Feds: All HSR Money Must Be Spent In Central Valley
Big news today: the California High Speed Rail Authority is reporting that they have been told by the federal government that all the high speed rail money the project has received so far – the ARRA funding and the recent $715 million grant – must be spent on one of the two Central Valley segments. From the press release just sent out by the CHSRA:
Following last week’s announcement of an additional $715 million award for the development of California’s high-speed rail system, federal officials have clarified that the entirety of federal funding California has received so far must be spent in one of the two Central Valley sections of the project.
Which means approximately $4.3 billion in infrastructure investment will be directed somewhere in the region between Merced and Bakersfield.
California High-Speed Rail Authority CEO Roelof van Ark announced today that a letter received Wednesday from Federal Railroad Administrator Joe Szabo outlines the federal agency’s requirement that all federal funds for the project must be directed to either the Merced-to-Fresno or to the Fresno-to-Bakersfield portion of the project. The available funding total incorporates the Authority’s January 2010 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) federal funding award, matched dollar-for-dollar with state funds, and last week’s award of $715 million matched with an additional 30 percent in state funding.
You can read the letter from the FRA’s Joseph Szabo here. It mentions the “unobligated ARRA funds,” so I am assuming that the $400 million previously dedicated to the Transbay Terminal project is unaffected by this and will still be programmed to that project.
But otherwise the meaning of this letter is clear, and the decision appears to have been made for us: one of the two Central Valley segments, either Merced to Fresno or Fresno to Bakersfield, will indeed be the first HSR segment built in California.
We’ll have more commentary on this development later in the day. For now I’ll say this – both myself and Californians For High Speed Rail have always believed that any of the four eligible segments – the two Central Valley ones, plus SF-SJ and LA-Anaheim – were worthy of being selected as the first one to be built. The Central Valley segments have strong merits in their favor, including less construction impact and the ability to serve as the backbone of the system.
What this means for the other segments isn’t yet clear, but we’ll be working on getting that information as well. The loser here may be Caltrain, which now appears to be unsuccessful in its effort to peel off some of the ARRA funds for its CBOSS system. If so, it may well be that the anti-HSR activism on the Peninsula has undermined Caltrain, despite the fact that the opposition is unrepresentative of the actual views of the clear majority of Peninsula residents.
UPDATE: There’s a CHSRA board meeting today – click here to find the live stream.
I wonder how much influence van Ark had on this decision.
Maybe this will finally kick Caltrain’s ass a little bit and convince them to implement ERTMS instead of continuing to waste time and money on their CBOSS science project.
thatbruce Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Caltrain and CAHSRA need to play together nicely; the fact that CBOSS is still being pushed forward illustrates that this is not happening to the degree that it ought to be.
Rafael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I agree, the CBOSS project is expensive and risky. FRA abused the mixed traffic waiver process to leverage county-level taxes in the SF peninsula for PTC R&D with no obligation on the part of the freight majors to implement it anywhere else in the nation.
Caltrain would be well-advised to instead leverage CHSRA’s investments in PTC and traffic management aimed at minimizing technology risk, even if UPRR doesn’t much like that. Note that existing FRA rules already permit mixed traffic IFF there is guaranteed time separation. In practice, that would translate to installing ETCS level 2 cab equipment in Caltrain’s legacy diesel locomotive fleet so it can remain in service in the transition period to an EMU-only fleet. UPRR would have to operate its Mission Bay Hauler at night. It might just be possible offer the company a small off-peak window during the day for marshaling freight at the SSF yard by terminating passenger services at Millbrae, with both Caltrain and HSR passengers would need to transfer to BART to reach downtown SF during this window only. During all other hours, both services would serve the TTC.
Note that the HSR operator may anyhow want to terminate some early morning and some late evening trains at Millbrae to avoid deadheading between the TTC and the yard, for which SFO has just offered up some land wheras Brisbane would prefer to repurpose the old SP yard (contaminated soil) and SF’s former garbage dump across the tracks (seismic risk) for its Baylands residential development project.
Finally, terminating Caltrain at Millbrae would make it much easier to construct an open trench between the north portal of tunnel #1 and 4th & King, all of which would be moved below grade. This in turn would allow planners to move the 4th & Townsend station west and open up the possibility of moving the DTX tunnel to 3rd Street and crucially, making do with just two tracks that can then be bored with faster and cheaper TBM technology. Indeed, even a switch to a high-capacity single track one-way loop tunnel would then be possible if the TTC platforms were moved a few hundred feet west as well. Both would require revisiting TJPA’s already-completed EIR (hardly a cakewalk) but at least the city, the state and Congress would get the most value per taxpayer dollar for their respective investments in the TTC project.
The air rights above 4th & King could then be sold to a developer as soon as they are no longer needed for diesel-based trains to help pay for it all. Ideally, more than two tracks would be connected to the DTX tunnel such that Caltrain could leverage the 4th & King site more easily for mid-day and overnight stabling of trains serving the TTC.
thatbruce Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 2:20 pm
UPRR would have to operate its Mission Bay Hauler at night
Or borrow one of Caltrain’s ETCS-equipped locos to head up the consist.
Regarding FRA/non-FRA traffic and juggling thereof, I’m now curious whether the FRA would consider a FRA consist bracketed by a handful of non-FRA cars on each end to be non-FRA-enough for it to operate within non-FRA traffic.
Nathanael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:08 pm
Really, pay to get UP two ETCS freight locos and a branch line with ETCS and maybe they’ll stop trying to reinvent the wheel nationally. Would save us a lot of trouble nationwide.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Hmmm, how much would it cost to purchase two electric locos?
Clem Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
About half a million to install train-borne equipment per UP loco. Less if equipment is scavenged from Caltrain’s F40 diesels before they are scrapped.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Shit, just park them just south of Tamien, swap out the locos there, and just run them on electric only between Tamien and however far north UP goes on the Caltrain branch (I forget the branch’s real name)
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
If I remember correctly all of the freight on the Peninsula orginates or terminates in a UP yard in the South Bay. Not a difficult problem to have those trains use electric locomotives two locomotives, an electric and a diesel switching between the the two on it’s 50 mile run.
rafael Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 5:29 am
Electric loco’s for UPRR’s could be an option for the Mission Bay Haulers that run between the SSF marshaling yard and the one in Santa Clara. The latter would require additional overhead wires such that loco’s could be to be switched to take the freight to the the East Bay via the Alviso line through the salt marshes on diesel power.
The marshaling locomotives that take freight to and from freight spurs serving customers would also continue to run on diesel.
Clem Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
On the contrary, this will only reinforce Caltrain’s determination to build CBOSS, since this peninsula high-speed rail thing was a fluke and therefore who needs this ERTMS thingy anyway. The 2015 deadline for PTC did not go away today, and provides the perfect argument against changing horses in mid-stream–especially given Caltrain’s Unique Local Conditions.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Then Caltrain, while not its riders, deserve what’s coming to it in terms of financial disaster.
In a lot of ways, it makes sense. There is a need for a long (really long) test track for testing and acceptance of the HSR trainsets, and the Central Valley is the logical place for that, with the heavy-maintenance facility being built alongside. It also would appear to present the fewest major challenges from a construction point of view. Once people actually some actual construction, and a few trains running, it can’t help but build public interest and support.
And, this wouldn’t appear to prevent the CHSRA from pursuing other sources of funding to begin construction of other segments.
On one hand, I agree the funding should go to somewhere in the valley, but on the other hand, I don’t htink it is right that the FRA dictate where we spend the money on our system. Especially since we will be using some of our bond money. Should be our choice. Now we just need China to kick in the rest of the funds, which would be a slap in the face to our federal government. Pretty sad.
TomW Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:15 am
I disagree. It’s their money, so they have a right to attach whatever conditions they want when they give it someone. If they didn’t attached any conditions, then the state could use it for whatever they wanted, and it would just be another source of general revenue.
thatbruce Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
funding for the interstates used to come with the proviso of ’55mph’. There’s precedent for these sorts of strings.
This could also be viewed as the Fed having a long term interest in HSR and wanting a true HSR line up and running (for testing, attracting investors/public interest, etc).
