Palo Alto blasts high-speed rail project for moving too fast

Go Palo Alto! This High Speed Rail project has been controversial since its inception. Spending billions of dollars in tax money to build an archaic rail system between 2 cities that already has TONS of other options - namely air, car or bus (and combinations thereof) does not make sense. As per latest plans, we already know that it will not even match the speeds already being achieved in Japan & China. With city specific requirements it will just slower. Do we really need just another train that is not actually HIGH SPEED, besides its name?

Instead, lets figure out how our Tax Money can be better utilized to fund Elon Musk's vision of hyperloop travel, or something similar to that in a private-public partnership. California needs to be visionary in solving commuting problems.

This train will be just as fast as any other high speed train system. it only takes maybe 5 miles for a TGV to get up to about 170 mph for example.
As for the hyperloop...even if they do eventually get it to work (doubtful) it will take years just to figure out the engineering, how to design and build it. Then, they have to build it, a process we're already in the middle of. why would we want to start over with a system we don't know will work at all?

Eric:

It's not what was promised. It's not high speed if you can't exceed 79 mph for the 50 or so miles between San Jose and San Francisco. That's no faster than Caltrain. Billions of dollars poured down a rat hole that doesn't deliver what was promised and never will.

it was never promised to be 200+mph for the entire journey. Even in the initial studies back in the late 90s it was only envisioned to be up to the max speed on the straight flats of the central valley. The speed restrictions you're talking about on the peninsula (and in SoCal) are the result of efforts to bring the costs down. I have no doubt that once the system is up an running, there will be demand down the line to straighten or provide a new higher speed alignment. I don't see how that argument translates to favoring of the hyperloop, which isn't proved to even be possible/buildable/functional as yet. Even if it was, it will require a completely new infrastructure so cost savings measures like the "blended plan" would be impossible. New infrastructure means all new right of way, and with its desired speeds, curvature radii in the vertical and horizontal will be much larger, probably on an order of magnitude - so your alignment options become much less flexible.
If the route between SF and San Jose was straight enough, and didn't have to deal with caltrain traffic, the train could easily attain high speeds. Check this video out-
Web Link
it shows a passenger on a TGV Duplex using a portable GPS tool to readout speed. You can track that with the clock of the video time, to get speed on a graph with time. with those numbers you can use math to figure out how far the train travels in its acceleration climb to 180 mph, and its only about 5 miles. If the braking profile is similar, and for normal operation (non-emergency stops) it probably is (for passenger comfort), that means if the track would allow, that the train could be at those speeds for 80% of a 50 mile trip.

Eric:

it was sold as making the trip in just over two hours. That's not what this train will do. That was lie number one. It was only cost $50 to ride from SF to LA. Lie number two. I could go on but I'm not going to waste my time. the lies used to sell this thing have been well documented.

I believe that the express train (SF-LA no stops) can still make the trip in the time allowed/required under the law.
And I do recall seeing some $50 pricing for some trips (don't remember which ones) tossed around back in the late 90s also, though I'm wise enough to take cost projections from 20 years ago with a grain of salt and not get upset over them. if you want to call that a "lie" and not "inflation" then get over it.
most of what you term "lies" have been debunked or settled by lawsuits in favor of the rail system. If you're just anti rail just say so, and stop trying to justify it.
I wonder if in 20 years, when hyperloop flops, would you still be mad that Musk lied and the system wasn't as "promised"?

...and it was just 2 hours 40 minutes, not "just over two hours"
wonder what else you may have misremembered.

2704.09. The high-speed train system to be constructed pursuant
to this chapter shall be designed to achieve the following
characteristics:
(a) Electric trains that are capable of sustained maximum revenue
operating speeds of no less than 200 miles per hour.
(b) Maximum nonstop service travel times for each corridor that
shall not exceed the following:
(1) San Francisco-Los Angeles Union Station: two hours, 40
minutes.
(2) Oakland-Los Angeles Union Station: two hours, 40 minutes.
(3) San Francisco-San Jose: 30 minutes.
(4) San Jose-Los Angeles: two hours, 10 minutes.
(5) San Diego-Los Angeles: one hour, 20 minutes.
(6) Inland Empire-Los Angeles: 30 minutes.
(7) Sacramento-Los Angeles: two hours, 20 minutes.
(c) Achievable operating headway (time between successive trains)
shall be five minutes or less.
(d) The total number of stations to be served by high-speed trains
for all of the corridors described in subdivision (b) of Section
2704.04 shall not exceed 24. There shall be no station between the
Gilroy station and the Merced station.
(e) Trains shall have the capability to transition intermediate
stations, or to bypass those stations, at mainline operating speed.
(f) For each corridor described in subdivision (b), passengers
shall have the capability of traveling from any station on that
corridor to any other station on that corridor without being required
to change trains.
(g) In order to reduce impacts on communities and the environment,
the alignment for the high-speed train system shall follow existing
transportation or utility corridors to the extent feasible and shall
be financially viable, as determined by the authority.
(h) Stations shall be located in areas with good access to local
mass transit or other modes of transportation.
(i) The high-speed train system shall be planned and constructed
in a manner that minimizes urban sprawl and impacts on the natural
environment.
(j) Preserving wildlife corridors and mitigating impacts to
wildlife movement, where feasible as determined by the authority, in
order to limit the extent to which the system may present an
additional barrier to wildlife's natural movement.

