# New California Highspeed Rail is coming ..



## derPeter (Dec 26, 2010)

Hallo from Austria,

here is pic from new rail in development ..


speed 350 km/h
greetings derPeter


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

We'll see. Project is buried under a mountain of Red Tape and Environmental Review.

I was asked to bid on doing the noise study, but I didn't need the headaches and declined.


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

I really, really, doubt that it will be anytime in the "reasonable" future. I work a block away from the TransBay terminal that is to be the San Francisco hub for the HS rail and it's supposed to open in late 2017, ha! This being California, there are many conflicting desires and we lack the political will to get something completed, let alone actually started.

Here is just one the latest of the many challenges to this system. 

It would certainly be nice, but with the many competing priorities, such as sufficient water supplies, security, pollution, etc., it's unlikely this will ever come to fruition. Then there is also the issue of getting the additional funds from the federal government as this it way too expensive to be self-funded.

If you'd like hours of entertainment, just Google "California Highspeed Rail" and see what's happening; it sure ain't pretty. I'm definitely not holding my breath!

p.s. you realize the pictore is a CGI "artists" rendering, not something that actually exists, correct?


----------



## derPeter (Dec 26, 2010)

Mr. Habilis, this was article in todays newspaper, yes pic are paintings, came from Cal.High-Speed Rail Authority = copyright

greetings from derPeter


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

I live in the northeast, where we've had Acela service for years, and it is slower than driving. Especially when you leave at the time you're ready to leave, at the location you need to leave from, and compare that to the time you arrive at your actual destination. 

It's not just the speed of the train in transit, but getting to and from the train. Then they have to balance the number of stops, which makes it viable for more people, with the added time those stops consume. Enough trains daily to be convenient, yet finding enough customers to fill them.

It either has to be a lot faster than driving, or a lot cheaper (and that's really at the variable cost of driving, since nearly all customers would need to own a car already.) Hard to see it ever making economic sense, unfortunately.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

This multi-billion dollar taxpayer boondoggle is fortunately unlikely to ever actually get built. Just as an example of how poorly thought out and managed this waste is, why would they build the first 60 mile segment from Fresno towards Bakersfield (i.e. from humdrum towards nowhere)? Why not between San Francisco and San Jose or between San Francisco and Sacramento where they could start having ridership and revenue from the get-go to help fund future segments? Who's going to ride it from Fresno to Bakersfield?

History is replete with examples of private railroads being built, for one reason or another, through geography which couldn't support them with adequate revenues. These roads went from financial crisis to financial crisis until they were either gobbled up into a bigger system or went bankrupt and were abandoned.

Thank God it's buried in red tape!! Just another huge government waste of billions of taxpayer dollars!!


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

It's on hold until MagLev catches up... then piece of, oh never mind....


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

Well, if _private_ high speed rail made sense, someone would have tried.

But when funded, at least in large part, by the government, there is more to the economics.

Much of the spending ends up in the pockets of US workers and US suppliers, money which will result in taxes paid, purchases being made ... money that reduces the true cost.

There are also savings in deferring construction of new highways, reduced pollution and fuel consumption, less time lost in traffic ...

I don't think we can conclude much one way or another, until long after it's built, and maybe not even then.


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm neutral concerning the project, and what I have to write next should not be taken as a dig either. Upon looking at the train in the first illustration, the thing that popped into my mind was "QUACK!" This is not meant as a detraction, but the front of the lead car really looks like a duck's head - bill and all. I mean, the "bill" is even a yellow color. I remember reading that another high speed service got nicknamed "Donald Ducks" for the yellow front on the lead vehicle. These trains really look like a duck in the front.

Neat,
David Meashey


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

> Much of the spending ends up in the pockets of US workers and US suppliers, money which will result in taxes paid, purchases being made ... money that reduces the true cost.


Perhaps, but ALL of the "spending" comes from taxes already paid, which may have STAYED in the pockets of US workers had the government not taken it in the first place to fund boondoggles such as this one.


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

It's unfortunate that HSR has to become nothing but a political issue. It should be a matter of realistic thought.

Personally, I'd rather toss in a few cents of my tax dollars to support rail travel, such as I utilized last week, as a traveler from LA to SF via the Amtrak San Juaquin (sp?). Fast rail service would have been preferred so that I could spend more of my tourist dollars in the time I had.

Instead, those tax dollars are spent adding yet another useless lane to some freeway, and support one of the always-losing-money airlines. Only the U.S. and Canada expect passenger rail service to pay for itself; the rest of the world sees the benefits of passenger rail service and supports it just like we do our highways.

Our governments have plenty of truly-useless ways of wasting our tax dollars (eg. corn subsidies). HSR is one that actually makes sense. 

JackM

And, yeah, I don't like the duck-like fronts of these units, but it's used in many of the high-speed trains. Aerodymanics, I guess.


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

It does look like this HS system is in big trouble and not just from naysayers.

*California high-speed rail dealt blow by Newsom's about-face*

"In California, where Democrats and Republicans don't agree on much, the emergence of Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom as the state's highest-ranking Democrat to pull his support for Gov. Jerry Brown's high-speed rail project..."


I live along the CALTRAIN corridor and have used it. CALTRAIN is supposed to be electrified as a precursor to the HS system. 
As to HS rail, many communities along the corridor have objections to this part of the system accommodating the HS rail as being disruptive to the surroundings. Also, CALTRAIN has installed many grade separations that resulted in up and down grade changes that I can't image HS rail traveling at high speed (100 mph or so) over these whoop-de-doos.