Couple this with Rep. John Mica being a strong advocate of HSR and this could bode well for our project.
As for CalTrain, I say take it off life support and let it die. Either pure HSR between SF-SJ or Rafael’s idea from a few months back.
Clem Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Why let Caltrain die? It is the second most profitable (i.e. least unprofitable) transit system in the entire Bay Area, not far behind BART. Caltrain’s FY2009 operating revenue was $46.7M, compared to operating expenses of $90.3M… they recover nearly 52 cents on the dollar! Compare that to your very own VTA: $38.4M operating revenue for $354M operating expenses, or 11 cents on the dollar.
You tell me which one should be taken off life support?
synonymouse Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:51 am
Kopp’s plan has always been to replace Caltrain with BART ring-the-bay.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:55 am
And now presenting: Synonymouse and the Tin Foil Hat Band!!
synonymouse Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Can’t grock that riposte as Kopp is a well-known BART operative.
Rafael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
So what? Kopp is now just a regular member of the CHSRA board and Jerry Brown has the option of replacing him in 2014. Besides, Kopp doesn’t control the MTC nor the PCJPB nor, evidently, how USDOT chooses to invest federal contributions to rail passenger service improvements in California.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:54 am
Agreed. Caltrain’s main financial problem is that it doesn’t have any dedicated funding source, so it has to rely on the three counties for financial support.
There may be some silver lining for Caltrain’s survival in the passage of Prop 22. More local funds will hopefully be available for public transit.
Reality Check Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Prop 22 won’t come close to fixing what ails Caltrain. And now all the $10 VLFs that passed in most Bay Area counties to raise a little extra transportation funding may be invalidated by the passage of Prop 26, which requires fees to be treated like taxes in that they must be approved by a 2/3 + 1 super-majority vote.
Nathanael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Does the passed initiative outlawing transit fund raids help?
Rafael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Caltrain urgently needs to reduce it operating subsidy per passenger (= county taxpayer and usually, voter). If it changes tack and fully leverages not just the grade separations but also HSR investments in PTC, traffic management, electrification and platform height by making some constraints, that would permit it to share (most of) its track-miles with HSR trains. With a 2.5min minimum headway, a line speed of 90mph, high de- and acceleration performance plus 30s dwell times for level boarding, Caltrain could run up to 8tph during peak periods, with each train serving 9 stations between SF TTC and SJ Diridon and covering the route in ~60 min, comparable to today’s baby bullets.
Yes, HSR would also have to accept significant constraints on peak period operations but total capital investment in both services combined would be significantly reduced in this segment.
And yes, some regulatory relief from both FRA (regarding the terms of the mixed traffic waiver) and CPUC (regarding platform heights) would be needed, which would affect UPRR’s very limited operations in the region. Given the new political climate in DC and fiscal constraints in Sacramento, early relief would be Pres. Obama’s and Gov. Brown’s best hope of avoiding rail investment overkill in the SF peninsula. It’s also something they don’t need new legislation for.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 11:15 am
Isn’t theresome sort of “weblog” somewhere which gives a great deal of objective data demonstrating that the agency’s staff are too stupid to be allowed to continue to live?
Shouldn’t the first rule in public spending be the Hippocratic “do no harm”? It’s become quite clear that the only way to prevent the Peninsula Rail Program’s world besting transportation professionals from causing hundreds of millions of dollars of damage that will set back transportation on the SF peninsula for several decades is to to drown Caltrain in a bathtub. Sad, stupid, but there really is no alternative.
Oh wow. I just found that blog thingy I was thinking about! Somebody should tell Clem about it.
Clem Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Those are some excellent suggestions, and I couldn’t have stated them better myself. But if Caltrain dies, I’m with synonymouse: say hello to BART. That would be a failure of even more epic proportions.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 7:54 pm
at least with bart we’d finally have bart finished with its original intent completed. Bay Areans would be very happy to see this.
Clem Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Bay Areans would be fat, dumb and happy to travel at a leisurely 35 mph between SJ and SF, blissfully ignorant of the far better alternatives that might once have been built. You may be OK with fat dumb and happy, but please don’t assume everyone else is, or should be.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
I’m just reporting the truth. It would be popular. I’m not saying that in the transportation universe, that there aren’t hundreds of different ways to accomplish the task, I’m saying, that completing bart around the bay would be popular here. Whether or not you like the idea. It would, be, popular.
Dan S. Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:13 am
The Baby Bullet is popular. Non-express service would be less so. Closing intermediate stations, ditto.
Peninsula Rail 2010 Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Many of those genuinely interested in effective transit believe that an electrified, lighter Caltrain with express service capability would knock the living daylights out of BART service at a fraction of the immense capital cost of BART, destroying the mystique of “BART technology”. Even the very modest improvements to create Caltrain’s “Baby Bullet” express service spanked the BART-SFO-Millbrae megaproject. Kopp believes the presence of Caltrain hurts his BART-SFO-Millbrae failure, and an improved Caltrain is a threat to certain entrenched players. Sadly, they actively seek to prevent a modern Caltrain from ever showing what it is capable of in terms of performance and service.
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:43 am
I couldn’t agree more – Caltrain could outshine BART in so many respects, but I believe the shotgun marriage with the hsr was a mistake in tetrospect, a mistake that could favor BART ring-the-bay. Another factor in BART’s corner is its sterling track record of securing funding, even with Republicans ruling the roost.
Speaking of BART there was a comment on the Altamont site that was news to me. BART apparently is looking into stainless steel cars with an eye to meeting stricter crush standards in the wake of the WMATA wreck. Stainless steel cars would look so much better but would be heavier. Can’t imagine that would help BART’s notorious noise problem.
rafael Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:08 am
What you call a shotgun wedding could actually be a godsend for Caltrain. It’s only a mess right now because both CHSRA and Caltrain are trying their level best to stay off each others’ turfs while pretending to engage in joint planning. This is in the financial interest of planners, consultants and construction companies but delivers neither maximum transportation value per taxpayer dollar nor minimum environmental impact.
In particular, the notion that HSR really needs dedicated tracks everywhere south of 4th & Townsend needs to be challenged in light of Caltrain’s mixed traffic waiver.
If Caltrain and/or CHSRA agree to certain constraints for peak period operations, rolling stock selection and signaling/traffic management, quad tracks would only be required at the Hillsdale and/or Redwood City stations. Alternating between two overtake stations would avoid excess service at either one. If PTC permits a minimum headway of 2.5 min, a mostly two-track line would support as many as 8 Caltrain limiteds per hour each way, each implementing a different pattern of 9 intermediate stops with 30s dwell times (except at the one stop where a given train is overtaken).
In addition, there could be as many as 8 HSR trains per hour each way, each making 2 intermediate stops between SF TTC and SJ Diridon, where stopping would be optional. All of this would apply only during peak periods, when the general speed limit would be set at 90mph. Off-peak and one weekends, when Caltrain will anyhow run fewer trains per hour, a certain number of HSR trains could operate with a speed limit of 125mph without a requirement for intermediate stops, such that the legally required SF-LA line haul time of 2h40m could be met.
Btw, with modern design principles the notion that mo’ shteel is mo’ betta for crash safety is obsolete. Train-on-train collisions in subway and regional rail systems need to be avoided by proper PTC signaling. Focus on avoiding such events rather than making them more survivable.
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:33 am
I get the impression that the tightening of FRA rules is a done deal. The BART cars are incredibly tinny – you could look down upon the Rohr cyclops cars in the station and see the crinkles in the in the roof.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:39 am
???
FRA doesn’t have jurisdiction over BART. FTA does.
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Yeah, because BART is self-contained, no contact with freight rr’s. But you can’t expect the WMATA incident to not cause a revision of the rules and not in the direction of liberalization.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Correct, but those were issues that WMATA had already been warned about by the FTA. It wasn’t an issue of not enough rules, it was a matter of enforcing the existing rules.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
As SF Weekly wrote during the throes of the World Series, Arlington, Texas, the home of the Rangers, is the largest city in America without public transportation.
