Obama pushes high-speed rail!

[Cecelia5578]

I dont think there is anything wrong with tunnels in the Bay Area per se; after all in 1989 (and the Northridge quake, IIRC) it was bridges and elevated freeways that spectacularly failed the most. The Transbay tunnel (as well as lots of other underground BART tunnels) seemed to fare ok. The problem here is that the cost would be huge, all to serve the interest of annoying NIMBYs.

[Broomstick]

It's nice that they will be using the land in California that's already been approved for high-speed rail rather than trying to start a competing project (I wouldn't put it past some people). If there's a viable alternative to living in the Silicon Valley and the Los Angeles area it would greatly reduce the demand for home prices in those places. People are already willing to commute for an hour-plus by car, I can't imagine they'd object to doing it by rail.

Speaking as a former rail commuter, people seem to tolerate 1-2 hour train rides quite well. In many ways it is considerably less stressful than driving. Also, you no longer have to worry if your fellow commuters fall asleep as they are not driving. I used to spend the time reading, napping, and studying (I did all my flight school homework on the commuter train while going to and from work).

They're finally getting double-decker passenger cars on the South Shore and South Bend Railroad in order to expand service, which, due in no small part to gas prices, has seen a jump in numbers.

However, the comment about not taking your shoes off may not last - the TSA would LOVE to expand their mission to security on the railroads, including commuter ones. That means metal detectors, inspecting backpacks and other luggage, and yes, personal searches including shoes.

[General Zod]

Thankfully TSA's justifications will be marginally slimmer and harder for them to get approved simply thanks to the fact that you can't drive trains anywhere but where the tracks are pointing.

[Broomstick]

All that sounds good, and personally I think that in areas where it's appropriate any disused canals should be put back into use as well. However, I am not sure it's enough. One of the reasons internal flights are far more important in the USA than in my little country (the UK) is that the distances are so huge. Is rail going to be fast enough?

For the past couple decades in the US rail freight has been doing quite well, even expanding both through dedicated rail and through intermodal traffic. Urgent stuff is sent by plane, but that which can safely take a week frequently goes by rail because it is much cheaper than air.

Remember that the US grew up during the first railroad boom, and in many ways because of it. All the major cities have railroad right-of-ways leading in and out already. We'll still use air freight for urgent and perishable stuff, pretty much everything else could go by rail.

Maybe it's time to put some serious effort into maglev. Journey times might well be about the same as air travel for that, given that maglev trains wouldn't have to start from miles and miles outside town. Maybe the rail rights of way could be used, and so avoid spending any more money on land to put them on?

So tell me how building mag-lev track stretching thousands of kilometers is going to save us money? Mag-lev infrastructure is more expensive than conventional rail, even high-speed welded rail. Also, how well will mag-lev stand up to climate extremes? That's a very important factor, especially when you have to maintain them over such wide distances.

[Broomstick]

Thankfully TSA's justifications will be marginally slimmer and harder for them to get approved simply thanks to the fact that you can't drive trains anywhere but where the tracks are pointing.

Uh-huh. What about that incident in Madrid a few years back, hmm? That's the kind of thing they'll use.

[General Zod]

Thankfully TSA's justifications will be marginally slimmer and harder for them to get approved simply thanks to the fact that you can't drive trains anywhere but where the tracks are pointing.

Uh-huh. What about that incident in Madrid a few years back, hmm? That's the kind of thing they'll use.

Which incident? I don't remember hearing anything about one, but it could just be I've handily forgotten it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Thankfully TSA's justifications will be marginally slimmer and harder for them to get approved simply thanks to the fact that you can't drive trains anywhere but where the tracks are pointing.

Uh-huh. What about that incident in Madrid a few years back, hmm? That's the kind of thing they'll use.

Which incident? I don't remember hearing anything about one, but it could just be I've handily forgotten it.

The 2004 Madrid Bombings. Phone-detonator backpack bombs. 191 dead, 1800 wounded.

