09:33 No.1223833 Report

Quoted By:

>>1223511
Airport expansion it is

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Aug 2018 21:04:47 No.1224260 Report

Quoted By: >>1224265

>>1220158
I always thought a new causeway/bridge that went from 238 to 380 would kick ass. You could easily connect OAK and SFO with shuttles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Aug 2018 21:09:48 No.1224263 Report

Quoted By:

>>1223564
>>1223565
Not that it matters. Diablo Canyon is shutting down in a few years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Aug 2018 21:12:03 No.1224265 Report

Quoted By: >>1224270

>>1224260
That's is an EXTREMELY fucking stupid idea. A bridge there is literally worthless without massive road capacity expansion at each end. It would be about a million times easier to connect SFO and OAK with a high speed ferry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Aug 2018 21:20:01 No.1224270 Report

Quoted By: >>1224284

>>1224265
Point is that you could do cars, trucks (airfrieght gets better access to the 880 corridor from SFO) plus train tracks of whatever persuasion you wanted run alongside. I'd pretty much mirror the San Mateo Bridge with tracks.

Also- consider how many people live in the central valley and commute to the peninsula. I had a guy apply for a job with me where he lived in Los Banos and would commute to SSF every day. Crazy.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Aug 2018 21:39:08 No.1224279 Report

Quoted By:

>>1220768
>>What? Everyone use Shinkansen or TGV, are average American people far more poor than people in Japan or France?
>Yes, but that aside I know a lot of Japanese people and almost none of them use the Shinkansen more than once a year or so

It's true for most people for TGV too. However, when you are moving to Paris a few years of your life for working/studying (which is common as most of things, including the rail network and various domains/industries are centralized here) it's not uncommon neither to make much more trips a year.

TGV is "relatively" expensive (€80 a ticket is a common price, but still 2-3 times lower than plane, more direct and comfortable) but as the network is going to be opened to competition the SNCF has started to sell €10-30 tickets on certain routes (with a special brand and some constraints like coming 30 minutes earlier for ticket control, or using peripheral stations)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 12 Aug 2018 21:54:59 No.1224284 Report

Quoted By:

>>1224270
Just fucking stop. You 100% ignored the fact that the bridge would not fucking work without virtually impossible highway expansions of 380 and 238.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Aug 2018 07:41:31 No.1224427 Report

Quoted By: >>1224842 >>1224880

>>1223561
>>1222479
Then how about improving the existing line segment there?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Aug 2018 09:35:19 No.1224453 Report

Quoted By: >>1224456

>>1220002
but the inverse is also true: in japan if i own a right of way or rights to the ground underneath you I can do pretty much whatever the fuck I want, whereas USA NIMBY's organize at the local level to create zoning regulations/lawsuits tying projects up for years.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 13 Aug 2018 09:50:56 No.1224456 Report

Quoted By:

>>1224453
NIIIIIIIMMMMMMBBBBYYYYYYYsssssssssss

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Aug 2018 00:33:15 No.1224842 Report

Quoted By:

>>1224427
Could and probably will be done to some degree as per the state rail plan.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO tehachapi-loop-32.jpg, 299KiB, 1000x726

Anonymous Tue 14 Aug 2018 02:24:18 No.1224880 Report

Quoted By: >>1225017

>>1224427

It will be whenever feasible (in particular San Jose-Salinas and Santa Barbara-LA) and CAHSR will use the northernmost bit of it (SJ-SF), but making major improvements to service is not going to yield as much as improving inland access. This is mentioned directly in the state rail plan: norcal lacks good east/west connectivity, CAHSR's Pacheco tunnels (and Altamont improvements) are aimed at fixing this exact problem. Improving the coastal route doesn't help.

As for improving the existing inland tracks, they either don't exist (in the case of Pacheco) or are too busy/windy to be improved (in the case of Tehachapi). LA itself has enough freight to warrant it's own freight bypasses (the Alameda Corridor and AC East), so throwing more trains on congested freight chokepoints there would likely mean low schedule reliability. Which is where discussions of improvements begin, of attempts to separate as much passenger traffic from freight traffic. Such is also why CHSRA chose to go through Mojave instead of down the Grapevine, because a Mojave Wye leads right to Vegas, one of the most important (and congested) freight rail corridors in America.

Anoɳymous

Anoɳymous Tue 14 Aug 2018 11:30:08 No.1225017 Report

Quoted By: >>1225204 >>1225242

>>1224880
What's the point?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Aug 2018 19:33:33 No.1225204 Report

Quoted By:

>>1225017

Of CAHSR? To build a statewide rail system. A major part of this is improving connectivity between the Bay Area, Central Valley, the High Desert (Primm, Vegas) and LA.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO compute.png, 17KiB, 701x679

Anonymous Tue 14 Aug 2018 21:44:13 No.1225240 Report

Quoted By:

>>1221516
>Has there ever been a bigger case of moving the goalposts

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 14 Aug 2018 21:46:04 No.1225242 Report

Quoted By:

>>1225017
ascending a steep slope

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

California High Speed Rail Project