Eric:

" it was just 2 hours 40 minutes" Thank you for making my point. It isn't going to take 2 hours and 40 minutes either. It will be LONGER.

The people that voted for it now would not vote for it. They've wised up to the BS they were sold to let our politicians pay off the labor unions and large civil builders that gave them money. It's clear you're a "believer" in HSR (actually MEDIUM speed rail). Nothing I say, nor any facts are going to change your mind. Have a nice day.

It seems the only lies are the ones you tell yourself. First its just over 2 hours, then you say that 2:40 is making your point...when it was never "just over 2 hours"
Try not to let facts dissuade your fear. I'm a believer in numbers, data, and the real world. In the real world HSR has been around for 50 years. Its not new. We're not reinventing the (rail)wheel as they literally had to do when developing HSR.

Eric:

Let me say this slowly so you can understand. It's not going to be 2 hours and 40 minutes. It's going to be LONGER, Get it now?

according to the 2014 business plan, the projected run time is at 2:34. Granted those are ideal circumstances, but it would meet the requirements of the legislation.
Web Link (page 97 of 114)
If it were not for the blended plan, which I agree reduced the ultimate capabilities of the system at the endpoints, this wouldn't be an issue. But the blended plan was done at the insistence of the locals basically, so insisting it share track with Caltrain rather than a true HSR alignment plays a part in this result. You can't insist on changes and then complain you "weren't getting what you were promised." And as I said before, Once the system is up and running I am confident the a future HSR alignment at the SF and LA end corridors will improve operating times even further.

I didn't insist on changes. I've never liked the idea and voted against it. I knew it would never do or cost what they said it would. It would be slower and cost far more to build and would cost much more for a ticket than they said it would. That kind of money would be better spent elsewhere.

Why? its been shown that a similar capacity upgrade to existing freeways and airports would cost far more. If you're going to spend money on transportation, this really is the most bang for the buck. We need alternatives. I don't doubt that there are other needs. Rather than increase water storage or conveyance, I think we need more supply - municipal scale desalinization. But all needs of that scale are going to cost money, and they are NEEDS not wants, and we as a state / country have to be willing to pay to build them.

Similar capacity upgrades would likely cost less as we don't know the true cost of HSR. First it was 37 billion then 68 billion. I can pretty much guarantee it will end up north of 100 billion. How far north is anyone's guess.

actually, no. HSR has been shown to have the capacity equivalent of a 12-lane freeway. Upgrading the I-5 Grapevine by 12 lanes would easily cost half a billion dollars by itself. so I can pretty much guarantee that your guarantee doesn't have a basis in actual numbers.
Remember, that the large number of 67 billion is an inflation adjusted number for the duration of the build.

whoops meant trillion.

I know from experience what happens to these types of public works projects. It will cost more than 100 billion. One only need look at the Bay bridge to see what happens with these projects.

its a self fulfilling prophecy. The more NIMBYS sue and delay, the more it costs.

If it were moving any slower, the project would be moving backwards.

It's time to convince the NIMBYs to move to Scottsdale so we can actually move forward!

Eric:

Sorry, it's not a self fulfilling prophecy. The numbers they are publishing now are what are called, "engineer's estimates." Those estimates are based on nothing. They are nothing more than a SWAG (silly wild ass guess). That is exactly why the 1 billion dollar engineer's estimate for the Bay Bridge ballooned to an actual cost of 8 billion. Until the work is actually put out to bid with final plans we have no idea what the actual cost will be. Even then, the final plans are frequently incomplete and subject to additional costs in change orders which where the contractors really make their profit.

Nope, this thing will cost more than $100 billion. You can take that to the bank.