Latest in the California High Speed Rail Saga: Single-Track Operation

af773atmsp · Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:38 pm

https://www.latimes.com/california/stor ... XD-49kq5XE

Cost increases are nothing new for the CAHSR project, but this time the increase has led to the decision of making most of the route in the Central Valley single-track instead of the original plan for two sets of tracks. Sidings will still be built in certain places along the route, but this is still another major setback for a project that was supposed to bring bullet train service between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I'm curious if any other country who has built high speed rail had this many delays and cost increases. A project of this scale is of course complicated, but the amount of cost increases, delays, and scaling back have made me lose a lot of faith in CAHSR. If Texas Central between Dallas and Houston actually gets into the construction phase I hope they have much better luck than this project.

NIKV69 · Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:02 pm

Sorry but for me this is a boondoggle. We have Southwest Airlines we don’t need this. Countries that have fast space between cities without airlines like southwest maybe but this will be a tough one I’m afraid.

PHLspecial · Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:07 pm

af773atmsp wrote:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-02-10/high-speed-rail-central-valley-single-track-rising-cost?fbclid=IwAR3X7BrldxQI1rgtBc35jPEYpzhDXvaIwaj2Ivn7FRhNtoACwXD-49kq5XE

Cost increases are nothing new for the CAHSR project, but this time the increase has led to the decision of making most of the route in the Central Valley single-track instead of the original plan for two sets of tracks. Sidings will still be built in certain places along the route, but this is still another major setback for a project that was supposed to bring bullet train service between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

I'm curious if any other country who has built high speed rail had this many delays and cost increases. A project of this scale is of course complicated, but the amount of cost increases, delays, and scaling back have made me lose a lot of faith in CAHSR. If Texas Central between Dallas and Houston actually gets into the construction phase I hope they have much better luck than this project.

WHY? I wish I can understand why is the factors driving up the cost of project. It can't be just lawsuits only.

Single track operations ruins the purpose of high speed rail. Also how can there be high frequency to complete with the airlines. If completed the HSR will take you from downtown to downtown-ish. Way better than to airport to airport. Better seats than planes. UAM is only for the rich of the rich. Sad this project is just getting stoned walled.

PHLspecial · Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:13 pm

NIKV69 wrote:
Sorry but for me this is a boondoggle. We have Southwest Airlines we don’t need this. Countries that have fast space between cities without airlines like southwest maybe but this will be a tough one I’m afraid.

So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

EIBPI · Sat Feb 13, 2021 7:42 pm

Is this some kind of joke. Single track high speed rail?!

GalaxyFlyer · Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:20 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Sorry but for me this is a boondoggle. We have Southwest Airlines we don’t need this. Countries that have fast space between cities without airlines like southwest maybe but this will be a tough one I’m afraid.

So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

Bakersfield and Merced are now considered dense cities and major tourist destinations? Really?

PHLspecial · Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:31 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Sorry but for me this is a boondoggle. We have Southwest Airlines we don’t need this. Countries that have fast space between cities without airlines like southwest maybe but this will be a tough one I’m afraid.

So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

Bakersfield and Merced are now considered dense cities and major tourist destinations? Really?

I was talking about the original scope of the project. Currently it will still downtown to SF in Phase 1 along with caltrain getting electrified.

flyguy89 · Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:52 pm

In the words of Liz Lemon: S that D. Shut it down.

NIKV69 · Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:54 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Sorry but for me this is a boondoggle. We have Southwest Airlines we don’t need this. Countries that have fast space between cities without airlines like southwest maybe but this will be a tough one I’m afraid.

So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

LAX, SAN, LAX, PHX I feel all better served with WN, they make money with people hopping between these as with any else.

Aesma · Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:39 pm

California is big on the environment unless you hadn't noticed. So this train line should be a given.

But I agree that single track makes no sense.

I recently took the train Paris to Morlaix, it's about the same distance than SF to LA, since the last time I took it the fast speed portion was longer, so now it takes 3 hours when it used to be 4 hours. The experience was much more relaxed than taking a plane (not that this route exists, it doesn't, despite Morlaix having a decent airport).

