posted
The New York Times, appearing as the lead article within the National section today, has printed a rather unfavorable article about the California HSR project, which suggests skepticism regarding whether it will be completed:
But despite the potential bounty of jobs, high-speed rail has not been fully embraced. After the rail authority approved the initial route in early December, Representative Dennis Cardoza, a Central Valley Democrat, disparagingly referred to it as “the train to nowhere.”
“For the California High-Speed Rail Authority to choose this route is to significantly undermine the public’s trust, marks a gross misuse of taxpayer funds and will alienate significant supporters of the project,” he said.
Part of that agita, of course, may be that the first section of high-speed rail will not pass through his district.
But the congressman is not the only person complaining. Several towns have passed resolutions opposing the project because of worries about the disruption of a 220-mile-an-hour train zipping through downtown districts.
And in the Central Valley, where huge, decades-old government irrigation projects have helped turned California into an agricultural powerhouse, farmers have grumbled about the rail project gobbling up valuable farm land.
“We’re of the belief that the productive farmland is an environmental and societal benefit, and we ought to be doing whatever we can to keep that land productive,” said Dave Kranz, a spokesman for the California Farm Bureau. “And once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.”
The purpose of first building "The B&C", or The Borden and Corcoran if we will, is to provide a test bed that eventually will be part of the system, if it ever is to be completed. Even though the map appearing in the article does not show such, the line will pass through Fresno and eliminate a number of grade X-ings. Hopefully, the existing San Joaquins will be routed over such and will not disrupt testing of prototype equipment. There will be far less environmental impact on a line that, save Fresno, built in the middle of nowhere than there would be if constructed between two population centers.
Should the HSR project "die a natural death" at the hands of pols, there would still be a segment of trackage that would result in a more efficient San Joaquin service.
But all told, if "The B&C" is encountering environmental impact issues, I shudder to think what is ahead when it is time to build "The SF&SJ" or otherwise the San Francisco & San Jose. Somehow, I think it will be a tough sell to have an elevated structure built within sight of the mansions in Atherton - it will disturb the eucalyptus trees. If I recall, there was a 'fruck-fruck' when a grade separation project was proposed through downtown Menlo Park. The many here familiar with the area know where that one went.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
It is very hard to get a good estimate of the California HSR costs. I have heard as low as 45 million per mile to as high as 200 million per mile. The distance from San Francisco to Los Angeles is roughly 432 miles. Some believe the true cost could be around $ 96 billion.
I have to think that, if we could vote for Prop 1A, again, the Calif. HSR project would be defeated.
We sort of have a "train to nowhere" up our way. The SMART train is, at last initially, only going from the Marin County Civic Center (and not downtown San Rafael) to Santa Rosa, by 2014. It was supposed to run from Larkspur (just north of the Golden Gate) to Cloverdale, in Northern Sonoma County. In the old days, the Northwestern Pacific RR ran from the Bay Area all the way to Eureka.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To say this article is slanted would be one of the major understatements of the century. With apologies to Mr. Norman, it falls right in with my general opinion that the NYT has long since proved that it achieves its highest and best use as either birdcage liner or packing paper.
It is hard to know where to begin in pointing out the outright errors and slants in this article.
For starters, the whine about land takes is about as real as a $3 bill. The take will be less than that of a two lane road, in this part of the country, in other words, between 50 and 100 feet. For the most part it will be right-of-way to right-of-way with the BNSF line, so there will be few isolated slivers of land as a result of its construction. Then there is simply the sanctimonious hypocrisy of any Central Valley farmer complaining about land take. It may be in part the fact that I am a grandson of a West Tennessee farmer and have heard quite a bit about these Federal projects in and for the Central Valley, but these Central Valley farmers have been a huge beneficiary of federal irrigation programs that have turned useless semi-desert land into productive farmland an virtually no cost to the land owner. If the people involved had to comply with current environmental regulations, these projects would not have happened at all. Now these same people are prostituting the environmental regulations in an attempt to stop something that is of real benefit to the whole country at absolutely no cost to themselves. Do you not think they will be paid a premium for their land? They will be crying and moaning all the way to the bank. These complaints are simply a positioning technique to increase their payoffs.
As to Cordoza: This first portion is outside his district. I suspect he would be singing a completely different song if it was in his district.
