FRA Delays DesertXpress, Orders More Hearings
Executives at the DesertXpress high speed rail project, which would link Southern California to Las Vegas, were hoping to break ground on their project by the end of this year. However, the Federal Railroad Administration has thrown a wrench into those plans, issuing a Supplemental EIR that requires at least two more public hearings and review of the project by five different federal agencies:
But the posting of the supplemental document means there won’t be a record of decision until the end of the year. Industry experts say an end-of-the-year posting is optimistic. How long that pushes back construction is an unknown that even DesertXpress executives didn’t want to talk about.
Although the differences in the original environmental impact statement and the supplemental are minimal to most, the Federal Railroad Administration thinks there was enough change to warrant a new comment period. The public has until Oct. 18 to forward comments on the revised document.
Two more public hearings are scheduled as well. In Las Vegas, a meeting is scheduled from 5:30 to 8 p.m. Oct. 13 at the Southwest Event Center B at the Hampton Inn Tropicana at 4975 Dean Martin Drive. A second public hearing is scheduled in Barstow, Calif., the next day.
In particular, two issues stood out to the FRA that they felt merited further review: the alignment through Barstow, including whether that small town would get a station, and the alignment through the Mojave National Preserve near the California-Nevada border:
The two biggest deviations from the original document involve changes on the southern end of the route. They include a new site plan for a passenger station in Victorville and a modified alignment through Barstow, where residents are angling for a station and stop instead of a bypass of the city.
There’s also a proposal to change the rail alignment through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, an area overseen by the National Park Service. The preferred route would veer into the preserve; the modified route would cost more to build because it would involve tunneling, but it would avoid Park Service land.
I’m not sure Barstow really merits a station, but I’m willing to keep an open mind on the subject. As to the Mojave National Preserve, the route would cut through only a very small portion of the preserve adjacent to Interstate 15, which forms the northern boundary of the preserve except for the area in question, where the preserve moves north of the freeway to inclue the Clark Mountains. The proposed location of the tracks, near the freeway right-of-way, would likely mean minor impacts to the preserve. It’s not anything like damming the Hetch Hetchy Valley to provide water for San Francisco. The FRA has mandated this be reviewed, so we might as well assess the two options, but in concept it’s hard to see the flaws with the original routing in this particular area.
None of this addresses the biggest question regarding the DesertXpress project, which is how it will get fully funded. But let’s hope that the Supplemental EIR is revised and approved quickly, so that this badly needed project can get under way.
I expect DesertXpress will not have too much trouble finding funding once all the permits are in place. The LA-VEGAS link is one of the more traveled routes in the country, and the potential ROI of this project is mind-blowing . . . . especially vis-a-vis the rediculously low yield on bonds today.
To really succeed, they will need to connect into LA-Union, but it is just a matter of time. One thought: If DesertXpress starts construction before CA-HSR, would it influence the relative utility of different CA-HSR segments? i.e. a segment which would enable DesertXpress to connect into LA (& Anaheim) might carry a bit of weight and get built earlier?
//dan.
StevieB Reply:
September 24th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
The environmental process to connect from Victorville to somewere along the HSR alignment would need to start before considering altering the HSR construction schedule.
Matthew Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:22 am
Here’s a link to comments about this development from the previous post: http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/09/peninsula-residents-speak-out-in-support-of-hsr-project/#comment-86947
Matthew Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 8:44 am
In terms of intercity transport connections for Barstow, I think that it is already adequately served by Amtrak and Greyhound bus service: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ab/Amtrak_California_map.svg/1000px-Amtrak_California_map.svg.png
It would probably make more sense to ensure that there is a good connecting bus service to Victorville (for eventual connectivity with Los Angeles via Palmdale) and to Las Vegas than to spend a lot of money and waste a lot of people’s time with a HSR stop. I think a Barstow HSR stop is something that could be built at a later date if it were truly deemed economically viable, though to be honest I have trouble imagining it. There are much higher priorities for passenger rail development before I would even consider dropping a few million dollars on a high speed rail station in such a small city with such low economic and tourism potential. In Southern California, I’d start with track improvements in the Metrolink network, improving reliability and speed for a much larger population on routes that are used every day instead of occasional intercity trips.
