|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 4, 2010 15:15:59 GMT -8
^ HSR is definitely not universally loved even by transit advocates. I too am concerned that, awash in money, the development of the system could become corrupt and wasteful, and ruin it for everybody.
There are two threats to CAHSR. One is the possibility of federal funding drying up. But the second and more important threat is from Californians themselves. Cities along the route are fighting the project. People are getting up in arms. And already the project has had some self-inflicted public relations issues, such as the issues with ridership numbers.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 4, 2010 15:17:20 GMT -8
BTW, two noteworthy items appeared online this afternoon relating to transit and HSR. The first is an LA Times analysis of transit funding by Christopher Hawthorne. The second is the announcement that the first segment of CAHSR will be in the Central Valley between Bakersfield and Merced. This is due to the fact that construction must begin next year due to requirements attached to the $4.3 billion in federal stimulus funding. This segment from nowhere to nowhere is not expected to open on its own: it will open only when connected to the next segment.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 4, 2010 15:50:57 GMT -8
^ HSR is definitely not universally loved even by transit advocates. I too am concerned that, awash in money, the development of the system could become corrupt and wasteful, and ruin it for everybody. There are two threats to CAHSR. One is the possibility of federal funding drying up. But the second and more important threat is from Californians themselves. Cities along the route are fighting the project. People are getting up in arms. And already the project has had some self-inflicted public relations issues, such as the issues with ridership numbers. I agree with this analysis. We need a lot more federal money to get CASHR going and I worry about local opposition in certain areas as well as poor management of this and skyrocketing costs. It really is a huge undertaking and I think a lot of people don't realize how incredibly complicated this is. That said, I still don't have a good feel for whether HSR will actually happen. Until we actually start constructing it, it seems more like a 50-50 proposition. I do think the LA to Anaheim segment is unnecessary and should only have been done in a Phase II, but the politics demanded that Orange County be included
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 4, 2010 16:04:37 GMT -8
I'll admit I don't know too much about CAHSR. Is the project paying for the new stations in Anaheim, San Francisco, etc? Or are the local cities being asked to do that?
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 4, 2010 16:37:44 GMT -8
I'll admit I don't know too much about CAHSR. Is the project paying for the new stations in Anaheim, San Francisco, etc? Or are the local cities being asked to do that? CAHSR rail is paying for those
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 5, 2010 1:30:01 GMT -8
Building either the segment from Merced to Fresno or the segment from Fresno to Bakersfield first makes sense. These segments are relatively straight and flat, which is an obvious drawback to the mountainous Los Angeles to Bakersfield segment; or even the Merced to San Jose portion. Opposition is relatively low, especially when compared to the San Jose to San Francisco segment. It should be long enough for a fairly decent HSR test track at the very least, unlike the short L.A. to Anaheim segment. Some have even suggested a limited amount of revenue service... I don't know about that, but it should be possible. And the Central Valley will be the backbone of the system; the piece to which all other parts of the system must connect. The system's major maintenance yard is also expected to be in the Valley as well. It is important that we get engineering and design done and get tracks on the ground quickly. And the Valley should allow for that. Washington, taxpayers and potential investors all will demand and deserve something to show for their efforts. Be patient, the other segments will all get their chance shortly after the Valley has had its turn
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 5, 2010 6:51:05 GMT -8
I'll admit I don't know too much about CAHSR. Is the project paying for the new stations in Anaheim, San Francisco, etc? Or are the local cities being asked to do that? CAHSR rail is paying for those Not entirely correct. The Transbay Terminal in SF is supposed to be the end point of the system, per law. They closed down the old terminal in August and started demolishing it. The new Transbay Terminal will be constructed in it's place. The feds ponied up $400,000,000 in stimulus funds specifically to allow for the construction of the train box under the TBT which is where both CAHSR trains and Caltrain will eventually end up terminating. So, the feds are paying for part of the TBT, and I believe the rest is being paid for by the TJPA (Transbay Joint Powers Authority). See the following website for much more detail: transbaycenter.org/Metrocenter, a good blog to get acquainted with CAHSR is located here: www.cahsrblog.com/Robert Cruickshank does a good job following the project. Several posters here also post there regularly. I have seen Spokker and James in the poster list. Specifically concerning the LA/Anaheim segment: CAHSR initially wanted exclusive track, which would have been completely insane from a cost standpoint. I believe that about 4-6 months ago they changed their tune and are now looking at adding track to what is already there, and allowing shared use of the track between Amtrak, Metrolink and CAHSR. This will save lots of money, and will only be possible by implementing PTC along the route, and by separating freight traffic, hence the additional track construction. You would have to check either the authority web site or Robert's blog to make sure this is 100% correct as I'm relying on memory here. Those hard code HSR supporters who were pushing for 125mph speed between LA and Anaheim versus the 95mph maximum with the shared track option may just have to live with the 95mph. I can tell you from personal experience that that isn't going to be the "end of the world as we know it". I just got back from Germany and rode the ICE Sprinter (non-stop service) from Frankfurt to Berlin. Leaving Frankfurt, and coming back too, the 30 minutes of the trip outside Frankfurt the train was going 60mph maximum. This is due to sharing track with various light rail and regional DB trains, or maybe the track itself is lacking, not absolutely sure. So, I don't lose any sleep over the LA/Anaheim segment not running at the highest possible speed. It isn't required. RT
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 5, 2010 9:04:36 GMT -8
I had forgotten that some stimulus funds were going to the Transbay terminal, but since stimulus funds are largely what is getting the project started in the first place (along with the CAHSR bond) it is more or less the same thing. The cities aren't paying for the stations.
