 |
Re: Makes sense... Tight curves, Tehachipi, and Acton?
Author: BOB2
Date: 07-29-2021 - 23:17
Thanks for those details. I’ll have to go as a virtual tourist through that topography. The curve radius at San Fernando / 118 would have to be tight.
So does that mean you’re on board with their Tehachapi crossing? The EIR for that is almost there. I think connecting LA to Bakersfield should be one of the highest priorities. Certainly way higher than their Pacheco dumpster fire.
Well, you can spend 3 billion taxpayer dollars to save 3 minutes, or you can actually slow the train to 90 for that tight curve on to the 118, as is done on many HSR systems around the world where the benefits don't warrant the costs... But, to those of us who are "clueless" and "slow thinking" value for taxpayer money might be too important of a parameter? Unlike at the CAHSRA fiasco where maximum obtainable train speed, regardless of costs (to build, to operate, or to ride)is the sole criteria to waste billion in taxpayer money.
We might even want to look for the optimal marginal cost/marginal productivity "sweet spot" in the trade off of travel time savings, construction costs, operating costs, fares, and ridership like "slow thinking" folks at Brightline, or the Texas HSR project do. Just like like we are required to do with Federally funded Freeway or Transit projects...
This is why I have encouraged some folks who are working on this to look at the FTA cost effectiveness rankings process (which has weeded out some real turkeys just by forcing folks to go through the excersise), and developing a similar "numbers based" prioritization criteria for FRA funded projects.
As to FUD's question... From Acton to Lang speeds will need to be increased, but there are a number of cheaper and fast (just not fastest regardless of costs or benefits)options, if maximum operating speed were not the only consideration at the "runaway money train", even the early 1920's SP plans fot 79 to 90 mph. raising the line off of the bottom to Soledad Canyon. An update hybid variant of that plan capable of mountain running, using more cuts, bridges and tunneling, at speeds of 110 would be far less costly to build, operate, and ride on, for that portion.
Tehachipi...? Once again, if speed regardless of costs or benefits is the sole criteria to spend vast amounts of taxpayer money, then they are doing a pretty expensive job of it in what they've proposed, thus far... And, I suspect that there might be a number of "cheaper" or more "cost effective" ways to do it, if one was using proper cost benefit based planning criteria.
So does that mean you’re on board with their Tehachapi crossing? The EIR for that is almost there. I think connecting LA to Bakersfield should be one of the highest priorities. Certainly way higher than their Pacheco dumpster fire.
Well, you can spend 3 billion taxpayer dollars to save 3 minutes, or you can actually slow the train to 90 for that tight curve on to the 118, as is done on many HSR systems around the world where the benefits don't warrant the costs... But, to those of us who are "clueless" and "slow thinking" value for taxpayer money might be too important of a parameter? Unlike at the CAHSRA fiasco where maximum obtainable train speed, regardless of costs (to build, to operate, or to ride)is the sole criteria to waste billion in taxpayer money.
We might even want to look for the optimal marginal cost/marginal productivity "sweet spot" in the trade off of travel time savings, construction costs, operating costs, fares, and ridership like "slow thinking" folks at Brightline, or the Texas HSR project do. Just like like we are required to do with Federally funded Freeway or Transit projects...
This is why I have encouraged some folks who are working on this to look at the FTA cost effectiveness rankings process (which has weeded out some real turkeys just by forcing folks to go through the excersise), and developing a similar "numbers based" prioritization criteria for FRA funded projects.
As to FUD's question... From Acton to Lang speeds will need to be increased, but there are a number of cheaper and fast (just not fastest regardless of costs or benefits)options, if maximum operating speed were not the only consideration at the "runaway money train", even the early 1920's SP plans fot 79 to 90 mph. raising the line off of the bottom to Soledad Canyon. An update hybid variant of that plan capable of mountain running, using more cuts, bridges and tunneling, at speeds of 110 would be far less costly to build, operate, and ride on, for that portion.
Tehachipi...? Once again, if speed regardless of costs or benefits is the sole criteria to spend vast amounts of taxpayer money, then they are doing a pretty expensive job of it in what they've proposed, thus far... And, I suspect that there might be a number of "cheaper" or more "cost effective" ways to do it, if one was using proper cost benefit based planning criteria.