So if you ever wanted to find yet another contrast between the Bay Area and the Metroplex, here’s one: Yesterday’s Giants victory parade led to BART’s heaviest ridership of all time. The intercity rail line shattered its previous one-day total of 442,100 passengers when 522,200 riders, many of them clad in orange, passed through the fare gates on Wednesday
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Caltrain was so backed up they weren’t even bothering to check for tickets.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
This comes as no great shock to anyone who took in all or part of yesterday’s festivities. Lines to purchase BART tickets stretched up the stairs and onto the surface; they resembled the queues for the men’s room at a Super Bowl.
Prior to yesterday’s Giants cavalcade, the top three BART ridership days — and six of the top 10 — were on Bay Bridge closure days. Sadly, the Giants have knocked Beyonce out of the top 10.
So she’s no longer bottom on the list of great ridership. But, as always, Beyonce is top on the list of great bottoms
1. Oct. 29, 2009; 442,100; Emergency Bay Bridge closure
2. Oct. 30, 2009; 437,700; Emergency Bay Bridge closure
3. Oct. 28, 2009; 437,200; Emergency Bay Bridge closure
4. Sept. 8, 2008; 405,400; Oakland Raiders, San Francisco Giants games
5. Sept. 4, 2009; 395,300; Scheduled Bay Bridge closure; A’s game
6. June 19, 2008; 394,400; Spare The Air Day
7. Nov. 2, 2009; 393,200; Bay Bridge reopened at 9 a.m. after closure
8. April 9, 2008: 391,900; San Francisco Giants game; Olympic Torch run
9. sept. 25, 2008; 390,600; Oracle Open World; San Francisco Giants game
10. Aug. 31, 2007; 389,400; Oakland A’s; Beyonce concert; Bay Bridge closure
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Several decades is overly optimistic. Several centuries perhaps. … last major stations built on the NEC were completed using WPA money during the 30s.
tony d. Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Sorry Clem,
I guess the Bay Area media has been wrong as of late concerning CalTrain being in financial trouble and possibly having to shut down in a few years.
Glad you know more then our local press and Peninsula politicians.
Clem Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
It’s not a right/wrong situation. Both sets of facts are correct: Caltrain is in financial trouble (as often reported) but it is also one of the most profitable systems in the Bay Area (as rarely if ever reported, but easily looked up in annual financial statements of each transit agency).
The correct response to this situation is not to let Caltrain die; it is to help pull Caltrain out of its financial trouble by establishing a steady stream of operating funds, of the sort enjoyed by every other Bay Area transit agency except Caltrain.
Remember, Caltrain carries the equivalent of a four-lane freeway. It’s far cheaper to fix Caltrain’s finances than to add four lanes to 101 and/or 280.
Nathanael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Well, the VTA is kind of infamous for misdesign.
Muni’s *rail* service is pretty good financially IIRC, if one can separate it out from the *bus* service for accounting purposes….
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
I’m still flabbergasted by the failure of VTA to coordinate with the City of San Jose to implement some sort of low-income housing or TOD around most light rail stations along 87. Most stations aren’t even within walking distance of any major employers, and all the park-and-rides are pretty much empty. It’s not solely VTA’s fault, though. San Jose has most of those zoned for some level of industrial. I think VTA should work together with San Jose in order make the areas around the light rail stations livable/walkable communities.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Muni’s rail service is a hopeless basket case, only to get worse when the Central Stubway opens.
Muni operating expense per passenger mile on bus is considerably lower than LRT, despite the inherent advantage of the LRT routes.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
No, they’re not – they’re slightly lower. Check your sources. Though the operating expense per vehicle-mile is higher, which is inexcusable.
I guess this decision makes sense…it’s the area most supportive of the HSR concept (thanks to the employment benefits it would create), has minimal “NIMBY” potential, either segment can showcase truly high speed operation with maximum track speed potential, and it is the easiest to build due to flat geography.
The downside is it will be a railroad from nowhere to nowhere (no offense intended to Merced, Fresno, or Bakersfield), it won’t materially improve existing intercity rail options, and if it doesn’t act as a stimulus to build the northern and southern connections to the population centers that are needed to support HSR, will stand as a monument to government folly, which will set back progress on HSR throughout the country for generations. It is, in that regard, a potentially risky approach.
Nathanael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Make it Fresno to Bakersfield, then push south. The demand southward is enormous and clearing the Tehachapis would make it no longer entirely “from nowhere to nowhere” by connecting at Palmdale, even if it took a while longer to clear the next set of mountains into the San Fernando Valley.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Given how van Ark says they can’t tunnel on the Peninsula because they can’t run diesels in the tunnels, I don’t see them letting San Joaquins or other passenger trains using the Tehachapis section unless they run electric locos. I’m not saying they couldn’t run diesels if they built sufficient ventilation, but I don’t see them installing that additional ventilation for the few diesels a day they’d be running.
Eric M Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 7:14 pm
I wouldn’t even worry about that segment, seeing that it will probably be the last to be built, it will fininsh the main line from SF-LA
thatbruce Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Why would the same level of ventilation be needed on the tunnels running through the Tehachapis compared to possible tunnels along the Peninsula? The speeds involved are higher while the tph is lower.
After the election you can put all your plans to rest.
California taxpayers will have to rely on their own money to fund their projects because no Fed funds are coming this way anymore.
Actually I think it would be better if the Federal Gov’t disappeared altogether. They suck up a lot of our money which they routinely divert to project that generally involve people brandishing some kind of weapon. If we let it to the Republicans in Congress, you’ll see them fund HSR in Afghanistan before they do it here. The fewer federal taxes we pay, the more money we’ll have available for ourselves and for our local needs. F**k the US congress. Viva California.
Marcus Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
California gets about 75 cents back in spending for every dollar it send to Washington. If we were to keep that money in state we could fully fund HSR in less than a year, not to mention solving our budget difficulties…
Spokker Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
True. And the Tea Party is going to end big government so hopefully we will get to keep most of our tax dollars in the state!
Go Tea Party!
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:00 pm
So do I have three people now for secession? woo hoo! lets go!
wu ming Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
four, depending on what the new CA constitution looks like.
Gianny Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Add me too!!! +5
thatbruce Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:26 am
Go further north and join the state of Jefferson.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Quote from Rush Limbaugh:
“Folks, I’ve come to the conclusion that we’ve lost California. It’s just not salvageable. When you have people talking about ‘food justice’, just saw it off and let it float out there in the Pacific.”
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
That would be fabulous.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
KEWL that makes 5 with peter and rush. Rush, glad to have you on my side.
Gianny Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 12:30 am
I said add me too!!! +6 or is it 7?
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:39 am
7 with me, now we just need a website and a bear flag… and some national media coverage… maybe I should email rush, and ask him for his suppport. Sounds like he’d be all for it. lol.
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:18 pm
He probably meant the coastal California. Unfortunately the interior of California is not that different from the rest of the redneckish US. Fortunately there aren’t as many people out there.
But if we must float away to the Pacific, Washington state and Oregon might be willing to follow us as well, at least the half west of the Cascades. Hawaii is already floating out there and already as blue as the ocean surrounding it. We might get HSR from Vancouver to San Diego with a branch out to Honolulu as well.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
We could invade Alaska for their natural resources.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Don’t discount the interior of the state, they often vote blue. Most of the people who live out there have family and life ties to the bay and socal as well. Even the most conservative parts of cali, have an overywhelmingly live and let live attitude. That has been my experience of 46 years up here. Granted there is strain of conservative values folks who are well organized, but most people are laid back californians who like cool stuff and embrace the future. They just aren’t particularly organized or even interested in politics. They are however the vast majority.
tomh Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
If they’re so live and let live, why’d they vote against Prop 19?
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
Because Prop 19 was very poorly written and gave no objective, enforceable legal standards for pretty much everything? It was vague as hell.
I think we’ll see it again though, hopefully better written. It would have my vote then.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
It wasn’t just the interior who voted against it. Even pot smokers voted against it. ( and don’t think the valley isn’t high as kite most of the time btw) They voted against it because they see the problems with it. The medical version of things is working well for those involved, and 19 had the potential to ruin that. Or so they say.