Notice that Fresno is neither shown on the map nor mentioned in the article. Aside from the fact that for the most part the people there fall somewhere between enthusiastic and wildly enthusiastic about the HSR, it is a city of over a million people, and approximately the half-way point between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The current San Joaquin trains, six a day in each direction, always have a respectable ridership to and from Fresno, despite requiring bus connections on both ends to reach either SF or LA. On holiday periods there can be more than 100 people off and on one train at Fresno.
Recall the proximity to BNSF mentioned above? As part of the deal grade crossings where the lines are parallel will be separated for both. This is one of the reasons BNSF is happy to see this coming, and why the adjacent farmers should be too. Every year there are ag trucks hit by trains. Quite often the drivers turn out to be illegals. Another hint why many of these Central Valley farmers really should not want any close scrutiny.
As to Corcoran’s concerns: Again, think of a 50 feet wide strip adjacent to the existing railroad. Probably does not affect one single building in the whole town. "Mayberry” which it is definitely not, will still be as much Mayberry as it is right now. "85 decibels" is complete nonsense. This thing will be sound walled to the max. How about the 12 passenger trains plus likely 12 to 20 freight trains going through there every day blowing their horns from end to end due to the grade crossings? That is the real and current source of noise, which will actually be reduced due to the high speed railroad.
Part of the reason for the selection of this particular location is that it must have "independent utility" if I remember the term correctly. In other words, it must be usable even if nothing else is ever built. That is the reason behind the north end being at Borden. It is not a destination at all, but a point where tie in to the existing BNSF line is practical.
* * * *
As to San Francisco to San Jose: Anything I could say about that segment, I probably should not, so I won't. I will say that if everything wanted there is done, it will likely cost more than the entire rest of the system, and not be fast, either.
The huge cost of the system has more to do with attempting to make all the pressure groups happy than any real cost of building the railroad.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: The huge cost of the system has more to do with attempting to make all the pressure groups happy than any real cost of building the railroad.
And there we have the crucial point in this entire high speed rail debate. Pressure groups, NIMBYs, committees, studies - yet not a single rail laid.
For an interesting comparison, try the LGV-Nord (France) which passes precisely midway between two towns (I forget which). Why? Because neither wanted it? No, because both wanted it through their town.
The US has a whole mindset to shift which won't be easy, nor will it be right in all cases to do so. But the drivel written and re-posted at the top of this thread is hardly going to help form an educated debate in the general population.
-------------------- Geoff M. Posts: 2426 | From: Apple Valley, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am beginning to think when anyone uses the phrase "Train to Nowhere", it is a good omen. It was a very popular name for the Hiawatha Light Rail Line in Minneapolis, and opponents were so successful in promoting skepticism that original plans were scaled back.
Opening in 2004, it exceeded the most ambitious ridership projections by 50% and has already passed projections for the year 2020. Stations had to be expanded to accommodate 3 car trains in 2009. Home values within 1/2 mile increased by $50 million over similar neighborhoods and construction boomed in the rundown areas along the rails (think more tax revenues). http://tlcminnesota.typepad.com/blog/2010/04/hiawatha-light-rail-benefits-confirmed.html
Gov. Tim Pawlenty(R) originally opposed Hiawatha LRT and Northstar Commuter Rail, but reversed his position on both when success became apparent.
Posts: 1572 | From: St. Paul, MN | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TwinStarRocket: Gov. Tim Pawlenty(R) originally opposed Hiawatha LRT and Northstar Commuter Rail, but reversed his position on both when success became apparent.
And this is the crux of the problem politically. The politicians are so buried in the anti-rail propoganda they have to relearn this result with each system. I have been through three transit systems and one rail system that got built. For every one of them the song, "it cost too mcuh, no one will ever ride it' and quite a few other verses on the same order was sung at a deafening pitch about all of them.
The first was Washington Metro. It has already gone beyond the ultimate system as envisioned in 1970, adn they are still building. By this time the area would not want to even think about doing without it, but yet in the mid-70's a major cut back in the proposed system was put in place, and later dropped after it became obvious to the most dense that there was a real demand for and real benenfit from the system.