[Phantasee]

Thankfully TSA's justifications will be marginally slimmer and harder for them to get approved simply thanks to the fact that you can't drive trains anywhere but where the tracks are pointing.

Uh-huh. What about that incident in Madrid a few years back, hmm? That's the kind of thing they'll use.

Which incident? I don't remember hearing anything about one, but it could just be I've handily forgotten it.

The Spanish have their own 9/11 - they call it 11-M.

EDIT: Fuck you, Chewie!

[Broomstick]

Yes. 3/11 or 11-M.

It stuck in my mind because, at the time, I was a daily rail commuter. (In Chicago, not Madrid)

[The Kernel]

The plan for California's HSR is that in the Peninsula (between San Jose and San Francisco) HSR is supposed to share Caltrain's existing right of way. What that involves is slightly widening things, so that two tracks in each direction for both Caltrain and HSR can exist. There is strong opposition to widening the current right of way and making above ground grade separations in the communities of Palo Alto, Atherton and Menlo Park-extremely affluent yuppiedom. Their demand is for a tunnel to be built under their sections, to be paid for by...the tooth fairy, I guess.

I live in this area and given the property values near the tracks I'm not exactly shocked by this. People can complain about the NIMBY mentality but it ultimately comes down to the people who have homes in that area getting fucked in the ass by watching their homes go underwater through no fault of their own.

[Simplicius]

I live in this area and given the property values near the tracks I'm not exactly shocked by this. People can complain about the NIMBY mentality but it ultimately comes down to the people who have homes in that area getting fucked in the ass by watching their homes go underwater through no fault of their own.

That sort of creature exists where I live and I can't muster sympathy for them, property values or no. No-one forced them to choose properties next to active rights-of-way, and having made that choice apparently without forethought doesn't entitle them to try and retard progress for everybody else.

[Phantasee]

I live in this area and given the property values near the tracks I'm not exactly shocked by this. People can complain about the NIMBY mentality but it ultimately comes down to the people who have homes in that area getting fucked in the ass by watching their homes go underwater through no fault of their own.

That sort of creature exists where I live and I can't muster sympathy for them, property values or no. No-one forced them to choose properties next to active rights-of-way, and having made that choice apparently without forethought doesn't entitle them to try and retard progress for everybody else.

There's a similar situation here. We have our first ring road, that has been planned for since 1974, but we've never had the cash to build it until now. The construction has started on the northern legs, to complete it. People up in St. Albert are now bitching that the road will pass too close to their expensive homes - homes that were built after the final right-of-way for the transit and utility corridor was set, in the mid to late 90s. They knew it would get there eventually, and now that the south, east, and west legs are done, they bitch? Cry me a river.

[Cecelia5578]

Thankfully TSA's justifications will be marginally slimmer and harder for them to get approved simply thanks to the fact that you can't drive trains anywhere but where the tracks are pointing.

Uh-huh. What about that incident in Madrid a few years back, hmm? That's the kind of thing they'll use.

What if terrorists had blown up a busy shopping mall instead of a train? I don't think it makes any difference-they detonated bombs in crowded places; that those crowded places were trains is irrelevant.

[Cecelia5578]

The plan for California's HSR is that in the Peninsula (between San Jose and San Francisco) HSR is supposed to share Caltrain's existing right of way. What that involves is slightly widening things, so that two tracks in each direction for both Caltrain and HSR can exist. There is strong opposition to widening the current right of way and making above ground grade separations in the communities of Palo Alto, Atherton and Menlo Park-extremely affluent yuppiedom. Their demand is for a tunnel to be built under their sections, to be paid for by...the tooth fairy, I guess.

I live in this area and given the property values near the tracks I'm not exactly shocked by this. People can complain about the NIMBY mentality but it ultimately comes down to the people who have homes in that area getting fucked in the ass by watching their homes go underwater through no fault of their own.

