Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
Is there an "OMG global warming is real we have to get this going right away regardless of cost" scenario? 2028 is a LONG time from now--15 years to build 1300 km of ROW.

Seems like it only took Spain about 20 years to build 2600 km of HSR--and they were not under the sort of enormous environmental, economic, and political pressure that seems likely to arise in our next decade or so...

(Of course the plan here in Colorado is to sink one's head into the sand, so CA is doing a lot better than us...)

by asdf on Mon Jul 9th, 2012 at 12:43:29 PM EST
At this point, the "OMG Global Warming is real we have to cut back CO2 emissions at any cost" scenario is not about what happens in the 2030's but about what happens in the 2050's. We've already passed the turning points for not melting the Arctic ice cap. Or, in US terms, its about whether Miami ends up at the end of a skinny peninsula or ends up underwater.

That's why I draw the Steel Interstate down the Atlantic coast to Miami ~ in thirty years the Gulf Coast side, which actually hosts more truck freight, is less likely to be above sea level.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jul 9th, 2012 at 02:36:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hmmm. I was suggesting that a couple of summers of crop failures, heat-related fatalities, electricity outages, and floods, maybe the politics will take a sudden 180 degree turn. One must not get too optimistic, but I would think that planners should include that as a possibility.

After all, we had no trouble spending $1T+ on a decade's worth of war, so we could do the same for transitioning our energy system.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/us-climate-official-says-more-extreme-events-convin cing-many-americans-climate-change-is-real/2012/07/06/gJQAHNZ5QW_allComments.html?ctab=all_&

Seems that a discontinuous shift in public opinion is possible...

by asdf on Mon Jul 9th, 2012 at 04:41:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but preventing the melting of the Arctic ice cap requires that U-turn happening sometime around 2000 or earlier, and I don't see that happening. I expect the intertia already in the system is going to see substantial release of methane from former permafrost in the decade ahead, and even if we make substantial progress in a very short period of time, it'll be 20 years for that impact of that methane spike to fade.

This is like turning a super-tanker ... the lag between a hard turn on the rudder and the actual turn of the vessel is quite long. Add in that we were previously pushing the rudder hard the other way, and there is already momentum to the turn in the opposite direction.

What we would be aiming at in a hard, sudden change in policy is the limitation of the biosphere impact of the current Great Extinction event, hopefully avoiding a number of substantial biosphere system collapses, and retaining a prospect of complex industrial society surviving the century ahead. Both of those are laudable goals. But the time to make the turn and substantially mitigate all extreme climate change impacts was the 80's and the 90's.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jul 9th, 2012 at 07:47:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yep, agree on all counts. FYI the arctic methane is reportedly not as big a deal as sometimes made out...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/06/methane-game-upgrade/

by asdf on Mon Jul 9th, 2012 at 10:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
With all this NGL chasing fracking in the lower 48 states of the US, we may never know what put all that methane up in the atmosphere.

How big a deal it is for the major thresholds, I don't know, but the melting of the bulk or all of the Arctic Ice cap and opening up of the Northwest Passage is a threshold we are too close to, to expect that we could prevent it from occurring now.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 12:41:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe it's harder to build in a highly earthquake-prone area? Would they have to add extra supports of a higher level of technology to withstand earthquakes?  Just guessing, of course, and also acknowledging that my guess is probably of the naive variety.

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher
by Wife of Bath (kareninaustin at g mail dot com) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 03:49:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's capital cost inflation in all big US infrastructure investment projects, for similar reasons though not to the same extent that infrastructure project costs are often inflated in Greece ~ the yellow belly surplus suckers must be fed. In the typical California case, a severely understaffed Joint Powers Authority has a skeleton staff and all major project management must be done by contractors, who systemically overbudget and plan to overbuild.

But its not as severe as the headline $68b price tag makes it sound, since that is the Year of Expenditure budgeting that the US DoT insists upon. The discounted present value is projected to be around $53b.

The Initial Construction Corridor, through the Central Valley, is around $6b, for 210km of HSR corridor, less electrification.

The most expensive section is the descent into the LA Basin, either over the Tejon Pass, or on the preferred corridor, following the population, over the Tehachapi Pass. The second most expensive section is the traverse from the Central Valley to the Bay Area. One might imagine that improved project management could trim another $5b or $10b out, but a SF Bay to LA Basin Express corridor plus upgrades to provide Express Interurban access to downtown San Francisco and downtown LA is going to cost north of 2012 $40b, in any event.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 09:02:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The routes into both cities pass through some mighty expensive real estate. That's a side effect of procrastinating on building railroads, I suppose...you wait until it's "needed" and then find that the ROW is filled with multi-million dollar houses...
by asdf on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 09:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, but the route into San Francisco mostly follows an already existing rail corridor that is plenty wide for four tracks for most of its width. Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Atherton (PAMPA) have kicked up a fuss about the dedicated corridor for the HSR, in response to presumed catastrophic declines in property values if an existing rail corridor gets more trains.

So in response the revised business plan calls for upgrading the exiting Caltrain corridor so that HSR and Caltrain can share the corridor. That implies that by the time capacity constraints force widening of the corridor in those areas it will be (1) even more expensive and (2) will be such an in-demand upgrade to an existing rail service by that time that PAMPA opposition at that point is likely to be both diluted and in a position to be steamrollered.

The big problem in the descent to the LA Basin is not development since the corridor was first studied in the 1990's, but rather detailed geography and environmental constraint in the descent into the San Fernando Valley.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 10:57:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, yer in here I see...