Aaron747 · Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:57 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Sorry but for me this is a boondoggle. We have Southwest Airlines we don’t need this. Countries that have fast space between cities without airlines like southwest maybe but this will be a tough one I’m afraid.

So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

COVID is changing the prospect of LA and SF downtowns’ importance and influence. CAHSR was ill conceived geographically from the start - there are millions in west LA who almost never go downtown.

af773atmsp · Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:09 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
NIKV69 wrote:
Sorry but for me this is a boondoggle. We have Southwest Airlines we don’t need this. Countries that have fast space between cities without airlines like southwest maybe but this will be a tough one I’m afraid.

So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

COVID is changing the prospect of LA and SF downtowns’ importance and influence. CAHSR was ill conceived geographically from the start - there are millions in west LA who almost never go downtown.

That's why you have to improve local transit too, which they probably should've done first because they clearly bit more than they could chew trying to build HSR.

Aaron747 · Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:33 pm

af773atmsp wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

COVID is changing the prospect of LA and SF downtowns’ importance and influence. CAHSR was ill conceived geographically from the start - there are millions in west LA who almost never go downtown.

That's why you have to improve local transit too, which they probably should've done first because they clearly bit more than they could chew trying to build HSR.

Very difficult. NIMBYs in west LA have opposed any Santa Monica Blvd subway since the 1960s, just as BART was initially opposed in Marin and Santa Clara counties in the same era.

PHLspecial · Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:37 pm

af773atmsp wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

COVID is changing the prospect of LA and SF downtowns’ importance and influence. CAHSR was ill conceived geographically from the start - there are millions in west LA who almost never go downtown.

That's why you have to improve local transit too, which they probably should've done first because they clearly bit more than they could chew trying to build HSR.

Exactly, Airlines will still do hub and spoke. So transit will be the same way as well. Transit oriented development is the way of the future.
TBH commuter rail will transform this nation and gives us a better reason to rail with the connecting buses, light rail, subways or even urban air mobility sites(only for the rich).

Aaron747 · Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:43 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

COVID is changing the prospect of LA and SF downtowns’ importance and influence. CAHSR was ill conceived geographically from the start - there are millions in west LA who almost never go downtown.

That's why you have to improve local transit too, which they probably should've done first because they clearly bit more than they could chew trying to build HSR.

Exactly, Airlines will still do hub and spoke. So transit will be the same way as well. Transit oriented development is the way of the future.
TBH commuter rail will transform this nation and gives us a better reason to rail with the connecting buses, light rail, subways or even urban air mobility sites(only for the rich).

TOD was already the way of the future in the 1920s and was soundly rejected in the postwar boom. It only finds an audience in places already dense enough that any new infill puts noticeable strain on traffic and parking.

DTVG · Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:49 pm

af773atmsp wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
So what? This is about mobility. These are two high dense cities with lots of economic ties and major tourist destinations.
Southwest probably can use their planes on other routes rather than throw money at LA to the Bay area routes. Along with other airlines.

COVID is changing the prospect of LA and SF downtowns’ importance and influence. CAHSR was ill conceived geographically from the start - there are millions in west LA who almost never go downtown.

That's why you have to improve local transit too, which they probably should've done first because they clearly bit more than they could chew trying to build HSR.

You can improve local transit, however west coast cities generally have a low population density and workplaces are somewhat spread around the cities (have a look how spread out things are in the LA basin). This means that you will need more transit lines to cover fewer people, resulting in a lower utilization and higher costs.

Aaron747 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:01 am

DTVG wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

COVID is changing the prospect of LA and SF downtowns’ importance and influence. CAHSR was ill conceived geographically from the start - there are millions in west LA who almost never go downtown.

That's why you have to improve local transit too, which they probably should've done first because they clearly bit more than they could chew trying to build HSR.

You can improve local transit, however west coast cities generally have a low population density and workplaces are somewhat spread around the cities (have a look how spread out things are in the LA basin). This means that you will need more transit lines to cover fewer people, resulting in a lower utilization and higher costs.