First, I don't think HSR would really fuck people up that badly, and I think a case could be made that the needs of the many, i.e. state of CA, certainly outweigh their own concerns. Anyways, the railroad was in the peninsula long before any of them moved there, and given the high level of education among peninsula-ites, they should have known plans for HSR have been floating around for a while...

[Redleader34]

I am odd, since I live in New York, land of extreme mass rail transit, so I hope we get some so we can expand our 2 line tunnel to a 4 line, but the thing to deal with property value wise is the closer you are to rails, the more expensive the houses are as the owners argue "you pay for the privilege of an easy commute". I don't get why HSR would destroy property values.

[Sea Skimmer]

I dont think there is anything wrong with tunnels in the Bay Area per se; after all in 1989 (and the Northridge quake, IIRC) it was bridges and elevated freeways that spectacularly failed the most. The Transbay tunnel (as well as lots of other underground BART tunnels) seemed to fare ok. The problem here is that the cost would be huge, all to serve the interest of annoying NIMBYs.

Tunnels below a certain depth, I think its around 80-100 feet, are very safe because in an earthquake only the upper layer of the earth’s surface actually moves. Tokyo now has a huge system of deep underground utility tunnel under construction precisely to protect them from earthquake damage, besides its extensive deep subway system. Entrances would remain vulnerable to collapse, but they’d just have to be built to very high standards. Like you say, that means lots of money.

I am odd, since I live in New York, land of extreme mass rail transit, so I hope we get some so we can expand our 2 line tunnel to a 4 line, but the thing to deal with property value wise is the closer you are to rails, the more expensive the houses are as the owners argue "you pay for the privilege of an easy commute". I don't get why HSR would destroy property values.

Because stations are much less frequent and people buying homes outside of cities except them to be very quite. Even when they bought a home right next to railroad tracks, or shooting ranges or drag strips. Stupidity has never stopped anyone from complaining about anything.

[Broomstick]

Thankfully TSA's justifications will be marginally slimmer and harder for them to get approved simply thanks to the fact that you can't drive trains anywhere but where the tracks are pointing.

Uh-huh. What about that incident in Madrid a few years back, hmm? That's the kind of thing they'll use.

What if terrorists had blown up a busy shopping mall instead of a train? I don't think it makes any difference-they detonated bombs in crowded places; that those crowded places were trains is irrelevant.

I agree - the problem is terrorists, not crowds. Nonetheless, there are security people who think the answer is exerting more and more control over crowds. I'm sure there are people who think we should institute security measures on shopping malls, too.

[Ryan Thunder]

He will be fueling it with confiscated guns and your tax dollars.

Excellent news.

If it goes through, I'll be envious. We could use a bettercheaper PT up here.

[Vendetta]

What if terrorists had blown up a busy shopping mall instead of a train? I don't think it makes any difference-they detonated bombs in crowded places; that those crowded places were trains is irrelevant.

Transport hubs have always been attractive terrorist targets because they cause maximum disruption for minimum effort.

Which is why, for instance, the only waste bins at British railway stations are clear plastic bags not the normal opaque containers (and frequently there are no bins on platforms at all), and why unattended baggage is always swiftly removed or treated as suspicious, because the rail network was an attractive target whilst the IRA were active.

[salm]

They want a tunnel under their ENTIRE CITY?

putting in a tunnel would be ridiculous when there's a perfectly good rail existing.

We´re currently doing that in Stuttgart. The arguments for it are that the existing tracks running through the city take up space that is extremely valuable. Furthermore the value of land decreases around tracks because of things like noise. Trains can not run at max speed through cities, whereas they can in tunnels.
There are other aspects such as having a continous train path Mannheim - Stuttgart - Ulm and getting rid of the annoying terminus type train station. This is Stuttgart specific but similar things might apply to the places metnioned by Cecelia5578.

