DesertXpress To Seek Federal Loan Guarantees
At a press conference this afternoon in Las Vegas, Senator Harry Reid and US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood talked about federal loan guarantees for the DesertXpress high speed rail project to connect Las Vegas to Southern California. From the Las Vegas Sun:
Harry Reid was joined at UNLV by LaHood and transportation consultant Tom Skancke to explain that DesertXpress has been invited to seek federal loan guarantees through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program.
The article doesn’t explain the full details here, but federal loan guarantees would certainly help DesertXpress raise the private capital it seeks to begin construction on the HSR project from Vegas to Victorville.
Harry Reid’s purpose in holding this press conference was more than just to try and help DesertXpress find funding. Locked in a tight battle with right-wing extremist Sharron Angle, Reid is trying to show Nevadans that he is working to bring jobs to the state. The HSR project is generally popular in Nevada, where everyone understands that transportation connections to Southern California are a lifeline for the casino industry. Angle, as a darling of the Tea Party, can be expected to strongly oppose the HSR project, so Reid is trying to show voters he is better positioned to bring jobs to the state.
Reid also is trying to help out the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Nevada, a race where he has a personal interest:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that he would meet with Nevada’s new governor after the Nov. 2 election to convince transportation leaders to support the DesertXpress high-speed rail project….
Reid and his son are locked in high-profile election campaigns, with Harry Reid battling Republican challenger Sharron Angle and his son, Rory Reid, battling Republican Brian Sandoval in the governor’s race.
There’s a lot happening with HSR around California right now, and as we see by this report, in Nevada as well. But it’s the November 2 election that will be most decisive for HSR. If right-wing candidates win in California and Nevada, the future of their HSR projects is very much in doubt. But if pro-HSR candidates win, then the projects will continue and, with federal support, will be under way perhaps as soon as 2011.
After my drive from Vegas to Riverside on Monday took over 8 hours (instead of the usual 4ish), I am switching my stance on DesertXPress. I once derided the train to nowhere- and I still think it needs to extend down Cajon to truly do something about LA-LV traffic. But after Monday, I’ll take any alternative, anything at all.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Have you heard of flying? Don’t they have flights from ONT to LAS?
A train stopping in Victorville is unlikely to be used much. If I have to pay airplane prices to ride a High Speed train that takes me only part of the way, then I’ll fly from the close by airport: faster and maybe even cheaper in the end.
jimsf Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 5:11 pm
except that getting on and off a train is far less hassle. Not only can you go without an advance reservation, and not only do you have a much less intrusive security arena, but the whole process from parking lot to boarding is simple and easier. ( ok, granted an airport like long beach is pretty simple but that’s a rarity) and one thing no one mentions is that big time waster that happens at the gate and during boarding, where everyone has to board the place, single file, then you stand there, waiting for people to get situated, then you finally get to your (very uncomfortable) seat, then you sit there waiting for the other 100 people to get their act together while the plan sits at the gate going nowhere. On a train multiple doors open, hundreds of people board, and within 2 or 3 minutes the train is under way while people find their seats and stow their luggage. You can be in the lounge car with a glass of pinot already. There’s no strapping yourself in. No taxiing. etc etc. Flying is the most god awful ridiculous, tedious, time consuming, uncomfortable pain in the ass way of getting from a to b ever invented. But, if you want to go through all that for a 45 minute flight knock yourself out.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Oh God, not this split end thread again…..
The Victorville terminus is because the Desert Xpress people don’t have the resources or power to thread their train into LAUS. They are hoping if they build it, that Providence or something will make it happen.
Point is, even CHSRA is having a devil of time navigating their way through Los Angeles County. Extending the alignment through the Cajon Pass is worthless….one because BNSF will never surrender it but two because the majority of air traffic from Southern California originates at LAX to Las Vegas, not Ontario.
No one is going to slog through hours of traffic just to get off in Victorville and board the train there…it’s going to have limited appeal…not because flying or driving is superior…but that as Justin might attest….north of Barstow Vegas is a straight shot…south meanwhile is brutal especially on a Friday night.
thatbruce Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
Would you back the DesertXpress concept if there were definite plans to provide a connection to the LA basin, whether by DesertXpress, CAHSR or a third party?
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
Of course. I support it being build regardless. I just think it will like end up being a commercial failure and be integrated with CAHSR eventually.
