John Mica to Review Federal HSR Grants
John Mica, who is expected to chair the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, told Reuters in a post-election interview that he would conduct a close review of how money was spent from the 2009 economic stimulus package approved by the Democratic-controlled Congress. He also plans to reevaluate grant programs that bypassed congressional review….
To start, Mica will focus on more than $10 billion in high-speed rail awards and a $1.5 billion transportation construction financing under the so-called TIGER grant program in which funds were sent directly to states on the merit of proposed projects.
“We had unelected officials sitting behind closed doors making decisions without any hearings or without any elected officials being consulted. There was no rational explanation,” Mica said. “I’m going to have a full review of that.”
Mica is playing the Republican game of trying to make the Obama Administration look bad by claiming there’s a scandal where none actually exists. Even though the FRA’s decision-making process in awarding the funding wasn’t at all unusual – it was in fact quite routine – Mica is claiming it was somehow flawed in order to undermine Obama’s re-election prospects as well as undercut the case for public investment in transportation infrastructure.
Mica’s preference, like that of other Republicans, is to toss 110 years of precedent out the door and have the private sector attempt to fund these projects, with some minimal and undefined public partnership:
Mica says he favors high speed rail in regions where it makes economic sense. Trains, he said, must carry enough people and truly reach high speeds as they do in Europe and Asia. Much of the U.S. high speed rail network in the planning stages now would serve short-haul corridors.
OPEN TO PRIVATE INVESTMENT
Mica also said he hopes to craft a six-year transportation spending blueprint by spring, relying less on new federal outlays and featuring plans to attract private investment for road, rail, waterway and other infrastructure improvements.
“I have some infrastructure accounts, loan funds that are unspent. I have money in trust funds that is unspent,” Mica said. “We’ll go through all of these programs. Public-private partnerships — I’ll have much more in that regard.”
Investors, including big public pension funds, will likely embrace Mica’s determination to expedite changes in how the U.S. government finances transportation projects to include private resources.
So this isn’t the worst thing in the world for California’s project, which ought to meet all of Mica’s standards – high ridership, true high speed service, and already intending to make use of PPPs, flawed though they are. We know that CalPERS has already shown interest in owning infrastructure – they bought a stake in London’s Gatwick Airport over the summer – so it stands to reason that the pension funds could be a source of capital investment to continue the California project, perhaps in concert with the proposed funding from China or Japan.
It seems unlikely that the Republican House can simply yank the existing HSR funding. The FRA has already been given the Congressional authorization to spend the money, so it would require a second act of Congress to take that away. And that in turn requires the Senate, still controlled by Democrats, to go along with it, as well as a presidential signature – unless Mica can somehow get a 2/3 vote to override the veto in both the House and the Senate, which I just don’t see happening.
Still, it’s a shame that Republican Congressmen prefer to use our nation’s dire infrastructure and economic recovery needs to grandstand against the White House and to push their ideologically-based preference for PPPs. Unfortunately that’s going to be our reality for the next two years.
Robert, I think you are taking it the wrong way. Mica sees that slower speed trains the world over, like the moderate speed improvements where the money has been allocated, excluding the CA and FL projects (although the Florida project is iffy), are money loosers. Only true high speed rail will support itself. Everything else will just need endless subsidies.
I think Mica is doing the right thing. 99% of the proposed systems are not “true high speed rail”
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Maybe, and maybe not.
I’m of the opinion that we lost rail service in this country because roads and gasoline are badly underpriced; your gas taxes only cover a bit over half of what the road system costs on a cash flow basis, and Alon Levy has commented that the information source I’ve been using (USDOT’s Highway Statistics site and publications) doesn’t include a lot of road mileage. This cash flow accounting, as imperfect as it is, implies we are subsidizing driving by at least 50 cents per gallon; others would put this figure much higher, well into multiples of this figure if you include external costs.
