Breaking News: High Speed Rail Designed To Achieve High Speeds
I have no idea why the LA Times thought it would be a good idea to put Ralph Vartabedian on the high speed rail beat, but the results have been disastrous. The guy has no clue how the project actually works and almost certainly has never actually used a high speed train in his life. The result has been a series of nonsensical articles trashing the project for common-sense things that are not actually newsworthy issues.
Today’s article from Vartabedian is perhaps the worst yet. In it, he actually argues that the requirement that trains connect San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes was somehow a shocking thing sneaked into the Prop 1A legislation without anybody realizing its intent.
I’m serious. That’s actually the story he filed. Vartabedian basically thinks it’s somehow a major news story that a high speed train is intended to achieve high speeds:
California’s proposed bullet train will need to soar over small towns on towering viaducts, split rich farm fields diagonally and burrow for miles under mountains for a simple reason: It has no time to spare.
In the fine print of a 2008 voter-approved measure funding the project was a little-noticed requirement that trains be able to rocket from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles to San Francisco in no more than two hours and 40 minutes.
It was an aggressive goal, requiring cutting-edge technology, and was originally intended to protect the sanctity of the bullet train concept from political compromise. Whether the California High Speed Rail Authority can meet such a schedule is far from certain. Even some backers of the project now say it was a mistake to lock in the strict requirement.
Huh? It wasn’t “fine print” – HSR supporters like me shouted from the rooftops that the trains would connect SF to LA in just over two and a half hours. It was compelling. It was sensible. It was one of the things that generated public support for the project. We put together postcards that fall with the following image on one side and handed them out at train stations across the state, such as Union Station, loudly trumpeting the travel time:
After all, people understood that they were voting for high speed rail. They were voting for short travel times. That’s the entire point of high speed rail – to be something other than Amtrak, to provide fast and reliable transportation between California’s metro areas.
For Vartabedian to treat this as something of a surprise just shows how disreputable a journalist he really is. That travel time is comparable to other successful HSR routes around the world. Spain’s AVE train connects Madrid and Barcelona in 2 hours, 38 minutes. France’s LGV Est operates trains at speeds of 200 mph. Given technological improvements, 220 mph by 2020 is a reasonable expectation.
Instead Vartabedian makes this sound like some hidden trick, and quotes high speed rail opponent Alan Lowenthal to supposedly make his case:
Some state legislative leaders and rail authority officials say the time requirement never should have been put into the law. “It was a mistake,” said Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach), a key supporter of the project who has asked increasingly tough questions about the cost.
In fact, Lowenthal has always opposed high speed rail, wanting to steal the $10 billion in voter approved funding for slower-speed trains. So it is in his interest to argue that high speeds are not desirable and are some sort of trick.
I don’t understand why the LA Times continues to pay Ralph Vartabedian to mislead their readers about this project. He is a dishonest reporter who is writing hit pieces rather than objective journalism. A reputable newspaper would not continue to have him on their staff.
California voters knew what they were doing when they voted for Prop 1A. They knew it would provide fast train service between SF and LA. That’s the entire point. And it’s the right goal to pursue, even if HSR opponents like Vartabedian want to mislead the public about what they actually voted for in 2008.
Well, how much money could be saved if one allowed running times of 3 hours?
Donk Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:04 am
Yes, this is the more important point that they were dancing around in the article (but didn’t really make). Maybe we should talk about scaling the project down a bit. I am all for moving it thru the Grapevine if we can save 10 min and at the same time cut a few viaducts as a result of the time savings.
But another point these guys missed is that the 2:40 time isn’t the only significant factor in the cost overruns – there is also the NIMBY factor and the over-engineering done by PB, among others. The authors really simplify the whole thing and pretend they know what they are talking about.
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:25 am
Over-engineering and I suppose Yer more qualified to do this?? What’s Yer educational background? Otherwise get lost as You and I are not qualified to pass judgement on engineering.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:49 am
A lot, probably. But is that the point? The point is to build high speed rail. If the point is to just keep costs down, then that compromises the original value.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:42 am
We could run BRT from SF to LA. That’s really going to save costs. Maybe paint a Greyhound on the side as a logo.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:00 am
We ought to put that $5 toward transporters… I mean just think of the economical impact of beaming people from LA to SF in mere seconds. Oh sure, Morris might end up looking at his own derriere, but hey, a penny saved is a penny earned….
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:21 pm
Currently that’s impossible outside of particles of light in a lab or on TV, NEXT.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:09 am
That type of cost saving is exactly what happened in the postwar transit decimation. In the case of the #40 interurban to San Mateo they literally stuck in a Greyhound in place of electric rail in the name of economy. And the level of investment involved to save a fully functional legacy rail system was farcically tiny by comparison to today’s expenditures.
My point is that fads come and go. Electric rail is in now and so-called transit “experts” give it full lip service but don’t they won’t abandon and betray rail when the next gadgetbahn or personal rapid transit scheme-scam comes down the pike. It is always necessary to plan smartly and prioritize with the most functional and efficient result in mind. That is epitomized by BART, a sub-optimal operation that is hopelessly incompatible with everything in the know transit world.
It works, but it costs more than it should and is the fat brute of the litter, starving out the smaller but no less deserving outfits like Muni and AC Transit. And its political juice is such that it can mess with hsr on its territory.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:56 am
Really? Muni with it’s incredibly well compensated bus drivers is starved out by BART?
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
BART’s Amalgamated is as equally well compensated as Muni’s TWU. Most would say way over-compensated.
BART is a hoover sucking up funds in every direction, with MTC complicity. It has been trying to kill off its Caltrain sibling for decades. AC is in such bad shape that a BART takeover is a possibility. As for Muni you just know that BART is chomping at the bit to supplant Muni standard gauge ocs with its bastardized broad gauge on Geary.
It would have been better had the BART issue failed the first time around and a better plan come later. It is that screwed up.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
BART wants to use broad gauge on Geary? Now that’s far fetched.
Also, what would BART gain from taking over AC Transit?
Cal Train, of course, is something that BART’s BoD want so that they can add the Peninsula to the property tax rolls.
I’d argue the converse. That BART is much easier to fix than MUNI, AC and VTA. That’s because “light rail” requires more coordination on the urban planning side than subways and elevated track.