I agree with RT on the Anaheim segment. The more I think about that section, the less important I see it. I wish we could just concentrate on the SF to LA section for now as that will be difficult enough. This is an end section and I don't see a huge difference in the overall project with the difference in MPH here. They have to try and control costs here as much as possible.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 5, 2010 9:37:53 GMT -8
95 MPH is nothing to sneeze at. Much faster than whatever you're going to average on the 5 Freeway. I'll take 95 MPH, rather than ridiculously high costs and increased opposition.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 5, 2010 10:25:15 GMT -8
95 MPH is nothing to sneeze at. Much faster than whatever you're going to average on the 5 Freeway. I'll take 95 MPH, rather than ridiculously high costs and increased opposition. Now that makes absolute sense. I hope this can be done under $1 billion. Plus, a few extra grade seperations for Metrolink/Amtrak would be nice ;D ;D I hope people stop getting hung up on the 220 mph case that HSR would keep jamming down our throats (like the subway will reduce traffic............never happens and always proven it never happens). I fear for the day when HSR opens and people realize it will take 3 - 5 hours at best to get from LA to SF. Not the 2 hr 20 min people were promised. I can live with trains going between 79 - 150 mph like the Acela. Is there any rail track in Europe that goes above 150 mph?
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 5, 2010 10:40:04 GMT -8
A 4-hour trip to San Francisco would be a vast improvement over the current 7-hour drive and 12-hour Amtrak ride.
Bakersfield to Merced makes sense as an initial segment, but I wonder if the CAHSR Authority considered the possibility of doing a Palmdale-to-Fresno segment instead. Maybe it would cost too much. But at least that would have served Palmdale airport.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Nov 5, 2010 12:34:08 GMT -8
95 MPH is nothing to sneeze at. Much faster than whatever you're going to average on the 5 Freeway. I'll take 95 MPH, rather than ridiculously high costs and increased opposition. Now that makes absolute sense. I hope this can be done under $1 billion. Plus, a few extra grade seperations for Metrolink/Amtrak would be nice ;D ;D I hope people stop getting hung up on the 220 mph case that HSR would keep jamming down our throats (like the subway will reduce traffic............never happens and always proven it never happens). I fear for the day when HSR opens and people realize it will take 3 - 5 hours at best to get from LA to SF. Not the 2 hr 20 min people were promised. I can live with trains going between 79 - 150 mph like the Acela. Is there any rail track in Europe that goes above 150 mph? I believe the bonds can't be used unless the SF to LA portion is attained in 2 hours and 40 minutes or less. Sorry, I don't have the reference. Your question on European rail is unfortunately, indicative of the US thinking on this issue from most of the population. People simply don't realize that HSR exists all over the world and just view HSR as something completely new. It is not. Nothing is really groundbreaking here. Yes, there are many countries where HSR goes over 150 mph and not just in Europe, but also Japan and China as well. In France, they had a TGV train go well over 350 mph (albeit I believe that was just for a test). Here is a wikipedia link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_by_country
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 5, 2010 14:36:59 GMT -8
I hope people stop getting hung up on the 220 mph case that HSR would keep jamming down our throats (like the subway will reduce traffic............never happens and always proven it never happens). I fear for the day when HSR opens and people realize it will take 3 - 5 hours at best to get from LA to SF. Not the 2 hr 20 min people were promised. I can live with trains going between 79 - 150 mph like the Acela. Is there any rail track in Europe that goes above 150 mph? Dude, on SSP you told me not to be overly pessimistic. But look at you.....