Some comments on another thread, with links to some of the imformation, if you haven’t seen it yet:
http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2010/10/are-you-subsidizing-others-to-drive.html#comments
Another thing that makes me suspicious is Mica’s age. He was born in early 1943, making him currently 67 years old. At that age, he would have been in his early 20s in the mid-1960s. This puts him well into an age group, born mostly between the late 1920s and about 1953 or so, that would have come of age between about 1950 and the first oil crunch of 1973. The automobile was very ascendent in this time in which the future was supposed to look like something out of “The Jetsons,” and rail of any kind was seen as something from the Victorian age and hopelessly outdated. This generational break has been observed and measured, most recently by Advertising Age.
Mica does see the value of the Northeast Corridor, but that’s as far as it goes. He sounds like he would have no interest in other public transit, particularly in rural and semi-rural areas, which was once the land of the local, the branch line, and the interurban, all of which in one way or another would connect with main line trains in the past, and HSR in the future. Believe me, the need for a public transit feeder service for these small towns is coming; fuel prices will guarentee it.
But will we have it built in time?
Case for semi-high speed service; there have also been some other comments on just this subject here in the last couple of topics or so, specifically in an archived page from this site, titled “The Shifting Federal HSR Picture:”
http://midnight-populist.blogspot.com/
http://www.cahsrblog.com/2010/11/the-shifting-federal-hsr-picture/#comments
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Oh, like the entire country of Switzerland? The nation with the highest per-capita rail use in the entire world, but which has only tiny amounts of high speed track and invests (outside the alpine base tunnels) almost exclusively in carefully targeted, short distance, capacity improvements and seeks increased speeds only when doing so enables new connections that provide new services to passengers as well as improvements in service provision efficiency?
How stupid can they be? Far better to blow wads on HIGH SPEED RAIL (ie civil engineering consultants) and screw everything else. Nobody needs to get to and from the kewl HIGH SPEED TRAIN stations anyway.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
To be fair to Mica, Switzerland isn’t building Amtrak-plus lines running three times a day, and runs intercity trains at 100+ km/h average speed.
Eric M Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Yes, thanks Richard for reminding me how nice the rail system is to ride in Switzerland. I have been there plenty of times and realize how professional and punctual their system is. The moderate improvement I was talking about was here in the United States. Switzerland is a small country which is very mountainous, so it makes sense to make small improvements with all the twists and turns because there is no wide open countryside like the valley we have here in California, or other countries for that matter. Hey, could be why Austria doesn’t have true HSR either.
You might want to find a different form of constructive criticism, or just criticism as you mostly do, because you are not the high almighty of worldwide railroad knowledge as you like to think of yourself as. Most of you comments just show ignorance. There are other people here that have plenty of knowledge who choose to phrase their words a bit more carefully. Might take note.
Eric M Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 8:52 pm
And by the way, Swiss rail is subsidized for capital investment and regular maintenance
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
You tickled my brain cells a bit there, enough to ask a question.
What is the level of Switzerland’s rail subsidy? I would be particularly interested in terms of ratios, including percentage of GDP, operating ratios (revenue to total expense), and transportation ratios (revenue to cost of just running trains, which is where HSR is profitable, although it might not be on operating ratios).
Elizabeth Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
The swiss consul said the total subsidy for all forms of public transit is about $1 billion. Switzerland is similar in many ways to the Bay Area, which has at least as much subsidy and so much less transit.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 9:49 pm
SBB’s reports state an overall ratio of 50% for regional rail. I don’t know whether it’s an operating or recovery ratio, though.
The intercity trains are profitable, as they are in most (all?) of Western Europe.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 7:19 pm
I gotta concur with Eric M…. that is my read on Mica. In fact, in the beginning I felt the marginal systems that were proposed under-mined the long-term development of HSR in this country.
The marginal systems spread the funding too thin and will be the root of negativity toward rail development in general.
Additionally, so do these proposed cross-country systems too. Vancouver BC to California included.
orulz Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 9:15 am
I frankly fail to see how frequent, punctual trains moving at 110mph would give rail a negative image. If you can build 10 such projects for every 1 massive “express HSR” plan like California’s, then why not? The full Southeast HSR build out for 110mph trains from Washington, DC to Charlotte NC would cost in the vicinity of $5 billion.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
The problem is that the plans Mica’s criticizing are not going to be frequent or punctual, or even all that fast relative to the top speed.
Nathanael Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Mica has not specified what plans he was criticizing. The Wisconsin plan would have been frequent and punctual, and faster than driving.
Nathanael Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 9:28 pm
So Mica opposes unelected persons (professionals, experts, technocrats) making spending decisions. Instead he wants project-level spending decisions to be made by members of Congress.
In other words, he advocates pork-barrel spending.
Interesting.
Mica’s agenda is apparently shifting funds from medium-speed projects that are wrongfully called high-speed rail to projects that are actually high-speed rail. It’s probably going to be good for California.
Victor Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
I certainly hope so.
YESONHSR Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 7:04 pm
The backward Govs of Ohio/Wisconson dont want any of this money to go to the other HSR projects! they want it for highways ..big middle finger to bolth of them if they are so oil brainwashed Im hoping for 200-or 300 million of this money. About 2019=20 they are going to look real stupid when we cut the blue and gold banner with a beautiful CaliHSR train
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The perspectives from Ohio & Wisconsion will probably form the framework for how and where transportation funding is to be allocated in the anticipated transportation act.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
O yes..I think the Ohio proposal was just what he was mad as being labled HSR .I dare say if its not going 150MPH then he will have no money for the project as long as he is chair
Joseph E Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
If this is correct, I support it, to some extent. Certainly, real high speed rail, with max speed >150 and average speed >110 mph will be able to get people out of cars and planes, in a way that regular speed rail (with average speeds from 45 to 90 mph at best) won’t.
But almost all countries with High Speed Rail still have slower trains along the same routes, or (in the case of France) at least as feeder routes to the faster trains. This is important politically, so that the rural areas and parts of the country less suited to HSR are not left out.
If Mica and the Republicans limit high speed rail investment to the North-East Corridor and California (plus Florida, perhaps), there will be too little political support for properly funding construction.
And in many areas, moderately fast trains, averaging 80 or 90 mph, could outcompete driving and flying, for trips of 100 to 200 miles, if the system is designed well and if trains run frequently. Consider that the Acela and Northeast Regional trains pay for their operating costs and beat the airlines for ridership, despite averaging less 75 mph over the full length of the route. Certainly, doubling that average speed would more than double ridership (by taking away much of the market for buses and getting people out of cars as well), but 75 mph average isn’t nothing, and is totally achievable with 110 max speeds in many parts of the country.
It would be a mistake to limit investment only to trains which are able to pay for operating costs. We don’t demand the same of the rural freeways, do we? (If we did, slower trains might also be profitable)
YesonHSR Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Yes its going to be harder to get large funding for real HSR if its only going to Cali,NEC and FLA. Maby an answer is in a Trasportation bill that lets the states decide to use a part their share for HSR rather than roads. We would not have to hear how everyone is “paying” for our HSR..which of course even now they are not since we are the number one or 2 doner state for the rest of the USA
Nathanael Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 9:33 pm
Rail gets people out of their cars if it is reliable, frequent enough, and faster than driving.
Period.
How fast you have to go to be faster than driving *varies* based on the route.
Portland-Seattle? Driving takes 3 hours if you go in the middle of the night, the train is already running at 3:30 — it doesn’t need to go much faster.
Anything-Chicago? The driving time in the Chicago portion of the “express”ways is very high thanks to congestion and needs to be figured in when you figure comparative times. Same with Anything-NYC.
I do not expect any major legislation next year from congress. No transportation bill. The republican house will pass bills according to their idiology that will die in the senate without ever reaching the floor. Republican committee chairmen will use their oversight power to investigate and hold hearings.