Matthew Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:20 am
The idea is to connect to CAHSR at Palmdale, which would enable a one seat ride from LA Union Station to Las Vegas. I would imagine that would mean different kinds of trains both running from LA to Las Vegas. Both CAHSR and DesertXpress trains would be able to make the trip, and there would have to be some kind of financial arrangement regarding scheduling and use of each other’s tracks. Service to Victorville is designed to capture some of the value of a partially built system while it is being completed. Phasing in different parts of a system is the norm, and would be financially irresponsible otherwise.
dave Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 12:02 am
Have you considered that not everyone is trigger-happy about flying anywhere as you are? I don’t like flying so much, I’ll drive as far as I can with the time that I have or else I won’t go. Not to mention other people who are afraid of flying. I’m sure their are more than you think.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 12:22 pm
Sorry about your fear of flying, but you can’t expect that taxpayers will finance a mega-project just to satisfy the whims of a minority of people who will use it.
High speed rail is expensive and therefore should be built only when it makes economic sense, i.e. when there is a sufficient volume of passengers to guarantee an appropriate level of utilization and therefore revenue.
A line starting in downtown LA and ending in Las Vegas might meet that requirement, one stopping half way in Victorville doesn’t. If private investors and aviophobes like you are willing to finance that project, go right ahead.
dave Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
That was just plain stupid. I didn’t say I had a fear of flying. I’ve flow a bunch of times, I’m saying their are people, Many people who don’t fly because they are not confortable being propelled in a aluminum tube with wings. I know of at least five (5) who will not get on the airplane because they suffer from some sort of anxiety or panic attack. Not myself, I just hate hassles. I would rather drive to EVERYTHING!
As to your guarantee, it will not happen. Do people travel in this state? Yes, Is this the most populated if not one of the most populated states and growing? Yes, that’s all you need to know when you ask for guarantee’s. Once you reach our size and density their is no other more effective way to move millions of people to where they need to go than HSR. We’re still waiting for those human teleporters or Space Saucers to be available to the public otherwise HSR is the only workable solution.
Jay Taylor Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 3:03 pm
Just did a flight Monday from SF to LV… Door to door time, 7+ hours. I live in the east bay and there was only a 1h delay at LV.
I would have rather been on a train.
DesertXpress might be the first high speed rail project to break ground if approved. According to the Las Vegas Desert Sun it could be in a few months.
Risenmessiah Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Not only that….but Desert Xpress might be the the first high speed rail project to break ground in California. The original EIS had construction beginning in Victorville and heading towards Vegas…not from.
Actually, Nevada is not a good measure of HSR’s fate, Robert. Here’s why.
1. Part of Harry Reid’s strategy in embracing DX is that it benefits Clark County. It’s home to over 2/3 of the state’s population and a large contingent of (wait for it) Mormons like Reid who work in (wait for it) construction. Angle is from Reno and is will live or die based on how many Republicans in Clark County show up and vote for her. She will say absolutely nothing about Desert Express. It doesn’t help Reid at all in Washoe County (which is often where statewide votes are decided) and isn’t going to drive the Culinary Union out to vote for him.
2. Sandoval will not touch DX either. He’s too liberal. No one in the GOP ubercaucus will touch him, because they need viable minority candidates and the Californian-born Sandoval is perfect for that role. (Think David Iglesias with an accent.)
3. DX is going to try and build as much of the alignment in the middle of I-15…that is going to require someone willing to work with the DOT allow such a project.
4. Not every city in Clark County will want this thing. I would bet there isn’t much support in Laughlin or Mesquite for DX as it will take away visitors from them, even indirectly.
5. Water. The next four years are going to be about water in Southern Nevada. New Jersey, Wisconsin and California aren’t facing the propsect of oblivion like Nevada is over water. The biggest threat to DX is that the drought usurps all the support for a public works project to water reclamation or transportation.
Speaking for myself, this could be the sort of thing we really need to get the private investors on board.
As I see it, Desert Express thinks it can make enough money to truly run at a profit on this route. However, American and other private investors, no longer the daring buckaroos they were in the 19th century, see too much risk in it, perhaps reasonably so given a very long history of people having been brainwashed for cars and a game rigged against rail at the behest of the oil and auto industries (see National City lines, true cost of gasoline, true cost of roads). Hence the need for what amounts to government insurance on the thing.