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 5, 2010 14:54:00 GMT -8
The existing tracks are hopeless for 95-125 mph. Huge sections of Santa Fe are single track, and the Union Pacific isn't interested in passenger rail. You'd have to build new tracks anyways, so why not shoot for the best, instead of settling for "good enough".
"Good enough" might pull people out of their cars, but it won't get them away from LAX.
(BTW: Bakersfield to Merced is the federal government's preference.)
Like Masonite said, HSR isn't a dream, it's a reality in Japan and much of Western Europe. China borrowed Shinkansen designs for its HSR, and Taiwan and South Korea have also joined the HSR race.
Japan, China, France and Germany have all shown an interest in investing in Cal HSR. California is closer than it has ever been to making HSR a reality.
You don't have to support HSR, but you might want to get out of the way ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 5, 2010 15:38:10 GMT -8
I hope people stop getting hung up on the 220 mph case that HSR would keep jamming down our throats (like the subway will reduce traffic............never happens and always proven it never happens). I fear for the day when HSR opens and people realize it will take 3 - 5 hours at best to get from LA to SF. Not the 2 hr 20 min people were promised. I can live with trains going between 79 - 150 mph like the Acela. Is there any rail track in Europe that goes above 150 mph? Dude, on SSP you told me not to be overly pessimistic. But look at you..... You were saying that the new Republican government in the House would kill HSR on SSP...which won't happen. It's the states denying the money, not the federal government. I am being realistic with HSR, there is no way that we can get SF to LA in 2 hr and 40 min. Imagine the amount of mountain ranges and stops along the way. 220 mph will not happen (maybe for like 20 miles at most...like Acela with the 150 mph segment). It was a big selling point to get people to vote yes for HSR, which doesn't even have a defined route. Again, like Angelenos were told that "Measure R was the roadmap to traffic relief". It's just a method to get the layperson to vote Yes on something; when in reality, it's not true. Again, I don't care, because I love transit. I'm just being realistic...LA to SF will not happen in less than 3 hours.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Nov 5, 2010 16:40:28 GMT -8
LA, Here is a table I found in the project EIR. It shows the projected city to city minimum travel times based on express service: This shows LA/SF times of 2:25 assuming 220mph maximum speed. Of course, this is only for the express trains that I believe stop only in SJ on the trip, and express trips are only once per hour. I also remember seeing a timetable that showed how the express trains would be interleaved with the other trains (i.e. semi-express, regional and all-stop). I don't have a link to that timetable though. The documents on the website also show projected travel times of 2:40 for LA/SF. If the system is designed for 220mph operation, there are certainly trains running right now that can achieve that speed, and the European train manufacturers are always improving on their designs. Why is it that you think a 2:40 trip from LA to SF won't be possible if this is the case? RT
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Nov 5, 2010 19:23:20 GMT -8
Superexpress trains should be a no-brainer, as should semi-express, limited and local trains. All you need are a few passing tracks — typically at stations, so you can have a limited overtake the all-stops local while it picks up passengers along the way. I've seen this very thing happen in Japan, (and with fast-freights in Fullerton, for that matter).
Hopefully, we can give our trains cool names like Nozomi (hope), Hikari (light), Kodama (echo)... ... before there were just two services and "Hikari" was the faster of the two (light speed is faster than sound). Then they gave the fastest-of-the-fast trains a speed boost, so now hope travels faster than light ;D
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Nov 7, 2010 0:50:32 GMT -8
@laofanaheim:
220 mph max speed (which will mainly be in the central valley, with 125 or 110 mph in the cities at either end) is needed to make HSR faster than taking a plane. Currently it takes a business traveler about 4.5 hours to get from say, Century City to downtown San Francisco via taxi to LAX, plus time to get thru security, board, fly to SFO, get a taxi to SF, and costs a couple hundred dollars (including the taxi rides). It usually takes me 5.5 hours, since I need to rent a car, and I take transit to Long Beach or LAX airports.