Walter Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 11:52 am
There’s no way Barstow should get a DX stop. It’s a town of 25,000 people. Moreover, it holds no value as a tourist or business destination. Bringing high-speed trains to a stop for a town as small as Barstow simply doesn’t add up.
BruceMcF Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
In addition to the direct cost of the station is the implicit cost of stopping the train for such a small transport demand.
This is a town that does not even have an Amshack at present … according to the Amtrak, the Amtrak bus stop is a curbside stop with no shelter. The google mapview of the Greyhound station seems similar.
StevieB Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 10:18 am
DesertXpress is putting all its effort into building to Victorville and making a profit from people who drive from Southern California to Victorville to ride. They have not started the lengthy environmental process to build farther so they have no effect on the current California High Speed Rail build sequence.
jim Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 10:14 am
There isn’t really an HSR construction schedule yet. The environmental process has to be completed for a segment before it can be scheduled for construction.
Off topic, but a gentle reminder that not all trains need to go fast–nor should they:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/travel/24foliage.html?em
jimsf Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 6:17 am
I hope as many of the trains as possible can be preserved. Its nice to be able to meander along and enjoy the ride and scenery without having to drive. New Hampshire is gorgeous up there, winnipesaukee and white mountains.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 7:30 pm
I think that this sort of travel is the single strongest for cars and weakest for rail. The reason is that if you want to view fall foliage, you probably want to be able to get out of the vehicle and walk around a little bit. Rail is useful only when there’s an established walking path that can get people from the station to the backwoods, which may not be feasible.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
It sucks if you are the driver. They run special trains on the scenic railroads to view the fall foliage. One of the selling points is that there are no automobiles around. And railroads are bit less obsessive about the wide swath of grass by the side of the ROW.
http://www.traintraveling.com/events/fall-foliage-trains/index.shtml
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 5:38 am
Can we please not compare those trains to trains that people ride once in a while, like, say, Amtrak’s Northeastern network? (Or trains that people ride more than once in a while…)
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 12:06 am
Alon,
As a government program requiring subsidy, you would be right. What is interesting about just about all the roads listed in the article is that they are private enterprises, in business for a profit (and at least making enough to stay in business for now). Now, it may be argued that these roads have some special advantages in their favor (non-union or even volunteer crews, not having common carrier obligations, etc.), but at the same time, they struggle with unique handicaps (excessive liability insurance in some cases, competition from other activities such as sports events). Still they chug along, some quite literally so (with steam power).
And I have to recall, there was a wonderful editorial, entitled “I Like Trains,” by Al Kalmbach, the founder of Kalmbach Publications, the publisher of Trains magazine. In it, Kalmbach commented about how you didn’t need to stop to admire the scenery because you didn’t have to miss so much of it while driving yourself. He also mentioned that a number of roads even had scenic stops in their timetables (one that was a long tradition was at the Hanging Bridge, in Colorado’s Royal Gorge, on the Denver & Rio Grande Western).
Foamer comment? Maybe so, but that doesn’t keep it from being true!
Now, what we really need to do is to call the “conservative” lobby on their subsidy comments, and tell them the highway system has to get off its long resting spot on the public dole!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 12:55 am
Oh, I have to put in a plug for my favorite fall railroad, the East Broad Top Railroad & Coal Company (full official name), a narrow-gauge former coal hauler only 90 minutes from me, in Orbisonia, Pa. Check out the notice that passengers should expect smoke and cinders from coal-burning locomotives:
http://www.ebtrr.com/index.php
This train, a special reenactment of normal service on the EBT, is a bit short (the regular coal trains on this line were several times longer), but this is what most service looked like on this short line (33 miles long, five miles in operation today)–”mixed train,” a passenger car tied onto the end of one of the road’s coal trains.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFC_9szfA5c&feature=related
My wife’s favorite car on the EBT, coach No. 8. This car was purchased second-hand from the Boston, Revere Beach & Lynn in 1916; it was built as BRB&L No. 254 in 1882! The interior includes wooden window blinds, red velvet seats, a coal-burning heater (not a stove, this is a hot-water furnace, circulating the hot water around the car for better heat distribution), and, across the aisle from the heater, a small compartment with the letters “W.C.” on the door–for “water closet.” Wonderful Victorian era understatement!
http://www.ebtrr.com/pics/l-myers/ebt_coach-8.jpg
The BRB&L was a commuter road in Boston that the Depression and other things killed in 1940 or so. A rapid transit line runs on part of its roadbed today, but can you imagine riding this car, and others like it, to work in Boston?