Hope it works out; if all goes well, it won’t cost us a cent. Of course, if it doesn’t, well, the money situation would be the least of my worries, I’d be more concerned that the critics would have too much ammunition.
Rafael Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 10:26 am
The alternative to DX isn’t maglev. Given that even California’s own steel wheels HSR project is struggling to secure a right of way through the San Gabriel Valley, there is IMHO zero chance that either Nevada project will ever deliver dedicated tracks to either LA or Anaheim. The Golden State would abandon its own project if and only if there simply isn’t enough available funding from any source to get it built or if it cannot complete the environmental review. Maglev would face the exact same challenges, only more so because it would be less useful to California. At least DX has a fighting chance of someday getting a connector to the California HSR network so it can run direct trains from Anaheim and LA to Las Vegas via trackage rights.
If neither DX nor maglev get built, Las Vegas will either have to actually build the planned relief airport in the Ivanpah Valley, get I-15 widened east of Victorville or accept permanent constraints on its future economic growth. The latter won’t be acceptable to Nevada voters and the former two would both cost more and require taxpayer grants not loan guarantees.
Therefore, USDOT should seriously consider granting DX’s request provided that none of the nitty gritty details of the chosen technologies will be incompatible with CHSRA’s target specifications. Eventually, passengers should be offered direct service between at least Anaheim, LA and Las Vegas if not SF-LV and Sac-LV as well.
Track gauge isn’t an issue, but slots on the timetable, vehicle top speed, acceleration and braking performance, FRA crash safety compliance, PTC signaling and electrification parameters all could be.
Latest from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2010/10/13/will-we-ever-have-high-speed-trains
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 11:50 am
It continues to amaze me–just amazes me!–that no one in the articles, and only a few people I noted in the comments (just glancing, really), remark just how much the highway system and motor fuel really cost, and nobody has anything like the numbers I’ve put up here before.
Are those numbers that hard to find? Is the idea of examing these costs that hard to comprehend? Has this country really become that stupid? Am I Albert Einstien?
Bah!
We all know Dems face huge losses Nov. 2nd.
We need to make the case to a republican controlled congress that HSR is a worthwhile investment. The emphasis in the argument should be that we’re investing in infrastructure not just spending more “stimulus” money for the sake of spending.
In addition, we need to look abroad to other investors including China. Certainly this isn’t the funding source I would prefer but after spending $820 Billion with virtually nothing to show for it, the new congress will be determined to show they’re not the same profligate spenders.
This is certainly and obstacle to over come but should continue to move forward wherever we can find the funding.
Missiondweller Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Today’s WSJ discusses private funding for public infra structure which could be a vital source of supplemental funding for CAHSR:
“”As more and more states and municipalities come under budgetary pressures, private investments will be considered a viable alternative to municipal bonds,” says Robert Dove, a managing director of Carlyle Group, which was among the bidders for the Virginia ports.”
“Private-equity firms raised more than $17 billion for infrastructure so far this year, the first annual increase in fund raising since the credit crisis began in 2007, according to Probitas Partners, a research firm in San Francisco.”
“In Virginia, unsolicited bids “give us greater flexibility in advancing projects that we may not be able to advance with traditional transportation funding,” says Thomas Pelnik III, director of Virginia Department of Transportation’s Innovative Projects Delivery Division. ”
Certainly, many would argue this is not the best way to fund infra structure but as we look forward to a likely new political environment I hope we’ll consider all reasonable sources of funding to get the investment California needs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703631704575552531605119708.html?mod=ITP_moneyandinvesting_0
Subscription required.
O/T: miners working on the Gotthard base tunnel in Switzerland will complete drilling tomorrow, Fri Oct 15 2010, some 23 (!) years after ground was broken. It will still take several year to complete all the work associated with the approaches on either side, but the event nevertheless marks a major milestone for the $10 billion project that was undertaken to dramatically reduce through freight traffic on Switzerland’s roads. To date, the project has cost 8 lives and suffered major delays plus cost escalations due to unstable local geology in some sections. The peak ambient temperature in the two tubes, due to low-level radioactivity from the surrounding rock strata, is a whopping 122F. After completion, the 35-mile St. Gotthard base tunnel will be the longest such structure in the world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39670683/ns/world_news-world_environment/
Anyone (synonymouse?) advocating very long tunnels for the California HSR project, e.g. for a shortcut via Tejon Pass, should consider that the local geology there would be at least as complex as the Alps, compounded by the risk of a catastrophic accident and/or very long reconstruction work after a major quake on the San Andreas/Garlock fault juncture. Granted, the longest single tunnel would be much shorter than this new one under the St. Gotthard massif, but even 10 miles is a very long distance.