Due to the prevalence of apartment buildings and the 1920s streetcar development pattern, the Santa Monica and Wilshire Blvd corridors make West LA much more dense than people think. It's at least 15k/sq mi on average and well above 25k/sq mi in many places. This makes it comparable to Queens, NY. Also many of the major employment centers basically run in a straight line from DT Santa Monica - Westwood - Century City - WeHo - Hollywood - Downtown.

The problem isn't density, it's what people have been voting for since the 60s.

alberchico · Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:10 am

I wonder if this could be a desperate attempt to keep the project alive until the feds give them a substantial infusion of funds to properly complete it. Knowing how pro rail Biden is, this project has a chance at salvation.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:10 am

Yeah, those darn voters, why do we give them all that power? Yes, LA has some dense areas, but still it is far less dense than NYC.

Aaron747 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:56 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Yeah, those darn voters, why do we give them all that power? Yes, LA has some dense areas, but still it is far less dense than NYC.

NYC is irrelevant - we’re talking about transit oriented development and the fact LA doesn’t have much of it now. Its primary zones of activity were developed prewar on a transit oriented basis, so not having it in the years since presents problems as the population grew beyond road capacity of the 1960s.

af773atmsp · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:11 am

It also doesn't help that LA's transit expansion has been a mixed bag. They should've bit the bullet with a subway system that serves the densest areas but instead it's mostly light rail and bus rapid transit on or along freeways and abandoned freight rail lines where it's easy to build.

c933103 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:16 am

Aaron747 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Yeah, those darn voters, why do we give them all that power? Yes, LA has some dense areas, but still it is far less dense than NYC.

NYC is irrelevant - we’re talking about transit oriented development and the fact LA doesn’t have much of it now. Its primary zones of activity were developed prewar on a transit oriented basis, so not having it in the years since presents problems as the population grew beyond road capacity of the 1960s.

I don't think transit oriented development is a requirement to make high speed rail work. Yes it would certainly help ridership, but it's not like the two cities there are not already large enough with somewhat sizable local transit network.
But the problem of this thread have no relation to that. With all these cost cutting measures the new "high speed rail" will simply become yet another train line with nothing extraordinary that serve local demand in the Central Valley of California, which isn't worth building it

johns624 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:19 am

As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

Aaron747 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:21 am

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Yeah, those darn voters, why do we give them all that power? Yes, LA has some dense areas, but still it is far less dense than NYC.

NYC is irrelevant - we’re talking about transit oriented development and the fact LA doesn’t have much of it now. Its primary zones of activity were developed prewar on a transit oriented basis, so not having it in the years since presents problems as the population grew beyond road capacity of the 1960s.

I don't think transit oriented development is a requirement to make high speed rail work. Yes it would certainly help ridership, but it's not like the two cities there are not already large enough with somewhat sizable local transit network.
But the problem of this thread have no relation to that. With all these cost cutting measures the new "high speed rail" will simply become yet another train line with nothing extraordinary that serve local demand in the Central Valley of California, which isn't worth building it

You’re right about that - my point was more about LA not working in a traditional sense. People who never go downtown aren’t going to go there just to use CAHSR when in many cases LAX or BUR would be closer. If they had a Santa Monica Blvd express subway or something like it that would be different.

LA is decentralized in a similar manner to London or Tokyo where there are multiple large activity and employment centers.

c933103 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:23 am

johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

In addition to lengthened journey time due to waiting at sidings, there will also be significant capacity bottleneck.

c933103 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:26 am

Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:

NYC is irrelevant - we’re talking about transit oriented development and the fact LA doesn’t have much of it now. Its primary zones of activity were developed prewar on a transit oriented basis, so not having it in the years since presents problems as the population grew beyond road capacity of the 1960s.

I don't think transit oriented development is a requirement to make high speed rail work. Yes it would certainly help ridership, but it's not like the two cities there are not already large enough with somewhat sizable local transit network.
But the problem of this thread have no relation to that. With all these cost cutting measures the new "high speed rail" will simply become yet another train line with nothing extraordinary that serve local demand in the Central Valley of California, which isn't worth building it

You’re right about that - my point was more about LA not working in a traditional sense. People who never go downtown aren’t going to go there just to use CAHSR when in many cases LAX or BUR would be closer. If they had a Santa Monica Blvd express subway or something like it that would be different.