Another thing, by the time the HS system comes to fruition (if ever) Elon Musk's hypothetical project called the *Hyperloop* may, indeed, overtake HS rail. 

-Ted


----------



## Esppe Pete (Jan 21, 2008)

Looks like a Duck, and will be about as fast as a duck! This is old technology applied to the worong area, as mentioned. The next generation of trains will be in vacuum tubes. It is the only way something can compete with Air travel over medium and long distances. Railroads figured out that medium and long distance passenger rail travel would not work in the US after the Jet age, our government in it's infinate stupidity has not.


----------



## scottemcdonald (Jan 11, 2008)

Are they going to build a new Tehachapi Loop to handle 350mph! Whooowhee! That'l be a fun ride! ;-)


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

> The next generation of trains will be in vacuum tubes


That's going to make it uncomfortable for us living, BREATHING humans, won't it?

JackM


----------



## Esppe Pete (Jan 21, 2008)

Scott, if you tried to negotiate the loop at those speeds you would experiance some fatal friction! Cars on Vacuum tube trains, like airplanes, will be pressurized!


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Belive It Or Not... 

Low pressure tubes with speeds of up to 800 mph (i.e., the Hyperloop) are proposed as an alternative. 

http://calwatchdog.com/2013/08/14/a-viable-alternative-to-high-speed-rail/


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

The vacuum tube trains will get done right after they finish the maglev's.


----------



## BigRedOne (Dec 13, 2012)

Does make one wonder how the various technologies compare in terms of economic and technical feasibility.

I thought magnetic levitation lost out to conventional electric propulsion motors, due to the cost of all those electro-magnets. It have the potential for higher peak speed, but didn't make economic sense.

A train-in-a-tube promises true jet velocity, point-to-point travel direct to urban centers (rather than outlying airports) without noise or carbon emission. The question seems to be what does it cost in energy to pull the necessary vacuum, rather than force through the air?

I'd expect the successful future technologies to be those which recapture potential energy. Most modern US rail service is diesel; it burns fossil fuel to set a load in motion, overcome friction, and climb a grade; then it converts much of that energy to heat. Electric locomotives can use their motors as generators, sending braking energy back to the electrical grid.


----------



## Dave Meashey (Jan 2, 2008)

The vacuum train idea has been around for a long time. The Great Western Railway of England even tried a version of vacuum system in the late 1830s or early 1840s. A tube ran down the middle of the track. The lead vehicle had a piston attached to it with a stout metal rod. The piston itself was within the tube. Special rollers placed forward and aft on the rod allowed for opening and closing a greased (with animal tallow) leather seal over the top of the tube. The idea was to evacuate the tube in front of the piston, and pressurize it behind the piston - via special large pumping stations. When everything worked, it was pretty speedy.

It's downfall - rats thought the tallow-greased leather seals were scrumptious!

Perhaps someday,
David Meashey


----------



## derPeter (Dec 26, 2010)

Hallo MLS,

oh it seems to me, i opened the "box of worms" ;-))
So i have more promises from this article:
- first step (Spatenstich) may be end of 2014
- estimated costs of 68.000.000.000.-$
- 2022 opening Sacramento - San Diego at 350 km/h
- Californians will increase from 38 to 60 millions until 2030
- during construction +160.000 jobs, later + 450.000

so the younger people will see it come or not ?

Greetings from Austria
derPeter


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

Peter:

Assuming that it gets built (and that a huge assumption), I doubt that there will be the customer base to support it even with the projected base population increase.

Most people that I know, myself included, have no burning need to travel on a routine basis between SF/Sacramento and the "Greater Los Angeles/San Diego" area. Whether you are traveling for business or pleasure you most likely will need some type of ground transportation to get to your ultimate destination (assuming that it's not Disneyland!  ). Public transit in both areas is not very good assuming that where you actually wish to go is not next to the rail station. So that will most likely mean a rental (hire) car. Just think of the associated costs and time to add this into the decision to choose this mode. 

By way of a small example: My wife is taking a college class at San Francisco City College. When she is done with that class she hops on a SF Muni light rail to take her to the SF Embarcadero Ferry Terminal for a trip across the bay to Vallejo where she catches a Napa Transit bus to our home in Saint Helena. Assuming that she makes all of her connections that trip takes about 4-1/2 hours. Driving in a car, it’s about 1 hour 30 minutes to cover the 70 miles.

While I appreciate your posting the original article, I still view this particular high speed rail project as a “solution looking for a problem”! There are probably a lot of places throughout the world where something like this is more than appropriate, but I seriously doubt that it is this current California boondoggle.


----------



## Esppe Pete (Jan 21, 2008)

I think the Basics for all of this lie in the fact that the west, Caiforina included, is still very spread out. The distances make air travel, in the semi Vacuum of high altitude, the most cost effective and FASTEST! Train or vacuum travel will only overcome air travel were it is cumlatively faster, Mr Habilis point out, than air or car travel. Car travel rules the short trip and Air travel the 500+ mile trip. High spped train will be tha same (if not more) target of terroist. So Security will have to be the same pain in the line, and a distinct advantage of car travel. The CA high speed rail system is no more than a payoff by CA Democrats to Unions who fund thier supermajority status contolling the State to secure construction jobs and operating jobs!


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

****, if you were in the electronics / computer / consumer business and you flew the commuter jets between SD and LA to the Bay area, you would know there's plenty of people that make the commute, many do it daily.

