CA California CAHSR System

Discussion related to commuter rail and transit operators in California past and present including Los Angeles Metrolink and Metro Subway and Light Rail, San Diego Coaster, Sprinter and MTS Trolley, Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton), Caltrain and MUNI (San Francisco), Sacramento RTD Light Rail, and others...

Moderator: lensovet

CA California CAHSR System

Postby eriwakaranai » Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:15 am

Can someone tell me the progress of HSR in California?
eriwakaranai
 

Postby pennsy » Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:49 am

Hi,

To the best of my knowledge, it is still tied up in meetings, discussions, politics and economics. When, and if, I hear about someone getting a budget I will let you know. I believe the EPA is also involved in these talks. That should slow things up even more.
pennsy
 
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:07 pm
Location: Southern California

High-speed train line plan may be derailed

Postby themallard » Sat Apr 28, 2007 10:31 pm

High-speed train line plan may be derailed For more than a decade, policymakers have debated, studied and scoped out a high-speed rail line that would whisk travelers between downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 1/2 hours.

But, this year, the $40-billion dream of building a Japanese- or European-style bullet train through the Central Valley may find itself stopped in its tracks.

Even as state lawmakers visited France earlier this month for a glimpse of a passenger train as it set a world rail speed record of 357 mph, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was applying the brakes to California's plan for a high-speed system.

The governor wants "to quietly kill this — and not go out and tell the people that high-speed rail isn't in the future," said state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter). The lawmaker from the southern San Joaquin Valley is counting on the trains to help bring jobs to his district.

Schwarzenegger asked the Legislature in his 2007 budget to slash money for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In addition, the governor also wants lawmakers to postpone indefinitely a $9.95-billion rail bond issue that is slated to appear on the November 2008 ballot.

Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for the governor, said Schwarzenegger still wanted to build a bullet train — just not anytime soon: "Right now, the voters are crying for relief from congested freeways. That's the immediate priority."
LA Times
User avatar
themallard
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: New Jersey

Postby VikingNik » Tue May 01, 2007 1:30 pm

Ugh, how is building an HSR system not helping congestion on the freeways? An extra lane on a highway is not an alternative transportation option.
VikingNik
 

Postby Nasadowsk » Tue May 01, 2007 6:30 pm

California's been talking about HSR since I was in high school. Actually, before then even.

That was back when 186mph was the sexy thing and all HSTs were TGVs or Japanese.

Why bother discussing it? It's all talk and has been talk for 15 years now. It's no closer to moving forward today than it was then. If Cali really wanted it, they'd darn well do it.
Nasadowsk
 
Posts: 3788
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Postby george matthews » Thu May 10, 2007 4:50 am

VikingNik wrote:Ugh, how is building an HSR system not helping congestion on the freeways? An extra lane on a highway is not an alternative transportation option.

In many cases the best route for a high speed rail line would be alongside or above the motorways. It could replace two lanes.
george matthews
 
Posts: 4537
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Britain

Re: High-speed train line plan may be derailed

Postby lensovet » Thu May 10, 2007 7:35 pm

themallard wrote:
High-speed train line plan may be derailed For more than a decade, policymakers have debated, studied and scoped out a high-speed rail line that would whisk travelers between downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 1/2 hours.

But, this year, the $40-billion dream of building a Japanese- or European-style bullet train through the Central Valley may find itself stopped in its tracks.

Even as state lawmakers visited France earlier this month for a glimpse of a passenger train as it set a world rail speed record of 357 mph, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was applying the brakes to California's plan for a high-speed system.

The governor wants "to quietly kill this — and not go out and tell the people that high-speed rail isn't in the future," said state Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter). The lawmaker from the southern San Joaquin Valley is counting on the trains to help bring jobs to his district.

Schwarzenegger asked the Legislature in his 2007 budget to slash money for the California High-Speed Rail Authority. In addition, the governor also wants lawmakers to postpone indefinitely a $9.95-billion rail bond issue that is slated to appear on the November 2008 ballot.

Adam Mendelsohn, a spokesman for the governor, said Schwarzenegger still wanted to build a bullet train — just not anytime soon: "Right now, the voters are crying for relief from congested freeways. That's the immediate priority."
LA Times
That's what they'll tell you!

Now this is what the governor says himself:
Fresno Bee wrote:GOV. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER: State must build high-speed rail
By Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
05/04/07 04:48:53

As the recent Bay Area freeway collapse illustrated -- and as a recent Bee editorial correctly pointed out -- Californians need and deserve a diverse array of transportation options. I absolutely believe high-speed rail should be one of those alternatives.

A network of high-speed rail lines connecting cities throughout California would be a tremendous benefit to our state.

