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.
The project system in place isn't working obviously, either. They should fix the broken project system before spending the trillions in tax dollars utilizing this broken project system. There are specific elements throughout the system. These are the root causes for the system failures.
The project system in place isn't working obviously, either. They should fix the broken project system before spending the trillions in tax dollars utilizing this broken project system. There are specific elements throughout the system. These are the root causes for the system failures.
Who should fix it? And how? These things that you guys are saying need to be fixed are extremely complicated beasts that are heavily ingrained in the way things are run in this state (and country).
I'm not saying things shouldn't be changed, or couldn't be improved (because that is obvious)...but I don't really get what you think should be done exactly (and, realistically, how that would even be done?).
The construction system in place isn't working obviously.
1) WHAT do you mean by "construction system"? I don't understand how you can keep using this term but not be able to explain what you mean by it.
2) Isn't working for what? Every large infrastructure project? The Bay Bridge is one of many projects so not sure how that automatically reflects on HSR.
Who should fix it? And how? These things that you guys are saying need to be fixed are extremely complicated beasts that are heavily ingrained in the way things are run in this state (and country).
Ask FC76-81. He would know. It's his language.
FC76-81 hasn't been making sense for awhile on these post. Mostly from poor grammar, probably. Asking FC76-81 to define construction- it's debatable he/she even knows what he is talking about. Either FC78-81 does possess some knowledge in this arena but severely lacks in communication skills or he is just out there babbling. Regardless, to the rest of the posters on this forum, it comes out as babble.
I was just parroting his nonsense.
My personal thoughts, CA HSR will eventually get built, but it's not likely we'll see others in this country. People are too focused on their personal cars, no matter how destructive that model is to our environment.
I would love to hear what people realistically think should be done if the HSR isn't built. Because I don't look forward to a future 30-50 years from now where we do nothing.
Improve and expand Metro Link. Merge Cal Train, BART, ACE, etc and expand that network. With expansion, these two networks would probably have only about a 150 mile gap between them. To connect the two networks together, upgrade and expand the existing Amtrack system (e.g. electrification) to be on par with the BOSWASH type of system (e.g. does not need to be a full on bullet train). For example, improve the existing Coast Starlight, reenstate passenger service down the San Joaquin Valley but an expanded version that goes all the way to LA. Use the Altamont easement to run a state of the art line between both Oakland and San Jose, merging with the San Joaquin Valley Tracks (this would also be a Bay Area - LA line).
You mentioned an HSR version of this last element and claimed it was less feasible than HSR's current planned alignment. You may not be aware, there are currently no rail lines over Pacheco Pass (or other Coast Range crossings south of the Bay Area for that matter). New tracks would need to be laid down there and it is steep. Either it would require expensive tunneling or a Tehachapi Loop type of solution. Talk about a massive engineering undertaking. It would be unreal.
Improve and expand Metro Link. Merge Cal Train, BART, ACE, etc and expand that network. With expansion, these two networks would probably have only about a 150 mile gap between them. To connect the two networks together, upgrade and expand the existing Amtrack system (e.g. electrification) to be on par with the BOSWASH type of system (e.g. does not need to be a full on bullet train). For example, improve the existing Coast Starlight, reenstate passenger service down the San Joaquin Valley but an expanded version that goes all the way to LA. Use the Altamont easement to run a state of the art line between both Oakland and San Jose, merging with the San Joaquin Valley Tracks (this would also be a Bay Area - LA line).
You mentioned an HSR version of this last element and claimed it was less feasible than HSR's current planned alignment. You may not be aware, there are currently no rail lines over Pacheco Pass (or other Coast Range crossings south of the Bay Area for that matter). New tracks would need to be laid down there and it is steep. Either it would require expensive tunneling or a Tehachapi Loop type of solution. Talk about a massive engineering undertaking. It would be unreal.
I'd be in support of this. And I'm aware there are no tracks going over the Pacheco.
