California High Speed Rail - Page 7 - SkyscraperCity
 

forums map | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > United States > West Coast and Interior West

West Coast and Interior West CA, OR, WA, HI, AK, AZ, NM, NV, UT, CO, WY, MT, ID, BC
» Development News | Albuquerque | Las Vegas | Los Angeles | San Francisco Bay Area | Seattle


Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 22nd, 2009, 10:38 AM   #121
GTR22
お好み焼き!
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 168
Likes (Received): 1

Why do we need Maglev? If you want multiple HSR systems, then why blow all the money on a Maglev system.
__________________
CITY/ INDUSTRY
GTR22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 22nd, 2009, 10:37 PM   #122
JoshuaSantos
thesanjoseblog.com
 
JoshuaSantos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,065
Likes (Received): 74

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR22 View Post
Why do we need Maglev? If you want multiple HSR systems, then why blow all the money on a Maglev system.
I'm very happy with the current proposed routes. I would rather have those trains running at 300MPH than add additional routes. Getting from SF <> SJ <> LA as quickly as possible is critical to the system's success.
JoshuaSantos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 22nd, 2009, 11:28 PM   #123
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 49

It would also connect with the Las vegas / Anaheim route.
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old February 23rd, 2009, 12:39 AM   #124
GTR22
お好み焼き!
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 168
Likes (Received): 1

I didn't mean CHSR, A maglev of that length is unreasonable.
BoWash cooridor doesn't need maglev either. if we want this country to get on parnwith europe and japan then we should distribute fhe funds to cooridors that really need it. Maglev should only exist of privately funded. sure japan is building a new maglev system but that is due to over capacity of a 40 yearold line that serves metros with over 20 million each.
__________________
CITY/ INDUSTRY
GTR22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 01:03 AM   #125
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 49

and Japan ridership is through the roof and rail is extremely viable business model compared to here in the US, where the government is biased towards cars.

I was watching this video on PBS that said that to determine how much federal money will be given to a state, they measure how many people are driving to work and gasoline consumption.
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 02:05 AM   #126
G5man
High Speed Rail fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 338
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshuaSantos View Post
After Gilroy, the route becomes very rural and there should be minimal speed restrictions. I think the 220 MPH limit is more because of technology limitations... it would have been really nice to see this done using Maglev.
Maglev has yet to show profitability, that will probably not happen until 2030 at the earliest with Japan developing the Chuo Shinkansen, to add a faster connection between Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka. It took 17 years for France to launch the TGV after the Shinkansen was launched, but since the Maglev technology is currently being used, I do not think it will take longer for another nation to build there own system. Currently maglev is not economically viable. It costs 3 times as much than steel on wheel high speed rail for less than twice the speed. When the technology is cheaper and the cost justifies the speed increases, then we might see more of it.
G5man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 04:57 AM   #127
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 49

^ yea I read that too.

More nations building these systems will help bring the price down, though.
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 05:17 AM   #128
GTR22
お好み焼き!
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 168
Likes (Received): 1

Don't expect it anytime soon. Maglev only makes sense when there are rural areas in between. No way can a maglev running along BoWash reach 300 mph.
__________________
CITY/ INDUSTRY
GTR22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 01:04 AM   #129
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 49

Not even if the track is elevated?
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 03:57 AM   #130
GTR22
お好み焼き!
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 168
Likes (Received): 1

yea, 300 mph over suburbs and cities, is safe. The Yamanashi test track where maglevs are tested in Japan is in very rural areas. Conventional HSR would be more cost effective. Not just upgrading current rail, but creating new ROWs. But seeing how the Pudong maglev costed about $1 billion, for 30 km it may work. But that was in China, this is US where it will cost A LOT more.
__________________
CITY/ INDUSTRY
GTR22 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2009, 12:56 AM   #131
davsot
Perro que ladra no muerde
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,243
Likes (Received): 49

Environmental studies will only exacerbate the economic situation.
davsot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2009, 07:14 PM   #132
MetropolisMayorII
Registered User
 
MetropolisMayorII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: The Capital of Silicon Valley
Posts: 405
Likes (Received): 194

NIMBYs gear gp....wankers that they are

Valley could be in for years-long battle over high-speed rail

By Will Oremus
San Jose Mercury News
Posted: 04/02/2009 05:00:00 AM PDT

Most people agree the concept is cool: a 220 mph electric train that will zip passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes.

