all these option have been scrapted, there more likely to do a blended rail ssytem from San Jose to San Fransisco, the High speed train would run on existing caltrain tracks sharing with the existing Caltrain which would reduce the cost, reduce the enviroment impact, and gives caltrain an opportunity to get electrification.
The retained fill looks the nicest in my opinion, but I don't think that the citizens of Palo Alto would be very satisfied with a giant "Berlin Wall" separating their neighborhood.
There working on the Render of the 45 Miles of Blended Rail system between San Fransisco and San Jose which the High speed train will share the existing tracks with Caltrian, 1 the blended rail system is the cheapest way to go, 2 this will give Caltrain a electrification.
@sideslide23 San Francisco to LA = 2 and a half hours. San Jose to San Francisco on a regular train = 1 hour to 90 minutes. Do you want to add 90 minutes to a two hour trip?
Either they do a Blended rail system between San Jose and San Fransisco or just have the high speed rail end at San Jose and make connection with the existing Caltrain. San Jose and San Fransisco are only 42 miles appart there no reason to have a train traveling more than 80MPH.
Since the NIMBYs would never allow the structure or the retained fill, and the tunnel would be too expensive, they should opt for the full trench. It's almost as quiet as the tunnel and you wouldn't even notice it unless you were standing right over it. It would be even quieter and less intrusive than the current Caltrain!
just got words on the High speed rail allong this corriddor, there not going to do any change with the tracks allignment but there going to have High speed train blend with the caltrain, which would enable for caltrain to be electrified on this existing tracks which will be cheaper, so Caltrain will elliminate the baby bullet service to make with with the high speed train running from San Jose to San Fransisco.
If people of Palo Alto wants to save Caltrain, there going have to go with High speed rail or Caltrain will be gone forever because Caltrain is facing serious budget defect.
Though this train is suppose to have a max speed of 220 mph however probably not everywhere it will be going that fast at all. So yeah this train will go faster then most bullet trains except for the one's in Spain an France.
I think that they should opt for a tunnel. The quality of life is what's most important and nothing improves by having a big wall cutting through the town.
If they decide to do a trench or tunnel, Palo Alto should have to pay whatever extra amount it costs than building an elevated structure. You don't see anyone else along the route complaining as much as they are. The entire state shouldn't have to foot the bill for a tunnel or trench through this area just because a few seriously pathetic NIMBYS are afraid of how it'll look. I don't know about you, but I think the elvated structure looks pretty good.
hmmmm...i think the retained fill looks a bit ugly because the sidewalk is virtually eliminated in this vid. both the trench and the structure look nice.
The people that are suing are dummies. All of the proposed designs improve traffic flow and give MAJOR improvements to the current aesthetics of the rail system. I think that actually IMPROVES land values. Freaking retards.
people have been ran over by Caltrain in that area, and people suggest that the trains slow down at 5 MPH but since Caltrain and high speed traing is going to be elevated, tunnel, or trenched they shouldn't have to worry about getting ran over by them any more.
OK. That makes some sense. They way I interpreted it was that the realtors were suing over the land and "loss of property value" when the proposed plans look MUCH MUCH better than what is currently there. The fact that people have been hurt or killed in that area and now residents are suing makes sense, but, I thought they were suing the new plans and ideas, not the current system. THATS where it gets stupid.
I agree. There are people BAYING in East London here in the UK for a connection onto a Light Railway system, because they completely regenerated the London Docklands, nobody would even have thought of doing business there before the mass rail transportation system went in. The land value is now over 500 times what it was when the DLR was built. Modern High Speed Rail, will only be more effective. After all, who wouldn't want to live close to a reliable, modern tranportation alternative?
Apparently, city council members in Palo Alto and Menlo Park are suing the High speed rail authority because they don't want the train going through their cities. Actually, they want the train to stop in San Jose and not even make it all the way up to San Francisco. There's something really wrong with these people. I'm sure it's the real estate industry...
I should bare some more caution regarding tunnels, as not only are they overwhelmingly many times more expensive than surface or elevated rails, they high higher maintainence, and because of the runnel itself, it is near impossible to reach speeds of 140+ MPH inside a tunnel. Even Britain's High Speed One line has to drop from 186 MPH down to 140, and then 120 because of the air resistance, just not much space for it to move out of the way. Faster and cheaper to go above ground.
