California Bullet Train LA to SanFran

January 15th, 2017 at 2:10:15 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 47
Posts: 3968
The initial segment of 118 miles through the Central Valley from Merced to Shafter (just a bit north of Bakersfield) is the cheapest and easiest segment yet it is now at a fifty percent cost over run status. Is this 'business as usual' for California? Its flatland, mostly rural, no major right of way acquisition problems but things are just not getting done at all or else not getting done within the projected cost parameters and certainly not on schedule.

I wonder if regional airlines could make better use of the seventy billion dollars?

Give everyone a free airplane ticket between the two major cities and you could run the airline on just the interest payments on seventy billion dollars.

If the bullet train gets completed, watch it be slower than anticiapated . Perhaps there willl be jokes about Dum(b) Dum(b) Bullets.
January 15th, 2017 at 5:40:53 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 95
Posts: 5840
I thought of posting this to "In The News" but didn't for some reason.

This is no surprise, the one article said anywhere this kind of rail is tried worldwide it almost always goes at least 50% over budget. It is always the same anywhere, a local government thinks they can run a railroad when nobody involved ever ran one.

In this case the liberal CA government gets a case of Euro-envy and thinks because they do it in Europe then it should work here. Never mind the ruggedness of parts of CA or the uber-dense population of others. They will flush as much cash and credit down the drain as they have to so it will happen.

Rail is the thing of dreams and memories. Maybe in 30 years the Republic of California will complete it at just 300% of budget.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
January 15th, 2017 at 7:04:32 AM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 47
Posts: 3968
Running the railroad may be screwed up down the road but right now its a construction process and surely no local government is doing it themselves there is a major engineering firm somewhere in the mix.

You buy the land, you lay the track, whats to get over run? No tunnels out in the flat land of kiwi fruit and soybeans or cattle ranches. No mountains, no substantial grades at all.
January 15th, 2017 at 9:09:05 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7419

As most people know, much of Asia has given up on building airports unless they are on artificial islands.

Artificial islands aren't enough for many Western locations (primarily because water is too deep). Full blown "floating airports" have been proposed for San Diego and London.



A floating runway for LAX may handle all the widebody traffic. The current runways would be better equipped to handle the local traffic or the shuttles from LAX to San Francisco airports, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Seattle.

Proponents of air traffic feel that it may be easier than building statewide passenger trains.

Trains might remain, but only to connect parts of Southern California so that more airports can be reached easily.
January 15th, 2017 at 12:12:17 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 105
Posts: 10171
I have a train that goes thru my
city and have thought of going
somewhere on it. But the layovers
along the way make it not feasible.
When you have to switch trains,
the layover waiting for the next
one is often 4 hours or more. No
thanks.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
January 15th, 2017 at 12:37:28 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 95
Posts: 5840
Quote: Evenbob
I have a train that goes thru my
city and have thought of going
somewhere on it. But the layovers
along the way make it not feasible.
When you have to switch trains,
the layover waiting for the next
one is often 4 hours or more. No
thanks.


Trains make some sense in the northeast. Washington, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Boston, NYC, and other points. They drop you right in the city, unlike the airport. Add in potential delays and TSA nonsense and trains can be looked at. OTOH I took one Rochester to Atlantic City once, not worth the hassle unless you cannot drive.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
January 16th, 2017 at 6:40:13 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9998
Quote: Pacomartin
A floating runway for LAX may handle all the widebody traffic. The current runways would be better equipped to handle the local traffic or the shuttles from LAX to San Francisco airports, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, and Seattle.


What this datum does, or should do, is kill once and for all the idea of alternative airports. The LA area has like five (LAX, Long Beach, OC, Ontario and I think another one).

What I've read about them, is that they are like TLC around MEX: convenient to people with easy access to them, and completely unattractive to everyone else.

So, what happens if the floating airport floats away? :)
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
January 17th, 2017 at 2:29:27 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7419
Quote: Nareed
What this datum does, or should do, is kill once and for all the idea of alternative airports. The LA area has like five (LAX, Long Beach, OC, Ontario and I think another one). What I've read about them, is that they are like TLC around MEX: convenient to people with easy access to them, and completely unattractive to everyone else.

There is a long history of collections of regional airports failing to meet transportation demands. It's not just the people on the ground, but an airline with international flights needs a large domestic set of routes to support it.




Quote: Nareed
So, what happens if the floating airport floats away? :)


Anchoring things at sea is fairly well developed technology. They are not usually the size of an airport, but proponents say that scaling the technology is not really difficult.
January 17th, 2017 at 2:35:05 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 648
Posts: 7419

Cruising into England is currently done in the southern ports of Southampton or Portsmouth

The floating airport for London would also include a cruise terminal. The same rapid rail that serves the airport would also shuttle cruise ship passengers.
January 17th, 2017 at 7:13:18 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 301
Posts: 9998
Quote: Pacomartin
There is a long history of collections of regional airports failing to meet transportation demands. It's not just the people on the ground, but an airline with international flights needs a large domestic set of routes to support it.


TLC worked for a few years because 1) it was convenient for a wealthy sector of the Mex City population, 2) Flights out were cheap but on reasonably decent airlines, 3) MEX was so saturated there was no room at the terminal to serve as many slots as could be accommodated (this prompted building a second terminal eventually).

Had Mexicana stayed in business, very likely TLC would still thrive.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.