In November, California voters took a big step in making that happen by approving Proposition 1A, a $10 billion bond measure that will provide a down payment on the system.

Silicon Valley residents were particularly excited about the plan. More than 60 percent of voters in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties approved the measure, compared to 52 percent statewide.

Yet that support has been shaken as residents and officials in some cities have begun to take a closer look at the details.

Although the California High Speed Rail Authority's initial study assumed the trains would race through much of the Peninsula atop a 15-foot-high, 75-foot-wide concrete platform along the Caltrain corridor, most of the project's early supporters didn't read deep enough into environmental reports to discover that.

Now they know, and visions of a concrete monolith are generating fear and outrage in cities such as Palo Alto, where the tracks cut through quiet — not to mention expensive — residential neighborhoods. Menlo Park and Atherton are so alarmed they have joined a lawsuit challenging the rail system's environmental approval.

On the other hand, mid-Peninsula cities such as Redwood City and San Mateo continue to embrace the high-speed rail project. There, the tracks are mostly lined by businesses, along with some big apartment and condominium complexes designed with public transit in mind.

The result is a Peninsula-wide tug-of-war over a project whose fate will likely be determined not here but in Sacramento, where the high-speed rail authority is tasked with getting the rail line up and running by 2020.

Locally, the entity with the most leverage is Caltrain, which today will vote on an agreement to share its tracks with high-speed trains in exchange for help with its own electrification plans. That decision could be hotly contested.

The Palo Alto City Council on Monday approved a letter to Caltrain protesting the proposed agreement, which calls for a four-track system separated from cross streets by either bridges or tunnels.

The rail authority, chaired by San Mateo County-based judge and transit advocate Quentin Kopp, has assured residents and officials it will take their feedback into account.

The only sure thing so far is that the route will be aligned with Caltrain's rail line, a choice finalized in 2008 after years of debate.

The dearth of specific information has convinced some that the rail authority is trying to hide its true intentions to avoid an outcry.

San Jose, which lobbied heavily for the high-speed rail line to run through the city, remains supportive of the project. But city officials and residents still have a host of concerns, particularly about the route through the southern end of the city to Diridon Station downtown, which would cut through Willow Glen and other neighborhoods.

San Jose Transportation Director Jim Helmer said the city will ask high-speed rail authorities to consider either tunneling underground through those neighborhoods, realigning the route to avoid homes or narrowing it from four tracks to three.

"We still strongly support the system and the benefits it will bring to California," Helmer said. "But our community is not unlike Peninsula communities in that we too have real concerns about high-speed rail impacts to our community."

One thing the tracks cannot do is intersect with cross streets, as Caltrain currently does at some 46 locations between San Jose and San Francisco. Between the high-speed rail line and an upgraded Caltrain system, trains will be whizzing by as often as every three minutes, with the bullet trains traveling up to 125 mph in populated areas.

The tunnel idea has galvanized many. But there's a reason the rail authority didn't assume a tunnel in its original cost estimates, said Dominic Spaethling, the project's regional manager: Digging underground is extremely expensive. It also comes with its own environmental pitfalls.

Still, Spaethling said, the environmental study will evaluate underground options as well as at-grade and elevated alignments for the track. The end result will likely include a mix of all three designs at different points on the line.

For all its impacts, not least its estimated $45 billion total price tag, backers say high-speed rail is a necessity both environmentally and for California's economic competitiveness.

With the state's population projected to soar to 50 million by 2050, the alternative would be to build an additional 3,000 lane-miles of freeway and the equivalent of two international airports, said rail authority board member Rod Diridon. That would cost more than $100 billion, he said, not including the environmental costs.