Jon Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Synonymouse is so bitter at the very existence of BART, and the fact that it doesn’t look like the rail systems of his youth, that everything becomes a conspiracy theory with BART and it’s cabal of political allies at the center. Don’t expect any of it to actually be based in fact.
Ask people in the Richmond if they want BART under Geary and they’ll say “Hell yeah!” No-one’s gonna care about what gauge they use.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Really? He’s really good at using a computer for someone 100 years old….
Jon Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
How did you work that one out?
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Synonymouse is a big fan of the stuff that hasn’t run in 80+ years. I was being facetious of course, but he’s kind of like one of my roommates in college that only like classic rock. I joked that he only listened to music from before 1982, the year he was born…
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
I think 1982 is kinda late for the cutoff date. The first cutoff was 1959 when Buddy Holly kicked it but interest revived when I saw the electric Dylan in concert.
Did like Amy Winehouse a lot but I also did have an ominous feeling just like when I saw Jimi Hendrix the one and only time. I figured that wasn’t going to happen again; he was too good. I have bad luck with idols – I was looking forward to seeing Lenny Bruce for the first time that weekend when I heard on the radio that he was dead with a needle in his arm on the toilet.
BART wants broad gauge on Geary out of sheer residual Bechtel perversity. It would undermine the possibility of linking with SMART out the Bridge. Broad gauge on stilts to Willits with no toilets. Bring your industrial grade ear plugs.
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Yeah well I’m a fan of the most powerful steam locomotive ever built, the C&O 2-6-6-6 H8 Allegheny with up to 8000hp at It’s disposal, But then I’ve been a fan of trains of all types and this includes HSR, not just old museum pieces that will never run again.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
The SP 4294 cab forward at the State Railroad Museum in Sac is also a Lima product from close to the same date. Very impressive and the only one that survived.
Like to see that in steam on the grade up to Tejon.
yuk yuk
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
The way the crews and passengers get asphyxiated in the tunnels would put a damper on demand.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Synonymouse, SMART on the Golden Gate Bridge would require Golden Gate Transit to sacrifice traffic on the ferry system. Won’t happen…too lucrative.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:27 pm
Interestingly, the last time the UP brought in both the 844 and 3985 from Cheyenne to Sac(when the 844 blew out the flues)there was quite a story about the Sierra crossing. I wish I had a link to the original article. The steamers banked the fires and the long train was being pulled by a new 6000 class diesel which promptly stalled in one of the tunnels. They were forced to open up the steam locomotives. Fortunately the crew had their oxygen at the ready. This is tough to believe but the story was the temperature in the cab reached 180 degrees.
The punch line came from the lead engineer Steve Lee who said now I know why they developed the cab forwards.
synonymouse Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 11:34 am
And when the “people in the Richmond” climb out of their broad gauge hole in the ground they will feast their eyes on a jungle of high-rise tenements all the way to the sea.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
High rise tenements like the ones patrons of the Second Ave Subway will face?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:29 am
Don’t brush off Synon’s concerns, Adirondacker. The Upper East Side has a full murder per year per 100,000 people. It’s a veritable hellhole.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 11:51 am
And all those poor people scraping by on 6 figure salaries. What’s the 1% to do?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Excuse me, but where do you get the idea that subways and viaducts don’t require coordination? If anything, it’s the reverse – the higher the intensity of your transit system, the more you need to ensure that it serves density rather than sprawl. And BART is singularly bad at promoting walkable development near its stations, preferring to build suburban-style park-and-rides instead.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Apples and oranges.
What I meant by my statement is that MUNI et al. have to participate and compete with street level traffic and zoning. A subway does not.
Now your comment about BART is duly noted, but keep in mind that the decision to build park-n-rides is very clever because it gives BART a monopoly on development near it’s station like what the JR does with its stations in places like Kyoto. Any time demand for land is great enough, they can simply plow the cement under and build a lucrative development.
Meanwhile on Geary, you are always at risk that your MUNI plan is undercut by some zoning variance somewhere. On any grade separated track, that’s not possible.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 3:34 am
You’re insane. The private railways in Japan (much more so than the JRs, which have only done so recently) build high-intensity development near their stations, to create symbiosis between demand for transportation and demand for their retail services. Monopoly does not figure into this; some of the biggest shopping centers they own are at the inner Tokyo ends, where they’re right next to the other companies’ buildings. They wouldn’t even dream of wasting valuable station-adjacent space on parking, even though unlike in the US, in Japan parking is private and makes money.
Also, light rail has to compete with street traffic whereas subways do not, but the effect of zoning on both is the same. Zoning is not about threats to the ROW, but about what there is next to the line.
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:19 pm
BRT is Bus Rapid Transit, Amtrak would be quicker and carry more money paying passengers, so get lost and get real.
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 12:53 am
*cough* I am fairly certain that was a joke…
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Robert, LA-SF in 3 hours is high-speed rail. Via Pacheco and Palmdale, it’s about even on speed with the TGV and Shinkansen’s faster lines. (The average speed becomes a bit more impressive if 3 hours is done via Altamont, but a lot less impressive via Tejon.)
I have been saying this two articles ago. Since the recession, big media has taken a big step to the right amplifying the loud, apathetic voices of the Tea Party without investigating whether their arguments are true. Journalism has ultimately hit rock bottom, sacrificed in favor of sensationalism and opinion.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 10:20 pm
What can I say?
http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/what_we_call_the_news
Donk Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:11 am
True. But Tea Party people can also argue that the Occupy movement is getting much more sympathy by the press and much more airtime than they are.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:36 am
The Tea Party is welcome to stop carrying open arms, and petition the police to be brutal to it next time.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:26 pm
OWS people are welcome to not sh.t on the sidewalk as well.
jonah Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
oh, grow up. I’ve walked through OWS camps in several cities and not seen any more shit on the sidewalk than I regularly see on my street in the mission. Turn off Fox News and go outside. Or better yet, refrain from commenting on subjects you clearly know nothing about.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:32 pm
Blah Blah Blah.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
By the way, how many unemployed but paid union members did you trip over on your vists?
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 8:30 am
I don’t know, but they don’t shit on the sidewalk.
(Actually, I have a suspicion the number is zero, judging by the fact that the union protests I’ve seen in New York look profoundly different from tent protests; the Occupy camp in Providence looks like it has a lot of involvement by the homeless and squatters, but not union members.)