LA is decentralized in a similar manner to London or Tokyo where there are multiple large activity and employment centers.

Yet people in London use high speed rail to travel to France and people in Tokyo use high speed rail to travel to rest of Japan without problem. Even for people living a bit further away from the main train stations there it's still not uncommon for them to change mode and use the high speed rail when making intercity travel.

Aaron747 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:32 am

c933103 wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
I don't think transit oriented development is a requirement to make high speed rail work. Yes it would certainly help ridership, but it's not like the two cities there are not already large enough with somewhat sizable local transit network.
But the problem of this thread have no relation to that. With all these cost cutting measures the new "high speed rail" will simply become yet another train line with nothing extraordinary that serve local demand in the Central Valley of California, which isn't worth building it

You’re right about that - my point was more about LA not working in a traditional sense. People who never go downtown aren’t going to go there just to use CAHSR when in many cases LAX or BUR would be closer. If they had a Santa Monica Blvd express subway or something like it that would be different.

LA is decentralized in a similar manner to London or Tokyo where there are multiple large activity and employment centers.

Yet people in London use high speed rail to travel to France and people in Tokyo use high speed rail to travel to rest of Japan without problem. Even for people living a bit further away from the main train stations there it's still not uncommon for them to change mode and use the high speed rail when making intercity travel.

That’s what I’m saying - those things are possible because they can access HSR easily.

johns624 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:32 am

c933103 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

In addition to lengthened journey time due to waiting at sidings, there will also be significant capacity bottleneck.

Who said anything about waiting in sidings?

af773atmsp · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:34 am

johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

What happens when the single track is out of service for some reason (broke down train, broken rail, maintenance etc.)? The whole system will get really screwed up.

af773atmsp · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:36 am

johns624 wrote:
c933103 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

In addition to lengthened journey time due to waiting at sidings, there will also be significant capacity bottleneck.
Who said anything about waiting in sidings?

If a train on the single-track is delayed, then the train waiting in the siding is also delayed. Worst case scenario the train on the single-track breaks down and the train waiting in the siding is stuck.

johns624 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:40 am

af773atmsp wrote:
johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

What happens when the single track is out of service for some reason (broke down train, broken rail, maintenance etc.)? The whole system will get really screwed up.

Maintenance happens at night. If you maintain your equipment properly, which you must for HSR, it doesn't break down. How often do planes of major airlines go tech? Very seldom, especially considering how many hours a day they fly.

c933103 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:41 am

In fact, the news report seems to be mixing two things up, the 117-miles long phase 1 section in Central Valley, and the entire 171-miles long system.

c933103 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:43 am

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2021/02/11/ ... let-train/
There are apparently some blogs calling out the LA Times report as false
Edit: After reviewing the source official document, it do say they plan to initially only install and run a single track operation, but claim they will lay a second track in later time

af773atmsp · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:46 am

johns624 wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

What happens when the single track is out of service for some reason (broke down train, broken rail, maintenance etc.)? The whole system will get really screwed up.
Maintenance happens at night. If you maintain your equipment properly, which you must for HSR, it doesn't break down. How often do planes of major airlines go tech? Very seldom, especially considering how many hours a day they fly.

You're putting too much faith in everything running perfectly all the time. In reality it doesn't, and considering the reliability of the cost estimates and timelines for this project I won't get my hopes up that if/when this opens they'll be more competent running it. For a modern high speed rail system you need at least two sets of tracks.

Aaron747 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:47 am

johns624 wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

What happens when the single track is out of service for some reason (broke down train, broken rail, maintenance etc.)? The whole system will get really screwed up.
Maintenance happens at night. If you maintain your equipment properly, which you must for HSR, it doesn't break down. How often do planes of major airlines go tech? Very seldom, especially considering how many hours a day they fly.