186 MPH is the max speed for the train overall. They slow down to 140 in the London tunnels going under the city, and down to just 100 MPH while in the Channel Tunnel itself. And that's with a highly expensive air circulation system, I doubt it'd be possible to maintain speeds above 100 MPH in such a long tunnel in an ordinary build.
@sideslide23 That would be phenominal! An electrified commuter rail service that reaches speeds of 110 mph. THAT'S one heck of a way to get to work and to downtown for a fun evening!
@s2k997 I've got to disagree with you on this. In Germany, the high speed trains keep their pace of about 185 mph even through longer (over 1000 m) tunnels.
@Vallecrash Problem is the distance. With a wide enough tunnel, and a short enough distance, the effect isn't meaningful, the opposite is also true. This tunnel would be, in effect, several dozen miles long, without breaks. A thousand meters is indeed regular, even two-three miles with ventilation shafts. There isn't a tunnel longer than six miles without speed restrictions though, for this exact reason, the air can't clear fast enough.
Excellent! I have never lived in California....that was a brilliant rendtion.
It's clear the Bullet Train proposal, more than 20 years ago, proved High Speed Rail is possible. See "NOVA - 1982 - Tracking The Supertrains" there are 6 parts. ALL worth watching!
5 Stars for this video!
That last train pass was a 'classic hint' for a TGV. Loved it!
all these option have been scrapted, there more likely to do a blended rail ssytem from San Jose to San Fransisco, the High speed train would run on existing caltrain tracks sharing with the existing Caltrain which would reduce the cost, reduce the enviroment impact, and gives caltrain an opportunity to get electrification.
sideslide23 1 month ago
Comment removed
sideslide23 1 month ago
Out of the 4 options, the structure is beneficial in both safety and job creation.
AmazinglyAgnostic 2 months ago
The retained fill looks the nicest in my opinion, but I don't think that the citizens of Palo Alto would be very satisfied with a giant "Berlin Wall" separating their neighborhood.
Coastergeekperson04 3 months ago
There working on the Render of the 45 Miles of Blended Rail system between San Fransisco and San Jose which the High speed train will share the existing tracks with Caltrian, 1 the blended rail system is the cheapest way to go, 2 this will give Caltrain a electrification.
sideslide23 5 months ago
@sideslide23 San Francisco to LA = 2 and a half hours. San Jose to San Francisco on a regular train = 1 hour to 90 minutes. Do you want to add 90 minutes to a two hour trip?
Coastergeekperson04 3 months ago
@Coastergeekperson04 3 hours and 20 minuts is better than 6 hours when your driving and better than 8 hours if your riding greyhound bus,
sideslide23 3 months ago
@sideslide23 But 2 and a half hours is faster than *all* of those times.
Coastergeekperson04 3 months ago
Either they do a Blended rail system between San Jose and San Fransisco or just have the high speed rail end at San Jose and make connection with the existing Caltrain. San Jose and San Fransisco are only 42 miles appart there no reason to have a train traveling more than 80MPH.
sideslide23 5 months ago
Since the NIMBYs would never allow the structure or the retained fill, and the tunnel would be too expensive, they should opt for the full trench. It's almost as quiet as the tunnel and you wouldn't even notice it unless you were standing right over it. It would be even quieter and less intrusive than the current Caltrain!
fresno93702 6 months ago
just got words on the High speed rail allong this corriddor, there not going to do any change with the tracks allignment but there going to have High speed train blend with the caltrain, which would enable for caltrain to be electrified on this existing tracks which will be cheaper, so Caltrain will elliminate the baby bullet service to make with with the high speed train running from San Jose to San Fransisco.
sideslide23 9 months ago
If people of Palo Alto wants to save Caltrain, there going have to go with High speed rail or Caltrain will be gone forever because Caltrain is facing serious budget defect.
sideslide23 11 months ago
Comment removed
sideslide23 1 year ago
Though this train is suppose to have a max speed of 220 mph however probably not everywhere it will be going that fast at all. So yeah this train will go faster then most bullet trains except for the one's in Spain an France.
PolishExplorer 1 year ago
Not a big fan of elevated structures, but I like the structure idea.
Coastergeekperson04 1 year ago
Comment removed
sideslide23 1 year ago
Just widen and strengthing the existing elevated Viaducts the Bart trains use and add more of them past the their Airport station.
SPS148669 1 year ago
I think that they should opt for a tunnel. The quality of life is what's most important and nothing improves by having a big wall cutting through the town.