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Clearly not as organized as things are out here then. But like you said, thats Providence.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:49 am
So very true. It’s depressing. We need good journalism to have a functioning democracy.
Plurb Reply:
December 19th, 2011 at 11:11 am
Robert: You must have forgotten the USA is a Representative Republic and the last time I saw a California Flag it said Republic not Democratic. Democracy is MOB rule. Same problem with HSR, first lie not a High Speed Rail by definition, not designed for speeds in excess of 115mph and in blended system never higher than 95 mph. It’s in the Analysis Report 2011. Second lie it will never be upgradable to a Mag-Lev system by design, Cal-Trans and DOT. So get off the high horse move it to the 101 corridor the third lie is the Environmental concerns about doing such. The EPA reports never showed the Decibels resulting from either Blended or Distinct runs through the Cal-Train ROWs. Do you consider the Flawed Environmental Reports a better excuse to run it on the Cal-Train ROWS than on the 101 Corridor? I don’t, the Citizens and businesses are the real stakeholders not presumed impact areas and presumed animals, wetlands and species. Arial Viaducts and the construction for their footprints are minimal compared to Balkanizing whole communitees! You now have a fight on your hands that you will not win Agenda 21 be damned!
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Are you serious Emma?
Time magazine just claimed the OWS is in the same league of places like Egypt. It’s a slap in the face to people who could actually be killed for their beliefs. All OWS has done is interrupt the lives of the 99% they claim to be a part of while they suck on their Starbucks Latte yapping on their iPhone bitching about their student loans for useless degrees that provide them with enough qualifications to flip burgers at McDonalds.
jonah Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:58 pm
And what is your degree and qualifications? Now, if OWS only inconvenienced people then why would they consistently be supported in opinion polls? This one from Fox News no less. Again, I ask you to please refrain from presenting your personal opinion as fact, or generally from commenting on subject which you clearly know nothing about.
But answer me this. Why do you righties have such a hard-on for political violence? How does the existence of law and order in this country, to protect protesters from being murdered by the authorities for exercising a clearly defined constitutional right impugn the validity of their message? Please be specific and provide examples.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:34 pm
Must have hit a nerve. LOL.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Sorry, but I don’t recall Tea Party people, as equally nutty as the occupy crowd, blockading Ports or causing mayhem in Oakland. Maybe you can answer for the rest of us why occupy is so hell bent on violence? Perhaps it’s the Anarchists within.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Occupy is pretty much nonviolent, unlike the gun-toting Tea Partiers. Please do remember who caused mayhem in Oakland: the Oakland Police Department and several other local police departments, by using standard South African techniques for attacking civilians. It’s all on Youtube.
However, Occupy people are pretty angry about the 9% unemployment rate, and the fact that 99% of Americans haven’t gained any income since approximately 1980. They’re hardly alone, and unless someone does something about those things, there will just be more people demanding that something change. Might even be you if you lose your source of income thanks to banker shenanigans.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:34 am
You keep drinking the Kool-aid.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 8:26 am
I can’t speak for your local Occupy chapter, but for Providence, Nathanael’s description is perfectly accurate. It’s a small encampment in a park, looks normal for a place with tents, and focuses on issues affecting the poor, such as unemployment and homelessness. (I haven’t heard of any local Occupy Homes, however.) Anyone who’s saying there’s violence there is lying to you. Fortunately, Rhode Islanders are fairly nice people and do not do this sort of thing.
I know that it’s different in some other cities with different demographics. The New York protest is more hipster-like and has radical speakers (e.g. Naomi Klein), though still nonviolent. But Providence is not a city of hipsters. And neither is most of America.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:04 pm
Well, Emma, the collapse of journalism in the US has been clearly documented as long ago as 2000, when newspapers failed to report honestly on the theft of the Presidential election or the “Brooks Brothers riot” (an actual riot, which successfully shut down vote counting, run by Republican agents flown in by the Bush campaign).
You can get news from (a) blogs (DailyKos is the most complete, if not the most reliable, due to its enormous number of writers; Krugman is a must-read), and (b) foreign press (the Financial Times, the Guardian, and al-Jazeera English are my favorites). And sometimes (c) free local weeklies, if you’re in the right city, which you probably aren’t.
Everyone needs to realize this as soon as possible. Get everyone you know to (1) stop watching TV news, (2) stop listening to talk radio, and (3) stop reading mainstream American newspapers, and point them to the sources of real news.
Rick Rong Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:13 pm
My only major disagreement with your post, Nathaniel, is with how far back the collapse of journalism was documented. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote about it in their book, “Manufacturing Consent,” published in 1988. And there probably have been similar studies even earlier, although “Manufacturing Consent” is one of the most eye-opening books on how the media works that I have ever seen.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
For more on the topic of the collapse of journalism in the US, try Media Matters, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, or Columbia Journalism Review.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:42 am
LOL… Daily KOS complete and reliable? Jesus. Talk about the collapse of journalism.
Never mind the fact that collapse of journalism began almost immediately after the politicians met the television camera.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:45 am
Credibility doesn’t extend to someone simply because said journalist shares your world view.
“California voters knew what they were doing when they voted for Prop 1A.”
Robert, others might beg to differ. You will recall that on January 28, 2011, The State Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento, in an unanimous decision, ruled that the title and description of Prop 1A was misleading, and failed to “promote impartiality and eliminate conflicts of interest.” Yes, the Proposition spoke to attainable speeds. However, it did not expound on likely speeds for the LA-SF route. This is another example of why voters, indeed, did not know what they were voting for.
Emma Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Couldn’t you say the same thing about the completely misleading, manipulative Prop 8 campaign?
Mara Reply:
December 14th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I thought this was a HSR blog.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:33 am
I’m pretty sure that the people who voted for Prop H8 knew exactly what they were voting for.
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:28 am
Yes, Religious Bigotry and Hate of those who are different, codified into law.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Criticizing Prop 1A over impartiality and conflicts of interest isn’t evidence people didn’t understand the system’s specifications or that High Speed clearly referred to the velocity of the trains.
And we have to thank the NIMBYs and opponents were damn clear the system was high speed and made a point of emphasizing the speed to scare voters.
http://www.cc-hsr.org/about-us.shtml
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:12 am
Trains go 135 through the green leafy suburbs of New Jersey and Maryland. There aren’t any 20 foot walls.
