California getting crushed in high-speed rail race

[flacaltenn]

Sorry for getting snippy PJ -- it's been a hard day..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5519266-post82.html

Those fancy maps on the Wiki use existing "low speed" train lines once into San Jose on the north end and Riverside??? on the south end.. Much of those lines are at street crossing grade and the Commission is being sued by 12 cities for just adding traffic to those lines...

Both your source and mine say that the trains would run between SF and LA. That's what my post was about.
I do realize that the plans have trouble.

We're wasting time here because this brainfart is just another way to run Cali off the bankruptcy cliff faster than their Hydrogen Hiway or StemCell Research Facility ever could.

BUT -- the problem is -- you've never ridden Caltrain from the Gilroy Garlic Festival back into San Fran main station. From the HuffPost article previously linked..

The revised plan would save money by merging the bullet train with existing commuter rail lines in the San Francisco Bay area and Los Angeles basin, where tracks would be electrified.

The current commission plan is to take the fantasy train over the Pacheco Pass (which the environuts vehemently object to) and into Gilroy where it can link up to the Caltrain tracks.

From THERE -- it's 45 - 50 minutes at less than 50 mph on COMMUTER RAILS. Same deal at the LA end (might even be longer). So that's adding almost 2 hours to the trip and is NOT high speed at all.

The communities along those routes are ALL opposing the plan because of the disruption due to track upgrades required and the fact that those tracks have about 2 road crossings per mile and the Cali folks don't like waiting at the crossings in the middle of Menlo Park and Burlingame.

There is no plan for a "bullet train" from San Fran to Los Angeles. Best result is that Jerry Brown follows his conscience and kills this turkey NOW. Before the turkey kills the state.

Your link shows the propaganda version of the plan as THO -- it's all one seamless "system".. It's not.. In fact -- the concept changes weekly, but the public is paying for a huge bait and switch.

BOTH articles are wrong about the amount of money already committed because I helped SF peninsula Libertarians OPPOSE "hi speed rail" bonds as far back as 1998. It a real zombie of a hoax..

 

[Political Junky]

Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
<excerpts>
They have proposed dramatically shifting the high-speed rail project's focus by cutting back on planned construction in the Central Valley and instead spending billions on immediate rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to rail advocates who have been briefed on the idea, Plan B's top priorities include:
A $2 billion tunnel through downtown San Francisco to bring commuter rail service &#8211; and, eventually the bullet train &#8211; into the city's new Transbay Transit Center from the Caltrain station more than a mile away.
$1.5 billion in Los Angeles-area rail improvements, including a redesign of Los Angeles Union Station's rail access and construction of rail overpasses. Together, the projects would speed rail service for hundreds of Amtrak and Metrolink trains each day and end chronic traffic bottlenecks.
<more>
Some senators push for shift in bullet train plan | rail, project, train - News - The Orange County Register

 

[rightwinger]

Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
<excerpts>
They have proposed dramatically shifting the high-speed rail project's focus by cutting back on planned construction in the Central Valley and instead spending billions on immediate rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to rail advocates who have been briefed on the idea, Plan B's top priorities include:
A $2 billion tunnel through downtown San Francisco to bring commuter rail service – and, eventually the bullet train – into the city's new Transbay Transit Center from the Caltrain station more than a mile away.
$1.5 billion in Los Angeles-area rail improvements, including a redesign of Los Angeles Union Station's rail access and construction of rail overpasses. Together, the projects would speed rail service for hundreds of Amtrak and Metrolink trains each day and end chronic traffic bottlenecks.
<more>
Some senators push for shift in bullet train plan | rail, project, train - News - The Orange County Register

Makes more sense to improve rapid transit infrastructure

Bullet train only makes sense if their are major metropolitan areas between LA and SF to help fill the trains. If you are only going point A to point B, you might as well fly. Lot cheaper than laying track

 

[Katzndogz]

Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
<excerpts>
They have proposed dramatically shifting the high-speed rail project's focus by cutting back on planned construction in the Central Valley and instead spending billions on immediate rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to rail advocates who have been briefed on the idea, Plan B's top priorities include:
A $2 billion tunnel through downtown San Francisco to bring commuter rail service – and, eventually the bullet train – into the city's new Transbay Transit Center from the Caltrain station more than a mile away.
$1.5 billion in Los Angeles-area rail improvements, including a redesign of Los Angeles Union Station's rail access and construction of rail overpasses. Together, the projects would speed rail service for hundreds of Amtrak and Metrolink trains each day and end chronic traffic bottlenecks.
<more>
Some senators push for shift in bullet train plan | rail, project, train - News - The Orange County Register

Makes more sense to improve rapid transit infrastructure

Bullet train only makes sense if their are major metropolitan areas between LA and SF to help fill the trains. If you are only going point A to point B, you might as well fly. Lot cheaper than laying track

That's what the problem is. Land is too expensive in major metropolitian areas to build a rail line. The only place it can be built is where there isn't a major metropolitan area.

 

[rightwinger]

Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
<excerpts>
They have proposed dramatically shifting the high-speed rail project's focus by cutting back on planned construction in the Central Valley and instead spending billions on immediate rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to rail advocates who have been briefed on the idea, Plan B's top priorities include:
A $2 billion tunnel through downtown San Francisco to bring commuter rail service – and, eventually the bullet train – into the city's new Transbay Transit Center from the Caltrain station more than a mile away.
$1.5 billion in Los Angeles-area rail improvements, including a redesign of Los Angeles Union Station's rail access and construction of rail overpasses. Together, the projects would speed rail service for hundreds of Amtrak and Metrolink trains each day and end chronic traffic bottlenecks.
<more>
Some senators push for shift in bullet train plan | rail, project, train - News - The Orange County Register

Makes more sense to improve rapid transit infrastructure

Bullet train only makes sense if their are major metropolitan areas between LA and SF to help fill the trains. If you are only going point A to point B, you might as well fly. Lot cheaper than laying track

That's what the problem is. Land is too expensive in major metropolitian areas to build a rail line. The only place it can be built is where there isn't a major metropolitan area.

BART in SF is not too bad. Getting around LA is a bitch no matter what time of day you go. Either way, existing transportation around LA sucks and cannot support the people who need to use it.
LA cannot keep kicking this down the road

 

[Katzndogz]

Makes more sense to improve rapid transit infrastructure

Bullet train only makes sense if their are major metropolitan areas between LA and SF to help fill the trains. If you are only going point A to point B, you might as well fly. Lot cheaper than laying track

That's what the problem is. Land is too expensive in major metropolitian areas to build a rail line. The only place it can be built is where there isn't a major metropolitan area.

BART in SF is not too bad. Getting around LA is a bitch no matter what time of day you go. Either way, existing transportation around LA sucks and cannot support the people who need to use it.
LA cannot keep kicking this down the road

Los Angeles will go the way to Stockton. It can hold off bankruptcy only a couple of more years. Los Angeles can't even afford to fix its potholes.

 

[Big Fitz]

That's what the problem is. Land is too expensive in major metropolitian areas to build a rail line. The only place it can be built is where there isn't a major metropolitan area.

BART in SF is not too bad. Getting around LA is a bitch no matter what time of day you go. Either way, existing transportation around LA sucks and cannot support the people who need to use it.
LA cannot keep kicking this down the road

Los Angeles will go the way to Stockton. It can hold off bankruptcy only a couple of more years. Los Angeles can't even afford to fix its potholes.

They can be glad they don't deal with winter freezes.

 

[flacaltenn]

Published: June 27, 2012 Updated: 10:19 p.m.
<excerpts>
They have proposed dramatically shifting the high-speed rail project's focus by cutting back on planned construction in the Central Valley and instead spending billions on immediate rail improvements in Los Angeles and San Francisco.