Try getting a flight from San Jose to LA or San Diego at 5pm or vice versa.

The need is there, you just are not in the industry to understand or see it.

And your small example points out the need for more integration and less time to make these trips. You don't exactly live in a population center for professionals.

Great place for wine though.

Greg


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

I took the San Joaquin a couple weeks ago, from Bakersfield to SF. Take that and you'll be praying for HSR.
JackM

Is it really necessary to get political about it -"The CA high speed rail system is no more than a payoff by CA Democrats to Unions who fund thier supermajority status contolling the State to secure construction jobs and operating jobs!"?
The unions really control California?


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

Greg:

I *am* in IT and in my distant past I flew from SFO to LAX. When I first started I flew PSA, United and Hughes Airwest for $24, tax included on a regular basis. At my most previous job as a consultant, I did weekly flights between the same airports. As I stated, there was and still is little choice but to rent a car or take a cab or limo to actually get to the client's site. 

I would ask have you ever just tried to get to any of the airports to get a 5:00 pm flight? Doing so hardly serves the client since, depending on the area, you have to leave often right after lunch and even then you often get stuck in commute traffic and then miss the flight! 

Public transit has greatly improved in both of these metropolitan areas, but given the sheer number of square miles that they encompass it is unlikely that there will be ever sufficient coverage in my lifetime to make the need for private transportation not a necessity.

I currently, on occasion, use CalTrain to go from San Francisco down to Silicone Valley and meet with clients. I'm lucky that they either pick me up or I can take the light rail to get relatively close to their offices, now just try and find a cab. But woe is me if I ever work late and miss the last train back to SFO for the night. However, it is often much more convenient to just drive either down 280 or the dreaded 101. I realize that the greater San Francisco Bay Area is really just an unsophisticated backwater and we pale in comparison to the LA Basin, have little of that type of industry and we are populated by a bunch of technophobes.

So, while you may have other experiences, they just do not mesh with mine. Perhaps is not me that lacks the industry understanding. And remember that old saw "opinions are like (substitute your favorite body part), everybody has one" is applicable here.

As to my small example,you are definitely correct that public transit needs more integration. Given my lifetime (native) of experiences and observations in and of California, this integration won't be coming anytime soon. It has greatly improved over the past 20 years since now, at least, there are some viable methods. But you have to be willing to put up with the amount of time, costs and delays associated with them. 

And yes, the wine is excellent.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Tracking what's happening with California's HST is like a hobby to me. It was proposed as the solution to the north/south transportation problem that is growing in California...which will be much worse in the future. The EIR originally prepared was one heck of a study on the alternatives for solving the N/S problem...and it involved wider freeways, new freeways, more airports, more runways at existing airports, air space management, more commuter lanes (for buses actually), various train types, shared track (w/freights) or dedicated track, and combinations of the above.

The dominant issues were the space required, the cost, and pollution. 

By a WIDE margin, the HST emerged as the most cost effective, least disruptive (space-wise), and lowest polluting means of solving the problem...especially when looking forward at a much larger population.

In 2040, driving times N/S will surpass 20 hours...which are now around 6 to 8 depending on the time of day. There's just no way to cross the mountains north of LA with enough lanes to keep driving times from LA to the central valley reasonable...and then you have the same issues getting into the Bay Area...big hills.

The airport expansion concept failed from the outset due to cost to acquire through eminent domain enough land to expand or build new airports. The Bay Area has the highest real estate costs in the US...and they proposed putting it's "new" airport in Tracy...that's like 100 miles east...and a HST connecting the city to that...sorta. LA was worse...they'd already been through the Palmdale option 20 years ago...and no one wants to go that far to catch a plane...nor did residents want more jet noise.

So...folks opposed today mostly are thinking about the ridiculous cost and poor ridership studies...but they're not thinking about what things will be like in 2040 when the population here exceeds 50 million. There is a problem...and the folks building the CA HST are doing a crap job in getting their message, if they have one, out. I think the business case they've developed is flat infantile. Real business men need to run a project like this...and not a government agency. 

I also think the business model is wrong. It proposes that the state not only build the railroad, but also operate it. The successes being seen in Europe today where private railroads run on the public tracks, through shared used leases, seems to be a MUCH better business model. Heck, I just read in this months issue of TRAINS that the laws are being changed there to ensure the owner of the track and the owner of the railroad are NOT the same...that sounds kinda like how we operate the airline industry...public airports and corporately owned airliners.

I expect it will be killed...and soon. California is broke. Not just broke, but BROKE...and I don't think that will change. Meanwhile, the commuter agencies, like CALTRAIN, will suck off the HST teat to become electrified...because Palo Alto and Atherton $$$ blocked the HST from going all the way to San Francisco. I expect other rail agencies down south here will do the same.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Some very good points Mike...

and ...in the mean time ..the very broke state continues to grow!

Dirk


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

****, can't make heads or tails of your position, can you state it in less than 10 pounds of verbiage?

Also it would be nice for you to observe rules and leave out the political comments, and yes I see you have an opinion to match a certain cavity too, aren't we cute?

Clearly you have some kind of issue, since you have determined that you need to make a not so oblique personal comment because I don't agree with you.

So, leave that c**p out also please, you already threw out the first insults.

Greg (my real name)


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

Greg:

I guess in the future I'll have to use shorter sentences and single syllable words to be understood. My position on High Speed Rail: HST good, California execution bad. Clear enough?

I re-read my responses to this thread and I must admit I'm having difficulty locating the political references to which you allude other than the "...we lack the political will ..." and that big word "boondoggle".