As for stringing some wires over the bucolic splendor of the Peninsula…..
http://g.co/maps/xq6wr
Spokker Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
The requirements set forth in Prop 1A were unrealistic, but they were not in the “fine print.” Everybody got a voter information guide sent to them in the mail with the full text of the proposed law.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:48 am
The problem is HSR supporters relied hevily on those who don’t bother to read them to get it passed.
Spokker Reply:
December 18th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
The 2 hour and ~40 minute requirement was a focal point of the campaign to get the measure passed. Even if you chucked your voter information guide in the garbage, you knew that this was all about 2 hours and 40 minutes.
And “relying” on voters not reading the guide applies to any ballot measure for better or worse. On a personal note, I read the whole goddamn thing back to front ever since I reached voting age.
Face it people, we just can’t afford $100 billion for a train. Instead, we should upgrade what we have. 100 MPH service between LA and SF can be had for far less money. Total trip time just under four hours. Isn’t that fast enough for now?
Do you really want to put California in debt for $100 billion just so a few people can enjoy a slightly faster train ride?
We need to go back to the ballot with this. We can do better.
thatbruce Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:31 am
Even at an average speed of 100 MPH, you’re far closer to 5 hours running time between SF and LA on the existing tracks that would need to be upgraded in sections to support 125 MPH to balance out the slow harder-to-upgrade sections.
SF King – Caltrain – SJ – ACE – Tracey – Manteca – BNSF – Bakersfield – Tehapachi – Palmdale – Metrolink – LAUS
I agree with the ‘We can do better’ sentiment, but not with going back to the ballot. The issue at heart isn’t the concept of HSR in California, but how the current implementers of the concept, the PB-captured CAHSRA, are going about it.
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:32 am
Who says It will be anything other than a worst case scenario, It may cost far less and the idea and the extreme cost of expanding Freeways/Interstates is a lot bigger, land isn’t cheap anymore and neither is concrete and steel, plus airports can not be expanded at any cost. So get lost, Don’t like HSR? Leave.
Come on Robert — really! Again attacking the messenger and not the substance.
You know very well, the 2 hr 40 minutes was not going to be an achievable time in regular practice.
It was put in to entice the votes to approve — just another part of the swindle that somehow managed to get 52.5% of the voters to approve Prop 1A.
Yes, under optimum conditions it would be possible, but in regular schedule, 3 hr 15 minutes the more likely time frame.
Under the phased plan, with train switching (illegal under Prop 1A) the time is going to be 4 hours and upward to make that trip.
Who knows how you get to the TBT under that plan either.
Dan Richard and Kempton show their ignorance on the time issue. Richard might be excused, since he is being fed tainted information directly from vanArk. Kempton, I don’t excuse. He has been around for the whole timeframe, and should really know that the trip time mandate was and is not attainable with the project as currently designed.
Howard Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:12 am
But CHSR could more easily make the trip in 2 hr 40 minutes if Tejon Pass was selected.
StevieB Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:43 am
The possibility of achieving the time limit in the language was to assure it is high speed rail and not another 90 mph rail line. The need for every trip with intermediate stops to meet the same time limit is baseless.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:49 am
We’re mocking a guy for headlining the HSR’s level one performance requirement.
Next, Apollo expose.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:54 am
Look, the Apollo program was really great as public works for aeronautic engineers. It just didn’t do anything for science or for space exploration. It was a penis size contest with the Soviet Union.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:53 am
You’d be sitting at your brand new 66Mhz Pentium and reading articles about how Intel is planning to release 100 Mhz models next year if it wasn’t for NASA and the Defense Department. There was no incentive for faster or smaller in the open market. On dial up because the Internet was a response to the Cold War. Had to build something that could self-heal after the Russkies bombed every telephone exchange in the country. At the height of the Cold War they could have done that. Why you need the Internet while you are dying of radiation poisoning is a different question.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
They really didn’t need the Apollo program for any of that. The Internet developed out of a network that was supposed to be resilient to a nuclear attack – no Moon landing required. Moore’s law would’ve worked equally well if the money had been spent on useful scientific research, like more unmanned probes or satellites that are bigger than what could be delivered in the 1950s.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:29 pm
Useful scientific research is quite easily done with decks of cards or a teletype if you want remote access. You don’t need the computer to be sitting on your desk. It does need to be with you if your telecom link is a quarter of million miles long and it goes out while the moon is between you and the Earth. If the mainframe weighs two tons and they get that down to a ton and half you still need a computer room for it. Get it down to a ton and you can have two computers. If the ton computer can have 100 people online at a time and the micro mini computer that costs almost as much can have one terminal they buy the one ton machine and give you a password. You can’t bring a ton of computer with you to the Moon or on the tip of an ICBM.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
First, even terrestrial science made heavy use of computers as they developed. But that’s not what I was talking about. There’s a ton of useful research that can be done in space – space telescopes, probing nearby planets as well as the Moon, probing asteroids, zero-g experiments, and of course satellites. Instead, the focus of NASA for a decade was landing people on the Moon, which had no real benefits. The agreement between JFK and the astronomers was that they would support the Moon landing project in exchange for which he wouldn’t lie to the public that it had a scientific purpose.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Get Birch Society members interested in probing asteroids and zero-g experiments.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Am I being excessively idealistic when I think the Birchers are a fringe group and the government shouldn’t decide its spending priorities on what they think?
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:07 pm
They are fringe group. They can drive the discussion though.Their grandchildren just pissed away a trillion dollars because of nutcases hiding out in caves.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
And these scenes in your black comedy don’t make much sense if you audience isn’t aware of them. … you don’t put them in unless you expect them to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=N1KvgtEnABY#t=75s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove
Arthur Dent Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
True, the space race was penis envy, but HSR in the US is about China, Europe and the rest of the world getting laid in adolescence while we’re still a virgin. We’re afraid of becoming the male equivalent of an old maid.
Eric M Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Morris said:
“You know very well, the 2 hr 40 minutes was not going to be an achievable time in regular practice.”
Wrong!! That time is very muck achievable and there are computer simulations to back it up. You have tried to bark about this before but fail to look into the studies for this. SF-LA with 5 stops @2:40
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:52 am
First, SF-LA nonstop at 2:38. Not with 5 stops.
Second, the amount of schedule contingency provided is 1%, well below standard practices.
Third, a rational schedule would have those intermediate stops, and also accept slow zones in areas where squeezing the last minute is too expensive.