And like I said above, most of the people in the valley who are very live and live are not voting. They are too busy living and doing their thing. Who votes in the rural counties? The middle class, the church folks, the farmers, all conservative but by no means are they the majority of the people.
tomh Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Too busy living and doing their thing to vote? Like Meg Whitman did for 28 years? Voting is easy and it’s our responsibility. There’s no excuse for not voting.
thatbruce Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:53 am
It may be ‘our’ responsibility, but unless you care about an issue, its easier to just continue to work as normal, hence the frequent low voter turnout compared to the possible number of voters.
If you work outside your home electorate and/or aren’t in your home electorate during the hours that your ‘home’ polling stations are open, casting your vote on the day can be hard ( You’re from two electorates away? Sorry, we don’t have forms for that one ), and casting an absentee ballot ahead of time requires planning, or worse, the number of elections that haven’t counted the absentee vote (since the vote had enough of a difference that counting the absentee ballot wouldn’t change it) leaves some people with the feeling ‘my (absentee) vote won’t count anyway’, and hence, they don’t.
tomh Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:40 am
Given the statewide offices and propositions in the this election, there was at least something on the ballot that everyone should care about. It’s fine to make excuses, but ultimately it’s laziness and apathy. “It’s too hard to vote. Boo hoo.” I live in SF and work in Santa Rosa, yet I still was able to research the issues and vote on election day.
It’s sad that we have such a low voter turnout (among the lowest in the democratic world). Even in Iraq, where there is the possibility of being blown up or machine gunned by terrorists if people try to vote, they have a 70+% voter turnout.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:24 pm
None of my freinds vote and never have. I’m the only one who does. Ive lived up here for 46 years. They have opinions, they are very live and let live, but they don’t vote and that is most of the people. Look at voter turnout Of those who turn out in the valley there are slightly more conservatives than liberals. But together, voters only account for half the population. Almost the entire other half, the non voters, are the ones who to the left. If they voted. Thats typical across the country.
They dont vote but they do exist and they do have opinions and thats why I said most of the people, even in the interior of cali, are pretty laid back. Because they are.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:20 pm
I didn’t way there was an excuse. Im reporting what is, not what should be.
tomh Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
I’ve lived in California all my life, and I’ve never heard of the term “food justice.”
Al-Fakh Yugoudh Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 6:33 pm
I think Rush was referring to a new law in SF. If passed, effective in 2011 those restaurants (such as McDonalds) that want to give kids’ toys with meals (happy meals), can do so only if the meal meets certain nutritional standards. It’s an initiative to halt child obesity. He probably thinks it’s too “socialist”.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:01 pm
He’s a fat freakin pig and he’ll be jealous if they are thinner than him.
rafael Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:11 am
Keep the discussion civil please. Ad hominem attacks or insults are not appropriate.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Ill be civil to rush when rush is civil.
tomh Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Ah. I’m familiar with the ridiculous happy meal thing. I’m glad Muni is on time and all our potholes are fixed and the homeless are off the streets that the SF Board of Supervisors has time to concern themselves with toys being included with food.
jonah Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:44 am
Count me in! I bet we could get part of Oregon and Washington on board too, it’snot exactly a new idea
Today it was just announced by van Ark at the Authority’s board meeting that all funds thus far allotted to California for the HSR project, must be spent in the Central valley.
This included the previous 2.3 Billion of which $400 million was diverted to the TBT, leaving 1.9 billion. So the 1.9 billion plus the new 700 million about 2.6 billion available for central valley construction. Matched with Prop 1A funds, van Arc just stated they have 4.33 billion for building in the central valley.
So where it is gong to start in now a done deal. Whether, they will be able to even start construction is another questions, considering the higher oversight of the FRA and funding lies with the Congress, and there is certainly a new movement to hold off on the ARRA funds which have not been contracted.
So now, how, where and when it will be built, has clearly passed to the Federal level.
Eric M Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 11:54 am
Do you still not realize asian countries offered to fully fund our system, albeit no terms announced?! Enough of the doom and gloom. The comments from the federal government oppose the “fake HSR”, which in all cases is a money looser. True HSR is a different story. The system will be built, so you might want to dig the hole in your backyard a little deeper!
Somewhat O/T: Carmakers’ next problem: Generation Y
Once again, here’s an indication that Gen Y thinks differently about personal mobility that its predecessors. Granted, many are currently struggling to find a job and their parents can’t afford to finance a car for them, but the underlying trend is that Gen Y is looking for another lifestyle. Only after they have enough income to start a family will many look for roomier affordable housing, i.e. relocate to outer districts, retroffited suburbs or a distant secondary city.
Since there will always be young singles and young couples coping with the high cost of raising children, it appears increasingly likely that future generations will indeed look for TOD and high-quality public transportation, including medium-distance HSR. This will be especially true if affordable reliable broadband internet access is available in transit. Outright car ownership will increasingly be deferred via (electric) bicycles and car sharing services such as ZipCar, simply because you can’t really drive safely while using any internet service with a visual component, i.e. most of them. The desire to be mobile hasn’t diminished but the internet has changed the definition of what that means in practice.
Spokker Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
TOD near rail is too expensive to live in. Generation Y will be taking the bus.
Nathanael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Supply & demand will fix that for ya. Gen Y will be living in very cramped, tiny apartments for a while….
John Burrows Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
The section of the TOD where I live—- 160 units— Prices are around $400,000. Often 2 separate individuals or couples are going in together to rent or buy. Our next door neighbors are about the age of our children. She commutes daily on VTA, he works at home, his father (about my age) does some of the shopping on a bicycle with a sidecar. They have to move things out of the way whenever they use their car (not very often).
Missiondweller Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
More than that. QEII means the dollar is being devalued…..again. Oil is priced in dollars. Guess what’s going to happen over the coming months to the price of oil. We’ll soon be back to where we were in 2008.
Those same young people are going to have a strong financial incentive to seek other forms of transportation. HSR cannot be built soon enough.
Missiondweller Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Same related stories:
Oil hits six-month peaks on falling dollar, Fed move
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.8ae3f888847f9e99244653ecde440932.3f1&show_article=1
Gold rallies to record as Fed feeds inflation fear
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-rallies-to-record-as-fed-feeds-inflation-fear-2010-11-04
Alon Levy Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Inflation fear? You mean the one that ensures that the spread between nominal and real federal bond interests is 1.5%?
Nathanael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Yeah, I’ve analyzed this carefully — general inflation is pretty damned unlikely and almost impossible for the Fed to engineer even if it wants to, as Japan’s history shows. Devaluation isn’t easy to engineer either, but easier.
Oil prices, however, are going up. Expect anything not oil-dependent to deflate, and anything oil-dependent to inflate in price….
The US should’ve listened to Carter, that’s all there is to it.
Missiondweller Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Gold doesn’t shoot up because of fears of a 1.5% difference between real and nominal interest rates.
If you look at many commodities you’ll see that prices have skyrocketed however they have not yet been passed onto consumers or customers. That is now changing.
Might I suggest some additional reading:
Risk of Inflation, Potential ‘Commodity Shock’: Analysts
http://www.cnbc.com/id/39984721
Dollar at Risk of Crashing, Triggering Inflation: Strategist
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40007252
Gold Prices Can Keep Rising: World Gold Council
http://www.cnbc.com/id/40006077
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
Commodities have been rising for years. The boom began around 2007, but as soon as the financial crisis hit, inflation took a nosedive.
Just because people are scaremongering about inflation doesn’t mean inflation is around the horizon. The same people who predict inflation today kept predicting inflation two years ago. It’s annoying liberals like Krugman who predicted correctly that inflation would fall and that a huge increase in the money supply would have no apparent effect on prices.
O/T: There’s a full page anti-HSR ad sponsored by highspeedboondoggle.com on page 11 of today’s Palo Alto Daily Post. The top 1/3 of the page is a caption in huge white-on-black font reading:
If you think the noise from High Speed Rail will be loud, the sound of $43 billion being flushed down the toilet will be deafening.
The lower half features maybe a 2-300 hundred-word run down of “Some Facts” about HSR.