Then there was Dallas light rail. It died in 1988 before any was built, and despite having a dead slow run in the streets downtown that was NOT in the original plan seems to be having good ridership to the point that the parts that were "maybe someday" in the oriiginal plan are mostly in place or under construction.
Then Taipei Mass Rapid Transit. Felt like I was living through WMATA again, except in Chinese. Again, the maybe someday but probably never parts are either under construction or in service, and the street level traffic is relatively coherent compared to the previously near immobile chaos.
Then Taiwan HSR. Flghts between major points on the route have almost entirely dissapeared, and the line has becmoe part of the fabric of the country in only 4 years of operation.
Yukon, I have a set of the Smart plans. They are on their web site. Dates vary from 2003 to 2005, so the thought has been around a while. Best I make no comment on what I think about these. My thoughs may be positive or may be negative, but I may end up being somewhat involved at times, so to say nothing in public is best.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
To continue; Mr. Twin Star, the case you note is hardly the first time a pol has been a chameleon on passenger rail affairs (and for that matter, a host of many others). Take the case of Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL7). During the 107,108, and 109th Congress, or Pachyderm control of The House giving Mica the Chair of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, he was quite anti-Amtrak (save of course Auto Train with Sanford being in his district) complete with pulling stunts at an open hearing (CSPAN cameras rollin') regarding Food & Beverage Service of reaching into his wallet and setting some Dollar bills (gotta make sure the folks back home know they are his and not theirs) afire. With the Donkeys (something else they're known as gets "the filter' around here) running things during the 110th (Bush still "down the street") and 111th, Mr. Mica lost his Chair to Rep James Oberstar (D-MN8). Suddenly, Mica became quite "pro-Amtrak" to the extent of supporting the Corridor and Auto Train and "acknowledging' the existence of the LD's. But now with Pachyderms again running things in the 112th, and Mr. Oberstar not only losing the Chair but also losing his Seat, Mr. Mica is "back in the saddle again".
Bets anyone, on the chameleon?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To balance things up a little (not a lot), here's the Wasington Post's somewhat brief article offered without further comment, except to say news doesn't always travel fast:
posted
The main thing to consider here is that, no matter what section is built first, the same arguements will be used. The only thing that would change would be the names of the end points.
It would have been nice to have picked one of the pieces that would have connected the Central Valley to either Los Angeles or San Francisco, but the connections on both ends include some mountain crossings with serious tunneling. This is the reason that the current railroad routes either go around (north end) or cross indirectly with a lots of curves (south end).
Going down the Valley makes far more sense than to generally follow the Coast Line. The higher population is in the valley.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced last week that he plans to divert to California some $300 million in high-speed rail funds that Florida rejected. Nice timing. California's Legislative Analyst's Office released a study last week warning the state legislature not to appropriate funds for the same project......Congress ought to tell Mr. LaHood to devote the $300 million to reducing the federal deficit. And California's legislature had better pull the plug on the project before it blows up on taxpayers
One point; The Journal's editorial board overlooks, absent specific enacted legislation, that the noted $300M cannot be diverted from "HSR" to debt reduction or any other purpose other than to which it was specifically appropriated.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, there would have to be enacted Federal legislation repealing the specific appropriations with respect to unexpended funds made under ARRA '09.
Let "your buddy' blow some wind.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
....The federal Department of Transportation has offered $3 billion of stimulus funds with the catch that the state has to begin construction by 2012 and build the first segment in the Central Valley. A stand-alone segment running through a sparsely populated area couldn't operate without a huge taxpayer subsidy, but a voter-approved ballot measure explicitly prohibits any such subsidies.