On the other hand there could be some gains from using Tejon, or from buying higher-powered rolling stock than the ICE3, which used in the simulation. But they aren’t enough to counter the above three issues.
Eric M Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
No, it is not a nonstop trip. I was off, but there is at least one intermediate stop.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Where do you see that? The sample schedules I’ve seen have SF-LA in 2:38 only with no intermediate stops. A stop at SJ raises this to 2:41. I can hunt these down if you’re interested.
Eric M Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 4:02 pm
No reason to hunt them down, no big deal. I ran across a timetable which stated 2:30ish without stops and 2:38 with.
Clem Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
Let’s see it! Where’s the link?
Clem Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
I’ve run the numbers for the peninsula, and the best pedal-to-the-metal time you’ll do with a state-of-the-art Alstom AGV limited to 125 mph is 34 minutes Transbay to Diridon, not 30 minutes. Add realistic schedule padding and you’ll be closer to 38 minutes non-stop.
I don’t have distance, curvature and profile data for the rest of the state, but if the peninsula is any indication, 2:38 is extremely optimistic.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
they aren’t going to be building tight curves in the Central Valley.
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 2:17 am
True, but there are also the Sylmar-LA and Pacheco segments…
ericmarseille Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:39 pm
Of course I’m not concerned first hand since I’m a foreigner, but as a HSR user for 25+ years now I feel compelled to throw my two cents in :
- you may make the trip from downtown LA to downtonw SF in 3 hours 15 mn ; 3h30 would be unnerving, 4h would be disastrous.
I know what I tell you, I’ve been observing the tension and general mood changes in TGVs for years and years : under 1h50 time goes by so quickly that it’s even a bit frustrating, just as if everything ended while you were still getting used to it ; between 1h50 and 2h20, it’s perfect ; between 2h20 and 3h15, it’s ok, no problem ; but over 3h15, impatience and palpable tension grow bigger and bigger.
An example : I’ve been doing Marseille-Paris and back relatively often these days ; in fact I should be doing Marseille-Massy TGV (Massy is a Paris southern suburb transportation hub with connexions to the RER and is the only suburban town with a connexion to the TGV) ; but for some reason Marseille-Massy is 3h55 whereas Marseille-Paris is 3h15 ; well I still prefer to end in Paris’ Lyon station and take the RER back to Massy, rather than breathe the impatience and tension in the last half hour of my TGV trip.
This is so evident for everybody here in France that Guillaume Pepy, head of SNCF, has made it the marketing rule of thumb of HSR operations, especially in the perspective of airway competition : less than 2h, TGV rules ; between 2h and 3h, TGV takes the lion’s share ; between 3h and 4h, there’s still something to be done, but the fall in market share is all the more brutal the closer you are to 4h ; over 4h, to be avoided as much as possible.
So, in my opinion, between 2h40 and 3h15 the CAHSR Authority should have enough leeway to optimize the infrastructure costs.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Come on Morris! You’re lying and making stuff up again. Cut it out.
There was also a relatively long story on KPCC about how some people want to cut and others want to save HSR. Usual people were quoted, including Denham and Boxer. Denham is an idiot.
http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/12/14/30325/californias-high-speed-rail-topic-thursday-house-h/
I’m surprised at all the people advocating for and apologizing for longer run times…calling 2hr 40min unrealistic or unreasonable. I got news for every one of you: 2hr 40min is a sweet spot for success of the route. If it was 3 hours or more, as a consumer, flying to LA’s going to sound more and more preferable.
What good is a more affordable-to-build train route if nobody’s using it because the trip takes too long?
We’ve already got slow rail. Very few people want to ride on slow rail. It’s the high speed aspect which makes it competitive with air travel.
Pecos Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:21 am
I’ll take LA in 3-4 hours via train over dealing with airports any day of the week. Current train trip from SJ to LA is 10+ hours on the Coast Starlight not counting possible delays. This isn’t just about LA-SF either, there’s everything in between.
J. Wong Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:34 am
+1
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:03 am
Yeah, but the “business traveler” won’t. The book on “effective yield management” that doesn’t rely on 10% of your passengers paying 80% of the cost hasn’t been written yet (just ask Southwest). The hoi polloi are to give the appearance that mass transit is for the masses when it’s really more like ” en masse” transit
J. Wong Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:43 am
The reality is that business travelers will pay for seats on the few expresses, but I’ll probably be taking a limited because of cost and because 4 hours is good enough for leisure travel.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:55 am
I don’t get your distinction. The operator has to break even, not the individuals routes. The system has to be able to realize revenue from the highest paying passenger type regardless of how the routes are broken up.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Depends on what they want to do. There could be scenarios where they want to shove everybody that’s going SF-LA on one train so they have open seats for Gilroy to Bakersfield. They make the super-express 5 dollars cheaper and the stops at the intermediate stations a buck more. You squeeze seven roundtripps out of a train set instead of six.
The poster’s schedule is misleading. The 2:38 travel time from SF to LA is for nonstop trains. A train that makes all the listed stops has no chance of doing SF-LA in 2:38; the HSRA’s own documents and sample schedules put it closer to 3:25.
Now, Vartabedian is less misinformed than you think. SF-LA in 2:40 really is high by worldwide standards, though not so high as to be implausible. The average speed implied is 267 km/h; the average speed with Altamont, which is a bit longer but faster because it spends more time in the CV, is even higher. Although higher average speeds exist between two outlying stations on a high-speed line, average speeds between two major-city stations are usually lower. Beijing-Shanghai trains average 275 km/h (at the maximum, only twice per day, but we’re talking about marketing speed, not real speed), but the AVE’s Madrid-Barcelona trains average 250 km/h, and the Shinkansen and TGV top at about 230 km/h.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 5:14 am
220 mph is not standard for HSR rail, but Californians have a tendency to be unrealistic and demand things that are really not possible. This is especially true with the initiative process. Vartabedian is amazing clueless for being a veteran reporter though on good sources. You have to wonder if Anschutz/UP is leaning on the Times, too.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:09 am
I think Vartabedian’s a bit lazy and has contempt for readership (Assume they are poorly informed to know better) explain the article.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:56 am
If “Anschutz/UP” is leaning against Palmdale real estate developers/Tejon Ranch that is all to the good.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:48 am
No, no it’s not.