The close of the initial public comment period on Monday will mark only the beginning of the lengthy environmental review process on the line's San Jose-to-San Francisco leg. Next will be a six-to-nine-month period of defining the alternatives to be studied, followed by the release of a draft environmental report in late 2010 or early 2011. Another public comment period will precede the preparation and approval of a final document, which could come by the end of 2011, according to the rail authority.

In other words, this fight won't be over anytime soon.
MetropolisMayorII no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 2nd, 2009, 11:59 PM   #133
SJTommy
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 127
Likes (Received): 0

The Peninsula is full of suck-ass NIMBYs. They killed BART bay in the day and I'll be damned if they kill HSR.
SJTommy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 3rd, 2009, 12:05 AM   #134
arturo
Downtown San Jose
 
arturo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sannozé
Posts: 1,327
Likes (Received): 182

Quote:
Originally Posted by SJTommy View Post
The Peninsula is full of suck-ass NIMBYs.
In the 60s they screwed SJ out of BART and in this case they might screw SF out of HSR.

I feel HSR will be built regardless and when it is I hope Palo Alto is screwed out of a station.
__________________
neither borders nor nations nor patriotism
arturo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 4th, 2009, 09:08 AM   #135
G5man
High Speed Rail fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 338
Likes (Received): 38

Some good news found on the CAHSR blog in reference to the lawsuit Menlo Park obtained from http://www.almanacnews.com/news/show_story.php?id=3695
G5man no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2009, 03:31 PM   #136
Kuwaiti
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 584
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Kuwaiti; May 28th, 2015 at 08:18 PM.
Kuwaiti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2009, 06:41 PM   #137
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,264
Likes (Received): 96

About half the trip will offer less-than-stellar views of the central valley.
krudmonk no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2009, 11:12 PM   #138
JoshuaSantos
thesanjoseblog.com
 
JoshuaSantos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,065
Likes (Received): 74

Most of the Bay Area tracks will be above ground going through some pretty interesting cities... I think you'll enjoy that leg.

LA I'm hoping will also be mostly above grade.
JoshuaSantos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2009, 02:37 AM   #139
BoulderGrad
Registered User
 
BoulderGrad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 6,499
Likes (Received): 2079

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuwaiti View Post
hopefully this could link up with the future cross-continent high-speed rail project which the obama administration mentioneda few weeks ago, that would one day link cities in east coast (e.g. new york) to los angeles, nonstop.
This would be quite impractical, and thats not exactly what is being proposed.

This is the map for what Obama is proposing (which is really a direct copy of a map developed when Bill Clinton gave money to develop high speed rail as well):


Compare that to this one from 2001




None of the lines are really "cross country." But more for regional population centers. None are much longer than say 500 miles, and many are even shorter than that. Any longer than that, and the time and distance becomes so great and the cost of building so high that it really does justify hopping on a plane. What this will do is eliminate the short hop flights that tend to crowd the skies and free up more room for the long haul flights. Same thing happened in France.
__________________
My safety word is "Keep Going."
BoulderGrad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2009, 02:04 PM   #140
Kuwaiti
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 584
Likes (Received): 0

..

Last edited by Kuwaiti; May 28th, 2015 at 08:18 PM.
Kuwaiti no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 


Reply

Tags
high speed rail, los angeles

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
California High-Speed Rail News Saiholmes Transportation-Infrastructure 63 November 6th, 2008 06:06 AM
High Speed Rail phattonez Transportation-Infrastructure 16 April 9th, 2007 10:25 PM
California High-Speed Trains Joey313 Transportation-Infrastructure 12 March 20th, 2007 04:57 AM
High-Speed Train System from Southern California to Northern California in 2.5 Hours BetterFuture United States Urban Issues 30 January 23rd, 2007 12:42 AM
California High Speed Rail 612bv3 West Coast and Interior West 21 March 27th, 2006 05:11 AM


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us