With HSR, if the total on-train time is about 3 hours, then you add 30 minutes (to get there early and board), plus time to and from the station (about 15 minutes each end) for 4 hours total; 1/2 hour faster than the best time flying. And it will be cheaper, and more comfortable, too.
If HSR takes 4 hours, flying will still be faster from SF to LA trips (though the train would be much better for trips to the Central Valley), and some of the business travelers may continue to fly. With HSR at 2 hours and 40 minutes or better, the short-haul flights from SFO to LAX and Burbank will almost disappear, and many people will take the train who currently drive (total trip about 5.5 to 6.5 hours, or more with traffic).
Since we are building brand new track to get above 90 mph max, we might as well shoot for 220 mph to save as much time as possible. It also makes sense to straighten curves and eliminate bottlenecks in the slower sections at both ends, in the Bay Area and within LA and Orange counties, since every minute of time counts, though I agree that HSR does not need segregated tracks thru the cities. Hopefully Metrolink and Caltrain will also benefit greatly from the new tracks and grade separations built because of HSR.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 7, 2010 9:49:03 GMT -8
I generally agree with the hopes expressed here that any HSR development on the LA-Anaheim route will sufficiently account for Metrolink riders, and other more local commuters. Overall, I highly support California HSR. I think it has the potential to greatly strengthen Metro and Metrolink, as well as other transit systems across California. If we want to create a population of car-free/car-light California residents, we need to ensure that there are systems in place to take care of all their needs. Once someone thinks they need a car for a given purpose, that cost is sunk and the economics often swing in favor of increased marginal car usage instead of transit usage. Additionally, someone coming to LA from San Diego or the Central Valley will likely drive now, and will not use transit once they arrive. People arriving by train are much more likely to transfer to Metro or Metrolink to complete their journeys, especially as there will be fast and easy connections to popular tourist destinations like Hollywood and Santa Monica. This increased transit usage will work both ways, with people taking Metro to get to LAUS where they will continue on to San Francisco and connect to their final destination with MUNI or BART. Increased ridership will change the economics of transit expansion, with many new projects qualifying for federal funding. It's a lot of money to spend on a train system, but I think the California High Speed Rail Authority has made a good case for it on its own, even without considering the significant marginal benefits to the Metro and Metrolink systems. The costs are significantly cheaper than the alternatives of highway and airport expansion, and were authorized by a clear majority of voters in 2008. Speeds will be consistent with other state of the art systems around the world. Overall, it seems a quite sensible system that incorporates best practices from other successful systems.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 7, 2010 10:28:26 GMT -8
@laofanaheim: 220 mph max speed (which will mainly be in the central valley, with 125 or 110 mph in the cities at either end) is needed to make HSR faster than taking a plane. Currently it takes a business traveler about 4.5 hours to get from say, Century City to downtown San Francisco via taxi to LAX, plus time to get thru security, board, fly to SFO, get a taxi to SF, and costs a couple hundred dollars (including the taxi rides). It usually takes me 5.5 hours, since I need to rent a car, and I take transit to Long Beach or LAX airports. With HSR, if the total on-train time is about 3 hours, then you add 30 minutes (to get there early and board), plus time to and from the station (about 15 minutes each end) for 4 hours total; 1/2 hour faster than the best time flying. And it will be cheaper, and more comfortable, too. If HSR takes 4 hours, flying will still be faster from SF to LA trips (though the train would be much better for trips to the Central Valley), and some of the business travelers may continue to fly. With HSR at 2 hours and 40 minutes or better, the short-haul flights from SFO to LAX and Burbank will almost disappear, and many people will take the train who currently drive (total trip about 5.5 to 6.5 hours, or more with traffic). Since we are building brand new track to get above 90 mph max, we might as well shoot for 220 mph to save as much time as possible. It also makes sense to straighten curves and eliminate bottlenecks in the slower sections at both ends, in the Bay Area and within LA and Orange counties, since every minute of time counts, though I agree that HSR does not need segregated tracks thru the cities. Hopefully Metrolink and Caltrain will also benefit greatly from the new tracks and grade separations built because of HSR. You can fly from New York to Boston in an hour....but yet, the Acela and NE corridor do fantasticly well, which is a 4 - 5 hour journey. You don't have to "beat the plane". We need to offer a reasonable alternative. Again, I want