Working With What You Have
Oct. 7th, 2008 01:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kevin_standleeI am not 100% enthusiastic about Proposition 1A, the California High-Speed Rail Bond. Specifically, I think the route choice over Pacheco Pass is wrong, and will, 50 years from now, be seen as a short-sighted mistake. The main reason the route was chosen was to pander to San Jose-area politicians who couldn't bear the thought of their city not being a stop for every single train. As I've said before, I, like most transit advocates, favored the Altamont Pass routing, through Niles Canyon and Fremont, across the Dumbarton Bridge, with some trains heading north to San Francisco and others south to San Jose. (Alternatively, trains could split south at Fremont, and some would go to Oakland as well; the specifics don't worry me on that one.)
In addition, the Altamont route would have served more populated areas of the Central Valley. Others have said, "Oh, the route has to stay away from populated areas because the purpose is to transport people between LA and San Jose/San Francisco," but I disagree with that. While not every train would stop at every station (another mistake people seem to make), having intermediate stations along the route makes the total route more useful, not just something handy for the Bay Area and LA. (In fact, if it were only useful for those two areas, I'd oppose the project.)
Is the CHSR the best route? Probably not, in my opinion. But the perfect is the enemy of the good, and if we don't get started, we'll never get anywhere. I'm going to vote for 1A anyway, even though I think it could have been better.
In addition, the Altamont route would have served more populated areas of the Central Valley. Others have said, "Oh, the route has to stay away from populated areas because the purpose is to transport people between LA and San Jose/San Francisco," but I disagree with that. While not every train would stop at every station (another mistake people seem to make), having intermediate stations along the route makes the total route more useful, not just something handy for the Bay Area and LA. (In fact, if it were only useful for those two areas, I'd oppose the project.)
Is the CHSR the best route? Probably not, in my opinion. But the perfect is the enemy of the good, and if we don't get started, we'll never get anywhere. I'm going to vote for 1A anyway, even though I think it could have been better.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 08:34 pm (UTC)Don't get me wrong. I think that this country desperately needs a high-speed rail infrastructure, especially in the West, but I think that much more consideration needs to be given to how it is to be paid for. At a time when the state budget is already in crisis and facing increasing shortfalls, taking on more debt just seems like a real bad idea, not unlike leveraging risky mortgage packages.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 10:05 pm (UTC)I doubt I'm changing my vote, since I'm inclined to believe that any postponement will lead to the project simply not getting done, but I am interested in hearing if that is not actually true.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 11:26 pm (UTC)Personally, I'd also like to know more about the design of the proposed system. Is it easily adaptable to improvements in technology, or does it dead-end if something like affordable room-temp superconductors pop up, forcing the whole thing to be torn up and rebuilt? Is the whole system forward looking or bound to present tech?
Until state debt is gotten under some sort of control (difficult while the state initiative system makes it so easy for the voters to make idiotic decisions about mandated spending), I tend to automatically vote 'no' on bond issues. Spending money you don't have in uncertain economic times when you don't have a realistic vision of where the funds to pay it back are going to come from is a bad idea, no matter how desirable the project being funded may be.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-08 12:01 am (UTC)If you mean "can you convert it to maglev overnight?" then the answer is "no."
Compared to the current state of American railroad technology, HSR is a quantum leap forward, given that it would use the engineering standards of systems that already go at speeds of between 300 and 350 kph and are capable of more (the TGV has run >500 kph under specially controlled circumstances).Define what you mean by "present tech." The commitment is to steel wheels on steel rails, which we know works. Compared to anything operating in North America today, it is space-age and futuristic, with gosh-wow pointy noses. (In this case, the aerodynamic shapes really make a significant difference.) Compared to the state of the art elsewhere, it's just us catching up from years of neglect.
Maglev continues to be the solution of tomorrow -- and I mean that in the sense of the restaurant that has a sign that says "Free Lunch tomorrow" painted on its wall. Note that countries that had even more of a commitment to maglev, like Germany, gave up on building a production maglev in favor of "conventional" high speed rail.
And I'm not in favor of building a system that is utterly incompatible with existing rail infrastructure, because as currently planned, high speed trains will share tracks with existing rail systems at the San Francisco and Los Angeles ends, although they'll have dedicated new-build ROW elsewhere.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-08 12:17 am (UTC)As I mentioned, I am not particularly knowledgeable of the economics involved which is I was asking if you had any idea about how the numbers shake out for building now vs. later. And if you did, I was interested in knowing how long of a postponement you would consider likely. Not a challenge, but a question-if I had the answers to your questions I wouldn't be asking mine :)
From your reply it sounds as though you have as many questions as I do so no worries.
no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 09:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 10:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 09:59 pm (UTC)