Anschutz owns UP, but he also own the Staples Center, the Home Depot Center, and Regal Cinemas and if he gets his way, a giant football stadium in downtown Los Angeles. The Times has been in bed with the Staples Center for a decade and with their readership keen on sports coverage of the Lakers… losing access to certain areas of Staples would devastate them.
Secondly, the real money ain’t going to be made from land speculation as you think but from supplying water to homes in Southern California that rely on Colorado River water in excess of the State’s legal limit. Arnold’s chum, Stew Resnik, knows this and has been building up the Kern Valley Water Bank for years in anticipation of this. They want Tejon to stay off the map so that they can continue to sell water down the aqueduct to L.A.
The enemy of your enemy is not your friend. The real reason to build houses out in Palmdale (aside from its FAA presence and airport potential) is that it does not add to the strain on existing transportation corridors through the Cajon and Cabazon areas. If I were in charge, I’d smash SoCal into more counties and break up the influence of the supervisors approving more and more sprawl:
http://g.co/maps/z8ue5
But hey, what do I know?
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Sounds like you know a lot.
But let’s see what PB can come up with in terms of Tejon tunnels. I still think they ought to look at the possibility of taking some freight off of Tehachapi. For instance how much for a 2% base tunnel and how long to pay it off. Why not private financing as there is intrinsic value.
Costs of tunneling will be similar at Tejon and Tehachapi but the location of Tejon close in on the main route to LA makes those inherently more valuable. location, location, location
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:20 pm
As a non-engineer and less evolved member of the Homo genus… I’m guessing that your problem with Tejon is going to be that the tunnel through the San Andreas fault will not work and it will clear at grade so that in the event of creep or a major accident it will be much easier to get to.
However, at that type of incline on the north side, you probably will need stilts to keep the grade reasonable.
The issue with Tehachapi is wholly different. In that case UP knows exactly what they are doing. By making it overloaded, there’s no chance that BNSF can negotiate (or Amtrak) for trackage rights through it. That gives UP the strangehold on the Port of Oakland in transporting valuable agricultural exports and minerals from the Mountain West.
It also weakens BNSF in the South along its import route from the Port of Los Angeles. Part of the reason that UP fears HSR so much is that they know that they could lease trackage rights to high-speed freight entities like FedEx who would eat away at their business.
Ergo, not just the PB’s of the work wants some impractical, but also the railroads and assorted tycoons as well. Just as Joe Schumpeter.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
FedEx’s sorting center for overnight deliveries is in Memphis. How trains get over the mountains in Caloifornia doesn’t matter much. UPS’s is in Louisville Kentucky, which has the same set of obstacles to replacing planes. The stuff that gets diverted to trucks between San Francisco and Bakersfield… the transshipping would eat up any time savings. If it’s a two day delivery conventional speed rail is fast enough.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
HSR isn’t going to be used for freight per se, it’s that the most expensive type of transport (organ transplants, fresh fish, flowers, etc…) could conceivably steal freight business from existing entities. My guess is that before that happens, FedEx and the others will try to offset this. That’s exactly what a large scale shipper like UP doesn’t want to see….
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Organs travel in their own seat. The one next to the technician that monitors them. They don’t put kidneys in some bubble wrap and FedEx them.
Conventional rail is good enough for fresh {insert something here}. Very very clever exporters of fresh flowers ( or baby lettuce or raspberries or … ) in Central and South America ship the stuff from South America to San Francisco directly instead of transshipping in Los Angeles. They do the same thing when they want to ship it to Chicago or New York or Atlanta or…
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Actually, most organs are placed in a cooler on dry ice and handed to the flight crew by a hospital courier. The flight is then tagged as a lifeguard flight and given system priority. Another courier then meets the flight on the other end. Super critical organs get put on a non-stop private jet with a nurse. Eyeballs do in fact get wrapped and put on dry ice and are sent via both Fedex and UPS if the timing is sufficient. Same chain of custody as mentioned for passenger flights.
God only knows how many times I flew with someone’s donated organ on the floor in a cooler between the two cockpit seats. Weird to say the least.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
UPS has a regional hub facility in Ontario and Fedex has one in Oakland.
Just the facts man.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Here are your sources:
http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/about/facts/worldwide.html
http://news.van.fedex.com/files/FedEx%20Express%20Super%20Hub%20in%20Oakland.pdf
adirondacker12800 Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
UPS has a regional hub facility in Ontario and Fedex has one in Oakland.
Yes, and the sorters in Louisville put the packages for Los Angeles on the plane going to Ontario and and the packages for San Francisco on the plane to Oakland. When they aren’t going to be putting packsage for San Francisco on the plane to LA.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
You said the sorting for overnights was in Memphis. My point was that it’s also here in California.
Andre Peretti Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:38 am
Recent trains such as the AGV are designed for 360km/h commercial speeds. The speed limitations of Shinkansen and TGV are an economical, not technical choice.
When you increase speed, market share increases, too, until you reach a point where it peaks. Increasing the speed beyond this point is costly overkill. This precise point of the curve is what SNCF calls “optimal speed”. SNCF’s current preoccupation is not speed, but volume. That’s why it’s more interested in the Duplex than in the AGV.
The 220mph speed chosen by CHSRA is technically realistic, even though it may not be the most profitable option. I suppose only a few trains a day will run at that speed in order to respect the promise made to voters. For the rest of the trains, an optimal speed will probably be calculated by the company’s bean counters.
VBobier Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 9:00 am
Still I’d love to take a ride on HSR @ 220mph or faster.
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:54 am
“… the AVE’s Madrid-Barcelona trains average 250 km/h, and the Shinkansen and TGV top at about 230 km/h.”
Sorry to nitpick, but if I’m not mistaken, none of these has a maximum operating speed of more than 320 km/h, so I wouldn’t use them as comparison. That said the LA-SF line has quite numerous and long slow segments, so the 267 km/h average speed figure might be a little optimistic.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:29 am
All the lines I’m thinking of have a maximum speed of 300 km/h (Sanyo Shinkansen, the LGVs from Paris to Marseille, the Jinghu PDL, Madrid-Barcelona), so CAHSR will have a major speed advantage. That said, it also has worse slow zones because of the mountain passes and the long slog at medium speed on the Caltrain line.
Jonathan Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Production AVE Velaro trainsets hit 400 km/hr in stock revenue-service configuration during testing.