According to rail advocates who have been briefed on the idea, Plan B's top priorities include:
A $2 billion tunnel through downtown San Francisco to bring commuter rail service – and, eventually the bullet train – into the city's new Transbay Transit Center from the Caltrain station more than a mile away.
$1.5 billion in Los Angeles-area rail improvements, including a redesign of Los Angeles Union Station's rail access and construction of rail overpasses. Together, the projects would speed rail service for hundreds of Amtrak and Metrolink trains each day and end chronic traffic bottlenecks.
<more>
Some senators push for shift in bullet train plan | rail, project, train - News - The Orange County Register

All that is just rearranging the deck chairs and spending money that they don't have. A new terminal for San Fran would be nice -- but it doesn't change the painful LOW SPEED trip from Gilroy to SF. It's less painful for a lot of folks than dragging their car to the city, but it will never be a convienience or an improvement over commuting the coast by air shuttle.

Can't speak for LA -- but their rail and subway system is far less successful than the SF Bay one -- so go spend the money.. Not gonna get a HIGH SPEEED rail service any closer to reality..

 

[flacaltenn]

Makes more sense to improve rapid transit infrastructure

Bullet train only makes sense if their are major metropolitan areas between LA and SF to help fill the trains. If you are only going point A to point B, you might as well fly. Lot cheaper than laying track

That's what the problem is. Land is too expensive in major metropolitian areas to build a rail line. The only place it can be built is where there isn't a major metropolitan area.

BART in SF is not too bad. Getting around LA is a bitch no matter what time of day you go. Either way, existing transportation around LA sucks and cannot support the people who need to use it.
LA cannot keep kicking this down the road

Bart IS pretty good. We used to get on at SFO and go to Oakland A's games. Let u off right at the stadium ramp.. Problem was --- it never got down the peninsula side to Palo Alto, Silicon Valley or ANY of those dense areas. ON PURPOSE..

There was always a veiled racism behind the opposition to doing that. The "liberals" who bragged about peninsula "quality of life" didn't want Oakland gangs roaming Stanford Shopping Center. That's the reality behind "open public access" in a large urban area.

 

[Unkotare]

LA is another city that really shouldn't exist.

 

[Handsomelad]

We need high speed rail in this country.

 

[flacaltenn]

We need high speed rail in this country.

No.. You WANT high speed rail in this country..

 

[Katzndogz]

That's what the problem is. Land is too expensive in major metropolitian areas to build a rail line. The only place it can be built is where there isn't a major metropolitan area.

BART in SF is not too bad. Getting around LA is a bitch no matter what time of day you go. Either way, existing transportation around LA sucks and cannot support the people who need to use it.
LA cannot keep kicking this down the road

Bart IS pretty good. We used to get on at SFO and go to Oakland A's games. Let u off right at the stadium ramp.. Problem was --- it never got down the peninsula side to Palo Alto, Silicon Valley or ANY of those dense areas. ON PURPOSE..

There was always a veiled racism behind the opposition to doing that. The "liberals" who bragged about peninsula "quality of life" didn't want Oakland gangs roaming Stanford Shopping Center. That's the reality behind "open public access" in a large urban area.

Well shame on them for not wanting to be willing victims.

 

[flacaltenn]

BART in SF is not too bad. Getting around LA is a bitch no matter what time of day you go. Either way, existing transportation around LA sucks and cannot support the people who need to use it.
LA cannot keep kicking this down the road

Bart IS pretty good. We used to get on at SFO and go to Oakland A's games. Let u off right at the stadium ramp.. Problem was --- it never got down the peninsula side to Palo Alto, Silicon Valley or ANY of those dense areas. ON PURPOSE..

There was always a veiled racism behind the opposition to doing that. The "liberals" who bragged about peninsula "quality of life" didn't want Oakland gangs roaming Stanford Shopping Center. That's the reality behind "open public access" in a large urban area.

Well shame on them for not wanting to be willing victims.

I'm not saying they didn't have a point.. But I'm sure that NONE of those Palo Alto/Atherton super-libs would ever consider that veiled racism... "quality of life" meaning -- our Blacks at Stanford Shopping Center are all like Condi Rice and Morgan Freeman.