It´s a very controvers project which took 15 or so years to finally get approved. There are problems with projects like this of course. It´s extremely expensive, depending on whom you ask 5 - 8 billion(!) Euros.
And there are some enviormental issues and issues with the distruction of historical buildings (which of course no body honestly gives a fuck about. In reality it´s all about the cost).

[Broomstick]

We´re currently doing that in Stuttgart. The arguments for it are that the existing tracks running through the city take up space that is extremely valuable.

Tunnels in trains are also safer than rails on ground - far fewer motorists and children getting run over because physical access to the rails is so much more difficult. If money really was no obstacle and resources were unlimited I'd argue we should put all rails in tunnels but that is completely unrealistic.

[salm]

We´re currently doing that in Stuttgart. The arguments for it are that the existing tracks running through the city take up space that is extremely valuable.

Tunnels in trains are also safer than rails on ground - far fewer motorists and children getting run over because physical access to the rails is so much more difficult. If money really was no obstacle and resources were unlimited I'd argue we should put all rails in tunnels but that is completely unrealistic.

Indeed. Nobody would shell out billions just to save a couple of kids and drivers. This argument falls into the enviornment and historical buildings category.

[Broomstick]

I am merely pointing out one of several reasons for train tunnels. The fact that there is a safety argument in no way invalidates historical preservation or noise concerns, hence the use of the inclusive word "also".

One could also elevate the tracks as a safety measure (indeed, the Chicago rail system is called the "El" as short hand for elevated, as much of the system is above street level) but that does nothing for noise and little for historical preservation (well, the Chicago Loop elevated is considered historical, but I suspect that's an exception for most such systems). Increased safety is not the sole reason to argue for tunnels, nor are tunnels the only way to increase safety. It is just another additional factor to consider.

Laying tracks on the ground is the cheapest way to build rail. Other methods are safer and often have other benefits, but cost more money. If you have a finite pool of money (and in the real world that is always the case) you have to find a way to make it stretch to cover the cost of the system. Frequently, though people are loathe to admit it, one of the tactics used is a decrease in safety.

[salm]

I am merely pointing out one of several reasons for train tunnels. The fact that there is a safety argument in no way invalidates historical preservation or noise concerns, hence the use of the inclusive word "also".

One could also elevate the tracks as a safety measure (indeed, the Chicago rail system is called the "El" as short hand for elevated, as much of the system is above street level) but that does nothing for noise and little for historical preservation (well, the Chicago Loop elevated is considered historical, but I suspect that's an exception for most such systems). Increased safety is not the sole reason to argue for tunnels, nor are tunnels the only way to increase safety. It is just another additional factor to consider.

Laying tracks on the ground is the cheapest way to build rail. Other methods are safer and often have other benefits, but cost more money. If you have a finite pool of money (and in the real world that is always the case) you have to find a way to make it stretch to cover the cost of the system. Frequently, though people are loathe to admit it, one of the tactics used is a decrease in safety.

I think there´s a misunderstanding and we are pretty much in agreement. I´m saying that primary reasons for projects like these is increased efficiency leading to economic advantages. A life or two a year don´t justify the enormous costs. On the other hand the arguments of the oposition claiming that such projects shouldn´t be started because a couple of historic building getting destroyed or envoironmental issues such as destroying a couple of biotopes are simillarily weak.

The only thing here that really counts is efficiency. Safty is important, too, but since non of the two systems are significantly unsafe it´s pretty much a non issue. It´s a nice byproduct, however.
Similar with the oposition. They have a point when they say that you must consider the enormous costs. Preserving biotopes and historcal buildings would be a nice byproduct of not building the tunnels but both of these arguments are so massively overshadowed by the cost argument that they´re next to irrelevant.

[Thanas]

On the other hand the arguments of the oposition claiming that such projects shouldn´t be started because a couple of historic building getting destroyed or envoironmental issues such as destroying a couple of biotopes are simillarily weak.

Depends on the building and the biotopes, don't you think?