Not only would its construction bring economic development and the creation of hundreds of thousands of new jobs, but once completed, we would also see improvements to our air quality, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, congestion relief on our highways and greater mobility for people living in the Valley and other areas of our state currently underserved by other forms of transportation.

Yet it's been more than 10 years, and the state has already spent more than $40 million in initial planning for the rail line. But there is still no comprehensive and credible plan for financing the system so we can get construction under way.

The High-Speed Rail Authority, the commission in charge of developing a plan for high speed rail in California, estimates the cost of building the system to be more than $40 billion.

Yet so far, the only financing party identified with specificity is the state, which the Authority proposes float a $9.95 billion bond. The remaining 75% of the project cost, or more than $30 billion, has yet to be identified with any specificity or confidence.

Before asking taxpayers to approve spending nearly $10 billion plus interest, it is reasonable to expect the authority and its advisers to identify with confidence where we will find the remaining $30 billion.

A perfect example of what I'm talking about is my $5.9 billion water infrastructure package. By using a public-private partnership approach, we've identified a plan that lays out exactly how we are going to pay for every piece of the proposal, from the reservoirs to the groundwater storage to fixing the Delta to our conservation efforts.

For the reservoir portion, the estimated building cost is $4 billion. We've proposed $2 billion in general obligation bonds for the public portion and $2 billion in lease revenue bonds to be paid for by the water users themselves, i.e. water agencies, irrigation districts, cities, etc. And to ensure that this funding materializes, we are requiring that contracts be in place to pay for the lease revenue bonds before public dollars are spent on the projects.

Identifying the exact funding sources for large transportation projects is more problematic, which is why we need the authority to come up with a well-thought out financing proposal before moving forward.

I want to commend the authority for its great progress so far in completing the necessary environmental studies and identifying future rights-of-way that we would need to acquire.

Yet even the authority's executive director, Mehdi Morshed, says the longer the state waits to build a high-speed rail network, the more expensive it will get. I could not agree more.

That's why I have directed my recent appointees to work with the authority and its financial advisers to develop a comprehensive plan for financing the project in its entirety, so we can make high-speed rail a reality in California once and for all.

Last year, my administration increased funds for the authority to continue its work, and this year, my budget proposes additional funding.

I am willing to explore multiple approaches in order to fund the balance and execute this project -- whether through federal grants, local participation, vendor support, co-development opportunities, public-private partnerships or any other realistic financing plans in which the authority expresses confidence.

I look forward to working with the authority and reviewing its proposal as soon as possible.

But let me be clear: I strongly support high-speed rail for California, and especially for the San Joaquin Valley. Increasing the Valley's transportation options, especially after voters passed Proposition 1B to repair Highway 99, would better serve the region's growing population and enhance the Valley's critical importance to our state's economy.

The promise of high-speed rail is incredible. Looking forward to the kind of California we want to build 20 and 30 years from now, a network of ultra-fast rail lines whisking people from one end of the state to the other is a viable and important transportation alternative and would be a great benefit to us all.

With a responsible plan in place, we can feel secure in delivering high-speed rail and bringing greater opportunity -- and a brighter future -- to all Californians.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governor of California.
i want to call attention to the bolded phrases. the last one is most telling – this seems like he's sucking up to the SJ Valley, because this editorial was NOT printed anywhere else and his office didn't issue any official statement in the same vein as this editorial.

he also says that he's allocated money in the coming year for the project, yet in reality he's proposed giving the CAHSR authority just 1 million of the 102 million that they are requesting.

lastly, to me he's sending mixed messages. on the one hand, he says that a financial plan is a prerequisite for the project to get his blessing. on the other, he says that he strongly supports it.

meh.
Paul Borokhov

Last RRPicArch addition – NJ Railfan.

NJT RailNJT Light RailCalifornia commuter (mod)
User avatar
lensovet
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Berkeley, CA

Postby blockss » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:50 am

VikingNik wrote:Ugh, how is building an HSR system not helping congestion on the freeways? An extra lane on a highway is not an alternative transportation option.


Most of the traffic consists of commutors travelling short distances to work. This traffic is mostly in the major cities and not midway between them. Investment in a subway system would help relieve congested freeways. A HSR system on the other hand will relieve airport congestion which is also important.
blockss
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:20 pm

Postby blockss » Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:50 am

VikingNik wrote:Ugh, how is building an HSR system not helping congestion on the freeways? An extra lane on a highway is not an alternative transportation option.


Most of the traffic consists of commutors travelling short distances to work. This traffic is mostly in the major cities and not midway between them. Investment in a subway system would help relieve congested freeways. A HSR system on the other hand will relieve airport congestion which is also important.
blockss
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 3:20 pm

Postby Chafford1 » Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:45 pm

The wisest solution would be to have a number of cheaper costed options as well as the 220mph option.