Months of nothing but regular appropriation bills passing will follow because both sides are polarized. Neither side has enough of an incentive to pass compromise legislation. Both want to pass nothing that will be seen as a victory for the other and then point fingers blaming the other for the failure.
I expect Mica will see the light and cut off further Federal funding to the CHSRA debacle. As a Republican, he won’t be criticized for denying a blue state any more money to flush down the toilet.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
OOO BOO HOO…And the Chinese will help build it next to you whiiney pants NIMBYS!!!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 8:49 pm
Oh, Yeson, you don’t need to call him names, just let ol’ Boo Hoo make a fool of himself–people who have user names like that do a good job of it on their own.
YesonHSR Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 9:29 pm
O just playing with the abused little things
StevieB Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 9:12 pm
If California gets no money for high speed rail then no one will get any money for transportation. I expect another one year funding for transportation before the end of 2011. Probably at a decreased level.
Robert Cruickshank Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Don’t hold your breath. My guess is that as long as new federal funding isn’t being sought, he won’t care.
Cutting funding for conventional rail is a bad idea. Upgrading of existing lines to 160-200km/h and electrification can be done for a fraction of the cost of 300-350km/h high speed rail, which means that many more lines can get improved rail service now. In the short term only California and NEC make sense for high speed rail, because high speed rail is very costly and it will take many decades to complete a US-wide HSR network. In any case if high speed rail is later built to parallel upgraded low-speed lines the low-speed lines will remain useful for freight and train services serving smaller communities.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 11:15 pm
It all depends on how the upgrades are done. If the upgrades also involve modern (i.e. noncompliant) rolling stock, full superelevation, a modern cant deficiency, and high platforms for quick boarding, then the average speed on a legacy line can be very high. A 160 km/h line could average 120-130 km/h, on a par with the faster segments of the Acela, and a 200 km/h line could average 160 km/h, nearly on a par with the early Shinkansen trains, which were limited to 210 km/h.
The problem is that conventional rail upgrades in the US are not done this way. Full FRA compliance and heavy freight-friendly track design ensures that trains are slow and unreliable for their top speed.
synonymouse Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 11:23 pm
The way to get around the FRA heavy freight requirements is to build an hsr-only route, separate like BART.
Tejon-I-5_Altamont and Dunbarton-101 to SFO. Dump Caltrain; dump PB; dump Palmdale.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
Oh, so being like BART is a good thing now?
Anyway, the FRA doesn’t care if you’re 30 feet from freight tracks or 30 miles from them. As long as you have separate tracks you have no obligation to be compliant, UP’s whining notwithstanding.
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 12:12 am
That’s quite true; it’s amazing what is out there that is not FRA compliant, and doesn’t have to be because it does not encroach on the national system. This includes transit systems that have adequate buff strength for their conditons (but which would not meet the requirements for interchange on a freight road), other transit lines with unusual operating and/or signal practices, and my personal favorite, tourist and heritage roads with antiquated equipment and sometimes operating practices, too!
You can find, if you look in the right places, ancient cars and locomotives on plain bearings, cars of wooden construction, trucks of wood-beam-frame construction, at least one locomotive with vacuum brakes, plenty of other roads with antiquated air brakes (i.e., schedule 6-ET brakes on steam locomotives, type K brakes on vintage freight cars used on photo charters, the same on the passenger hauling cars of one former logging line), steam locomotives, and freight cars and in-service locomotive tenders with arch bar trucks. One road reportedly still uses link-and-pin couplers.