As far as first insults go, I took your statements of "...if you were in the electronics / computer ..." and "... you just are not in the industry to understand or see..." personally, even though I know that you have no clue of who I am. You could have at least made the minimal effort to view my profile before casting aspersions in my specific direction. 

And yes, I am cute! As you often demonstrate you are certainly supremely capable of eliciting "acrimony" with your own responses. Perhaps a slightly longer break might be in order?

I'll stop now as I would not want to incur the wrath of our moderators or the new site owners. Suffice it to say that we disagree.

Mark Hadler aka **** Habilis

p.s. I use the pseudonym whenever possible to minimize various types of security and identity theft concerns. And besides, it makes me even cuter than I already am.


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

Mike:

Well and succinctly stated.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

So every response from **** gets worse.

hello moderators?

****, I suggest you yourself take a break, since apparently your experience flying once a week trumps the people who make the commute daily. It must be stressful to be right all the time, or have everything orbit around you.

Since you are either working remotely or not much at all, I don't see why your perspective of how much people need this particular route is needed is worth much.

I guess we can both just keep upping the ante since there seem to be no rules anymore.


----------



## JerryB (Jan 2, 2008)

**** Habilis said:


> Greg:
> 
> <snip>
> I would ask have you ever just tried to get to any of the airports to get a 5:00 pm flight? Doing so hardly serves the client since, depending on the area, you have to leave often right after lunch and even then you often get stuck in commute traffic and then miss the flight!
> ...


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

JerryB:

What you are quoting was my response specifically to Greg's "Try getting a flight from San Jose to LA or San Diego at 5pm or vice versa." That was, best that I can tell, some type of weak strawman to a point that I don't think that I ever put forward.

My original point is, and it continues to be, regardless where the terminals are located, once you get there you must still in all practicality rent a car (with all its attendant issues) to get to your ultimate destination(s) especially if it is for business purposes. It makes little difference whether your main mode of transport was via HST, flying or even Greyhound bus, you will still need a car.

I am in total agreement with your other points. Will it get better, probably in the long haul. Will it ever be perfect, probably not. Should we do something, most definitely. Should it be the current planned implementation, once again probably not.

Now then, where's my Transporter? Beam me up Scotty!


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

> Folks that need to go from SF to LA or SD will still go by air, as it is faster and (if the State runs the trains as well as they run everything else), way more reliable. I do see it as a state government boondoggle that we taxpayers will be paying for when the current crop of politicians are long gone.
> 
> IMO, the CA HS Rail project is just plain stupid. And yes, I am well aware of the HS rail systems operating in other countries. The demographics are way different there. For example, there are large differences in the number of people that have cars (way less in Asia & somewhat less in Europe), the distance between destinations (way shorter) and the number of airports (again, way fewer).


Well...see...this is where I disagree with the opposers of HSTs based on demographics...as they're looking at what it's like now and trying to project 30 years hence. You will NOT be able to jump on a plane and fly...there won't be enough planes...or runways....or airports...or parking at airports...or roads to airports...to handle the projected load. 

Do you remember the Eastern Airlines Shuttles? They flew hourly...in 60 passenger planes...replaced by 120 passenger planes...which were replaced by Amtrak's Northeast Corridor service...which was replaced by Accela. Planes cannot compete with HSTs when they can't have more runways, more airports, more airport parking, etc. THAT IS ONE KEY POINT made over and over in the EIR that led to the need for an HST in California.

The EIR was about one thing...north south travel in California...not trips to Lodi. Consider these facts:

SFO, this week, took two runways out of service for 4 months. Their max capacity now is 85 planes in and out per hour...down from 100 per hour (AW&ST Mar 31, 2014 edition). 

Tomorrow's total flights from San Diego to SFO is 23 planes from all airlines...all 737s (Google.com/flights SAN to SFO). 

Every flight I've been on in the last six months to the Bay Area is for practical purposes full...maybe one or two seats open....and those trips take me about 3 hours from when I get to the airport till I leave an airport.

The only saving grace for California is that businesses are moving out of here at a rapid rate...decreasing demand for seats. If business was booming, there wouldn't be enough seats now. 

The need for a HST in California has been pretty well established. The problem is the asinine means they chose to fulfill it. 

I know it's gonna be cancelled...and I'm glad I won't be around in 2040.


----------



## JPCaputo (Jul 26, 2009)

If they actually build the full length line at high speed around 180mph that would be great. Chances of that are slim. Right now the phase 1 looks almost like it is from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere. 

If it is anything like the long talked about la/Anaheim to vegas route. It will never get built because it starts in the middle of nowhere, about 1/2 way to vegas. If they did it from the disney area, or Santa Clarita it would take off.

Another farce is the vegas monorail. It goes from casino to casino. If it extended to the airport as an actual useful conveyance, it would be profitable.


----------



## JackM (Jul 29, 2008)

Amongst all the initials - EIR, HST, etc. - maybe we've forgotten the most important letters of all: ZPG. It doesn't apply only to third world countries. It doesn't only apply to other heavily populated areas like London or Tokyo. It applies to SD, LA, SF, NYC, ATL, etc. 

In case you forgot, ZPG stands for Zero Population Growth.

JackM

Let's not think it applies to any one particular group; it applies to everyone.


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

As to the future (year 2040), another thing to consider is maybe California's resources (like lack of fresh water) can't support a projected population of 50 million people by then. With states like Arizona and Texas (advertising for business to come to their states), could it be California won't actually reach that projected population?

