 |
Re: CHSRA may operate over "conventional" Metrolink trackage Palmdale to LA
Author: BOB2
Date: 03-22-2011 - 06:48
The mouse musings are pretty deep this morning. As usual mook and Eric H have it right. And, despite the latest mouse musings, since when does a story by the CRF controlled CRN, written by Rich Tolmach, necessarily speak for the official position of the entire TRAC Board and membership?
The use of existing shared urban rail corridors makes excellent sense, as it allows for the possibility that a project might be built without bankrupting the State, as the dysfunctional CHSRA Board has appeared to be hell bent on doing, thus far.
The upgrading of urban gateway rail routes and interoperable shared use in high cost urban HSR corridors is standard for most of the successful HSR systems in Europe. And, despite the misinformation, disinformation, and/or spin by some, this doesn't make diesel operations the only choice for shared use.
The original ATSF planned Tehachipi bypass route, via a tunnel north of th Tejon Pass (near where the California Aqueduct now crosses) makes more sense, even if (especially if?) the CHSRA is committed to going via Palmadale. The all I-5 parallel route option is shorter, but with some serious and costly engineering issues. The route via Tehachipi, as is currently contemplated, is the longer of these three options, and is also a very expensive choice.
Unfortunately, the CHSRA HSR project has never been based on, planned for, or designed to meet, California's most likely or realistic rail travel needs. The project has only been focused on how to achieve super high train speeds required by the flawed legislation, regardless of the public costs and/or benefits. Therefore, options which could contain costs, encourage value engineering, achieve operational sustainability, and would result in a cost effective project have never really been taken very seriously in the CHSRA's decision making, until now.
So any change, which considers how to better meet real travel needs, while controlling the bloated gold plated designs, which have lead to exhorbitant project cost estimates, at the runaway CHSRA money train, are welcomed by this taxpayer.
The use of existing shared urban rail corridors makes excellent sense, as it allows for the possibility that a project might be built without bankrupting the State, as the dysfunctional CHSRA Board has appeared to be hell bent on doing, thus far.
The upgrading of urban gateway rail routes and interoperable shared use in high cost urban HSR corridors is standard for most of the successful HSR systems in Europe. And, despite the misinformation, disinformation, and/or spin by some, this doesn't make diesel operations the only choice for shared use.
The original ATSF planned Tehachipi bypass route, via a tunnel north of th Tejon Pass (near where the California Aqueduct now crosses) makes more sense, even if (especially if?) the CHSRA is committed to going via Palmadale. The all I-5 parallel route option is shorter, but with some serious and costly engineering issues. The route via Tehachipi, as is currently contemplated, is the longer of these three options, and is also a very expensive choice.
Unfortunately, the CHSRA HSR project has never been based on, planned for, or designed to meet, California's most likely or realistic rail travel needs. The project has only been focused on how to achieve super high train speeds required by the flawed legislation, regardless of the public costs and/or benefits. Therefore, options which could contain costs, encourage value engineering, achieve operational sustainability, and would result in a cost effective project have never really been taken very seriously in the CHSRA's decision making, until now.
So any change, which considers how to better meet real travel needs, while controlling the bloated gold plated designs, which have lead to exhorbitant project cost estimates, at the runaway CHSRA money train, are welcomed by this taxpayer.