This is fairly well-known and can be found in Siemens literature. I believe it was (at the time) a record for stock revenue-service trainsets. (It may still be, until the AGV enters revenue service.)
Personally I have never understood why CHSRA doesn’t plan to signal the Central Valley segment for 350 to 400 km/hr operation, so that they have occasional “slop” for making up time.
Assuming that stock train-sets could be certified for over 350km/hr, when and if CSHRA goes to tender. ;)
ComradeFrana Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:09 am
“Production AVE Velaro trainsets hit 400 km/hr in stock revenue-service configuration during testing.”
Yes, I know, but the point I was making was that the maximum commercial operating speed on the Madrid-Barcelona line is only 310 km/h, below the expected maximum operating speed of CAHSR.
“It may still be, until the AGV enters revenue service.”
Funnily enough, yes and no. That record is currently held by CRH380BL a Chinese Velaro derivative, which achieved 487 km/h.
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:58 am
It doesn’t make sense to run trains over 300 km/h ever really in revenue service. Firstly, low acceleration at those speeds means that you save very little time by going faster. Secondly, electricity and maintenance costs go up steeply so your profit margin drops off very fast. Just because it’s technically feasible doesn’t mean it’s at all desirable.
Joey Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 3:59 am
I should really say “much over” … the case can be made for about 320 km/h on some corridors.
swing hanger Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 4:31 am
As you say. Average start to destination speeds (which will be lower than 300km/h) are more important than top speeds. Few trains run for any long distance at 300km/h plus.
jim Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:20 am
In some legislative hearing it was conceded that the 2:38 criterion would be met if one test train, unloaded, running non-stop at the dead of night with nothing else on the tracks once hit that time.
This is not a requirement. If it isn’t met (even by the unloaded test train) nothing happens. There’s no penalty. No-one gets fired. What it is is an aspirational goal. The Authority is required to attempt in good faith to meet it.
And that’s why Lowenthal doesn’t like it. Because to regard a system that uses a substantial length of legacy track and for that reason can’t get close to 2:38 as the finished system is not making a good faith attempt to meet the goal. The Authority can run trains along the existing Caltrain tracks as an interim measure, but must continue to plan for (and seek funding for) a separate set of tracks along which it can run trains faster, closer to 2:38. Lowenthal wants a blended system as a final system: no more construction on the Peninsula once it’s operational. The 2:38 criterion won’t let that happen.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:58 am
Jim;
I agree with your inight into the intention of the 2:38 requirement with one clarification.
2:38 it IS a performance requirement for the HSR system but not written as an OPERATIONAL requirement. I would not consider this conceding any intention. It’s the correct way to verify the system given the way the time requirement was written – it was intentionally not written as an operational requirement. Making it an operational requirement would add cost without clear justification.
The preliminary design and reviews have to assure the system design can support such a train. It guides the routes and design. it protect HSR from bait and switch which is exactly why the Local Pols who want to improve local rail hate the Prop and CAHSRA.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:55 am
It is a legitimate question as to what the ideal speeds and travel times should be.
But that wasn’t what Vartabedian wrote about. He made it sound like the 2 hours 40 minutes thing was some secret thing that nobody noticed. It was anything but. Instead of writing an informed discussion on the technical questions of achieving high speeds and short travel times, he went into an “omg isn’t this project crazy?” place that is just not supported by any fact or common sense.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:46 am
Who’s going to tell Vartabedian the CA HSR site has an interactive map?
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx
VBobier Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Do Ya think Vegetables have ears to listen with?
Could it be that the line be capable theoretically of a 2:38 schedule nonstop, but in reality lower for the almost all services. It seems rather rash to demand such a time when actual passenger demand is not determined yet- the service should fit real needs, rather than some politically determined target. I recall that JR East’s advice to China (which was ignored) was to start high speed rail service at an initial lower speed, and then gradually increase the average speeds as experience was gained and market demands evolved.
If anyone is interested, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee hearing about CA’s high speed rail is going on now. It’s televised via this link.
http://transportation.house.gov/singlepages.aspx/1202
Eric M Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Elizabeth Alexis is speaking now and spewing her fear mongering and lies!!
StevieB Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:56 am
Elisabeth got an additional minute at the end to say the CA HSR plan is not ready because there are no airline flights from Bakersfield to San Jose.
Eric M Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 11:30 am
And she said she thinks the line is 100 miles too long
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Liz is no more Qualified on this than I am, Her statement that the line is 100 miles too long is not a qualified one and so is worthless.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:52 pm
Liz’s opinion is that the system should bypass the CV population centers and service SF to LA in the shortest distance. It’s really someone how lives in a very wealthy community outraged that lower income users would derive any benefit at public expense.
Bakersfield is so poor and uninteresting by evidence that the town can’t even support commercial air-travel to/from SFO. Really, that’s the social-economic argument against HSR. A train to nowhere, populated by millions of no-bodies.
Joey Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
I don’t recall ever hearing her speak for the I-5 route, though she has criticize trying to get through cities at 220 mph. Those aren’t the only options, you know.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I don’t recall how you can cut 100 miles off SF to LA any other way but by bypassing CV cities. You don’t even know what the fuck she’s saying.
I know there’s the CARRD attack on ridership because Bakersfield / Fresno residents are too poor to use HSR and there are no air flights to SFO. It’s on the CARRD website.
But the magic of being a NIMBY never having to explain your attacks.There are so many opitons to explain away the fantastical.
HSR is 100 miles too long.
Joey Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:31 pm
There’s no way you can cut 100 miles off any way, even with I-5 and the Grapevine.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Well, you could cut off several hundred miles if you just ran it from LA to San Diego then connect it to Desert Express where it would actually make some money.
synonymouse Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
It is in the best interest of the San Joaquin Valley that the hsr concept works. I-5 may very well be the best way to make hsr a reality in the first stage. The express freeway alignment needs to be costed out to make a fair comparison and an informed decision. Let’s see what Caltrans and PB can engineer.
Joey Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Sobering Reality: I and probably most of the other technical critics on this blog will disagree with your assertion that LA-SF is “not worth it.” Most of us support HSR in concept but think the Authority has made a lot of bad decisions and that the project as currently designed has questionable value. Whether or not it would make more sense to start with shorter, more densely populated corridors like LA-SD is another matter.