AmersfoortTristan 2 years ago 2
If they decide to do a trench or tunnel, Palo Alto should have to pay whatever extra amount it costs than building an elevated structure. You don't see anyone else along the route complaining as much as they are. The entire state shouldn't have to foot the bill for a tunnel or trench through this area just because a few seriously pathetic NIMBYS are afraid of how it'll look. I don't know about you, but I think the elvated structure looks pretty good.
poseidoncambria 2 years ago 5
Agreed, something is really really wrong with people opposed to HSR through this corridor in favor of keeping existing conditions unchanged.
Each HSR option is good. It's my hope the locals can get behind one of them.
bmfarley 2 years ago 5
hmmmm...i think the retained fill looks a bit ugly because the sidewalk is virtually eliminated in this vid. both the trench and the structure look nice.
trashdunka99 2 years ago
The people that are suing are dummies. All of the proposed designs improve traffic flow and give MAJOR improvements to the current aesthetics of the rail system. I think that actually IMPROVES land values. Freaking retards.
Airbornraider27 2 years ago 9
people have been ran over by Caltrain in that area, and people suggest that the trains slow down at 5 MPH but since Caltrain and high speed traing is going to be elevated, tunnel, or trenched they shouldn't have to worry about getting ran over by them any more.
sideslide23 2 years ago
OK. That makes some sense. They way I interpreted it was that the realtors were suing over the land and "loss of property value" when the proposed plans look MUCH MUCH better than what is currently there. The fact that people have been hurt or killed in that area and now residents are suing makes sense, but, I thought they were suing the new plans and ideas, not the current system. THATS where it gets stupid.
Airbornraider27 2 years ago
I agree. There are people BAYING in East London here in the UK for a connection onto a Light Railway system, because they completely regenerated the London Docklands, nobody would even have thought of doing business there before the mass rail transportation system went in. The land value is now over 500 times what it was when the DLR was built. Modern High Speed Rail, will only be more effective. After all, who wouldn't want to live close to a reliable, modern tranportation alternative?
s2k997 2 years ago
Apparently, city council members in Palo Alto and Menlo Park are suing the High speed rail authority because they don't want the train going through their cities. Actually, they want the train to stop in San Jose and not even make it all the way up to San Francisco. There's something really wrong with these people. I'm sure it's the real estate industry...
artwang319 2 years ago 13
Comment removed
sideslide23 1 year ago
I think a retaining wall would be the most practical and cheapest option. Tunnel would be ideal, but expensive.
KEKInc 2 years ago 4
I should bare some more caution regarding tunnels, as not only are they overwhelmingly many times more expensive than surface or elevated rails, they high higher maintainence, and because of the runnel itself, it is near impossible to reach speeds of 140+ MPH inside a tunnel. Even Britain's High Speed One line has to drop from 186 MPH down to 140, and then 120 because of the air resistance, just not much space for it to move out of the way. Faster and cheaper to go above ground.
s2k997 2 years ago
Comment removed
sideslide23 2 years ago
186 MPH is the max speed for the train overall. They slow down to 140 in the London tunnels going under the city, and down to just 100 MPH while in the Channel Tunnel itself. And that's with a highly expensive air circulation system, I doubt it'd be possible to maintain speeds above 100 MPH in such a long tunnel in an ordinary build.
s2k997 2 years ago
Comment removed
sideslide23 1 year ago
@sideslide23 That would be phenominal! An electrified commuter rail service that reaches speeds of 110 mph. THAT'S one heck of a way to get to work and to downtown for a fun evening!
gibb1991 1 year ago
@s2k997 I've got to disagree with you on this. In Germany, the high speed trains keep their pace of about 185 mph even through longer (over 1000 m) tunnels.
Vallecrash 1 year ago
@Vallecrash Problem is the distance. With a wide enough tunnel, and a short enough distance, the effect isn't meaningful, the opposite is also true. This tunnel would be, in effect, several dozen miles long, without breaks. A thousand meters is indeed regular, even two-three miles with ventilation shafts. There isn't a tunnel longer than six miles without speed restrictions though, for this exact reason, the air can't clear fast enough.
s2k997 1 year ago
Comment removed
sideslide23 2 years ago
Excellent! I have never lived in California....that was a brilliant rendtion.
It's clear the Bullet Train proposal, more than 20 years ago, proved High Speed Rail is possible. See "NOVA - 1982 - Tracking The Supertrains" there are 6 parts. ALL worth watching!
5 Stars for this video!
That last train pass was a 'classic hint' for a TGV. Loved it!
Modeltrainguy 2 years ago 3