Operationally, signal systems as such are practically non-existant (there are only one or two exceptions I know about), a number of roads do not have lights or flashers at grade crossings, and at least two or three still operate without radios or electric lights, relying on kerosene lamps and lanterns. At least one narrow gauge road in New England operates with no signal system, no air brakes (handbrakes worked by brakemen only), and no radio (whistle and lantern signals only); its car roster is entirely of wooden cars. Another road works up and down grades as steep as 11%, and has to rely on the arms of brakemen and its ancient air brake system to descend such fearsome grades. Then there is a standard gauge cog railroad in New Hampshire, with locomotives that have no air, no headlights, and no couplers (the locomotives push the trains uphill, working against a buffer on the passenver car.) Braking on this road is entirely by muscle power, even as the trains descend a grade of 37%.
brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 8:09 am
Yes, it is. Here, I agree with synomouse.
HSR should be completely separate from other systems. I support that to retain complete operational independence and for having the safest system possible.
Further, CHSRA servicesd should assume Caltrain services for additional operation independence and safety. It might also minimize trackage requirements and the alike.
synonymouse Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 9:51 am
How could such a big project like BART manage to do everything wrong? Actually BART’s separatism was not entirely its own idea as the SP, with serious leverage at Bechtel, wanted it. Would that the UP today had that much clout.
What BART may lack in engineering excellence it make up for in devious politicking, which it has honed in almost 50 years of real world experience. For instance BART would be aware of secondary advantages of kicking out the hsr from the Caltrain ROW and having it all to itself. First that would eliminate the problem of disturbances on the hsr of any kind affecting BART operations. Secondly BART would enjoy the lucrative passenger loads of San Jose-mid-Peninusla station-San Francisco all to itself. The express hsr alongside would leach off this traffic.
That brings up a point which afaik has not been brought up on this site. As the hsr, with the loopy detour and the 99 route, has been gradually dumbed down to a kind of gold-plated TEE it is coming into conflict with regional mass transit. Eventually LA is going to get itself some form of a BART and the latter will want that Palmdale route. BART is already in competition with the hsr for federal construction funds(recognized by big city editorialists)and with the dumb-down making operating subsidies a certainty BART, AC, VTA, Muni, etc.,etc. will have to compete for those as well with the hsr. BART could make a case that the hsr should have to go thru MTC like all the rest.
And for all you would-be secessionists this is a must-read:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703506904575592612400443370.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_News_BlogsModule#printMode
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
..the 99 route….
for about the 947th time, they are building a passenger rail system. It makes sense to bring the trains to places where the passengers are.
Eventually LA is going to get itself some form of a BART
Nobody is stupid enough to build another extravaganza like BART. You do realize that LA has a rich and vibrant mass transit system with buses, light rail, subway, commuter rail….
J. Wong Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
“Eventually LA is going to get itself some form of a BART”. I guess you haven’t noticed, but LA already does have a “BART” in the form of the Metro subways. And Metro already goes to Palmdale (Lancaster).
And that link is a real joke! Business don’t stay in California because of the weather. They stay because of the highly educated workforce that lives here, which no other state can offer. Like anything, when you reduce the opportunity costs (hiring), you get a truly vibrant economy. (Yes I’m talking about high tech’ and Web, bio-tech’, and entertainment.) I’m going to life where I have a lot of job opportunities and companies are going to locate where they have a deep hiring pool.
I’m not going to live somewhere, no matter how cheap, if I can’t get a job, or where I would be dependent on a single company for my job.
When CA came to California to buy ASKk/Ingres, Charles Wang decided that everyone could take the layoff package if they weren’t happy with CA as an employer. “Where else are they going to work?” it was reported he said. (CA based out on Long Island has a captive workforce.) 98% of the employees took the package and were working elsewhere within weeks.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 8:53 am
There is zero discussion in Los Angeles for a BART-like system. What is being designed and built is a subway and light-rail system.
By the way, the Los Angeles rail system has upwards of over 300,000 daily boardings. That is less, but still comparable, to BART. By the end of the decade, after taking all the lines under cponstruction or programmed, ridership will probably surpass 500,000 per day.
There is also a commuter rail system in Los Angeles called Metrolink.