a fully functioning interstate rail system, like our highway system. I was recently on the Amtrak website to figure out how to take a train from Atlanta to Orlando. It told me I had to take a train north to DC and then south to Orlando. A journey that could take 13 hours. Compared to like a 4 hour drive. Now, that's ridiculous. What I'm trying to get at is that we giving $40 + billion (I'm recently hearing we are at $43 billion now projected cost) to somewhat duplicate Amtrak tracks or "start-over". You know there's already existing track between a lot of the segments. It's like how LA and other cities do light rail on existing corridors. We don't need to re-invent the wheel. Use the $10 billion bond we passed to do some electrifiation, add new track to Amtrak's existing track, build some new grade seperations as needed (not every street needs to be grade seperated...again, the NE corridor and Surfliner do well with at-grade at times for Amtrak). So, I'm trying to say, let's be reasonalbe. We don't need 2 hr 40 min between LA to SF. We can do less than 5 hours and people will still take the train....just like they do in Europe. Look at the flight times between Madrid to Paris to Amsterdam....their like 1 - 2 hours, but yet people still take the train, which takes more than double the time; but not an outrageous all-day journey and sometimes with multiple train-bus-train transfers. Again, trains should not be aimed to "beat the plane or car". They should be built as a reasonable alternative. The plane or car will always win in a straight-shot...but the train will not have to deal with congestion...and brings added convenience to the commuter (sleep, read a book, play with the iPhone, etc...).
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 7, 2010 14:27:16 GMT -8
^^ I agree, the train will not beat the plane, not does it need to to be successful. But it can and will beat the car. Nobody gets to San Francisco in under four hours by car without breaking many laws (including reckless driving).
|
|
jass
New Member
Posts: 11
|
Post by jass on Nov 7, 2010 20:17:13 GMT -8
This segment from nowhere to nowhere is not expected to open on its own: it will open only when connected to the next segment. False. Since the 1990s, Amtrak California has planned on using the HSR tracks as soon as theyre available, and before the new faster trainsets are in town. Even an upgrade from 79mph to 110mph between Bakersfield and Fresno will be much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 7, 2010 20:48:18 GMT -8
This segment from nowhere to nowhere is not expected to open on its own: it will open only when connected to the next segment. False. Since the 1990s, Amtrak California has planned on using the HSR tracks as soon as theyre available, and before the new faster trainsets are in town. Even an upgrade from 79mph to 110mph between Bakersfield and Fresno will be much appreciated. There are so called independent utility clauses in AB3034 requiring that any segment that gets built be useful in and of itself. The plan for the Central Valley tracks is that they be used by conventional passenger rail in the meantime. This can theoretically take place even before catenary wiring is completed as Amtrak would be running diesel trains. In theory it should be possible to go much faster than 110mph, but I'm not sure what the limitations of the trains are, and what the FRA has to say about that (maybe not much as there will be no freight on that line).
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 8, 2010 5:35:42 GMT -8
I am being realistic with HSR, there is no way that we can get SF to LA in 2 hr and 40 min. Imagine the amount of mountain ranges and stops along the way. 220 mph will not happen (maybe for like 20 miles at most...like Acela with the 150 mph segment). It was a big selling point to get people to vote yes for HSR, which doesn't even have a defined route. What about express trips, like that described by rubbertoe? One per hour is good enough for me. Here's the problem: If the NIMBYS begin to figure this out, BAAADDD things will happen.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Nov 8, 2010 6:04:56 GMT -8
95 MPH is nothing to sneeze at. Much faster than whatever you're going to average on the 5 Freeway. But not much faster than Metrolink (almost 80 Mph, right?). Dude, that's almost a 30% decrease in speed compared to 125 Mph. And what "opposition" are you talking about? NIMBYS? Union Pacific? You can fly from New York to Boston in an hour....but yet, the Acela and NE corridor do fantasticly well, which is a 4 - 5 hour journey. C'mon, that's completely different. Acela goes through dense cities with WAY more mass transit-oriented commuters willing to take the extra time to use trains instead of flying. Do you really believe that 4 1/2 (give or take) hour commute is gonna generate anywhere NEAR the same amount of ridership as a 2 1/2 (give or take) hour cmomute, particularly in an auto-centric state like California? I highly doubt it..... Come to think of it: Maybe this is why ridership figures are now projected to be lower than expected, sinch CHSR is now considering sharing tracks with Metrolink and Caltrain.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 8, 2010 8:22:42 GMT -8
