It looks like it's a SNAFU already.
From the L.A. Times:
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-construction-start-20150105-story.html#page=1
From Slate:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/01/06/high_speed_rail_is_a_waste_of_time_and_money.html
I can't help but wonder which country is taking the correct approach; China and Russia's ambitious plans (many $$$$ needed with an eye on the future), or the U.S.'s plan to more or less do nothing (no $$$ needed and no plans for the future). I suppose time will tell.
Nothing quite like quoting a meteorologist on the economics of HSR.
Rail also works best if there is infrastructure to get from actual trip origin to the originating train station and from final train station to the actual destination. In the east coast the density is such those two ancillary trips tend to be shorter and have some form of public transport support while in other parts of the country that support is less. Too often rail supporters are too focused on just the rail portion of the trip, when its the 10-20 mile trip at either end to use the rail that is the barrier to travelers
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/scientists-closer-developing-supersonic-submarine-article-1.1915078
How many minutes by submarine between California's two largest costal cities?
Is the supersonic submarine more likely to become reality before California's planned high speed rail system links Los Angeles to San Fransisco?
The Slate article was a total shocker, given Slate's strong leftward tilt. Amazingly the author recognizes the basic but often overlooked economic concept of 'opportunity costs', that is, what else could we do with this money. He is all about reduced carbon emissions. In a backhanded way it illustrates how you can get burned selling sizzle, environmental benefits, instead of the steak, mobility, and avoidance of worse investments like highway lanes and airports.
My personal take is that California will have the same unhappy results as Illinois and other "Old Northwest" states had with state railroads in the 1840's. Only time will tell.
Mac
Victrola1 Chinese scientists a step closer to developing supersonic submarine The new ‘supercavitation’ methodology could see the vehicles travel at rates up to 3,600 mph underwater, being able to make the trip from Shanghai to San Francisco in about two hours. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/scientists-closer-developing-supersonic-submarine-article-1.1915078 How many minutes by submarine between California's two largest costal cities? Is the supersonic submarine more likely to become reality before California's planned high speed rail system links Los Angeles to San Fransisco?
Sounds about as plausable as cold fusion prime movers for locomotives. Not likely to happen soon.
Norm
Norm48327Sounds about as plausible as cold fusion prime movers for locomotives. Not likely to happen soon.
This is about the same level of 'innovation' as exhibited by that Chinese girl who re-invented the Pullman car a couple of years ago.
What's supposedly so 'new' is the use of a liquid boundary layer of low effective viscosity to permit the vehicle to accelerate to a high enough speed that the "bubble" reduction of hydrodynamic drag can begin to work without instabilities. That was known technology in 1974 (when I had it explained to me by the head of one of the companies that fabricated SSBN reactor vessels).
It is sad that none of the people who are commenting on the Harbin story seem to understand the concept of the plasma spike and what it does, as they would figure out it isn't 'bubbles of air' alone that make the trick work at the indicated speeds. (Or what might be involved in steering the vehicle effectively at high speeds, better than the RCS used on the Shkval...)
It is also sad that the source that mentioned the Shkval was so lazy they couldn't recognize the right (well, the usual) Romanized spelling, which I took to be an indication they hadn't really read up on the design itself.
Of course, the lateral acceleration of water, whether moved by lateral component of a shockwave or by other displacement, still involves inertia as well as the various factors of fluid resistance. So the power required to get a submarine of any appreciable cross-section, even if given a long-taper RV forebody, up to the speeds quoted is still... excessive... for practical purposes.
We won't go into the noise signature, or the shock effects on whales and sea lions, or other things that might make use of this technology "unpopular" in California. Don't look for it to replace the Hyperloop any time soon, to say nothing of the Cali HSR (or the all-electric Infinibuses the Slate guy would use instead).
On a number of O-D (Origin-Destination) pairs, the Interstate Highway system is reaching the traffic saturation point today. In most cases the airports serving these O-D pairs are also close to the maximum flight capacity. What will handle the additional traffic as the population continues to increase into coming years and decades.
HSR construction today is not for today's travelers - it is for travelers in the next decades. HSR requires forward vision. Seeing only today and yesterday is a sure way of not having facilities that will be necessary for tomorrow.
Those that decry the expense of HSR today have their heads firmly planted in the South end of the 19th Century's Northbound horses and will never understand that we are in the 21st Century and needing to get infrastructure in place to be usable in the middle of the Century to support society as it approaches the 22nd Century.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD On a number of O-D (Origin-Destination) pairs, the Interstate Highway system is reaching the traffic saturation point today. In most cases the airports serving these O-D pairs are also close to the maximum flight capacity. What will handle the additional traffic as the population continues to increase into coming years and decades. HSR construction today is not for today's travelers - it is for travelers in the next decades. HSR requires forward vision. Seeing only today and yesterday is a sure way of not having facilities that will be necessary for tomorrow. Those that decry the expense of HSR today have their heads firmly planted in the South end of the 19th Century's Northbound horses and will never understand that we are in the 21st Century and needing to get infrastructure in place to be usable in the middle of the Century to support society as it approaches the 22nd Century.