While technologically feasible, there would be a very high risk of severe cost escalations due to imperfect knowledge of the meter-scale geology. Major faults should always be crossed at grade, even if this entails a significant detour. Indeed, it is often a good idea to avoid tunneling altogether, though feasible gradients and the track curvature requirements sometimes make it the least bad option.
Marcus Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
Sounds a bit like to Hoosic Tunnel in Western Massachusetts. It was also the longest rail tunnel ever built at the time of its completion (and remains the longest in the Eastern United States), took decades to complete and killed many workers.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
In other words, the Gotthard Base Tunnel (and other associated project) is almost nothing at all like the Hoosac tunnel, except they’re both tunnels and were both a big deal in their time.
Now let me wipe off this foam off my chin.
Loren Petrich Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
That project will cost about 10 billion Swiss francs or $10 billion (estimate in the GBT’s Wikipedia article). To get an idea of how big that is by American standards, I scaled that up to the US’s GDP and population, and got $300 billion and $400 billion.
Scaling to California’s population yields nearly $50 billion, not far from the expected cost of California’s HSR system. So if Switzerland could do it…
Switzerland itself has 7.8 million people, about as much as Virginia or New Jersey.
synonymouse Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
No, California is too stupid, gutless, and corrupt to go to base tunnels. It considers Palmdale real estate developers more important than the UP.
Speaking of the UP, there is a one page interview with its CEO in the current issue of Trains. In it he estimates the CHSRA will top out at 160-180 mph and complains that hsr parallel to the UP tracks will cut off customers.
Another interesting item in that issue is the reminder that the SP took almost a month to repair the Tehachapi line after the 1952 quake. Nasty surprise for PB-Palmdale if the Loop route turns to be the seismic equal of Tejon.
rafael Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 4:50 am
The Channel Tunnel between the UK and France has suffered two major fires since it opened. In both cases, limited service remained possible through the undamaged tube, but repairs took not one month but about six.
An earthquake on a slip-strike fault would cause tracks in a tunnel to be destroyed at the fault location. Depending on the severity of the quake, the geology surrounding the tunnel and the design of the tunnel walls, there would also be a risk of wall deformation or outright collapse anywhere along the entire length of the bore. Both bores could be affected at the same time. Worst case, repairs could take many months or years, even with expensive special features such as fault crossing chambers.
Of course, an earthquake could just as easily damage tracks running at grade. Indeed, shake intensity can be greater at the surface because of the physics of how waves reflect at free surfaces. Nevertheless, it is much easier to bring heavy machinery and materiel for rescue and repairs to an at-grade location than to one deep underground (or even a viaduct above ground).
Given that LAWA has effectively abandoned any hope of developing Palmdale Airport in the foreseeable future plus the federal ruling to reduce the volume of water pumped from the Delta to SoCal, I actually agree with you that a straight shot from Bakersfield to Sylmar would be preferable to encouraging more development in the Antelope Valley.
It’s just that tunneling under Tejon would be madness IMHO and, no HSR train vendor currently offers a product that can climb a 6% gradient at Tejon Pass at reasonable speed (e.g. 100mph) and still achieve cruise speeds of 220mph in the Central Valley. If such a product could be developed with acceptable technology risk, your argument would become a lot more cogent.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 8:14 am
I would advise against tunnels for all these reasons plus the fact that they do cost money in maintenance.
Now, about those 6% or so grades. . .probably not an ideal solution, cetainly a throwback, but we are dealing with extreme terrain problems. . .what about locomotive helper service?
The Baltimore & Ohio crossed an amazingly rugged West End division in West Virginia that was a backbreaker from the time of its opening in the 1850s. A century later, financial advisors would note to potential stock investors that the operating condtions on this route, which carried the road’s passenger trains to St. Louis and also an enormous coal traffic in heavy trains, were severe enough that investors could not expect the financial returns of the parallelling Pennsylvania Railroad or New York Central System. Until very recently, the B&O and successors Chessie System and CSX required people in engine and train service for this division to not only go through the instruction program at Cumberland, Md., but to also serve for two years in apprenticeship on this route with four severe grades and whiteout conditions in the winter. This was not required on any other division, even on the greatly expanded CSX system. Other routes were steeper, some required similar apprenticeships (Southern’s Saluda grade, in excess of 5%, comes to mind, and Western Maryland’s now abandoned Blackwater Canyon route, also in West Virginia, was another), but nobody else had the combination of traffic, tonnage, and weather of the West End.