-Ted


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Jets still move a lot faster than HST at 180mph..

Dirk


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Ted Doskaris said:


> As to the future (year 2040), another thing to consider is maybe California's resources (like lack of fresh water) can't support a projected population of 50 million people by then. With states like Arizona and Texas (advertising for business to come to their states), could it be California won't actually reach that projected population?
> 
> -Ted


I agree...water is THE huge issue. And...as you point out...if CA's business environment doesn't improve, I don't see a huge increase coming either...nor the related population increase. 

Also, I should point out that in virtually all cases where airport improvements have been promoted (usually by developers), their predictions of increases in the flying public have been grossly overstated. 

Down here, after the scrap "Lindberg Field...and go to Miriamar" option was pushed and defeated, if you look at the actual traffic growth at Lindberg, you do NOT see anything like the predictions of astonishing growth.

Ya see...you can only land so many planes per day...and with noise restrictions, you land fewer. And with longer noise restrictions, fewer planes can get in before airport shuts down in the evening...so the planes can be there in the morning.

This is another area where the HST excels. 

The latest move by the French government looks promising. Their last HST line was contracted out for construction and operation for 30 years. The winner was the contractor/investment group that offered to PAY the French government the most over the 30 years (note...I said PAY, not get paid). The French governments role was to deal with the eminent domaine issues and approve the French version of the EIR developed by the winner. The winner then built the new line and it leases spaces to government RR trains....and private RR trains...like airports lease gates and slots...and it controls dispatching. The line is HST's only. Time will tell if this method works.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

SD90WLMT said:


> Jets still move a lot faster than HST at 180mph..
> 
> Dirk


Sometimes...but "a lot" on this N/S route is a stretch IMHO. The HST is competitive. As I said earlier, I get to the airport 1 hour before the flight. The flight takes 1 hour 15 minutes to San Jose. Then it takes 20 minutes before I'm out of the terminal (to walk forever at the San Jose airport and collect my luggage)...so, 2 hours 35 minutes.

The proposed train from LA to San Jose is to make that run in 2 hours 40 minutes...but that time is being questioned in the law suits against the HST because it presumes that the train will be able to operate at full speed through suburban/urban areas on dedicated tracks. And...of course...this presumes the TSA doesn't step in and start inspecting train passengers.

None the less, California needs something like the North East Corridor...because nothing else is remotely affordable or possible. I just don't see another solution than an HST...and NOT necessarily the one that's been proposed.


----------



## SD90WLMT (Feb 16, 2010)

Mike..just doing the math with ya here!!

@2 hours ..40 minutes..still leaves time to add getting to and from terminals and thru the people traffic on the ground..

May turn out to be a wash in the end...still depends on actual trains run per day. And of course where the stops are actually located within any given community.

It just shows how difficult it is to move forward in this century...
The High dollar Rollers can just use a short up n down space flight between LAX and SF!!!!!

Dirk


----------



## Homo Habilis (Jul 29, 2011)

I also would add the distinct possibility that there will be increased time associated with departures for HST that will need to be factored in to the total trip's duration. In today's world of heightened security concerns, it is unlikely that you will be able to arrive moments before the train leaves and hop on like in the movies of old as it's pulling out of the station. There have been plenty of articles regarding the lack of effective passenger screening for rail.

In addition, think of the issues associated with safely protecting the right of way for the HST. It presents a rather attractive target to the determined person. 

While there are the issues of delays on any type of transportation system, think about them for rail, high speed or not, and their inherent single track per direction implementation. Hopefully breakdowns will be rare, just think of the impact of one when it does occur. 

A point was raised in this discussion about the need for the daily commuters between the these areas. While I'm certain this will happen on occasion I will assume that that will be an exception. I find it difficult to believe that a "normal" person would do this rather than just get a room at a local hotel. If there is a class of person with this as a requirement it is again a real minority that will do little to add to the user base that the HST is supposed to attract and serve.

Again, I favor improvements to our transportation systems. I even voted for Proposition 1A. Given what it's become I now regret it.


----------



## Esppe Pete (Jan 21, 2008)

I think there is agreement that the current HSR proposal is a bad one with more inherent flaws than any possible advantages. The reason it is still even on the board is politics. When I say unions look at this chart http://maplight.org/california. Also keep in mind that CA union's work in concert to push agenda's that support the collective, or any union. So look at he chart again and add up all the Union money! You then see who the most powerful political group in CA is. This project is not about rail, transportation, or serving the people. It's about serving the Unions! I'm a railfan like the rest but this a huge waste of money to payback political influence!


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight Ennis said:


> This multi-billion dollar taxpayer boondoggle is fortunately unlikely to ever actually get built. Just as an example of how poorly thought out and managed this waste is, why would they build the first 60 mile segment from Fresno towards Bakersfield (i.e. from humdrum towards nowhere)? Why not between San Francisco and San Jose or between San Francisco and Sacramento where they could start having ridership and revenue from the get-go to help fund future segments? Who's going to ride it from Fresno to Bakersfield?


Dwight; Which news story from the future would you prefer (all snarking about the CA HST aside, just for a minute or two, please.)

In the future...
#1 LA Times, Date: June 31, 2016. *Latest CA HST Problem Doubles Costs*
The latest problem with the CA HST first segment between San Francisco and San Jose is the discovery the rails need to be 20% heavier for the maximum train speeds planned. Had the first segment, as originally planned, been built between Fresno and Bakersfield this problem would have been found early since the trains could have been tested at full speed. 