Clem Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:48 pm
At the level that they’re engineering, it’s not hard (just tedious) to figure out roughly how much an I-5 alignment would cost. The unit costs are known in great detail. The GIS data (profile and curvature) can be determined. I-5 can even be inspected via Streetview for detailed grade separation planning. For starters I would love to see a chart of the median width of I-5 versus distance, and the number of grade separations; that alone would tell you a lot.
If HSR isn’t 100 miles too long, it might still be 100 km too long.
joe Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
HSR is 100 miles too long. CARRD founder said so under oath. It’s possible to correct the record or maybe if a Rep asked her to clarify her remarks and explain where the savings (distance). That’s in the record, 100 Miles.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:38 am
@Joey: Its not worth it at this pricepoint when less could be spent on another route that will actually turn a profit that could pay for connecting the Bay Area and Sacramento. Instead a route is being constructed that will meet riderhsip projections, will not turn a profit and therefore ensure that the segment that would turn a proifit (or any other HSR project in the US) is never constructed.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:39 am
@Joey: It should say WILL NOT MEET RIDERSHIP PROJECTIONS.
StevieB Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
Elisabeth Alexis presentation was rambling and unfocused, jumping from topic to topic. She spoke about the small CA HSR staff and a greater need for water infrastructure and education instead. No one on the congressional hearing committee followed up on any of her issues instead focusing on why the central valley was selected and profitability and the prospects for private investment.
VBobier Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Then Liz would possibly be a Bigot…
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Oh, it’s really common (though immoral and wrong) for rich people to suggest that poor people shouldn’t have nice things.
When morons like those on the Bakersfield City Council come out against having nice things, I can even sympathize with rich people who don’t want Bakersfield to have nice things.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:43 am
Too me you sound like you think you are entitled to things simply because you exist and you want me to pay for those things because you can’t.
Could you be any more immoral, wrong and self absorbed?
Look, I grew up poor as shit. It taught me to strive for a better life. You sound like someone who grew up well off, wasted your education away, and are now pissed off at the outcome.
Alon Levy Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 8:07 am
And you think that other people should starve to death if preventing that requires taxing you. Go move to Somalia or something. Maybe they’re trying to build an airport and are looking for someone to analyze their traffic projections.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
A bit extreme Alon.
Tom McNamara Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Wow…All Star panel. Wonder who is having lunch with Harry Reid today….
Eric M Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:35 am
The representative from the FRA (Szabo) stated there has been NO communication from the LAO. He said the LAO never contacted them! He is frustrating Denham because all Denham wants is anti-CAHSR comments and Szabo is not providing it.
David Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 10:13 am
I’m listening, but the MF Global hearings with Corzine are sure to get more attention.
StevieB Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Perhaps that is where Transportation Committee Chairman Mica went when he left the hearing early on.
Nathanael Reply:
December 16th, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Nothing which Congress does means anything until after the next election. Nothing. This is already a lame-duck Congress.
The House Republicans are going to be thrown out extremely dramatically next election, mostly because they are less popular than a Communist Revolution (really, that’s what the polls say). But also with an assist from redistricting. Despite moderately successful gerrymanders in parts of the Midwest — where they are detested due to their antidemocratic behavior, which should hurt them — they outwitted themselves in Texas and North Carolina and are going to lose seats in both, as well as in California and New York. Florida alone will not save them.
Obama will win re-election unless the Supreme Court steals the election again, because every single Republican candidate is detested by the general public.
Democrats will probably lose the Senate for their feckless behavior, but Republican incumbents in the Senate will probably be thrown out too.
In the meantime, the states are where the action is.
Sobering Reality Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 7:46 am
November 7th is going to be an ugly morning for you.
VBobier Reply:
December 17th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Democrats need to win the House, Senate and Hold the White House and I do mean win the Senate, as merely holding the Senate is not good enough.
Two videos from the Mica Hearing today Dec 15, 2011.
Nunes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zivH2bmbYVI&feature=channel_video_title
6 minutes.
Elizabeth Alexis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgcRMIcZgKk
5 minutes.
StevieB Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Rep. Nunes focus was on improving existing rail instead of building a separate high speed rail network. His solution to improve traffic is to use freight rail to remove trucks from the highways. He did not give numbers as to how much passenger traffic would be helped.
One thing is certain, if anyone ever hopes to have HSR in California, Loretta Sanchez should never speak again about it in public. She sounded like a fringe nutjob.
You have got to be s..ting me!
StevieB Reply:
December 15th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Congressman Sanchez made good points about the need for jobs and alternative transportation choices. Her voice pitch and volume did increase when she spoke of the tanker truck blaze that closed the 60 freeway today. Her speech was very passionate.
Yeah, but there is a very fine line between being passionate and sounding like a head case. She crossed it.
Oh… FYI, follow the money. Who funds the LA Times?
FOX News is the propaganda arm of a particular faction (the Grover Norquist faction, mostly, but sometimes Roger Ailes backs a different faction) of the Republican Party. Everything owned by Rupert Murdoch is his own personal propaganda operation, and of course he’s a right-wing criminal. Who owns the LA Times?
Sir Robert and his knights have donned their armor and are clanking around the jousting ground looking for a match, but I think Vartabedian is not it. All he is doing is calling our attention to a basic point, i.e., the faster the trip, the more expensive it is to build the railroad. I agree that 2:42 was not “hidden” in the text of the proposition; anyone who read the text could see it was there. But why was it there?
In this the journalists have done some digging. The idea for putting that command into the law came from … Mehdi Morshed. He wanted to set the bar high so later compromises could not slow it down. If the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal found out about this, they would have conniption fits, because it perfectly illustrates why they say the command-and-control system is inferior to the free market. Do we want a cure for cancer by 2020? “Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States that there shall be a cure for cancer by 2020.” The job is done.
It would be interesting, and sensible, to make up a table with two columns, the first being travel time and the second being construction cost. Start with the 10-hour Coast Starlight time between Oakland and LA; how much to build a modern railroad no faster than that? OK, how much to build a railroad that would do the trip in 9 hours? 8 hours? and all the way down to 2 1/2. You will certainly see the costs go up, and I would not be surprised to see them start to go up at “hockey stick” speed once you dropped below about 5 hours.
Then look for the sweet spot where travel time is good but construction cost not unbearably high. It appears that CHSRA never thought of doing anything like this. This railroad has been designed on the back of a cocktail napkin.