The lesson that might come from the B&O was its way of handling passenger service over this division. The road used several methods over the years; they principly came down to engine changes at each end of the division, exchanging “flat land” locomotives for “mountain” locomotives, and adding helper locomotives to the passenger engines for the trip over the division. Both techniques were used into the diesel era; helper locomotives eventually won out, with up to three dual-service diesel units being added to the normal pair of passenger units for the run over the division. This was useful not only for going up the grades, but for coming down (B&O’s passenger diesels lacked dynamic brakes, which most of its freight diesels and its dual-service diesels had).
What I’m thinking of would be just this operation, with one or two electric locomotives (HHP-8s?)coupled onto an electric MU train. I am assuming these units would have the same type of couplers as what seem to be used for European and Japanese high-speed trains, and for some rapid transit equipment, in which the mechanical coupling also includes automatic air and MU connections. Not having to manually couple the trains and then hook up air hoses and MU cables would be a big time saver. Of course, you still have additional power to buy, maintain, and run, but avoiding that tunnel may be worth it, and get you a shorter route with less overall expense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8xxmiZ7XDA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbWet68jZgk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_VrHVh1CZ4&feature=fvsr
Probably not the best idea around, but something to think about. . .
Alon Levy Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Coupling and uncoupling moves take too long, and the HHP-8 is so heavy it would not be safe on high-speed track. This would end up taking nearly the same amount of time as detouring through the Tehachapis at higher speed.
synonymouse Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 10:05 am
At this point I simply do not put credence in the CHSRA’s evaluation of the Tejon alternatives, as it is obvious the political decision had been made a priori.
We need a proposal from a bonafide base tunnel outfit, like Herrenknecht, to qualify and quantify the the risks and challenges involved in building the best of the Tejon alternatives. The time and money involved in a restudy of Tejon is appropriate in view of the size, cost, and disputed viability of the overall hsr project. If done optimistically and in good faith the Tejon re-examination would pretty much resolve the controversy over route selection, at least for most reasonable people.
thatbruce Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
as it is obvious the political decision had been made a priori.
Names of the players involved would be good.
quantify the the risks and challenges involved in building the best of the Tejon alternatives
Rather than listening to our, obviously uneducated, summaries of the risks, challenges, costs, and detrimental effects of a possible (and likely over the tunnel’s lifetime) failure, why don’t you perform a basic litmus test of your proposal?
Your city should have a geologist on staff or retainer. Ask them about the wisdom of building anything intended to last for 50 years or so atop or through the San Andreas/Garlock fault interaction. If their educated opinion doesn’t please you, there are other geologists that you can ask after all.
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Don’t forget, he’s also implying that Herrenknecht would not come up with a self-serving, rent-seeking answer to whether his magical tunnels are possible. Would such a company LOVE to get its hands on another $10+ billion tunneling project? Of course! Who the hell wouldn’t?
synonymouse Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
I’ll take Herrenknecht rent-seeking any day over PB-Palmdale rent-seeking.
With Herrenknecht you’ll be getting really cool base tunnels; with PB you get an ugly-ass, noisy-ass, Brutalist piece of dreck four-track regurgitation of a sixties BART aerial.
Peter Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Gist of argument: “really cool base tunnels”.
Well, whoop-di-fuckin-shit.
Matthew Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:28 am
The Gotthard Base tunnel and the Channel tunnel were designed the way they were for very specific reasons: the Alps and the English Channel. They didn’t have the option of choosing an alternative route that would significantly simplify engineering. It’s just bad policy to create unnecessary uncertainty and expense.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Gotthard Base Tunnel: $10.4 billion for 35 miles
ARC Tunnel: $10+ billion for 3 miles
Sure, apples ‘n oranges, but that still does not explain the order-of-magnitude difference in cost.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Water tunnel 3 is 60 miles long and expected to cost 6 billion. Just a few blocks away from the ARC tunnel as it passes under what will be ARC tunnels…..
PeakVT Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
For a variety of reasons, that’s a bad comparison. You need to brush up on the details of the ARC project.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
The underwater part is surprisingly cheap. It’s not 1900 anymore; setting up a TBM near Tonnelle and having it dig down to Penn Station is straightforward and costs in the low billions.