My wife’s late brother-in-law also loved this little railroad. He was from Burgdorff (sp?), Switzerland, and the railroad through his hometown was the very modern electrified, standard gauge Engleburg-Burgdorff-Thune Railway, or as he pronounced it, in German, the “Eh-Beh-Teh.” He was delighted to see an “Eh-Beh-Teh” in America, even if it was a very different animal from the line in Europe. Even more fascinating, he and his wife (who was and is my wife’s sister) both said the countryside and the station looked and felt like their counterparts in southern Switzerland, on the border with Italy.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 5:50 am
The issue is not subsidy as much as ridership. Intercity trains can carry very heavy passenger traffic, even without subsidies, relying just on the fares paid by business and leisure travelers who want to get from point A to point B. Commuter trains can post multi-billion annual ridership levels, and trounce anything else in raw passenger numbers.
I don’t think I agree that you need to stop to see scenery only if you miss it because you’re going too fast. When I dated someone who grew up in Dobbs Ferry, we’d go up the Hudson Line fairly frequently. It was scenic, but I never thought of it as a replacement for actually walking near the river.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 6:26 am
Of course not. It’s just that some people seem to think whatever you have in public transit has to be a pure transport function. I say it should be fun, too. And considering how much the auto builders expend on styling and marketing, trying to make cars look like fun, it looks like they recongnise this, too.
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
To be honest, I’m skeptical about how important this type of fun is in transit. Cars are different because they’re consumer products, so people like to customize them and treat them as status symbols. Rail is different: super-stylish trains have their allure, but ultimately what matters is performance, cost, and customer comfort. There’s room for personalizing smartcards, which are normal consumer items, and for doing a few performances on trains and at stations if they don’t get in people’s way, but not much beyond that.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 5:01 am
This little dialogue brings up an interesting point or two.
One, the appeal of “super stylish” trains (i.e., the luxury of a Super Chief or a 20th Century in the past, or that proposed British job that was here a while back) is of some obvous and also minor importance, as you have suggested, or alternately, at least the interiors shouldn’t be ugly and ill-kept.
What is alternately interesting is that these fall color trains, and heritage trains in general, would not be considered “stylish” in contemporary terms. Gondola and flat cars with benches? Ancient passenger cars with no air conditioning other than open windows, some over 100 years old?
Some almost as ancient cars in regular intercity service (Venice-Simplon Orient Express), and a whopper fare to boot? Equally ancient trolley cars in some cases? Steam locomotives? Coal burning steam locomotives? Narrow gauge and steam in Colorado on a line with a segment that twists along on a ledge 400 feet above a river, with this segment having a safety-mandated speed restriction of 6 mph?
I’ll also add that the famous and beloved original California Zephyr was a modern and stylish train in 1949, but it also ran on a schedule optimized for siteseeing, with the result that its schedule was 10 hours longer than the competiton.
Any thoughts?
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
I think a lot of designers don’t have a good sense of what people consider “stylish” when riding trains.
(1) Polished/varnished wood is always stylish in an interior.
(2) You can go either sleek and abstract or ornate and decorative, but don’t try to go somewhere in the middle of the two.
(3) If you can’t get the “wood” look, the “brushed metel” look is always stylish… until it gets damaged.
(4) If you can’t do any of those, watch your paint job. A little accenting and lining makes something like ten times as fancy.
Amtrak is actually *GOOD* as far as stylishness goes, which is not always recognized — its main shortcoming is the absence of varnished wood. Most of the subway systems in the US are pretty damn good as well.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Note that these principles have interesting and funny implications: the yellow bumpy contrast strip at the edge of platforms, installed for disabled people? Makes the platforms look significantly more stylish.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
I will say that I think that in an “ordinary” train as opposed to a “tourist” train, the key parts which need to be attractive-looking are, in this priority order:
(1) Train interior
(2) Station platform & waiting room
(3) Train exterior (sides of cars first, front of train second).
Make the windows so people can see out and you’ve got a nice train trip even if it’s running through Gary, Indiana.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Actually, foliage viewing is freaking dreadful for a car trip. You see a lot more on a train trip. A bike trip or hike is better, of course, but those with arthritis aren’t going to do that.