That is true, but in spite of rigorous maintenance programs, Korea, Taiwan and Japan all use double-tracked HSR.

c933103 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:00 am

johns624 wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

What happens when the single track is out of service for some reason (broke down train, broken rail, maintenance etc.)? The whole system will get really screwed up.
Maintenance happens at night. If you maintain your equipment properly, which you must for HSR, it doesn't break down. How often do planes of major airlines go tech? Very seldom, especially considering how many hours a day they fly.

If one track of a double track system broke, you might as well close off the section until it's fixed.
As, while there will still be another track available for possible single track operation, the capacity would be greatly reduced to create a bottleneck while you have a broken rail waiting to be fixed, at which point you might as well just completely close off the section of and fix the track section as soon as possible
And, how likely is it for just one track of a high speed rail track section to be broken? If it is caused by natural disaster or external interference then both will likely be affected, else problems should be detected and fixed in scheduled maintenance

johns624 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:13 am

af773atmsp wrote:
johns624 wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:

What happens when the single track is out of service for some reason (broke down train, broken rail, maintenance etc.)? The whole system will get really screwed up.
Maintenance happens at night. If you maintain your equipment properly, which you must for HSR, it doesn't break down. How often do planes of major airlines go tech? Very seldom, especially considering how many hours a day they fly.

You're putting too much faith in everything running perfectly all the time. In reality it doesn't, and considering the reliability of the cost estimates and timelines for this project I won't get my hopes up that if/when this opens they'll be more competent running it. For a modern high speed rail system you need at least two sets of tracks.

No, I'm being realistic. You don't increase your infrastructure by 50+% for a "what if". If frequency increases, then you put in a full double track. To start, no. That would be like the airlines having 1 spare plane sitting around for every 3 flying.

c933103 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:58 am

johns624 wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Maintenance happens at night. If you maintain your equipment properly, which you must for HSR, it doesn't break down. How often do planes of major airlines go tech? Very seldom, especially considering how many hours a day they fly.

You're putting too much faith in everything running perfectly all the time. In reality it doesn't, and considering the reliability of the cost estimates and timelines for this project I won't get my hopes up that if/when this opens they'll be more competent running it. For a modern high speed rail system you need at least two sets of tracks.
No, I'm being realistic. You don't increase your infrastructure by 50+% for a "what if". If frequency increases, then you put in a full double track. To start, no. That would be like the airlines having 1 spare plane sitting around for every 3 flying.

Infrastructure would not be increased 50%+ just for double track. As they planned to eventually lay double track railway, all the tunnel, bridge, stations, power supply, will have enough space and capacity as needed for double track railway. It's only the rail itself that would be different, and hence a cost saving of only 1 billion out of 22 billion for the 171 miles long initial line.

af773atmsp · Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:59 am

johns624 wrote:
af773atmsp wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Maintenance happens at night. If you maintain your equipment properly, which you must for HSR, it doesn't break down. How often do planes of major airlines go tech? Very seldom, especially considering how many hours a day they fly.

You're putting too much faith in everything running perfectly all the time. In reality it doesn't, and considering the reliability of the cost estimates and timelines for this project I won't get my hopes up that if/when this opens they'll be more competent running it. For a modern high speed rail system you need at least two sets of tracks.
No, I'm being realistic. You don't increase your infrastructure by 50+% for a "what if". If frequency increases, then you put in a full double track. To start, no. That would be like the airlines having 1 spare plane sitting around for every 3 flying.

Can you provide an example of a high speed rail line that uses a single track for most of the route?

c933103 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:02 am

Aaron747 wrote:
That is true, but in spite of rigorous maintenance programs, Korea, Taiwan and Japan all use double-tracked HSR.

Idea for single track high speed railway have recently surfaced in Japan, but that's for connecting a remote area with only 1 million population. (San'in)

LCDFlight · Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:17 am

What a joke.

It's understandable, but I only ask that the people responsible be held personally liable. It's important they learn they have hurt society. Their ignorance has caused real people to go without. When ignorance reaches crisis proportions, you start to get things like California High Speed Rail. The next stages of government narcissism lead toward famine.

Aaron747 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:31 am

LCDFlight wrote:
What a joke.