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/04/the-vexed-dtx-tunnel/#comments

What is the minimum radius of those corridors? Will they support full speed operation, something like 3000 m radius?

by asdf on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 01:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The DTX approach tunnel to the Transbay Terminal station throat is a horrible design. Its supposed to be three tracks wide, but with no better capacity than a well designed two track tunnel would have, due to an insistence on placing the intermediate underground platform terminals directly on the outside two lines, so the entire length of the central track through the entire tunnel is occupied with the task of juggling Express trains past the platforms.

With two right angle turns in the approach, and the curve radius for three tracks in a shallow cut and cover tunnel along the street grid, its obviously not a high speed tunnel. I'd expect 5 minutes minimum lost to the traverse between the tunnel mouth and the TBT station throat, leaving the Caltrain run to be 25mins or under to achieve a SF/SJ time of 0:30.

OTOH, they just started getting serious about value engineering at Parsons-Brinkerhoff when it looked like the $100b Year of Expenditure price tag was going to knock the project out due to sticker shock. If the Governor's office puts ongoing pressure on keeping the costs down and performance up, they could still change to siding platform track with high speed switches at the underground 4th and Townsend station and a two track tunnel, which would allow for higher radius curves in the DTX, simpler operation, and pick up a minute or two at a saving of money.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 06:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
On the specific "damn it! We need this train now!" question, the Initial Operating Service is slated to be operational in 2023, between Merced and the San Fernando Valley, if the funding is sorted out in time. That makes an immediate "single seat ride between the Bay and the Basin" hook up a diesel locomotive and haul the Express HSR train from Merced through to Oakland on the San Joaquin corridor.

Merced to Oakland-Jack London on the San Joaquin 3hrs. Suppose upgrades can bring that down to 2:15 for a higher speed diesel hauling an Express HSR train between Merced and Oakland. The LA-Union Station to Merced is slated at 1:40, so suppose that's really 2hrs. That would be 4:15 Basin to Bay, which would be pretty good as a starting point. Then finishing the 4th construction segment would complete a faster Bay to Basin through to San Jose, and the bookends would provide the single seat SF to LA.

There's also cobbled together things one could do if one could get through Bakersfield and then to Palmdale and make use of the existing Antelope Valley corridor, but that is rather something to hammer out if it becomes urgent. The single seat ride LA to Oakland in 4:15 would be a quite reasonable starter line.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 09:42:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's pretty amazing how fast you can work if you think there is gold at the far end of the track:

The D&RG built west from Pueblo reaching Cañon City in 1874. The line through the Royal Gorge reached Salida on May 20, 1880 and was pushed to Leadville later that same year. From Salida, the D&RG pushed west over the Continental Divide at the 10,845 feet (3,306 m) Marshall Pass and reached Gunnison on August 6, 1881. From Gunnison the line entered the Black Canyon of the Gunnison River passing the famous Curecanti Needle seen in their famous Scenic Line of the World Herald. The tracks left the increasingly difficult canyon at Cimmaron and passed over Cerro Summit, reaching Montrose on September 8, 1882. From Montrose, a line was laid north through Delta, reaching Grand Junction in March 1883, which completed a narrow gauge transcontinental link with the Rio Grande Western Railway to Salt Lake City, Utah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_and_Rio_Grande_Western_Railroad

With picks, wheelbarrows, and donkeys.

by asdf on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 01:10:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Different days as far as regulatory clearance go. The EIR/QEPA processes add years, and also uncertainty since the sole enforcement mechanism for both are lawsuits.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 06:07:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well that's fer sure. Back in the good old days, if your competitor got in the way then you hired some gunslingers.

The Colorado Railroad War, also known as the Royal Gorge Railroad War, was fought in the late 1870s between the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway and the smaller Denver and Rio Grande company. In 1878, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe was competing against the Denver and Rio Grande to put the first line through Raton Pass. Both railroads had extended lines into Trinidad, Colorado and the pass was the only access to continue on to New Mexico. There was a great deal of legal maneuvering, and even threatened violence between rival gangs of railroad workers. To break the impasse, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe hired a number of local gunfighters in February 1878. Faced with this threat, and running out of money, the Denver and Rio Grande was forced to cede the pass to its rivals. The initial dispute was over without a shot being fired. However, the next year a silver strike in Leadville brought the struggle back to life.[3][4][5]

Now both railroads were competing to put track along the narrow Royal Gorge. The Denver and Rio Grande had hired its own gunfighters so the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe decided to strengthen its forces. On March 20, 1879 the railroad hired Bat Masterson to put together a group of gunmen. Masterson's force included such famous fighters as Doc Holliday, Ben Thompson, Dave Rudabaugh and Mysterious Dave Mather, as well as about seventy others. This impressive force had great success through early June 1879, but, on June 10, the Fourth Judicial Circuit ruled in favor of the Denver and Rio Grande, changing matters entirely. With the assistance of the sheriffs in the counties through which the railroads passed, the Denver and Rio Grande mounted an attack on its rival's forces. There was heavy fighting at the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe's garrisons in Colorado. The garrisons in Denver and Colorado Springs fell quickly. Masterson's headquarters in Pueblo held out the longest, but they eventually conceded defeat. Later there were some bloodless skirmishes, but the war was essentially over with the Denver and Rio Grande in control of the Royal Gorge.[3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_Wars#Colorado_Railroad_War
by asdf on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 06:22:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Two things missing from this account are the story of Dick Wooten, and the fact that the "forts" (really just stone walls to hide behind) are still visible in the canyon...

Dick owned Raton Pass, and refused to sell it to the D&RG because they wouldn't give him a bribe of whiskey. (William Jackson Palmer, owner of the D&RG was a teetotaler.) The Santa Fe had no such scruples, and so he sold the ROW rights to them.

by asdf on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 06:28:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Tue Jul 10th, 2012 at 06:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 20
8 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
1 comment

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
10 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series