 

[Big Fitz]

We need high speed rail in this country.

Like a hole in the head. Please.... do explain why we NEED High Speed Rail.

Please take into account the following:

Economic benefit
Economic impact
Accessability and ease of use
expected ridership
expected costs for service per passenger
taxation required to keep in operation.
Effectiveness versus highway connections to the same service areas

 

[KissMy]

Carlyle will build a high speed train from Bakken, North Dakota to Philadelphia, PA

Backed by JP Morgan to supply feedstock and buy the plant's fuel, Carlyle and Sunoco will construct a high-speed train to feed the refinery with cheap domestic crude, reducing that huge costs associated with importing oil that pushed the plant to the brink of closure over the past year.

 

[Big Fitz]

Carlyle will build a high speed train from Bakken, North Dekota to Phillidelphia, PA

Backed by JP Morgan to supply feedstock and buy the plant's fuel, Carlyle and Sunoco will construct a high-speed train to feed the refinery with cheap domestic crude, reducing that huge costs associated with importing oil that pushed the plant to the brink of closure over the past year.

That's high speed freight. There has ALWAYS been a market for that. Even moreso with RORO Intermodal making transshipping a breeze. It's faster to put the freight on a train and ship it across the continent to be reloaded in LA than go through the Panama Canal.

The high speed part is relative, and not as good as a pipeline.

Also, it's a classic example of why the government did not need to save GM. Somethig that valuable hits the market at a cut rate price, someone's ALWAYS going to pick up the pieces and run with it, making it better.

 

[KissMy]

Carlyle will build a high speed train from Bakken, North Dakota to Philadelphia, PA

Backed by JP Morgan to supply feedstock and buy the plant's fuel, Carlyle and Sunoco will construct a high-speed train to feed the refinery with cheap domestic crude, reducing that huge costs associated with importing oil that pushed the plant to the brink of closure over the past year.

That's high speed freight. There has ALWAYS been a market for that. Even moreso with RORO Intermodal making transshipping a breeze. It's faster to put the freight on a train and ship it across the continent to be reloaded in LA than go through the Panama Canal.

The high speed part is relative, and not as good as a pipeline.

Also, it's a classic example of why the government did not need to save GM. Somethig that valuable hits the market at a cut rate price, someone's ALWAYS going to pick up the pieces and run with it, making it better.

I doubt rail is cheaper than canal. Rail is 4 times higher per freight ton mile than a ship.

Air 82 cents per ton mile
Truck 26 cents per ton mile
Rail 2.9 cents per ton mile
Barge 0.72 cents per ton mile
Pipeline 1.49 cents per ton mile

Many different countries are designing freight pipelines that are 4 times cheaper than trains.

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a company, it can build anything it can. If we had a private company that wanted to build a high speed rail line for passengers, good for them.

 

[Big Fitz]

Carlyle will build a high speed train from Bakken, North Dakota to Philadelphia, PA

That's high speed freight. There has ALWAYS been a market for that. Even moreso with RORO Intermodal making transshipping a breeze. It's faster to put the freight on a train and ship it across the continent to be reloaded in LA than go through the Panama Canal.

The high speed part is relative, and not as good as a pipeline.

Also, it's a classic example of why the government did not need to save GM. Somethig that valuable hits the market at a cut rate price, someone's ALWAYS going to pick up the pieces and run with it, making it better.

I doubt rail is cheaper than canal. Rail is 4 times higher per freight ton mile than a ship.

Air 82 cents per ton mile
Truck 26 cents per ton mile
Rail 2.9 cents per ton mile
Barge 0.72 cents per ton mile
Pipeline 1.49 cents per ton mile

Many different countries are designing freight pipelines that are 4 times cheaper than trains.

Digging a canal from SD to Philly is what you would call... cost prohibitive. Rail's where it's at for that route. Pipelines work for liquid bulk or gas bulk. Not boxes and crates or solid bulk.

Rail may not be cheaper than canal, but it's about 20 times faster, and that has value too.