The ad urges readers to “Join the Rally, Sunday, Nov. 7, 11 a.m., Burlingame Ave. Train Station.”
morris brown Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 2:51 pm
The ad can be viewed at:
http://home.pacbell.net/mbrown5//derail/BOONDOGGLE.PDF
(I am not a member of this group)
tomh Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:45 pm
HSR will travel over 100 MPH, and have fewer stops than the slower CalTrain Baby Bullets. And the NYMBYs think HSR will only travel 3 minutes faster than CalTrain? What bunk.
tomh Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
(Over 100 MPH between SF to SJ)
John Burrows Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
The Baby Bullet’s best time from San Francisco to San Jose is around 57 minutes.
According to the 2009 business plan HSR will make the trip in 32 minutes when it makes no stops between— and 37 minutes if it stops at Millbrae and (Redwood City?).
But I don’t think that the organizers of this rally are are too much bothered by factual accuracy.
John Burrows Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
should have said “factual inaccuracy”
tomh Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Agreed. And it makes all their other arguments highly suspect.
SJ Mercury…
“But a Central Valley segment will have no operational significance — van Ark said major population centers need to be linked and the agency will not bother starting service there.
“We will not have trains when we build this first segment,” he said.”
Well, then he doesn’t have AB3034 funding either. AB3034 says your usable segment has to have two stations and everything in between, be ready for revenue operations, and needs to be able to able to support revenue generating operations, without subsidy. If it’s not a viable revenue generating segment, then it doesn’t qualify for AB3034. If it IS a viable revenue generating segment ready for operations, then why would they not run trains?
Nathanael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
I suspect you misread AB3034, and van Ark seems confused too. The fact is that the Central Valley segment would promptly have the San Joaquin service shifted to it until it’s worth runing high-speed trains (== connection to LA or SF finished). The San Joaquin would reduce its expenses and increase its speed by doing so, so it would be a net revenue-generating operation without subsidy, relative to the status quo ante….
YESONHSR Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Yes the current passenger rail will use this new ROW until HSR service begins..so much for nimby doom and gloom
Jon Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:32 pm
Yup. I suspect what Van Ark means is they will not have high speed trains when they build the first segment.
YESONHSR Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
Yes ..not the HSR trainsets..and nothing different from the urban sections that would have had commuter trains running on them until 2019-20..at least this is a REAL HSR ROW that will be built.
Donk Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Somebody previously mentioned that having the heavy double-decker Amtrak trains run on the shiny new high speed tracks may ruin the tracks. Has anyone considered this?
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Well, given that running the San Joaquins is a backup plan for if the rest doesn’t get built, then does it matter?
Joey Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Running the San Joaquins is more of a short term plan for using the tracks until there is enough of a system to actually justify buying high speed trainsets than a long term plan for if the rest of the system never gets built.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:10 pm
Just did some checking on Superliner specs, and the cars aren’t aquite as heavy as you would think; supposedly the weight comes out to 148,000 pounds (coaches), which works out to an axle load of 18.5 tons–a bit heavy, but not excessively so for 100 mph. It’s certainly lighter than the axle loads in excess of 30 tons on loaded coal cars, diesel freight locomotives, and most later steam engines. The Chesapeake & Ohio had some very heavy steam freighters with axle loads well in excess of 41 tons back in late December of 1941!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superliner_(railcar)
I don’t know if anyone here has seen these, but Amtrak has what I think are some cool animated tours of its sleepers.
http://www.amtrak.com/media/train_tour/superliner/superlinerSLEEPER_CONTROLLER.html
http://www.amtrak.com/media/train_tour/viewliner/viewliner.html
Enjoy.
Drunk Engineer Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
If you want your superlines to actual go someplace, then don’t forget the weight of the locomotive.
In the case of F59, the axle load approaches that of your ‘loaded coal car’.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:36 am
Too bad the Napier Deltic diesels of Great Britain were the maintenance hogs that they were–but the performance was, when they were right, astounding. We are talking about a 1960 or so twin-engined vintage diesel that packed 3,300 hp. in 99 tons, on six axles, and ran at 100 mph daily. Sounds like something you could use–but those main engines! And each unit had two of them! Some of the most complicated diesels ever built.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napier_Deltic
http://www.everything2.com/title/Deltic
Napier Deltic overhaul:
http://www.napier-chronicles.co.uk/power_unit_1.htm
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:41 am
Deltic action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5bD4_wMJJI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzgmuI4tGhs&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Assorted engine animations; Rafael will probably like these.
http://www.wis.co.uk/justin/deltic-engine.html
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 5:13 am
The california cars are not exactly superliners. They are very similar but very modified. Other than that I know nothing about tech. I’ll be the are a lot lighter though.
Joey Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:32 am
I see no reason to believe that they’re any lighter. The biggest difference I can see is the addition of a second door on each side.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:14 am
I think they’re basically just the regular Superliners with extra doors. But it doesn’t matter because the axle load is set by the locomotive. The Superliners have an axle load of 17 metric tons, which is within the acceptable limit for HSR.
Joey Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:57 am
If unpowered coaches are heavier than comparable EMUs, then there’s still a problem. But yes, they should be alright to run on high speed tracks.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Yeah, I was trying to prevent myself from typing a rant about how unpowered coaches with standard bogies should have an axle load of 11 tons, tops.
Victor Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:18 am
Well I’d think since Independent Utility is mentioned in Prop 1a, The rails would be good enough even for Freight Trains to run on and Ya don’t get much tougher than that, Just cause HSR trains per car are supposed to be light, Doesn’t mean the rails have to be wimpy, To last they have to be tough and yes they’ll eventually have to replace the rails no matter how tough they are, That’s a fact of life for Railroads.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Prop 1a talks about “usable segment”. “Independent utility” is a string attached to federal money. The definitions are similar, but not co-extensive.
Hyperbole upon hyperbole. How effective is that? Well not really
Berkeley posted their presentation to Senate transportation committee. We have requested that the HSRA post theirs.
http://its.berkeley.edu/news/its/20101104
Reality Check Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Wow, I guess they should have proof-read their slides. Must have been in a rush. There are numerous errors. Just look at the forecast bias and variance example. What a mess.
Joe Simitian just announced a November 2, 2010 Legislative Counsel opinion says governors veto of “strings” attached to CHSRA money was illegal.
Also the veto was direct request of the CHSRA.
Eric M Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Key work in that sentence, “opinion”
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Who will sue over this? Jerry Brown is now governor-elect. Brown will make his proposals on how to deal with this, and the Legislature will start to focus on that instead of wasting time on a suit.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:28 pm
Exactly. Who will sue over it, and what is the remedy?
morris brown Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Any legislator can have the AG do the suit. Maybe a private party (not me)
Maybe boxer and feinstein told the feds that the valley needs the investment most. That way they can say to the valley, “hey we got you some good stuff you asked for”
StevieB Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
This according to a report in the Los Angeles Times. I am not surprised by the selection as it provides the greatest benefit for the cost.
I’m glad the valley gets it. And speaking of the valley, remember this… ( ok most of you don’t- but it was awesome and took place right here in our very own!) And who doesn’t love Babs!
Does anyone know if they talked about the changes to the SF-SJ AA that were removed from the presentation posted online? In other words, did they talk about anything other than Redwood City?
Reality Check Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
I’m not positive, but I think I only heard Doty talk about carrying the light maintenance yard at SFO (in addition to the other site at the old SP Bayshore Yard in Brisbane) and a Redwood City trench option through the study process.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Nothing about changing the aerial designs in Santa Clara?
Elizabeth Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Nothing. Not really sure why
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Hmmm, well, maybe it wasn’t something that they needed the Board’s approval to consider?
I have the feeling that it’s going to be Merced-Fresno. This would give them two HST stations, helping them meet the usable segment requirements (while it’s still debatable whether they meet all the requirements).
Nathanael Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I was still under the impression that Bakersfield-Fresno would include two stations if built (even though there is some debate over what station to build at Bakersfield).
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
The most recent Fresno-Bakersfield grant request did not connect Fresno all the way to Bakersfield, even with the additional grant. Instead they want to use the money to build the Fresno elevated HST station, including the entire aerial in Fresno.
