FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your complaint about demanding excessive speed
> where a little compromise would be useful, with
> CAHSR, is valid but misses the point. The system's
> design criteria were politically determined - in
> particular the travel time bogey - and require
> that "blended" operation be minimized. Also,
> conventional rail in the US generally, and Calif
> in particular, is really unsuitable for most HSR
> use; the huge number of grade crossings, alone,
> makes it difficult.
>
> Yes, I know there are grade crossings on Caltrain,
> a lot, but fewer than there once were. Grade
> separations have been done, and with continued
> funding (there's that word again: $funding$) will
> continue to be done where politically feasible
> (some towns don't want them for some reason).
> Unfortunately, Metrolink isn't as blessed with
> density and such to help with the cost of grade
> separating, easing curves, enlarging or replacing
> tunnels, etc. that would make blended HSR *as
> presently defined for California* use feasible.
>
> Use in blended operation also means the HSR trains
> have to meet grade crossing collision protection
> requirements. Can't use off the shelf European or
> Japanese stuff like Brightline (fully separated by
> being in the freeway median) can. So CAHSR trains
> will be bigger and heavier than what Brightline
> uses. Which means they'll need more power than
> Brightline will. They'll look a lot like what
> Amtrak runs on Acela, I think, with all that
> implies. The alternative is to build an entirely
> new railroad that's fully grade separated, without
> a convenient freeway to put it in. Which is what
> they're doing and what costs so stinking much.
>
> It's probably too late to go back to the voters
> and get a more realistic speed limit and budget
> (less of the former and more of the latter). So I
> don't expect to see any more than a Central Valley
> amusement park ride for the foreseeable future. I
> would love to be proven wrong, but I really don't
> expect to live long enough to see it producing
> useful transportation service.

None of main answers are valid concerns when it comes to saving taxpayers six billion taxpayer dollars.

1. The legislature can, with two thirds vote, reform and restructure the entire CAHSRA fiasco. They could do it tomorrow morning if the Governor called a special session. And they can change a lot with majority legislation to impose actual cost/benefit requirements, value engineering, requiring a much more competitive contracting process, and establishing "public" controls, and separate "checks and balances" between planning, prioritizing, funding, and putting out to bid future HSR segments.

IIRC the opponents even tried some tact on a lawsuit or attempted lawsuit, where they challenged that the CAHSRA could meet the requirements and this was left to the CAHSRA to answer to the legislature on, not the plaintiffs.

2. And I thought you'd know better than proposing this thesis without checking the map first. But that's utter BS about the existing grade separation issues on the shared/blended operations on the tracks on the Coastline from LAUS north to the SR-118. Most major arterials and many minor streets are now completely grade separated, and several others are under planning or have just been funded. So, if you actually count the at grade crossings LAUS to Burbank Airport this segment actually has way fewer and much safer grade crossings than Caltrain does.

3. Just like the much-needed Caltrain "blended" grade separations being built in in the Bay Area, spending way less to do the same with the few remaining grade crossings in North Glendale, Burbank, and Sun Valley, and also to rebuild several others for full four track capacity, would benefit "all" of shared user services (Metrolink, LOSSAN, HSR, future Brightline direct from LA via Palmdale...). And of course, that would save literally "billions and billions" of dollars from the $15+ billion proposed to build tunnels, which will be the cost of the stolen (for this it is theft) taxpayer dollars being wasted to improve HSR travel times by four whole minutes? minutes??????

This blended alternative, and the use of the way less costly (and "evil capitalist") Brightline "style" "surface" use the SR-118 Freeway alignment option, could save at least 3 "SOFI's" worth of wasted taxpayer dollars. At least when compared to the current planned fiasco.

I'm a kind of thinking that I'm going to start valuing the cost of all "boondoggles" in equivalent value of "crypto" traded "SOFI's", with the value of one SOFI set at $2 billion US?

I will also note that much of this is on ML's and LOSSAN's build out list already, and that the CAHSRA has completely adopted this approach in the shared/fully blended/LOSSAN/ML/HSR/BNSF, and at build out, to be a fully grade separated corridor from LAUS to Anaheim.

Just imagine we could actually waste the same amount of money by building "gold plated" overpriced things like the K line that folks would actually have way more benefit from?