#2 LA Times, Date: January 1, 2016. *CA HS Saves Billions, Avoids Potential Costly Problem*
It was announced today that CA HST discovered their rail will need to be 20% heavier than planned to support maximum rail speeds. Having been able to test the track under actual maximum speed tests with the first 10 miles of track laid outside Bakersfield. 

*Simpler example;* If you're going to be a brain surgeon your first surgery will not be on the brain. 

Besides, the HST train will only reach max speeds through the central valley not on the SF peninsula, SF to Sacramento or within metro LA. The CA HST, correct me if I'm wrong, will be the first "real" HST in the US. I think there is a fairly good rational and justification for the Fresno to Bakersfield build; before HST can be built anywhere it has to be built somewhere. A short test track is not enough. It has to be a full city to city segment so all the systems can be designed, built, tested and tested and tested. Remember when BART's computers at first could not tell if a train was stopped at a station so they had to put train spotters at every station on the phone.




Dwight Ennis said:


> Perhaps, but ALL of the "spending" comes from taxes already paid, which may have STAYED in the pockets of US workers had the government not taken it in the first place to fund boondoggles such as this one.


Actually it's a little bit paid for by existing revenue, but the bulk of the money to build it will come from the usual way these big capital projects are paid for, from bonds the state sells to fund the construction. Most likely I think they will be double tax free bonds; no state or federal tax on the interest paid to bond holders. The bonds will be not be issued all at once but in blocks as more funds are needed. This also staggers the maturity dates. Issues surrounding these bonds and their first release that's tied up in court. A lower court blocked the sale of the bonds and the state is appealing. 

I agree HS as planned is fairly screwed up for one reason. Ours will be a train on tracks when the rest of the world is already beginning to deploying mag-lev. Our HS will be behind the times before it moves forward.  Unless someone wakes up.


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Since HSTs have been running for decades in other countries, I feel your first argument is completely bogus as data on required rail weights should already be readily available. I do agree with your last paragraph, except I can think of multiple reasons.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Until a feeder system is in place, to eliminate the need for an auto in any part of the trip, we will never have a system comparable to Europe.
The rest is speculation.
Cha ching 2 cents please

John


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Totalwrecker said:


> Until a feeder system is in place, to eliminate the need for an auto in any part of the trip, we will never have a system comparable to Europe.
> The rest is speculation.
> Cha ching 2 cents please
> 
> John


Well...the extent of a feeder system is a debatable topic...and one certainly NOT mentioned when folks talk much about airport expansions. That problem is just "dumped" on the local transit districts. In the EIR, there was considerable discussion on "how" folks would get into and out of the "expanded" airports...the impact on local roads and freeway ramps.


If you examine the CA HST train route, you'll find many of the proposed stations have pretty good public transit "feeds". Clearly, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco have public transit systems that "feed" to main train station...buses, light rail, trains, and/or trollies...within a few blocks..if not actually AT the depots. Even LA is getting better using "feeder" buses tied to train movements and other locales in the LA area...the Amtrak buses...the metro "subway" lines...and the Metrolink trains out of Union Station. Frankly, the existing public transit to the train stations at most of the cities the HST will serve is better than public transit to the airports in those cities.

Further, I really don't think the European model works for the US. US cities are far more metropolitan than most European cities...more spread out. You NEED a car in most of the US to exist in most cities. Realistically, only NYC has enough distributed food stores (bodegas) to support a car free public. Everyone else drives to a food market. Therefore, public transit will always take longer because distances are further. It's no wonder that folks in the US go the airport in a car...versus a bus...they have a car.

IMHO, avoiding the need for autos is probably NEVER going to happen...and it shouldn't be a requirement for working on the California's N/S transportation issue.


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Dwight;
Right, except. My hypothetical was "in the future..., circa 2016" so it was fiction. I mean really, how would I know the track was going to be wrong. Should have made that more clear. Oops.

It's good they built HSTs in other countries; it still has to go through lots of engineering and all here for everything. My point is it's too costly, disruptive, testing limited, time consuming, etc., to build the first segment in an urban environment. Plus possible revenue would be small given low ticket prices for a short haul; not enough to compensate for the other factors or contribute meaningfully to the overall costs. 

Think about it, Palo Alto stopped the peninsula line plan every other city agreed to because they demanded the line tunnel through PA, at triple the cost + time. I don't know whether they got it or not - what do you think? 

More generally, speaking of N-to-S trips flying vs train;. First, volume; the traffic volume today is from 3-5+ airports north (SFO, OAK, SJI, Sac, etc) to 5-6+ airports south (LAX, Orange; John Wayne, etc.), and San Diego somewhere in the future. Second; traffic in LA is horrendous, but that's true today and the future forever. Third, so the purpose of the HST is to provide a reasonable alternative to and offset flying and to a lesser degree driving (gas is only going up) and who wants to spend 8+ hours in a Prius (no disrespect to Prius owners.) Now a Tesla would be a different matter all together. Last, there's another model for business travelers other than airport and freeway driving. Satellite people fly to a central point and conferencing at airport clustered hotels, local folks by car to the hotels keeps people off the freeway ****. I did that a lot and my wife's firm does that today, same internationally.

I think, maybe someone can clarify, the US still does not use GPS for traffic control so planes are separated at greater distance. Europe has been using it for a few years. GSP allows planes to fly closer together which allows for greater traffic increasing passenger capacity; it would also lower costs. 