The one point with which I think is wise and with which I wholly concur is building first the "nowhere to nowhere' segment. Mr. Harris will surely concur that a test bed is needed to work out the engineering "bugs' so that if and when the system is to be constructed through the densely populated (that can be read NIMBY) areas such as Atherton and Menlo Park (somehow, I just cannot see a rail system suspended over El Camino through those two "uppity up' communities, with which I have some degree of familiarity), the development 'bugs' will be behind and that the system will be "up and running' shortly after construction through these areas is complete.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Between San Jose and San Francisco downtown the proposed HSR line will be in the same right of way as the current Caltrain Commuter line (the Ex Southern Paciic main for the older of us here.) Despite this, the Atherton Palo Alto and other peninsula elites are screaming bloody murder about how this will destroy life on this planet as we know it. It will be noiser! Electric power with grade crossings eliminated will be noiser than the current diesel operation with multiple grade crossings with appropriate horn music? It will kill THE Palo Alto tree! The tree has lived 150 years dusted by coal smoke, oil smoke, and diesel fumes and is located all but next to the tie ends of ties on the south bank of the creek north of Palo Alto station, so the overhead electric lines will kill it? Etc., Etc., etc. They want a tunnel. Built without any surface disturbance during construction, of course. Aside from costing about 9 times the cost of a surface alignment and 3 times that of an elevated alignment, it might affect the water table and by that kill this precious tree.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Today's Wall Street Journal (subscription site; access may be denied) has both an article and an opinion piece relating to High Speed Rail. The article suggests that the California HSR "well' will soon be dry considering the State is "broke' and the Federal funding envisioned at $15B for the $45B project has only amounted to some $3B - and likely none more on the way. The article suggests that the 140 mile route from "roundly" Merced to "roundly" Bakersfield be built and "let it go at that'. Existing Amtrak San Joaquin trains would make use of such and presumably a 'test track' would be in place to develop HSR components for "another day":
Including state matching funds, the California project has $6 billion, and plans are set to use that to start laying track next year—140 miles in the rural Central Valley. Even that part is running into higher costs, project managers say, and the updated business plan from the California High-Speed Rail Authority is likely to include a higher price tag and a stretched-out construction timetable....Rather than operating a separate high-speed rail service, the state could let the new track be incorporated into Amtrak's existing service until more funding became available, he said. That would slow the San Francisco-to-Los Angeles travel time—which project planners have envisioned as less than three hours—and make rail less competitive with the 80-minute flight
The Opinion piece suggests a new source for infrastructure improvements, including rail, be explored - Philanthropy. Just think, Amtrak accesses Manhattan through the Buffett Tunnel:
Given the scale of U.S. infrastructure needs, it may seem that even the wealthiest Americans lack the financial firepower to make a measurable difference. And indeed, the funds needed for some projects are huge. Only a few ultra-wealthy donors could meaningfully contribute to a $10 billion-plus rail tunnel between New Jersey and New York City. But billionaires could fund significant portions of smaller projects that are still crucial for jobs and growth: $800 million to repair a portion of the Boston-New York-Washington train corridor, or $100 million to speed construction of the Dulles metrorail project, which will link Dulles International Airport to downtown Washington, D.C. Smaller projects could be built for even less.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Start laying track next year" is at best journalistic poetry or more likely simple minded cluelessness on how things are built. Start moving dirt in the Fresno area late next year is what is planned to happen. Lying track will come a few years after that. This is well publicised information for those in the "journalistic" field if they would do the most basic research before putting fingers to keyboard.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
They believe that various "links" will be self-supporting. Also, if the full route cannot be completed, they will use existing rail lines to connect both LA and San Francisco.
Is this what we all had in mind when California voted for 1A? Here in Calif. we can't afford $98 billion. I would much rather see the Surfliner run up to SF and forget HSR.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
The Transcontinental Railroad, roundly the UP Oakland-Omaha was started from the West during 1863, from the East during 1865, and completed roundly in the middle during 1869.
What was the larger of the two projects; $$$$, even inflation adjusted $$$, don't count?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was far easier, politically and otherwise, to displace a few thousand Indians than six million NIMBYs.
-------------------- --------Eric H. Bowen
Stop by my website: Streamliner Schedules - Historic timetables of the great trains of the past! Posts: 413 | From: Houston, Texas | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Buried in the $98 Billion news this week was another sad factor that has me questioning the entire thing. The HSR Commission has seemingly abandoned plans to send the system into a terminal in downtown San Francisco, and similarly into downtown LA and on to Anaheim as the once-planned southern terminus.
The plan now is to stop the system in San Jose and Santa Clarita, and then expect riders to transfer to CalTrain or Metrolink trains to get to the city center. And this is included in the $98 Billion price tag; sending the systems into the actual cities is no longer factored into the cost estimates. DUMB!
