Posted on 02/16/2015 5:02:12 PM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Most of the debate over the building of the nation's first bullet train, in California, has focused on the economics of such a monumental undertaking and its projected $68-billion first-phase price tag. Largely ignored amid the excitement over the railway's recent official groundbreaking is the physical impact and design challenges that cities will need to grapple with as they prepare for high-speed rail.
California should look to rail systems across Europe to fully understand the challenge of building a transportation hub that connects to the community.
To make the most of California's once-in-a-lifetime chance at building a thriving transportation network, cities need to focus not only on the design of stations and their immediate surroundings but on the area extending half a mile around the station, the municipality at large and the broader region.
We may have to wait until 2029 to ride a bullet train from Los Angeles to San Francisco, but high-speed rail in California is no longer a “what if.” Neither is the need for well-designed railway stations with the potential to become city landmarks — and to connect Californians for generations to come.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Amen!
Of course nobody could accuse the California of the last 40 years to be forward looking.
How else will California get the workers from the barrios to their jobs?
Southwest Airlines does that now...at least once an hour.
And it costs taxpayers a lot less than 68+ billion bucks.
high speed rail is not synonymous with forward progress in delivering transportation solutions that are economically optimal.
california high speed rail in particular seems to have the same shine as BART did in the early 1960s— overly idealistic, expenses underestimated, and perennially running in the red, sucking transportation funds away from more worthy and more practical mass transit such as bus and conventional rail.
Once the density criteria are met (note: not a given in California or the Western US in general), one can and probably should look to Europe as a role model. However, when one does look to Europe, one must note that (unlike California) Europe has an advanced conventional mass transit grid already in place, consisting of interlocked bus and conventional (though usually overhead-electrified) rail. Building a high speed rail transit system without adequate conventional mass transit feeds at each and every stop will simply duplicate the BART fiasco.
Compiling wish lists of options and gimmicks for a pie in the sky solution does not make one an expert at urban planning (although these days it apparently is plenty good enough for a professorship in urban planning at UCLA Luskin School).
LOL groundbreaking 6 to 7 years after proposal and then they wont even be ready till 2029 anther 14 years.
How about that for Government funded efficiency!
Just in time for the wide spread uses of the Self-driving car.
As for the ‘train station’ the problem with any train is where you go from the point of arrival. Most U.S. cities particularly Los Angious are highly depended upon the uses of cars. The only real hope of this being work able is providing the ability to get wherever you want from and to the station in a timely and reliable manner.
And we really need them. This state is going to be burden with droughts.
Right now, San Francisco is busy constructing an underground high speed rail station before designing and laying track right of way out of the station.
How is that for well thought out urban planning solutions?
BART looked to Europe for solutions in the early 1960s— and rejected them all for a unique (and therefore more expensive) design. There is no evidence that California HSR will do anything but follow suit and repeat the mistakes of the past.
If you want to look at the follies of building HSR to nowhere, check out Taiwan’s HSR. It was very expensive to build and operates under a perennial deficit.
Want to kill it, just make Californians pay for it .... by themselves.
IMHO there are cheaper and less destructive ways to go.
Hahahahahaha...just watched that movie again the other night!
See comment #1
She looks a bit rough around the edges.
High speed rail lines require certain things like a well maintained level track, not stopping or slowing down at every town for noise abatement & people who will ride on it . As for it being in California high speed rail & earthquakes ain’t my idea of a fun/pleasant ride.
$68 billion should be enough to build a high speed rail between LA and London.
an easy way to spread measles...
Florida figured it would be cheeper to buy every potential rider their own limo and personal driver for the commute.
A great example of this is the Thalys service from Paris to Amsterdam--the top speed on Thalys is 300 km/h, and Paris all the way to Amsterdam is only a few hours away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.