I don't necessarily support a Pacheco route, and actually would be in favor of something going over the Altamont (perhaps using the ACE corridor) because it would provide access to Modesto/Manteca/Tracy (these people desperately need a sustainable means of transport to the Bay Area).
My main point regarding the current plan over the Pacheco is that it is certainly a path of least resistance to SF. I imagine a Bay tube would be more expensive and challenging than the Pacheco tracks (which I'm sure will have their own sets of challenges). There's also the issue of where to bring the HSR rail line into the Bay Area - if you utilize the Altamont and use ACE tracks, are you going to suggest bringing the trains down to SJ and then up to SF? Or would you want to align it with Oakland (and then SF)? If the latter, you would need to build tracks through the East Bay. Sure, you can follow BARTs right-of-way, but you don't get to take advantage of their tracks at all. At least with the Caltrain proposal, they share the same tech infrastructure. For these reasons, I understand why the HSR committee chose their route (even if it isn't the best for ridership or efficiency).
A big problem I have with your proposed plan is that it would (probably?) get us to high-speed intercity travel in a slower amount of time than the HSR project in progress. I have to imagine that it would take longer to have true high-speed travel on a "Bos-Wash" style corridor going about it this way because the incentives would be more on improving regional travel and building up slowly to high-speed rail vs. focusing on making a state-of-the-art system all at once. And that's pretty important because so much of HSR's success relies on its ability to compete with air travel (who would use a conventional train when they can just drive or fly?).
I'm not sure if a piecemeal system would be very successful. It might be in the very, very long term - but let's be realistic. This would take a lot longer to get us to true high-speed rail.
A couple of other issues:
I suspect it wouldn't have federal funding, which is something the HSR project has.
I'm not sure if the currently-built tracks (coast starlight route) would be the best to utilize since it wouldn't take advantage of the central valley cities. I emphasize that point because I think much of CA HSR's success might lie in it becoming a quasi-commuter line for people in far-flung exurbs/cities - I could see that becoming a big revenue source for the line.
I do notice you mention the San Joaquin valley service, so maybe that would still end up being the same type of service, but I'm not clear how successful it would be if it weren't full HSR.
That all being said, I'd support your proposal. I'm in favor of anything that moves us towards more sustainable modes of transport given the enormous challenges we'll be facing in 30-50 years re: energy and population levels.
And we definitely need to improve regional travel badly (one nice side effect of the HSR project is that it will improve Caltrain and Metrolink lines), so your solution would definitely help there.
The Altamont route had a few problems. First is you'd have a split route on the Peninsula, with some trains going north to SF and others going south to San Jose, which limits capacity. Second is you'd need a bridge or tunnel to get from LA to SF within the time required. That would be way too costly and opposed by environmentalists. Third, you'd need eminent domain in the Tri-Valley area for the tracks, which was opposed by locals. Finally, the Altamont route would take longer to get from LA to SF or San Jose.
The big advantage of the Altamont is a faster trip from the Bay Area to Sacramento. But in the (very) long term, that will be negated if a tube or bridge to the East Bay is built with a route going north along the Capitol Corridor, which is the fastest route. Also, the Pacheco route could help shift population growth to the south where it is less congested.
Last edited by calicoastal; 09-18-2015 at 09:41 AM..
FC76-81 hasn't been making sense for awhile on these post. Mostly from poor grammar, probably. Asking FC76-81 to define construction- it's debatable he/she even knows what he is talking about. Either FC78-81 does possess some knowledge in this arena but severely lacks in communication skills or he is just out there babbling. Regardless, to the rest of the posters on this forum, it comes out as babble.
I was just parroting his nonsense.
My personal thoughts, CA HSR will eventually get built, but it's not likely we'll see others in this country. People are too focused on their personal cars, no matter how destructive that model is to our environment.