But forget ARC. The single biggest waste in the region is ESA, whose underwater section was built decades ago; the current $8 billion project consists of about 2 km of tunneling in Manhattan, a short tunnel in Queens, and a deep-level cavern under Grand Central. This means its cost is nearly $4 billion per km, making it by far the most expensive tunnel ever built.
Andre Peretti Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 7:09 am
The Swiss want truck-free Alps. In 1994 they had a referendum.
Voters were told the expected cost of the tunnel was $1,300 per taxpayer, but that problems in fault zones could cause delays and cost overruns impossible to evaluate in advance.
Being fully warned, they approved the project by a large majority.
Can you imagine that in California?
synonymouse Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 10:21 am
I believe California voters, even of the Reaganite variety, would be willing to spend the extra money on a truly progressive, breakthrough project like Tejon base tunnels. The latter would be much more difficult, perhaps infeasible, to construct for auto traffic so the tunnels would provide a tremendous permanent “one-up” for the hsr over the paralleling freeway and bring the hsr significantly closer to true competiveness with the airlines.
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 10:46 am
You keep on making this claim of voters wanting base tunnels. Do you have anything to back this up with? I presume not.
synonymouse Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 11:28 am
How can you know with perfect certainty in advance? It is a best guess, intuitive. Money for brainwashing the electorate is always the wild card. Look at Prop 1A.
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 11:30 am
So you admit that your claims are completely unsubstantiated?
Loren Petrich Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
My comparison was of the relative sizes of the projects: the CA HSR project vs. the Gotthard Base Tunnel when compared to the populations of California and Switzerland. They have similar sizes relative to those places’ populations and economies.
Whether a Tejon base tunnel would be worth construction is another issue.
jimsf Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
I believe California voters, even of the Reaganite variety, would be willing to spend the extra money on a truly progressive, breakthrough project like Tejon base tunnels
no. they wouldn’t.
Jay Taylor Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
I for one don’t like tunnels.
DesertXpress has relaunched their website:
http://www.desertxpress.com/
synonymouse Reply:
October 14th, 2010 at 11:27 pm
Let Adelson and Wynn pay out of pocket for this pipedream. Indian gaming is torpedoing Sin City.
rafael Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 4:59 am
O rly? Got any hard data on that?
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 7:26 am
Does he ever?
Matthew Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 5:36 am
who needs to respond to a troll?
Missiondweller Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 11:24 am
“Indian gaming is torpedoing Sin City.”
Strange, wouldn’t it make sense then for Nevada then to promote this project to hold on to market share?
dave Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 12:59 am
A much better site! I like it!
rafael Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:03 am
Nice to see that DX has not only actually decided to go electric but also no shows overhead catenaries in its marketing materials. All the trains shown are Bombardier products either already in service in or being developed for China’s HSR network. Bombardier’s trains division is headquartered in Berlin.
Elizabeth Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 10:21 am
The Daily Post actually ran a story last month about the lack of wires in most of the High SPeed Rail Authority’s materials.
Peter Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Off the top of my head, all the videos have them, IIRC.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Everything I’ve seen has wires, too. What was the paper talking about?
Of course, it’s interesting to note that under certain lighting conditions, and with weathered green copper wire, overhead lines do sort of turn invisible.
http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/2010/04/perhaps-new-game.html
jimsf Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:09 am
Very nice site. I hop they pull it off on sked. It would set a great example. Once on is up and running in our backyard, the benefits will be obvious and undeniable. I like that VRV station design.
Here come the visual impact poles…
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=143709&title=City%20erects%20%E2%80%98story%20poles%E2%80%99
Johnathan Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
We should build 4-lane highways right next to that station to show them what LA’s crazy freeway interchanges look like. And, they won’t get a vote on that business plan.
Spokker Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I’m taking a time machine back to 1950 and will be drawing story grids in the ground to demonstrate the impact of suburban sprawl on the state’s landscape. If it worked you might see a few tract homes and freeways disappear.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 15th, 2010 at 10:19 pm
It totally worked. There’s no longer a freeway over the Embarcadero. Thanks, Spokker!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 5:23 am
Ah, yes, hard to believe, but sometimes useful things come out of earthquakes and other disasters, although at times the cost in human life is uncomfortable. . .and uncountable.