As to electrification of the CALTrain line that has to happen at some point due to aging equipment, cost, air quality and noise The question has always been cost and when; HST solves both. Don't they also have to completely rebuild the CALTrain line for HST?

Mike: 
The Cal Rail Authority say; "By 2029, the system will run from San Francisco to the Los Angles basin in under three hours at speeds capable of over 200 miles per hour. The system will eventually extend to Sacramento and San Diego, totaling 800 miles with up to 24 stations." I agree it seems too optimistic given it's 450+ SF to LA driving, plus the train has to labor through urban areas to the fast track. Not to mention in between the lines the wording is, "until then it will take longer and that's only an estimate." Plausible deniability.

Done.


----------



## JerryB (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris:

Thank you for the quotes. I am truly astounded that the California HST planners are not even aware of the type / size of rail required. This is not a research project, nor is it brain surgery. All these planners have to do is look at other systems around the world. As to rail size, this is well characterized by many international rail engineering organizations and verified by successful operations.

This kind of 'discovery' is akin to 'discovering' that the rods holding the new Bay Bridge are embrittled and subject to failure. The information that the materials employed were inappropriate was available for years before CalTrans designed them into the new bridge. Now we are stuck with a bridge that is patched, rather than having the strength that was inherent in the original design. And, the cost of that one bridge went up, up, up, from the original estimates of $780 Million to something over $6.4 Billion during construction.

In my opinion, the HST planners and engineers are off to the same kind of start. Were they planning to lay the original (worthless) track, then tear it up and replace it after an accident caused by too small a rail structure? How many other totally unnecessary 'discoveries' will be made during construction and during operation, and at what cost?

I now add to my belief that this is a massive boondoggle that we the taxpayers can't afford, the fact that it will apparently be built and operated by folks at least as inept as the CalTrans bridge engineers.

Just a single (pro-rail) California taxpayer's thoughts!!


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris Scott said:


> Hi Dwight;
> 
> 
> ...Think about it, Palo Alto stopped the peninsula line plan every other city agreed to because they demanded the line tunnel through PA, at triple the cost + time. I don't know whether they got it or not - what do you think?
> ...


First...addressing the Palo Alto issue. The agreed to solution was to STOP the high speed part of the HST at San Jose and use HST funds to upgrade the CALTRAIN corridor up the peninsula for110 mph electric train operation...not 200 mph grade restricted operation. The PA and Atherton folks strongly objected to elevated railroads running through their towns....and had the money to stop them. How they're gonna make all those grade crossing safe for 110 mph operations is another matter...and there's a bunch of them. In LA, they're putting the HST in a ditch like they did the Long Beach to Colton line for container traffic.

Addressing the aircraft traffic volume and GPS situation. The limiting factor is NOT aircraft spacing between north and south flying aircraft...it's gates at the airports. And if they expand the number of gates...then runway limitations come into play. Aircraft take an hour to turn around...roughly...and during that hour, they're at a gate. So, if you're Southwest in San Diego, you can unload and load 12 planes per hour...max. If you're in San Jose, you can unload and load about 8 planes per hour...that's all the gates Southwest has there...and that's to all destinations they support. Further, in San Diego, there's only 16 hours a day they can do that due to airport restrictions...and all the planes are full. I fly that route all the time. So...flying more planes means building more terminals...and runways...and feeder roads in most cases...and parking...etc. etc.

Third, yes, US airlines, especially Southwest, use GPS. In fact, Southwest is an airline leader in the use of GPS guided flying technique called Required Navigation Performance...which involves GPS and data links between planes. It allows for continuous flight spacing adjustment and decent to landing at airports equipped with GPS/RNP capabilities...and is a major fuel saving technique. The problem is...not all aircraft are equipped with the gear...nor are the airports...yet. I expect someday, the FAA will get their act together and it will become the standard for operations. Their program is called the NextGen ATC. It'll take decades to get it going...and, remember, it's the gate limitation limiting the growth for flying folks.

And, lastly, yeah a Tesla would be a REAL different matter...especially when you have to stop twice to get from SF to LA to recharge for at least 30 minutes (80% charge). The charging stations are already installed...but mountains into LA are too...as is the traffic awaiting you in the LA basin.


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

JerryB said:


> Chris:
> 
> Thank you for the quotes. ....


Ah...Jerry...check the dates on the "quotes"... He "gotcha"...


----------



## JerryB (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike Reiley wrote:
"Ah...Jerry...check the dates on the "quotes"... He "gotcha"..."

And How!! 

I usually pride myself on reading comprehension, but I have to READ it before I can comprehend. Definitely failed in this case.

Still, the engineering factors are well know, not requiring a "test section" between two relatively remote cities.

Jerry


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

JerryB said:


> Chris:
> 
> Thank you for the quotes. I am truly astounded that the California HST planners are not even aware of the type / size of rail required. This is not a research project, nor is it brain surgery. All these planners have to do is look at other systems around the world. As to rail size, this is well characterized by many international rail engineering organizations and verified by successful operations.
> 
> ...



Oops and double Oops. Again,my wrong track thing was a hypothetical, imaginary, fantasy example; as I wrote "in the future", not any kind of real event today.

I think there is a bit of asomewhat, maybe, kinda not quite realistic expectation for absolute perfection. Yes the bridge bolt steel was a true f___up, but the build took how many years? How many parts? How much more safe is it than the old structure, even with it's faults? I think your dire appraisal of the finished bridge is a little dire side heavy. Plus there's the certain inevitability of retro fitting through the years ahead as more and more is learned about earthquake resistant engineering and construction, and seismic conditions in the Bay Area. None of those are done sciences by any stretch. 