110mph non-electrified upgraded existing line
124mph non-electrified upgraded existing line
125mph non-electrified new line
125mph electrified new line
140mph electrified new line
155mph electrified new line

Going for the expensive 'all or nothing' approach is unlikely to raise the required funds.
Chafford1
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Chessie GM50 » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Chafford1 wrote:The wisest solution would be to have a number of cheaper costed options as well as the 220mph option.

110mph non-electrified upgraded existing line
124mph non-electrified upgraded existing line
125mph non-electrified new line
125mph electrified new line
140mph electrified new line
155mph electrified new line

Going for the expensive 'all or nothing' approach is unlikely to raise the required funds.


Neither is going for the "west coast acela" approach (Hint, what in the world would 155 mph do for reliving airplane, and highway travel, which in my opinion is the point behind this)
User avatar
Chessie GM50
 
Posts: 862
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 9:19 pm
Location: Hillsborough, NJ

Postby VPayne » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:59 pm

Well 155 mph would allow for a 105-110 mph average speed, including station stops. It would also be a lot easier to co-mingle a 0.70 degree curve next to existing facilities than it would be to co-mingle a 0.40 degree curve so the construction costs would be less as land costs would be less.

Most interstates in built up areas would be 3.9 degree curves (non-icing assumptions) at 70 mph design speeds (R=1470 ft). So a 8180 ft radius that only went through a short arc could fit close to the existing right of way.

A 155 mph non-stop commuter run in the morning using the same equipment as the intercity runs would allow for a 75 mile commute in 45 minutes so it would help out on morning period congestion as well.

How fast is fast enough..... there are limited returns for higher speeds given shorter station spacings.
VPayne
 

Postby Chafford1 » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:38 pm

In England, the electrified West Coast Main Line operating 125mph tilting trains gives a fastest London - Manchester journey (185 miles) of 2 hours 8 minutes (1 hr 58 minutes from next year) and fastest London - Glasgow (401 miles) of 4 hours and 25 minutes (4 hours 10 minutes from next year).

So you can achieve a lot without resorting to dedicated high speed routes, although you still need to invest heavily to upgrade your existing route.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XCReTUXpLa0
Chafford1
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby icgsteve » Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:59 pm

Chafford1 wrote:In England, the electrified West Coast Main Line operating 125mph tilting trains gives a fastest London - Manchester journey (185 miles) of 2 hours 8 minutes (1 hr 58 minutes from next year) and fastest London - Glasgow (401 miles) of 4 hours and 25 minutes (4 hours 10 minutes from next year).

So you can achieve a lot without resorting to dedicated high speed routes, although you still need to invest heavily to upgrade your existing route.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=XCReTUXpLa0

AMTRAK outside the NEC has an average run speed of what...50mph or there abouts? Ya, lines rated at 125MPH would be quite a step up, would seem like very high speed rail by those who have only known snail rail.
icgsteve
 
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 10:56 pm

Postby Chafford1 » Tue Jan 22, 2008 10:24 am

There's also a green argument for opting for a high speed (rather than very high speed) rail line.

A survey carried out in 2004 in the UK, found that the energy used per seat on trains travelling at a maximum 225kph (140mph) between London and Edinburgh (400 miles) would be 30kWh per seat. Increase the maximum speed to 350kph (220mph) and the energy use would increase to 57kWh per seat. (Trains between London and Edinburgh in reality run at a maximum speed of 200kmh (125mph).)

So unless your ultra-high speed line is running on power generated by nuclear reactors, you're not going to significantly reduce CO2 emissions.

The survey concluded from an environmental angle that a 'green' high speed line would have the following characteristics:

• Modest top speed, 200 – 250 kmh (125 - 155 mph)
• Non-carbon energy sources: renewables, nuclear
• High capacity, wide bodied, double deck EMUs
• Lightweight, low drag (articulated, smooth, aerodynamic)
• High passenger utilisation: serves major population centres
• Targets “1 person/car” market, in preference to groups
• Discourages travel growth (e.g. longer commuting distances)
• Provides capacity for parcels, mail and similar services

http://www.engineering.lancs.ac.uk/rese ... impact.pdf


I'm sceptical about the proposed 220mph maximum speed in California. The Spanish planned this top speed for their Madrid - Barcelona high speed line but this has now been scaled back to 186mph. Similarly, the Japanese who have decades of experience in high speed rail travel, were planning 220mph from 2011 for their 'Fastech' Shinkansens, but again this has been scaled back to 199mph (320kph). Problems with noise, pressure changes in tunnels and general wear and tear suggest that 200mph is about the limit for conventional high speed railways.
Chafford1
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Next

Return to California Commuter & Transit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests