Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My only objection is they are building it in the Central Valley, where almost nobody lives. Sure it will bring jobs and development there, but the main riders will be railfans who don't want or can't afford to fly to Europe or Asia to ride a High Speed train.
It may not be what you meant, but how else do you connect LA and NorCal by rail if not the Central Valley?
To clarify things somewhat, I'm posting a link to a very long-running thread at railroad.net. That site has a well-established and well-monitored group of "regulars", many of whom are familar with the technological constraints imposed on the plan, the workings of statecraft involved in its development, or both. These people are present or former operating railroaders or experienced in related fields, not the "rivet counters" and "foamers" who make the pragmatists cringe.
Discussion regarding the routing starts on page 15 (of 17 - so far) The route agreed upon does not paralell I-5 along the sparsely-settled western rim of the Valley; It paralells US 99 via Bakersfield, Fresno, Merced and Stockton -- that's a far greater population density than the Coast Route, which would also encounter some serious grades noth of Paso Robles (the current end point for Amtrak service -- Coast Starlight excepted).
Nor does the plan involve immediate constuction of the "heaviest" and most inflexible modes; the first segment involves upgrading of the former San Joaquin service developed by the former Santa Fe system and built around a Bakersfield hub and a network of feeder buses. That service was terminated at the inception of Amtrak in 1971, but proved popular enough that it was reinstated by 1975, and has since been increased from on daily train in exch direction to three, without any improvements in speeds as yet.
As previously pointed out, the nature of rail operation makes a plan based on simple entrepreneurship unworkable here; the premise is that continued fuel pressures will continue to lead to smaller, "boxier", less-crashworthy personal autos, and that that factor, combined with heavier truck weights (not all freight can be put back on the rails) will lead a greater portion of the public, not so much at the end points, but at the smaller communities in between, to opt for rail travel over journeys of intermediate distances.
The time horizons here are very long -- the projection of "full" HSR service L. A. to S. F. by 2028 is a joke -- the Not in My Back Yard crowd will see to that. But it follows the logical concept of building upon what's been proven to work, and developing things incrementally. And as already outlined, the real hard decisions involve how to break the "Tehachapi bottleneck" and bring the service into the L. A. Basin.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 07-17-2012 at 10:47 AM..
In responding to my question "How else besides the Central Valley would one connect, by rail, LA and Nor Cal?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
I-5?
Still in the Central Valley. Still the same problems as the 99 route (going through a lot of no-where) with the added problem of not connecting any cities at all (the current route at least connects Central Valley cities to the larger route).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Upgrade the Coast Starlight track?
Owned by UPRR (horrible to negotiate with, I hear) and used by Amtrak under contract. Would require new ROW acquisitions and be a generally less useful, slower route, if not more scenic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
Start it in an area with real population density so that it can generate revenue years sooner, which we could use to complete the link?
The move to start in the Central Valley is strategic: start where there will be the fewest NIMBYs and, therefore, is the cheapest and easiest per mile to build. Starting in LA would be a nightmare of litigation.
Their internal projections, depending on which report you read, indicate that almost all of the traffic will originate in the major population centers. If that is the case, then using I5 makes economic sense. Existing right of way.
The Coast Starlight is a joke currently, as it takes all day to travel from lax to sjc. But the right of way is there.
The reason they started in the middle is because after they have pumped $100 billion down the sinkhole nobody's going to cancel the project. This thing will cost $500 billion before its done.
Their internal projections, depending on which report you read, indicate that almost all of the traffic will originate in the major population centers. If that is the case, then using I5 makes economic sense. Existing right of way.
That's hard to argue. The I-5 route is more straight. As for it being an existing ROW, I'd have to see documentation on that before I can comment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
The Coast Starlight is a joke currently, as it takes all day to travel from lax to sjc. But the right of way is there.
The ROW is owned by UPRR, as I said, and they are not keen to give it up, as I also said. So, no, a readily available ROW is not "there." Even if it was, it's not a practical alternative to use due to where it goes and the route it follows.
As an aside, would anyone mind following that rather scenic route? I doubt it. Certainly, it would be more enjoyable than 2 hours of the Central Valley. But, scenery is largely irrelevant to this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapperJohn
The reason they started in the middle is because after they have pumped $100 billion down the sinkhole nobody's going to cancel the project. This thing will cost $500 billion before its done.
I can see where that feeling would come from. Certainly, I feel the same about the BART extension to the Oakland Airport. But, I still stand behind my position that it is the most practical starting location in terms of cost and expedience.
Their internal projections, depending on which report you read, indicate that almost all of the traffic will originate in the major population centers. If that is the case, then using I5 makes economic sense. Existing right of way.
Based on a comparison with Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, few peple ride such a service end-to-end; the development of short-distance and feeder traffic has always been a major focus of "corridor" operations.
Quote:
The Coast Starlight is a joke currently, as it takes all day to travel from lax to sjc. But the right of way is there.
Agreed, completely! Amtrak's dozen-or-so long-distance "cruise ships" have always been the pet porkers of politiciains who want service in their district -- even if it passes in the night and is none too relevant. Blame has to also be placed on the Amtrak bureaucrats who, back in the 70's, based the plan on a service the railroads viewed as a "loss leader" and public-relations gesture.
The right-of way, however, serves only Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Salinas; pretty small potatoes when compared to the Valley route.
Instead of High Speed Rail - - -
A superior land based transportation system could incorporate Inductrack [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductrack] utilizing Halbach arrays [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halbach_array] within an evacuated tube “Vactrain” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube_train] capable of speeds in excess of 1000 MPH.
Expensive? Yes!
Advantages:
The lack of air resistance could permit vactrains to use little power and to move at extremely high speeds, up to 4000–5000 mph (6400–8000 km/h, 2 km/s), or 5–6 times the speed of sound at sea level and standard conditions. Travel through evacuated tubes allows supersonic speed without the penalty of sonic boom found with supersonic aircraft. The trains could operate faster than Mach 1 (at sea level) without noise.
To travel 300 miles (from LA to SF), would take 5 minutes @ 4000 MPH.
(Add extra time for comfortable acceleration / deceleration - about a minute for 3G acceleration and the same for 3G deceleration)
Last edited by jetgraphics; 07-19-2012 at 11:40 AM..
If times were good and coffers were fat, and it picked up at L.A. Union Station and dropped off at the Oakland BART station or in San Francisco itself, I would be all for it. Abso-freaking-lutely.
However, 1. times are in the crapper and 2. the damned thing would run between Bakersfield and Sacremento from what I hear. Hell to the no!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