I still think there is an over estimation of the engineering transfer and and under estimation of the original engineering and a whole list of things in a first in the US HST. For example, different construction engineering, codes and techniques. Different materials, ground conditions, seismic conditions, safety standards and testing requirements. Different electronics, control systems hardware and software. Most of these will affect the cars as well even though the cars are where tthe most engineering transfer probably will occur. Not to mention the issues of the HST interface with the US urban environments and conditions (LA? SF? Please!) 

Plus, isn't there a 0.5 inch track gauge difference? And GOD forbid Willy Brown gets his toe in the door on the car design or Bay Area stations' designs. Pray, pray, pray!


Paying for it? Bond holders will pay most off the cost and they get a interest return on their investment. And the bond holders are almost all institutional, bond mutual funds, pension funds, etc.

I have a little bit of a crazy thought pattern to this whole CA HST. I agree it is a boondoggle, maybe more boon than doggle. Here's my crazy part. The real critical need and getting much worse much faster is for HST in the Northeast. It was easier to convince / sell the idea of HST in CAL, land of adventure and first things first. Putting HST in the northeast and east coast will be absolutely unbelievable in cost and disruption. (So... so lock me up!) But then I think they should build a really big pipe from Northwest Washington to Southern California and the Southwest to supply water. (So... so lock me up twice!)

Ever notice how the folks who worry about the future the most are the ones who will not be around to see it?


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

> Palo Alto stopped the peninsula line plan every other city agreed to because they demanded the line tunnel through PA, at triple the cost + time. I don't know whether they got it or not - what do you think?


I think those sorts of issues should be thought out and resolved *before* construction is even contemplated... though I realize we're talking state agencies here with all the inefficiencies that involves (which is part of the problem). I defer to Jerry's Bay Bridge example as a much better one that I probably would have thought of off the top of my head.. there are so many to choose from. 


> My point is it's too costly, disruptive, testing limited, time consuming, etc., to build the first segment in an urban environment.


Do you believe those segments will be *LESS* costly in the future? They'll have to be built eventually you know. Faulty argument imho.


> Plus possible revenue would be small given low ticket prices for a short haul; not enough to compensate for the other factors or contribute meaningfully to the overall costs.


So you're essentially saying that *no* revenue is prefferable to *some* revenue? You'll have to explain your logic to me on this one.

As has been said, it all comes down to who is building it, their track record when it comes to such matters, and the fiscal soundness of the actual plan. I'm pro-trains and actually think an HST of the kind planned would be a good thing for all the reasons Mikey and others have mentioned... I'm just not in favor the current one for all the reasons *I* have mentioned..


----------



## Mike Reilley (Jan 2, 2008)

Chris Scott said:


> ...Paying for it? Bond holders will pay most off the cost and they get a interest return on their investment. And the bond holders are almost all institutional, bond mutual funds, pension funds, etc.


Huh? Chris, these are state guaranteed bonds....meaning the State has to not only pay the interest...but also the bond value at the end of the bond's term. The bond holders pay for the development of the HST RR...but the state pays em back....and with California's credit rating, don't expect the bond interest to be low. This is a no loss situation for investors...unless California declares bankruptcy.


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight Ennis said:


> So you're essentially saying that no revenue is prefferable to some revenue? You'll have to explain your logic to me on this one.



_High Finance._

I guess Mike put the issue to bed; upgraded CalTrain will run the peninsula. Too bad, I was about to give you a new locomotive of your choice (1:20 or 1:32 scale) if you could get two investment bankers to agree with your plan. (CalTrain's revenue(2013); $118M/year.) But if you want to pitch it to a couple of bankers to get a free locomotive, go fit it. ;-)) )

I know, I'm a rube. There you go...


----------



## Dwight Ennis (Jan 2, 2008)

Doesn't matter Chris... we seldom agree on anything government-related anyway.


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike Reilley said:


> Huh? Chris, these are state guaranteed bonds....meaning the State has to not only pay the interest...but also the bond value at the end of the bond's term. The bond holders pay for the development of the HST RR...but the state pays em back....and with California's credit rating, don't expect the bond interest to be low. This is a no loss situation for investors...unless California declares bankruptcy.


I thought they would be Revenue Bonds paid by revenue from the trains. But I reread the 2008 Ballot measure. 

Looks like CA credit rating is looking up:

Fitch Boosts California's Credit Rating
By Ben Adler (Sacramento, CA) Monday, August 05, 2013
A second agency has upgraded the state of California’s credit rating. Fitch Ratings now gives California an “A” – up from an “A-minus.”

The agency is also revising its outlook on the state from “stable” to “positive.” That means a further ratings upgrade could be possible.

Fitch credits California’s improving economy and what it calls “institutionalized changes” to the state’s fiscal management. It also praises California’s “spending restraint” and reduced budget debts. But it says the state’s rating will likely remain below that of other states – and that California is still “a long way from full recovery.”

Earlier this year, Standard and Poor’s also upgraded the state’s credit rating from “A-minus” to “A.” Moody’s Investors Service has yet to issue a similar upgrade.


----------



## Chris Scott (Jan 2, 2008)

Dwight Ennis said:


> Doesn't matter Chris... we seldom agree on anything government-related anyway.



Not about gov, it's about money and trains. 



I know, I'm still a rube.


----------

