Comments on: The 2009 Business Plan Is Out

By: The Transport Politic » With Competition in High-Speed Operation, Who Wins?

The Transport Politic » With Competition in High-Speed Operation, Who Wins? — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 08:51:30 +0000

[...] the more expensive option. In order to interest private involvement in the process, the Authority seems to be choosing to prioritize profits over increased mobility. That’s because a private company’s interest, of course, is to [...]

By: Steven Dale

Steven Dale — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:31:30 +0000

Hate to shill like this, but if you’re interested in Urban Gondolas, Raphael, you might want to check out my website http://www.gondolaproject.com.

By: ticket broker

ticket broker — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:17:57 +0000

Hmmm, true enough Just don’t call it a subsidy

By: TomW

TomW — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:03:44 +0000

Able-bodied people will just have to cary their luggage onto the train – what’s so bad about that? After all, you have to carry it into the station.

By: TomW

TomW — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:01:40 +0000

Speaking of FRA rolling stock requirements… in the Preliminary national rail plan, it said “Going forward, PTC, in combination with other technologies and strategies, can offer levels of passenger protection that can be incorporated into new equipment design standards.” (page 26). Reading between the lines, I would say that means the FRA reconosies there are better ways of protecting passengers that just building like a tank. (Examples: monocqoue construction rarther than underframe and body, welding not rivets, couplings that don’t break in an accident, lifeguards on wheels, ‘cup and cone’ to prevent riding-up, laminated glass to keep passengers inside during a collision, etc.). My bet is that the FRA will draw up a new set of specs based on outputs (“the vehicle must behave like this under these conditions”) rather than inputs (“the vehicle must have 1 inch thick walls”)

By: synonymouse

synonymouse — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:43:24 +0000

The consultants simply juiced their study to accord with the preferences of the folks who pay their fee. Happens all the time.

Improved highways have been a sacred cow of American politics for a hundred years. The voters don’t much worry about the costs of highways because they consider roads a necessity like police and fire protection and national defense. Not fair, but that’s the way it is. Of course the highway lobby is there to campaign for more road construction and attack public transit. Greedy unions don’t help the transit cause either.

Buyers’ remorse is setting in over the hsr. PR can only do so much with a flawed plan. experiencing buyers’ remorse

By: jimsf

jimsf — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:39:43 +0000

oh but californians will want it and caltrans will wind up insisting on it. especailly bike racks.

By: jimsf

jimsf — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 08:38:41 +0000

yes there is.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:48:14 +0000

Define “success.” If you mean financial success, then no, the non-toll highways built from the 1910s on recovered 50% of their construction and maintenance costs from user fees. The Interstate system recovers 67%, but that’s after decades of getting people to drive instead of taking streetcars.

By: AndyDuncan

AndyDuncan — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:21:40 +0000

Still waiting for one of you palmdale obsessives to provide a rational rebuttal to CHSRA’s tunneling report. Calling it “idiotic” over and over again without providing an explanation of why their conclusions in that report are faulty is, well, idiotic.