<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Investment, Not Spending</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=investment-not-spending</link>
	<description>California High Speed Rail support blog, spreading news and info about the high speed trains project approved by California voters in November 2008.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:34:34 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew F.</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68963</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew F.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 07:23:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68963</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t figure out why anyone thinks Grapevine is workable. Have you ever actually driven over it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t figure out why anyone thinks Grapevine is workable. Have you ever actually driven over it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BruceMcF</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68896</link>
		<dc:creator>BruceMcF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:02:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68896</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;HSR won’t have priority over Caltrain services, in the sense that the MOU between CHSRA and PCJPB regarding the ROW down to SJ requires a minimum of 8 Caltrains per hour each way during rush hours. How many of those will have to reach the TTC is not yet nailed down, ...&lt;/blockquote&gt;

You contradict your thesis before the end of the paragraph. The evident bottleneck that might constrain 8tph in rush hour is precisely at 4th &amp; Townsend, the DTX and the station throat to the TBT.

&lt;blockquote&gt;All of these scenarios exclude the complication of an underground station at 4th &amp; Townsend. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

That would be begging the question, wouldn&#039;t it? A major part of the bottleneck of the current design is due to the fact that there is only one express track shared between access and egress at 4th and Townsend and that operations at 4th and Townsend are directly tied to operations at the TBT station throat - the Caltrain local HAS to get to the extreme right hand side outbound and an HSR that will be passing it while its at platform HAS to get onto the central express track outbound by the last switch so that implies whether there can be a local sitting on the inbound track blocking the use of the extreme right hand side inbound.

Widen 4th and Townsend to give two express tracks and the DTX can narrow down to two track, one each way, and the HSR station throat operations are at the very least no longer connected to whether there is a local Caltrain at 4th &amp; Townsend</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>HSR won’t have priority over Caltrain services, in the sense that the MOU between CHSRA and PCJPB regarding the ROW down to SJ requires a minimum of 8 Caltrains per hour each way during rush hours. How many of those will have to reach the TTC is not yet nailed down, &#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p>You contradict your thesis before the end of the paragraph. The evident bottleneck that might constrain 8tph in rush hour is precisely at 4th &amp; Townsend, the DTX and the station throat to the TBT.</p>
<blockquote><p>All of these scenarios exclude the complication of an underground station at 4th &amp; Townsend. </p></blockquote>
<p>That would be begging the question, wouldn&#8217;t it? A major part of the bottleneck of the current design is due to the fact that there is only one express track shared between access and egress at 4th and Townsend and that operations at 4th and Townsend are directly tied to operations at the TBT station throat &#8211; the Caltrain local HAS to get to the extreme right hand side outbound and an HSR that will be passing it while its at platform HAS to get onto the central express track outbound by the last switch so that implies whether there can be a local sitting on the inbound track blocking the use of the extreme right hand side inbound.</p>
<p>Widen 4th and Townsend to give two express tracks and the DTX can narrow down to two track, one each way, and the HSR station throat operations are at the very least no longer connected to whether there is a local Caltrain at 4th &amp; Townsend</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BruceMcF</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68890</link>
		<dc:creator>BruceMcF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68890</guid>
		<description>SNCF&#039;s analysis, clearly, is analysis OF market opportunities for Express HSR rail. Projecting from Express HSR cost and benefit to cost and benefit analysis for transport infrastructure that can cost 10% to 20% as much per route mile is self-evidently illegitimate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SNCF&#8217;s analysis, clearly, is analysis OF market opportunities for Express HSR rail. Projecting from Express HSR cost and benefit to cost and benefit analysis for transport infrastructure that can cost 10% to 20% as much per route mile is self-evidently illegitimate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: synonymouse</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68882</link>
		<dc:creator>synonymouse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:54:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68882</guid>
		<description>It is all about money.  California politicians, aware of how much money is siphoned off to Nevada casinos, came up with the ruse of Indian gaming to get past instate holies and Nevada interests.  Now you have one ethnic group, no matter how unethically treated in the past, with a statutory monopoly on a lucrative racket.  You have to question the constitutionality, ah but who cares these days.