DesertExpress is in real trouble. And here is why!
DE gambled with their enviro review by examining too few options. They did that – in all likelihood – to minimize their costs. Readers here should know that each alternative examined need to be studied to the same lengths or depths . But, that costs money, particularly when advanced conceptual engineering is taking place.
DE’s gamble, by not examining those other alternativesis costing them. And, it’s probably because they do not have the necessary funding. This is a crack in thjeir organization. And it is telling.
Peter Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
The FRA is responsible for the environmental review, with Desert Express funding it.
rafael Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
It’s up to DX to plan and conduct the environmental review. FRA’s job is limited to process quality control. In this particular case, they were not satisfied the applicant had been thorough enough.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 3:47 pm
And, imo, it was likely a function of level of engineering and how much they were able to afford.
The woman interviewed in this news clip reminds me of those on the Peninsula (the debate over Britain’s HS2):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-THEk8Whvoc
My favorite part is at 2:48.
Peter Reply:
September 25th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
The British are different from the rest of the world! They will never leave their cars for trains!
Oh wait…
Matthew Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 7:42 am
Well, Britain is interesting in some respects compared to other European countries. The rail system in the south is essentially hub and spoke, with comparatively few cross links not involving a transfer on the circle line. Consequently, service from London to points within southern England (Birmingham and points south) is fairly competitive without any upgrades. The proposed service essentially makes existing service a little bit faster. It’s hard, then, to sell a high speed rail line to Birmingham in terms of independent utility, as the speed improvements will not necessarily result in a revolutionary difference in connectivity without additional investment further north. The average person in the southeast of England, which by far accounts for the areas of highest population density and economic activity, could care less about connectivity to the north of England and Scotland. There might also be some mistrust in the financial management of such a project given the recent problems with the Channel Tunnel.
Matthew Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 7:52 am
I should clarify that I live in England and am highly supportive of expansion of the high speed rail network. Real estate prices in central London are among the highest in the world, and there would certainly be demand for regional business centers further north. Also, a lack of affordable quality housing in the southeast necessitates accommodating a greater proportion of population growth outside greater London. Inadequate mobility in the north of Britain (and inadequate connectivity to continental Europe) reduces the attractiveness of cities outside the southeast. I really don’t think it makes sense to fly from East Midlands airport to Paris or Brussels, but the hassle and additional hour in transfer time on the circle line, as well as the lack of transparent ticketing services, means that flying is much easier than taking the train.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 11:19 am
The biggest selling point of the project is capacity expansion. Moving (some of) the fast trains onto a parallel new route opens up more capacity for stoppers and freight on the ECML and MML, and the claim is that this is at less cost than upgrades to the existing heavily trafficked routes.
If “revolutionary difference in connectivity” to the further north of England and Scotland were the driving force one would expect to see a lot more than hand-waving about such in the proposed HS2 first phase.
I’m not too worried about the extra reviews – DX can probably get them done quickly. The five federal agencies seem like a far bigger issue. Are those agencies expected to do quick, pro-forma reviews, or lengthy ones that could demand major changes to the plan?
rafael Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 8:31 am
My understanding is that the reviews by the five federal agencies is an integral part of the environmental impact review process. It’s possible FRA has simply signaled that DX has tried to jump the gun, that those agencies haven’t even had a chance to study the supplemental documents yet.
DesertXpress if built soon is important as it would be a demonstration that HSR can work in the United States. The concept is well stated in the Project Finance Magazine article Fast-track for US high-speed rail
This is great news. I am all for this project, but it would be a disaster if this was one of the first HSR lines built in the US. This project will be a failure until it is connected to Palmdale and LAUS. If it is gets built and is opened with the line ending in Victorville, it will underperform and be derided as a boondoggle by conservatives and decrease the chances of other HSR lines getting additional federal funds and even foreign funds.
Peter Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 10:24 am
Meh, Florida HSR will easily be the first to open. They have a really easy route to construct: ROW has been saved specifically for HSR, they don’t have to really worry about NIMBYs (very few people live on freeways), no mountain ranges to be crossed, and the project has half of its funding together.
Emma Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
True that!
Right, I said “one of the first.” But do you think the Tampa-Orlando Airport HSR line will be that successful either? I see it taking some time to ramp up to reasonable ridership numbers. So lets say this opens up followed by Desert Xpress. We are going to be hearing it from the conservatives for a while unless something becomes a spectacular success within the first couple months. It might just be better if CA has most of its money in the bank and construction well underway before either of these are completed.