YESONHSR Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
Yes it stops just north of Bakersfield and extends thru Fresno towards Merced for about 12-14 miles with a new HSR station in Fresno
YESONHSR Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
NO it will be Fresno-BAK..its along the BNSF that has already signed an agrement with HSR and its less complex than dealing at this point with the UP and it is issuses
Castle Expert Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Yesonhsr; I disagree with your assement. If you read the selection criteria from both the feds and Prop 1a Merced to Fresno is the only route which includes money to fund both the Merced Station and Fresno Station. Fresno to Bakersfield stops in Wasco and does not make it to Bakersfield. Thus no indepenent utility. Also Fresno to Bakersfield cost is mile per mile more expensive to build and actually will provide less construction jobs because there is less elevated track and only one station. (Thus less jobs created by the FRA funding)
Finally the biggest issue which I think Van Ark is not taking serious. Their are many big Ag players along Kings County and the City of Hanford that do not want HSR coming through their city and County and in fact their are resloutions from these areas stating that. If Fresno to Bakersfield is included first it will be delayed by lawsuits from Farmers and the city of Hanford delaying the use of this stimulus money and bascially forfeiting it.
At the HSR meeting today the only route that I heard had the blessing of the Ag community was Merced to Fresno. While Ag does have some issues with the Chowchilla Y which goes to San Jose they have no problem with route A-2 which is Fresno to Merced and in fact many Ag people testified today to that fact. The only way Fresno to Bakersield gets picked is if members on the authority board who are from Southern California want it their because it is cloeser to LA
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:34 am
But if they did feno-bfd – stopping short of downtown bfd, and the segment was used for incremental hsr the trains would still terminate at bfd, they would just slow down after transitioning back to the original tracks north of bfd.
datacruncher Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:07 am
Fresno to Bakersfield gets utility by running the San Joaquins in the initial use of the tracks, just as Merced-Fresno would. The tracks would connect to BNSF near Shafter, not terminating there. Then the San Joaquins would enter Bakersfield and use the existing Amtrak station.
Jon Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 5:30 pm
Given that the Merced station and the Merced – Chowchilla section of track will not be used for the first SF – Anaheim stage, I suspect Fresno – Bakersfield will get it.
If it is ever built, and that is a real big if, remember that Galgiani carries a lot of weight on this, and certainly she wants Merced to Fresno.
Emma Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Ah, give me a break.
Actually, since SoCal has 2/3 of California’s population, starting with the extension would have been the most economic approach. But the fear is that we might stop there and not extend to San Francisco and Sacramento. I think that is one of the main reasons why the SoCal extension is not on the high priority list.
A biased San Diegan.
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Of course thats why. The rest of us sick to death of la taking every damn thing.
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:03 am
I’m from Norcal and I think LA should get the money. It has the most need and these funds could be the last from the Feds for a very long time.
If Bernanke really want to produce inflation I have a sure-fire way to achieve it. Simply send every registered voter a check for $100,000.00, enough to buy a house in most places. And of course increase the money supply to cover the checks. I assure you that would produce inflation.
In other news, Wisconsin has now stopped their high speed rail project officially.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/04/AR2010110405966.html
Maybe California can get the money from their and the soon to be canceled Ohio project!
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Interruption is not cancellation, although I agree that the project is probably toast.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:02 pm
It probably will, since Mica thinks very little of Amtrak-plus plans and wants real HSR.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:42 pm
One of the idiot Walker’s comments was that if he cant use the money for highways in Wisconsin.. he doesn’t want it to go for any other states high-speed rail project . He wants it to go to debt reduction… screw him and if he wants debt reduction he should return all the money Wisconsin gets from the federal government for highways as of course thats worth a handout!
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
how much of that cheese production is subsidized and support by the national dairy council. Another agency that presents itself as some kind of helpful tool for americas health and well being, but actually just a government agency that props up a private industry with tax dollars.
I only eat cheese made in california from our happy cows. If it says wisconsin. I put it back on the shelf.
Buy local.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
I only eat cheese that tastes good and is reasonably priced. I figure wherever I get it from, some farmer got subsidized for it.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
up here we like to support our local farmers. Down south people don’t care where their food or their water comes from. They think there is giant replicator in a cavern under the San Gabriels
Alan Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:44 pm
For a really good laugh, read
this–Walker wants to scrap the Wisconsin HSR project, but is pleading with Talgo to keep
their plant in Milwaukee. The reader comments are priceless…
Alan Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Hmmm. Link didn’t work so well. Try this:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/106790123.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho! Oh, you are so right about those reader comments! Already this particular Repugnant One is looking particularly repugnant, and to both sides, and even before he takes office!
By all rights, I should be a Republican: conservative socially (tired of movies and other entertainment with bad language and people with no clothes, no cable in the house partially because of this), Catholic, pro-life, marriage is for men and women (sorry, I’m afraid I’m still uncomfortable with the alternatives being proposed), think we have too much divorce, argue that the government should be careful with money, big on real family values, actually wish I could borrow Mr. Peabody’s WABAC (pronounced “wayback”) machine, like old cars, think all the new ones look like jellybeans–but the Repugnant Ones do nothing but campaign on this, they don’t actually do anything, except seem to make sure we stay in peonage to huge corporations, part of which includes making sure we are saved from socialist transportation with our friends and neighbors, which is what I see on both the commuter train I sometimes ride, and on the steam excursions, too. What use do I have for those clowns?
Honestly, I don’t know why “conservative” voters back these phonies.
In contrast, I still have a personally high opinion of Obama. In contrast to some of his predecessors, and even more so to some of his critics; think of how Limbaugh and Gingrich have both been married, what, three times each? Limbaugh has or had a drug problem? Bush, the self-recovered booze hound, who may have had a damaged head from those alcohol fumes? Obama got married before he had children, is still married to the same woman, seems a good family man, is clearly someone with a head on his shoulders, does seem to be a visionary (I think the last visionary we had in the White House was John Kennedy). I think he’s at least fairly honest (I recall how, when he won the election, that he warned us that the problems we have would not be resolved in one year, or even in one administration). He has tried to be civil with the opposition (it’s not his fault that the GOP has decided it would rather risk wrecking the country to deny him a reelection bid than try to fix the country).
Do I have disappointments? Of course. I don’t know why he decided to continue with the decision by his predecessor that bankers were more important than citizens. I do wish he would have turned IRS and FBI agents loose on the banksters. I actually think he has been too conservative (cautious) about promoting rail in general, and could have hit the Republicans with this as a security (oil) issue. I wish he was a pro-life man–and somehow, with that family of his, I can’t help but think that he really is, and his position on the abortion question is, well, “politics.” I still think he was the best available choice.
As to the Republicans, well, those comments in Wisconsin say it all . . . and I know a number of lifelong Republican businessmen in this area, smart, prosperous people, who are disappointed in what their party has become and in what it is trying to do.
Sad irony if Costa is defeated just as this triumph for Fresno comes through. Dufus Devin Nunes of Tulare County is already bad mouthing the project as a boondoggle that must be stopped. Echoing his Republican Congressman buddies.
Alan Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
Sure, it’s a boondoggle for someone from Tulare County because the HSR is going
through Hanford and not Visalia. No goodies to bring home.
So, this central valley portion, be it MDC-FNO or FNO-BFD what exactly are we talking here? Laying brand new double track along side the existing bnsf freight track? A stretch of what…. double tracked, welded rail, concrete ties on ballast, fully grade separated, and for x number of miles end to end?
Would it be electrified in this phase? or used for higher speed non electric service ( 110? 125? ) in the meantime? Or would is just sit there empty, weeds growing up through the ties? I mean what exactly will the physical characteristics be and in what way will it be utilized in the interim? Will an operator such as sncf come in and say, we will run x type of equipment from FNO-BFD back and forth? Or just what? How do we see this panning out?