If and when HSR is in Los Angeles, it will be possible to operate a local overlay of service. Assuming fares are reasonable, that will further expand the market of Los Angeles rail systems. Could we see daily ridership among Metro Rail, Metrolink, and Local HSR approach 1 million daily passengers by 2025?
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 10:31 am
“the FRA doesn’t care if you’re 30 feet from freight tracks”
If freight traffic is not time separated, 30 feet is too close.
Imagine a freight train derails and its cars jacknife or spread heavy cargo over the HSR tracks just when a passenger train arrives at full speed.
That’s the sort of accident freight companies don’t want to be held accountable for.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 12:28 pm
Correction: It’s too close for UPRR. Neither the FRA or BNSF have made any complaints.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
CSX made the same kind of noises about the old NY Central ROW is owns across NY state. They apparently changed their mind.
Nathanael Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
I’m not sure whether they changed their mind, the information about that has been conflicted and unreliable. It sounds like the “sort of” changed their mind, so, well, I’m not sure what to think.
Joey Reply:
November 9th, 2010 at 11:50 pm
BTW, regardless of specific routing, point-to-point airline surrogate HSR with nothing in between is not an effective business model.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 11:06 am
If by effective you mean profitable, then you’d be wrong in Europe. Paris-Lyon and Paris-Brussels, which are airline surrogates, have proved to be the most profitable.
Things may be different in California which doesn’t have an existing network of fairly fast intercity trains. In France, linking cities 100 miles apart with HSR would make no sense.
Joey Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Certainly, the role of intermediate stops in those markets is less than what you might expect elsewhere. But let’s not also forget that they also serve city centers on either end, as opposed to airports or what synonymous is suggesting, which requires another form of transportation to access the city center.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Of course, point to point has to be downtown to downtown. Otherwise, HSR loses much of its interest. This being said, large airports should have an HSR station. This allows long-distance passengers to arrive right in the center of their final destination, and not at another airport as would be the case with a connecting flight.
If Paris CDG airport didn’t have a TGV terminal, few passengers would bother going downtown to catch a train. Having a station inside the airport changes everything. The TGV becomes the natural choice. If you’re in Brussels and want to get on an international flight at Paris CDG, you just board a TGV at Brussels Midi station. In fact, Belgians treat Midi station like a remote CDG terminal.
An Emirates Airlines executive once said the polar route is the future and SFO, rather than LAX will be the preferred landing point in California, for fuel economy. Then, an HSR terminal at SFO will really make sense.
J. Wong Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Millbrae is going to be the SFO stop. Not exactly in the airport, though. They’ll probably run more frequent SFO-Millbrae BART shuttles when HSR is up and running.
Emma Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
“In France, linking cities 100 miles apart with HSR would make no sense.”
Huh? What about the Eurostar? Ever heard of express trains? I remember, you could board ICE trains that go non-stop from one major city to another.
On top of that, there is no other way to go from LA to San Francisco. It doesn’t make sense not to buildd HSR because one section is 100 miles long without a stop.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 4:38 pm
I meant cities not more than 100 miles apart. Paris-Lyon (270 miles) is non-stop and so is Paris-Marseille (489 miles). Shorter distances are left to conventional intercity trains (Corail, Teoz). They are rather fast (up to 125mph), and the advantage of the TGV would be negligible on distances as short as 100 miles.
StevieB Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 11:01 am
Do you realize that not all California High Speed trains are going to stop at Gilroy, Fresno or Palmdale?
synonymouse Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 11:13 am
If you are not going to stop in Fresno why would you force SF-LA passengers to detour there?
Many potential ticket holders will interpret that as a typical PB insult to their intelligence and take to I-5 as always.
Peter Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Most “potential ticket holders” won’t give a fuck and have never heard of PB to begin with. They just want to get to their destination, and won’t care if it takes five minutes longer to get there.
synonymouse Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 11:22 am
Half an hour faster via I-5 express median and Tejon.
StevieB Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 11:57 am
There will be express trains that make fewer stops or go directly from end to end without intermediate stops. There will be other trains that stop in Fresno. But not all trains will be express and not all trains will stop in Fresno. In a complete railroad system serving the entire state there is the need for both.