Take a good look at past projects in throughout history. The building of bridges, roads, buildings, etc. throughout America. Look back 50 to 75 years. The projects on time and within budget, and if there was any variances they were minimal. Fast forward 50 to 75 years to current and take a good hard look at the construction system, from all corners of the projects, across the entire board. Just take a good hard look at how just bidding on projects works in today's construction system. I'm referring to the entire system, from the project/program management and organized labor unions, the system in place to pick and choose who gets to bid and who wins the bids, all the way to the individuals pushing the shovels in the dirt and whatnot. It's screwed all the way across the board. More people care more about how much they make then how much they've accomplished compared to how many people cared more about how much they did and accomplished at the end of the day. That's the construction system, today's construction system. You're right, it's a vast system but picking the entire system piece by piece the discussing would be over 5000 words and behave more like a rant. To simplify the discussion, I refer to it as the "construction system". Call it what you wish. Point is, the entire system is broken and should be fixed before pumping trillions of tax dollars into a massive project. Again, there are those involved who do not care, they're in it for the steak & eggs breakfast for life deal. They get more money by dragging the project along for 5 years longer then scheduled vs receiving a bonus for getting it done on time and within budget.
BTW - There are hard working individuals and organizations that are on the up and up out there and involved on projects. However, these said individuals are the workhorses and those who have their hands tied (outnumbered)due to the majority of those involved in the "construction system" not being on the up and up. Basic principle applies: Strength in numbers.
Take a good look at past projects in throughout history. The building of bridges, roads, buildings, etc. throughout America. Look back 50 to 75 years. The projects on time and within budget, and if there was any variances they were minimal. Fast forward 50 to 75 years to current and take a good hard look at the construction system, from all corners of the projects, across the entire board. Just take a good hard look at how just bidding on projects works in today's construction system. I'm referring to the entire system, from the project/program management and organized labor unions, the system in place to pick and choose who gets to bid and who wins the bids, all the way to the individuals pushing the shovels in the dirt and whatnot. It's screwed all the way across the board. More people care more about how much they make then how much they've accomplished compared to how many people cared more about how much they did and accomplished at the end of the day. That's the construction system, today's construction system. You're right, it's a vast system but picking the entire system piece by piece the discussing would be over 5000 words and behave more like a rant. To simplify the discussion, I refer to it as the "construction system". Call it what you wish. Point is, the entire system is broken and should be fixed before pumping trillions of tax dollars into a massive project. Again, there are those involved who do not care, they're in it for the steak & eggs breakfast for life deal. They get more money by dragging the project along for 5 years longer then scheduled vs receiving a bonus for getting it done on time and within budget.
BTW - There are hard working individuals and organizations that are on the up and up out there and involved on projects. However, these said individuals are the workhorses and those who have their hands tied (outnumbered)due to the majority of those involved in the "construction system" not being on the up and up. Basic principle applies: Strength in numbers.
You're bringing up systemic issues that go far beyond any single project (even large ones like the CA HSR project). It's taken decades to get where we are today with how things are built, and any serious effort to change/reform the system would probably take decades more.
What do you seriously propose? That nothing gets built for decades? How do we even tackle something like changing the entire "construction system"? Considering this isn't an issue I ever hear about in politics, I doubt there will be any widespread changes in this system for a long time (if ever).
As an aside, you should also remember that things take a little longer (and are more expensive by extension) today for reasons beyond incompetence or "milking" of projects:
We have stricter labor laws (for good reason).
More safety precautions need to be taken.
We have more environmental laws in place now that make things more complicated in the beginning (more studies need to be done to understand impact), and make things cost more in the end (because we can't take shortcuts like we might have done in the past before these laws existed).
Many projects today are magnitudes more complicated than the way things were built 50-75 years ago - especially in CA where we understand better how to make things more seismically stable. Just look at the Transbay terminal and Salesforce tower - those buildings are incredibly complicated.
One thing that complicates the system now compared to 50 to 75 years ago is all the laws and red tape. Remember the SFO BART extension project when someone ran over a little snake with one of the bulldozers and how that stopped the project in it's tracks for weeks, if not months, at a cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions a day while sorting it out?
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.