BaltACD: +2
Superbly-stated exposition of why we need to build advanced infrastructure, including HSR.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I would take the work on the California HSR a bit more seriously if it started on the LOSSAN corridor. Instead, the HSR construction is starting where it is because someone was really anxious to get a completely unrelated piece of legislation passed.
I would also take the HSR work a bit more seriously if the plan was to build the track with an alignment compatible with 220MPH running, but start off with 150 - 160 MPH (i.e. current Accela top speed). Unlike Accela, this would be sustained 150MPH running and there would certainly a lot of useful experience that would come out of that.
- Erik
In January of 1965 the choices of how to get from LAX to SFO were these.
United Airlines 727, a slightly slower PSA Lockheed Electra which cost 2 bucks less, Southern Pacific's trains which were more expensive than either United or PSA. The others were driving US101 not all of which was freeway, or riding the bus.
January 2015, not much has changed. We have Amtrak and I-5 is finished, gas prices have risen. Aircraft fly at the speeds they did in 1965 but it costs much more to fly in them.
In 2065, just how will we get from LAX to SFO? In all likelyhood the same ways unless somebody thinks outside the box.
erikem I would take the work on the California HSR a bit more seriously if it started on the LOSSAN corridor. Instead, the HSR construction is starting where it is because someone was really anxious to get a completely unrelated piece of legislation passed. I would also take the HSR work a bit more seriously if the plan was to build the track with an alignment compatible with 220MPH running, but start off with 150 - 160 MPH (i.e. current Accela top speed). Unlike Accela, this would be sustained 150MPH running and there would certainly a lot of useful experience that would come out of that. - Erik
The funds currently available to the California HSR don't permit them to tackle land acquisition in either the LA or SF metropolitan areas, let alone construction of a operating line. They have taken the tact of 'building something', something that can be seen and ridden with the chances of changing some of the 'dead set against' minds, the chances of securing additional investments (if not from private sources, then from various governmental authorities). The funds that California HSR presently have available could be sucked down a rat hole in either LA or SF leaving absolutely nothing to show except recriminations about where the money went.
BaltACD The funds currently available to the California HSR don't permit them to tackle land acquisition in either the LA or SF metropolitan areas, let alone construction of a operating line. They have taken the tact of 'building something', something that can be seen and ridden with the chances of changing some of the 'dead set against' minds, the chances of securing additional investments (if not from private sources, then from various governmental authorities). The funds that California HSR presently have available could be sucked down a rat hole in either LA or SF leaving absolutely nothing to show except recriminations about where the money went.
dakotafred BaltACD The funds currently available to the California HSR don't permit them to tackle land acquisition in either the LA or SF metropolitan areas, let alone construction of a operating line. They have taken the tact of 'building something', something that can be seen and ridden with the chances of changing some of the 'dead set against' minds, the chances of securing additional investments (if not from private sources, then from various governmental authorities). The funds that California HSR presently have available could be sucked down a rat hole in either LA or SF leaving absolutely nothing to show except recriminations about where the money went. I think Balt's argument is exactly where Gov. Brown is coming from on this ... also the reason HSR will fail. They'll built this first link, spend all this money ... and what will they have to show the skeptics except a few riders and a ton of bills? A credible project would have bit the bullet and done the hard part first. I also don't agree that our future is in the hands of visionaries who can see one, two or more generations ahead. The original transcontinental was built by people who saw the compelling reasons NOW. And it still took 20 years of noodling by Congress before the work was undertaken. Modern circumstances -- including NIMBYism, government with little cash but lots of regulations and requirements -- make even that kind of timetable look optimistic. HSR will be built when circumstances dictate NO CHOICE and business people see the corresponding opportunity. Government -- California being Exhibit A -- flat doesn't and won't have the money.
There is no bullet to bite without money - much more money than CA HSR has available to it. They are biting the only bullet that is available to them - it may be a .22 short instead of a 50 caliber armor piercing round, but that is all they can bite on a present.
Would like to give an example.
1. Before the interstate system was built it took 2 days to drive from Atlanta / Macon to south Florida.
2. Once florida built I-75 from Perry, Ga to Wildwood, Fl and the turnpike was built with non interstate funds from Wildwood to the Palm Beach / Miami area driving time was reduced to 14 - 15 hours from Atlanta. If anyone thinks that the population density on this I-75 corridor at that time was anything more compared to the San Jaoquin route today think again.
3. Finally I-75 extended to south of Atlanta and another hour eliminated.
4. The Atlanta downtown connector finally completed allowed Atlanta - Miami 12-1/2 hours.
5. Much more money spent for the last few miles of # 3 & 4.
6. Once San Jaoquin valley completed and in operation potential of enroute times reduction will be great. Of course the problem of switching diesel - eletric back and forth will need to be resolved however the UK has solved that problem.
7. As other sections completed enroute times will also be reduced.
It is all a matter of the biggest bang for the buck and what can be completed faster.
Streak: Excellent analogy that demonstarates the concept: "Build it and they will come," though in this case, more like they will want it completed and more HSRs built, as has happened elsewhere..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.