For instance, if I wanted to go from Orange County to San Francisco on a Saturday afternoon like today in the year 2033, I would drive to the station in Anaheim (goodbye ARTIC and that nifty plan Anaheim had) and board a Metrolink commuter train at 3:30 PM. I would then transfer to a separate Metrolink train at LA Union Station, and then arrive in Santa Clarita at 6:30 PM (times gleaned from Metrolinks own schedules). Then I would board the HSR and head north, arriving in San Jose two hours later, around 8:30 PM. I would then have to shlep my bags across the station to board a CalTrain consist for the one hour ride up to the Transbay Terminal, putting me in downtown San Francisco seven hours or more after my first train left Anaheim. God only knows what the cost of all this would be in 2033, but they have now raised the projected costs to be around $100, and we all know that will be higher 22 years from now.
I can leave my house in OC comfortably at 3 for a 5 o'clock flight out of John Wayne, land in San Francisco at 5:45 PM, and either BART to town in under an hour or taxicab there in half that time and beat by at least three hours the four separate trains with three transfers the HSR would require.
This is not what I voted for when I checked yes on the HSR bond measure back in '08. I want my vote back, please.
Posts: 56 | From: Orange County, CA | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
MA, If you are getting 3 hours from Analheim to Santa Clarita there is something wrong with the picture. That may be today's schedule when the preumed destination of most of the Metrolink passengers is LAUS, but it won't be for a situation when Santa Clarita (if this really comes about) will be the origin of trains to the Bay area, and hence a major destination for Metrolink and other LA basin transportation services. A better analaysis would be to take the Anaheim to LAUS and LAUS to Santa Clarita times and add about 10 minutes. If they are half-way intelligent (fat chance) trains will be scheduled to give about a 10 minute cross platform transfer time at Santa Clarita.
I do not know wheter the $98 million includes the terminal segments or not, but I think it does. Their delay in scheduling is simple recognition of reality. In particular, given the local fanatic NIMBYism on the San Francisco Penninsula, it is simply beating your head against a wall to try to include it in the initial construction phase.
If only Merced to Bakersfield to Palmdale is built and the line operated with diesels and a 110 mph speed limit, amd the trip begun on Metroline and finished on Caltrain, you should be able to beat 7 hours end to end.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of whether it's a five hour trip with only two well timed cross-platform transfers, or a seven hour trip with three ill timed cross-station transfers, it's still nothing like what we voted for back in '08. This is not just a political bait and switch, this is bait and switch and swindle and steal.
The OC Register has some interesting details this weekend, after their staff dug through the 230 page analysis the HSR Commission coughed out earlier this week. Using the HSR Commission's own ridership stats they have used to get to the new $98 Billion price tag with lowered ridership estimates and higher ticket costs for a system that won't be done until 2030 or later, comes these amazing concepts;
Under the new analysis, which assumes gasoline and air travel costs will rise modestly above inflation, Merced will have 14,400 southbound passenger boardings per day in 2030. The sleepy, economically troubled town of Merced with 80,000 residents will suddenly have more daily train boardings per day than Penn Station in New York City does. Cause, you know, one fifth of the people in Merced really need to get to Fresno very fast every day, and they don't want to be burdened by their own car once they do arrive in Fresno.
And it's this type of math and ridership estimates that they've based the latest cost estimates on. It not only doesn't inspire confidence in the Commission's math, it now forces me to question just what kind of lunatics are running this bullet train show up in Sacramento.
I say we take the Feds 3 Billion and invest it in track improvements and new rolling stock for the Surfliners and San Joaquins, and just don't look back.
Posts: 56 | From: Orange County, CA | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
California Governor Jerry Brown must have loved "The Little Engine That Could" as a kid. Last week his state's high-speed rail authority released a new business plan that estimates its 500-mile bullet train from San Francisco to Anaheim will cost $98 billion. The state and federal governments are broke, and private capital won't finance the project, but Mr. Brown still thinks the state can build the train.
Three years ago the rail authority sold a $9 billion bond measure to voters on the pretext that the bullet train would cost $33 billion and be financed mostly by private investors and Uncle Sam. They also claimed the train would draw 90 million riders per year—about 15 times what Amtrak's Acela in the Northeast draws—and wouldn't need a subsidy. Taxpayers were all aboard.
