posted
Will Newsom prove to be "Moonbeam's" "Earl Warren" as was the latter to Eisenhower?
Posts: 10072 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, what went wrong? There are plenty of examples of economically advanced nations building HSR without enormous cost overruns. Did the process overwhelm the project? Or is HSR an impossible task in the USA?
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
What went wrong? Flawed decision making and poor contract management, among other problems. Calif Prop 1A was voted for by estimating a 32 billion overall cost. I voted for prop 1A to my regret. I think HSR proposals are too often a tool to get politicians elected to office.
I would really like to see, Vincent, some sort of HSR from Eugene to Vancouver, BC. However, looking at the Calif. fiasco, I hope they would give OR/WA/BC citizens a true idea of cost and cost overrun.
posted
The Journal has editorialized is a quite predictable manner.
Fair Use:
The new Governor is thus proposing to finish the initial planned route from Merced to Bakersfield, now with the stated goal of revitalizing rural areas that have been parched due to water rationing. Lo, high-speed rail is “about economic transformation and unlocking the enormous potential of the Valley,” which is “hungry for investment” and “good jobs.” Mr. Newsom in his speech also pared back a project championed by Mr. Brown to deliver more water to farmers.
Posts: 10072 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hardly know where to begin. This was a project that would have served a high demand corridor that had several intermediate cities. For all the environmentalists, it would have significantly reduced the fuel usage per passenger compared to either air travel or automobile.
We have here a truly great idea that suffered a death by a thousand cuts. More aptly, agony from a thousand cuts until finally killed because the multiple injuries resulted in it failing to do its job.
There was an endless run of needless reports and studies, demands for rediculous changes that were accepted by politicians who had no clue about anything related. Changes that added costs demanded and accepted. Multiple unrelated work made part of the project. Examples: Complete rebuild of a couple of miles of highway 99 in Fresno, electrification and othere modifications of Caltrain San Francisco to San Jose.
Posts: 2825 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm starting to think that the entire subject of high speed rail needs some rethinking.
Looking at the "Illinois High Speed Rail" thread, (Mr Norman's post) they conclude:
"In fact, a fast-rail project is under way in Illinois. Yet the trains will top out at 110 mph, shaving just an hour from what is now a 5½-hour train trip. After it’s finished, at a cost of about $2 billion, the state figures the share of people who travel between the two cities by rail could rise just a few percentage points. Behind such modest gains, for hundreds of millions of dollars spent lie some of the reasons high-speed train travel remains an elusive goal in the U.S."
Are High Speed Railroads really necessary? Japan has huge financial debts due to their bullet trains. If you could have, for example, HSR from Portland to Seattle to Vancouver with no other stops along the way, it might make sense. A fast way to travel without the hassle of the airport experience. However, the big advantage of trains, over planes, is all the possible destinations along the way. However, HSR advantages, I think, are somewhat delusional.
The Empire Builder is a train that many might think is mainly an experiential or excursion train, with a large percentage of passengers going the entire route. Yet, only about 9% of passenger do travel the full route. 46 stations along the way with 1080 trip combinations. Not trying to make a case for keeping all LD trains, but it seems that getting from A-B-C (as, for example, Winona to Havre) is the main passenger objective, not speed.
The emphasis should shift from the need for speed to the quality of the trains, themselves.
Having modern train equipment, good on board services and adequate food, as well as a very positive entire train experience is more important than speed, in my opinion. I think the speed obtained by the NEC and the Amtrak Cascade trains is quite adequate and serves the essential need of passengers. If you need speed, you could fly from Winona to Havre..are there nearby airports?
Richard
Posts: 1928 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What went wrong? It was under capitalized from the very first Obama grant...
-------------------- The City of Saint Louis (UP, 1967) is still my standard for passenger operations Posts: 1404 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
NPR's business program, Marketplace, ran a story tonight about the CAHSR project and the history of high(er) speed rail in America. The story starts with a synopsis of the status of CAHSR and then recaps the history of American streamliners and foreign HSR before returning to the mess in California. Two transportation experts then give their opposing opinions about the need for CAHSR. One claims that the money would be better spent improving transportation in the crowded cities so that it would be easier for people to get to the airport. The other expert says that high speed ground transportation is a needed third option.
The story ends with a dubious statement that monorail trains were "debuted" in 1964 at the New York World's Fair. Anyone who attended the 1962 Seattle World's Fair knows that there was a monorail connecting the Fairgrounds and downtown Seattle. Does anyone know of any earlier systems?
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Generally I avoid listening to or reading the views of "experts" when rail systems are involved. Almost all have an ax to grind.
I have spent most of my working life on rail transit, with the two major systems, Washington Metro and Taipei, Taiwan transit. Both these are carrying people far beyond original estimates to the point that the areas can't imagine how to live without them and have had or are now in the process of building lines far beyond those in the original plans into the maybe someday but probably never extensions or fill-ins. In both these cases there were all the "experts" claiming it costs too much, it is taking too long to build, and "no one" will ever ride it to the point that it will have no effect on traffic congestion. By the way there was also 7 years on the Taiwan High Speed with the design build operate group from a line on the map to riding trains. Parallel air service has gone from near nose to tail flights to a few that serve primarily as connections to international flights and flights to places not served.
Saying all that to say this, I feel that the California High Speed rail should be built as originally envisioned from San Francisco to Los Angeles. When it happens, it will serve its area to the point of becoming regarded as being indispensable.
Posts: 2825 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well volks, guess it's time for another "tee off" by The Journal's Editorial Board.
Fair Use:
Recall how the Obama Administration dangled $3.5 billion in federal funds to force construction to start in the sparsely populated Central Valley. The White House said there would be fewer environmental obstacles, though one apparent motive was to reward Rep. Jim Costa (D., San Joaquin Valley), a longtime project proponent, for his ObamaCare vote.
Yet communities along the train’s first 119-mile operating route, from Wasco (population: 27,047) to Madera (population: 66,224), have demanded design changes anyway. Meantime, Democratic state legislators are pushing to delay electrifying that 119-mile segment and to redirect bond funds to commuter rail in metropolitan areas.
The first trains that run might be slow, diesel and mostly empty. “I’m worried that we’re dead in the water,” Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon said last fall. “I’m also worried that we have what would be a laughingstock for California.” Too late.
I think the best that can be hoped for is a ten minute shaving off the existing San Joaquin's schedule - and giving Warren 119 miles of his railroad back.
Posts: 10072 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considerable slant, as could be expected, in this Journal article. Could have as easily said Fresno to Bakersfield instead of the two Podunk junctions mentioned. This segment was chosen because it was easiest to build, but it also follows the fastest portion of the current San Jonquin route, thus having so little improvement on run time. They are absolutely correct, however, in saying that on line communities demanded, and usually got alignment design changes that increased costs, sometimes significantly. Primary example being the initial plan to go aerial through Fresno being changed to open cut and underground, probably more than doubling the cost of that segment. There were farmers that complained that the trains would scare their cattle, but you could ride a San Joquin train and watch the cattle not even look up as we came blowing through with a diesel and blowing the horn for crossings. Then of course with this you get to the presumed 110 mph or less with the diesel compared to the 220 mph with the electric, with that 110 mph being on an alignment that could ultimately be operated at 250 mph.
For maximum benefit, the segment most needed is Bakersfield - Palmdale - Los Angeles. Of course that is the most difficult for alignment and construction and had numerous headaches from various and sundry sources not related to geography that I will not go into right now.
Posts: 2825 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