Which reminds me: For all the criticism over BART and Parsons-Brickerhof, the tunnels under the bay took that earthquake well. What did the designers and engineers do to enable that? And alternately, what would be required to build an earthquake-survivable base tunnel, particularly one crossing those faults? I still think a tunnel is something to avoid if at all possible, but I am curious.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 10:32 am
Hey, it’s not just earthquakes. Lower Manhattan’s skyline is a lot nicer now than either 10 years ago or in 5 years, when they finish the new WTC building.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 5:50 pm
This is routinely done in Monterey County for any proposed development, even an addition to someone’s house. I’m actually a bit surprised nobody had done this before on the Peninsula for the HSR project.
If Burlingame wants a trench, they should stop attacking the project and start working to find the funding to build it below-grade.
Arthur Dent Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 8:26 am
Who usually foots the bill?
DesertXpress has detractors along the route. 200 people showed up in Barstow for the environmental public comment meeting. Victorville is excited while Barstow and Baker are concerned they will lose commerce.
From the Barstow Desert Dispatch report: “This project has substantial economic benefits for the entire High Desert,” said Terry Caldwell, Victorville City Council member. Barstow City Council members were concerned that the DesertXpress would eliminate up to 33 percent of people who travel by bus or car from Southern California to Las Vegas from the highway.
Not everyone is going to be pleased with a high speed rail line. High speed rail will be transformational and not everyone will benefit from the changes. The change will provide enormous benefits that are good for the economy and good for the country.
Alon Levy Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Those residents didn’t pay by themselves for the highways that their towns are on. Why should they be compensated when a train makes those highways less used?
Donk Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Yeah Baker sure has a lot of political sway to get that $10/ticket fee added to every train ticket. I am sure that all of the people of SoCal and SoNev (?) will be happy to accommodate this town of 1000 people.
StevieB Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
How much should be done to mitigate the negative effects of high speed rail to those who live along the line? This is a political question that will have to be answered all across the country as lines are built.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
History repeats itself again.
Early railroads faced opposition from canal, stagecoach, and wagon people, fearful for the loss of their jobs. There were even problems later on in which railroads wished to make connections for interchange. Some examples of deliberately attempting to prevent interchange included the imposition of oddball gauges to prevent such connections, the idea being that this way whatever traffic developed on a railroad could not be diverted. There were also local efforts to prevent connections between railroads, because the wagon drivers and stage operators who took people from one station to another were afraid of losing their jobs; if they had been more successful, more places would have looked like Chicago, with something like 7 stations.
Of course, later railroad management members would bear much blame for a lack of union stations because each one wanted his competitor to pay for one.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Businesses of all kinds now expect to be bailed out or allowed to block competition and innovation even when it undermines badly needed projects.
It’s like the horse and buggy industry being allowed to stop the paving of roads or the candle-making industry blocking the construction of electricity facilities.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
The gas companies did all sorts of things to assure no one would use electric lights….
D. P. Lubic Reply:
October 17th, 2010 at 6:50 am
And let us recall that the auto, oil, and tire industries did their damndest to make sure the rail option was taken out (National City Lines case).
If I get to do so, I think I can find several links on this. One had a most interesting observation about the participants in National City Lines; he commented that, essentially, these great corporations “did not trust the (free) market.”
Didn’t Adam Smith’s book from 1776, “The Wealth of Nations,” so often quoted by free market types who advocate the “invisible hand,” also warn, in the same book, that anytime two businessmen got together, it was to figure out how to rob the public?
Baker businesses, came up with the idea of a ridership bypass tax that would cost train passengers $10 per ticket in other word, they don’t want to complete in the free market which they no doubt loudly espouse, but instead want corporate welfare/bailouts to make up for their lack of business ingenuity.
jimsf Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 10:44 am
compete not complete. doh!
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.
SEriously though…. WTF is this? I mean is this what we want to have to do to all the freeways to accommodate future growth and travel demand? Is this really what the nimbys prefer to hsr? I mean look at it! Its ridiculous. i swear Im making this my new desktop so i can stare at in amazement every morning. REally, we just keep building like this till they all look that way. That’s the answer huh. Just ridiculous. Whomever came up with and approved this as the way to go, should, as we used to say, have their head examined.
jimsf Reply:
October 16th, 2010 at 6:19 pm
and I suppose that when that upper one gets full, they just build two more like it, one on each side? Then what? Another third level on top of that?