Then reality struck. A study last year by Stanford economist Alain Enthoven, former World Bank analyst William Grindley and financial consultant William Warren examined high-speed trains in Europe and Japan and concluded that the California train could cost upward of $100 billion and would be lucky to draw 10 million riders. The authors also reported that investors were refusing to finance the project without a subsidy, which the bond measure that voters approved had prohibited.
I know that Mr. Harris can refute much of this editorial position with fact, but the more of this opinion that is circulated from recognized news sources such as that earlier from The Times as well as this from The Journal, I must wonder if there is some credibility to such. Might the greatest cost/benefit be realized from the "incremental approach" and improve the existing BNSF route with appropriate PTC, double tracking to allow, say, "eight a day', with 110mph speeds?
Just a thought from someone other than a California taxpayer and who has not had reason to set foot in the Golden State for over 20 years (not any kind of boycott; just no reason).
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Note the prediction of a $72 ticket for a ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles, in 2008 dollars. However, in another article, even if Calif. HSR gets the higher estimate figure, for ridership, they say the cost of a SF to LA ticketet could be as high as $300.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
With a brashness and ambition that evoke a California of a generation ago, state leaders — starting with Gov. Jerry Brown — have rallied around a plan to build a 520-mile high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco....The pro-train constituency has not been derailed by a state report this month that found the cost of the bullet train tripling to $98 billion for a project that would not be finished until 2033.....The project has been mocked by editorial boards across the country — “Somebody please stop this train,” The Washington Post wrote — while Republicans here have denounced it as a waste. In an unfortunate turn of timing, state officials announced this month that revenues this year were so far behind projections that California was likely to have to impose $2 billion in cuts in January.
“This will go down in history as one of the great white elephants in California history,” said Bob Dutton, the Republican leader of the State Senate. “It’s a boondoggle.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:[*]With a brashness and ambition that evoke a California of a generation ago, state leaders — starting with Gov. Jerry Brown — have rallied around a plan to build a 520-mile high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco
With a start like this, it is obvious they have no intention of letting facts get in the way of a good story. At the least, they should visit www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx and get their distances right. The SF to LA distance is 432 miles, not 520. I do not know where that number came from. It is not the ultimate build-out. If it were the number would be larger. It is not the SF to LA plus the Sacramento line, that sums to less than 520 miles.
If they can't get the most basic facts right, why bother to read the resst of it?
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
George, did you inform the Times of its error? That newspaper, unlike many others, does try to correct its mistakes.
Posts: 2236 | From: Evanston, Ill. and Ontonagon, Mich. | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Henry Kisor: George, did you inform the Times of its error? That newspaper, unlike many others, does try to correct its mistakes.
I decided to skip writing my attitude toward them. Mr. Norman is aware of it. I would feel it a pointless waste of time to try to correct their errors.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 520 mile figure likely comes from the full build-out of Phase One as indicated in the Prop 1A bond measure, including the original Anaheim terminus and the Sacramento spur line up from Modesto.
But you are right in that the LA to SF trunk line is most certainly not 520 miles, as that sentence implied.
In new news, the Legislative Analyst's Office in Sacramento delivered a rather stinging rebuke to the HSR Commission yesterday. Basically the Analyst's Office is saying the entire plan is "highly uncertain" and that their current plan to build the Bakersfield to Chowchilla tracks are illegal and inellegible for funding from the bond measure most of us voted for back in '08. The two groups have a meeting to discuss this next week, and wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall?!?
posted
In an Opinion piece appearing in Today's Wall Street Journal, two observers, Wendell Cox and Joseph Vranich, neither of whom are known for their pro-passenger rail positions, contend that the High Speed Rail Authority is using "funny numbers' to justify the need for the project:
A few days ago, the California High Speed Rail Peer Review Group, an expert body mandated by state law, expressed serious doubts about the proposed Los Angeles-San Francisco rail system. It concluded that it "cannot at this time recommend that the legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds" because the project "represents an immense financial risk" to the state.
But hell hath no fury like a state agency scorned. The California High-Speed Rail Authority issued a quarrelsome response claiming that the rail system is, well, a bargain! The agency repeated its claim that without high-speed rail, Californians would pay more because the state would have to build equivalent transportation capacity through road and airport expansions costing about $171 billion, or between $53 billion and $73 billion more than the $98 billion to $118 billion estimated cost of a rail line.