Of course what Im getting at is, is this really a situation where amtrak california could in fact, say, rent space on these tracks an run faster san joaquin service of some type? I’d love to see it, but I have heard no so much as a whisper about any such consideration from amtrak. ( usually we hear all the rumours) And, as much as I hate to say it, their is such an ingrained “we can’t do that” or “that will never happen” attitude at amtrak I wouldn’t be surprised if it was offered, if the powers that be might fall out of their chairs and not know how to respond to such a possibility. I have to say to those who think its labor who holds back progress, that in fact, from the bottom up, we all wish things could be better but its from the top down, and from WAS, that this attitude comes, or, at least has come for decades, sucking all life hope and optimism from the labor force. We workers know what needs to be better, we know, what people want, and we have been ignored. That said, the culture from the top and back east is supposedly changing for the better, but pardon our skepticism. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
Ive never even heard a coworker or manager besides me even mention hsr in cali. As if it has nothing to do with anything we do. I don’t get it.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Yes a brand-new double track grade separated passenger only alongside the BNSF for about 100 miles though no electrification at this time though I have read it will have some kind train control system and Amtrak will be able to use it until high-speed rail full service begins.. so No it won’t sit empty with weeds growing through it.. BTW are there 2 jimsfs on the board?
jimsf Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
2? no. why?
YesonHSR Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Sorry the post did not “sound” like you..you are usually know alot about whats happening !! Actually until high-speed rail is ready to start the San Joaquin’s right of way wouldl be the envy of the Amtrak system!! They probably could maintain at least 110 miles an hour over much of the route..
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:47 am
Oh I was just asking for a summary. I have hard time keeping track of everything discussed here. ( for instance I missed the part when we gave up on UP and now its bndf all the way? ??)Sometimes I need to lay it all out in an a b c manner to get a solid picture. Now that we know construction will begin in the valley, where will it be, what will be it physical characteristics, etc, This “slab track” are we sure that this is the best option? Less maintenance I presume? Is there a noise or ride comfort difference between that and ballast? And a finally, as for running the hst’s in the bnsf row, how far from the freight tracks do they need to be to avoid building a solid barrier between the two? If you look at the cahsr website videos, it pretty much shows the fast trains zipping past the freight trains on separate tracks but with no barrier.
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:18 am
I can’t tell you how dumb this idea will appear to the average person. Duplicating an existing railroad and essentially just letting it sit there in hopes of better times? And you think you have heard charges of boondoggle and railroad to nowhere? Van Ark must be off his rocker.
tomh Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:07 am
Yes. Dumb idea if that’s all that gets built. Obviously it has to be marketed as the beginning of construction of the system, not the end.
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:17 am
A much better alternative would be to build the Tehachapi detour, even tho I consider Tejon manifestly superior. That way Amtrak could re-introduce the San Francisco Chief and if the hsr is abandoned it could be sold to the UP, which might be able to figure out a way to route some freight over it.
Peter Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Probably the reason why you haven’t heard Amtrak talking about it is that it’s just a backup for the possibility that the other sections aren’t completed.
Eric M Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:38 pm
My guess it will be (hopefully) slab track, not ballast for the valley. If you look at the steps of construction for the LGV lines in France, the very last step is to erect the catenary. I think the authority (van Ark) is taking the right steps. Catenary if cheap compared to the overall cost per mile.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:51 pm
Almost never the case.
This is typical of most contemporary new alignment construction.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Where is this?
thatbruce Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:04 am
I’m guessing Spain from the user’s other albums.
Eric M Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
You mean like this?
That is some new construction for you.
Eric M Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Here and here are a couple more for you.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
Very last…. nah. Even when catenary is put up, there is usually still a lot of systems work that is still needed… stuff that is invisible to the average Joe. Stations usually have finishing stuff happening too. Granted, yes, catenary is probably the last major visible piece put in place.
J. Wong Reply:
November 4th, 2010 at 10:38 pm
It’s not Amtrak, it’s Amtrak California, which is owned by the state of California. The state actually controls what happens; Amtrak is contracted to provide operational services. So if CalTrans says run the San Joaquins on the new track so be it.
The track will be fully ready for HSR service (modulo electrification, of course).
ajs Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 1:46 am
Just curious, what will happen to a San Joaquin served station like Madera or Hanford? Running on the new tracks would be great but is it worth sacrificing service to communities? Or would there be some sort of temporary station built to remedy that?
datacruncher Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:12 am
It appears they would build a short-term Amtrak platform east of Hanford along the new tracks for the San Joaquins to replace the downtown station.
Jon Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:40 am
That is indeed their plan, but it does raise the question of what will happen to the San Joaquins when the HSR system is finally built. HSR will suck most of the ridership from the San Joaquins, but if the San Joaquins are cancelled rail service will be lost at Wasco, Corcoran, Hanford (maybe), Madera, Modesto, Lodi and Elk Grove. I’d hope that they would continue to operate as a slower speed feeder to HSR, with bus links between Amtrak stations and HSR stations.
political_incorrectness Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 10:53 am
North of Merced should continue and the San Joaquins would act as a feeder to that. There will most likely be a reduction in frequency of the San Joaquins as evidenced in Spain. It does take away from the regular trains unfortunantely. However, the benefits of a true high-speed system outweight the benefits to smaller communities. San Joaquin’s will probably have to be downsized to act as a feeder to the local communities.
Jon Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:25 am
To be honest, it might be easier for CAHSR to run connecting ‘thruway’ bus services from the smaller cities to the HSR stations, as Amtrak currently do.
Amtrak could also create new routes feeding smaller cities not currently served by rail into HSR stations. For example, using the existing freight lines you could connect Hanford, Visalia, Tulare and Porterville to Hanford HSR. This I think makes more sense than running slow long-distance services parallel to HSR.
synonymouse Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Drawing on the same principle you could run buses to connect to BART-Livermore or SFO instead of the expensive redundancy of hsr mit Caltrain.
Jon Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Note I said smaller cities should be connected by bus or slower speed rail. San Francisco is not a small city.
I mean, this stuff should be obvious. You connect the biggest cities together with fast, high capacity lines, and then you connect the smaller cities to the bigger cities (and each other locally) with slower, lower capacity lines. Caltrain + HSR would achieve this for the peninsula and is in no way a redundancy.
Jon Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 11:49 am
Actually, you’d need new track through Visalia for that route, as it runs down the street for a long way. Maybe not the best example to use.
Alan Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
I thought that just about everything in Visalia has been or is being ripped out?
Haven’t been there in awhile, since I have an ex- in the area–I avoid it like the
plague…
Jon Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 4:58 pm
No idea, I’m just a Google Map tourist :)
James Fujita Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
Yeah, Visalia would be tricky to link with HSR. A lot of track has been ripped out.
The county wants to save the track from the Porterville area up to Fresno, but that wouldn’t reach Visalia, and they’re talking about freight, not passenger.
The only track that I know of which runs through town is single track, in the middle of a street, and extremely slow speed limits. However, it DOES go directly in front of the transit center/ bus depot (in fact, I think that is one reason why the transit center is there).
The biggest issue is not NIMBY but simply geographic placement. The middle of town is a couple of miles from Hwy. 99.
Hwy. 198, which does run east-west from Hanford to Visalia would have room for some freeway median tracks. Perhaps not the best option, but probably the best possible option. Surprisingly, downtown Visalia is only about 2 1/2 blocks from the freeway, with a major hotel, the convention center and the county’s main hospital all overlooking the freeway (which is below grade level).
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:16 am
Yes, something like this. Just one additional nitpick: the track will probably run on concrete slab, not ballast. And if it’s on ballast, the ballast will be deeper than usual to provide stability at high speed.
Joey Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:52 am
I don’t recall the Authority ever stating a preference for slab vs ballast when it comes to at-grade construction. Both are acceptable for high speed construction.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:34 am
If Amtrak was to use the high speed rail track, what are the differences in maintainence costs between current tracks and high speed rail track?
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:16 am
Well, if the tracks are used by Amtrak because the rest of the HSR system never got built, then probably not much. The tracks may have to be maintained to a slightly higher standard than BNSF’s tracks, but they wouldn’t have freight trains beating up on them all day long.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 2:34 pm
All else being equal, HSR tracks should have lower maintenance costs because of its use of concrete ties and/or slab. But all else is not equal: if the HSR tracks are to serve HSR eventually, and not just Amtrak, then the maintenance standards have to be much higher. And Amtrak doesn’t do high maintenance standards.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
Amtrak doesn’t maintain tracks, the owner of the tracks does. in this case I guess it would be the state.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:09 pm
And when Amtrak does maintain tracks, it does this poorly. Like every short-sighted private team of managers, Amtrak undermaintains tracks when it looks like a good way to boost its financial picture, and then discovers a backlog of repairs when it looks like the government can provide more funding.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
they do whatever they have to do to get by and survive. can’t blame them. Its like trying make a months worth of meals on a weeks grocery budget.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
When you only shop at luxury stores, a month’s budget looks like it will only last a week.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
Or they under maintain the tracks when a bunch of yahoos don’t fund them and when rational adults are in charge they submit requests that have a hope of being funded.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 4:54 pm
exactly
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
They never bothered to say they were forced to undermaintain back in the 1990s. They just gushed about how the Acela would save them.