It's understandable, but I only ask that the people responsible be held personally liable. It's important they learn they have hurt society. Their ignorance has caused real people to go without. When ignorance reaches crisis proportions, you start to get things like California High Speed Rail. The next stages of government narcissism lead toward famine.

The original proposal process in the 1990s was well intentioned. By the time consultants and Central Valley taxpayer associations got involved, everything had metasticized into the mess this has been since 2005 or so. Comes with the territory of being a state the size of a significant nation.

WIederling · Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:46 pm

johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

No way you can get high speed turmouts on HSR. Both path have to be able to be taken with full speed. Forget it.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:36 pm

Aaron747 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
What a joke.

It's understandable, but I only ask that the people responsible be held personally liable. It's important they learn they have hurt society. Their ignorance has caused real people to go without. When ignorance reaches crisis proportions, you start to get things like California High Speed Rail. The next stages of government narcissism lead toward famine.

The original proposal process in the 1990s was well intentioned. By the time consultants and Central Valley taxpayer associations got involved, everything had metasticized into the mess this has been since 2005 or so. Comes with the territory of being a state the size of a significant nation.

Life is about execution, not intentions. Most political failures begin with good intentions, see War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Prohibition, Zoning/Building Codes in Cali.

WIederling · Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:01 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Life is about execution, not intentions. Most political failures begin with good intentions, see War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Prohibition, Zoning/Building Codes in Cali.

I am rather certain that for all the "wars on $something" the "good intentions" never went beyond cloaking more insidious intentions.
( just like the "no child left behind". Bad intentions from the get go.

No idea about building codes in Cali. :-)

Aaron747 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:16 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
What a joke.

It's understandable, but I only ask that the people responsible be held personally liable. It's important they learn they have hurt society. Their ignorance has caused real people to go without. When ignorance reaches crisis proportions, you start to get things like California High Speed Rail. The next stages of government narcissism lead toward famine.

The original proposal process in the 1990s was well intentioned. By the time consultants and Central Valley taxpayer associations got involved, everything had metasticized into the mess this has been since 2005 or so. Comes with the territory of being a state the size of a significant nation.

Life is about execution, not intentions. Most political failures begin with good intentions, see War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Prohibition, Zoning/Building Codes in Cali.

That’s odd..earlier in this thread you were defending CA voters - they opted to go for those zoning and building codes you cite.

GalaxyFlyer · Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:43 pm

I wasn’t defending them, I just said they got what they voted for, they just didn’t know what they got would be used by the politically powerful as any study of public choice economics would predict. Cali zoning and building codes drive up costs, protect the rich incumbents by keeping out the lesser orders from building and keep asset values up.

Aaron747 · Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:24 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I wasn’t defending them, I just said they got what they voted for, they just didn’t know what they got would be used by the politically powerful as any study of public choice economics would predict. Cali zoning and building codes drive up costs, protect the rich incumbents by keeping out the lesser orders from building and keep asset values up.

Rich incumbents have been the politically powerful throughout the state's history, but whatevs, you're the expert.

Paars · Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:02 pm

WIederling wrote:
johns624 wrote:
As long as the switches have high speed turnouts, there's nothing wrong with single track with occasional passing sidings. You'd be surprised at how many trains you can run on a system like that.

No way you can get high speed turmouts on HSR. Both path have to be able to be taken with full speed. Forget it.

https://youtu.be/6p9I76xoW0I?t=195 shows Germans have at least one turnout accepting speeds of 200 km/h (about 125 mph).

Still, I agree single track highspeed rail infrastructure and high traffic density traffic is a funny thought, but not impossible.

frmrCapCadet · Sun Feb 14, 2021 6:05 pm

Autonomous smaller bus-like vehicles and lanes for them will greatly increase through traffic capability on freeways. They could be economy, economy plus, and American business classes. While Musk says FSD by the end of the year, I am a lot more confident that it will be by the end of the decade. It will pose an incredible competitor to all moderate distance transportation modes. Oddly, if this is true the chants that spending money of freeways is an ecological disaster is not true. Those fabulously interconnected and no grade crossings multiple lanes will serve us well.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net