The constant refrain that it's "more expensive not to build the rail line" is specious. But it deserves further explanation because of the light it sheds on tricks used to justify other ill-conceived projects to an unsuspecting public
Funny, how I recall that during the mid 70's, Mr. Vranich was a mid-level employee within Amtrak's Public Affairs department. Mr. Cox's career has been with "think tanks" not exactly known for their seeing much need for passenger rail.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that Mr. Vranich or Mr. Cox are the guilty parties here, rather just one of many messengers commenting in the last week on the state independent review panel that is mandated by the bond measure.
And that review panel in Sacramento wants to put the brakes on the bullet train immediately. But the panel is not alone in their assesment, as the LA Times notes that the train project has now amassed "negative assessments from the state auditor, the state inspector general, the legislative analyst, the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies, as well as the transportation committee in the U.S. House of Representatives."
posted
After a while you simply begin to recognize the names and can come real close to knowing what they will say.
Mr. Wendell Cox's writings have been consistently anti-passenger rail of any kind any where. Several years back there was an article titled "Who Funds Wendell Cox?" that appeared on the web and then dissapeared. Seems to be a modern equivalent to National City Lines.
Mr. Vranich I know much less about, but in general he tends to not like much of what is done in this country in the realm of passenger hauling rail.
* * * *
Recent development, Mr. Roloff van Ark has resigned. There is the thought that it was not exactly voluntary. Then again, he could have become disgusted and disallusioned with the political issues.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
How much HSIPR money is being spent on upgrading the current California train routes? I've been on most of the current CA trains and I can't see much potential for upgrading the existing Amtrak lines to true HSR standards, but I'd love to see money spent on improving the reliability of the Surfliner, the Capitol Corridor and the San Joaquin. The problem with the current Amtrak CA service isn't with the 79mph speed limits, but more with all the bottlenecks and the worn out infrastructure. Some sections could be upgraded to 110mph running, but what good does 110mph running do if further down the line the train has to hand throw a switch and tiptoe into a siding on a worn out, single track section and wait for an opposing train to creep by?
It would be great to have a train that covers Los Angeles to San Francisco in 2.5 hours, but current Amtrak schedules can't even cover Los Angeles to Santa Barbara or Los Angeles to San Diego in 2.5 hours. The existing CA routes are already well patronized, with faster and more reliable schedules, ridership would really take off.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Two interesting articles appeared this past weekend in the big newspapers of SoCal.
First, the LA Times had an interesting article from one of their marquee columnists, Steve Lopez. Mr. Lopez takes a weary eye to the current state of the HSR project, and where he hopes it can limp towards in order to save it from extinction. He also interviews the new HSR chief that Governor Brown appointed after Van Ark suddenly resigned recently.
And then in the Sunday edition of the Orange County Register, a newspaper with a famously libertarian bent, they had a lengthy and in-depth series on the property owners big and small that would have to give up their property to make the HSR alignment a reality. This is an element to the story we haven't really heard about, and I found the information the Register pulled together to be quite eye opening, particularly the small farmers and property owners who feel they have no voice against the Authority in Sacramento hell bent on laying tracks ASAP.
The Register found 1,300 different land owners who own property that the current alignment needs to have! Yikes.
quote:Originally posted by MightyAlweg: And then in the Sunday edition of the Orange County Register, a newspaper with a famously libertarian bent, they had a lengthy and in-depth series on the property owners big and small that would have to give up their property to make the HSR alignment a reality. This is an element to the story we haven't really heard about, and I found the information the Register pulled together to be quite eye opening, particularly the small farmers and property owners who feel they have no voice against the Authority in Sacramento hell bent on laying tracks ASAP.
The Register found 1,300 different land owners who own property that the current alignment needs to have! Yikes.
This is a song often if not always sung by those near any road, railroad, airport, or anything else where there is a need for property. Frequently the main purpose is to see if they can squeeze a larger check out of the agency. Very rarely is it legitimate. There are numerous procedures in place to make sure the affected landowners are "made whole" No one is having their land stolen from them at gunpoint.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The LA Times link shows demonstrators holding signs in support of high speed rail, but on 2 of their signs, "High Speed Rail" is abbreviated as "HRS".
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
