Comments on: Central Valley Cities Continue Competition For HSR Maintenance Hub

By: jimsf

jimsf — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 18:16:41 +0000

you could use a high speed switch further back, to a parallel straight track leading up to a sharper curve. I guess.

By: Andre Peretti

Andre Peretti — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:41:38 +0000

The duration of each phase is not mandatory. I just gave the average time it took for existing lines. For small projects the procedure is shorter. Sometimes the first phase (public debate) lasts more than two years. It did for the Aix-Nice direct spur, with a negative result.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:06:15 +0000

Is the process shorter when the route follows established ROWs, such as highways and upgraded legacy rail lines?

By: jimsf

jimsf — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:37:49 +0000

You won’t be cutting airline jobs because the airlines still have to absorb a share of the future growth as well as adjust their focus.

By: Brandon from San Diego

Brandon from San Diego — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:14:43 +0000

Well, I hope practicality or functionality plays a large role. I understand if politics plays a role, but I hope those considerations are secondary.

When I refer to functionality or practicality… I am speak to minimizing deadhead and employer/employee access to site. If a remote/non-functioning place is located… Californians will be paying the added operational costs forever. What those costs may be annually…. they’ll be nominal relative to the total operating cost, but THOSE costs will be over $1 billion a year! No?

So, a poorly placed maintenance yard(s) could add millions per year in annual operating costs…. all passed onto users. It’s all relative.

By: Joey

Joey — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:34:23 +0000

Theoretically, there should be no runoff from those activities. Theoretically…

By: Castle Expert

Castle Expert — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:07:41 +0000

Brandon, I do not disagree with you on the trains being electrically poweredand that the pollution and noise with these trains will be minimal. What I am talking about is with the Heavy Maintenace facility itself. The very nature of the name suggests that these trains will have to be maintained and serviced involving lubing the wheel bearings, pressure washing the machinery and most important these trains will need to serviced are similar to airplanes being built in large hangars requiring heavy welding and soldering is going to be necessary. Where do you think all the runoff from these sites goes? That is why it is imperative that a well suited site is picked which will be able to handle this run off. Remember this is not a light train maintenace facility but a heavy maintenace facility and possible test site. Totally different animal than anything we have ever seen built in the United States. I suggest to everyone goggle Heavy Maintenace facilities in Tawain.

By: Castle Expert

Castle Expert — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:59:51 +0000

Rafael that new map from MCAG is not set in stone, the right of way on this proposed freeway is wide enough to accomondate trains as well as Cars. However, you are correct there is no way the trains can use this to cross at High Speeds but the advantage of using differnent alignements gives the authority more bargining options with UP and also provides another alternate route for phase II of the project the Merced to Sacrament o phase.

By: Joey

Joey — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:50:12 +0000

Take out a main artery HOW? All existing roads will be preserved … that’s the point of the aereal (though based on Clem’s analysis Palo Alto can be mostly at-grade.

And it will only be ugly as sin if you’re too busy fuming to participate in the CSS process.

By: Dan S.

Dan S. — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 03:27:57 +0000

Personally, while not knowing basically anything about the logistics of a rail yard, I think they should choose the location on a purely political basis to maximize statewide support for the project. Maybe there are good technical reasons to suggest one site as ideal, but I don’t want the ideal getting in the way of the good.