Compare that practice with what rational railroads do: they say explicitly what they could do at each level of funding, and come up with the best use of money at each level instead of steering people to the level of funding they prefer.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
They and before them the PRR and NYNHH have all sorts of plans. They’ve been replacing the B&P tunnel in Baltimore since at least the 20s. We were gonna be whisking between NY and DC iin two hours by 1980 or thereabouts. They’ve been talking about new tunnels between NY and NJ for decades. …instead of Metroliner IIs we got Amfleets and AEM-7s.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
And yet nary a mention of maintaining track adequately.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
The new tunnel in Baltimore probably would have had track in it. Even the ARC tunnel, they were going to do some trackwork inside and outside the tunnel. Replacing Portal Bridge has been on the list for decades. Cutting the trip between DCand NY probably would have involved a lot of trackwork. Who knows they may have even put in constant tension catenary, something that has been on Amtrak’s wish list since there was an Amtrak.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
You don’t get it, do you? Expansions and maintenance aren’t the same thing. The NYC subway did a lot of expansion while also deferring maintenance. It’s now maintaining the track to good standards and keeps asking for money for it even though until 2000 it didn’t do much expansion.
Peter Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
You two are like an old married couple on every transit blog.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
Yeah. Kind of like you and Richard.
Elizabeth Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Next question.
It sounds like Amtrak just currently pays rent to BSNF or whoever the host railroad is. Does anyone know how much this is? Is this more or less than the bare minimum maintenance costs for the potential new trackage?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
The Amtrak financial performance reports don’t say. If I were you I’d talk to Amtrak directly, or, if they don’t answer, to Barbara Boxer or a Californian Representative who sits on the House Transportation Committee.
jimsf Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:42 pm
I work there and have the hardest time finding any kind of information about stuff. I don’t know if people don’t know, or if its some big CIA intelligence secret or just what. I will tell you that there is a big disconnect between the west and east (supposedly not anymore but again, pardon my skepticism) Basically all the decisions are made in washington and I don’t know if its 100 percent back room politics, or if its just a breakdown in communications across various level, or if they are using a ouija board. I really have an interest in infrastructure and the railroad because it makes much common sense as way to move unlimited amounts of goods and people no matter how you slice it, but the mixed messages make me scratch my head sometimes. Part of the problem is teh company debt that has to be repaid out of the budget, then, you have an eastern and a national rail system that is in bad repair be it nec or the the freights. These bridges and tunnels, back east have huge price tags for repair and that sucks up a big chunk of money and everything else continues to get neglected. The freight railroads are only interested in doing the bare minimum on their property in order to maximize profit and stock prices. SO there you have it. Top that with [insert list of derogatory expletives] useless politicians and society that places the highest value on football, cars, and shopping and what do you expect. Left to their own devices america would easily slip back into 19th century status and become the sad place that the rest of the world whispers about in hushed tones. American haven’t the will to progress. Half the country doesn’t want to and the other half wants to but is too lazy to get the job done. What’s the saying… you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. That, is america….. “I don’t care how thirsty I am I’ll die first before I’ll drink that newfangled socialist water from a recycled container!”
Im telling rush had the right idea, we gotta take cali and get out of here before its too late people. There is no hope. None at all. Just watch. You’ll see. Those of you who are 20 and 30 thirty somethings….. in 30 years, you will be still be having the exact same conversations about the exact same things and wondering why x,y and z haven’t happened yet. don’t get your hopes up unless you enjoy being disappointed. There I said it.
good. unemployment rates and housing prices in the valley are brutal, we can use all the help we can get. i’m for trying to build both segments simultaneously; just take advantage of the economy being cratered out to build and buy as much as possible, before prices on everything start to go back up. increasing the speed and frequency of the san joaquins service should also get transit-oriented housing and connecting transit planned and built in the valley towns, which once in place will make the eventual SF-LA system that much more successful when it’s finally completed.
A bit off-topic, but an interesting site, featuring electrified freight rail in the east; indeed, the proposed route is only 10 miles or so east of my house.
http://railsolution.org/
Linked from the above.
http://www.railsolution.org/uploads/PDF/Citizen_s_Guide_Chapter1b.pdf
Enjoy.
political_incorrectness Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 9:21 am
This is a great project that could prove the viability of high-speed freight, making it much more competitive to trucking.
HSTSheldon Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 3:56 pm
Yes, I have been following Alan’s proposals since about 2005. Got introduced to his ideas over at Theoildrum.com where all things related to oil supply constraints and peak oil impacts are discussed. Very good site to browse through. I 100% agree with Alan regarding the freight rail electrification on the main rail corridors. It is essential that this work begins without delay.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Interestingly, though, Alan is not a big supporter of HSR. I once had the chance to speak with him about this, and he said the reason for his position is that HSR still doesn’t get the ridership, or more properly, the market penetration, to justify the expense. His argument at the time I spoke with him was that in Europe, you still had a lot of people taking air flights between, say, Germany and Spain, despite the presence of trains, including some on high-speed track. Of course, I should also mention this was some years ago, before that volcano grounded all the air services.
His position makes sense only if we still have fairly cheap air service. I did ask him what would happen if cheap air service, or even all air service, went away. He was of the opinion that we would then be more like we were back in the 1950s, in the sense that many people who travel by air today, particularly for liesure, will just not travel, or at least not that far.
We’ll have to see what happens to the air service later on. In the meantime, there is that estimated 20-hour running time for coast-to-coast service. . .just right for a sleeper hop. . .a 21st Century Limited?
Nobody’s perfect. . .
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 5th, 2010 at 7:38 pm
I will also add that Allen has company in the form of Bruce McF, who also posts here.
Bruce’s site:
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/
An older post, to look at some of what has appeared here in the past:
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/2010/03/sunday-train-nationwide-freight-and.html
(1) It’s basic economics that you don’t acquire an asset unless you intend to use it. It’s pointless to build the tracks and just let them sit there until somehow we come up with the rest of the money.
(2) The tracks will be built and maintained at 220 mph standards and it is proposed to run Amtrak on them at, what, 79 mph or maybe 90 if we can get PTC in place? It’s like building a freeway and then limiting speeds to 25 mph.
(3) Good news to Madera, Wasco, Hanford, Corcoran, they get stations on the line. Then the high speed trains arrive, incompatible with the Amtrak trains. Do we then move Amtrak back to the BNSF or UP tracks? Or do we, as someone suggested, set up a bus system? How will Hanford feel about that?
(4) It goes back to trying to break ground before the money is committed. As for money, the Party that Spends More While Pretending to Spend Less just got returned to power; however, there is disturbing news that this crop of freshmen has several who genuinely intend to spend less. In recent days, Republicans have axed rail projects in New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Ohio, and Florida is on life support. Fortunately, our governor-elect is not a Republican. But wait, he is talking frugality and belt-tightening like the most hard-bitten Republican. In view of all this, what about redesigning the entire project and then looking for a firm source of funds before charging ahead with it?
jimsf Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
because Ive been paying taxes in california my entire adult life and I’d like to just once see them go for something I want to pay for before I die. There is nothing wrong with this project except the people who want to micromanage the life out of it. What’s next, someone breaks a nail typing on this blog and files a a lawsuit? Just build the damn thing for christ’ sake. Its just a train. We aren’t trying to colonize a comet.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 6th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
The plan is for Amtrak to run at 110 mph, which is the maximum speed of its equipment. But really this is just a Plan B; Plan A is to complete the system and run high-speed trains.