Peter Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
“Half an hour faster via I-5 express median and Tejon.”
Minus serving the ENTIRE Central Valley.
synonymouse Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
You are already not serving the entire Central Valley by snubbing Sacramento. The Tejon, I_5, Altamont is a better starter route.
If the “expresses” lose too much money, ie. they have lots of empty seats, the hsr may have to stop everywhere. They will have to plan for only a certain amount of subsidy, like a city bus operation.
And lots of regional stops are another issue. The PCC should demand that hsr funding should have to go thru the MTC since it stops, theoretically, in San Jose, mid-Peninsula, Millbrae, and SF.
J. Wong Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 1:01 pm
The plan has always been upfront about not including Sacto in the 1st go-round. Not including Sacto is not “not serving” the entire Central Valley. Most of the population is on the eastern side of the valley not the western side where I5 runs. If the only purpose of HSR was to transport passengers between SF and LA, then an I5 alignment would make sense, but that is not the case. Additionally, passengers aren’t necessarily going to choose to fly because it saves them 20 minutes especially tourists.
Peter Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 1:34 pm
How does “Tejon, I_5, Altamont” serve Sacramento?
Peter Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
As in, how does it serve Sacrament better than Pacheco – 99?
synonymouse Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
Continuation along the I-5 alignment to access Sac. Also a branch to Bakersfield and Fresno taking off just north of Tejon along the general 99 routing.
And let’s get real about the “upfront” plan that was sold to the public in Prop 1A. It has always been represented as a futuristic ultra high speed line between SF and LA. If you don’t believe this, just watch any tv news spot on the hsr. They certainly don’t refer to it as high speed rail between Palmdale and Bakersfield.
Which is why Pat Burt is totally justified in mocking the decision to build a line from nowhere to nowhere with the first and perhaps the only money to come down from DC. This is really stupid and will render the hsr a laughing stock. Legislation is required in Sac to bring the CHSRA back to reality. Obviously what is needed is a state-wide version of the MTC to make sure the monies are being allocated wisely and according to the greatest need and utility. Perhaps Caltrans.
Speaking of laughing stocks, did you catch Jay Leno’s joke at the expense of the hsr. It went something like they are going to build a high speed rail line to Fresno, but in reality it will just be a regular railroad but will be high on meth as it goes thru Fresno.
Peter Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Versus continuation along the 99 alignment to access Sac?
We’ve already worked out for you that you’d be adding something like 50 – 130 miles of extra trackage with separate branches or a single branch to Bakersfield and Fresno, respectively. That seems like a pretty big waste of funds to me.
Jay Leno is a schmuck even on his best day.
Nathanael Reply:
November 11th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Syn, could you please stop going on about your fantasyland, unconstructable Tejon route?
Alon Levy Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 1:48 am
CAHSR will not be FRA-compliant. The FRA relents on cant deficiency for high-speed rail, and dedicated tracks have high superelevation.
But you already knew that, of course. FUD need not be tainted with evidence.
Off topic, but possibly of interest here:
http://server.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=28176
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_LA_Waterfront_Red_Car
http://www.railwaypreservation.com/page8.html
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 10th, 2010 at 4:36 am
This discussion brings up the question, what about things like light rail and other connecting services? We’ll eventually need them, too, but I fear that this new Congress is in the hands of the oil, road, and highway biz.
It would seem, from what you posted, that his concern is money spent on other rail projects that are neither longer haul nor true high speed rail. It would seem CAHSR is not one of the projects he is concerned with.
can someone please direct me to that link posted earlier about the real public cost of airports and highways that shows that they are in fact not user paid but do in fact use public money.
I read a link a few days ago of him saying that he beleives in the Californi HSR system because it’s real HSR and that California has the density for it to make sense. I don’t have the link and don’t remember, but it’s out their. So I’m not worried.