This segment from nowhere to nowhere is not expected to open on its own: it will open only when connected to the next segment. False. Since the 1990s, Amtrak California has planned on using the HSR tracks as soon as theyre available, and before the new faster trainsets are in town. Sorry if I wasn't clear: I meant, open with high-speed rail service.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 8, 2010 8:33:30 GMT -8
Come to think of it: Maybe this is why ridership figures are now projected to be lower than expected, sinch CHSR is now considering sharing tracks with Metrolink and Caltrain. No, ridership figures are not "projected to be lower than expected." CAHSR released studies showing multiple scenarios. One scenario showed what ridership would be if the state set a lower pricing model that would try to balance between the income generated by the line and increased ridership. Subsequently, they released another pricing model that was designed to maximize profit. Of course if you charge people more, less people will ride the system, but we know from first year economics that for a scarce resource, suppliers can increase profits by charging a higher price to fewer people. No final pricing model has been decided, but the second study was to show that the line could pay for itself and make the state a good chunk of change while still charging significantly less than the airlines. The decision over pricing ultimately will boil down to how construction is financed. If a public private partnership is pursued for a significant proportion of the funding, ticket prices will have to be higher to give the private entity sufficient profits to make the partnership worth their while. If we finance this ourselves, we're free to charge a lower price that will increase ridership and overall utility to the general public.
|
|
|
Post by metrocenter on Nov 8, 2010 8:38:47 GMT -8
95 MPH is nothing to sneeze at. Much faster than whatever you're going to average on the 5 Freeway. And what "opposition" are you talking about? NIMBYS? Union Pacific? I mean opposition in the form of individuals, groups and cities. Groups have already formed in several places along the route - in the San Francisco peninsula, in the Gilroy area, in the San Joaquin Valley, and in Orange County - to oppose the train. I am not saying these people are right: I am saying there are other ways to neutralize NIMBYs than picking a fight with them. If 95 MPH is more acceptable to people than 125 MPH, then maybe it's a good first step.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Nov 8, 2010 9:00:15 GMT -8
C'mon, that's completely different. Acela goes through dense cities with WAY more mass transit-oriented commuters willing to take the extra time to use trains instead of flying. Isn't the Pacific Surfliner route the 2nd busiest Amtrak corridor? As long as you provide a convenience, people will take it. Right now, there is nothing convenient between SF and LA unless you want to 1) take a 12 hour journey or 2) do train-bus-train-bus transfer JDR..we have to be reasonable with HSR. Yes, we need to use existing track, we cannot just "start over". Do we have unlimited supply of cash? Europe uses existing tracks to help run their trains....we don't need to reinvent the wheel. Getting between LA and SF less than 5 hours would be a significant improvement and a much more reasonable expectation of time. Would I like 2 hours to SF? Oh, you betcha. But, an extra hour or two would not kill the project if we can have significant time savings. And yes, we need to watch out for opposition as metrocenter pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by matthewb on Nov 8, 2010 12:22:44 GMT -8
LAofAnaheim, unfortunately it's not so simple. The bond authorization in AB3034 requires that the express service be faster than 2 hours 40 minutes. 4.5 hours is actually illegal, unless there is a (perhaps very infrequent) express service that takes less than 2:40. It was in the text that voters approved in Proposition 1A in 2008, and would basically require another vote to change.
NIMBY opposition isn't really about the speed of the trains, but is rather focused on "aesthetic and traffic impacts." Traffic impacts include those created by grade crossing arms being down for longer, so that means grade separation is necessary. NIMBYs then say that any aerial structures are aesthetically displeasing and physically separate neighborhoods. By their conclusions, that means the tracks would have to be tunnelled or not built at all. Speed doesn't really come into it, and using non-grade separated legacy tracks is unlikely to make any difference to their opposition to the project.
Perhaps a more relevant issue is that the FRA has stringent laws that restrict the kinds of trains that can be used on tracks that carry both freight and passenger rail. This would basically mean that off the shelf trains from Europe or Asia couldn't be used, and that more heavy cars would have to be employed. This would have impacts on the top speed and efficiency the trains could reach, and is basically a non-starter. There has been a waiver along the CalTrain right of way for CAHSR to use European/Asian style trains, provided freight only runs at night. It's less clear what can be done in the case of LOSSAN, but CAHSR will likely ask for a waiver there, too.
|
|