But I can&#039;t figure out why Richard M. likes the Tehachapis over the Grapevine?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It is all about money.  California politicians, aware of how much money is siphoned off to Nevada casinos, came up with the ruse of Indian gaming to get past instate holies and Nevada interests.  Now you have one ethnic group, no matter how unethically treated in the past, with a statutory monopoly on a lucrative racket.  You have to question the constitutionality, ah but who cares these days.</p>
<p>But I can&#8217;t figure out why Richard M. likes the Tehachapis over the Grapevine?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alon Levy</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68845</link>
		<dc:creator>Alon Levy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 10:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68845</guid>
		<description>New York has 110 mph rail with no intentions of electrification. The other states that have applied for grants mention nothing of electrification as well.

California is electrifying a commuter corridor sharing tracks with HSR. It&#039;s not electrifying the Surfliner or the CC.

And there&#039;s no such thing as special national transport demands. The US isn&#039;t special, except in the FUD-sowing arguments of local consultants. SNCF&#039;s analysis holds for multiple countries from different regions of the world; why should it fail for America?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>New York has 110 mph rail with no intentions of electrification. The other states that have applied for grants mention nothing of electrification as well.</p>
<p>California is electrifying a commuter corridor sharing tracks with HSR. It&#8217;s not electrifying the Surfliner or the CC.</p>
<p>And there&#8217;s no such thing as special national transport demands. The US isn&#8217;t special, except in the FUD-sowing arguments of local consultants. SNCF&#8217;s analysis holds for multiple countries from different regions of the world; why should it fail for America?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HSRforCali</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68834</link>
		<dc:creator>HSRforCali</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68834</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m actually sort of ok with Sin City going into decline since money made in California seems to be spent in Nevada.  If it&#039;s in decline, maybe they&#039;ll stop sucking our pockets dry.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m actually sort of ok with Sin City going into decline since money made in California seems to be spent in Nevada.  If it&#8217;s in decline, maybe they&#8217;ll stop sucking our pockets dry.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: wu ming</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68829</link>
		<dc:creator>wu ming</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:00:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68829</guid>
		<description>investment = &quot;foreign monetary intervention&quot;? huh?

now i am convinced you&#039;ve never been out of the country. the rest of the world is chock full of american (and european, and japanese) investment of this sort. this isn&#039;t buying ad time to elect pro-chinese politicians or pass initiatives, this is a rather run of the mill investment in a (boondoggle IMO) private infrastructure project.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>investment = &#8220;foreign monetary intervention&#8221;? huh?</p>
<p>now i am convinced you&#8217;ve never been out of the country. the rest of the world is chock full of american (and european, and japanese) investment of this sort. this isn&#8217;t buying ad time to elect pro-chinese politicians or pass initiatives, this is a rather run of the mill investment in a (boondoggle IMO) private infrastructure project.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: synonymouse</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68826</link>
		<dc:creator>synonymouse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2010 03:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68826</guid>
		<description>The Chinese are just doing this to show the power of their massive foreign reserves.  The pundits have come up with a term to describe the new Chinese attitude:  &quot;trumphalism&quot;

Once they realize that Sin City has gone into decline they&#039;ll withdraw their money quietly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Chinese are just doing this to show the power of their massive foreign reserves.  The pundits have come up with a term to describe the new Chinese attitude:  &#8220;trumphalism&#8221;</p>
<p>Once they realize that Sin City has gone into decline they&#8217;ll withdraw their money quietly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spokker</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68810</link>
		<dc:creator>Spokker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68810</guid>
		<description>Did Diana Ross give the dissenting argument? Bwahahaha!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did Diana Ross give the dissenting argument? Bwahahaha!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Spokker</title>
		<link>http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/01/investment-not-spending/comment-page-1/#comment-68809</link>
		<dc:creator>Spokker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:02:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cahsrblog.com/?p=2802#comment-68809</guid>
		<description>lol</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>lol</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