Matthew Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 2:31 pm
If Desertxpress and Florida are built first, we’ll hear from conservatives more of what we’ve already heard: it’s a train from Disneyworld to Las Vegas and is a waste of taxpayer money. I think it’s important that we get some non-tourism intercity travel, too. Otherwise, people will assume that high speed rail is for vacation and that it doesn’t make financial sense when there isn’t Disney or a casino backing the project.
Peter Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Florida should carry a fair amount of non-tourist traffic, as well. It will have stations at the Orange County Convention Center, as well as a station in downtown Tampa.
They will also likely have started construction of the Orlando-Miami phase by the time Phase 1 opens, so it’s not as if it will not be connecting the other cities as well within a few years of Phase 1 opening.
Nathanael Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
The Florida line will cause people to fly into Orlando when visiting (or coming home to) Tampa. I expect it to hurt Tampa Int’l Airport significantly.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
September 28th, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Might work the other way too. The thundering hordes that want to get to the resorts just southwest of Orlando may just decide that a cheap flight into Tampa and a cheap train ride is just the thing…
This is the good and the bad thing about democracy. On one hand, you have all these agencies that guarantee construction that considers our laws and the opinion of the public. On the other hand, all the paperwork takes years while authoritarian countries like China and the UAE break ground within two years. That doesn’t mean I support them. I think we must always consider the EIR when we build high speed rail. Otherwise the project loses its “green stamp.”
Alon Levy Reply:
September 26th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Spain and Korea can get things done just as fast as China, Singapore, and the UAE, and have much lower construction costs. Both Madrid and Seoul have completed or are planning subway lines in the $50 million/km range, the lowest in the developed world; Singapore, for all of its union busting and authoritarian control, builds subways for $250 million/km, the same as in Paris and Berlin.
I find so strange the fact that two of the three proposals for high-speed trains connecting Las Vegas with southern California don’t actually reach Los Angeles without some convoluted intermodal transfer.
Frankly, the Desert Lightning project sounds so much more sensible than either Desert Xpress or the California-Nevada Super-Speed Train.
Matthew Reply:
September 27th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Desertxpress will be able to give a one seat ride to DTLA once a connection is built to Palmdale. You wouldn’t transfer trains at that point, the train would continue on CAHSR built tracks. The first phase of Desertxpress is designed to capture some value from the initial build out of the system. It’s designed to make some revenue while continuing development to connect to the CAHSR system. There are 5 million people in the Inland Empire, over twice the population of the Las Vegas metro area. For a population that is accustomed to driving hours every day for a daily commute, it’s not necessarily a big deal to drive over the Cajon pass. Think of a stop in Victorville as “independent utility” for the first phase of the system, which will be enhanced by future connections to an expanding network of high speed rail routes. With the Desertxpress proposal and a connection to CAHSR at Palmdale, it will be possible to route trains directly from San Francisco, Irvine, Sacramento, or San Diego to Las Vegas, all without a transfer.
What is appealing about Desertxpress over the Desert Lightning project is the price tag. Desertxpress will capture a large proportion of the value of the Desert Lightning proposal, but at one tenth the cost. That means it actually might get built in our lifetimes and not just eat up millions of dollars of feasibility studies, which I’m guessing might be the true business plan of Desert Lightning.
Matt Korner Reply:
September 29th, 2010 at 2:04 am
I agree that the backers of Desert Lightning seem a little less than serious. But, their proposal has to be more feasible than something, which may or may not eventually be connected to Los Angeles through a convoluted route through the Tehachapi Pass that would bypass Ontario, San Bernardino, and Riverside, as well as everything else on the San Diego line and even intermediate stops, like Palm Springs, on a route through the low desert.
Also, the prospect of connecting, with a single proposal, three city pairs, including Los Angeles-to-Phoenix, which the Brookings Institution projects will be the most successful in the U.S., is much more interesting than a project, which disproportionately benefits Las Vegas and Nevada.
I’m as bullish on high-speed rail as the next person, but I want to see it done well, especially since high-profile failures could jeopardize future funding. And, the serious misgivings most everyone expresses about the Victorville terminus should not be discounted merely to get shovels in the ground more quickly.